Book Fans vs. Movie Fans

[Purple Monkey]

Perhaps it's awfully haughty of me, but I have never considered fans of the movies to be, as it were, 'proper' fans. I think it's terribly hypocritical to just see the movies and not read the books, and then proclaim yourself as a Tolkien fan, since the many discrepancies in the film really chip away at the book. I've had many discussions with others about this subject - what do you think?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Depends what you mean by proper fans. Folk who have seen the movies and not the books can be considered 'proper fans' of the movies.<P>They are not yet, of course, proper fans of Tolkien though.

[maikafanawen]

What do you mean by hypocrytical? A hypocrit is someone who critisizes other people for doing things (usually wrong) that he does as well.<P>And what about people who read the books after the movie? Do you believe them to be "hypocrytical" too? I don't really understand what you mean by "proper fan" either. Most people who loved the movie went and read at least some of the books. You should explain more by what you mean I don't really understand it.<p>[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: maikafanawen ]

[HCIsland]

I read the books twenty years ago (and repeatly since) and love the movies, what does that make me?<P>I do agree though that folks that just watch the movies cannot rightly call themselves Tolkien fans. Their fans of the movies, and that's cool and just as valid.<P>I think these movies will (and have) generated many authentic Tolkien fans. I was introduced to the world through role playing games. The movies are a valid entry point as well.<P>H.C.

[Laialthriel]

HC, I agree completely. <P>I discovered the world of ME through the movies and since then have read more of Tolkien's work. I love the movies as well and am grateful for them as they introduced me to Tolkien. <P>Yes there is a difference between Tolkien fans and movie fans, but I just wanted to state that you can be both.<P>Laialthriel

[BethoHOG]

My oldest brother read the books 6 years ago or so, and loved them so much, he tried to get me to read them, though I was only about 7 or 8. I didn't like reading big books then, so I obviously didn't read them. Then, when he found out they were making movies on them, he told me how much fighting and killing there would be, so I told him I would never watch them. But my interest in Tolkien eventually grew, that I agreed to go see The Fellowship of the Ring when it came out. <BR>I absolutely LOVED the movie! I decided right after I finished watching the movie, that I would read the books. So I guess you could say, my brother introduced me to Tolkien, but never took interest until I saw the movie. What does that make me?

[Tar-Palantir]

I vaguely get what you mean, and I am now pondering my own status... <P>so tell me which level is proper:<P>1) Movies only<BR>2) The Hobbit only<BR>3) Movies plus The Hobbit<BR>4) LotR only<BR>5) LotR plus The Hobbit<BR>6) LotR plus The Hobbit plus the Movies<BR>7) LotR plus The Hobbit plus the Silmarillion *<BR>8) LotR plus The Hobbit plus the Silmarillion plus UT plus HoME plus etc... etc... *<BR>or<BR>9) All the above plus 1000 posts at the Barrow-Downs *<P>* = with or without the movies<P>PS- If I have my own One Ring does that bump me up a level??

[The Saucepan Man]

Clearly, those who watch the films but do not read the books are not "Tolkien fans", since Tolkien did not make the films. They are simply adaptations of one of his books. But it is right to say that the two are not mutually exclusive.<P>Although I greatly enjoyed the films, I would not describe myself as a "fan" of them. (I would not, for example, join a forum devoted only to them). They are great films, but not in my view, the best ever made. However, much of my enjoyment of them (particularly the visualisation) derives from my being a Tolkien "fan".

[Elfchick7]

I don't know what you call me i grew up watching the cartoons of "The Hobbit" and "The Return of the King". Then my sister read thebooks of "The Hobbit" and LOTR. Finally 4 weeks before the Fellowship came out in theatres I read them to. In the following January I read "The simarllion". So does that make me an authentic Tolkienite????? <P>-----------------------<P>Yesterday is gone, tomorrow is not yet ours, and today is a gift from God, that's why we call it the present!

[HCIsland]

Tar-Palantir, you are forgeting Unfinished Tales and Lost Tales. I love those books. Just today I was reading an account of the battles at the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales. It describes the death of Theodred and the second battle which scattered the forces of the Westmarch before Gandalf rounded them up. I eat up this stuff.<P>I think you can add several more levels right up to those people that can recite dates and names from memory, can sing the songs and speak elvish.<P>As for the best films of all time, I don't think I'd put them there. There wonderful accomplishments and extremely entertaining, but my favourite films tend to be more quirky and edgy.<P>H.C.

[Birdland]

I think you are taking this too personally, O' Fushia Simian. How many movies have you seen and liked, yet never read the book the the film was based on?<P>I can think of a few well-known authors whose works I only know by watching the filmed versions (Hemingway comes to mind right away.) My bad, I know. As much as I love the works of the good professor, I would never insist that a person read the book before seeing the movie. That <I>would</I> be hypocritical of me. <P>Although, I have to admit, whenever I have read a book based on a film I have seen, I usually find the book to be much, much better.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well, I think it all depends on whether that person read's the books (and enjoys them for that matter). If they do, then I would call them 'proper' Tolkien fans. But until they read the books and enjoy them, I refrain from calling them 'proper' Tolkien fans. And they do have to enjoy them, because if they don't then they are movie fans, and not Tolkien fans. But I think of those who are Tolkien fans introduced by the movies as 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fans. I myself fall into that category , but not through the films by PJ, but by the one by Ralph Bakshi.<P>And Birdland, those books that you enjoy more than the movie, which came first, the book or the movie? Or do you like most books better, and it doesn't matter which came first? I beilive which one came first can make a difference.

[Birdland]

Huh?...Oh...well, I guess I'm speaking mostly of seeing films first, then running across the book later, or the subject matter of the film will make me seek out the book. <P>I must admit to getting a little pouty when books I love get turned into films. After the book, the movie version can seemed rather "watered down". But on the whole I usually can separate the two mediums, and enjoy each on their own merits.<P>I'm just pointing out that most of us have sat there in theatres, watching films with little thought to the author and book that the film was based on. It's something that has been going on for the entire 100-plus years history of the cinema. <P>It just that now with the Internet, we don't have to suffer in silence when Hollywood "butchers" our favorite author. Hmmmmm, makes me want to go to a Dickens site and see what his "fans" think of the latest film version of "Nicholas Nickleby". <p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Movie fans aren't proper Tolkien fans.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I think of those who are Tolkien fans introduced by the movies as 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fans. I myself fall into that category , but not through the films by PJ, but by the one by Ralph Bakshi. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Isn't that a bit unfair on those who were introduced to the books by the films, and on yourself? Would someone who discovers the books when they trip and fall in a library and have LotR stuffed under their head as a pillow be "nor properly introduced"? I don't think it matters how you are introduced (or indeed how many books you read or how many times you read them) as long as you get something from them.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Movie fans aren't proper Tolkien fans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is getting silly. I began reading the books decades ago, well beyond LoTR. Now that I'm enjoying the movies, I have to relinquish my claim as being a "proper" Tolkien fan? Come on!<P>As for books turned to film, the last film that I saw that was based on a book I read was Cider House Rules. Certainly the film wasn't as good as the book and much had to be taken out. That's the way it goes. By the way, the screenplay was written by the author himself (John Irving) and despite the changes (or likely because of them) he won the Oscar for best adapted screenplay.<P>This is bound to start arguments, but here it goes anyway. In my opinion, films that were better then the books I read of them (in two cases I read the book first, in one second) include, 2001 - A Space Odyssey, Jaws and The Shinning. In each case the director took major liberties with the books. A literal interpretation can never be better then the book.<P>Here's another question bound to stir up a hornet's nest. What are some of you folks gonna do if PJ and company win the oscar for best adapted screenplay? A lot of people feel they were robbed of the award last time and Oscar has a history of giving out hardware to cover over previous oversights. I think they have a good shot this time.<P>Just a thought.<P>H.C.

[Vorrothiel]

I saw the movie (fotr) first, before I read the book.. When I saw it I was just like.. ok.. it's an okay movie.. the effects was good.. but that was it.. I didn't understand all the fuzzz around the film.. It was just by an accident I began to read the books.. First I read the Hobbit, then it was done.. I bacame a Tolkien fan.... Then I began reading LOTR... I was fascinated by his work and the story. Then when I was finished with fotr I saw the movie once again.. My God!!! What a GREAT movie!!! One of the best. So my opninion is: The books are better than the movie!! No doubt. As one of my friends said: A book is best as a book and a TV-series is best on screen as a Tv-series.. Do poeple get my point???

[Elanor]

HC had it right. If you discovered Tolkien because of the films, and then went on to read the books, and love them, then I reckon that counts as a "proper" fan. If you loved the movies, thought Lego was a hottie, and can't be bothered to read the books, then clearly, you are not a Tolkien fan, but a movie fan. If you have loved the books for years, and enjoy the movies a lot too, then that is also a "proper" fan.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

When saying movie fans aren't proper Tolkien fans, I meant that those who watched the movie only and couldn't be bothered to read the books weren't proper Tolkien fans. I'm not a nutcase or anything. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Gorwingel]

I too saw FOTR before I read the books, well actually I kinda read FOTR before but I never understood it. And when I saw the film it totally made sense. I loved the film, so I started reading the books again. The books are wonderful, and in many ways much better than the films. They have so much depth and detail, much that is lacking from the films.

[Lush]

Well, <I>I've</I> read the books twenty times. First time when I was <I>four</I>, and I could <I>care less</I> about all you twits that have "discovered" Tolkien since the movies came out. Your perception of the literature has been forever <I>adulterated</I> by Peter Jackson's evil <I>subliminable</I> messaging. I wish Jackson many happy milennia <I>in hell</I>, and I wish you to never lose <I>respect</I>, <I>appreciation</I>, and utter <I>servitude</I> to true Tolkien fans, such as yours truly. Now bow down, you <I>vile</I> little Orc-spawns!!!<P> <p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[HCIsland]

Sorry about that Inderjit Sanghera. I completely agree with you then.<P>Lush: Four!!! Really? Were you reading Shakespear at six? <P>H.C.<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Laialthriel]

Lush,<P>I think that is wonderful that you've been able to enjoy the books since you were four. My hat is off to you for being able to read a book like that at such a young age. <P>But I resent the fact that you have classified me as a 'twit' who, just because I was not blessed to discover the books <I>before</I> the movies came out, will never be able to fully appreciate the work of Tolkien. That is so far from the truth I can laugh about it. Without the movies I might never have discovered Tolkien's writing, or if I had, it might have been a great period of time before I did. Tolkien is now my favorite author and I respect him very much. I enjoy <I>all</I> of his work, not just The Lord of the Rings series. I beg to differ that my perception of his literature has not been altered. There is no reason why it should be. I see the line between the books and the movies, and just for the record, I enjoy the books more. Yet this does not mean in any way that I cannot enjoy the movies as well. I am sorry you don't as that is your loss, but completely your choice. But that topic has been more than thoroughly discussed in other threads so I will not further it. <P>As I stated above, your opinion is your own, but I felt it necessary to stand up for myself and others out there who discovered Tolkien after the movies were produced. <P>Laialthriel

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Four!!! Really? Were you reading Shakespear at six?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Shakespeare at six, Chaucer at eight, de Sade at ten.<P>Now, within the confines of my padded cell, I mostly indulge in Dr. Seuss. <P>...Seriously, I read the LOTR, the Hobbit, and Silmarillion, <I>after</I> I saw "Fellowship," and the whole reason why I saw the movie in the first place were those cool previews, and that Viggo. And if anyone has a problem with that, you know what you can do and where you can go.

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that is wonderful that you've been able to enjoy the books since you were four. My hat is off to you for being able to read a book like that at such a young age...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Forgive me, my dearest "twit", for not laying on the sarcasm thick enough. Perhaps you did not see the big, fat grinning smiley at the end of my post? Here is a bigger one, just in case:<P>

[eleanor_niphredil]

Um, I read the books at four. Whats wrong with that? Seriously, no sarcasm. <P>Am I a twit too?

[Lush]

Fair enough, here is another, bigger smiley:<P> <P>Now, is ANYONE ELSE confused? Shall I ask burra for help and make a bigger one? Or shall I just show up at your door and spend an afternoon explaining the full history of my life so that we may arrive together at a mutual understanding of my inbred fascination with the burlesque, and all the ramifications of said fascination on the sensitive minds of young Tolkien/Peter Jackson fans?

[Laialthriel]

Forgive me, Lush. You must agree it is a little bit hard to distinguish emotions on a <I>forum</I>. I'm just not too fond of being referred to as a twit. My apologies again. Seriously.

[lanrete]

Wow.. I must be the only one who saw Fellowship and thought it was kinda boring. BUT i read the books anyway as I was curious why there was so much hype. So, here's what I think after I read the books:<P>FOTR: Very boring in the beginning but some parts were just AMAZING namely Tom Bombadil, Lothlorien, Galadriel, Prancing Pony, Flight to the Ford.. heck, starting from The Old Forest the book just gets better and better.:P<BR>TTT: Now this is probably my favorite book. Non-stop action. Great character development throughout the book <BR>ROTK: Sad, sad, sad. Truly wonderful.<P>Although I thought FOTR(the theatrical version) was a little boring, I absolutely loved the Extended version. I know, it's longer, but it's also more complete and fufilling and has a much better introduction, in my opinion (I only read the Hobbits after Lotr).<P>So, do I consider myself a proper fan? Yes, I think so. Because I love the books, I've also become a fan of the movies (no matter how crappy they are :P). It's hard not to love anything related to Middle Earth.

[Iarwain]

Very interesting emotional exchanges going on here (I'm going to insert a little smilie here. That means that I'm laughing at the "twit" name calling) <BR>I'd like to assert my own views as unrelated to everyone else's, so here goes:<P>1. Those who have read more that one Tolkien book and enjoyed them and wishes to aquire more knowledge of Tolkien's works, no matter what led to their introduction to Tolkien Literature, can be known as a fan.<P>2. Those who have seen the movies, gathered excessive amounts of movie-fan goods and collectables, and yet has not read more than the first book of FotR because its "too boring" are not fans. They count as only two-fifths of a fan.<P>3. Those who have seen the movies, cartoon or live-action, and have since then completed at least one Tolkien novel and are seeking more are official fans.<P><BR>This completes my set of rules for determination. All those lower than three are not fans. All those above one are solid fans. <P><BR>Iarwain<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[dragoneyes]

I feel like the only person who likes the beginning of FotR (though I most certainly am not) what's so boring about it?<P>I saw the movie first, it can't be helped that I was never introduced to Tolkien at a young age (though one could argue that 14 is young). My father likes science and my mother was never a big reader, so they never got me started on Tolkien. Then all my friends went mad for LotR and so I watched the movie and read the book. I am no less a LotR fan than anyone else here just because I saw the movie first.

[HCIsland]

You betcha Dragoneyes.<P>I didn't read the books until I was nineteen. It doesn't matter when and how, just that you enjoy and appreciate them.<P>H.C.

[mollecon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have never considered fans of the movies to be, as it were, 'proper' fans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Huh? OK - I hereby declare myself a non-'prober' fan! Btw., what does it take to be a (argh) 'prober' fan in your book? Poking your eyes out before going to see the movie?<P>Sorry to have to be the one to brake the news to you, but your statement is immensely stupid. I've read the books numerous times before watching the movie (I think over 15 times) - I saw FotR 25 times in the theatre( at least!). I love the way PJ pictured Tolkiens universe.. Btw., what are you doing in the movie forum? The ones here are not 'prober' fans, you know! Jeez...

[Tar-Palantir]

mollecon, relax man. I think we all understand the original poster's meaning of a 'proper' Tolkein: Those who have read and enjoyed Tolkein's work. No need to 'flash your credentials' to prove yourself.<P>I think it's a legitimate question. But I don't think many moviegoers are running around calling themselves Tolkein fans. It's only the oh-so-obsessive types like us that would even debate such a thing.<P>Therefore, I think the better question is: <B>Can people who have only seen the films call themselves 'Lord of the Rings' fans?</B><P>Anyone feel like tackling that?

[Morgul Queen]

Dragoneyes, i'm with you...WHATS WRONG WITH THE PROLOUGE!!!!! its amazing, oh by the way what do I rank as...<BR>I read the Hobbit at 6 and FotR at 7 then I totally forgot about them till about 9 months before the movies came out and read them all finally...oh and the only reason I only read FotR the first time was because I didn't know there were two other books <BR>Anyway, I don't think people who have only seen the movie can be considered true fans BECAUSE true fans try to find out everything they can about the thing that they like and if the haven't read the books they aren't really interested about finding stuff out, right?<BR>PS we really need an embarrased smilie huh?<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Morgul Queen ]

[Iarwain]

All you people have such short attention spans!!! <P>Those obsessed with the films alone are not really interested in Tolkien. Therefore, they would not, should not be considered Tolkien fans in the least. People such as they are interested only in "awesome legolas" and "hot faramir" they don't care about Middle-Earth or anything deeper than the surface scratch that PJ has produced for their consumption. THose of these fans who ultimately refuse to read the books because they're "boring", or "slow", or they're antiqities should be considered (I think) a disgrace to Tolkien fans everywhere (see above for the definition of a Tolkien fan).<P><BR>Iarwain

[Diamond18]

I'm sure the people who only watch the movie and never read (or plan on reading) the book don't give a monkey's larynix what Tolkienites think of them, so calling them a disgrace is like insulting a brick wall.<P>Anyway, if anyone cares about my "credentials" I'm not ashamed to lay it all out...<P>Read The Hobbit,<BR>Read Lord of the Rings,<BR>Watched the FotR movie,<BR>Read Unfinished Tales,<BR>Read The Silmarillion,<BR>Read The Adventures of Tom Bombadil,<BR>" On Faerie Stories<BR>" Farmer Giles of Ham,<BR>" Smith of Wooten Major,<BR>" Leaf by Niggle,<BR>" Master of Middle-earth by Paul Kocher (does this count for anything?)<BR>Joined the Barrow Downs,<BR>Read the Letters<BR>Watched TTT movie,<BR>And here I am.<P>So nyah, you can't call me unproper. (Or improper, or enproper, or eye-popper. Whatever floats your boat, Shakespeare. )<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Iarwain]

Who would possibly even think of calling you unproper, Damonds! You never know where they're lurking, reading what we say... <P>Just kidding ,<BR>Iarwain

[Aratlithiel]

Iarwain, you're killing me, here. LOL. I'm sitting here trying to picture what 2/5 of a fan might look like. Would that be an actual person who's shorter than a hobbit, or just a pair of legs?<P>Don't kill me though, because I agree with you. However, I'd like to take it a step further. See if you like these definitions...<P>Tolkien fan: Anyone who has READ and enjoyed as many Tolkien works as they could get their hands on.<P>LotR fan: Anyone who has read and enjoyed FotR, TTT and RotK only.<P>Movie fan: Anyone who has both enjoyed the movies and the books.<P>Peter Jackson fan: Anyone who has only seen the movies, not read the books and drools over any of the stars.<P>Now, you can be a Tolkien fan and a movie fan, or a LotR fan and a movie fan but if you're a Peter Jackson fan, you can't be anything else until you've read a book.<P>How's that?

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>" Master of Middle-earth by Paul Kocher (does this count for anything?)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ooh, Diamond - I have that on my b-day wish list (along with the Letters). Tell me it's good.

[Cazoz]

I wonder where I come in. Would I be classed as a duplicitous boy? <P>I've read The Hobbit, LoTR, The Sil and most of UT. But I've seen both films many times, loved them and <I>furthermore</I> want to have Legolas and Merry-related orgies?<P>I'll just call myself a fan. It's all semantics really.

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>"Master of Middle-earth by Paul Kocher (does this count for anything?)"<BR>________________________<P>Ooh, Diamond - I have that on my b-day wish list (along with the Letters). Tell me it's good.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Yes, I thought it was good. Very insightful. Unfortunately my brain has fogged up and I can't seem to remember any details about it, just my impression of it...except that there was a whole chapter devoted to Aragorn (it was obvious who his favorite character was!). It seems like I read it so long ago because now I have all the stuff I've read on the Barrow Downs filling up my head. <p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>THose of these fans who ultimately refuse to read the books because they're "boring", or "slow", or they're antiqities should be considered (I think) a disgrace to Tolkien fans everywhere (see above for the definition of a Tolkien fan).<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, duuude, while I was <I>mui</I> disappointed with those people in my life who picked up the book after seeing the film and never got past page eight, I still remembered (even at my rather low level of emotional maturity) that the literary works of Tolkien are not for everyone. Just like caviar isn't for everyone either (for some reasons most of you Americans scream "fish-eggs!" and bolt the second I mention it, how confusing is that for a Russian?).<P>We've established that such people as you described are not Tolkien fans. They're not a disgrace, however. They're just...not Tolkien fans. You know?<P>P.S. I don't mean to be a b*tch, but, despite the fact that English is only my second language I still manage to get peeved when the word "improper" gets replaced with "unproper." Unless this is some sort of inside joke (?).<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Diamond18]

I guess I just like the way unproper looks better. I know, it's evil of me.

[Aratlithiel]

Aaaahhhh! Fish-eggs! (clop, clop, clop - slam)

[lanrete]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dragoneyes, i'm with you...WHATS WRONG WITH THE PROLOUGE!!!!! its amazing, oh by the way what do I rank as...<BR>I read the Hobbit at 6 and FotR at 7...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I suspect people who like the prologue probably have read the Hobbit before LOTR. Having read the Hobbit helps one appreciate the prologue better, I think.

[Purple Monkey]

Right… Sorry. Didn’t mean to cause such a hullabaloo. Be quiet again, please.<BR><p><BR>Thanks for pointing out what I actually meant, as I think I insulted half the population of Tolkien-dom in that little paragraph. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does the other. I don’t know, though. I’m only twelve, soooo…can anyone set me right? <BR><p><BR>Personally, I don’t think that it matters what the introduction to the Books are, and I don’t think that it matters if you read outside the trilogy or not, but to see the movies (animated or live-action) proclaim yourself as a Tolkienite and not read the books is, quite invariably, wrong. <BR><p><BR>As I leave, may I thank you all for frightening me thoroughly, and also may I applaud “The Saucepan Man” not only for his points, but also for his rather excellent name. Enid Blyton forever, eh? I also try to make it a point to avoid film-based books, but I did love “About a Boy” and “A Beautiful Mind”. I’d advise to see both movies and read the books, as they are all truly fascinating, ABM more so than Nick Hornby’s tale, but, hey.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Boy has this thread confused the you-know-what out of me. Well, judging from The Saucepan Man's post after mine (and the post in the thread about not likeing Arwen in the movies) it seems that I haven't made my definition of 'proper' fans clear.<P>To me, if you have read any of Tolkien's works relating to Middle-earth, and you liked it, you are a proper Tolkien fan. If you love it, or want to read more works relating to ME, or have read more works relating to ME, or any combination of those three, then you are a 'proper' fan, but you are more than that also. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to it, in my eyes, if you fit the definition, then you are a 'proper' Tolkien fan.<P>But you are not if you read Tolkien's works, and do not like them. As long as you have read at least one of his works relating to ME and liked it, then I consider you a 'proper' fan. If you have read more than one, but didn't like one, then you are still a 'proper' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter if you like the movies (animated or live-action)or not, all that matters is the books.<P>What I meant as 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fans is that they weren't properly introduced. Well, you might ask what is properly introduced. To me it is having the story of any ME tale being told to you through reading the books before being told through a movie. You can still be a 'proper' Tolkien fan if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to Tolkien's works, you can be a 'proper' Tolkien fan. But people's tastes can change, and for that matter, so can their status as fans. If they don't like it at first, then they aren't 'proper' fans, but when they do, they are 'proper' fans. And vice versa, it can turn on and off.<P>The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Isn't that a bit unfair on those who were introduced to the books by the films, and on yourself? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, no. I hope this thread will show you what I mean better. I think what you thought I meant was that if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan you are not a 'proper' Tolkien fan. What I mean is that you can be a 'proper' fan even if you weren't introduced properly. That fault is on my part for not being clear enough, sorry.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Would someone who discovers the books when they trip and fall in a library and have LotR stuffed under their head as a pillow be "nor properly introduced"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That would be properly introduced. It was by chance, but your first reading experience is untainted and pure, so you are properly introduced, even if it was by chance. Because, when you rad the book before teh movie, you are properly introduced to that tale in ME. But when you see the movie first, you are not properly introduced because you first saw that tale of ME through someone else's (not Tolkien's) view.<P>So, now do you understand what I mean? Sorry for all the confusion.<P>Birdland<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Huh?...Oh...well, I guess I'm speaking mostly of seeing films first, then running across the book later, or the subject matter of the film will make me seek out the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What I meant was how the story was produced first; through the movie or the book. For example, in LotR, the book came before the movie, but in Star Wars, the movie came before the book. I wasn't asking if you read the book or the movie first. Am I clear now? My fault, sorry for the confusion.

[Tricia]

I'm a Tolkien fan, w00!

[Gorwingel]

Whoa, this is a very confusing thread. So many opinions, so many comments, gosh, why can't we all just get along? <P>I have always considered myself a Tolkien fan even though I have not gotten to the other books past the Sil (though after reading this I will be heading to the library and getting to them as soon as I can). <P>Seeing PJ adaptation did not ruin my images of the places in the story. After reading the book I came up with many of my own visualizations of the charaters. My Frodo when I read the book is compleltely different from the movie one, and my Dead Marshes are much more dark and ominous.<P>I know I need to buy new copies of LOTR (I will hit a vintage book store to buy hardback first editions as soon as I can ), because I do have the movie editions (don't hurt me )<P>Basically what we have determined from this converstation is that to be a real fan you have to read the books, and that is a good thing.

[Arwen_Evenstar]

Right, well, heres my view:<BR>There are three kinds of fans; PJ fans, PJJRRT fans and JRRT fans.<BR>PJ- Fans of the movie only.<BR>PJJRRT- Fans who have loyalties to both the movie and the books.<BR>JRRT- Fans purely of the books.<P>Well thats my takes anyway...<BR>~nat~

[The Only Real Estel]

I'm a PJJRRT then. ( P.S. The books are better! )