Which order do you prefer?

[ElentariGreenleaf]

I'm lucky that I read TTT and RotK before I saw those two films, so at least the plot wasn't entirely spoiled for me. But there's always those bits in the books not in the movies to make up for the spoilers that are

I think had I have read the books first, I would have re-read them by now, and had a deeper understanding of the plot lines and characters, and maybe even have researched all of that extra ME info in Tolkien's other books. But as it is, I haven't. I blame the movies, not my lazyness! But i've always felt book-first Downers have an advantage when it comes to discussing the more complex aspects of Tolkien's works.

*~Tarser~* [can't think of an animal noise right now...]

[The Only Real Estel]

It really goes either way for me.

*Since I had already read the books first (many, many times); I was able to follow the movies a lot better than a lot of poor, unfortunate non-book goers that we're completly left behind. It also helps me to see how utterly stupid some of PJ's chanes & reasons for changes are .

*If I had gone before reading the books, they would've been a whole lot more suspensful. Sure, they still had me in suspense sometimes, but no matter how much Jackson decided to screw with the script, I still knew that Frodo was going to get stabbed by Shelob, keep the Ring, you know the drill. Sometimes I think it would've been really cool to have seen them with no previous book knowledge (or maybe just having read the Hobbit, that would've been nice) so that I wouldn't be ready for anything.

[Gorwingel]

Books first, movie second

If you have that option. If you have seen the film and not read the books because you don't think it's worth it, go out and read them because it is

Though I do have to admit that reading the books first did take some of the suspense out of the films, and of course when you read the books you have your own images of what certain scenes look like, and when the movie images don't meet your personal images you can become somewhat dissapointed. But when you read the books first you get Tolkien's true and complete story, which is the best version, by far, in my opinion. The film is great, but the books are wonderful.

[ElentariGreenleaf]

You have a good point there Estel. Having read TTT and RotK before having seen the films, there was less sitting on the edge of my seat, and more dissapointment with PJ's pointless changes or additions. Though, by the time I came to see RotK, I'd forgotten quite a lot of the smaller plot lines. I should really get round to reading the trilogy for the second time. I keep getting throught FotR, then forgetting I was reading it.

*~Tarser~* [click]

[wilwarin538]

I would of much rather read the books before I saw the movies. When I first saw the preview for the movies it was the first time I heard of LOTR and I didnt know it was originally a book so I watch the first movie and then discovered the books and read them but having already a picture of what everything looked like in my head, which wasnt very fun.

[Mad Baggins]

I saw FotR before I read it.

But I read TTT and RotK before I saw the movies! And I'm quite glad, because that way I knew how the movies were supposed to be, and I wasn't brainwashed into thinking that they were right. Also, I didn't turn into a Leggybopper. Close call, though. Kinda like Frodo and the splinter of the Morgul blade.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I read the books before seeing the movies, and I like it better that way. I have a vision of Middle-Earth in my head that is pretty much untouched by PJ's movies because I let my imagination do the work before I sat down and let PJ's take over. It's not that the movies are bad: they're the best I've ever seen, it's that I love having my own picture of the story. Also, I think it's *easier* to read the books first because your expectations aren't touched by what the movie was, and you won't get bored if things move a bit slow and the battles aren't as nonstop as they are in the movie. I say this because one of my friends tried reading FOTR after seeing the movie, and she couldn't make it past the chapter, The Council of Elrond. I think that the movie is, in part, an action movie. Things move right along and the battles are long and drawn-out. (I'm thinking specifically of Helm's Deep, which took up a huge chunk of TTT that could have been better used) Anyway, what I'm saying is that her expectations were made by the movie. Reading the books before the movie somewhat eliminates that.

There are problems with books before the movie... You may get mad when your favorite book scene is botched, the little differences add up and start to annoy. You know when something's been changed, and not necessarily for the better. I tend not to let this get to me, but my book-loving friend really was made angry by the movies. In general, the people who I've talked to (except for my friend the Council of Elrond quitter) who read the books after the movie seem to have the attitude that "the movie was good and the books were awesome", while some book fans seem to have the attitude, "The books were so much better than the movie!" Maybe that's just my experiance... I certainly don't mean to generalize... I just think it's easier to have the more positive opinion when you read the books second. Of course, I've met many like myself who have read the books before seeing the movie and still think that the movie is excellent while loving the books.