The amount of people my age (I'm 26, so everyone below my age and around maybe 15-20ish years older) are definitely an absolute massive majority when it comes to people who saw the movies before they read the books. I saw the movies when I was a kid, when they originally came out, and didn't read the books for the first time until I was like 22 or so. I actually tried reading The Two Towers when I was in middle school, but you can probably guess how far I managed to make it into a book like that at such an age. I'd say the movies truly inspired a new generation of Tolkien fans, though it's probably correct to say that only a few of us have ever read the books all the way through. The movies are loud and fast and exciting and you get to stare at the sexy boyish charms of Billy Boyd. The books, in contrast, are downright slow to read and several parts of them are notable for actually being hard for most people to get through. Jackson's adaptation could have been better (read: cut out some of the Hollywood nonsense and put a leash on some of Jackson's dumber ideas) but they're such a good adaptation that I don't find it really so bad that there's a whole new era of Tolkien fans that have only ever seen the movies and will never read the books. It's better than some of the people who've become fans of Middle Earth because they played the awful Mordor games, at least.
Yes, I can see the appeal of the movies. Which worries me a bit. The experience is not the same. And people who loved the books and made LOTR the most loved story of all time, according to a fairly recent poll, thought the books were wonderful. Some people never got through them, but these folk (at least the ones I know personally) never got past the first page. It wasn't their kind of story. If there hadn't been the books, and the books hadn't been so popular, there never would have been the movies. Those were hellish expensive movies to make, but Peter Jackson & Co knew they had a built-in audience of people who had read and loved the books. I know no cultural experience can be exactly re-created from one generation to the next, but I feel sorry for the people who never read the books. The sense of journey, of NOT knowing what was going to happen, the slow assimilation of the details ...yes, even Tom Bombadil ...is what wove the magic. I can't explain, but inhabiting that world felt very real to me, and it lasted for more than just a few hours. The problem with Tom Bombadil, by the way, had nothing to do with the writing itself. I loved Tom Bombadil's portion of the story ...and some of it made its way into the movie as well. (That scene where the tree roots eat Merry and Pippin didn't happen in the Ent Forest at all ...it happened near Tom's house, and Tom's the one who rescued all four of the hobbits. Tom provided one of the many, much-needed 'rest' havens which the hobbits experienced from time to time as the story unfolded.) The problem with Tom Bombadil is that he never figured in the rest of the story at all. It was a diversion that Jackson was quite right to cut from the movie, as it would have disturbed the flow. He was right to cut out The Scouring of the Shire as well, for the same reason, but those of us who read the books realise that the scouring was a very important part of the overall plot. You can't take 'home' for granted, and complacency kills. In many ways, it's a shame that got left out of the movie, because it was an extremely important lesson to learn. Politically, we still need to learn it. I think one problem for people who have seen the movies but not read the books is that you know, before you start reading, what is going to happen. So I think that makes the reading feel slow. Those of us who picked up the book having no idea what it contained were captivated from the start, and got totally hooked on what MIGHT happen. The books didn't drag for me at all, except, I must confess, all that poetry. Aaargh... I found that very easy to skip, and still haven't ever managed to get through one of the long 'lays' that Tolken obviously loved. The short songs were fine, but not those long ones. All that glimmering-shimmering dingbat rhyming. Urgh.
Actually, I recall in one of the movie's 'making of' behind the scenes things (I watched it on YouTube sometime ago so I assume it must be part of some DVD extra or a little documentary they did or something, I dunno) one of producers of the films said the movies were actually a dangerous pitch to sell because there wasn't any solid market evidence that enough people would still care about Lord of the Rings. Making the movies extra "actiony" was part of securing the deal to make them, which is why the Fellowship of the Ring is especially full of Hollywood crap (lots of fake-outs, not to mention Boromir's extra Hollywoody slowmo death sequence). I do hate how they didn't cover the Scourging of the Shire, though. I mean, it's obvious why they didn't include it and everything but it's a good final touch to the end of the story. I was surprised when I read it for the first time. Though if it made it into the film, it'd have been a funny excuse to see Christopher Lee portraying Sharkey.
Yeah. In the books, Saruman didn't die by falling off his tower. He was just left to stew. So all the 'evil' didn't die with Sauron. That's an important point to take away from the story as well. No, of course the moviemakers didn't know for sure if the fans of the book would see the movie. However, I think they had a pretty good idea that it would go down well, and I think it was disingenuous of them to hint that they had no idea if the idea would float. Of course it would float. Their task was to make the movie appealing to the fans of the book. If they had done a rotten job, book some people would still have gone to see it, but in fewer numbers. And they wouldn't have bought the DVD sets either. (That's how I saw the films ...on DVD. And I'm glad I did, because I bought the extended versions. The extended versions made more sense than the condensed ones did.) This is an era where successful books nearly always get made into movies—sometimes too quickly, in my opinion, as the movie tends to kill the book. The Harry Potter series was being made as the books were being written. So how many people are going to continue to buy and read the books when they can catch the movie and find out what happens in a couple of hours? And of course Game of Thrones has been made before the series of books is even finished, and the plot has already lapped the books. I find this disturbing. At least LOTR was made decades after most people read the books, so of course we were hungry for more. We were old enough to have loved the books, but still young enough to enjoy the movies. I feel that movie/book split affects quite a few younger people who are drawn to fantasy and want to write 'a fantasy series,' but who admit to not actually READING fantasy very much. Instead, they see movies, watch TV shows, play games, etc. And while the ideas are there, the medium they've chosen for their own effort—books—is one they're actually not all that familiar with. Hence the sometimes wooden infodumps about 'the worldbuilding' that gets included in the written stories. Storytelling with words isn't something they're very familiar with. I think that's a bit of a shame, really. Tolkien included lots of worldbuilding information in an Appendix to his stories, but he didn't dump it on the reader as part of the story. If you read both The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring, you'll be struck by how simply and straightforwardly the story is told. That's the link that writers of fantasy need to recognise, if their stories are going to captivate their readership. Start simple.
I credit The Hobbit with the start of my writing journey in 7th grade (12-13 years old); I even have the opening line above a hobbit hole tattooed just above my left wrist because it's that important. The Lord of the Rings was a bit more tedious to me, particularly The Two Towers, where I'm certain I learned more about walking than I ever did in real life. I enjoyed the read, but it's not a trilogy I'll re-read unless I have a major craving for it. I've read other stories that follow the epic model since they and I found them a bit better paced and more enjoyable to read. On the movies, I enjoyed The Hobbit movies. I was confused as to why they made it a trilogy until I understood that they were dropping in parts of The Silmarillion (which I couldn't even get through and I have a degree in history and am working on an archaeology degree). The Hobbit could have easily been one movie or two movies, but I also enjoyed the additions made to it in the movies. I have more issues with the role of Faramir in The Two Towers, which I griped about for ages before letting it go. I have a tendency to let go of a lot when watching movies. I really want to be able to enjoy the movies I watch and being nitpicky over the content doesn't allow that.
@jannert That's why I prefer to read the books before I watch the movies; or else the book does feel like it's dragging when it otherwise shouldn't.
The only books I can think of just now that I read AFTER seeing filmed versions were the books of Jane Austen. And I loved the books as much (if not more) than the filmed version. So it can work. However, in the case of LOTR or Harry Potter or even The Hunger Games and Twilight ...I wonder. I'd be interested to hear from anybody who saw Outlander, but hadn't read the books ...and then went back and read the books. I've heard the filmed version is pretty good. I thought the book was horrendous and, to date, I've been unexcited about seeing the series as a result. I may overcome my antipathy at some stage and watch it. But maybe not. Life is short. Oh, wait. I just thought of another one. Gone With The Wind. I saw the movie and then read the book. Many moons ago. That was another film that got made shortly after the book came out, apparently. But it was also back in an 'age' where people still read lots of books and didn't expect the movie to be a substitute. I came late to both, because I wasn't even born till 1949. I do remember that the movie seemed dated, while the book didn't. Of course the book was full of racist stuff (as was the film) but at least I didn't have to look at 1930s makeup and hairstyles on actors who were portraying characters from the American Civil War. That kind of error really annoys me. (I suspect the currently-trendy, tousled hairstyles in the movie version of Pride and Prejudice, starring Kiera Knightly, is going to seriously date that movie a few decades from now. The TV version, starring Jennifer Ehle—which took the time and effort to portray Regency fashions more accurately—will probably never be equaled.)
I read the first The Hunger Games after watching the movie and I loved the book more than the movie. I enjoy that series of books. I absolutely detest Twilight in any form (and I read all of the books, but I only saw the first movie because my sister wanted to see it for her birthday). My sister read the books after seeing the movie and doesn't like either format. On Outlander, my mom's seen a couple of episodes and then read some of the books. She likes the books more than the show, but that genre is something she likes. I don't like sex in my books or shows so I haven't read it or watched it. I did try to get into her series about Lord John (I'm a sucker for m/m), but the writing...it was so hard to even get through the first five pages. Edit: I think it really depends on person. I haven't mind some books I only read after watching the movie, like The Martian. I usually enjoy the books more because it gives me a greater insight.
I haven't finished reading the first Hunger Games book yet, but I have all three. And yeah, I actually like it as much as the movie. I don't know though, the one thing that bothers me about the Hunger Games series is that it's written in the modern style that notoriously feels as if the author had places to be while writing. As if it was written for an audience of people with an attention span of two seconds.
I think it might have been because it's a fairly new book targeted at a younger age. A lot of young adults appear to either dislike reading or want to read something easy. My sister's husband, for example, absolutely hates reading and always has. He's 26 and I don't think he'll even read the BBQ cookbook I sent him for Christmas. I also noticed a difference in reading styles just between my sister and I. She likes simpler books while I'll delve into readings that are hundreds of years old or that tell grand epics. I think a lot of YA writers have to keep in mind that a lot of young adults have limited interest in something that's over 300 pages long. It's a little sad, partially because it's not something I've ever really understood (even with liking YA books).
It's interesting to read the last couple of posts and learn that some people a LOT younger than me (I'm 68) seem to be concerned about short attention span in readers at the moment. This lack of ability to keep focus was borne out by a friend of mine, who was a school librarian till she retired a couple of years ago. She said the ability of students to not only read but also retain simple bits of information from reading either a screen or a printout has slipped a lot over the past 10-15 years. When she did workshops on how to use the library, she had to break up her presentation a lot, or the students couldn't stay with her. This was a change from when she started doing this work, back in the 1970s. (And she specialised in using modern equipment and computers, so she loves technology. But she also sees the downside.) I suppose it's to be expected, considering the fact that most of us do most of our stuff on screens now. However, those of us who remember when screens weren't an option have more luck regulating our use of them, I reckon. I know I delete ANYTHING that is running at the bottom of my screen (one reason I never watch news on TV any more), or flashing away at the sides of it. That, to me, is so distracting that I can't concentrate on what I'm doing. I do know people my age who grew up with a TV in the house (I didn't) can often read and watch TV at the same time. I can't. It's one or the other for me. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for young people to concentrate on anything at all, while so much else is going on that they're supposed to be paying attention to as well. I think this inability to stick with a story for any length of time is probably a product of the kind of technology that drives our entertainment and learning now. Our lives are incredibly scattered, aren't they? So I never say 'kids today...' I suspect I would be exactly the same if I had been raised with something going on in my peripheral vision all while I was trying to do something else. It's a real problem, but it's not their fault.
Ah yes, I hadn't considered it's also a YA book; that tends to keep everything short and sweet. I forget it's YA sometimes, after having seen the movies which pushed PG-13 to its limits. They could've easily been good rated R films with just a few changes. It is my experience that more girls are reading, especially fiction. I do have several guy friends who read, but primarily non-fiction. I read both. Anyway, I just say that because I know a lot of guys who really dislike reading. It's more in their nature to do hands-on stuff, and perhaps your sister's husband is the same way. Anyway, I wonder if the reason why you read (compared to your sister) is to become fully entranced in the story, to enjoy the journey and "live" in the universe, whereas other people might read constantly wanting to know what happens next, and want to get to the end (Are we there yet? Are we there yet?). So during parts of The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings when the pacing becomes very slow, the mistake is to think that nothing's happening because it feels "slow". Just theorizing.
I see that notion referred to often here on the forum, to be honest. The idea that if something is slow, or not full of hyperactivity, that equals 'boring' and should be avoided. The idea of 'settling in' with a good book is what motivates me to read. And the longer I can remain settled in, the better, from my point of view. It's a mind journey, with emotional heart.
I would by no means make for a perfect parent, but that aside, it secretly bothers me to no end that my niece is constantly on her tablet all the time. She got it when she was, like, 4. It's different than when I was growing up, and I'm not that old. The first video game system I had was the Playstation 1. I couldn't just take that anywhere I go- in the car, in the restaurant, during family dinners and get-togethers like Thanksgiving and Christmas. It stayed in my room, after my homework was done. None of that's her fault. That's the responsibility of the parents. I also don't know how I feel about giving a kid a phone when they're not even old enough to need it. I didn't get mine until middle-school because my parents said, "Hey, you can have a little more free reign. Get out of the house and go places on your own. But we need to be able to call you, and you need to be able to call us, just in case." And of course it was useful for getting in touch with my friends and what not. They didn't buy it for me so I could play games and go on Facebook / Instagram all the time.
I would kill for an R rated film, just saying. The books, at least in portions, could have easily been pushed into the adult category. Someone needs to get permission to do that. I encountered a mixed bag; everyone in the groups I hung out with read (they were mixed-sex groups), but people outside of that group seemed to waver between reading and not-reading. He says he's a hands on guy, but all I've seen him get his hands on is a controller or the keyboard of his computer for gaming. In my entirely unprofessional and biased opinion, I don't think he's the brightest bulb in the box and it has some bearing on his enjoyment of reading. [I highly admit to being biased because I really don't like him.] It could be. I know I love the journey even when the pace starts to slow down (I don't need anymore walking in my life). Every part serves a purpose (usually). Now, I don't think The Hobbit had any slow spots. For me, that book was (and is) very captivating. I ate it up like my favorite sweet the first time I read it and I still do. I just wish someone else in my family felt the same way; they like the movies, but none of them like the book.
Oh yeah, I'm the same way. I really wanted a rated-R Star Wars film. Like a Band of Brothers / Saving Private Ryan meets Clone Troopers. I was devastated when Disney took over (for many other reasons I won't go into). I've heard people say things like "women drive the literature market" and I don't know how that could be true unless they make up a majority of customers. It might not be a huge difference, something like 60/40, but then again I never recall seeing any statistics on that. I did enjoy The Hobbit, don't get me wrong. I don't remember any parts dragging. There were just some parts paced more slowly than others, but never a dull moment from what I recall.
