I absolutely loathed the Lord of the Rings movies, should I still read the books?

[Thaluikhain]

I think it's quite amusing Lord of the Rings, which is pretty much the basis for modern fantasy, can be viewed as trite. I'd argue it's more archetypal but if you've never see or read it before I can see how it would seem so!

Yes and no.

On the one hand, yes, far too many people have gone and copied Tolkien, often without understanding him, and you have endless hordes of Scottish dwarfs fighting with pointy eared elves for no good reason other than Gimli argued with Legolas (and the scottishness and pointy earedness came later anyway).

OTOH, though, he did deliberately use lots of familiar elements in his world building. The idea of a not!Europe full of elves and dwarfs (at least the way he did it) was very much his idea, but his not!Europe was, well, Europe, but not. That's not a criticism, though, lots of modern authors write their not!Europes without understanding Europe, which is an odd thing to miss.

 

[Arkynomicon]

The first movie drags on too much.

The second one is the most well-rounded, all the characters are doing their thing, it has a lot of suspense, the supporting cast is solid and it starts with a full momentum.

The third one is not as good because it has too many things going on at once, the ghost army was a huge anticlimax and it piled endings upon endings for what felt like an hour. But it's still more enjoyable than the first one.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Hell no, the books are really fucking long and boring, at times you will want to just give up. I was so glad when I finally finished.

 

[1066]

To be honest, the books really haven't aged all that well for a number of reasons. Random songs that add little to nothing, overlong descriptions and a startling lack of character descriptions, considering. Myself, I gave up on them when the protagonist shift (the fellowship in general to Smegle, Frodo and Sam) in the second book happened. I just couldn't get into the books.

I still consider the books to be classics and the first greats of the fantasy genre as we know it and respect them in that regard. That said, I feel the same way about the Model T Ford, but I certainly wouldn't want to drive one to work every day.

 

[MysticSlayer]

If you found the movies boring, you'll find the books boring, possibly even more so. There are some interesting parts to the books that never made it into the movies, but at the same time, the movies don't have you deal with Tolkien's boring and tedious writing. That's not to say that the books don't develop an interesting world filled with intriguing characters tied together by a good plot. No, the books have all those strengths. Tolkien just didn't do a good job at presenting them.

 

[Blow_Pop]

but I don't know whether it's a Harry Potter situation where the movies hardly do the books any justice,

While I haven't read the Potter series, so I can't critique its movies as adaptions...
However, Peter Jackson's "interpretation" of Tolkien's work were mediocre as independent works, and travesties as adaptions. The movies skewered events, assassinated characters and utterly failed to capture any sense of lore of the world of Arda.

So are the books better or are they pretty much the same?

As someone who has read Tolkien's work, before seeing Jackson's failed attempt, yes. The books are far superior.
Though, your mileage may vary.

As someone who has read both of these, I fully agree with what you've said about Tolkien and Jackson(and seriously do NOT get me started on my thoughts of The Hobbit trilogy as that was one of my favourite books growing up and it really does NOT need to be a trilogy fucking Jackson....-storms off grumbling-)

The Harry Potter movies were decent but again too much was changed/left out for me to really like them.

I thought that the movies were boring and tedious and trite

I found the movies to be better than most adaptations off books but wildly inaccurate in a lot of parts and it angers me. The destroying of the ring in ROTK pisses me off too because it was changed because it wasn't exciting enough or some bullshit like that.

That said, if you don't mind practically chapters worth descriptions of landscapes and trees and such, go ahead and read the books. If you do, don't read them. The Hobbit would be where I would start if I were you for the books, less lengthy descriptions and was written after the trilogy and meant as a children's book. If I recall(too lazy to go across the room and grab my copy of it) the book is about 300 pages or a little less than (I think mine's more than most copies as it's an anniversary edition copy) and is really good. Though fair warning, reading the book and comparing it to the movies will most likely piss you off if you're anything like me. IF the descriptions bother you in the trilogy, you MIGHT try listening to them as audiobooks if you're not one of the people who can't stand audiobooks. I found all of them at my public library and borrowed them and ripped em onto my laptop so I can listen to them whilst playing Diablo and other games in which I have played enough times to not need to hear people talking or anything(which is a surprising amount of games) so there's that. Though personally, unless it's Stephen King, I prefer reading the actual book to an audio book.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

it piled endings upon endings for what felt like an hour.

I know right? except they got that from the book. only the book does it even worse. All of the "endings" in the movie plus one where

Spoiler: extra ending in the book

Sarumon goes to the Shire.

as others have said, it would depend on your reasons. if it's because you found them boring, then you will likely find the books equally if not more so. Also the way things are set up is completely different. as an example in the book of the two towers, Frodo, Sam and Smeagle/Gollum's trek through Mordor is the second half of the book, book 4 (each book is divided into 2 books, or at least the copies I have are,) and everything with Argorn, Gimli, Legolas, and the helm's deep battle is all in the first half, Shelob appears in the two towers rather than return of the king. a few characters from the books didn't make it into the movies such as Tom Bombadil who has already been mentioned.

 

[ExtraDebit]

I love the movies but couldn't finish the first chapter of the book, it was really long winded, boring, and written in a very weird old fashion penmanship. If you're used to newer books and their writing style like Dan Brown then you'll hate the books.

I did finished the hobbit though.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The movies are quite fun. If you thought those were boring, then the books aren't for you.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I thought that the movies were boring and tedious and trite, but I don't know whether it's a Harry Potter situation where the movies hardly do the books any justice, but I can't be bothered to start reading a book that size if it's going to be more of the same.

So are the books better or are they pretty much the same?

Thanks for your time.

Then you will hate the books, as the movies pared an insane amount of faffing about that occurred in the places like The Old Forest. Seriously, Tom Bombadil can fuck right off and this is coming from someone that enjoyed the series enough that I still re-read it.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The movies dialed up the action bits and cut down on the walking. Because a good deal of the series is about walking. Walking through swamps, walking through mountains, caves, forests, cities, fields...pretty much everywhere. The humor that was in the movie is also not in the books. The books are great for fans, and whether you hate them or love them, they are truly a masterpiece of the English language and a testament to Tolkien's writing ability, but they are not for everyone. If you did not like the Hollywood version of the books--which were trimmed for time, adjusted for pacing, and had changes straight up made to keep the audience engaged--then you are going to most likely loath the books. In fact, Frodo and Sam don't even leave The Shire for about a hundred pages, or four chapters. That should give you an idea of how slowly things move in the books at times.

 

[thiosk]

I found that the first book, the fellowship, dragged for a god awful long time. It starts picking up in the second half/ last third, and then I consumed the two towers and the return of the king quite quickly.

 

[spartan231490]

I thought that the movies were boring and tedious and trite, but I don't know whether it's a Harry Potter situation where the movies hardly do the books any justice, but I can't be bothered to start reading a book that size if it's going to be more of the same.

So are the books better or are they pretty much the same?

Thanks for your time.

I'd say give them a shot, but get them out of the library. ToTR books are hit or miss, you love 'em or your hate 'em. They are certainly different enough from the movies that not liking the movies won't mean you hate the books.

 

[Neverhoodian]

You can try, but based on your post I don't think you'll make it very far. A big part of the reason why the films are so highly regarded is because they kept the story's essentials while trimming away much of the extraneous exposition and world-building from the books.

If you do decide to soldier on, I have a bit of advice: skip the Council of Elrond. Even I find it a tedious slog, and this is coming from someone who loves the books.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

The books aren't a "hard" read like some are saying, in the sense that they take effort to read. As a 12 year old I got through them all in about 2-3 weeks of reading after school. Now, as an adult, I doubt I'd have the interest to do even that. That's not surprising because I think they were intended for adolescents. If you don't have the interest then there's no point reading. If you find yourself turning pages rapidly to find out what happens, then great. But don't punish yourself because you don't find the world interesting.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Don't waste your time. I didn't like the movies either and had to force myself through the books. Of them, The Hobbit was the only one I really enjoyed. The rest are just overlong and, boring. Two Towers especially is just the least engaging fantasy I've ever tried to get through. Save yourself the boredom and try something different. I would suggest trying The Hobbit; it's still long winded but it isn't nearly as bad as Lord of the Rings. If you're still interested after Hobbit, then go for the trilogy.

 

[Vivi22]

If you thought the movies were boring and tedious then you will almost certainly hate the books. I tried to read the books shortly after Fellowship came out and you know what? I gave up half way through Two Towers because massive chunks of the books were nothing but boring faffing about. I might piss off some fans by saying this, but Tolkein had absolutely no talent when it comes to pacing a story. If you like the world and get sucked up in it enough to overshadow that then you'll like his writing. If you don't like the world enough to get past that though then his writing has very little to offer. The man was an excellent world builder, but not a very good writer.

And I say this as someone who actually did like the movies. Largely because they cut out most of the bullshit and got to the fucking point. Did they change some things and leave others out? Absolutely. But most of it was because the books desperately needed a better editor.

 

[sabercrusader]

I can't imagine that you would like the books if you didn't like the movies. The Lord of the Rings movies were some of the better movie adaptations of books I've seen.