>>220355659
i read the hobbit and enjoyed it but i quit a few chapters in on lotr. i just didn't care. the movies were cool though

>>220355681
Hobbit book will always be better than that dog shit movie. LOTR movies were zome of the best movies made, and if the books never existed, then it would be even better, so I can see how people could have issues read the books after watching

i buyed the books because of the films and then preceeded to not read them because that sounded really fucking boring

>>220355681

I read The Hobbit as a kid about a year before Fellowship came out, didn't know anything about LOTR or the cultural importance it had. Loved the book, read it several times, poured over the maps and illustrations for ages. Due to the popularity of the films they translated the LOTR books in my language and I bought them. So fucking boring, nothing like the briskly paced adventure of The Hobbit. Genuinely struggled to get through them. I prefer the films but I wish there was an edition that was a compromise between theatrical and extended cuts, extended is way too fucking long.

Fuck the Hobbit movies, complete abomination, not one single redeeming factor about them.

>>220355659
Just started The Two Towers.
I desperately wish I wasn't exposed to the movies, it gives me grief.
But it's not without hope, there's a lot gained in reading even if it isn't blind.

>>220356030
They're still great books hey

>>220355659
>the point is to rob people of any meaningful connection to the original
book or no book, I've always suspected this was the point of remakes in general lately
search queries constantly turn up the shitty clownworld POZ shit remake if an original classic movie title has one

Not really.
I appreciate each medium for what it is. LotR's slower and more deliberate pace is very nice to read. I honestly like those sort of long, traveling chapters like Ring Goes South and Journey In the Dark.
The Hobbit films gave me immense appreciate for the book as well, because 2/3 of those movies are complete dogshit.

>>220355681
It was other way around for me. Loved LOTR books, but could not get into hobbit. It read too much like children's story (which it is), with too low stakes and dwarves having almost same names was too much for me. I know it gets better and a lot of important characters die fulfilling the quest, but I dunno, after LOTR it wasn't the same.

Maybe its time for you to grow up and read the Silmarillion

>>220355659
Kwab

I watched LotR and Dune before reading the books and after reading I can't enjoy the movies as I used to

>>220355659
The only influence the movies had on me is solidifying each character's look. Which isn't and issue as I don't generally see the characters fully in my mind's eye when I read.

>>220356896
This nigga can't visualize an apple.

>>220355659
this is 100% a you problem

>>220356889
i still enjoy lynch's dune after the books

>>220355659
no because I can differentiate between an adaptation and the original source

>>220355659
>In discussions of The Odyssey there's a conspiracy theory that ((they)) know it is going to bomb, the point is to rob people of any meaningful connection to the original via this shitty film. Instead of your mental image of the characters or scenes coming from the text, you get this grey washed out mediocrity and an african woman. The worse the film the better because it means a whole generation of westerners cannot connect with the source material.


OP, you are legit mentally ill. you are retarded. you are fucking insane shizo.

>>220355659
The odyssey isn’t something many people read, but they are still well aware of most myths connecting to it.
I don’t think a slopfest will do much to damage the legend much, since the majority barely connect it to the source material anyway.

The Iliad > The Odyssey

You could enjoy both the books and the films for different reasons. The movies are extraordinarily well made and cinematic achievements, but they make some truly dumbfounding changes to the story for almost no reason

The books meanwhile are not action books. They are known for their world building and the prose of Tolkiens writing. There are many little details that make the books incredible, but they can be hard to get through for some people

I am going through them all now and just finished the road to Isengard, the part in the book where they find merry and pippin in a destroyed isengard is actually quite funny, even funnier than the movie

>>220356867
If people don’t have trouble keeping track of names I think it’s easier to get through than LOTR imo, things constantly happen as opposed to the slow chapters in LOTR

>>220356959
The Aeneid > Iliad > Odyssey

>>220356914
I know right, there has to be a better reason for Jews to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on films that continually fail.

>>220357035
every movie feels like The Producers these days

>>220356898
An apple is not a character in lotr...or anything, probably

>>220355659
"Aged down with CGI" Legolas is only from the Hobbit though... a trilogy which I've never watched

>>220357035
Nolans movies always perform well at the box office. As did the hobbit movies.

>>220355765
Well, The Hobbit was written for children, so that's likely why you like it, and don't like LOTR. You're a manchild.

who gives a shit about stupid fantasy books, you dug your own grave by deciding that this stupid childish slop is your "culture"

>>220357529
>you're a manchild for liking the better work (both of which are for children)

>>220355659
I started rereading LOTR a few months back (initially read them back in the 90s), and I didn't have that problem. I just have my own image of the characters and the settings, based both on my original reading, and a lot of the art I've seen over the years.
I think one major thing is the fact that the hobbits in the movies look nothing like hobbits, and the characters act and speak very differently in the books, aside from the pieces of dialogue that are directly copied. You also get a lot of background and stories from The Shire, which is enough to separate the characters from the movies, even before they leave.
That said, I do remember being impressed by most of the visual design, sets and music in the movies when I first watched them, because of how similar a lot of it was to how I had imagined it in my head, at least in the first movie. I remember hating how much they skipped though, and how their journey felt way too short because of it.

File: 9471.jpg (997 KB, 1500x1307)

997 KB JPG

If you want to talk about ACTUAL mental images created by Hollywood: nobody in Lord of the Rings wears steel plate armor, but chainmail is constantly described as something people wear, yet in the modern day it's much easier to mass produce prop armor than it is to make chainmail by hand
LOTR is primarily inspired by the early medieval era, especially by the history of the Anglo Saxons, while Hollywood primarily takes influence from the late medieval era
It's still beyond stupid how in the movies, Gondorian soldiers are wearing full plate yet die instantly regardless, they are basically fantasy storm troopers

>>220355659
This often happens to me when I read something after having watched an adaptation of it, but I see it as more of a positive usually. It just allows me to visualise the characters without really interfering with my enjoyment of the story. It depends on the adaptation though. I find Timothy Chalamet repulsive because he looks like a smug, semitic garden gnome, so I'd rather just imagine some random guy as Paul Atreides when I reread Dune.

>>220355659
>((they)) know it is going to bomb, the point is to rob people of any meaningful connection to the original via this shitty film.
Literally nobody gives a shit or even reads the original Odyssey. You pulled this from your ass. No movie EVER ruins the book unless you're a complete retard

>>220355659
Thats why I avoid adaption like the plague. Whenever an adaption comes out, I just read the book. I have had too many great novels ruined by adaptions and the images they put in the head.

>>220357654
This, most people hate the book because school forced them to read it (at least in the era before chatgpt giving you a summary of everything)

>>220355659
kind of the opposite for me, i stayed away from the books because i was sure i'd have your sensibilities about them. but i took a chance and found them surprisingly read-able as soon as they leave the shire
the frodo-sam-gollum stuff was a huge drag but the rest was solid. wish the movies included the scouring of the shire, it was surprisingly compelling to see the hobbits having to go on one last little adventure after sauron
children of thurin wasn't as much of a pure downer as i thought it would be. very soulful and read-able too

>>220357620
>It's still beyond stupid how in the movies, Gondorian soldiers are wearing full plate yet die instantly regardless, they are basically fantasy storm troopers

This always bothered me. Jackson hated the Gondor soldiers. I can see why it was done- it makes the threat of Mordor much scarier and also Gondor is basically a failing state by Pelennor Fields, but shit would it have been so bad to have a few Gondor soldiers slashing up some orcs instead of being absolute Jobbers.

The change I hate the most though is Aragorn being reluctant to take his claim to the throne. In the book he is a chad that fully intends on triumphantly becoming Gondor’s king and returning it to glory. In the movie his reluctance is added for melodrama and is based on the fact his distant ancestor was weak to the ring, which Aragorn himself overcome at the end of TFOR

>>220355659
The books were just boring. Too many droning descriptions of terrain.

File: 1708904590282028.jpg (80 KB, 598x464)

80 KB JPG

get a load of all these /weakminds/ in here. the books are fantastic and if you can't separate hackson's work from the books you are a retard.

>>220357035
money-laundering mostly, no movie costs that much to make imagine believing "we spent 100 Billioins in the production of Snowwhite!" "Invincible costs 20M per episode!!!1!!" It's all a scam to launder money. They don't even care about profits or even the movie at all. That's why (((hollywood))) has the nerve to put blacks and lgtb fags everywhere. They know the movie will flop out of its mediocrity, so why not mock the goyim in the process? make batman a tranny, make odysseus a ftm freak, it doesn't matter

>>220358958
It's more like embezzlement.

>>220358958
Why does a studio need to launder money? Are they fronting for drug cartels or something?

>>220359345
They are probably laundering money for Israel or some pedophile jewish circle, who knows? All I know the numbers don't make sense. Movies nowadays are like modern art or the monkey NFTs, just vehicles to make legal large amounts of money

>>220355725
>buyed

Checks out.

>>220359345
>>220359419
it's the cia you goofs

File: 1623140160663.jpg (4 KB, 200x200)

4 KB JPG

>we hate popular thing: LOTR edition
hey there has to be a club for everyone am i right?

not at all, i'd never even heard of LOTR before the movies.

after watching the movies i read the books and discovered a much richer and more detailed world, LOTR has been my favorite trilogy since then and i don't think it will ever be surpassed in my lifetime

i think if i had read the books before watching the movies i would have hated the movies as they're not perfect adaptations (though tbf i don't blame Jackson for this so much as film and literature are such different mediums)

i just enjoy both for what they are

>>220355725
>He boughted?
>short him

>>220359566
It happens every time Amazon starts gearing up for a new rangs season.
It’s the classic
>X was never good, so why do you care about another shitty adaption?
Tactic to deflect criticism.

>>220355659
So what you should do is look up youtube videos of "list of things they changed from book to movie lotr" and familiarize yourself with the changes. Ironically it makes them easier to compartmentalize than "forgetting" the movies.

It's interesting because I read LOTR before the movies came out when I was younger, and I remember thinking that Viggo was the only person in the Fellowship who was horribly miscast. I remember sitting in the theaters internally seething that Stryder wasn't how I pictured in the books.

As the years went on, though, I came to appreciate Viggo's performance and now I imagine Aragon as his depiction, so there might be something to this.

Still, I don't think anyone is going to replace Matt Damon Odysseus screaming "LEEETS GOOOO~!" in their head when reading the Illiad. I don't think they're going to picture an ugly gorilla nigger being so beautiful that she launched a thousand ship. I don't think they're going to picture Achilles as a mentally ill woman with her tits cut off larping as a man, even if they see the movie before reading.

File: F5HfyifXUAAOF0i.png (201 KB, 861x877)

201 KB PNG

>dood, they make the worst goyslop imaginable with niggers and troons everywhere just to launder money, trust!

good lord i hope youre actually a fed and not a real person

>>220359987
Feds don't post here KEK we have better things to do.