Will reading the books ruin the movies for me? Is Jackson really a Hackson or is it a meme?
Will reading the books ruin the movies for me? Is Jackson really a Hackson or is it a meme?
Landon Wood
Tyler Gutierrez
Jackson made some bad, unneeded changes but overall he kept fairly true to the established lore. That’s more than we can say about the new show.
Bentley Johnson
if you don't get filtered the movies will feel like capeshit but you'll love the books more than you ever did the movies
Thomas Wright
Books are a fucking slog, movies were a massive improvement in every conceivable way.
Nolan Flores
No. It's a stupid memes by amazon pajeets and autist purists.
Almost impossible to adapt everything, and yes, Jackson added OTT actions but not a big deal.
Ryan Turner
It's much better than the films in every way but there are a couple slow parts that feel like a slog to get through. If you're like me and like rereading books in the future there are a few parts you really only need to read once and can easily skip on subsequent readings. For example I only read the house of Tom bombadil chapter once and have skipped it every other time and lost nothing
Jacob Hall
>reading the book
>another fucking song comes up
jesus fucking christ tolkien
Nathan Howard
Yes, Jackson is a hack and the trilogy sucks donkey balls, and reading the books will ruin the movies for you because the quality difference is night and day. This doesn't even need to be said, it's patently obvious to everyone. The one thing the LOTR trilogy has that's good is the soundtrack, which is undeniably great.
Chase Hall
No the book is actually really inconsistent. Probably the most surprising thing about it when I read it. The quality is up and down. Some parts are better in the movies, some better in the books.The last few chapters are like Game of Thrones season 8, where it could've been another book but is rushed. Jackson trilogy is very consistent and well paced in comparison to the books.
I really like the Fellowship book, which has the most cut content including Bombadil and feels drastically different to the movie because of it, although the movie is great also, it is a different experience. Helms Deep is also awesome in the book although similar. Orcs are more interesting in the movies, they are kind of stormtrooper tier incompetent in the books so they don't feel threatening.
Parker Campbell
>another fucking song comes up
S O V L
Ayden Wilson
I actually really like that chapter, even though I agree there are a ton of slog bits, not many of them are in Fellowship. For me it was Sam & Frodo's parts in the later books that drag.
Ethan Moore
The book is unfilmable. It's a pretty dense and profound piece of work deliberately written like an old epic. Jackson did a good job in some aspects but I dislike his approach in others.
All in all you can enjoy the Jackson trilogy for what it is and how much craftsmanship and dedication went into it. That's more you can say about everything that came after.
Tyler Cox
He cut these out later on. Same user as here, as said the books are inconsistent like that. Early on there are all these songs in the text. Some people didn't like them so I think that's why he cut them down. But it feels fucking weird how they just disappear later on in the text. I'm one of those that enjoy them.
Justin Turner
No. Movies are still 10/10 even though you will recognise things have been changed.
Eli Myers
That chapter adds literally nothing to the story, the characters, to the setting, or to the plot. It's completely irrelevant and doesn't progress or develop anything.
Logan Williams
>getting filtered by tom bom jolly fal la la willow tom bombadillo
The last paragraph mentions it for a reason. It does relate the setting, especially to Frodo. Also the dream Frodo has there is definitely plot related even if it is nothing but foreshadowing.
Adam Hughes
I didn't get filtered, I've read the book 3 times. I just skip it now because it's the worst part of it and I don't miss anything by doing so
Samuel Edwards
You'll probably like the books better, but they won't ruin the movies. Just parts of the movies, like Faramir being completely different, both Sam and Frodo being incredibly bases, etc. People blame Jackson when it's really Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, who justified changes by saying its more important that something is said instead of who says it.
Isaiah Scott
kind of. They're very different.
in movies having very limited characters isn't that big of a deal. But in the books the fact that everybody is just one character trait except Gandalf is a bit shit
but its more of a showcase of the world. That comes through. When you read the books the movies middle earth seems like a fantasy parody missing the point of most of it.
The story ends halfway through return of the king and basically a whole books worth is written on what happens to every single character afterward. That, scouring on the shire, tom bombadil is fucking stupid as a story. but as a showcase of his Silmarillion autism its spot on. And really Silmarillion autism is the good thing about tolkein
Aaron Campbell
it's not a meme - the movies are 7/10, the books at least 8.5/10
Charles Morales
>op fell for the Hackson meme
Lol
Lmao even
Nolan Robinson
i hate shitty, low-effort bait