I recently spoke with someone who walked out of The Fellowship of the Ring when it was in theaters and never bothered with the other two Lord of the Rings movies. His reason: Because Arwen had speaking parts and wasn’t just sitting on a throne like she does in the book.
I thought this was a little over the top, and quite frankly, I pity the guy for missing out on some of the greatest movies ever made. I tried to convince him to give them another try, but alas, some fish just won’t bite.
It’s said that the books are usually better than the movies, and generally that’s true. But in the case of Lord of the Rings and Forest Gump, I’d have to disagree. (Yeah… bet you didn’t know Forest Gump was a book — and I couldn’t finish it. It also has a sequel.)
However, when a book and the movie come out almost hand-in-hand, sometimes it’s hard to decide what version of the story you’re going to expose yourself to first.
To me, if you watch the movie first, it’s kind of like reading the Cliff Notes. But on the flip side, if you read the book first, then you’re likely to be disappointed by the movie.
So I want to open up a discussion about this. Let’s hear your thoughts. What do you do, story-lovers, when you’re presented with both options. Share you’re ideas, pros, and cons.