What do you remember about your first reading of the LOTR?

[ZehnWaters]

If movie first, don't bother with the book.

I could say this in reverse. Why bother seeing the movie if you've read the book? You've already gotten the complete picture. There's nothing to gain. No information that could possibly be ADDED. The reverse can't be said. My point was always you'll never enjoy the movie or show if you've read the book first and I hold to that. All you'll do is complain it's not right and you'll be right. If you see the show first, you'll enjoy both because the book will open you up to hidden treasures of information. I've never had an issue revising my opinion on characters because the books ALWAYS portray them differently and with more nuance to the point I see them as separate anyhow.

I will say, there's been a handful of times I preferred the film to the book (Series of Unfortunate Events (film)) or even the dub (usually only snippets as the show, as a whole, is usually better in the original as a whole (Kiki's Delivery Service)).

 

[Radaghast]

Book first (if you know the book exists) then movie. If movie first, don't bother with the book.

I would strenuously disagree. If all you've got are the movies, you are really missing out on a lot.

 

[Deimos]

I managed to get a hold of the 4-DVD box "The Godfather - The Coppola Restoration", apparently from 2009, with all three films plus a bonus DVD (everyone does appendices by now, don't they? 😁), in a German version (so at least original and German synchronization). Seems it was a last-ditch rescue mission, as especially the celluloid copies of the first two films were disintegrating.
I also know that my parents had Mario Puzo's book in their big living room bookshelf, and that I read it - before the first film came out, I'd guess, as I recalled the "horse's head" scene to have been different in the book.

But then, besides Coppola directing all three films, just look at the actors who were involved:

Brando, Pacino, Caan, Duvall, Keaton, Hayden, Shire in part 1
Pacino, Duvall, Keaton, De Niro, Shire, Strasberg in part 2
Pacino, Keaton, Shire, Garcia, Wallach, Hamilton, Berger in part 3

And dozens I didn't mention above. These were different from the Agathe Christie-derived "Hercule Poirot" films of about the same time, starring Ustinov or Finney, or the disaster films also so popular, which had a huge cast of recognizable names in their credits - some of which were a bit past their screen prime.

May I offer a slight correction?
Yes, a Coppola directed all three films, but Francis Ford directed only the first two movies. His daughter directed Godfather III.
And, to put it as kindly as possible, Sophie ain't Francis. I could not get through GF III at all; it was painful to watch.

Just an aside, but the Godfather II is a member of that very exclusive club wherein the sequel is very often judged to be superior (even if only slightly superior) to the first movie.
I'm hard pressed to decide which is better... I think both are cinematic masterpieces in screenplay, casting and directing.
(Another movie in that exclusive club is The Empire Strikes Back)

I could say this in reverse. Why bother seeing the movie if you've read the book? You've already gotten the complete picture. There's nothing to gain. No information that could possibly be ADDED. The reverse can't be said. My point was always you'll never enjoy the movie or show if you've read the book first and I hold to that. All you'll do is complain it's not right and you'll be right. If you see the show first, you'll enjoy both because the book will open you up to hidden treasures of information. I've never had an issue revising my opinion on characters because the books ALWAYS portray them differently and with more nuance to the point I see them as separate anyhow.

I will say, there's been a handful of times I preferred the film to the book (Series of Unfortunate Events (film)) or even the dub (usually only snippets as the show, as a whole, is usually better in the original as a whole (Kiki's Delivery Service)).

Depends on how well the dramatization was done.
I still watch and very much enjoy the 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice because the acting is absolutely phenomenal. The dramatization would have to be pretty accurate (as is the case with this P&P production).
Or maybe the [now established and in high demand] actors are in their breakout roles (as was Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia which is based on a chapter of the The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence).
And sometimes just to see a particular actor in a role you never expected him to be in.
Lots of reasons.

I would strenuously disagree. If all you've got are the movies, you are really missing out on a lot.

Well, yes, of course if all you've got are the movies.
One must make the best of a limited situation and work with what is available.

 

[Olorgando]

May I offer a slight correction?
Yes, a Coppola directed all three films, but Francis Ford directed only the first two movies. His daughter directed Godfather III.

You'd need to tell that to Wikipedia.
Sofia Coppola (she had been the baby being baptized at the end of the first film) was all of 19 when part III premiered. The article on that film clearly states that Francis Ford Coppola directed the film (as well as writing the script with the book's author Mario Puzo. Puzo's book didn't cover events of part III), and the article on Sofia Coppola states that she "made her feature-length directorial debut with the coming-of-age drama The Virgin Suicides (1999)."
What made part III interesting for me was that I'd read David Yallop's 1984 book "In God's Name", which dealt with the surprising death of Pope John Paul I after only 33 days as pope, and more to the point, the involvement of the Vatican Bank in Italian banking scandals of the period, centered on the Banco Ambrosiano.

 

[Deimos]

You'd need to tell that to Wikipedia.
Sofia Coppola (she had been the baby being baptized at the end of the first film) was all of 19 when part III premiered. The article on that film clearly states that Francis Ford Coppola directed the film (as well as writing the script with the book's author Mario Puzo. Puzo's book didn't cover events of part III), and the article on Sofia Coppola states that she "made her feature-length directorial debut with the coming-of-age drama The Virgin Suicides (1999)."
What made part III interesting for me was that I'd read David Yallop's 1984 book "In God's Name", which dealt with the surprising death of Pope John Paul I after only 33 days as pope, and more to the point, the involvement of the Vatican Bank in Italian banking scandals of the period, centered on the Banco Ambrosiano.

MY bad.... I stand corrected 😬. For some reason I remember Sophia being knocked about not only for her acting in GF III but also directing (or maybe "co-directing" it) with her father.

But it was still painful to watch! (That part I will stand by 😁)

 

[Olorgando]

MY bad.... I stand corrected 😬. For some reason I remember Sophia being knocked about not only for her acting in GF III but also directing (or maybe "co-directing" it) with her father.

Maybe daddy let her have a small (uncredited) try at some scene ... and besides, the likes of the "gems" unearthed by Radaghast in his OP of thread below, and others since then, are probably to be found for endless topics in the "post before you think" sector of the Internet:

https://thetolkien.forum/threads/second-guessing-and-misunderstanding-tolkien.30454/post-566323