The Examples of Dumbing - Down

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

When Faramir is talking to his deputy (I don't know who it was, he was never named) before he questions Frodo, they are looking at the map of Middle Earth. Faramir goes on to say something along these lines.<P>"Saruman attacks from Isengard, Sauron from Mordor." and he has this look on his face that says "Ah! It all makes sense now!"<P>This part strikes me as a particularly good example of how the films were 'dumbed-down' for the mass audience.<P>What do you think?

[Meela]

What exactly do you mean by 'dumbed down'? Do you mean the films make things more simple? Like the line Faramir spoke is explaining the situation to the audience?<P>If that's the case, I can see what you mean, but I neither agree nor disagree. Yes, the line does seem rather simple, but I didn't actually notice the look... I saw it as just a comment.

[Sauron 666]

Examples of dumbing down:<P>The Exorcism scene; i half expected Bernard Hill's head to do a 360 and for him to start vomiting pea soup<P>Saruman's role as a pawn of Sauron, as opposed to envying him and trying to outmanover him <P>the wizard fight, even the psychadelic light show in the animated LOTR was better than this. <P>The romance/dream scenes with Arwen in TTT <P>Galadriel's monolgue in TTT seems to be there for exposition but I'm not sure if its necessary <P>whenever dialogue in the book is substituted for drivel like "even the smallest person can change the course of the future" <P>the scriptwriters getting their geography wrong (in TTT, easterlings are coming from the west, Uruk's turning northeast which would take them towards Ruhn we're told takes them towardsd Isengard) <P>How Gimli is nothing more than comic relief (and Gimli's my fav Fellowship member) <P>Overall I understand that film and literature are two different forms with their own seperate rules and its irrealistic to expent them to film LOTR word for word, I think even I wouldn't like it. I don't care what anyone says, I would get very annoyed very quickly if they had let Tom Bombadil in the movie. Still, it could've been a lot worse, can you imagine if they had let someone like jerry brunkheimer produce it? *shudders violently*.<P>my major complain is arwen, but once i get the TTT DVD i can easily skip those scenes . The rest are minor complaints.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Still, it could've been a lot worse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Didn't Disney own the rights to the movie for the longest time? At least it wouldn't have been Gimli providing all the comic relieve; we would have had Bill the talking pony to provide some punch lines.<P>Yes, it could have been a lot worse.<P>As for the map scene, I think it was necessary. Most of us here know Middle Earth geography as well as our own countries' (perhaps better) and we take that for granted. I think it was a clever way to get where everyone was across to the non-book audience. Personally, I would have liked to see a smidge more detail in the map though. It seemed too simplistic to be of practical use.<P>H.C.<p>[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Lord of Angmar]

I found the use of maps to be one of the worst parts of Peter Jackson's films.<P>I wondered how exactly it was that Bilbo (in the Extended Edition of <I>Fellowship</I>), had a map that showed Mordor, even though none of the hobbits knew of Mordor. And then I wondered how Faramir had the <I>exact</I> same map as Bilbo. Did they both purchase them somewhere? Mirkwood perhaps? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Saruman's role as a pawn of Sauron, as opposed to envying him and trying to outmanover him (Sauron 666)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that Gandalf explained the whereabouts of the Ring and the fact that Saruman did not mind that the Nazgul would find the Ring before he did were the most nonsensical part of the entire film. Gandalf would have never betrayed the secret of the Ring to Saruman, and Saruman would have been scared witless if he knew that the Nazgul were going to kill Frodo and reclaim the Ring, and he would be out of the loop.<P>Both of those plotlines were dumbed down, indeed. All in all, I think it did a pretty good job of maintaining its integrity as an interpretation of the book while appealing to the largely non-Tolkienite audiences of the world.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Meela, my point was that Faramir would NEVER treat his second-in-command like he didn't know where Sauron dwelt. The scene is a blatant example of telling the ignorant people in the audience, the ones who don't really care about the story anyway, that Saruman lives in Isengard and Sauron in Mordor.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Dynaviir, before Faramir told you, did you know where Saruman and Sauron were attacking from?

[Arien]

First off:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The scene is a blatant example of telling the ignorant people in the audience, the ones who don't really care about the story anyway, that Saruman lives in Isengard and Sauron in Mordor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And being one of those people you would know? Mmmmm probably just reminding people who's where. I doubt most of them are ignorant, and are probably far from it. And if they didn't care why were they there? (Apart from all those Orlando Fans :rolleyes Why would some go to a movie if they didn't really care about they story anyway? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Saruman attacks from Isengard, Sauron from Mordor." and he has this look on his face that says "Ah! It all makes sense now!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ah, either they intended that or he's not a good actor.....<P>And may I say, of course The Films were...how did you so nicely put it..."Dumbed Down".....It is in fact a complicated story, and to satisfy mass audiences it had to be "Dumbed Down".<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If that's the case, I can see what you mean, but I neither agree nor disagree. Yes, the line does seem rather simple, but I didn't actually notice the look... I saw it as just a comment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree, I too saw it as just a comment, maybe your looking too hard for faults?

[the phantom]

The plot of the book is too detailed to emulate in a movie for the masses.<P>Sure, I'd sit through a fifteen hour movie, but most other people wouldn't.<P>They had to cut some corners, such as the "dumbing down" of the Saruman-Sauron relationship.<P>As far as the map scene goes, I can see how it would help viewers who hadn't read the books. I (and probably most other book fans) could draw a very detailed ME map off the top of my head. But if you haven't read the books, you probably haven't seen the map, which means you're pretty much clueless when it comes to the directions and distances of locations in ME. So I'm sure the map is greatly appreciated among those fans who haven't read the books.<P>So, in summary...<BR>Was the movie dumbed down? Yes.<BR>Was it necessary? Yes.

[Mister Underhill]

Although I have some problems with the films, especially TTT, I’d personally draw a distinction between dumbing down and simplifying things for clarity’s sake. For instance, I don’t have a problem with most of the map use in the movies. If you know a better way of communicating the geography involved, I’d like to hear it. It’s quite reasonable to assume that Bilbo, a widely traveled and worldly-wise Hobbit if ever there was one, would know of Mordor and even have a map which included it. <P>On the other hand, I do agree that the bit with Faramir and the map at Henneth Annûn was a particularly clumsy beat – especially since the filmmakers then subsequently flout geography by having Faramir, Frodo, and the others easily cross Anduin to the western half of Osgiliath, then just as easily travel back to the eastern side after Faramir “sees the light”. <P>In my opinion, the most egregious examples of dumbing down include instances where a voice-over cue from an earlier dialogue scene is dropped in to MAKE SURE YOU REMEMBER. For example, Aragorn’s memory of Gandalf’s words just before they ride out from the Hornburg.<P>Of course, I would also include Elijah Wood’s portrayal of Frodo’s relationship with the Ring as the worst example of all. Instead of scenes with psychological complexity and subtlety, we just have a Frodo who gets woozy when the Ring’s power waxes. I would have loved to have seen a more interesting portrayal of the increasing psychological burden of the Ring, not to mention a more nuanced handling of the Frodo-Sam-Gollum triangle. <P>The Uruks turning “northeast” was a glaring and inexplicable geographical error, but one minor correction should be observed here: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> in TTT, easterlings are coming from the west <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I’d argue that this is correct. Assuming the troops traveled the Harad Road to reach Mordor, they’d have to loop west to east around the shoulders of the Ephel Dúath to reach the Black Gate.<p>[ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Uruks turning “northeast” was a glaring and inexplicable geographical error, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I was hoping they would overdub "northwest" for the DVD. No such luck.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Instead of scenes with psychological complexity and subtlety, we just have a Frodo who gets woozy when the Ring’s power waxes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I completely agree here, though a great opportunity for this comes when Sam puts on the Ring (hopefully) in the next film. In fact, this is when Tolkien not only gave us more detail about how your perceptions change when wearing the Ring, but also it's psychological effects when Sam begins to get visions of covering Mordor with gardens. This is one of the scenes I really hope makes it into RotK.<P>H.C.

[Elentári]

Firstly, do not diss the Orlando fans! I am one! But I was a book fan first, and still am. It isn't like you can only be one or the other! <BR>One point about that map- did you notice that Dagorlad was spelt wrong??!! They spelt it 'Dagorland'!!!<BR>Also, another bit that annoyed me, Éomer said 'We ride North' or whatever, but in the book they had come from the north (hence Aragorn's 'What news from the North?') and were supposed to be going to the Entwade which is south. What possible reason could there be for going off in the entirely opposite direction??? (Btw there may have been some reason given in the film, but I can't remember it and I don't have the dvd. If anyone can remember any explanation in the film, could they please give it?)

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One point about that map- did you notice that Dagorlad was spelt wrong??!! They spelt it 'Dagorland'!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did, & I thought it was rather pathetic. But it seems we're lapsing into posts that should be posted in "It's the little things"...<p>[ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Arien, we obviously have different experiences of speaking with other people who have seen the film.<P>Maybe you only converse with those who are eager and wide-eyed when discussing The Lord of the Rings. In my experience, I've been involved in horribly soul-destroying conversations with people who, like I said before, really couldn't care less about the story. The type who will only do things if lots of other people are doing them too.<P>I wish, and I'm not being sarcastic here, that I could speak to a few more people like the ones you are defending.<P>Don't get me wrong, I know I sounded rather harsh in my earlier post, but I'm not attacking those people. I just think that the scene in Henneth Annun is really bad, and should have been done better.

[Failivrin]

this board so needs a smiley of someone rolling on the floor laughing. i totally agree about the the dumbing down and i got the faramir one. it really annoyed me because it totally interrupted the flow of the film as a whole. i think it would have been best to have a short commentary at the beginning to explain what happened last etc. like there is at the beginning of the book.<BR> and it annoyed me that they dumbed down the two towers themselves to them being orthanc and barad- dur, as if the audience couldn't cope with minas morgul AS WELL! i mean; three towers? thats just confusing!

[The Only Real Estel]

If you want a <I>real</I> example of dumbing down, then read up: I think the worst 'dumbing' line in TTT is Aragorn's to Legolas, "Legolas! What do your elf eyes see?" It's like PJ wanted to make sure the audience still remembered that Legolas is an elf, & consiquently has elf eyes. What's so wrong with, "What do you see?"

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What's so wrong with, "What do you see?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because the first thought that would go through a non-Tolkienite's head would be, "why, is there something wrong with your eyes".<P>H.C.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Because the first thought that would go through a non-Tolkienite's head would be, "why, is there something wrong with your eyes".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess, but I'd just figure it was because Legolas was quite a bit farther along then Aragorn was in that particular scene.

[HCIsland]

But then Aragorn depends upon Legolas' sight again in Fangorn when he spots the "white wizard". There he doesn't say "elf eyes" because it was already established that elves can see great distances in the scene on the plane.<P>H.C.<p>[ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Only Real Estel]

Ok. It just sounds a little cheesy, doesn't it? Kinda like a lot of stuff he put into TTT, I understand why he did it, but I still don't like it all that well.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm not sure about that one Estel. Maybe if Aragorn had turned to the camera and said to the audience;<P>"Elves have fantastic eyesight you see...."<P>

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"Elves have fantastic eyesight you see...."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes that would've been lovely. <P>Aragorn: "Legolas! What do your elf eyes see? For elves, after all, are made with fantastic eyesight, therefore you can see more than me. *whispers to PJ in mid-scene* <I>your sure this isn't to obvious???"</I><P>P.J. whispers back- <I>"Of course not!"</I>

[Failivrin]

haha. i thought gimli finding the hobbit's belt i nthe fire was silly. dwarves weren't said to have had good eyesight. <P>and the whole faramir character annoyed me

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I would have loved to have seen a more interesting portrayal of the increasing psychological burden of the Ring, not to mention a more nuanced handling of the Frodo-Sam-Gollum triangle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Wow! That could make a whole film in itself, Mr U. <P>Actually, given the inevitable limitations involved in bringing these books to the big screen, I don't have a problem with the way the burden of the Ring is portrayed (apart from Elijah's incessantly rolling eyes ). It's just that it all happens <I>too</I> early for me. By the end of TTT, Frodo is already a complete psychological wreck. One can only wonder how much lower he can sink in RotK. <P>So, yes, I would have preferred that this issue be approached with far more subtlety in TTT, with perhaps the occasional hint of the Ring's effect on Frodo (rather than him falling apart at every adverse encounter). Then we could see it really taking a hold of him in RotK. Instead, it's likely to be much of the same, while a real differentiation in its effect on him between the two films would, for me, present a far more emphatic and startling image.

[Liriodendron]

I thought "elf eyes" was real limburger! For me, it sounds so dumb, I don't care if the non readers do need that cue to understand. On the plus side, I always snerk when he says it, it's so funny, it's almost camp!

[Mister Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One can only wonder how much lower he can sink in RotK.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes! I've complained of this elsewhere. Elijah has nowhere left to go for RotK. More wooziness and eye-rolling at the foot of Mt. Doom? Blah. <P>I don't think you necessarily need that much more time for nuance and subtlety. <I>The Empire Strikes Back</I> manages to give the impression of depth and complexity in the Luke-Yoda-Vader triangle of relationships and in Luke's struggle with the temptations of the Dark Side without taking up undue screentime. It's performance, writing, directing choices...<P>Lirioden, we can't seem to get on the same page. I myself have no problem with the "elf eyes" line. The books have numerous opportunities to establish Legolas's extra-keen sight without having to mention it in dialogue. Viggo is an actor who performs with such conviction that I'd be hard-pressed to find camp in any of his scenes. He can take something that should be campy and make it work. If you want camp (or cheese), head to Isengard. Whoo. I mean, I like Christopher Lee as much as the next guy, but wow.

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What possible reason could there be for going off in the entirely opposite direction??? (Btw there may have been some reason given in the film, but I can't remember it and I don't have the dvd. If anyone can remember any explanation in the film, could they please give it?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>well the sad justification, and I hate to make one for PJ believe me, is that Eomer had been exiled and was heading out of town and just happened to come across the Orcs on his wa to greener pastures ...<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yes! I've complained of this elsewhere. Elijah has nowhere left to go for RotK. More wooziness and eye-rolling at the foot of Mt. Doom? Blah. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Very true. <P>I am listening to TTT now as I post, and had too say every five or so minutes to my Tolkien illiterate wife 'this is a fabrication', that didn't happen', etc.<BR>Gurdjieff (http://forum.<BR>barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003564)<BR>hypothesised quite accurately imo, that as things move farther from their source and begining, that with out specific infusions from an higher order events will deteriorate.<P>This is clear in the movies, where it is carried by what fidelity to the script their is, the execellence of certain actors who actually have being [ Viggo, Kate Blanchett, McKellan] and the nature itself.<P>Where we are witness to PJ's 'interpretation' we often see dumbing down, poor directing and generally a 'sliding down the scale/octave<BR>'.<BR>It is a testimony to the greatness of the LotR that it survives as well as it does!

[Liriodendron]

Camp at Isengard? Hmmmm...The little eyebrow raise at the mention of women and children was nice! Heh! Also the hand motions over the palantir! Yes....very good!

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you want camp (or cheese), head to Isengard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Aw, you're just mad at Mr Lee because he refers to the films as capturing the essence of Tolkien, when he should know better. <P>Yes, although I dislike the phrase myself, I suppose that most of the examples cited on this thread can be described as examples of "dumbing down". Indeed, the films themselves represent an overall dumbing down of the magnificent tale told by Tolkien. But isn't this inevitable? The complexity of the novel is such that a significant degree of simplification was required in order to bring them to the big screen and make them accessible (and therefore successful). The films could never hope to capture anything like the scope and complexity of the books.<P>Personally, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I admire the immense amount of effort that went into these films and have enjoyed (and hope to continue to enjoy) them greatly. So, if a bit of dumbing down was required in order for them to be made, then I can live with that. My only real problem is when the attempted simplification of the story-line leads to plot-holes and implausible sequences, such as Frodo's confrontation with the Nazgul in Osgiliath. This is of course always going to be a danger with a story as complex and closely intertweaved as LotR. The quote given by lindil sums this up very well:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... as things move farther from their source and begining, that with out specific infusions from an higher order events will deteriorate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that, given the complex nature of the source material and the need to simplify it (or "dumb it down") so as to appeal to as large a cross-section of society as possible, it was inevitable that inconsistencies and implausibilities would arise. I may not agree with the manner in which Jackson and co went about resolving all of these issues, but on balance I would rather have the films in the way that they have been made than not have them at all.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Where we are witness to PJ's 'interpretation' we often see dumbing down, poor directing ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree with you here, lindil. Dumbing down yes, but poor directing no. Personally, I rate Jackson very highly as a director and I think that the overall standard of directing in these films is exceptionally high. As I have said, I may not like or agree with every single aspect of the films, but overall, I consider them to have been extremely well made indeed.<P>That is only my opinion, of course. But the popularity of these films (and the accompanying resurgence in the popularity of the books, I might add) and the critical acclaim with which they have been met is surely testament to Jackson's skill as a director. Yes, the nature of the source material helped in that he had a wonderful story on which tio base his films, but (as I have noted above) it also hindered, being highly detailed and interwoven and therefore requiring of necessity a dramatic re-working. And, of course he was ably assisted by a largely terrific cast and a higly adept production team. But it is (ultinately) the director's responsibility to select the cast and crew and bring them all together.<P>Jackson set out to bring the books to the big screen, make them accessible and give them mass appeal. He has greatly succeeded in doing so (I think that TTT is something like the third-highest grossing film of all time) and at the same time has received substantial praise from the majority of his peers and the media. Heck, RotK may even be the first fantasy film to win an Oscar. That certainly seems to me to be a job well done! <P>Sorry. I went on there a bit longer than I intended. But I do feel that Jackson does sometimes get an unduly raw deal on these pages, given the amount of effort and (to my mind) devotion that he has put into this project.

[Mister Underhill]

Since I am an infrequent poster in Movies these days, I should make my position clear. <P>I agree, Sauce, that the movies have been made with an extraordinary amount of love and craftsmanship, and I am willing to forgive an awful lot of simplification in the adaptations. And indeed, in spite of any problems I have with the films, I'd rather have them than not, and would rather watch them over many other modern films, if only to steep in the Middle-earth atmosphere for awhile. I'm <I>still</I> pleasantly astounded at how, for instance, they went out and built Edoras on top of that rock in the middle of nowhere. Only a scrappy bunch of Kiwi filmmakers who suddenly had big Hollywood money to play with would go out and do that -- and I love 'em for it. <P>That doesn't keep me from regretting what might have been or disliking choices that I think were particularly bad. The ones that bother me the most are not the mere tweaking of plot events. They're the ones that subvert or gut powerful emotional and thematic aspects of the book. Especially when the choice was obviously made for the sake of a cheap and transitory bit of on-screen conflict. <P>But hey, it's easy to armchair quarterback. And I have to add that I think the Extended FotR a far superior film to its theatrical counterpart, and so am patiently awaiting the Extended TTT to see if it improves my opinion as well. <P><I>"This post... it's getting heavy."</I><P><I>*Underhill's eyes flutter and roll back in his head...*</I>

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am listening to TTT now as I post, and had too say every five or so minutes to my Tolkien illiterate wife 'this is a fabrication', that didn't happen', etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm afraid that happens in my house all to often. After my sister & mom saw it for the first time, evey time afterwards they're like, 'that doesn't seem like something that fits well with Tolkien' & I say 'well...it wasn't actually in the books'. They both hated Faramir so I had to tell them it was different in the books, Merry & Pippin's introduction to Gandalf was different in the books (& I must say I'd rather have seen Pippin get ripped by Gandalf again in front of the gates of Isengard. I like Pippin, but I just can't help it ), etc. So I have to say that a lot too...

[Snowdog]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This part strikes me as a particularly good example of how the films were 'dumbed-down' for the mass audience.<P>What do you think?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, that is so the guy off the street can have some idea what its all about plus it gives everyone an idea at the distances covered.<P>They movies are done well for their part, but will never be the true story as is written.

[Lord of Angmar]

Before I revive this thread, I would like to say that I have the utmost respect for Peter Jackson and would not be nearly as big of a revived Tolkienite today as I am if it were not for his extraordinary films.<P>I do however, see many examples of dumbing down, which is unfortunate but I am sure necessary in many cases from a marketing perspective.<P>In the book chapter "The Council of Elrond," it is made apparent that Boromir does not know what happened to the One Ring, nor do any others in Gondor, or indeed in all of Middle Earth circa the War of the Ring. It is made clear that only a few besides Isildur and Elrond knew that the Ring was cut from Sauron's hands and taken by Isildur. Yet in the movie, Boromir knows the lore of the Ring, as evidenced by his remarks about the picture of Isildur and Sauron that hangs from the wall in the House of Elrond. It seems to me that there is no purpose for Boromir knowing, as it would add to the mystery of the Ring if not even the proud leaders of Gondor knew of the Ring (as was the case in the book).<P>Also, Elrond's stance on Aragorn in <I>The Two Towers</I> is not only dumbed down but somewhat nonsensical. Elrond urges Arwen to forsake Aragorn and thus, Middle Earth. This does not make sense in the context of the Council of Elrond. Also, at the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond had never been to Valinor, and had lived for thousands and thousands of years in Middle Earth. It seems illogical and un-Elvish that he would be so eager to utterly forsake it, especially if only to keep his daughter from her true love? <P>In the books, one can gather the sense that Elrond loves Middle Earth greatly, and is truly torn about his daughter's fate. In the movie, we get the sense that he is only doing what is best for himself and what (he thinks) is best for his daughter. This change in character subtlety from the books to the movies suggests a degree of 'dumbing-down'.<p>[ October 19, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Kalimac]

Lord of Angmar - I agree about Elrond. It's true that in the tale of Aragorn and Arwen, he certainly wasn't friendly to the match, but in the movies he does go a little over the top. It's almost as if he's threatening her, as opposed to being quietly discouraging (sorry, but even in the books I did get the impression that he wouldn't have exactly been downhearted if she had changed her mind). But he shouldn't be quite so loud about it.<P>About Boromir knowing the history of the Ring - I don't really think that's dumbing down, just conflation. It's not really patronizing to the audience to have Boromir knowing the story a bit earlier than he would have otherwise; I think the main reason they did it would be so that they wouldn't have to have the council scene where they recap all the events that we saw at the beginning of the movie! (And they had to show that at the beginning - leaving the Ring's origins mysterious until it was explained at the council, an hour and half in, would have been expecting way too much of any audience). It's true that in the book, Boromir doesn't know until then, but it's not that unrealistic to have him knowing something - after all, in the movie version, there's no reason why the story about Isildur and the Ring disappearing into the Gladden fields shouldn't have gotten out in some way.

[Durelin]

Well, a lot had to be explained, put forward in words stating <I>exactly</I> what was going on, just so the 21st century theater audience could understand the movie. Really, it <I>was</I> needed. Most people are too lazy to read the books, or just actually pay attention to anything that isn't distinctly in front of their noses. It's sad, really. Even this 'dumbing-down' you speak of doesn't help too much. I don't mind it though, there really isn't too much real 'dumbing down,' as any story must explain some things.<P>The Matrix Reloaded is a prime example, in my opinion, of how people really don't care about the content, the plot of a movie if its got cool special effects, big fight scenes, blood, guts, and sex. Sorry to state to so crudely, but there's no other way.<P>I wanted to laugh at how many times the man in front of me had to say 'I don't know' to answer questions from his kids. He did have <I>some</I> answers, and I must say they were creative! <P>(That was all a bit harsh, but I really didn't like the Matrix Reloaded, and I paid 12 dollars for my friend and I to go see it.)

[Essex]

Re Dynaviir’s view on the end of tt BOOK being used in the film<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>they could have made one of the greatest cliff-hanger moments in a film history<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>EXACTLY! <P>I mean, the last line in TT itself is the biggest cliff hanger in literature<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> “Frodo was alive but taken by the Enemy” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>THIS would have been the perfect way to end the film. We know he’s not dead, but now he’s been captured! What on earth is Sam going to do?????!!!!!<P>If they had stopped just short of this, with Frodo supposedly dead then (like Gandalf in FOTR) it would have been the worst kept secret of 2003!<P>Back to dumbing down….<P>1/ The map that Faramir looked at was laughable. It was not detailed enough. It was like the map you might get with the RISK version of LOTR!!!!! <P><B>BUT</B> The films have actually made me think more when reading Saruman’s plight in the books. Seeing Jackson’s view that he was a pawn of Sauron, I cringed when I saw this first in the film. But then re-reading the books, it has made me look more indepth into Saruman, and you CAN take it that he was forced into a position of being a pawn of Sauron (but still trying to get the ring himself behind Sauron’s back)<P>2/ The whole scene of Frodo and Sam leaving straight away, and Gandalf dropping in on Saruman was dumbed down. It was annoying that Gandalf told Saruman he’d found the ring, (the opposite of the book), but Jackson had to do this because Gandalf ‘had to see the head of his order who would know what to do’. In the book, you’ll remember that he didn’t leave to see Saruman, but was asked to go there by Radagaast. (And leaving <B>this</B> scene out, we thus had Gandalf talking to a moth!!!!!!)<P>3/ Why on earth send the hobbits to a pub in the middle of nowhere? Why not send them straight to rivendell? Because Tom Bombadill told them to stay at the inn, and he doesn’t exist in the film.

[Olorin_TLA]

FotR EE did infact make one thing worse.<P>"Greeetings! I am Boromir of Gondor! Why, what's that? A Ring...I...I must have it! It's mine!"<P>*Gandalf speaks Black Speech*<P>"Oh...heheh...jsut a joke of mine, Elrond!"<P>***LATER...***<P>[The Caradhras thing was well done, so I shall respect it and mention it not. Mention it more not. Not mention it anymore. Just...read on, damnit. ]<P>Galadriel: [GREENLY] Boromir is going to steal the Ring, Frodo. And there's nothing you can do. But please...don't mention it to anyone...<P>***LATERER THAN THE PREVIOUS LATER, BEING AS IT WAS IN THE PAST (NOW)...***<P>Boromir: [Madly:] Give It to me!<P>Audience: Didn't see that one coming...

[Maéglin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> *Gandalf speaks Black Speech*<P>"Oh...heheh...jsut a joke of mine, Elrond!"<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh come on, thats dramatising it a bit. The dialogue they used was pretty much the same as they used in the book. <BR>And the line "Give it to me!" seemed like a quite powerful line from Sean Bean to me. And again it was taken exactly from the book :P

[Eurytus]

In reading this thread I would like to make two points. The first is a short one and that is to say that I think that some people are not clear about what ‘dumbing-down’ actually means. To take an example from near the top of this thread, the wizard fight from the first film is hardly an example of dumbing-down. Now you may not like it but it does not really make the film any easier to understand. The same is true to an extent of the Arwen scenes. Now I personally dislike them but they are not dumbing down. If anything they are an attempt to enrich the character of Aragorn. Sure there are examples where they have made things easier to understand but Film and Book are two very different media and it is simply necessary.<P>The second point is that whenever I see these discussions about book versus film, especially on Tolkien sites, I get the distinct impression that people have lost touch with reality when it comes to the book. Don’t get me wrong, I love the book and it will always have a place in my heart for encouraging my interest in reading, but it is far from flawless.<BR>Tolkien is great at invention, that’s for sure. That is the reason I actually prefer the Silmarillion to LOTR, the breadth of invention is so much the greater in that book. But Tolkien is not so good at writing dialogue and creating believable characters. Now some of his dialogue is great but much of it does not sound like someone really talking. It actually sounds like a Shakespearean actor emoting to an audience. Also as the books progress past FOTR the frequency of people saying “Lo” becomes a bit ludicrous. Some of the descriptive passages are a bit dodgy too. There is a scene during the celebrations after Frodo and Sam are brought back from Mordor wherein the joy of the host was “as swords”. Now that is either not good writing or a bit pretentious. <BR>And onto characterisation. I would not argue against the fact that Tolkien has given literature some of its most memorable characters. Gandalf in particular is a superb creation. But some of them are a bit basic to say the least. Take Legolas for example. In the book what does he really do or say that really moves the story along. He is basically an archetype and apart from getting along with Gimli a bit, goes through no real character development at all. And Boromir is even more problematic. Apart from a couple of memories from Pippin, Boromir is reduced to little more than a pantomime villain. The fact he snatches the ring is of little surprise. Added to the fact that (to the reader at least) Faramir is constantly shown to be so much more honourable and Boromir comes across as a little sad. In fact, Boromir is one of the areas where I really believe the film improves the book. In the film Boromir came across as a character I really felt sympathy for. His scene with Aragorn, fighting with the Merry and Pippin, and in the EE his short conversation with Frodo in Lorien really brought the character to life. In the film Boromir is a much more admirable character than in the book. He wants the ring, that’s true, but only for his people. They removed the stuff about him wanted to drive the enemy and the references to his own glory. That, to me, made the character so much the richer.<P>There were other similar touches, like Theoden breaking down and crying before his son’s tomb that I thought were also superb.<P>I guess in summation I would say that Tolkien’s characters are all too often little more than archetypes. All too often they are portrayed as having little feeling, and hardly ever do you really get inside the characters head. Compare this to the characterisation in something like George RR Martin’s a Song of Fire and Ice series and you will see what I mean.<P>Sometimes I get the opinion that some people would stand for nothing less than having the book made exactly as per the text, even though that would have meant at least 6 films in all likelihood. Six films would not have been financed; they would have been reduced to making one and seeing how that went. If the first film went exactly as per the first book of LOTR then it would likely have not been as popular as the first film actually was and hence the latter films would have been made on a reduced budget. We simply would not have got the time and investments we received this time around.<P>For my money PJ made a superb film. I cannot remember many films made with such obvious care and enthusiasm for the source material, a review of the EE special features reveals that clearly enough. If ROTK matches the other two then we will have had the best trilogy in movie history (in my opinion), the highest grossing movie trilogy in history (not adjusted for inflation) and a consequent revival of the fantasy genre. All of which is too the good. It seems churlish to forsake all that because Bombadil wasn’t in it or Boromir’s hair was the wrong colour.<BR>Sometimes, it is all too easy to forget what we have here. I still remember my excitement when I heard they were making the LOTR into a film. But that was tempered with my fears of all that could go wrong. Was it too big a project for PJ (a comparatively untried director, especially for films of this nature), would Hollywood balls up the casting (Sean Connery for Gandalf!! Some bankable star for Aragorn.), could the special effects convincingly portray hobbits (please no Willow), would it even get made in full?<BR>With all that could go wrong I think we can be truly happy how things turned out. Compare FOTR to the Ralph Bakshi cartoon and try to see any comparison. For me all my doubts about the films vanished with that first shot of Bag-End, as Gandalf’s cart went through the cutting, the camera rose and the music soared. I am not ashamed to say that it nearly brought tears to my eyes. After reading the books as a child the Shire was damn near the landscape of my childhood. There was an Old Forest down in the country near where I lived. One of the villages looked like Bree to my eyes. And seeing Bag-End, up on screen, exactly as I had imagined it brought it all back for me. Could the interior of Bag-End have looked any better? After, that seeing the note-perfect performance by Ian McKellen as Gandalf just made it all the better. His subtle expression change when Frodo says he will take the ring at Rivendell was priceless and worth the price of admission alone. And there are many such moments in the films. Too many to count.<P>Let’s glory in them. December will come all too soon for me. Then they will be gone and we may never see their like again.

[Maéglin]

You do realise that the dialogue in Tolkien's text were based on medieval expressions and vocabulary or at least what Tolkien perceived them to be. I'm not saying Tolkien was perfect but the expression "Lo!" could easily translate to "Damn!" if i understood its meaning correctly. So personally I do not think its dodgy in any way. Although I admit Aragorn's words to Eowyn after she and Faramir's engagement was quite confusing. So many thee's, thou's and thy's <P>I do understand the need to change the dialogue in order to appeal or for audience to relate to. I can agree on the point that some aspects of the book have been enhanced for the visual medium however. That example you mentioned about "their joy were like swords" I can somewhat understand in that swords are long and bright. So perhaps Tolkien was just trying to say their joy was great. But the use of the simile really enhances the meaning if one bothers to look beyond literal meanings, not that I mean you're not or anything.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Let’s glory in them. December will come all too soon for me. Then they will be gone and we may never see their like again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>To that I will say, there are always DVDs and ever increasingly bigger television sets <P>PS: The trilogy was made simultaneously with final editing of course before the release date so once PJ got the funding it was *insert evil laugh* Probably not but we can only dream<p>[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Maéglin ]

[Essex]

Eurytus,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don’t get me wrong, I love the book and it will always have a place in my heart for encouraging my interest in reading, but it is far from flawless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It is as near to flawless as I can see. The plot is perfect, the prose is beautiful, and the descriptions of the land are stunning. But also the atmosphere and heroics work superbly. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But Tolkien is not so good at writing dialogue….<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Tolkien has given English literature some of the most quotable dialogue ever! I won’t even start as I’ll be here for a couple of hours writing it down!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>…..and creating believable characters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What? Have you ever felt for any characters more in a book? I have not. (Please let me know and I’ll give those books a read!). Didn’t you cry for Sam, Frodo, Pippin and Merry? I’m not ashamed to say I did. Some characters where not so ‘3 dimensional’, but you’ve got a sweeping epic here. One of Tolkien’s points in the prologue was that the book was not long enough. If it was longer, we may well have seen more of (say Legolas’s) character.<P>His superb characterisation can best be seen in Book 4, (the best book in the whole LOTR), where we see Frodo Sam and Gollum trek towards Mordor. Stunning.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now some of his dialogue is great but much of it does not sound like someone really talking. It actually sounds like a Shakespearean actor emoting to an audience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maeglin has already answered this. All I can say is that the language is beautiful, and works well with the story.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Tolkien has given English literature some of the most quotable dialogue ever! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Totally and utterly disagree. This dialogue is simply not quoted at all outside of Tolkien fan circles.<P>Whatever the quality compare quotes from Star Wars, Jaws, Casablanca or in literature, The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange.<P>I am sorry but Tolkien is not good at dialogue and it was not because he was trying to create an old-english style mythology. He was with the Silmarillion and hence I have no problem with the dialogue in that. But LOTR is first and foremost entertainment and it was written as a book for the 20th century. Taken in that context it is simply not good in terms of dialogue and characterisation.<P>As for a suggestions as you ask. I already mentioned it, A Song of Fire and Ice. Simply put the characters in that are 10 times more believable in their motivations and reactions than Tolkiens.<BR>LOTR may be a classic. But to claim it is nearly flawless is not realistic. Put simply there is better dialogue in the SS Indiana scene in Jaws than in nearly the whole of LOTR. That one scene, with a minimum of dialogue tells us more about the three lead characters in Jaws than does the whole of LOTR tell us about Legolas. And he is one of the major Characters!

[Eurytus]

Perhaps it would be easier for me to summarise my point of view like this. The major thing a book needs to contain is believable characters.<BR>Any book that spends more time describing the landscape than it does the main characters feelings, viewpoints and trials has a major problem. Frodo and Sam apart you very rarely get any real insight into what makes these characters tick.<P>Ask yourself this. Aragorn's love for Arwen is one of the major things that drives him on. He wins a kingdom, in part to satisfy her father's condition for winning her hand. Tell me, in all 1,000 plus pages of LOTR, do we have find out anything of value about WHY Aragorn loves her? What he really feels about their relationship? This relationship is a VERY important part of the build-up of one the main characters psyche and yet is it given less word-count than the description of Tom Bombadils House.

[Liriodendron]

The "beautiful" language used in the characters dialogue is my absolute favorite thing about LoTR! I would not want it any other way! The elf eyes line is in the book, but Gimli is saying it, as a joke. I don't care for Aragorn using it, it doesn't fit his distinguished, eloquent character. I could hear Aragorn saying....."Alas that I do not have the vision of the elves! Legolas, tell me, what do you see?"....if the point of superb elven vision needs to be made quickly, but not "What do your elf eyes see?" <BR>Middle Earth is a noble, dignified world, where beautiful speech is used, (except in the Shire, maybe! ) I interpret the beautiful speech as one vehicle to show the beauty, and lofty ideals of the "good" characters. The orc's foul, coarse language, just the opposite. Language was very important to Tolkien! He got it right! (IMO) <BR>As far as the Arwen /Aragorn storyline, I can figure that out (why his love for her was one of his motivations) easily, I didn't need a love chapter in this fascinating, already overly complex tale! Tom Bombadil's house was far more interesting! <p>[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> To that I will say, there are always DVDs and ever increasingly bigger television sets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>True, but we will never have that nervous wait until the next film comes out will we. With the questions we wanted answered.<P>How will they do the Balrog?<P>What will Shelob look like?<P>How on earth can they do Gollum with CGI?<P>And just how cool with the Battle of the Pelennor Fields be?<P>I can't wait for the third film to come, and the EE DVD too and yet I am sad that it has to come to an end.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm not saying Tolkien was perfect but the expression "Lo!" could easily translate to "Damn!" if i understood its meaning correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Unfortunately I do not have my copy of the book with me so I will be unable to furnish the correct quote but here is my problem with it. Now apart from Lo being very antiquated language (and before you say but it’s meant to be, Book 1 and to an extent Book 2 got along without it fine) my main problem with it is this.<P>It is overused and doing so creates a very false impression. Indeed it is one of the reasons I mentioned the comparison to Shakespearean actors ‘emoting’ on stage. Now there is nothing wrong with Shakespeare, but the language used in Shakespeare is so used because it is written for a play. There are limits to what you can show in a play so often the actors will have to describe what is happening. They will say things like “see how our foes turn tail and run, weak at the knees with fear”. Now that is not Shakespeare (you will no doubt have noticed) but the principle behind it applies to the use of Lo in LOTR.<P>There is a specific example towards the end of Book 5 when Aragorn uses the word “Lo” several times in just a couple of paragraphs. He is basically describing events on the battle field or some-such, I forget the exact specifics. But what is important here is that he is describing something that is happening to the reader. Now in situations like this the old adage holds true. “Don’t tell me, show me.” The story is far more engaging when you are right there enmeshed in the story. When you have a character start describing what is happening right in front of them it takes you out of viewing the story from their eyes and plonks you down watching a Shakespearean play.<P>Such instances take away from the story in my opnion.<P>And as to Bombadil’s house being more interesting than Aragorn’s motivation. Well I guess that’s why Bombadil has not been included in either film version or the radio version. Most people who adapt these stories know that what engages an audience is not what landscapes the characters are walking through but what they feel and why. What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take, make the wrong decisions they take.<P>That is where LOTR’s weak point lies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Eurytus, I can see the point that you are making, but I think that you overstate it. I would never say that LotR is flawless in technical terms. But, of all the books that I have read (including a good many "classics" as well as popular fiction), it is the one which I have most enjoyed and which has made the greatest impression on me. Of course, there are many who disagree, who regard it as "just a good yarn", or who slightly deride, or actively dislike, it. And there are numerous academics who argue that it can never be counted among the classics because it is "only fantasy" or by because it suffers from the supposed technical flaws that you have identified. Witness its treatment by the "media" and "academic" panelists on the BBC's "Top 21 Books" program the other night (which I thought was shameful - one woman described it as "rubbish" having not even read it - "life's too short," she said ).<P>But there are a good many other people (including myself) who would count it as their favourite book, regardless of whether it might also be regarded as a technical masterpiece. It has, after all, made it in to the BBC's "Top 21" (and it will be interesting to see how it fares now).<P>But all this talk of the merits of the book is rather off topic. This is the film forum, after all. Nevertheless, it is the great love that people here have for the book (technical flaws aside) which is behind the adverse reaction that the changes made in the films frequently receive on these pages. Sometimes this is too extreme for my tastes (the "Arwen hatered" syndrome, for example), and sometimes I do think that people risk being as "snobbish" about the films as the likes of the BBC panelists were about the book. But at the same time, loving the book as I do, I can understand where they are coming from.<P>Personally, I don't mind the changes per se. It is when they lead to plot holes that I have my doubts about them. But, you are right, a fairly large degree of "dumming down" was essential, given the complexity of the story told in the book and the sometimes archaic language used. I made this point earlier in this thread, when I said I thought that this was a good thing overall since it makes the films accessible to all, not just the Tolkien afficionados. Without it, there is a good chance that these films would never have been made (at least not on such a grand scale with such amazing visuals). <P>Incidentally, I do dislike the term "dumming down", used in the context of these films. It suggests that anyone who sees the films but has not read the book is ignorant, which is manifestly not the case. They just don't have the inclination to read the book, which is of course their right. It does not mean that they necessarily are any less intelligent than those who have read the book.<P>I think that someone mentioned "Matrix Reloaded" earlier on this thread, which I saw on DVD recently and would certainly regard as a film which could have done with some "dumming down", or perhaps I should say explanation, for those like me who are not "Matrixites". I have seen the first film, but that was some time ago now, and so I spent the first 20 minutes of this film wondering what an earth was going on. Once I had worked that out, I had to go back and replay some of the opening scenes again. And I don't regard myself as a "dummy" . I can therefore imagine how the LotR films might have been received by non-readers had the story not been simplified in the way that it was.<P>Finally, I had an interesting conversation last night (in the context of the BBC's "Top 21" list) concerning the extent to which the films may have lessened the degree of seriousness with which the book is regarded. Has the reduction of the story to blockbuster film status, and the simplification that this has necessarily involved, reduced the standing of the book in any way? Personally, I think not, since (as I touched on earlier) there have always been, and will always be, those who will never regard this book as a serious work of literature.

[Essex]

your point <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And as to Bombadil’s house being more interesting than Aragorn’s motivation. Well I guess that’s why Bombadil has not been included in either film version or the radio version. Most people who adapt these stories know that what engages an audience is not what landscapes the characters are walking through but what they feel and why. What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take, make the wrong decisions they take. <BR>That is where LOTR’s weak point lies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book. This is not a weak point. Bombadil is not about just walking through a landscape as you insinuate above. It is about the LEVEL of control the ring had (not total), the history of middle earth (the barrow wights), the mysterious forces of nature (old man willow, bombadil and goldberry), and the NEED for Frodo et all to get off the road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and for merry to get his sword, not to be given one from Galadriel…….<P>The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. Jackson’s is definitely not!!!!!<P>PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language.<P>PPS one of Jackson's worst descisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (ie not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarissing to hear them speak like this).<P>ppps, you point on <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>what motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film:<P>1/ Merry<BR>2/ Pippin<BR>3/ Legolas<BR>4/ Gimli<P>NOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book. ie why they followed and were part of the fellowship. Oh yeah, we can't show that in the film because of 'pacing'. I forgot. <P>The Book wins over the film hands down. Don't get me wrong, the films are excellent, and jackson has done a great, but not flawless job. film 9 out of 10 book 10 out of 10!

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

Well, I would certainly agree that the characters in the books are undeveloped, but I do not necessarily agree that this constitutes a fatal flaw.<BR>In my opinion, as this is a history of the War of the Ring, the characters are only mentioned at all for the part they played in it. Therefore minor details such as the colour of Legolas' hair are frankly irrelevant. I suppose the places were described more vividly to create the world more fully- and IMO it certainly worked. I could go on much longer, having written about 8 pages on the subject for my English coursework, but what I have just said pretty much sums it up for me and so I won't bore you. Certainly the book has its flaws, and the films no less, but the book's strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. I would have to say its main strength is the sheer depth it goes into, with all the details of these separate languages and cultures that you find in each place- like Lothlórien, the Shire, Rivendell, Rohan, Gondor...oops, I said I wouldn't continue... <P>EDIT: Ahh yes, one last thing...frankly I was glad all these versions have left Tom Bombadil alone, because I think he is too individual and 'out-of-this-world' for any actor to achieve without him simply looking ridiculous, which he certainly is not in the book.<P>Oh yeah, and I think I recall that Merry and Pippin followed the Ring in the films because they were listening when they shouldn't have been and decided that they didn't want to be left behind. Not sure about the others though...<BR> <p>[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1 ]

[Olorin_TLA]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><P>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> *Gandalf speaks Black Speech*<BR>"Oh...heheh...jsut a joke of mine, Elrond!"<P>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Oh come on, thats dramatising it a bit. The dialogue they used was pretty much the same as they used in the book. <BR>And the line "Give it to me!" seemed like a quite powerful line from Sean Bean to me. And again it was taken exactly from the book :P <P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, I wasn't being sarcastic there. I was just pointing out how they <I>have</I> to basically slam the audience's face into the fact that Boromir's going to take the Ring isntead of letting it happen as some form of sursprise. For all PJ's talk of making Faramir "better" (ie: worse, imo) he should have paid more attentionm to that greta element of "surprise!" <BR>I actually really like what he did with old Boromir. Made me really like the poor guy. I just wish someone had siad at the Council of Elrond "Um...hang on...that guy's not safe to go with them!" after all PJ's zaniness.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Eurytus, I can see the point that you are making, but I think that you overstate it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Saucepan Man, yours was a good post and in reference to the above, I am aware that I may be overstating it and that, in part, is in response to comments like the below;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. Jackson’s is definitely not!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>People are describing the book as flawless so I hope I can be granted a little leeway. Bear in mind, after all, that I did state that LOTR is one of my favourite books. But favourite is not always best.

[Eurytus]

Essex, your point about the changes required and what should be emphasises was as follows;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Pretty much corroborates my main point. You say it yourself, a film is not a book. Therefore changes have to be made.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In regards to the above point. That is true of the Silmarillion. It was not originally true of the LOTR. That Tolkien later changes his mind is apparent from the sudden shift in the books tone subsequent to FOTR and especially after Rivendell. LOTR was originally started as a sequel to the Hobbit. Nothing more. Hence why Aragorn was originally a Hobbit called Trotter with wooden shoes!!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> one of Jackson's worst descisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (ie not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarissing to hear them speak like this). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually I can see why this decision was made. There is a precedent within Tolkien’s own writing. The Trolls in the Hobbit talk with a distinctly Cockney feel and this may well be where the idea came from.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> what motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film: <BR>1/ Merry<BR>2/ Pippin<BR>3/ Legolas<BR>4/ Gimli <BR>NOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In my opinion their motivations were not much better handled in the book. Sometimes comically so. Legolas basically appeared to be on a jolly although it was hard to tell given his comparative muteness.<BR>As to your other point,<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Whilst I disagree to some extent with the first point. Great characters can effectively do very little in terms of plot and still make a story interesting. Whereas a great plot will still be hamstrung by paper-thin characters, if we debate it we will get in endless debates about their relative importance.<P>However as regards the second point. Well I regard that as well wide of the mark. Firstly I will say that I cannot think of any work of art that can be termed flawless. Perhaps only Ein Kleine Nachtmusik by Mozart and Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony come close to me.<BR>In fact, take Salieri’s comment about Mozart’s music in the film Amadeus, “take away one note and there would be diminishment, take away a phrase and the structure would fall.” That is about as close to a description of flawless as one could get. Does it apply to LOTR. In my opinion, clearly not.<BR>So what do I think are the flaws in LOTR? Well a couple would be as follows;<P>1. The Dark Lord Sauron. A being of supreme evil, already somewhat of a cliché even by the time LOTR was written. Hell even the Wicked Witch had more characterisation than Sauron. The best villains for me are the ones you can understand. You may not agree with them, you may hate them, but you should be able to see why (in their opinion) what they are doing is desirable. Can this be said of Sauron? Not really. Why does he want to conquer Middle Earth? What would he do with it when he has conquered it? Why? None of these questions are clearly answered and all you are left out is a cardboard cut-out villain. He is evil because, well he just is, and all you need to know is that he opposes the good guys. For a great villain study the character of Jaime in a Song of Fire and Ice. For the first two books he is seen through the eyes of other characters and you hate him. But by book three you start to see things through his eyes and whilst it does not diminish the evil that he does. You can, at least, see why he thinks it necessary. The mark of great writing in my opinion.<BR>2. The ring. The ring was the only thing that Tolkien could think of to tie his two books together. He had originally planned to have Bilbo try to return his treasure but then settled on the ring as the important element. As a result some aspects of the Ring seem a bit haphazard. Firstly why does Sauron forge it? Well for power would be the obvious answer but do we really see any examples of the power this grants him. No. We don’t. Indeed shortly after forging it he is shown the worthlessness of his ring when the Numenoreans scare him rigid. It is interesting to note that he brings about their downfall without needing to rely on the Rings great power at all. In the book it does not appear to avail him any in the battle with Elendil and Gil-Galad either. In fact it seems to be more of a problem than a benefit.<BR>3. The Orcs. It has to be said that creating a race for your book that is born evil and incapable of anything other than evil is a little lazy. Basically it allows your pure-blooded heroes to slaughter thousands of them with total impunity. Far better to have some more shades of grey in there I think.<BR>4. Not dealing with the more interesting moral questions. One of the ones that interests me is the question of the Dunlendings. In the distant past they were evicted of their land by the blond haired, blue eyed Rohirrim. When they ally with Saruman to attempt to get their land back they are given a damn good kicking. Why is no attempt made to deal with the legitimacy of the Dunlendings claim to live on that land. Was it right that the Rohirrim evicted them from the lands? Seemingly it was fine. Why? Because the Rohirrim are the good guys so don’t ask questions.<BR>5. Lack of real loss. Tolkien vehemently hated being accused of this but I am afraid it does ring true. Frodo apart, no-one really suffers any in this story. Given that the heroes are often going up against near impossible odds the fact that they all come home again with hardly a scratch is very unrealistic and all the harping on about Frodo getting no credit and having to leave home won’t change that.<BR>6. Cardboard characters. See Legolas and to a lesser extent Gimli. I can’t see how there is no time to develop them in a 1,000 page book. With Legolas the shallowness of his character is near ludicrous. As well as that we have Boromir aka Bad Brother and Faramir aka Good Brother. Far too simple by far in the book.<BR>7. Tom Bombadil. I have already stated how vital Tom Bombadil appears to be. i.e. he isn’t. All adaptations take him out. Why? Because he is an indulgence on Tolkien’s part. He was put in originally because he was based on a toy that one of Tolkien’s children owned and later Tolkien ascribed nuances of him being the spirit of the Oxfordshire countryside onto him. Either way totally non-vital to the plot. Frankly nothing made me happier than when he was left out of the film. A stoned, dwarf hippy with yellow books would have invoked laughter from much of the cinema going public. And not in a good way.<BR>8. An inability to start the quest. How many ‘safe houses’ does Frodo visit en route to Rivendell? Answer, too many. Let’s see. He has supper with the Elves, has the same with Maggot, has a nice bath in Crickhollow, the same with Bombadil, gets looked after to an extent by Butterbur too. Those first 4 happen in the space of less than a week. Jesus Frodo, get going boy.<BR>9. Convenient events. All too often the good guys have something happen to get them out of a jam. The most talked about of which is, of course, the Eagles. Throughout the Hobbit and the LOTR they show up to rescue Bilbo and Co, help out at the Battle of the Five Armies, save Gandalf from Saruman, pick up Gandalf from the top of the mountains after his duel with the Balrog, turn up at the Battle at the Black Gate and then go to rescue Frodo and Sam. Forget about the Istari, Manwe should just have sent more Eagles. Added to them you have the Ents and Huorns sorting out Saruman and Saruman’s army at Helms Deep and The Deadmen sorting out the fleet of Corsairs near Pelagir. All in all there are too many occasions when the heroes are helped out.<BR>10. As I have already mentioned you also have the preference of description of surroundings to what goes on inside the characters heads (the latter is always more interesting) and the pompous dialogue that takes over in ROTK.<BR>11. The latter point also illustrates that the LOTR is an uneven book. It starts out as a sequel to the Hobbit and then progresses into a sequel to the Silmarillion and the transition is not as seamless as it could be.<P>I think in total that to describe LOTR as flawless is a stretch too far. It’s a good book certainly and we can give thanks that it invigorated (though did not invent) the Fantasy market. But when you start claiming that the book is sacrosanct and that any change is blasphemy well there is really only one solution that one can suggest isn’t there. Make a version that satisfies yourself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread has has taken a turn that is not only off-topic, but even off-forum! Since it began as a movie discussion, I can't really move it to the Books forum. However, I ask those who would like to discuss the merits of the book to find an appropriate thread on the Books forum or begin a new one there. Thanks!

[Eurytus]

I would only say that I am aware that my last post was 'book heavy'. However since many of the arguments in this thread are taking the form of "any change from the book is bad because the book is flawless" I do think that combating the idea that the book is flawless is necessary to illustrate that some changes were required.<P>However maybe my last post was a bit too 'involved'.

[Essex]

Eurytus,<P>I think I'll start a new thread in the books section to reply to you.<P>But when did I say that Jackson's was a bad film?<P>We seem to get two extremes of people in these forums. one lot loves the books and defend them, another lot love the films and defend them. It is hard to find the middle ground.<P>but to me, the films ARE dumbed down, and have to be. But what I will never agree on is adding in extra scenes just for "action's" sake, as Jackson does. This leads to more 'dumbing down'.<P>Anyway, see you in the book section......

[Essex]

Eurtyus. my reply to our long winded argument is now in a Duming down the books thread in the books section