Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
Well, I expect that their success certainly meant something to those who produced them, since they will have made a lot of money out of them. 
Of course, Tolkien was not motivated by the desire to make money from his books, although he certainly welcomed the income in his later years. Had he set out with the intention of profiting from them, they would have been very different books indeed. But then he would have been a different person. Nevertheless, I think that we do inevitably have to take commercial considerations into account when considering the films.
I would certainly not describe the LotR films as being of poor quality. We can certainly debate the extent to which they adhere to Tolkien’s style, themes and values, and I can understand those who react against them (to whatever degree) in consequence of their difference to the book in this regard. But “poor quality”? As films? As compared with other films of the same or similar genre? Well, it’s a matter of opinion I suppose. But I would not describe them in those terms and neither, I suspect, would the majority of those who have seen them.
I tend to think that, had the films adhered more to Tolkien’s style and his original story, they would still have been popular, but moderately rather than extraordinarily so. They would not have had the mass appeal that they have generated. Which, given the funding required to make them, could well have made the difference between success or failure in financial terms. On that basis, I can understand many of the decisions that were made (the “dumbing down, as you decribe it, although I dislike that term and do not think that it fully or fairly represents the approach taken in the films). Certainly, I can understand why the production team and the backers (who would have been involved, given their financial interest) decided to “play it safe” in many respects, particularly as they rather went out on a limb in deciding/agreeing to make three films and film all of them together over a single period. |
I too would certainly not describe the movies as poor quality - they were good, altough not, IMO, masterpieces as Essex describes them. I was merely trying to point out that successful films in general do not necessarily denote quality.
The question of mass appeal is again speculative. Basing my feelings on a non-book reader's perspective, I would still argue that people who came to watch the movie may have acclaimed the films moreso if there was less slapstick and better witty humour.
I am pretty sure that the financial backers would not have lost anything in terms of commercial success if the movies portrayed characters such as Gimli more seriously.