Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I think that's why they fail for me - this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond, though we know at first he held out little hope for that. I've just finished reading 'The Lord of the Rings:The Films. the Books, The Radio Series' by Jim Smith & J Clive Matthews (Virgin Books) & their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably. They criticise Tolkien on virtually every page while praising Jackson & the writers for putting right all his numerous 'faults'.
|
I agree that the movies were dumbed down, though I am sure PJ would characterize it differently.
Tolkien created a masterpeice. PJ a bastardized 'hit'.
I have been criticized for using the 'bastardized' word in regards to PJ and his work before, but it really works best in a literal way.
PJ took something refined, morally uplifting, challenging, linguistically subtle and powerful and did something very different and very hollywood with it.
In virtually every case where he invents [or approves PB's inventions] the result is often pitiful.
I mean seriously, would any sane person not want to use absolutely as much of JRRT's dialogue as possible? Any substitution of JRRT's dialogue w/ recently fabricated hollywoodisms is and was a sad thing.
I wanted to like the movies I reallty did, and can pretty much enjoy the exp. FotR. but I lost all interest in the films after RotK. We have the expanded RotK, but I have never wanted to endure another watching to see what the actors and Howe and Lee managed top salvage of PJ's attack on M-E.
So I concur wholeheartedly
Beleg C, it was dumbed down, and maybe it truly had to be, but then, maybe better to not do it, or maybe as Alf says in Smith of Wooten Major, "better a glimpse of Fairy than none of all".
-------------------------
addendum
Lalwende makes a few excellent points about old-timers and criticism and they all c ertainly apply to me. But I would say this, If the movie wee done with the same love of Tolkien and integrity as this website and forum is run by the Admins, it would have been a true masterpiece in far more peoples eyes.
Accomadations to modern tastes may be sweet for a season but it will never endure as long or deeply as JRRT's writings. They movies are destined I imagine to be a more than a footnote, but not much more, in the History of M-E.
Quote:
|
Lalawende posted:But this is the very essence of dumbing down, that we should automatically assume that some people would be unwilling or unable to grasp, appreciate and enjoy more high-falutin' arts and entertainment. If the films had retained the more complex language and concepts then they would not have repelled anybody. Case in point, the well known BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice did not shy away from Austen's wonderful, yet to us somewhat archaic, dialogue and it was an immense success. Tarantino films are linguistically and symbolically complex but this does not prevent hordes of youths from adoring those films, and likewise, the Matrix trilogy got extremely thorny at times, but there was enough action and 'cool' stuff going on to keep the audiences coming through the doors. There is more than enough action in LotR to grip a non-reading audience and so there was simply no need to denegrate so much of the beautiful language from the books.
|
A long quote but 100% spot on imo.