Dumbing it down

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, I'm requoting what I quoted yesterday, because I think it sums up where the moviemakers went wrong. Its not only Tolkien's invented world that is strange & unique, but in many ways its also his characters. These beings, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, are not 'just like us'. They are not characters we are meant to 'identify' with. What the writers have done is take a 'legendary' figure like Aragorn, a being with supra-human wisdom, strength of character & a high destiny, & traduce him into an angst-ridden 'new man'. All the characters in the movie have to a greater or lesser degree lost their uniqueness, & have become 'cliches'. I'm not impressed by the movie characters because I've seen them in a thousand & one other movies. These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

All the depth, the strangeness, the 'queerness', of Middle earth has been sacrificed & replaced 'hollywood standard' 'characters'. Yes, there are moments when something of the real Middle earth & its denizens shines through, when the light of another world briefly illumines us from the screen, but not nearly as often or as brightly as it should.

Mae lammen, (Well spoken) davem. That’s exactly it, in their attempt to make the characters into something that people can identify with, they lose the real meaning. These characters are like Beowulf, and so many other heroes, they are powerful, they are more then human, more then the norm, they are people that lead, that men will follow because they are more then just someone that Joe-shmo can relate to they are not stereotypes. They are based on an old ideal that the great will lead and men will follow them because of that. But not just because they just powerful but because they are good they have wisdom and the many other things that men will look for. Aragorn is not weak, he is not just a man, he is a King and the men will follow their king. It was stated that in the paths of the dead that the men only stayed because of their love for Aragorn, and his will alone that held them fast to follow him through.

This sadly, never quite comes through in the movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Saucepan, please realise that I feel for you, fending off us ferocious dogs single-handedly like you are!

Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate.

Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

However, a point I would like to send to you is this: I realise that the films have been immensely successful, but should mass opinion really be the barometer of quality here?

Fair point. No, I don’t think that it should necessarily be a measure of quality. But, to my mind, quality has always been a very subjective thing. My own personal opinion is that these films are extremely high quality in comparison with other films in the same and similar genres, but I value the book more. However, I do think that mass appeal is an appropriate measure when we are considering whether it was right to make changes to the story and characters or not. Films such as LotR have to be have mass appeal or they do not get made. And the film-makers clearly felt that they had to make changes in order to give the films that broad appeal.

Which does raise an issue that has clouded the discussion somewhat so far (and this may have been my fault for suggesting that the changes were necessary to make the film “relevant and accessible”). Not all of the changes were made in order to achieve that end. Many of them, including some of those discussed here, were made in order to fit them within the 3½ to 4 hours’ of screen time available for each film. This, for example was why The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs were excluded. Such changes and omissions were necessary, but they will inevitably have had knock-on effects in a story as tightly-wrought and complex as the one that Tolkien was telling in LotR. Without the Barrow Downs and the discovery of the Barrow Blades, for example, it is unclear why Merry’s sword has the power to wound the Witch-King. An explanation could have been given but it would have taken up precious time, and it does not really impair the films in any significant way. To my mind, a far more grievous omission (perhaps because Merry and Pippin are two of my favourite characters) is A Conspiracy Unmasked. Merry and Pippin simply bump into Frodo and Sam in Farmer Maggot‘s Field, and that’s it. They are off on a perilous Quest with them without even stopping to cancel the papers. But, again, I can understand the omission and their loyalty and friendship to Frodo is put across well enough not to make it a major issue.

Other changes were made because the film-makers wanted to bring across particular themes, such as the weakness of Men and the power of the Ring. Again, they have knock-on effects, but any film-maker will want to concentrate on particular themes to give the film greater cohesion, and what they choose will depend upon their individual interpretation. And yet more changes were made because the way that the story is told in the book would not have worked on film. In my view, this explains the concurrent, rather than sequential, telling of the tales of the War of the Ring (on the one hand) and the journey of Frodo and Sam (on the other), the movement of Shelob to the third film and the absence of the Scouring of the Shire.

I accept that none of these changes necessarily make the films any more or less popular. They are simply a function of the film-making process. I defy anyone to go away and produce a workable screenplay from the book for three 3½ to 4 hour films and come away without a bunch of gaping plot-holes.

But what we are really concerned with here is the changes that were made in order to make the films more “relevant and accessible”. Those that were intended to give it that mass appeal. These changes include Legolas’ stunts, the lengthening of the action sequences (which restricted the time available for other aspects of the books), the heavy use of special effects, the modern phraseology, the rationalisation of certain characters (Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Imrahil, Beregond etc), the increased role of other characters (such as Arwen), Gimli’s wise-cracks, and those moments that tended to provoke cheers amongst film audiences (such as Gandalf whacking Denethor). And I do firmly believe that all of these aspects of the films did go towards widening their appeal. We may not like some, or even all, of them (perhaps because they impinge on that “sacred text”), but for many others these moments were among the highlights of the film. Legolas’ shield-surfing is not to my taste, but I have seen people say (on this forum and elsewhere) that this was one of their favourite moments. I can well imagine word spreading of a good-looking Elf who did amazing stunts, thereby piquing the interest of those to whom such things would (quite understandably) appeal. Similarly, the humour introduced by Gimli’s wise-cracks, unsubtle though they were, and Merry/Pippin’s antics were of a nature that will have broad appeal without being unduly offensive (except perhaps to devoted fans of the book ). And modern idioms such as “Let’s hunt some Orc” and “You and whose army”, while not to my taste (well, I actually quite liked the latter one), will appeal to many people more readily than some of Tolkien‘s more archaic (for want of a better word) language and make the films more relevant to them.

Originally Posted by Neithan

If they wanted to make the films "accessible" then why not do them entirely in modern language, rather than switching back and forth.

Well, it was inevitable that the changes made to the story (due to time constraints, the process of adaptation to film etc) would require a major re-write job. As I have said previously, there are few writers who could credibly match Tolkien‘s style and maintain the broad appeal that he succeeded (almost unwittingly) in achieving. In light of that, isn’t it better that they used Tolkien’s lines where they felt that they were able to rather than not using them at all? Funnily enough, Tolkien himself has been criticised for using different writing styles in the earlier and later chapters of the book (the homely, familiar style used in the Shire and the journey to Rivendell in contrast with the epic style used on the plains of Rohan and in the Halls of Gondor) by those who find that these contrasting styles grate on them. I have never found this to be a problem, but then there are few lines in the film which really grate on me either.

And so we come to the character changes. Again, it seems to me that many of the changes made in this regard were intended to garner that mass appeal. So, Aragorn’s indecision over his destiny (which is there in the book, albeit fleetingly) is played up. He is made more “human” and less “lofty”. Similarly with Frodo and Faramir. The extraordinary resistance of the latter to the Ring is downplayed because the film-makers thought that it would lack credibility with audiences without greater screen-time being devoted to his development. I agree that these characters lose something in the reduction/exclusion of their mythical qualities. But I do also believe that, for many people, they become more credible characters as a result. I know that words such as “character arc” and “humanising” cause great distaste on this forum, and I agree that the changes made, to some extent, “Hollywood-ised” the characters, but it also increased their broad appeal.

Originally Posted by davem

These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Time and again I have people ask why Faramir did not just tell his father "where to stick it".

Actually, I have the same thoughts when I read the book. I recall that, when I first read it, I got very cross with Denethor for his treatment of Faramir, and also with Faramir for not standing up to his father. And I have to say that (perhaps for this reason) I found Faramir’s desire in the films to prove himself to his father, particularly after his brother’s death, very convincing and rather touching. And there are real life precedents of children yearning for the love of cruel and uncaring parents and doing all manner of things to gain that love.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To have done the Faramir sections properly would not have taken up any longer than they did when changed.

I think that they would have done. Faramir is not one of the principal characters. To develop his character to the extent whereby his attitude towards the Ring, as depicted in the book, would have seemed credible would, I believe, have taken up screen-time that simply was not available. Similarly, to have developed Denethor’s character sufficiently to portray him in the way he is portrayed in the book and to allow the audience to sympathise with a man who ends up trying to kill his own son would have taken time. The film-makers did not have the luxury of being able to devote the time to developing a relatively minor character such as Denethor. Believe me, I don’t like what they did to the poor guy. But I can understand why they did it.

So, all in all, I remain firmly convinced that the changes made to broaden the appeal of the films had just that effect. Those who were drawn to the films by these aspects may well go away and read the books and find that they prefer them. But, without such changes, they might never have gone to see the films in the first place, and they might then have ended up never reading the book.

And it seems to me that there are few of these changes (the ones intended to broaden the films’ appeal) that will have had the effect of confusing film audiences. On the contrary, to have included the book characters who were omitted or to have had Aragorn marry a character at the end of the trilogy who we had only met once before, briefly, in the first film, would only have served to cause confusion. To the extent that plot-holes and inconsistencies were introduced, they were largely a result of the changes made to fit the films into the time available and adapt them to the screen and, to my mind, this was an inevitable consequence of the adaptation to film of a story as finely-wrought and complex as that which Tolkien tells in LotR. That gets us back to the question of whether the films should have been made, to which I would answer a resounding “Yes!”.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Neithan

Saucepan is obviously anything but dumb but he said he likes pop music! Instead I tend to look at it as meaning the movies in themselves were "dumber" (that is, they do not stimulate us intellectually). You may like pop music for example, but you can not claim that Britany Spears(or even a real band like Metallica for that matter)

I should make clear that, by “pop music”, I meant popular music in general, as distinct from classical music. I am not a Britney Spears (or Metallica) fan (not that there is anything wrong with liking either), but I must say that, to my ear, the strains of Waterloo Sunset are far more pleasurable than many pieces of classical music.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate.

Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neurion

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?

Then again, it's no skin off my nose if you would prefer not to enjoy them.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?

I enjoy most of them, up to RotK, but for the multifarious reasons mentioned above my enjoyment of the films is frustrated by the hasty and inexplicable nature of the increasingly gratuitious deviations from Tolkien's actual story.

[lindil]

SpM:Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart.

I would rather be able to completely segregate Denethor and 'Denethor' but alas, few things in this world are pure...

I think that the more a person has ritulaized or made the M-E archetypes one's own, as any community does with a myth, the more any 'tampering' is felt as a negative. For those to whom LotR was 'a great story', the movies may well be ' a great movie' or even a fantastic one [my wiife loved ROtK but may well never read the books and is thus a perfect example of th 'pure PJ fan' her appreciation has no books to contend with.

But for those to whom the Legendarium has taken the palce of myth, if not sacred writ, as it has admittedly for me, they seem to have rather less pure enjoymnent of the movies. Big generalizations but...

Of course, there is no right or wrong response to the movies, but it is fascinating to try and understand why we feel what we do.

my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies.

But I still enjoy coming here to serve back to PJ exactly what I experienced .

[ohtatyaro]

I LOVE the list

additional entry:

12. Leave out Eagles - no bird that big can fly! (or replace them with some flying machine 'wise elves' cotrived )

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by lindil

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories ... [so] my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies

Sometimes I do feel likewise, sometimes I can muster enough mental resource to segregate two sets of characters completely. Cf. Two Frodos , excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel

Originally Posted by SpM

But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach

Ah, but outright Like/Not Like is a bit simplistic, ain't it? It has to be a little more complex than that, so, BUT comes into play. Let me present you with an analogy:

I like my friend ***. I would not apply a term friend to him , if I liked him not, eh? He's handsome and clever, generous and funny, good playing mate when it comes down to bowling or billiard et cetera et cetera. But he's a bit talkative at times, and maybe tiresome too when in pursuit of his favourite subject. He's perfect, but for one flow. Now, and analogy is crooked, as neither I, nor any living man (but for himself) wield the power to eliminate that flow (that is, feature is a flow from my point of view anyways), and I whether like him 'as he is' or do not like him at all. But I may be inclined to say at times: *** would be a great person if only he could be less prolix.

Or, another analogy - imagine yours truly and his chosen in a haute style restaurant. We are served a dinner of our dream, with all proper things and stuff, four types of forks and knives, gentle candlelight, perfect band and the kind of service which helps you forgive and forget. Got a picture? Now, imagine spinach (that b*****d of a plant always apt to try the trick) stuck in yours truly's teeth. Imagine furthermore desparete, even hunted looks for toothpick-stand on behalf of yours truly, and disenchantment one feels as soon it is clear no toothpick-stand is present, and it is an alternative of finger-into-your-mouth-when-you-think-no-one-looks-but-in-fact-half-the-world-is-giggling-at-you technique or nervous tongue-action for the rest of the evening. (Of course, there is always a possibility to ask for one, but that's not the point here)

The fact being, I would not have complained about missing toothpicks in a snack-bar round the corner, and talkativenss would not bother me if *** were outright mean, not a grand person I know him to be.

Almost-perfect thing is more of a pest (or, 'almost' part of it is a pest), than the humble mass consumption product. You don't expect much of the latter, but when former falls short (and within an inch! - just a little less alteration, and it would have been nailed!) - well, it's not a nice feeling. Have you heard people nitpicking about Banshee cartoon details? Exactly for the films being so good, we can't help complaining, as it seems to us they might have been even better.

Hence the 'but' sticking in the middle of sentences starting with 'I love the films...'

[Neithan]

Could they? Would they have been made?

OK so maybe Jackson didn't really have a choice, that doesn't mean I have to like it. I want to see the movies and recognize Middle Earth as I know it from the books. I feel the same way as if Jackson were taking real history and distorting it to entertain people, often I find myself thinking but that's not how it really happened.

But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.

So what? If Jackson had actually reduced LotR to the level of soap operas then this would be a different conversation, and he would have earned my undieing hatred.

As far as Arwen goes I think that the scenes with her are completely unecessary. All that was needed was to mention that she was Aragorn's bride to be and there would be no confusion. Then you would free up more time for other things.

There was a lot more I wanted to say but I have already spentway more time on this forum today than is wise considering all the homework I have to do. It's going to be another long night.

[Aiwendil]

After hesitating over it for some time, I think I will give in to the temptation and ramble about my views on the changes.

Why I think many of Jackson's changes were mistaken

For some time, I was perplexed by Jackson's alterations to the story - not perplexed at the fact that he had made alterations but perplexed at the nature of those alterations. I think that my confusion arose because I initially bought the oft-used line "there isn't time in a movie to include everything in the book, and that's why so many changes are necessary."

Now it's true that there isn't time in a movie to include everything in the book. And some things certainly were left out, quite reasonably, I think, due to these time constraints. The whole Tom Bombadil episode, for example, is something that would either have added a half hour to the picture or have used up time that would have been better spent elsewhere.

But when one thinks about it, this explanation fails for most of the significant changes. In fact, many of those changes add events to the story and thus take up more time than would the story unembellished. For example, the whole element of the warg attack en route to Helm's Deep.

What accounts for the majority of the changes, then? The suggestion that started this thread is a good candidate: Jackson has "dumbed down" the story in order to make it more accessible. Or, if you like, he has altered the style of the story to bring it more into line with current Hollywood convention. This accounts, I think, for many of the jarringly poor lines of dialogue.

But I think that there is a third reason, one that perhaps accounts for most of the plot changes. Or perhaps it's not really a distinct reason but rather a facet of the "current Hollywood style" explanation. That is: I think that Jackson was quite over-concerned with maintaining tension and suspense. I would go as far as to say that this unhealthy obsession is a problem throughout Hollywood these days, at least when it comes to action/adventure/fantasy/science fiction movies. Directors (as well as producers and writers) are morbidly afraid that a single second of the movie will be declared boring by someone in the audience. So they try to load as much suspense as they can into every frame. The result, curiously enough, is often that the suspense fails, for two reasons. First, because its effect wears off and it eventually becomes tiresome; second, and more interestingly, because in trying to invest every moment with suspense, the director loses control of the more powerful element of long term suspense.

Consider some of the changes that add significantly to the length of the story. In Balin's tomb, instead of the troll sticking its arm and leg through the door, it comes all the way through and battles the Fellowship in a long action set piece. Clearly, the goal was to make the encounter more exciting; but it's cheap excitement. It is a battle, nothing more; it adds nothing to the overall progress of the story and does nothing to enhance the excitement or suspense in the movie beyond the confines of that particular scene. Or: the stairs begin to fall apart as the Fellowship flees Moria. Maybe the sequence is exciting and suspenseful in itself; but again it uses up a non-trivial bit of time and it is unneeded. What these and similar additions have in common is that they add suspense or action to non-critical moments. The business with the stairs, for example, is not needed because, quite simply, the stairs aren't the point; removing this and similar incidents would streamline the film, increase the relative significance of the truly important moments, and result in a more focused picture. That's why I can better understand additions made to increase the apparent significance of the Ring; even if I ultimately disagree with those additions, at least they attempt to emphasize an important element of the story rather than an unimportant one.

Why I was disappointed with the films

Davem argues that Jackson had a moral obligation to be faithful to the book. The Saucepan Man argues that there is nothing wrong with altering the story for the sake of accesibility, or conformity to Hollywood's style, or whatever you want to call it. I suppose my view is somewhere in between. I don't think I would say that there is any moral responsibility involved. Yet I do take issue with Jackson's changes - for the simple reason that I, personally, was disappointed with the movies as a result of these changes.

So, as a defender of the movies might ask me, why was I disappointed? What right do I have to complain about the movies, which have after all done nothing to hurt me, left all my copies of the book perfectly intact, and in fact provided me with some enjoyment? Well, I'm disappointed not because the movies were actively harmful (which they were not) but simply because they were not as good as they could have been. No doubt our hypothetical interlocuter would seize on my use of the word "good", asking me "Good in whose opinion?" Well, in my opinion, of course; it's the only one I've got.

So, while the altered scene in Balin's tomb did not harm me, I cannot help but to imagine how much I would have enjoyed seeing the scene as Tolkien wrote it on the screen. It would have been great to see the climactic scene at Mt. Doom the way it was written. It would have been sublime to see the Witch-king facing Gandalf at the gate of Minas Tirith and to hear the cock's crow taken up by the horns of Rohan. And Jackson could have done it. Here was an opportunity that will not come again for a long time, if at all. It's all very well and good to say that Jackson had the right to popularize the work, even to dumb it down - but I'm not concerned about whether he had the right; what bothers me, quite frankly, is that I did not like the resulting movies so very much - and that I could have loved them, had they been not so very different.

That sounds selfish, no doubt - and it is. After all, we go and see movies for selfish reasons - because we want to enjoy them.

Why I nonetheless own all the extended editions and have voraciously consumed the special features

I think that in many ways Jackson failed with these movies. I think he dumbed them down. I did not enjoy them as much as I might have. But I enjoyed them. I say this because I wonder whether this is a common phenomenon or whether I am the only one. Are there others who lament the popularization of the story and yet agree that in other ways, the films were quite good?

Why the whole enterprise was doomed from the beginning

Even when I consider the hypothetical perfect LotR movie - the one that Jackson could have made but didn't - I conclude that the book would be far superior. This reminds me of what Hitchcock said when Truffaut asked him if he would ever consider making a film version of Crime and Punishment (which does have a somewhat Hitchcockian story). He said that he would never make such a movie, nor a movie based on any literary masterpiece. Why? Because a literary masterpiece is already a masterpiece. It already exists in something like a perfect form. If its perfect medium is literature, then cinema is not its perfect medium. So a cinematic version will never improve upon the story. Hitchcock instead made movies based on imperfect books - books that contained interesting ideas but ideas that, he thought, could be better utilized in cinema. The more I think about this argument, the more sense it makes to me.

Edit: Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words - one sentence, in fact!

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Edit: Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words - one sentence, in fact! I don't know a proper saying for such an occasion in my native American tongue, so I'll steal a British one.

Ho hum.

LOL. Strangely enough, I hate making short posts like that and I quite envy the long, well thought-out and intelligent post you just made.

Keep up the good work.