Dumbing it down

[Boromir88]

Jackson & the writers' tendency to take things from the book which Tolkien mentions in passing, or of which he makes a very subtle use & repeatedly belt the audience over the head them with till we're pleasing with him to 'STOP!, because we get it already!'

Very true, somethings he beats into our head, and others, I don't think he gives a lot of explaining which leaves a lot of non-book readers puzzling what the heck is going on? Like the famous questions...

"Why didn't Gandalf summon the eagles sooner?" (From ROTK it definitely appears as if Gandalf summons them).

or...

"Why did Frodo leave?"
"Why didn't Sauron guard Mount Doom better?"

I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.

My favorite experience would be...someone (who will remain unnamed) totally oblivious to the basic plotlines. For example, this particular person though Sauron sent the 10,000 army to Helm's Deep, and was totally oblivious to who Saruman was. Then had the nerve of saying "I don't think I'm more clever then the screenwriters, just more clever then the book."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

So, although these flaws in Aragorn's character are portrayed differently, and played up, in the film, they are nevertheless there to a degree in book Aragorn.

I totally agree about Aragorn's flaws in the books. And I think they have captured these on film, but what I did not like was his doubt over his destiny. Book Aragorn is sure of himself in his 'destination' even if he is not sure which path will take him there; he knows and accepts his role. Film Aragorn cannot accept this until RotK. The two Aragorns are very different men in that respect. Book Aragorn has the divine right while film Aragorn feels he must prove his right. Both have to show by deeds that they deserve the right.

Originally Posted by SpM

And in any event do people who have not read the book really analyse these things that closely and get bothered by such minor issues?

Oh they do! I used to work with someone who did exactly that. Every tiny point from the films was turned over and inside out, yet no reference was made to the books!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Book Aragorn is sure of himself in his 'destination' even if he is not sure which path will take him there; he knows and accepts his role. Film Aragorn cannot accept this until RotK. The two Aragorns are very different men in that respect.

Agreed. I suppose it comes down to whether people like their film heroes to have that element of doubt in themselves and their destiny. Rightly or wrongly, the film-makers thought that audiences would react better to an Aragorn who was unsure of his destiny. I can sympathise with that, given their understandable reluctance to address his "Divine Right" as a man of pure Numenorean blood (as opposed to simply the heir of a Man who was once king of Gondor). There was scant time to deal with the whole Numenorean heritage thing, and it might have put off some people. Far better (they presumably thought) to have someone who is both the heir to the throne and who, during the events of the film, proves himself worthy of it (to himself and others).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Oh they do! I used to work with someone who did exactly that. Every tiny point from the films was turned over and inside out, yet no reference was made to the books!

Well then, the films must have produced quite strong feelings in them for them to have bothered spending the time to do that.

[Neurion]

In refernce to Radaghastly's post, I just want to say that a good example of how I dislike some of the divergences from Tolkien's original story is in the portrayal of Isildur.

In Unfinished Tales, it's quite obvious that the Ring has (as of yet) exerted no corrupting influence over Isildur, besides simply motivating him to keep it, and, in fact, when he dies he is marching back to take up the rule of Arnor after spending several years instructing his nephew Meneldur in the ways of ruling wisely. Not the behaviour characteristic of a power-hungry tyrant, IMO.

When the battle between his bodyguard and the orcs runs ill he does not simply run off, but is urged by his son to try and escape to Imladris, at which point, Isildur comments that he now understands why the elves wanted the Ring destroyed.

Jackson, Boyens and Walsh do not seem to understand the character at all. It might be argued that it was neccessary to reduce Isildur's filmic personna to such simplistic dimensions because of time constraints, but Jackson's seemingly-humorous comment that they got Harry Sinclair to play Isildur because he was the most corrupt actor they could think of would seem to speak against such a conclusion.

In the the conceptual Prologue in the EE appendices, Isildur's response to Elrond's demand that he destroy the Ring is a confused "Why?", much more in keeping with the character's personality and motivations in the book. In the film though, he simply sneers "No", and then is next seen riding through a forest, looking as though he's heading off to finish up where Ar-Pharazon left off.

All in all, a rather dismaying portrayal one of the noblest of the old Numenoreans.

[Aiwendil]

The Forum Ate My Post

Looks like a post I made last Thursday didn't get through - strange. Anyway, I feel it's worth at least just summing up some of the points I made there, even if the thread has moved on a bit.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Yes, another production team might have done things slightly different. They might have excluded more of the additional scenes and included more of the original scenes and lines. But any film-maker is going to approach it from his or her interpretation of what will work best and, in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.

This is true, but I don't think we should underestimate the degree to which a particular director's (or producer's or writer's) style comes through in a film. Had another director done these movies, I don't doubt that they would be quite different - and I don't mean just in terms of alterations from the book. Jackson, for example, based much of the visual style of Middle-earth on the work of John Howe and Alan Lee; one could easily imagine another director favoring the Hildebrandt brothers, for example. Another director would have emphasized points that Jackson ignored and ignored points Jackson emphasized. A lot of directors would have done worse. But I think that a few would have done better - and there are a number of specific decisions made by Jackson that I think were mistakes that were not inevitable, and that could just as easily not have been made.

Formendacil puts this point well:

But here's where PJ screwed up where my fandom was concerned: the LITTLE things. I can understand and even come close to approving the big changes, but the little ones elude me. Why does Aragorn's crown not fit the description of the one in the book? Why does Arwen have a CURVED sword?

Giving Elves curved blades, for example, is something that was surely not necessitated by the desire to conform to the modern Hollywood style. Now I don't doubt that Jackson had a reason for it; but he could very easily have done it the "right" way. This is what bothers me more than anything, and I think that my dissatisfaction with the many of the more major changes, if perhaps less justified, stems from the same source.

And all this remains a valid complaint, I think, even if one grants that it was right and proper for Jackson to go for stylistic conformity to other modern blockbusters - and many would, of course, question this. The Saucepan Man argues that:

We blithely refer here to the films being "Hollywood-ised", but this style of film did not just come about randomly. It arose to fulfil a demand. Film studios have sophisticated ways of discovering what it is that their target audiences want. They don't always get it right, but they are usually pretty accurate. They have found that people want lots of action in their blockbusters, and that's what the LotR films give them.

In other words, it was inevitable that the LotR movies would be "Hollywood-ised". Now I don't disagree. But I can lament a state of affairs even if it is an inevitable one. I am one of those who is not particularly well-pleased with the average modern Hollywood movie - most of my favorite films are from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. Now I don't expect film-makers to turn down fortunes in potential profit, ignore current trends, and make movies that pander to my taste. But that doesn't mean I have to like, or pretend to like, what they produce.

An analogy that just popped into my head: despite the fact that increased urbanization and development are inevitable, especially in the New Jersey/Pennsylvania/New York area where I live, I am still dismayed and angered whenever I find that some particular patch of woods that I once knew has turned into an office complex.

So I would claim that:

1. Even granting Hollywood-ization, a tighter, more focused, more faithful adaptation could have been made.

2. An even greater trilogy of films could have been made by a director who refused to adopt certain aspects of the modern style.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by SpM: in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.

That's what the teens like to see, and as davem said in a previous post...

I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.

I enjoyed the battle scenes in the movies, I think PJ goes to show the length of these battles very well. Tolkien writes very little on the actual battles, but Helm's Deep lasts the night, Minas Tirith and Pelennor are both one day long. Eventhough, Tolkien doesn't into pages and pages of "battle scenes" it has to be shown the screen differently. You have to show the true length of the battles, not meaning making it unbelievably long, but making viewers see the fact that this is a BIG battles.

I'm reminded by the movie of Troy, with the quote..."This is going to be the biggest battle the world has ever seen..." Very similar case to Minas Tirith and Pelennor. These are the biggest battles of the third age. As a director you have to show that, you can't just make a small 20 minute fight sequence, and then put up a corny subtitle "one day later."

Aiwendil:

most of my favorite films are from the '50s, '60s, and '70s.

Same here, I love Hitchcock movies...North by Northwest, Vertigo, Strangers on a Train, not to mention all the great movies Scorsese and DeNiro did together. I do get irked when people call LOTR "the greatest movie ever," but have never seen some of the classic, groundbreaking movies of the time, also better directed. These movies were much different. Take North by Northwest, and many other Hitchcock (as well as earlier directors' films)...Now adays, it's like the director takes the audiences intellegence so low, he/she has to show someone getting stabbed and blood seeping out of everywhere (sorry for the picture). Hitchcock didn't show the physical murders, but people still understood, and it actually made the movie a lot better. You would hear a gunshot, or maybe a body fall, or maybe just the impression on someone's face...

1. Even granting Hollywood-ization, a tighter, more focused, more faithful adaptation could have been made.

Number one I agree, but would it have brought in the crowds? I still think so, the hype for the movie was so big, people would still go see it. It may not have been quite as popular once people saw the movie, but the point is these movies were hyped, many Tolkienists like ourselves wanted to see Tolkien's work adapted on screen, so I say it still wouldh ave brought in the crowds.

2. An even greater trilogy of films could have been made by a director who refused to adopt certain aspects of the modern style.

This goes back to my Metareferences and Intertextuality, the belief that everything that's written now adays, or produced is never COMPLETELY original. The idea that everything that has been created is a rip off of someone else's work. This isn't to say that "Tolkien stole ideas from so and so..." or "Jackson..daddadada..." It's just, when creating a movie (or book), we are influenced by previous things that we've read or seen. The author, or people making the movie, will intentionally (or unconsciously) rewrite what has already been done, just give it some different characters, or maybe instead of destroying a ring, some future author writes a story about destroying a superpowerful microchip.

Number 2, you might be right, if you put the right guy on the job I wouldn't doubt it, but hey if it aint broke why fix it? There are times when I look at PJ as a director and say, wow that is great stuff, and he has shown that he can be a GREAT (yes I said it) director. Then times when he just has to show meaningless gore and death to make the teens go "yay!"

[Essex]

I thought that a more suitable change, if there had to have been one, might have been to have Faramir realise that his brother's death was due to the ring and have this as his moment of realisation.

At least we have Sam say this in the film, and to me it does finally help lead to Faramir's Epiphany

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

the belief that everything that's written now adays, or produced is never COMPLETELY original

Sound idea, I daresay. Find support in the words of the Man himself (excerpt from Mythopoeia, poem addressed at C.S.Lewis)

The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact.
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which were made.

emphasis mine