Dumbing it down

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Virtue makes little money.

[The Saucepan Man]

Nice avatar, Eomer. You can't go wrong with Joe Cool.

However ...

Virtue makes little money.

I would disagree with this as a general proposition. Recent studies have suggested that companies with established codes of ethics tend to outperform those that don't. In general, people prefer to work for, and deal with, companies which maintain sound business practices. (Although admittedly, this is something that the business community has been late cottoning on to.)

And I would also disagree as far as the film-making industry is concerned. I think that people do like to watch films that are morally uplifting - that make them feel good about their fellow humans. Indeed, I think that this, in part at least, accounts for the popularity of the LotR films. They may not present Tolkien's moral vision in its entirety. But, in comparison with other films of similar ilk, they do (in my view) put across some very good moral messages.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Oh, I agree, and please don't get me wrong Saucepan. I agree with what you said. I find many parts of the films very uplifting. However, I'm just considering that the portrayal of virtues were not exactly highest on the agenda of Jackson and his crew. I think this led to a simplified and inferior version of Frodo's relationships with Faramir and Gollum. I realise that it was hard work and that the filmmakers did a decent job with it, however I don't think they nailed it. I find that some of us twist and turn in all sorts of ways when trying to defend aspects of the relationships betwixt film characters.

It was inevitable that some of us would easily find flaws within the virtues displayed on film. I don't think the filmmakers consider this to be hugely problematic, though.


P.S. I'll probably post a fairly hefty tale of events in the avatar thread to explain what some may call heresy.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

However, I'm just considering that the portrayal of virtues were not exactly highest on the agenda of Jackson and his crew. I think this led to a simplified and inferior version of Frodo's relationships with Faramir and Gollum. I realise that it was hard work and that the filmmakers did a decent job with it, however I don't think they nailed it.

This is right. Jackson did portray some of Tolkien's moral statements, that can't be denied, but they are indeed simplified. Whether this could have been recitifed by not changing so much from the books I honestly could not say, though I think it certainly could have improved the situation, if not kept it to the level on which Tolkien portrays it.

Maybe it is indeed indicative of our society today that spiritual needs and values are subject to the same kind of 'quick fix' that we might demand of our bodily or material needs. Just as many prefer surgery over exercise (or indeed just building self-acceptance) in order to look the way they want, many also do not wish to struggle with metaphysical questions and seek a quick answer in a self-help book or some such. Naturally, the films are a simplified version of LotR so the moral messages/questions will also be simplified. I can't disagree that the films are a whole lot more moral than many other films/TV/games etc., but they aren't half as complex as the books.

Virtue is actually incredibly difficult, and while I have some faith left in the human race and think we'd all secretly like to be better people, it's easier sometimes to have another beer. And if a company is trading on its virtuous nature, then is it any more virtuous? Surely this is another way of marketing services or products? Or am I getting far too cynical?

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Virtue makes little money.

Tolkien wasn't exactly hoping to make it into the New York Times best sellers list when he wrote The Lord of the Rings.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That's perhaps one reason why it's so good.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

That's perhaps one reason why it's so good.

Exactly.

[Mithalwen]

Obviously this is not something that can be answered with any certainty, but if we could crawl through a wormhole/fall through a timewarp, I wonder if those changes tailored to the perceived mores of the time will seem as strange to future watchers as the Nahum Tate version of " Lear" does to us....

[Lalwendë]

I can't see another version on LotR being made for quite some time, purely because this film version has had so much praise heaped upon it. I am thinking in terms of fifty/sixty years or more before anyone attempts another version. But maybe they will include more of Tolkien's text, and maybe they will stick to the story more. 'Remakes' often do strive to be 'more authentic', and tout themselves as being more true to the original book or to historical fact. Just as we saw the supposedly authentic Bram Stoker's Dracula (which, it turned out, did not stick to the book as it did not include anything of Whitby ) we might see the supposedly authentic JRR Tolkien's Lord of The Rings.

This would depend on authenticity holding any value in a future society of course. And many of the most lauded films simply do not get remade e.g. Gone With The Wind. But I can quite easily see people laughing at certain aspects of the films in 20 years' time, as some things will simply have gone out of fashion, such as the modern idioms used in the script. Just as saying "Man, that was outta sight!" would sound funny nowadays, saying "game over" might well be deeply cringeworthy in 20/30 years' time.

[Ruoutorin]

If you are a purist then you have to appreciate the movie version for it's scenery, costumes, and allowing you the opportunity to enter Middle Earth visually. You have to admit Jackson was "on the money" when it came to these things. The story itself was altered to appeal to the masses, and it succeeded immensely. The masses are not made up of superior intellectuals who would be willing to look deep into a story to appreciate its messages. Jackson wanted to make money, as any filmmaker does. While watching the Two Towers I heard many an audience member mumble "when is the fighting gonna start already". They were bored with the background story. The average moviegoer has the attention span of 1 1/2 hours for a film and they want to see action. It would be complete impossible for PJ to have stuck strictly to Tolkien's story and please the average audience. I think he did an acceptable job in his attempt. I used to get mad at the personality change in Faramir, but then I realized that the audience (who had not read the book) probably wants to see Frodo face impossible odds and probably many viewed the Ring going to Osgiliath as more exciting because it's dangerous for the Ring to go to Osgiliath. In summary I learned to forgive Peter Jackson for his alterations and I learned to appreciate the movies for the opportunity to see Middle Earth on film and the details that were amazingly accurate.