Dumbing it down

[Neithan]

Eh? Even if it is fair to say that the films are only good in the scenes where they stick most closely to the book (a point with which I do not agree), surely the act of rendering these scenes on film gives rise to merit in the film itself.

In a sense yes. What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens. Basically what I am saying is that whatever merit they might get for rendering the book onto the screen is connected to the Tolkiens work. It is the screenwriting that I have a problem with, not the visual effects. I hope you can understand that, I am having a hard time explaining it.

But, for me, quality is an entirely subjective thing, although subjective opinions may be widely shared and thereby gain some degree of objectivity.

Well first of all no degree of objectivity can be gained through subjectivity. Whether or not quality of art can be objective is a philisophical question, one which I disagree with you on. I hope that the majority of people would agree that a plot that has no logical contradictions is objectively better than one that does. I would also contend that Tolkiens humor is objectively better than fart jokes, but this is a much more controversial. There is a whole philisophical argument behind it but even if I had time to effectively argue the point it would be way off topic, so let's just agree to disagree on that one.

[Aiwendil]

Neithan wrote:

What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens.

I think I may feel this way as well. When someone asks me whether I like the LotR movies, I tend to be a bit flummoxed.

Do you like the Lord of the Rings movies?

I'm a huge fan of the books.

But what about the movies?

Many of the changes really bother me.

So you don't like them?

Well, I own all the extended edition DVDs and have watched every special feature and listened to every commentary.

Oh, so they must be like, some of your favorite films.

No, I don't think so . . .

And so on.

The truth is that I have a hard time evaluating the films as films. I can point out the things I like and the things I don't like, and I can tell you why I like or dislike them. But I can't really tell you whether I like the movies or not. The book is simply too important to me for me to evaluate the movies as entities in themselves.

That's not to say that I think my complaints about the changes are unfounded - I think that many of these decisions were mistakes and I don't think that this view is merely the result of an obsession with the book. But somehow I can't really make an overall evaluation of the movies without it being an evaluation of faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the book.

[Essex]

I believe we are going around in circles. Yes, the films were dumbed down, as they didn't have 54 hours+ to show the books in their entirety. People have their own points of view, I just feel really sorry for people like Davem who were really dissapointed by the films.

Three words though, for ALL of us.

Live with it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Can't stop for long as I am at the airport.

Phantom, you yourself have suggested that non-book readers may find fault with the films. Accordingly, they can still potentially have reservations about the changed scenes even if they do not know that they are changed from the book. Their opinions therefore do count in this matter.

And I have never sought to claim that I find the films perfect. I am quite happy to admit that there are aspects of them which I think could (in my subjective opinion ) have been done better. But there is a world of difference between my approach and that adopted by the majority on this thread. The latter is the approach I was talking about when I referred to "such reservations".

Tsk! Really!

Must go - the money's running out ...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Perhaps another analogy would be useful at this point:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

Yes, the film is based on the book, but it is not the book itself. The differences between the two mediums is simply too great to make comparison possible except upon lines that are only and can ever be purely subjective: "I like this about the book but not this about the movie"; "I think this could have been done better in the movie"; "I enjoyed the book more." OK, wonderful opinions, but that's all they are and can ever be: these do not constitue some kind of objective means whereby we can establish whether or not the film is "successful" in any way beyond it's "success" in evoking (or not) these same subjective responses.

But to my analogy:

I adore Hamlet. It is a wonderful play. One of the things that I like most about it is its infinite variety (to quote another Shakey play. . .) It is such a rich text that there is just no way to do "all" of it in any one production or version -- the "definitive" performance of Hamlet is just not possible as there is too much, well, potential in the text for any single performance to bring out. That is why it is such a successful play in theatre history -- well, one of the reasons. Every Hamlet is different, and every one brings out different elements of the text. I like some productions and not others; some I think are brilliant and others are appallingly bad, but I never make the mistake of conflating the performance of the play to the text: they are different. Nor do I make the mistake of claiming that a performance of the text necessarily "dumbs it down" -- in the written version, all the potential and possible Hamlets are there, but for it to work on stage, there can only be one Hamlet. This is the nature of drama.

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not. The 'distance' between the text and the performance in the case of Tolkien's work is vastly greater than with anything by Shakespeare, which does even more to short-circuit any attempt to meaningfully or objectifiably compare them to one another in any way other than, again, through the purely subjective.

In a perfect world, there would be a dozen other film makers out there with the money, time and vision necessary to make their own versions of LotR. As has been happening with Hamlet for 400 years now, these different versions would bring out different views and aspects of the text, develop its different potentials, and slowly a dynamic, fuller view of it would be available in performative/dramatic form, but none of them would be in any way definitive or complete. To attempt such a thing is hubris. To demand such a thing of a performance is naive. To condemn a performance for not accomplishing it is unfair and entirely misled.

[Formendacil]

I find many of your points fascinating, Mr. 'Edgethistle, but I have to object to this:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

You can't make this comparisom at all, since apples and oranges have (if you are a creationist Catholic like myself) one and the same origin in the same God, created at the same time for separate purposes. Or, if you're an evolutionist, then they have separate evolutionary paths parallel to each other, not one derived from the other.

As has been pointed out so many times, the movie is derived from the book. It isn't an evolutionary journey, because that would make it a throwback. The story was not improved to adapt to its new environment, it was, at best, a step sideways. And many would say not even that.

Comparisom to the book is inevitable. It has to happen, just a portrait is inevitably compared to the subject. Until such time as the subject and everyone that knew it dies, the portrait cannot be seen except in the light of the subject. In this case, I think we all agree that the subject (the book) will outlive the portrait (the movie).

[lord of dor-lomin]

To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

You can't make this comparisom at all

You're right, Formendacil. To say that a DERIVATIVE WORK and it's SOURCE MATERIAL are apples and oranges is ridiculous. We're not comparing apples and oranges. We're comparing orange juice and oranges, and saying that orange juice is a dumbed down version of an orange.

And I also agree with what Eomer said. If you aren't enjoying this thread then just don't read it. I am enjoying all of the back-and-forth action. I get to see people's thoughts on something that I'm interested in. I like it. I say we keep this going for a million pages.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That's dedication Saucepan, or maybe it's just addiction...

Anywho, I'd like to bring up a point championed by myself on a couple of other threads. That being: why not talk about it? I love these discussions that may seem to some people to go around in circles. However, they are interesting. Please don't try and end them by saying "Live with it" or "Stop complaining."

I get the feeling this thread will roll on for a while yet. Page 5 is just as interesting as page 1.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Spm: If one accepts this proposition then it follows that, objectively, anything could be better than it is (including the book).

I hope I don't get stones chucked at me for this one, but I actually believed Jackson made improvements on Tolkien's books. It isn't anything big, or drastic, but the best example is having Eomer threaten Grima and not Gandalf. Tolkien has Gandalf say the line, to Grima, "Too long have you watcher her (Eowyn) under your eyelids, too long have you haunted her steps." Jackson gives this line to Eomer, which I think gives more emphasis, and meaning behind that line, considering it's coming from Eomer, her brother. Having Gandalf say it, I think weakens it, since he is just some mysterious old man, that comes once in awhile. I like this line given to Eomer, more than to Gandalf, which would make it an improvement on Tolkien's work. Surely it's not a big difference, but never the less, an improvement.

[Essex]

Wormtongue encountering the Black Riders - is taken (mostly word for word) from 'The Hunt for the Ring' in UT

Yes I read the hunt for the ring section, so let's add another new scene added in - the capture of gollum by the witch king and his torture in mordor. also, the first hobbiton scene where we have bilbo talking to frodo. (and many others) so the radio adaptation is exactly that - an ADAPTATION - if you want the book word for word, we must listen to the 54 hour narrated version.

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Yes I read the hunt for the ring section, so let's add another new scene added in - the capture of gollum by the witch king and his torture in mordor. also, the first hobbiton scene where we have bilbo talking to frodo. (and many others) so the radio adaptation is exactly that - an ADAPTATION - if you want the book word for word, we must listen to the 54 hour narrated version.

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

Of course the radio series was an adaptation. I'm not objecting to adaptations per se. I like the radio adaptaion because its faithful to the book in spirit & very nearly in letter. The movie is not anywhere near as faithful & in some scenes the changes made alter characters & events out of all recognition. I think what it comes down to is that Sibley & Bakewell wanted to tell Tolkien's story in the best & most faithful way they could (which would inevitably - & much to the adaptors' regret - require excisions & new connecting/establishing scenes) while PJ & the scriptwriters wanted to produce a blockbuster movie series using LotR as their raw material.

Whatever you think of the movies as opposed to the radio series I defy anyone to compare them both to the book & say the films were more faithful to the book , or comunicated the spirit of it more effectively.

[radagastly]

Essex:

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

Yes, Tolkien seems to have decided (according to Christopher Tolkien) that two days was not enough for Gandalf to escape Orthanc, get to Edoras and have Wormtongue get back to Orthanc from Edoras to inform Saruman. In the final version, it was the "Slant-eyed Southerner" who betrayed Saruman to the Witch King.

This brings up a point about this adaptation and about the 'knock-on' effect that Saucepan mentioned (though, of course, that scene itself has nothing to do with it since it was in neither the book nor the movie!) Tolkien crafted his story with as much care as was possible, and to make changes risks creating problems down the line that need even more explanation, thus creating more changes etc.

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)

Obviously, there are basically three things you can do to any story to adapt it into a different art form. You can add to it, you can change it or you can delete from it. In 'Fellowship,' the primary tool used was deletion, excepting, of course, Arwen's part which was enhanced for reasons that, I believe, were previously discussed. For the most part, in 'Fellowship' this works well, and only seems to disappoint because we look forward to favorite scenes and characters that are now missing. For example, I would have loved to have seen the Barrow-downs scenes intact, ("intact" is a dangerous word on this thread,) but I didn't expect to. My disappointment came and went before the movie was even released.

In 'Two Towers' we have a different animal altogether. "Wargs attack the people of Edoras!" "Aragorn dragged off a cliff!" "Elves at Helm's Deep instead of Eomer!" "Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul! (in Osgiliath, no less)" etc. I know these changes seem gratuitous, and some of them are, but imagine a truly loyal telling of the plot of 'Two Towers.' The entire battle of Helm's Deep would have to be over and done with in the first forty-five minutes to an hour, and we'd spend the first ninety minutes without knowing what may have become of Frodo and Sam. In the book, this delay helps to build tension and enhance the epic qualities of the story. On the screen, it would have had even loyalists like us walking out of the theatre. Many of the structural changes were necessary simply because film is a completely different language than literature. In a movie theatre, we spend nearly half our time sitting in complete darkness staring at a blank screen, waiting for the next frame to pop up. We just don't notice the gaps, because they happen so fast. A book can be studied and reviewed and re-read for detail that is simply not available to a film audience sitting in a theatre.

Fordim:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

I must say, I agree, but with certain reservations. I much prefer Tolkien's carefully crafted plot choices to Peter Jackson's visually exciting ones. Not the structure of their telling, mind you, just the plot elements themselves. Jackson's changes did create plot-holes that were not present in the book and need not have been present in the movies, if more care had been taken in making the changes he made. I wouldn't necessarily say he was 'dumbing down' the book so much as he was occasionally 'dumbing down' his own story without covering it later. Still, that's an analysis after many viewings and I have to say I was still swept along by the films when I first watched them, and enjoyed them immensely.