Dumbing it down

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

In other words, you would have rathered Merry not attacking the Witch king at all? I really don't give a monkey if a non-book reader doesn't understand why Merry hit the WitchKing with such a savage blow. Read the books if you want to know. But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?

I've said countless times I wanted the sword from the Downs to be included, but I have to live with it. The scene, other than this, worked superbly.

The point is the movies are not internally coherent, which makes acceptance of the secondary world they depict more difficult than it should be & at times simply impossible. Every time you are confronted by something like Merry's stabbing of the WK the 'spell' is broken because it simply doesn't make sense that Merry (or anyone else) could cripple the WK with an ordinary blade. As I said, the radio series made it clear tha merry's blow did no more than distract the WK's attention, giving Eowyn the opportunity to strike the death blow. This made Merry's action a contributory factor in the WK's fall (less so than in the book, admittedly) but avoids 'breaking the spell' by not having Merry be able to bring one of the most powerful beings in Me with an ordinary sword. We are, after all, talking about the equivalent of bringing down a Balrog by stabbing it in the big toe with a toasting fork.

The whole point is that these movies don't work for book or non book fans & the reason for that is that Jackson & the writers couldn't decide who they were making the movie for.

Actually, there were original scenes in the movies which I think worked - some of the Aragorn/Arwen stuff, Theodred's Funeral. Other things weren't bad in themselves, they simply weren't integrated into the storyline properly & so irritated. I wish they had gone ahead & written their own fantasy story & filmed that, because I suspect they might have made a fair fist of it. But, to repeat an earlier point, it seems that they set out with a whole bunch of scenes from the book which they wanted to put on screen, but then came up with lots of stuff of their own which they also wanted to do. They clearly struggled to produce a script which could include both, & in the end they failed.

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, it seems to me that you are all thinking about this far too much.

Yes, there are inconsistencies within the films – things which (without further explanation, at least) don’t quite work or don’t quite make sense. I fully accept that. As a perusal of some of my comments elsewhere in the Movies Forum will quite clearly suggest, there are a number of areas in which I think that they could have been improved. But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Why is this? Are they somehow less intelligent or less discerning than those for whom these inconsistencies cause irritation or anger?

No, of course not. The reason for the different approach is, I think, mainly because such issues go largely unnoticed by the majority of viewers, or are just not considered sufficiently important by them to warrant any major concern.

To take the much-discussed Merry v Witch King scene as an example, I was obviously aware of the “barrow blade” issue having read the book (although I was more disappointed that more was not made of Merry’s role in the WK’s demise – we only got a fleeting glimpse of his contribution). But despite having read the book, it did not at that point occur to me to think “Oh, that makes the Witch King look weak” or “Oh, how come Merry’s sword was able to do that”. I was simply carried along with the scene.

I have mentioned before the immediacy of films, compared with books. Films (or films of this genre, at least) do not put great demands on their audience. They do not demand, or require, in-depth analysis while they are being watched. So relatively minor inconsistencies do not really spoil a film for most viewers, simply because they either do not notice them or because they are of little concern to them at the time. Of course, if they stick out like a sore thumb they can destroy a film, but I do not think that we are talking about that degree of inconsistency here.

Books on the other hand put great demands on the reader, who is required to visualise the story and construct it in his or her head. This requires thought and will often lead to deeper analysis. And books take time to read – there is much more time for inconsistencies to occur to the reader as he or she reads. One is not “carried along” with the action to quite the same degree as one is with a film, and there is much more opportunity, while reading, to pause, think and analyse.

Does that make those to whom films of this genre appeal any less intelligent or discerning? No, I don’t think so. I certainly hope not, as I am a great fan of such films. Of course, the genre is not to everyone’s taste. There are those who prefer more thought-provoking films (and there are those who like both). But that (in my view) is a matter of taste, not intelligence or discernment.

So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.

And, finally, perhaps it is fair to say that (by virtue of the immediacy of one and the demands of the other) one can get away with more errors in a film that one can in a book. Although I would come back to my point that there are very few authors writing today, let alone scriptwriters, who pay the same painstaking and time-consuming attention to detail that Tolkien did when writing LotR. Perhaps davem and others are right when they say that it was misconceived to try and turn such a complex and detailed work of literature into a film. But had Jackson and co not done so, then we would not have the films. And that, to my mind, would be a shame.

Should they have made them better? Perhaps. But they were the ones making the films and so the decisions on how to do so were theirs to take. And those decisions were not (as has been suggested) taken with the intention of “improving on Tolkien” or winding up the fans. Nor were the changes that were made randomly picked out of the air. They were, in my view, made in a genuine effort to broaden the appeal of the films and render them suitable for the big sceeen screen. And that being so, I am prepared to accept the changes (albeit not without the occasional comment ) and simply get on with enjoying the films for what they are.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Perhaps davem and others are right when they say that it was misconceived to try and turn such a complex and detailed work of literature into a film. But had Jackson and co not done so, then we would not have the films. And that, to my mind, would be a shame.

Had Jackson and Co not made these films, the Barrow-Downs would be comprised of those folk who were here before the films came out and the occasional Ranger. Nor would the Trilogy have been available on supermarket shelves and news-stands. A very large percentage of us would never have come to the Downs, and none of these movie-discussions would be taking place.

[Boromir88]

Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made.

I'd say that's most likely the circumstances. I think it also takes a bit of time. When I first saw TTT in the theatre, I'm like elves at Helm's Deep? Faramir taking the ring to Osgiliath? Gah!!!! Then after watching the director's commentaries, and rewatching the movies, again, and again, I've learned to come to terms with those changes, and realize "heck, it's not so bad." Same instance when first watching ROTK. The way they portrayed Denethor and the Green Slime both got me irked. I've come to terms about Denethor, since it would be time consuming to show before his mind was broken, and it dramaticized Aragorn's return, I'm ok with Denethor looking crappy. Some things just take time, and reviewing to sort of come to your senses and cool down. (I'm sure the screaming Orli fans were a big contribution to my hot-temperedness in the first viewing of the films).

A very large percentage of us would never have come to the Downs,

I must say mark, I wouldn't even be here at the downs. I probably wouldn't have picked up Tolkien's book ever again, or bought the Sil, or the Hobbit. The movies got me back into the mood. I had read the books long before, sure it was good, but it was something that I forgot. Then after watching FOTR in the theatres, I got to rereading, and rereading...and um...rereading, and now I admit, I'm just another nut. I thank Jackson for bringing back the "Middle-earth" spirit in me, and opening Tolkien's world to a wide range of people who never heard of Tolkien before the movies.

[Bêthberry]

by SaucepanMan

So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.

You provide a very interesting distinction between the way we read books and the way we read movies, SpM, but I don't think your dichotomy fits everyone. For instance, I am not one who approaches Tolkien as a sacred text, much as I greatly admire his work on fantasy and story telling. (Please, no rotten tomatoes from the groundlings.)

And I am a fan of action/fantasy flicks. At least, I love the original Star Wars. As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.

Now, this is not to ridicule those who weren't bothered by ill-timed humour or inconsistent characterisation. I simply demure and say my objections to the films are not explained by your very interesting theory.

I will run off now and attempt to calculate a standard deviation coefficient for your theory, to determine the standard error and mean and mode so as to know where I fall.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

The reason for the different approach is, I think, mainly because such issues go largely unnoticed by the majority of viewers, or are just not considered sufficiently important by them to warrant any major concern.

That doesn't hold true in my experience. I've had so many people ask me about incidents in the films which they did not understand or which they saw as inconsistencies and time and again I have to explain to them what the meaning of particular scenes was. There are a large number of people out there who are, for want of a better word, geeky, and who notice tiny details, and a significant number of them have not read LotR (shock! ), and this is the audience which Jackson hoped to reel in, I'm sure, as they are more likely to spend vast sums on repeat viewings and collectable merchandise.

But about my own objections to the films... I do not watch the films with my lips pursed in a sour expression, pen poised in my hand as I write a letter of complaint to New Line. I watch the films and enjoy them. I collect the memorabilia, in fact the mathoms have taken over a large part of my house, and I can say they are big favourites with me. But it is those few sticking points which spoil it for me. And the more I hear grumbles from those who have not read the books, the more those sticking points are reinforced.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Yes, there are inconsistencies within the films – things which (without further explanation, at least) don’t quite work or don’t quite make sense. I fully accept that. As a perusal of some of my comments elsewhere in the Movies Forum will quite clearly suggest, there are a number of areas in which I think that they could have been improved. But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Clearly, there is some truth in this. The films are quite popular.

However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?

I ask because, quite frankly, I don't much care what other people think of them (whether ordinary film-goers, reviewers, or members of the film community). The complaints I have about the movies are, necessarily, based entirely on my appraisal of them. Certain things about the movies didn't make sense to me; certain things bothered me. And it doesn't improve my esteem of these points in the slightest to know that others were not bothered by them.

Of course, if someone gives me a valid argument for why such and such a perceived flaw is not really a flaw - then my evaluation of the point may change. But if millions of people say "Oh, I wasn't bothered by X", that is completely irrelevant to my appraisal of the films.

Bethberry wrote:

As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.

This is a good point, and I quite agree. I don't buy the "they were only movies, so you can't expect too much" line for the simple reason that, as you say, there are such things as great movies. There are movies that are internally consistent, believable, and so forth. There are movies that stand up quite well to endless study. I would agree that Lucas did better with regard to these things than did Jackson, and I think that the Star Wars saga is an excellent demonstration of the fact that movies can be just as coherent, as well-constructed, and as powerful as can books.

[davem]

Originally Posted by B88

I must say mark, I wouldn't even be here at the downs. I probably wouldn't have picked up Tolkien's book ever again, or bought the Sil, or the Hobbit. The movies got me back into the mood. I had read the books long before, sure it was good, but it was something that I forgot. Then after watching FOTR in the theatres, I got to rereading, and rereading...and um...rereading, and now I admit, I'm just another nut. I thank Jackson for bringing back the "Middle-earth" spirit in me, and opening Tolkien's world to a wide range of people who never heard of Tolkien before the movies.

This kind of puts me in a difficult position. For many years I had simply re-read TH, LotR, The Sil & listened to the radion series of LotR & my interest in (though not my love of ) Middle earth had faded into the background.

Then I realised the movies were coming out, & I looked forward to them with a mixture of trepidation & hope. I bought 'Author of the Century' & was fascinated. In the bibliography to that book I saw mention of Verlyn Fleiger. My interest in Tolkien was re-invigorated. I rejoined the Tolkien Society, began working my way through HoME, joined the Downs & became the man I am today

Now, I too must thank PJ for that. Also for the fact that after joining the Tolkien Society again I have visited Tolkien's grave three times at our annual Oxonmoot. As far as having joined the Downs goes - I can only say that it has absolutely changed my personal life in ways I could never have expected ([b]Esty[/i] at least knows how much, but I won't go into detail for fear of being reprimanded for being 'off-topic' )

But - this is perhaps the cause of my problem with the movies. They sparked such a deep fascination with Tolkien's works that I came to find an incredible depth of meaning in the books as I studied them. Fellowship I quite liked, but by the time TT came out I was too aware of what Tolkien was doing. It made it virtually impossible to simply watch the movie as a movie. I had become too immersed in Tolkien's thought by them.

I do find myself wondering what my reaction to the movies would have been if all the secondary literature hadn't been available, if I'd only had my Hobbit, LotR, Sil & BBC tapes. Alas, I'll never know.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But - this is perhaps the cause of my problem with the movies. They sparked such a deep fascination with Tolkien's works that I came to find an incredible depth of meaning in the books as I studied them. Fellowship I quite liked, but by the time TT came out I was too aware of what Tolkien was doing. It made it virtually impossible to simply watch the movie as a movie. I had become too immersed in Tolkien's thought by them.

I do find myself wondering what my reaction to the movies would have been if all the secondary literature hadn't been available, if I'd only had my Hobbit, LotR, Sil & BBC tapes. Alas, I'll never know.

Much agreed. Wish that I could somehow have watched the movies without all of the books inside my head so that I could see and judge just what was on the screen. Problem is that you can't go backwards.

I appreciate PJ et al's work, and I'm sure that it was an immense task and that the writers in no way were looking to personally aggravate me with certain scenes, but the fact is that they did. What I've found interesting in regards to the movies and this forum is that you'd think that presented with the same data (books, movies) we'd be all of one opinion with maybe a few minor dissensions. I could understand arguing with those who don't share our passion and with those whose only exposure to JRRT was from one viewing of the movies (and that could have been a 'date' night, meaning that the viewer's brain could have been a bit addled ), but I never would have guess that we here could be (at times) in such discordance.

But that's what all of this so much fun and of immense interest.

[lord of dor-lomin]

But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Why is this? Are they somehow less intelligent or less discerning than those for whom these inconsistencies cause irritation or anger?

Obviously, yes, in some ways that must be true. If inconsistency exists but is not noticed by someone then that person is definitely less... what should I say... observant. There's no denying that. It's true by definition.

Remember, WE are the Tolkien fanatics. WE, here on this site, are the Albert Einsteins of all things related to Tolkien. We are the experts. We are the ones who notice the most. We are the ones who see inconsistencies where others don't.

The fact is, when we are talking about Middle Earth related things, "ordinary film goers" and "profesional reviewers" ARE, in a way, inferior to us. The fact that they can't see things that are there is proof of this inequity.

However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?

I'd like to ask the same question.

[Formendacil]

I think that SpM is arguing a slightly lopsided case in saying that it is possible to enjoy the movie as separate from the book, when you know the book with a strong degree of familiarity. Those who have not read the book MIGHT not be troubled by inconsistencies in the movies, but then again, maybe they are. My mom, for example, has not yet read the books, and had to ask for some considerable explanation at times. In those situations, I found it necessary to return to the BOOKS to answer them.

I'm going to make something a comparisom with another big movie of the past year, The Passion. Like the LotR, it is a major work based on a very well-known story (in this case, the real-life passion and death of Jesus, as depicted in the four Gospels). Like the LotR, how is received and how popular it is depends on how faithfully it adheres to the original work. The proportion of pre-existing "fans" (people who knew the original work) is perhaps somewhat disparate, but the parallels are certainly there.

The Passion is considered to be a great piece of cinematic achievement. It is visually compelling, well-acted, and tells its story concisely. Nonetheless, do you think that it would have achieved the same sort of media hype, controversy, and number of viewers had it not been based on a pre-existing work? Of course not! It wouldn't even have existed.

In the same way that practising Christians, and others familiar with the story of Christ's passion, attended the movie expecting to see the story depicted as accurately as possible, so too did all those generations of Tolkien fans attend the movie, knowing that their judgement would be based on how well it adhered to the original story.

Now, The Passion tells a story much shorter, and less complicated, and so easier to translate to film. I am not suggesting that PJ and Co didn't have a more difficult task when adapting the story. What I AM saying is that the job they did was NOT as good as it should have been, and because we already knew and cared for the story, it was inevitable that our judgements on it would be based on our reading knowledge.

While I was watching the movies for example (RotK in particular), I was, like SpM, carried away with the movie-presented storyline. At the same time, however, I was groaning over every unnecessary change, and LITERALLY smacking myself on the forehead in the case of some, to the extreme annoyance of my friends sitting around me. Nor would I say that this was limited to crazy, multi-book-reading fans like myself. While they didn't go to the extremes of head-smacking, some of my one-or-two-time reading friends came out of the theatre with questions beginning or ending with "I don't think they did it that way in the book..."