Dumbing it down

[Kitanna]

Mmmmm, are we really that dumb? Well, Tolkien fans would have no problem understanding the movies without those kind of lines thrown in. But the LOTR movies are for everyone and not everyone can understand Tolkien's works. (like myself, I can't read the Silm without stopping and rereading, trying to get a grasp on what the heck is going on) Personally I think PJ and team threw those lines in to help/ add a modern feel for the casual movie goer. Kinda of like the whole Aragorn and Arwen thing. Don't you think that would confuse people if at the end of ROTK Aragorn just married some random elf instead of Eowyn if you hadn't read the books? Things had to be added to help people who hadn't read the books. It just helps to understand things. I didn't read FOTR until after the movie and I found understanding a lot of the history easier because of those dumbed down parts from the movie. But to each his own.

Though a lot of those lines are even more dumbed down then they should be. Like Gimli at the Black Gate "well that concludes negoations (sp? oh whatever)". Well duh. That kind of thing is really not needed. It takes away from the dramtic scene with some mindless line. And from Gimli of all people (and dwarves). Gimli is way to cool for something like that.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

My point is that I feel that the writers, despite their stellar work on much of the films seem to, in my opinion at least, attempt lower the bar far enough that even the most witless theatre-goer will not fail to have the message pounded into his brain.

I suspect that it has more to do with making the film relevant and accessible to film audiences than with patronising them.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I suspect that it has more to do with making the film relevant and accessible to film audiences than with patronising them.

Yes, but it's still more than possible to carry such good intentions way too far.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neurion

Yes, but it's still more than possible to carry such good intentions way too far.

That, of course, depends on your perspective. From the point of view of most ardent fans of Tolkien's works, you are right. But vast numbers of film-goers, many critics and those responsible for nominating and selecting films for awards would probably disagree.

From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences. Perhaps they would have suceeded in equal measure had they not used the techniques described above, but we cannot know that for sure unless and until a more faithful film adaptation of the book is made.

[Lalaith]

I didn't mind "one of those on our tail" or the surfing, but I do agree about the dumbing down in general...and of Gimli in particular.
One of the things that bugged me was that many of the additions made by the film-makers involved the spurious imposition of 21st century sensibilities onto these characters.
It's a small thing I know, but something that rankled with me was Theoden's weeping at Theodred's grave, "no parent should have to bury their child." Now, that is very much a 21st century feeling. In societies like that of Rohan, parents buried their children ALL the time. Illness, war and so on. I'm not saying they wouldn't have grieved deeply, of course they did, but it wasn't that feeling of "this is all wrong" that we have today.

[tar-ancalime]

It's a small thing I know, but something that rankled with me was Theoden's weeping at Theodred's grave, "no parent should have to bury their child."

I was just watching TTT last night, and this line struck me too, but for a slightly different reason. It made sense to me that Theoden should grieve openly--a king losing his only heir has wider repercussions than an ordinary death, and especially a king who's already been weakened by an outside influence should rightly be concerned about the future of his kingdom and about succession.

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

[Essex]

Originally Posted by tar-ancalime

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

No disrespect, Tar-ancalime, but I think if we were to disect the movie to this level, then we will be here till doosmsday!