Dumbing it down

[Boromir88]

SpM:

From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences.

I would agree. It is second on Imdb.com, just below "The Godfather." This is an opinion poll of imdb's users on what movies would people MOST likely enjoy. Also, we can credit Mr. Jackson for having Tolkien recently being reinstated as the top selling Author's of this century.

I know for me personally, the movies got me to pick up the book again. I hadn't picked up LOTR for about 15 years, and when the movies came out it got me back into appreciating him like I did back in the day. As a fan of Tolkien that is the best thing the movie has done, introduced more people into the world of Middle-earth, and gotten them into Tolkien.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

davem, fox paws or not , I think that may be the best expression that I have seen given to my opinion on this subject. Thanks for putting it in those terms. Now on to the meat:

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. Posted by Kitanna

People frequently make this argument about Arwen's expanded role. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Arwen's part in the story is any more confusing in a film medium than it was in the original book. Her role is very small indeed as Tolkien wrote it and he took no pains to explain why Aragorn would pick Arwen over Eowyn. If we can understand it once we've read the book with no expansion of her role, I don't see that it makes a difference when translated to film.

So, though I disagree with the "more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film" argument, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than this one. This one, I feel, is patronising to the casual moviegoer.

Sophia

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Sophia the Thunder Mistress

People frequently make this argument about Arwen's expanded role. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Arwen's part in the story is any more confusing in a film medium than it was in the original book. Her role is very small indeed as Tolkien wrote it and he took no pains to explain why Aragorn would pick Arwen over Eowyn. If we can understand it once we've read the book with no expansion of her role, I don't see that it makes a difference when translated to film.

So, though I disagree with the "more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film" argument, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than this one. This one, I feel, is patronising to the casual moviegoer.

Sophia

Arwen's role in the book isn't confusing at all, if you actually read the Appendices. According to Brian Sibley, Tolkien wanted to expand on Aragorn and arwen's love and history together within the Lord of the Rings, but he could never figure out how, so he included it in the the appendices instead of the main body of the story.

Tolkien did intend his mythology to be relatable to his readers, but not in the sense that an adolescent raised on a steady diet of pop-culture would find readily familiar.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

... their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably.

A view that is probably surprisingly common. And I suppose it depends how one comes at the question. If they are arguing that the films are better at making the story accessible to as wide a range of people as possible in the early 21st century, then I would agree with them. Personally, I prefer the books, but it's a matter of taste and opinion and they are entitled to theirs.

Originally Posted by davem

Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible.

But what does that mean? Jackson and co would no doubt put up a respectable argument to the effect that they made as faithful an adaptation as was possible in the circumstances and within the constraints within which they were working. One could dispute that (and many of course do), but how far do you take it? What exactly is an adaptation that is "as faithful as possible"?

And I am rather perplexed as to why it should be a moral issue. Clearly they had the legal right to make the films, so no issue there. By selling the film rights, Tolkien gave his permission to anyone holding those rights to film his book. And, given that Jackson and co have made a trilogy of films that has brought pleasure to millions of people (and indeed have led many to the books), I cannot see that they are due any moral censure either. If they are, who are they answerable to? Who is responsible for deciding whether they have discharged their moral duty or not? I'm sorry, but I really don't see it as being a moral issue at all.