Dumbing it down

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by davem

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

Is it really an obligation to do that? If they have the rights they can do as they choose. It's not what I would call an obligation, it's more of a respect thing. Jackson and company kept many things the same and I think that's more out of respect for Tolkien and his work then because they were "obligated" to. I can see though how taking respect as a moral issue, but I don't see this as an moral obligation.

[The Only Real Estel]

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."

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

"No parent should have to bury their child" might have amused (or maybe enraged) Tolkien as a philologist, given the grammatical contradictions inherent in the juxtaposition of the words "Parent" (singular) and "Their child" (plural).

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

It's the grammar, my good Estel, the grammar...

Although if he had said, "No parent should have to bury his or her child," it really would have sounded awkward.

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture.

Quite possible.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Arwen's role in the book isn't confusing at all, if you actually read the Appendices.

To clarify, I was speaking in the context of the main body of the story. The Appendices are great reading material but saying that Tolkien made Arwen clear in the Appendices is roughly like saying that PJ Merry and Pippin's friendship more detailed in the Extended version. It's all well and good or even great, but clearly, if it had been necessary for understanding it would have been included in the main text. I think you'll find that there is quite a large body of readers who begin after the Prologue and stop before the Appendices.

Sophia

[Lalwendë]

A few random thoughts because I need my breakfast...

"No parent should have to bury their child". This is a line I always find quite striking, and the delivery by Bernard Hill is perfect and it is very touching. But, I find it stands out a little too much and though I like it, I find it somewhat incongruous; it seems somehow too modern and emotional for a king such as Theoden. So, it's a well delivered line and provides an emotional moment, but it is also out of context.

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

Those who say that Jackson and crew supposedly "improved on Tolkien's work by making it more accesible" are really not taking it for what it is. In my oppinion, the biggest reason for the popularity of the films is because they dramatize Tolkien's epic, not because the characters drop "accesible" lines like "Let's hunt some orc".

When I hear people say that the films are better than the books, that they improved on the books, my blood pressure starts rising and I start to get irrational thoughts. To me the books are LotR, the films are just something else, like an extra, like another appendix, or an extremely beautiful special edition in a different cover but with so many printing errors I have to put it on one side and go back to my battered paperbacks.

How could Tolkien's work be made more accessible? LotR was already one of the biggest selling works of all time, and most readers who were likely to have enjoyed it would have read it already anyway, unless they were too young to have done so by the time the films were released. It is not exactly a difficult or daunting read, so I wonder who are these people who would never have read LotR and had to have this accessible version? Surely this means all those people who never read books anyway? It can't mean those who read the books after the films and enjoyed them, as they would likely have come to the books in any case, despite the films. So the films were made for the class of people who hate reading? Or are they made for those who like reading but couldn't be bothered with the books? I know I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC adaptation of Middlemarch, as it saved me reading a book I found unutterably dull; is it for this reason that the films were made? To save people from having to bother reading the books?

A final thought I had is that in many cases the books were adapted to such a ridiculous degree by the scriptwriters that many aspects of the story actually became more difficult to understand. One example is what they did to Aragorn in making him be such a reluctant heir to Gondor, and in the changes to Frodo, turning him into a victim. I've had to explain so many things in cases where parts of the story were changed from how they appear in the books; clearly, in many respects the films actually made Tolkien's world less accessible, and less explicable.

[Lalaith]

You know, in the same way as we now watch film adaptations from the 1960s and 1970s that were intended to be set in historical times, such as Tom Jones, and laugh at the anachronistic hairstyles and make-up, I wonder whether generations to come will watch movie adaptations such as LotR from our era and laugh at the psychobabble that has been inserted, as redolent of our obsessions with "emotional journeys" and "personal development" - the way that all characters, in order to be deemed interesting, have to explain constantly exactly how they are feeling, and how they feel slightly differently about something now, to the way they felt half an hour ago.

If y'all will allow me to veer slightly off-topic to illustrate this point: My OTHER favourite book of all time, I Capture the Castle, was also recently adapted for the cinema. And, would you believe it, the buggers did the same thing there. The original, despite being written as a first person narrative, was an intelligent story with plenty of room for the reader to draw his own conclusions and speculations as to motivation, past and present. The film's writer and director decided that they would create, and spell out, their own emotional hinterland for all the characters, and the story became a lot less interesting as a result.

This is the kind of dumbing down I dislike, even more than silly lines of script such as 'lets hunt some orc.' Lord of the Rings is heroic epic, for crying out loud. Why do we need Frodo, Aragorn or Theoden to be constantly blithering on about some inner angst they are having to conquer? Ben-Hur, Spartacus and all the old epic movie heroes didn't turn their audiences into therapists, they just got on with it.

[Essex]

Although if he had said, "No parent should have to bury his or her child," it really would have sounded awkward.

I think I remember reading about this problem with the English language a while back. i.e. We don't have a word to use in the place of the singular 'his or her', and have the use the (grammitically incorrect) plural 'their'?

PS anyone want to join me in a sacrificial burning of the book mentioned above that says the films are better than the books? It's their opinion ok, but it's the wrong one!!!!!!!!