Dumbing it down

[Lalaith]

I abase myself humbly to those who accuse me of nitpicking about Theoden's line at the tomb. They are absolutely right - it is nitpicking. (Although it wasn't the grammatical subtlities of "their" or "its" or "his/her" that bothered me)
But I also still maintain that this line, while full of truth and resonance to us, in the 21st century - and my especial respect and sympathy to those of my fellow Downers for whom it has personal meaning - is still not the right thing for a king of Rohan to say. He is the king of a people who would have seen so many of their children die of disease, their young men die in battle, and so on. What I was trying to get at, by talking about this line to illustrate my point, is that it seemed to me one of those moments, if not perhaps the most obvious one, that was shoehorned in for the sake of Relevance To A Modern Audience.
But do you want to make a classic, timeless piece of art, or something that might, in 20 years time, feel too much 'of its time' to be anything other than a dated if charming period piece? I'm not a snob about film, I think it can be art in the same way as literature, music or painting. But if you spend too much time listening to the focus groups about how it's going to play to the 15-17 year olds of Armpit, Arkansas in December 2003, then you're going to lose a lot in the process.
There were many moments in the movie trilogy when I felt moved, in the way that I do by great art, and I pay tribute to the creators of the films for their achievement. The trilogy is a masterpiece, I think, but nonetheless a flawed masterpiece.

[davem]

Some comments by Anne C Petty in this with Herenistarion (no, not him)interview seem relevant here:

Heren Istarion. Do you feel there is justification for the changes made to characters in the films?

I have a love/hate relationship with Jackson's films. I love the look and feel of the films and the exquisite detail put into the production. For the most part, I also enjoyed the earnestness and integrity with which the actors portrayed their characters; Jackson's attitude of approaching the films as if they were shooting history rather than fantasy contributes to the things that make me happy about the films. On the "hate" side of the equation I have to place the scriptwriting and the film editing (i.e., the manipulation of the storyline). I am most appalled by the way some characters have been shifted off plumb and torqued to serve a dramatic purpose that has little to do with Tolkien's story.

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.

I also highly dislike the misuse (and deliberate misreading) of Faramir. I really don't buy the excuses the scriptwriters have given for this change, and feel compelled to point out that it's important for Faramir to mirror Aragorn in his ability to withstand the lure of the ring and to see the greater vision of where Middle-earth is headed. Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. Denethor is yet another problem. In the books, he is stern, with the potential to become a tyrant, but he's a genuinely noble, capable leader for much of his stewardship. Tolkien says he's the closest the line of Stewards has come in many years to the Númenóreans of old. It's Denethor's belief that he has the High Númenórean ability (supra-human strength of will) to challenge Sauron through use of the palantír that erodes his leadership into madness. In the films he is just a crazy old pig of a despot who hates his second son for no apparent reason. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

And Elrond… eh, don't get me started. Hugo Weaving certainly looks the part and acts with dignity, but the scriptwriters have turned him into a cranky, frowning, angry old Elf who shows no love at all toward his foster son Aragorn. I think the Hobbits were better served than Men and Elves by the scripts. But the films certainly are beautiful to look at, and the music is rapturous for most of the ride.

(Whole interview: http://www.herenistarion.org/parmano...Interview.html)

[Lalaith]

I enjoyed reading that, thank you davem. And I agree with her....and I also have to agree with this quote from the interview:

Do you feel that Tolkien's humanity and world concerns come across in Peter Jackson's film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings?

That is perhaps where Jackson's films most closely resemble Tolkien's great story
I think the films convey a genuine sense of concern for one's fellow creatures and for the fate of their world in general. The emotional impact of the films on that level seems to be quite strong.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

Some comments by Anne C Petty in this with Herenistarion (no, not him)interview seem relevant here:




(Whole interview: http://www.herenistarion.org/parmano...Interview.html)

Wow! Thanks davem, great interview. That's my thinking exactly.

[Eruanna]

Originally quoted by Davem:

I think the films convey a genuine sense of concern for one's fellow creatures and for the fate of their world in general. The emotional impact of the films on that level seems to be quite strong.

And yet one of the most sympathetic characters in the books, Faramir, is perhaps the worst written in the films. His characterisation is one of my few 'niggles'.

I saw this quote by Professor Tolkien and thought it was quite ironic, considering how much emphasis some place on the sanctity of his writing:

"A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, but there he came walking through the woods of Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir."

[tar-ancalime]

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve.

In my original post, perhaps I was too hotheaded about the grammar and not emphatic enough about what really bothers me: as other people have pointed out, the tone and style of the dialogue is not consistent through the films, even within the lines of individual characters. To my ear, this line of Theoden's is a modern linguistic insertion (as well as a modern sentiment, as Lalaith rightly points out) into a film that, while outside of any historical chronology, is definitely not set in the modern day. For me, this line is just as clunky and out of place as "Game over" or "That's because my axe is embedded in his spinal cord" or Gandalf's "on our tail" line, for exactly the same reason.

Also, I really do love these films--I wouldn't know them well enough to pick out the (relatively few) lines that bother me if I hadn't seen them multiple times, right? And Theodred's funeral is one of my favorite scenes of all the films, so perhaps that's why this one tiny linguistic nit sticks out to me as ripe for the picking.

[InklingElf]

I thought the movies were beautifuly made. While the standards of modernity often tweeks the device of appeal (such actors as Bloom etc.) in book-based movies I think it is safe to say that there is really no point in complaining about the little things...

OK I admit - that Legolas scene with the surf/shield board jig was a tad bit too macho but OH the cinematography. As a whole the movies are a piece of art and I admire Jackson for his visual genius - keeping in mind to slightly adjust some aesthetic aspect of the text -> movie to engross younger audiences - and namely people who have not read any of the books.

I don't think anyone could do a better job than Mr. PJ though

As Lalaith said before

I'm not a snob about film, I think it can be art in the same way as literature, music or painting. But if you spend too much time listening to the focus groups about how it's going to play to the 15-17 year olds of Armpit, Arkansas in December 2003, then you're going to lose a lot in the process.

My first time posting here. Thought I'd jump in on something a little less intimidating than the chapter-by-chapter forum.

Alot of the changes in the films didn't bother me... Some seemed necessary in the interests of dramatic action...something which the book, with it's pages of pages of expositions(one of my favorite things about it, ironically!) would have needed more of to be directly "translatable" to a visual medium. Nevertheless the films have much more exposition that most films, albeit in a simplified way.

However there were some changes I didn't like, or was disappointed by, to wit:

over-simplification of the History of the Numenorean Kingdoms...though I realize that such a complex history would have had to have been simplified, the fact that there's no mention of Arnor, and little mention of Numenor bugs me...I got the impression that all the world knew of Aragorns identity...witness Boromirs awe during the Council of Rivendell...in the book, he seems unaware of Aragorns hereditary status until Aragorn dramatically draws the stub of Narsil...

No warg attack in Hollin! Pity, would've made a good battle scene.


GROSS oversimplification of the political situation in Rohan...it made no sense at all in the film...why would all of Eomers men follow Eomer in his "exile"? And how the hell do they travel "three hundred leagues" in a few days?

Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor?

"Evil" Faramir. While I appreciated seeing the ruins of Osgiliath, it made no sense whatsoever to me to do it the way Jackson et al did it: why let the halfling go after he's JUST offered the Ring to a Nazgul?? Sam's speech was moving, but no intelligent military commander would've done that. Much more credible in the book.

Simplified Denethor. IMO, Denethor and Faramir are two of the most interesting human characters of the book...they seem much more competent in the books than the movie...Denethor's madness and destructive pride seem much more of a tragedy...

Bombadil being cut, okay. Why cut the Woses out?

Didn't like Pippin's "tricking" of Treebeard into warring on Isengard.

Elrond delivering Anduril to Aragorns hand...where does he go afterwards?

No Scouring.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aquarius the King

Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor?

Originally Posted by The tennis Ball Kid

No doubt the timeline would have made more sense if they had left the scrapped "Arwen at Helm's Deep" storyline in.

Hmm. I am eternally thankful that Liv Tyler's many skills do not include fighting, as allegedly her scenes were so bad they had to be cut. I'd have been apoplectic if they had left those in! By way of interest, there are pictures on t'internet which people have taken from freeze frames of the film, showing Arwen lurking in the background of several scenes, including riding out with Theoden at dawn. So they did not manage to edit her out entirely. Possibly why the Elves turned up to fight there was something to do with the Arwen at Helm's Deep story line. Maybe they were simply too difficult to edit out, or else PJ thought 'what the heck, more elves will be good' and left them in.

[davem]

Just as an aside, what about this idea (for those who haven't watched the Appendices for RotK this was for a proposed 'addition' to the Battle before the Black Gates. Sauron was to appear to fight Aragorn but he first appeared in his earlier form of Annatar. The idea was that he would appear this way in an attempt to win over Aragorn & when that didn't work he was to adopt his earlier form from the Last Alliance)

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9499/d117hn.jpg

Would this have worked? Did the writers change their minds because they wanted to stay faithful to the books or because they feared the reaction of the fans?

The reason I ask is that I think this goes to the heart of why certain things from the books were left in despite changes in the storyline which made them seem at best incoherent & at worst nonsensical. How much freedom did they feel they had in making changes to the story? If the books had had a less devoted following would they have gone further than they did? And if they had felt they had complete freedom to 'adapt' the story as they wished, how different or how faithful would it have been?

Perhaps what we've ended up with is bits of two movies awkwardly stuck together - a 'faithful' adaptation of the book & another one which just uses the book as a starting point. Could this be the reason for all the 'back & forthing' we've been going through here - they simply couldn't decide whether they wanted to make a movie of Tolkien's LotR or their own?

[Ainaserkewen]

I’ve always had a certain mentality about Blockbuster movies. When I say Blockbuster I mean massively advertised, many theater-ed, multi-cultural, hugely popular movies...like Lord of the Rings. The way I view such movies is that they are entertainment. They are made for the “silver screen” as to be enjoyed by all that chose to see them. They entertain you with emotions, ideas, characters, plots, visual effects et cetera, and there is no reason to believe that if you pay to see a movie, that you will get anything more out of it. To me, that is a good blockbuster. In comparison, there are other movies and forms of story-telling art that are meant to contain more. Those types of stories are not made to make money or to be popular, simply to exist as what they are and what they were intended to be.

"more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film"

Marketable is exactly it. Blockbusters are meant to make money and if they happen to have elements in them that would turn some audience members, then what’s the harm in correcting those elements?

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

No, they really don’t. I could bring up hundreds of screen adaptations recent and old that are not only a reflection of the original author of the books their based on, but more so a reflection of the people who made the movie. Some people go see movies that are made by their favourite directors or screen writers, or Bob Anderson (I look for the movies he helped with now). Specifically, it’s the director’s style that will become more important to the audience, after all, it’s their work to make the movie, not the author’s.

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture.

I tried to think of an argument to this statement but depressingly, I can’t think of a good one. As a species we have become more advanced, more civilised, and more complicated than ever recently, but at the same time the value of intelligence and philosophy and downright thinking has decreased. This may just be my teenaged mind talking, I welcome arguments to this particular opinion of mine.

Perhaps I am strange in being able to separate the films from the books and enjoy them both without letting the one impair my enjoyment of the other.

No, that is how such things are meant to be viewed. Blockbuster movies are meant to be entertainment, if you thought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was entertaining, then it was a good movie. The books however, are on a different and deeper playing field where much more is expected of them. People are far more choosy about the books they read and eventually enjoy than the movies they like and see. The only books that defy this explanation at Harry Potter, but that’s a completely different argument.

I abase myself humbly to those who accuse me of nitpicking about Theoden's line at the tomb. They are absolutely right - it is nitpicking.

I would think that the “nitpicking” is a compliment. If it truly was a terrible drought of movies then we wouldn’t like to complain so much would we?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

No, they really don’t. I could bring up hundreds of screen adaptations recent and old that are not only a reflection of the original author of the books their based on, but more so a reflection of the people who made the movie. Some people go see movies that are made by their favourite directors or screen writers, or Bob Anderson (I look for the movies he helped with now). Specifically, it’s the director’s style that will become more important to the audience, after all, it’s their work to make the movie, not the author’s.

I'd still defend the 'moral obligation' point. Certainly they don't have any legal obligation to respect an author's views/moral position, but I think there should be respect among artists for each other's work. They've put Tolkien's name on these movies & made numerous references to him in interviews & thanked him when they've recieved their awards, etc, so as far as I'm concerned they taken that moral responsibility onto themselves.

Adapting a work of literature into a movie, rather than coming up with your own story, does impose certain moral obligations of respect for the original artist & their work. As Petty has pointed out in the interview, they have misrepresented characters like Aragorn, Faramir & Denethor, & rather than making them more 'real' & psychologically complex have actually reduced them to Hollywood stereotypes. They've done this purely to produce 'popular' movies which would make money. They have dumbed down the story & watered down the meaning. I keep quoting from a review in Mallorn, I know, but I think the point stands: 'Jackson clearly thinks Lord of the Rings is an action movie in book form.' But its not. Neither should it been seen as a 'first draft screenplay', to be improved upon in order to make it more 'accessible'. For one thing, if Tolkien himself had thought that way we'd either have no LotR at all, or we'd have got a very bland, shallow, 'Dungeons & Dragons' style fantasy which would have been a nine days wonder in the mid fifties & then disappeared forever.

The Downs, all the other Tolkien sites, & even the movies themselves, exist because Tolkien spent time & effort producing a profound, complex, moving & beautiful tale. His motivation was not 'popularity' or cash, but art.

In short, if his motivations had been the same as PJ & New Line then there wouldn't have been anything for them to make a movie of because by now The Lord of the Rings would only be remembered as a failed sequel to The Hobbit.

There are many things in the movies I do like - Theodred's Funeral being one - but overall I think they fail to be what they should & could have been...

[Lalwendë]

The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that. I thought I would extract and look at one aspect of the films which fails in comparison with the books, and that is the whole New Faramir episode.

I still fail to work out what the changes mean in terms of the revised plot as they simply do not fit into the narrative. If New Faramir has indeed been enraptured by the Ring, and he is taking it to Minas Tirith then what is the moment of realisation that he has done wrong? Is it when the Ringwraith appears above Osgiliath? Surely if he has indeed been enraptured then he is going to fight this Ringwraith in order to keep the Ring? And why does Frodo offer it up to the Ringwraith when he has been so successful in hiding it throughout? Why does the Ringwraith then not report back to Sauron on the whereabouts of the Ring, thus changing the eventual outcome of the story? These are just some of the puzzled questions that people who have not read the books have asked me.

I wondered why Jackson decided to alter this and I found this interview with himself and Boyens. His reasons for the changes are simply not justifiable. He says of New Faramir:

we've spent a lot of time in the last film and in this one to establish this ring as incredibly powerful. Then to suddenly come to a character that says, "Oh, I'm not interested in that," to suddenly go against everything that we've established ourselves is sort of going against our own rules.

But this does not follow on from the storytelling he has been doing. Frodo has already offered the Ring to various characters who have all recoiled in horror at the very suggestion that they take the Ring, so Faramir too should reject the Ring, if he is indeed a ‘good’ person on the same level as Aragorn or Gandalf. Instead, this episode detracts from the good nature of Faramir, as it makes him appear to have doubts, and ultimately, it ruins the whole plot line as it simply does not make sense. I shall be cynical here and wonder if the real reason behind the change was to get better value from the money spent on the Osgiliath set and the Fell Beast FX.

Jackson is a great film-maker, but neither he nor anyone else on his team comes close to Tolkien as a storyteller. LotR is not as simple a tale as your average bestselling novel, it has layers and complexities beyond imagining, and it’s risky to remove too many layers as eventually you will pull out the wrong one. It really does make me want to smack my head when I think of how easily he could have let the story alone and not created these plot holes, as the films are great renditions of Middle Earth. Did he make these alterations through over-confidence or was it due to financial reasons? Will we ever know?

[the phantom]

I skimmed the thread and I see a lot of people who think Jackson somehow made the films more relevant and accessible. First, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to change something awesome. Second, I think if the movies would've been done without adding silly little lines and making every character weak and flawed that the movie would've been far more enjoyable.

Besides, the visuals and such alone were good enough to fill up the theater. The movie could've been about a Dwarf boy band and quite a few people still would've filled the seats because the scenery, sound, and action sequences were great. I seriously doubt making the movie true to the book would've hampered attendance.

Plus, Jackson did not make the movie more accessible.

I recently watched all three movies with a few of my friends. None of them had ever watched the movies before (they hadn't read the books either).

I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-

1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?
(answer- same as before)
5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Theoden try to get all those guys to help him before?
(answer- same)
6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?
(answer- same)

And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."

And of course, I also mentioned at the end that Faramir and Aragorn weren't really that weak and Frodo didn't really send Sam home (and a few other little things). My friends said "Well, why the heck did they change it? It would've been better that way."

The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.

I love what Davem said-

this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond

That's the way the movies should've been done. It wouldn't have hurt sales and the movie would've been better.

PJ's movies are some of the best ever, but they could've been better. He took them down from what they could've been pretty much every time he changed something from the book.

If PJ really wanted to make the movie more accessible he would've-
1) combined Sauron and Saruman
2) trimmed the Fellowship to Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, and Gandalf
3) replaced Faramir with Boromir (and have him try to take the Ring in Ithilien)
4) leave out Arwen and have Aragorn end up with Eowyn
5) have Gandalf beat the Balrog and not die
6) leave out the Ents
7) make Sauron a bad elf and Gandalf an old man (so there's no maia-caused confusion)
8) leave out Celeborn (some people think the book did anyway)
9) have the characters continually get out a map and point to where they are
10) have the characters talk in third person (so we hear their names more often)
11) leave out the bit with the Ring

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.

Yes this is a problem. Besides the fact it's one of the things I missed very much from the books, it also fails to explain why so many men are willing to follow this man, this ranger, who’s shown as not much more then being good with a sword. There’s not really any majesty to him like there is in the books. He doesn’t want to be the king, in sharp contrast to the books, where it mentions Aragorn seeming to grow taller when he reviles himself from time to time he seemed “Tall as the sea-kings of old, he stood above all that were near; ancient of days he seemed and yet in the flower of manhood; and wisdom sat upon his brow, and strength and healing were in his hands, and a light was about him.” it’s just something I would have liked to see.

Sorry I don’t have much time to make this post very good.

[davem]

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources:

Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. .. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

Yes, I'm requoting what I quoted yesterday, because I think it sums up where the moviemakers went wrong. Its not only Tolkien's invented world that is strange & unique, but in many ways its also his characters. These beings, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, are not 'just like us'. They are not characters we are meant to 'identify' with. What the writers have done is take a 'legendary' figure like Aragorn, a being with supra-human wisdom, strength of character & a high destiny, & traduce him into an angst-ridden 'new man'. All the characters in the movie have to a greater or lesser degree lost their uniqueness, & have become 'cliches'. I'm not impressed by the movie characters because I've seen them in a thousand & one other movies. These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

All the depth, the strangeness, the 'queerness', of Middle earth has been sacrificed & replaced 'hollywood standard' 'characters'. Yes, there are moments when something of the real Middle earth & its denizens shines through, when the light of another world briefly illumines us from the screen, but not nearly as often or as brightly as it should.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, I'm requoting what I quoted yesterday, because I think it sums up where the moviemakers went wrong. Its not only Tolkien's invented world that is strange & unique, but in many ways its also his characters. These beings, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, are not 'just like us'. They are not characters we are meant to 'identify' with. What the writers have done is take a 'legendary' figure like Aragorn, a being with supra-human wisdom, strength of character & a high destiny, & traduce him into an angst-ridden 'new man'. All the characters in the movie have to a greater or lesser degree lost their uniqueness, & have become 'cliches'. I'm not impressed by the movie characters because I've seen them in a thousand & one other movies. These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

All the depth, the strangeness, the 'queerness', of Middle earth has been sacrificed & replaced 'hollywood standard' 'characters'. Yes, there are moments when something of the real Middle earth & its denizens shines through, when the light of another world briefly illumines us from the screen, but not nearly as often or as brightly as it should.

Mae lammen, (Well spoken) davem. That’s exactly it, in their attempt to make the characters into something that people can identify with, they lose the real meaning. These characters are like Beowulf, and so many other heroes, they are powerful, they are more then human, more then the norm, they are people that lead, that men will follow because they are more then just someone that Joe-shmo can relate to they are not stereotypes. They are based on an old ideal that the great will lead and men will follow them because of that. But not just because they just powerful but because they are good they have wisdom and the many other things that men will look for. Aragorn is not weak, he is not just a man, he is a King and the men will follow their king. It was stated that in the paths of the dead that the men only stayed because of their love for Aragorn, and his will alone that held them fast to follow him through.

This sadly, never quite comes through in the movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Saucepan, please realise that I feel for you, fending off us ferocious dogs single-handedly like you are!

Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate.

Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

However, a point I would like to send to you is this: I realise that the films have been immensely successful, but should mass opinion really be the barometer of quality here?

Fair point. No, I don’t think that it should necessarily be a measure of quality. But, to my mind, quality has always been a very subjective thing. My own personal opinion is that these films are extremely high quality in comparison with other films in the same and similar genres, but I value the book more. However, I do think that mass appeal is an appropriate measure when we are considering whether it was right to make changes to the story and characters or not. Films such as LotR have to be have mass appeal or they do not get made. And the film-makers clearly felt that they had to make changes in order to give the films that broad appeal.

Which does raise an issue that has clouded the discussion somewhat so far (and this may have been my fault for suggesting that the changes were necessary to make the film “relevant and accessible”). Not all of the changes were made in order to achieve that end. Many of them, including some of those discussed here, were made in order to fit them within the 3½ to 4 hours’ of screen time available for each film. This, for example was why The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs were excluded. Such changes and omissions were necessary, but they will inevitably have had knock-on effects in a story as tightly-wrought and complex as the one that Tolkien was telling in LotR. Without the Barrow Downs and the discovery of the Barrow Blades, for example, it is unclear why Merry’s sword has the power to wound the Witch-King. An explanation could have been given but it would have taken up precious time, and it does not really impair the films in any significant way. To my mind, a far more grievous omission (perhaps because Merry and Pippin are two of my favourite characters) is A Conspiracy Unmasked. Merry and Pippin simply bump into Frodo and Sam in Farmer Maggot‘s Field, and that’s it. They are off on a perilous Quest with them without even stopping to cancel the papers. But, again, I can understand the omission and their loyalty and friendship to Frodo is put across well enough not to make it a major issue.

Other changes were made because the film-makers wanted to bring across particular themes, such as the weakness of Men and the power of the Ring. Again, they have knock-on effects, but any film-maker will want to concentrate on particular themes to give the film greater cohesion, and what they choose will depend upon their individual interpretation. And yet more changes were made because the way that the story is told in the book would not have worked on film. In my view, this explains the concurrent, rather than sequential, telling of the tales of the War of the Ring (on the one hand) and the journey of Frodo and Sam (on the other), the movement of Shelob to the third film and the absence of the Scouring of the Shire.

I accept that none of these changes necessarily make the films any more or less popular. They are simply a function of the film-making process. I defy anyone to go away and produce a workable screenplay from the book for three 3½ to 4 hour films and come away without a bunch of gaping plot-holes.

But what we are really concerned with here is the changes that were made in order to make the films more “relevant and accessible”. Those that were intended to give it that mass appeal. These changes include Legolas’ stunts, the lengthening of the action sequences (which restricted the time available for other aspects of the books), the heavy use of special effects, the modern phraseology, the rationalisation of certain characters (Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Imrahil, Beregond etc), the increased role of other characters (such as Arwen), Gimli’s wise-cracks, and those moments that tended to provoke cheers amongst film audiences (such as Gandalf whacking Denethor). And I do firmly believe that all of these aspects of the films did go towards widening their appeal. We may not like some, or even all, of them (perhaps because they impinge on that “sacred text”), but for many others these moments were among the highlights of the film. Legolas’ shield-surfing is not to my taste, but I have seen people say (on this forum and elsewhere) that this was one of their favourite moments. I can well imagine word spreading of a good-looking Elf who did amazing stunts, thereby piquing the interest of those to whom such things would (quite understandably) appeal. Similarly, the humour introduced by Gimli’s wise-cracks, unsubtle though they were, and Merry/Pippin’s antics were of a nature that will have broad appeal without being unduly offensive (except perhaps to devoted fans of the book ). And modern idioms such as “Let’s hunt some Orc” and “You and whose army”, while not to my taste (well, I actually quite liked the latter one), will appeal to many people more readily than some of Tolkien‘s more archaic (for want of a better word) language and make the films more relevant to them.

Originally Posted by Neithan

If they wanted to make the films "accessible" then why not do them entirely in modern language, rather than switching back and forth.

Well, it was inevitable that the changes made to the story (due to time constraints, the process of adaptation to film etc) would require a major re-write job. As I have said previously, there are few writers who could credibly match Tolkien‘s style and maintain the broad appeal that he succeeded (almost unwittingly) in achieving. In light of that, isn’t it better that they used Tolkien’s lines where they felt that they were able to rather than not using them at all? Funnily enough, Tolkien himself has been criticised for using different writing styles in the earlier and later chapters of the book (the homely, familiar style used in the Shire and the journey to Rivendell in contrast with the epic style used on the plains of Rohan and in the Halls of Gondor) by those who find that these contrasting styles grate on them. I have never found this to be a problem, but then there are few lines in the film which really grate on me either.

And so we come to the character changes. Again, it seems to me that many of the changes made in this regard were intended to garner that mass appeal. So, Aragorn’s indecision over his destiny (which is there in the book, albeit fleetingly) is played up. He is made more “human” and less “lofty”. Similarly with Frodo and Faramir. The extraordinary resistance of the latter to the Ring is downplayed because the film-makers thought that it would lack credibility with audiences without greater screen-time being devoted to his development. I agree that these characters lose something in the reduction/exclusion of their mythical qualities. But I do also believe that, for many people, they become more credible characters as a result. I know that words such as “character arc” and “humanising” cause great distaste on this forum, and I agree that the changes made, to some extent, “Hollywood-ised” the characters, but it also increased their broad appeal.

Originally Posted by davem

These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Time and again I have people ask why Faramir did not just tell his father "where to stick it".

Actually, I have the same thoughts when I read the book. I recall that, when I first read it, I got very cross with Denethor for his treatment of Faramir, and also with Faramir for not standing up to his father. And I have to say that (perhaps for this reason) I found Faramir’s desire in the films to prove himself to his father, particularly after his brother’s death, very convincing and rather touching. And there are real life precedents of children yearning for the love of cruel and uncaring parents and doing all manner of things to gain that love.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To have done the Faramir sections properly would not have taken up any longer than they did when changed.

I think that they would have done. Faramir is not one of the principal characters. To develop his character to the extent whereby his attitude towards the Ring, as depicted in the book, would have seemed credible would, I believe, have taken up screen-time that simply was not available. Similarly, to have developed Denethor’s character sufficiently to portray him in the way he is portrayed in the book and to allow the audience to sympathise with a man who ends up trying to kill his own son would have taken time. The film-makers did not have the luxury of being able to devote the time to developing a relatively minor character such as Denethor. Believe me, I don’t like what they did to the poor guy. But I can understand why they did it.

So, all in all, I remain firmly convinced that the changes made to broaden the appeal of the films had just that effect. Those who were drawn to the films by these aspects may well go away and read the books and find that they prefer them. But, without such changes, they might never have gone to see the films in the first place, and they might then have ended up never reading the book.

And it seems to me that there are few of these changes (the ones intended to broaden the films’ appeal) that will have had the effect of confusing film audiences. On the contrary, to have included the book characters who were omitted or to have had Aragorn marry a character at the end of the trilogy who we had only met once before, briefly, in the first film, would only have served to cause confusion. To the extent that plot-holes and inconsistencies were introduced, they were largely a result of the changes made to fit the films into the time available and adapt them to the screen and, to my mind, this was an inevitable consequence of the adaptation to film of a story as finely-wrought and complex as that which Tolkien tells in LotR. That gets us back to the question of whether the films should have been made, to which I would answer a resounding “Yes!”.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Neithan

Saucepan is obviously anything but dumb but he said he likes pop music! Instead I tend to look at it as meaning the movies in themselves were "dumber" (that is, they do not stimulate us intellectually). You may like pop music for example, but you can not claim that Britany Spears(or even a real band like Metallica for that matter)

I should make clear that, by “pop music”, I meant popular music in general, as distinct from classical music. I am not a Britney Spears (or Metallica) fan (not that there is anything wrong with liking either), but I must say that, to my ear, the strains of Waterloo Sunset are far more pleasurable than many pieces of classical music.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate.

Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neurion

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?

Then again, it's no skin off my nose if you would prefer not to enjoy them.

[Neithan]

Could they? Would they have been made?

OK so maybe Jackson didn't really have a choice, that doesn't mean I have to like it. I want to see the movies and recognize Middle Earth as I know it from the books. I feel the same way as if Jackson were taking real history and distorting it to entertain people, often I find myself thinking but that's not how it really happened.

But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.

So what? If Jackson had actually reduced LotR to the level of soap operas then this would be a different conversation, and he would have earned my undieing hatred.

As far as Arwen goes I think that the scenes with her are completely unecessary. All that was needed was to mention that she was Aragorn's bride to be and there would be no confusion. Then you would free up more time for other things.

There was a lot more I wanted to say but I have already spentway more time on this forum today than is wise considering all the homework I have to do. It's going to be another long night.

[Aiwendil]

After hesitating over it for some time, I think I will give in to the temptation and ramble about my views on the changes.

Why I think many of Jackson's changes were mistaken

For some time, I was perplexed by Jackson's alterations to the story - not perplexed at the fact that he had made alterations but perplexed at the nature of those alterations. I think that my confusion arose because I initially bought the oft-used line "there isn't time in a movie to include everything in the book, and that's why so many changes are necessary."

Now it's true that there isn't time in a movie to include everything in the book. And some things certainly were left out, quite reasonably, I think, due to these time constraints. The whole Tom Bombadil episode, for example, is something that would either have added a half hour to the picture or have used up time that would have been better spent elsewhere.

But when one thinks about it, this explanation fails for most of the significant changes. In fact, many of those changes add events to the story and thus take up more time than would the story unembellished. For example, the whole element of the warg attack en route to Helm's Deep.

What accounts for the majority of the changes, then? The suggestion that started this thread is a good candidate: Jackson has "dumbed down" the story in order to make it more accessible. Or, if you like, he has altered the style of the story to bring it more into line with current Hollywood convention. This accounts, I think, for many of the jarringly poor lines of dialogue.

But I think that there is a third reason, one that perhaps accounts for most of the plot changes. Or perhaps it's not really a distinct reason but rather a facet of the "current Hollywood style" explanation. That is: I think that Jackson was quite over-concerned with maintaining tension and suspense. I would go as far as to say that this unhealthy obsession is a problem throughout Hollywood these days, at least when it comes to action/adventure/fantasy/science fiction movies. Directors (as well as producers and writers) are morbidly afraid that a single second of the movie will be declared boring by someone in the audience. So they try to load as much suspense as they can into every frame. The result, curiously enough, is often that the suspense fails, for two reasons. First, because its effect wears off and it eventually becomes tiresome; second, and more interestingly, because in trying to invest every moment with suspense, the director loses control of the more powerful element of long term suspense.

Consider some of the changes that add significantly to the length of the story. In Balin's tomb, instead of the troll sticking its arm and leg through the door, it comes all the way through and battles the Fellowship in a long action set piece. Clearly, the goal was to make the encounter more exciting; but it's cheap excitement. It is a battle, nothing more; it adds nothing to the overall progress of the story and does nothing to enhance the excitement or suspense in the movie beyond the confines of that particular scene. Or: the stairs begin to fall apart as the Fellowship flees Moria. Maybe the sequence is exciting and suspenseful in itself; but again it uses up a non-trivial bit of time and it is unneeded. What these and similar additions have in common is that they add suspense or action to non-critical moments. The business with the stairs, for example, is not needed because, quite simply, the stairs aren't the point; removing this and similar incidents would streamline the film, increase the relative significance of the truly important moments, and result in a more focused picture. That's why I can better understand additions made to increase the apparent significance of the Ring; even if I ultimately disagree with those additions, at least they attempt to emphasize an important element of the story rather than an unimportant one.

Why I was disappointed with the films

Davem argues that Jackson had a moral obligation to be faithful to the book. The Saucepan Man argues that there is nothing wrong with altering the story for the sake of accesibility, or conformity to Hollywood's style, or whatever you want to call it. I suppose my view is somewhere in between. I don't think I would say that there is any moral responsibility involved. Yet I do take issue with Jackson's changes - for the simple reason that I, personally, was disappointed with the movies as a result of these changes.

So, as a defender of the movies might ask me, why was I disappointed? What right do I have to complain about the movies, which have after all done nothing to hurt me, left all my copies of the book perfectly intact, and in fact provided me with some enjoyment? Well, I'm disappointed not because the movies were actively harmful (which they were not) but simply because they were not as good as they could have been. No doubt our hypothetical interlocuter would seize on my use of the word "good", asking me "Good in whose opinion?" Well, in my opinion, of course; it's the only one I've got.

So, while the altered scene in Balin's tomb did not harm me, I cannot help but to imagine how much I would have enjoyed seeing the scene as Tolkien wrote it on the screen. It would have been great to see the climactic scene at Mt. Doom the way it was written. It would have been sublime to see the Witch-king facing Gandalf at the gate of Minas Tirith and to hear the cock's crow taken up by the horns of Rohan. And Jackson could have done it. Here was an opportunity that will not come again for a long time, if at all. It's all very well and good to say that Jackson had the right to popularize the work, even to dumb it down - but I'm not concerned about whether he had the right; what bothers me, quite frankly, is that I did not like the resulting movies so very much - and that I could have loved them, had they been not so very different.

That sounds selfish, no doubt - and it is. After all, we go and see movies for selfish reasons - because we want to enjoy them.

Why I nonetheless own all the extended editions and have voraciously consumed the special features

I think that in many ways Jackson failed with these movies. I think he dumbed them down. I did not enjoy them as much as I might have. But I enjoyed them. I say this because I wonder whether this is a common phenomenon or whether I am the only one. Are there others who lament the popularization of the story and yet agree that in other ways, the films were quite good?

Why the whole enterprise was doomed from the beginning

Even when I consider the hypothetical perfect LotR movie - the one that Jackson could have made but didn't - I conclude that the book would be far superior. This reminds me of what Hitchcock said when Truffaut asked him if he would ever consider making a film version of Crime and Punishment (which does have a somewhat Hitchcockian story). He said that he would never make such a movie, nor a movie based on any literary masterpiece. Why? Because a literary masterpiece is already a masterpiece. It already exists in something like a perfect form. If its perfect medium is literature, then cinema is not its perfect medium. So a cinematic version will never improve upon the story. Hitchcock instead made movies based on imperfect books - books that contained interesting ideas but ideas that, he thought, could be better utilized in cinema. The more I think about this argument, the more sense it makes to me.

Edit: Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words - one sentence, in fact!

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Edit: Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words - one sentence, in fact! I don't know a proper saying for such an occasion in my native American tongue, so I'll steal a British one.

Ho hum.

LOL. Strangely enough, I hate making short posts like that and I quite envy the long, well thought-out and intelligent post you just made.

Keep up the good work.