Dumbing it down

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by lindil

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories ... [so] my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies

Sometimes I do feel likewise, sometimes I can muster enough mental resource to segregate two sets of characters completely. Cf. Two Frodos , excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel

Originally Posted by SpM

But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach

Ah, but outright Like/Not Like is a bit simplistic, ain't it? It has to be a little more complex than that, so, BUT comes into play. Let me present you with an analogy:

I like my friend ***. I would not apply a term friend to him , if I liked him not, eh? He's handsome and clever, generous and funny, good playing mate when it comes down to bowling or billiard et cetera et cetera. But he's a bit talkative at times, and maybe tiresome too when in pursuit of his favourite subject. He's perfect, but for one flow. Now, and analogy is crooked, as neither I, nor any living man (but for himself) wield the power to eliminate that flow (that is, feature is a flow from my point of view anyways), and I whether like him 'as he is' or do not like him at all. But I may be inclined to say at times: *** would be a great person if only he could be less prolix.

Or, another analogy - imagine yours truly and his chosen in a haute style restaurant. We are served a dinner of our dream, with all proper things and stuff, four types of forks and knives, gentle candlelight, perfect band and the kind of service which helps you forgive and forget. Got a picture? Now, imagine spinach (that b*****d of a plant always apt to try the trick) stuck in yours truly's teeth. Imagine furthermore desparete, even hunted looks for toothpick-stand on behalf of yours truly, and disenchantment one feels as soon it is clear no toothpick-stand is present, and it is an alternative of finger-into-your-mouth-when-you-think-no-one-looks-but-in-fact-half-the-world-is-giggling-at-you technique or nervous tongue-action for the rest of the evening. (Of course, there is always a possibility to ask for one, but that's not the point here)

The fact being, I would not have complained about missing toothpicks in a snack-bar round the corner, and talkativenss would not bother me if *** were outright mean, not a grand person I know him to be.

Almost-perfect thing is more of a pest (or, 'almost' part of it is a pest), than the humble mass consumption product. You don't expect much of the latter, but when former falls short (and within an inch! - just a little less alteration, and it would have been nailed!) - well, it's not a nice feeling. Have you heard people nitpicking about Banshee cartoon details? Exactly for the films being so good, we can't help complaining, as it seems to us they might have been even better.

Hence the 'but' sticking in the middle of sentences starting with 'I love the films...'

[The Saucepan Man]

The latest posts provide some of the best answers that I have seen to my eternal question (and I find myself wondering why I always seem to agree with Aiwendil, even when we are discussing something that we disagree on ).

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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

Not at all. I find it very interesting to gain some insight into why it is that people feel the way that they do about these films (as opposed to simply the specific things that they dislike about them, most of which I have heard now about a hundred times each).

I do, of course, agree that the films could have been better. Flippantly, I might ask whether there is anything that cannot be improved on in some way, however minor (yes, including the book). But I too would have loved to have seen many of the scenes filmed just the way that Tolkien wrote them. My point is that a film which adheres as closely as possible to the book (within the constraints of the film medium) can and will probably never be made. Yes, another production team might have done things slightly different. They might have excluded more of the additional scenes and included more of the original scenes and lines. But any film-maker is going to approach it from his or her interpretation of what will work best and, in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.

When I first saw the films, TTT particularly, I did feel pretty disappointed with some of the changes that had been made. But, having now seen them a few times each, I just sit back and enjoy them. I take the view that they are what they are and, since I find them enjoyable, I might as well not let my initial disappointment spoil that enjoyment. That all sounds terribly analytical, but it is not really a conscious approach at all. It is simply the way that I have come to feel about the films.

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.

True enough. But audiences have come to expect thrilling action sequences throughout "blockbuster" films and so it is inevitable that they will be written in where they are not present already. Again, I firmly believe that the LotR films would not have been so successful if the action sequences had (as they are in the books) been fewer and further between. People have different expectations from films than they do from books. Books are there to be savoured, to take one's time over, whereas films are far more immediate. That's a massive generalisation, I know, but it applies when we are comparing the techniques used to write a tale such as LotR with the techniques used in making what is intended to be a highly successful blockbuster film.

I know that people will say that they should not have been made as blockbusters, but I really don't think that they would have been made in any other way. They would have been left unfilmed (which, though an appealing prospect, no doubt, to some, would have denied countless others of the pleasure that they derived from them).

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

Yes, I think that this does fall within the category of broadening the films' appeal. I do agree that the films might have worked with less outright action and more tension building. I often find people staring blankly at me when I say that my favourite of the Alien films was the first one. Most people seem to prefer the action-heavy second film in the series. But it is precisely because most of the first film is taken up by lengthy periods of suspense-building and has suprisingly few moments of full-throttle action that I find it superior. That said, I find the two scenes that you give as specific examples (the Cave Troll attack and the crumbling stair-block) to be incredibly exciting and enjoyable sequences.

We blithely refer here to the films being "Hollywood-ised", but this style of film did not just come about randomly. It arose to fulfil a demand. Film studios have sophisticated ways of discovering what it is that their target audiences want. They don't always get it right, but they are usually pretty accurate. They have found that people want lots of action in their blockbusters, and that's what the LotR films give them. But I would say that, in my view, these films are infinately superior and put across a far more uplifting message, than the average (or even above average) blockbuster film. In this regard, I would put them on a par with the Star Wars films (the first three) and the first of the Indiana Jones films, all of which have a special place in my heart.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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?

I would say that you are in the majority of those who have also read the book. As I have said, I was initially disappointed with aspects of the films, and I do still sometimes wonder at what might (but probably never would) have been. But mostly I just enjoy them for what they are.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

I do not disagree. And I can well understand why a man like Hitchcock thought it a good reason for him to make such films. But I do not think that it is a valid reason for the films not to be made at all. If they are made well enough (which I think the LotR films are), then they will bring pleasure and enjoyment to people and might lead them to read the original literary masterpiece. I think that is reason enough to justify their production.

Originally Posted by lindil

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart.

Thanks lindil for providing further insight into what I call the "sacred text" approach. I fully understand your reaction, even though I do not share it.

Originally Posted by lindil

my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies.

A sensible approach to adopt, I would say, given the way that you feel about them.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Cf. Two Frodos , excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel

Hehe. The dogs don't worry me. And they woudn't get any exercise if I wasn't here for them to bark at.

I have read and enjoyed that thread, HI, and I agreed with much of what was said. But I didn't feel that there was much more that I could add that had not been said already. I can't recall whether Helen has posted there, but I rather like her approach of keeping the two Frodos separate and appreciating the different qualities of each.

Originally Posted by HI

Let me present you with an analogy

You do surprise me!

As with the films, I would overlook the friend's minor flaws and simply enjoy his company. On the other hand, the spinach would bug the heck out of me (far more so than the changes to the films), so the analogy doesn't really work for me.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

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?

It's a fair question, and I am one of those people who really enjoys the films yet still criticises. It's something I have given thought to, however.

It may be that I simply love the books to such an extent and have loved them for so long, that it would be impossible to match up to the experience of reading them. I dreaded the films to a certain extent, as LotR is so precious (sorry!) to me and I only heard about them being made some three or four months before FotR arrived in the cinemas. I was excited, and yet I was filled with fear that they would be dreadful. When I finally saw FotR my fears were dispelled, yet I still found aspects of the film raised my hackles a little. I think it was the best of all three films, and the most true to the books (despite the omission of the Old Forest, Tom and the Wight). I knew I would be critical, as time and again I had seen films of much loved books, virtually all of which failed to meet my expectations.

Some of the changes made for the films were, and still are, incomprehensible to me. At first my main gripe was with the character of Arwen. Now I have come to the conclusion that it was acceptable to include elements of the love story, as they are in the text anyway, just hidden away in the appendices. It is not altering the storyline to show how the story of Arwen and Aragorn unfolds. But I still object to the action sequences, particularly the scene at the Ford as this denigrates the struggle and bravery of Frodo. In addition, it alters the character of Arwen in my mind, as she ought to be presented as the protected Elf maiden rather than a "She-Elf" who is allowed to ride out and out herself in danger. Now I can see why this may have been done: to cushion Jackson from the same accusations of sexism that Tolkien himself suffered. But it does not improve the film.

In the same way, Gimli was turned from a droll yet noble Dwarf into a bumbling belching buffoon. Yes, this gave some laughs, but again it was a denigration of a character. I now fear what any film of The Hobbit will be like, lest it sounds reminiscent of the QEII leaving port with all the bodily noises that Dwarfs seem to have been linked to. This was a shame as the performance given was good when the actor was not required to act basely - and I'm not prissy about that kind of thing, but it doesn't 'fit' to have a character eructating at a King.

Then there was Aragorn. One view of Aragorn in RotK that I've been asked about is "why didn't they make him into an inspirational leader figure who all the men wanted to follow?". Well, that's how Aragorn truly is, but just not in the films. It seems that Jackson picked up on his occasional moments of doubt and ran with them in an attempt to create Angst-a-gorn.

And the primary reason I get frustrated with the films is the alterations in plot which are inexplicable. This is a finely crafted plot and to alter it is incredibly risky. As I've already said, the messing about with Faramir was a ridiculously dangerous thing to do. I still cannot see why this change was made. It leaves a huge plot hole, and he may not be one of the Fellowship, but he is still an important character. It might have been better to leave him out altogether than to mess about in this way.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

Aiwendil sums it up nicely. Perhaps some of the necessary yet seemingly "boring" scenes or exposition were omitted in order to include more "action". It is incredibly frustrating to think that certain parts of the plot were altered for inexplicable reasons, as these changes seem to have only resulted in greater inconsistency and incoherence.

Now about these changes being necessary to increase the popularity of the films. Who is all this action going to appeal to? I would say it would appeal to young men of course. And who are often stereotyped as typical avid readers of Tolkien? Well, a lot of young men, again. There was already plenty of action in the books, I would argue that there did not need to be additional action.

Then there is the question of language. A few of the new lines were amusing, yet others are glaringly obvious as poor writing. And when people pull out examples of their favourite lines in the films, they are invariably those written by Tolkien in the first place. Also, the themes and the characters are timeless and there is no reason to be updating these whatsoever.

So what did I like about the changes? There are a few, surprisingly. I thought that moving the episode with Shelob on to the final film was justified from a viewpoint of narrative, as it gave more 'story' for Frodo, Sam and Gollum in the final film and it did not alter the plot. As said above, bringing Arwen's love story into the main plot did not affect it and was acceptable. And some amusing new lines were written for the Hobbits; surely this was easier as their idiom is not quite so different to our own.

I think the films are quite beautiful to watch, the music is splendid and the acting superb. I like the way that so many little 'details' were brought in, particularly in the art/design ideas. I like the films a heck of a lot. But I still don't like that script. There are points where I feel like cringing, and others where I start wondering where my books are, as some parts just don't make any sense.

[The Saucepan Man]

On this moral duty question, it occurred to me that it would be somewhat unfair to impose restictions on the manner in which the film rights may be exercised by a purchaser of those rights that:

1. were not contemplated at the time he purchased the rights; and
2. were not therefore taken into account in calculating the amount to be paid to the person selling those rights.

Quite apart from the fact that such restrictions would be unenforceable at law, it seems to me to be morally wrong to try to assert restrictions on the use of the rights when the author has been paid for those rights on the basis that such restrictions do not apply.

[Formendacil]

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I like the movies, but....

The truth is that like SpM, I understood and appreciated the plot changes made to the story. While I mourned the losses, I was able to take them in stride because I appreciate that you can't fit a book that takes something like 7 1/2 hours to read out loud into a 3 hour movie (that would be the Fellowship).

Therefore, I was able (with a great deal of sighing and groaning) to appreciate the loss of "A Conspiracy Unmasked", Glorfindel in general, Halbarad and Co., and things along those lines.

But here's where PJ screwed up where my fandom was concerned: the LITTLE things. I can understand and even come close to approving the big changes, but the little ones elude me. Why does Aragorn's crown not fit the description of the one in the book? Why does Arwen have a CURVED sword? Why is so much of the new lines written in Modern American instead of Middle English? These sorts of things could have been changed to remain consistent with the original version without any extra cost. The losses would have been nonexistent, the benefits would have been greater consistency and greater approval from the fans (those of us who met Frodo and Aragorn, etc, before PJ made stars of them).

On the subject of Gimli, surely it would have been possible to make him humourous without making him so... crude. Gimli's humour has no sophistication.

As for Merry and Pippin... Why make them carbon copies of each other? Protests to the contrary, they were pretty much identical characters. Why not let Pippin do all the comic stunts, and let Merry develop a character of his own?

And then there's Aragorn.... I have to wonder at times why they even bothered making him "accessable". Why not just make him more or less super-cool like Legolas? Oh wait! People today don't think that high lineage, wisdom, and a supernatural aura aren't cool.

Basically, my points are that PJ screwed up in the little things. The big changes HAD to be made. The little ones are another matter entirely.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, so the conversation has been about how the film attempts to be more "accessible" -- but just what is being accessed.

I've got to say right from the outset that I am a wholehearted fan of the films, both as films and as adaptations of the story. I think that they succeed in every respect. Sure, the characters and events got changed, plot elements were rearranged, relationships altered, but the thematic concerns of the story came through loud and clear. The movies celebrate friendship, and self-sacrifice, and the perservation of the natural world, and humility, and pity, and duy and honour and bravery; they deride cruelty and disregard for nature, they abhor the unthinking application of force and power, they postulate that the only response to tyranny and self-aggrandizing power is resistance: bloodless resistance, if possible, but armed if unavoidable. In the book and in the movie the central conflict is the same (Power vs free will) and in the end both resolve that conflict in the same remarkable manner: a miracle happens and the Powerful Object is destroyed rather than used. The Men of the West kneel and pay homage to Hobbits. The Towers are thrown down and evil defeats itself. When I put these really important similarities up against an alteration in the order of events, or more screen time for Arwen, or even the wholesale rewriting of Faramir and Denethor -- well, those kinds of changes seem relatively unimportant to me.

Greaty to PJ's credit he was always very clear that he was making "a version" of LotR and not the definitive translation of it to screen (which he knew as well as Tolkien was impossible). Another word that's been getting a lot of play in the thread is "successful" -- are the films successful? Well, certainly they were with audiences, but I also think they were entirely successful with their intended aim: they preserved and presented the ideals and themes of the story in a completely different medium.

I like to think about the films as 'covers' of the story, like in music. With all really good covers, the differences between the original and the cover version are what make it a good cover. The music is kind of the same, but there are more differences than similiarities really: shifts in tone and tune, key, pace, melody even. But the words are always the same -- the message is still there even though the song, and thus our experience of it, is entirely different. My favourite examples are "Stand By Me" and "My Way". Whereas the original SbM is a slick 50's pop song about boy and girl togetherness, Lennon's cover is full of an angst, and anger, that makes the song far more social and even despairing, I think. Both versions of the song are about the need for togetherness and relationship in difficult times, though. "My Way" was famously covered by Sid Vicious in such a way that they satirically ironised the song -- so it is possible to mangle the original but only by changing the words. Sid did deliberate violence to the intent of the song.

PJ and crew did not do anything of the kind to the core values and vision of LotR. They changed all the props and stays of story telling, and adapted them to the screen so that those core values and vision could be maintained and made accessible to a movie going audience. Moral? Yer darn right that PJ and crew had a moral obligation to Tolkien to maintain his vision -- and they did, by maintaining Tolkien's moral vision!

[Neurion]

Fordim, the essential message could have been propagated just as well had PJ and co. made a trilogy of films set in Han Dynasty China.

What is missing from the filmic adaptations in many instances are the many individual episodes that stick in your mind and make the story, and characters so endearing. Lord of the Rings isn't just small-person-takes-evil-Ring-to-Land-of-Shadow-and-drops-it-into-volcano, it's Gimli capering about when he hears the message Galdriel has sent him, Aragorn leading on the levies of Gondor with the Rangers at his side and the Star of Elendil on his brow, Barliman Butterbur musing over the unprecedented excellence of his beer, Gimli dwelling on the beauty of Aglarond, the three banners of Gondor, Rohan and Dol Amroth waving in the wind, sable, green and blue.

In many ways, certainly visually, I love the films and am deeply indebted to Peter Jackson, yet there are needless flaws that rankle.