Dumbing it down

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Davem, a simple equation for you, that works in most cases....

Film totally faithful to the book = film that does not work.

But the BBC radio series dramatised LotR in 13 hours without making any significant changes to characters or events - apart from missing out the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode (which was later dramatised seperately - & which worked very well in spite of all the comments I've heard that it cannot be done). Taking the EE's into account PJ has had almost as long - especially as the radio version required lots of landscape description by a narrator.

Its not a matter of lack of time - PJ could have trimmed back every interminable fight/battle in the movies by half & made them better for it. My complaint is that most of the changes they made just didn't work. I won't reiterate my points about Faramir, but simply say book Faramir works & movie Faramir doesn't.

Originally Posted by SPM

It is clear to me from everything that has been said on this thread that it is primarily because most here hold the book so close to their hearts that they feel disappointed and/or angry with (some or all of) the changes.

I feel annoyed with the changes not simply because I hold the book close to my heart but because the writers have taken a beautifully crafted, intricate, profound work of art & made a pig's ear of it...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

... made a pig's ear of it.

Might this be the first example of a multi-award winning, hugely popular, massively successful and critically acclaimed pig's ear?

[Bêthberry]

You know, one of the things I have always found interesting about our movie/book discussions is how very different is Saucepan's method in each debate.

I seem to recall that on the Canonicity thread, SpM insisted upon the right of every reader to make his or her own interpretation, even if this interpretation went against the grain of the majority.

Yet on the movie thread, Spm's main point always depends upon this huge majority who enjoyed the films, as if the minority view somehow does not matter because it is outweighed by the sheer number of those happy with the films.

Perhaps our SaucepanMan chooses his method depending upon what shall make the most noise.


Seriously, though, Sauce, there are always those who disagree with the opinions of award judges and popularity lists. And sometimes, in the long run of history, those dissident voices are actually shown to have some merit. Not all popular films hold up over time, nor are all Oscar-winning movies remembered.

For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text.

[The Saucepan Man]

You mean it’s not legitimate to adopt contrasting arguments and tactics depending upon the nature of the discussion? But Bêthberry, that proposition runs counter to all of my professional instincts!

Actually I have never sought to deny anyone’s entitlement in this discussion to hold the views that they do. Nor have I ever sought to suggest that those views do not matter because they are outweighed by popular opinion. Indeed, I have been at pains to try to avoid giving that impression. I am simply trying to bring some perspective to the discussion. The fact remains that the views expressed concerning the films on this thread are restricted to a minority of the audience for these films. Whether the fact that they are held (to varying degrees) by a majority of those who hold the book most dear makes them any more valid would, I think, be an interesting discussion.

Not all popular films hold up over time, nor are all Oscar-winning movies remembered.

True. And there are a few real “stinkers” that have won Oscars (my opinion, of course). Titanic and Braveheart were both recently nominated amongst the top 10 “worst” films to win an Oscar, although they no doubt remain strong in the affections of many who saw them. My own perception is that the LotR films will hold up over time, since they have the same “groundbreaking” feel to me as the likes of Star Wars (the first) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. And I have a feeling that Jackson will become as much a household name as the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. But that’s just my opinion.

For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text.

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based.

[Rimbaud]

If the sauce fits, I suppose.

Some of us though are in the uncomfortable position of having watched the films entirely due to the books, and therefore our relationships with the filmic versions are inherently temepered by their relation to the original text.

That is to say; I would not ordinarily watch such a motion picture, that is not necessarily stating that the oeuvre is 'unworthy', merely not to my taste. Yet, as I see little of filmic merit outside of a welcome translation of a literary enjoyment, such book-divorced discussion is of little scope. I may or may not be alone in this.

Textual healing

~Rim

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based.

What if, however, the filmic problems are one and the same as those pertaining to the differences between the books and movies? How if the filmic difficulties in the movies could have been resolved by remaining more faithful to the books?

For example, in my opinion, the Aragorn/Arwen kiss at the end of the RotK was an extremely corny, Hollywood-esque, sequence, put in for dubious reasons. Indeed, the whole sequence of the calm, tame, subdued Arwen arriving in Gondor does not jive with the Arwen seen rescuing Frodo. Her relationship with Aragorn is off kilter. This is, in my mind, a filmic difficulty, above and beyond any canonicity-related issues concerning Arwen. Quite frankly, Arwen isn't consistent within the movies.

But had they depicted Arwen as she was in the book, this need not have happened. We need not have had a conflict between a warrior princess and a more domesticated princess. And we certainly wouldn't have had to contend with a corny Hollywood kiss.

Now, you can't make a filmically perfect movie by following a book, but you could have improved on the film that they DID make by staying closer to the book in various places. The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

Better in what way? For whom? By whose standards?

As for accuracy, well the films clearly tell a different story from that told in the book with different characters. They are therefore entirely accurate on their own terms.

Alas, though, I suspect that Rimbaud is right. It would be nigh on impossible to hold a discussion on this Forum about the qualities (whether positive or negative) of the films purely as films without it descending into a comparison with the books given the prevailing opinion (with which I do not wholly agree) that they would have been better as films had they more closely mirrored the book.

[Essex]

But the BBC radio series dramatised LotR in 13 hours without making any significant changes to characters or events - apart from missing out the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode (which was later dramatised seperately - & which worked very well in spite of all the comments I've heard that it cannot be done)

Wow, who did the Tom Bombadil bit, and where can I get it?

PS radio medium totally different to film medium.