Dumbing it down

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by TPotSS

Isn't it hilarious that most of the people who are criticizing the movie also really like the movie? I mean, it's one of their favorites and yet they find so much fault with it.

That must mean that most of the movie is awesome, and that these other things aren't enough to take the movie down too much.

Look at it this way:

Pretend you have a kid brother that you love to bits, but he drives you crazy because of Insert Reason here. He does this ALL the time, and never listens when you correct him.

You still love him, you still consider him an important person in your life, but you are exasperated because he could be better, but isn't.

You don't expect perfection, but sometimes you do expect more.

[Lathriel]

I read the WHOLE tread and I applaud Saucepan Man's defense of the movies. I totally agree with everything he said.
The problem with LotR is that it has a huge plot plus a huge package of moral virtues.

Now you also have some obligations to the fans and to the company who gave you all the money.
I mean PJ couldn't have gone of and done whatever he liked just to please the fans because there could have been a greater possibility that the movie could have been a flop which would cause New Line to lose lots of money and they would have to fire people etc.(People who work on set design,visual effects and so on)So he had to change some things.

About the characters being diminished.This is not an uncommon occurence,I have seen it before in other movies and I understand. In a book it is simple, the writer is able to bring the reader inside a character's head. However, with a movie that is more difficult. You can't write down a character's thoughts and long dialogues can get rather boring.

Also portraying Aragorn as a man with a shining star on his forehead sounds beautiful on paper. But it could look sissy or gaudy on screen. Plus how would you explain it without making it confusing or longwinded. Besides when I read the book I would always read over those parts of Aragorn and I always saw his human side. The side which they chose to show in the movies. However, I like it when I am able to connect to the characters because that is part of what makes the book special to me. There is a magical world with magical creatures and yet the people who inhabit it make human mistakes and are almost like us.

As for dumbing it down. I also don't like the phrase it makes us all sound so stupid. Rather it is the process of bringing a book to the screen and then put in things for the fans while also putting in things for a widely varying audience plus keeping in most of the moral messages. That is a daunting task.

As for Faramir. I was upset about the change untill I saw the EE,thought about it for a bit and heard the explanation of the screenwriters. Now I am okay with it and it makes sense to me. It takes a long time for some of the audience members to realize how evil the ring is and if Faramir had just done nothing all the work that the screenwriters did would have been in vain. Really some of my friends just didn't seem to get it. They used to tell me,"Its so stupid. They go through all this trouble for a stupid little ring." I heard these remarks all the time while the 1st and 2nd movie were coming into theatres.

I don't mind the change in Gimli's character because he is actually rather flat in the book as well. Although he is there during most of the LotR there is little you can do with him. So I can see that the screenwriters would give him the job of cracking jokes just as Legolas is left to the task of explaining the obvious for the dim-witted members of the audience.

As for another adaptation of LotR, I think it will be quite some time before it is made.

There was a comment earlier on in this thread saying that the movies might also have been dumbed-down and have more battles added for the teen audience. I find this offencive since I am a teen who watches movies like Amelie (French), The Pianist and A Beautiful Mind. Plus a whole bunch of foreign movies that my dad enjoys and watches all the time. Imagine a teen watching The secret Ballot, an extremely slow Iranian movie. Well...That's me.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I agree about the lack of respect for teens. Let's extend it to everyone; the typical 'movie' audience.

[TPotSS]

This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all

I agree.

So to say that this "twist" was a cinematic effect at all seems incorrect to me.

Me too. That's why I didn't say that.

My point was that people involved with audio/video mediums are more shock obsessed than writers. Now yeah I may be generalizing a bit, but it seems like many film types have it in their heads that shock always equals good, so they are motivated to do some things (like change a story line) merely to shock a portion of their audience.

[lord of dor-lomin]

Now yeah I may be generalizing a bit, but it seems like many film types have it in their heads that shock always equals good

I suppose I could agree with that somewhat.

So are you saying we should excuse PJ and his partners because shocking people is in their nature? Even if that is completely true, I don't think that is a good enough excuse.

About the fight scenes- I don't really mind them. I think that sticking strictly to the book in battles does not work. The descriptions are too short. The battles are supposed to last for hours and yet they take up fewer pages than a five minute conversation. This would be ridiculous on the screen.

I agree about the lack of respect for teens. Let's extend it to everyone; the typical 'movie' audience.

What's wrong with that?

I had a general lack of respect for teens when I was a teen. Now that I'm older, I have extended this general feeling of disdain to the entire population. Some of us are just crabby, pessimistic people.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

lord, I usually agree with those sentiments!

[TPotSS]

So are you saying we should excuse PJ and his partners because shocking people is in their nature?

No, I wasn't really trying to excuse them- just sort of explain why they might do something that seems so offensive (try to shock book readers).

And as far as the fight scenes, I don't really mind them either. I thought that Legolas killing the elephant was pretty annoying though- especially the way he slides off at the end. It doesn't look right or something. I dunno.

[The Saucepan Man]

The current discusion seems to be premised on the assumption that Jackson and co set out deliberately to shock fans of the books. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for this, and I do not believe that it played any part in the changes that were made.

As far as the quote from Boyens that Fordim referred to earlier is concerned, and as I said earlier:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Boyens didn't say that this was the reason for the change. She said that this was one of the reasons why she liked it (ie after the event). I suspect, in any event, that the comment was provoked by the more extreme reactions of some of the fans to the films. A kind of retaliation, if you like. But I seriously doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately winding up the book fans.

[davem]

Well, the reason the writers chose to alter the story at that point was that they felt it was necessary for Frodo to enter Cirith Ungol alone, & the only way they could think of to arange that was to have Gollum make Frodo turn on Sam.

I don't think it works, & they fall on their faces as a result. Perhaps its another example of their obsession with 'what will work cinematically'. They seem to have laboured under the assumption all along that certain things in the books just wouldn't work, without even trying them out. Perhaps the problem was that they were always focussed on what would work best in each individual scene & weren't able to step back sufficiently & look at the whole. Its clear that with Faramir they made alterations in order to increase the dramatic tension of film two, wthout realising the hole they were digging for themselves in film three. His volte face in the last couple of minutes of Towers is not only unconvincing but actually embarrassing to watch as the character has to change from a hardened warrior who's only concern is obeying orders to an all around nice guy - & why? Well, because they knew that in film three he would have to be someone the audience liked & cared enough about that they wouldn't freak out & object when Gandalf 'drops his general's baton' in the middle of the siege to go & save him.

[Lush]

/They seem to have laboured under the assumption all along that certain things in the books just wouldn't work, without even trying them out./

I agree. But when you're on a tight shooting schedule, there are many things you simply never get to try out, let alone conceptualize. I think the sheer enormity of the project essentially doomed them to making certain clumsy moves. When you're in charge of something that huge it's hard to keep all the pieces together.

They gave us three movies in three consecutive years, but that's a tough pace to keep up with. Perhaps if they stretched this out over more time some of the more glaring imperfections would have been smoothed out. But we all live so fast these days.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

I agree. But when you're on a tight shooting schedule, there are many things you simply never get to try out, let alone conceptualize. I think the sheer enormity of the project essentially doomed them to making certain clumsy moves. When you're in charge of something that huge it's hard to keep all the pieces together.

Well, they were working on the scripts for years before production began, so they did have time to work out a proper storyline. But even if we assume they really didn't have much time why make so many changes & introduce so many new ideas? I would have thought not having much time would mean they'd lack the luxury of inventing new stuff & have to stick to what was on the page...

My own position is that they should either have told the story the way Tolkien wrote it, making only absolutely necessary changes, like running scenes together or missing out some of the lesser characters or written a new fantasy story of their own & filmed that & then they would have had all the freedom they needed to tell the story they wanted to tell. My problem with the changes they've made to the story is that they simply don't work. One thing that springs to mind, among many loose ends which make no sense, is Mery & Pippin's finding Pipeweed in the storeroom at Isengard. Why is pipeweed from the Shire there? In the book it is for a very good reason - it sets up ominous questions in the readers mind about what is happening back home, especially in light of what Sam saw in Galdriel's Mirror. In the movie its left completely unexplained & seems only to have been left in so that they can have the scene of the meeting of the Hobbits with the Three Hunters as it is in the book. This is where the movies so often fall down. The writers/director want to have certain episodes from the books on screen but they change the story at other points so the context & meaning of the book episodes they do show is absent & for an audience who hasn't read the book they create confusion. Its the same, as I said, with Faramir's sudden change of heart & mind at Osgiliath. They want a 'threatening warrior' Faramir in film 2 & a 'caring philosophical' Faramir in film 3 so they have to try & write themselves out of the hole they wrote themselves into in a couple of minutes at the end of the film. Basically, we have two Faramirs in the movies & it would have been much more believable & convincing if they'd had two different characters - have the Hobbits captured in Ithilien by some thuggish Gondorian general, brought to Osgiliath by him & there brought before Faramir who plays the role he has in the book. But as I said, they want to make some (major) changes & at the same time keep some scenes exactly as they are in the book. We don't so much see an example of 'character development' in movie Faramir as a kind of Gollum-Smeagol transformation. The guy is clearly schizoid & doesn't know his own mind or have a clue what to do if he can do a 180 on the basis of Frodo flashing the Ring at a Nazgul & Sam's sudden (& seemingly interminable) bout of platitudinous Logorhoea...

(OOOOH That felt GOOOOOD!!!)

[Lush]

/Well, they were working on the scripts for years before production began, so they did have time to work out a proper storyline. But even if we assume they really didn't have much time why make so many changes & introduce so many new ideas? I would have thought not having much time would mean they'd lack the luxury of inventing new stuff & have to stick to what was on the page.../

Well, it's one thing to have something on a page, but it's another to go ahead and film it, when the studio is already breathing down your neck and expectations have been set so high. While I agree that the Faramir thing was ridiculous, I think it presents more of a lack of planning rather than a blatant "I can do this better than Tolkien" attitude. Faramir himself, if you have noticed, is a very stripped-down, unformed character in the films, particularly in the way they were originally shown. It's as if they ran out of room and time and decided to truncate everything in that particular episode; truncate, rather than invent. Or, essentially, "dumb it down."

I think that constrained as they were by their time-table (and I can't imagine that they were unconstrained, not when three movies have to come out in rapid succession, not to mention the DVDs), they saw that sticking plainly to what was on the page would have been more difficult. The books are such a complex amalgamation of characters and themes, to present them in a somewhat coherent manner, sacrifices were made where one idea was simplified in favour of another. Of course, this made the final product patchy and uneven. But when I think about filmmaking strictly in business terms, I can't see how they could have done it in any other way, and still made their schedule, budget, and returns all work. It's a shame, really, but large-scale productions more often than not suffer from this weird disease of simply becoming too big and unwieldy in the hands of even the most dedicated people.

[Essex]

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

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

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

What I'm saying is if you think a film can be made identical to LOTR, it wouldn't and couldn't work. I know, let's have them walking for 2 weeks from Weathertop to the Ford shall we? Let's show the whole pass of the marshes. It wouldn't work as a movie.

Now as a mini series presented over a few seasons, then yes, I believe your premise could work, but not over the course of 3 films.

[Evisse the Blue]

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

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

Sorry I can't let this go by even if it's slightly off topic. HP and the Philosopher's Stone is one of my favourite movies of this decade! Not that I didn't like the other two very much as well, but I remember being so happy with seeing this first movie of the series because it was exactly like I imagined it would be. 'No alarms and no surprises' Just watching a world I have previously only seen with my mind's eye develop on screen. I remember giving it as a positive example to what FOTR should have been. I realize of course we have stepped into the misty realm of the highly subjective.

In the end I think it may come to whether you're a 'film buff' or a 'bookworm'.
Weird as it may seem in these modern times, there are still some who go by the saying 'I'd rather read the worst book ever written then sit through the best movie ever made'. (ironically this quote is from a movie, the x files). So, our different viewpoints on what should be, according to us, cinematic quality are very influenced depending on which of these - artificial - categories we are more likely to subscribe to. Especially when we judge movies made after books.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Evisse

In the end I think it may come to whether you're a 'film buff' or a 'bookworm'.

Well, there are some who are long-standing fans of the book and yet find little fault with the films. We are a rare breed, though.

While everyone will of course have their individual opinions, it is clear that most long-standing book fans have ended up disappointed (to some degree or other) with the films. Which I still think is a shame given that, as far as I am concerned, this is one instance when you can have your cake and eat it.

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. But despite being the majority here, it is also fair, I think, to say that you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films. And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.

I don't think that that has been disputed.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I don't think that that has been disputed.

I know. But the point that I am trying to make is that we ought to retain a sense of proportion. The views expressed by most here are genuine, heart-felt and for the most part eloquently put. I don't agree with a lot of them, but I can understand where they are coming from. But they are the views of a small minority (albeit an important one) of those who have seen these films. Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations - whether that be because they have not read the book, because they have read the book but don't have such strong feelings about it, or because they have strong feelings about it but (like me) are content to have their cake and eat it.

For me this goes back to the question of moral rights that davem raised and also the question of "ownership" that I think Lalwendë raised. There is a sense amongst many of those to whom the book means a lot that it is, in a way, theirs to protect and that any tinkering with the characters or the storyline is somehow wrong. And this tends to be expressed in terms of arguing how the changes don't work. But, as far as the vast majority of the many millions of people who enjoyed this film are concerned (myself included), these changes clearly haven't significantly impaired their enjoyment of them.

Yes, perhaps the films could have been better. Perhaps they could have remained (even) more faithful to the book and still retained their widespread appeal. There are some areas (only a few) where I think this is probably right. But the fact remains that those responsibe for making these films were fully within their legal and (as far as I am concerned) moral rights in making them and in making them in the way that they did. Maybe they could have been better (whatever that really means). But I have never been one much for crying over spilled milk. We have what we have and what we have is actually (in my opinion of course) exceptionally good and has given a large amount of enjoyment to an extraordinary amount of people.

And now I shall stop because whenever I post on this thread, I tend to start repeating myself ...

PS:

Originally Posted by davem

Well, they were working on the scripts for years before production began, so they did have time to work out a proper storyline.

As I understand it, the original script was actually a lot more faithful to the book, and many of the changes came about as a consequences of the practicalities of transforming it onto the screen. The script was being re-written right up to the moment that scenes were being filmed.

[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.

[Boromir88]

Purely interested in being the middle-man here...in defense of The Saucepan Man, reminds me a lot of my political science teacher. Whatever we said, she would give us the opposite side of things, to get us thinking. Not trying to change our opinions, but with the pure interest of showing us what other people, who don't agree with you, believe. Often when we have our own set of opinions, we are unaware of, or just don't plain out care, what the other side has to say.

Formendacil brings up a nice point. There are changes PJ caused that strayed from the book, and made it less enjoyable (from a viewing standpoint). For example, the stupidity of the Gondor soldiers compared to the Rohirrim. Something that I've rambled on about many times, so I hope I don't need to elaborate. These are set up as fine warriors, who has been holding off Sauron's hordes, yet when we finally get to Gondor, they are even dumber then the Rohirrim civilians forced to fight in Helm's Deep. Another example of something PJ changed which I think weakened my movie experience.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

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

PS radio medium totally different to film medium.

Brian Sibley, who co-authored/adapted the radio series wrote another series 'Tales from the Perilous Realm', which adapted the Bombadil/Barrow Downs, Leaf by Niggle, Smith & Farmer Giles. Its available under that title on CD from the BBC (you can get it on Amazon. Smith isn't very successful (imo) but the others (with Brian Blessed as Giles & Alfred Molina as Niggle & Michael Horden as the series Narrator) work very well.

As to divorcing the book from the movies, well, I can't. They're adaptations of the book & stand or fall by whether they tell Tolkien's story well or not. Again, in my opinion, they don't. Neither do they work as movies, for smoe of the reasons I've given. The writers/director's obsession with what looks impressive on screen works against telling the actual [I]. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Tolkien's judgement of the fifties radio version & call them a 'sillification' but in parts they come close to being just that.

Again, I'd say that the real problem is their obsession with size & spectacle worked against them. Bigger isn't always best & whatever Jackson might say CGI still isn't up to the job Jackson wants it to do. Basically, he's putting too much weight on the technology & it isn't convincing enough. For instance, Gollum domminates the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline because PJ clearly believes that the CGI is good enough to convince & as a result he loses control of the character - who, as in the books, should only be seen through the eyes of the other characters, & never given screentime on his own. Same with the Mumakil & the Army of the Dead.

Now, am I glad they were made? Did I get anything from them at all? Something, certainly. But was it worth all the 'annoyances'? Probably not in the end. If others enjoyed them I'm happy for them, but I can't say they've added anything to my appreciation of Tolkien's work. I suspect they'll fade from public attention very quickly. The ones who onlylike them as movies will move on to other movies, the ones for whom they have served as an introduction to Tolkien's work will tuen to the books & the movies will fade into the background for them.

As movies I don't think they're as good as the first two Star Wars films (episodes IV & V), & as adaptations of the books they leave too much to be desired. If they were original works perhaps I'd have been more impressed by them. but I don't think its possible to divorce them from the source - if you know the source that is.

The question that inspired this thread is whether they are a 'dumbing down' of the original & I can't see that anyone who knows the original can argue that they aren't. Are they 'dumb' movies? Certainly not. They ask questions which most maistream Hollywood movies wouldn't & confront issues of morality & power which Hollywood tends to either avoid or offer at best dubious & at worst immoral answers to. Bur in comparison to the books they offer dumbed down versions of those answers...

[the phantom]

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.

Thank you for mentioning that. I've been forgetting to bring it up. You are right- Arwen was inconsistent. As soon as PJ threw her in where she didn't belong in the first movie, he was risking this sort of inconsistency. Remember what I said a couple of pages ago on the thread? ->

Every event has (or should have) an effect on the rest of the story. In other words, if Aragorn were to get his armed chopped off in the first film, that event should cause him to appear without an arm for the rest of the movie. If you add something, you must follow that change through to the end and make sure that the rest of the story reflects the addition you made. That is the danger in putting in things that did not actually happen.

This Arwen inconsistency is an excellent illustration of my point.

Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

I never read the book. I loved the movie. Same as my friends.

Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations

Yes that is true. And why is this? You answered it-

because they have not read the book

Hello! They haven't read the book! Therefore they are NOT going to have reservations about ANYTHING. They don't care! So why would we try to please people who aren't even going to NOTICE much less care about changes???

you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films

Yes, but we are the only group who would even notice a small change, so why not make it to our liking? Most of the movie followed the book so why not get rid of the parts that don't work (the inconsistencies of Faramir and Arwen)?? It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else.

I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them

And they STILL would've been "enjoyed by the vast majority" had a few minor changes been made.

a multi-award winning, hugely popular, massively successful and critically acclaimed pig's ear...

...is still a pig's ear.

Better in what way?

Coherency is better than incoherency.

For whom?

For people who notice such things.

By whose standards?

By logical and intelligent standards (ie my standards ).

[Bêthberry]

posted by SaucepanMan
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.

Oh, my bad! my bad! I never said it was wrong to explore various strategies of debate, Sauce. I simply observed that here, at least, you seem very fond of reiterating popularity as a satisfactory evidence of the quality of a movie. It is one criterion certainly, but not the only one and I can't recall off hand if you have considered others. (Apologies of course if you have and I have an audio fixation on your popularity claim.)

posted by SpM
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.

Here we might be on to something. To me, Jackson's films are not 'groundbreaking' the way Lucas' and Spielberg's are/were. In fact, to me, they are very derivative. Certainly the CGI techniques represent a step forward in technology, but that to me is simply a developmental stage in technology rather than an important advance in cinematic art. Would you care to elaborate on what you feel is groundbreaking about the LotR films?

posted by SpM
"For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text." [posted by me :P]

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. [posted by SpM ]

A long time ago, on a post far, far away (Post #116, to be exact, on this thread) I posted:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Both of these statements might together, I think, explain why I am disssatisfied with the movies as movies. PJ's imagination is watered by two sources: Tolkien and Lucas. Yet rather than out of this creative ferment producing new vintage wine, he produces some vinegar.

Take, for example, the skateboarding scene in Helm's Deep. Or the dwarf tossing comment. In Star Wars that kind of bragadocchio reflects upon the characters. Han Solo's "That's great kid. Now, don't get cocky" works as a humorous interjection into the battle because it says something about both Han's and Luke's characters. The line reads like the effort of those fighting to lessen the impact and force of ... The Force, if you will. It is part of their battle strategy. At Helm's Deep, the skateboarding and dwarf tossing are mere additions for the sake of humour. And both the tragedy of the battle and the dignity of the characters are lost.

The same thing when Aragorn's horse nuzzles him awake from the dream of Arwen. Haha, sure, funny, but how does that develop Aragorn's character or depict this supposedly iconic love and romance? It doesn't. It is just a but of cheap humour thrown in.

Similarly, for me, is Gandalf's arrival atop Shadowtax and the great rearing shot of the horse. Roy Rogers to the rescue? The cowboy motif fits Han Solo because that is how he is presented throughout the ST trilogy: he is a gunslinger in space. But Gandalf is not. He has, from the beginning, been a wizard and interjecting a cowboy image late in the game takes artistic skill which the director does not have.

This discussion could turn into a version of the Canonicity argument: the Director, the film, the audience, but I don't think it is so much a question of 'dumbing down' for the audience. Rather, I think it is a question, as Mr. Underhill suggests, of PJ's nature as a filmmaker. This is his interpretation of how to bring Tolkien to the screen. Yet he fails to appreciate the mythic or moral stature of LotR and his fails to understand how Lucas uses humour in ST. Thus, we have diminished charactertisations and misplaced comedy and changes which don't ring true as a movie.


Knights in battle have a different tone than cowboys in space. PJ could not amalgamate the two into a unified, coherent filmic vision. Too many semes show. (And, yes, I do mean 'semes' )

*coughs and smiles*

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Yes that is true. And why is this? You answered it-

Quote:
because they have not read the book

Hello! They haven't read the book!

Really phantom! Such blatant selective quoting does not become an intelligent debater such as yourself!

Originally Posted by the phantom

It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else.

It is the second statement that we differ on.

Originally Posted by the phantom

...is still a pig's ear.

Well then, I can honestly say that I have never enjoyed a pig's ear quite so much.

Originally Posted by the phantom

By logical and intelligent standards (ie my standards).

That's what I like to see. Pure objectivity.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I simply observed that here, at least, you seem very fond of reiterating popularity as a satisfactory evidence of the quality of a movie.

I have most certainly never claimed that popularity was the only factor when considering the quality of a film. But it is a good indicator of how successful a film is in achieving what it set out to achieve. It will be interesting to see whether the LotR films do stand the test of time. As I have said, my feeling is that they will.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Would you care to elaborate on what you feel is groundbreaking about the LotR films?

Perhaps "groundbreaking" is the wrong word. I was grasping for a concept that describes a film that makes a significant and lasting impact. This trilogy of films has that feeling for me. And there are groundbreaking elements to them - the use made of CGI in combination with an actor to create one of the central characters, the incredible attention to detail (perhaps not groundbreaking, but rare in a film of this type nevertheless) and the sheer achievement in filming a trilogy of films more or less over a single period. I should elaborate further but I haven't got time now.

Ultimately, it shouldn't really matter to me that these films receive such a mauling here on such a consitent basis. As I said many moons on this thread, it's no skin off my nose. But something still irks me about the criticisms that are made (which is why I keep coming back to this thread) and I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it is just because I enjoy them so much. Which, I suppose, makes me unintelligent and illogical by the phantom's standards.

[Boromir88]

Star Wars was certainly ground breaking. Lucas created a new camera technology to create the effect of the ships moving through space. Star Wars serves as a ground breaking moment for SFX as well. However, I argue that The Lord of the Rings is ground breaking in it's own regards. Looking at Imdb's Top 250 list , ROTK is number three, FOTR number 8. Showing (as we all know) the popularity of the film. I agree with SpM in saying that their popularity has to account for something (perhaps the success of the films)? Also, credit PJ for having Tolkien places as the best selling author of the 20th Century, something Tolkienists should applaud him for.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

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.

An interesting thought. I'm not entirely sure I'd have gone to watch the films myself had I not been such a fan of the books; I can take it or leave it as far as big budget action 'flicks' are concerned. So it's a very good point that as readers it is inevitable that we will bring a whole pile of presumptions and expectations with us along to the cinema with the bucket of popcorn. Alas, expectations make for an uncomfortable seat after 3 hours, and when I saw changes made that quite frankly confused me, I was quite cross. 3 hours is surely enough time to get across the plot and characters correctly?

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.

Still, I like the films, in fact, I love the films. I have watched them many many times and there are many things in them which delight me. So why do I get so narked and humpty about the changes to the plot? Because, as far as I can see it, there was no justification for such changes as the Faramir episode or Aragorn's acceptance of his destiny. I simply cannot see why certain stupid and frankly dumb things were included, when this time could have been given over to including the stuff which would have helped the films make more sense plotwise, the stuff from the books. Jackson showed he could make changes to some things and keep their integrity, but not to others. I got the distinct impression that the team got themselves into a tangle with their changes and could not really justify them.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

I agree broadly with what Formedacil says here. It is indeed difficult to stick rigidly to a book when adapting it to a different medium, and I have yet to see a 100% perfect adaptation, but it could indeed have been so much better.

Perhaps I ought to stick to what I term 'pure film', where it is based on a new story, not on an adaptation.

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. But despite being the majority here, it is also fair, I think, to say that you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films. And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.

I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world? Of course, some may have not picked them up for many a year, but they have still read them. And even the membership of the 'Downs includes a significant amount of people who can be called 'Film recruits' (with thanks to Snowdog's thread for the terminology ), who have since read the books. I wonder how this translates within the wider audience of the films? I certainly know many people who have become addicted Tolkienistas since the films came out. Strange thing is, a rather large proprtion of these new recruits also bring up the changed scenes and criticise them. So it might actually be a smaller proportion of the audience than we think who are confirmed (committed?) non-readers.

Originally Posted by Essex

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books. But the interesting thing is that Prisoner of Azkhaban also wanders away from the text, yet is the best of the three films in my opinion. I think much of the success has to do with the quality of the adult actors in the HP films, something which also was of great benefit to the LotR films, as I find little to fault in that respect.

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

There are a fair few of these on the boards, surely? I often find some decent things being discussed, and I don't always bring my gripes to the table.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.

This reminds me of a point which was mentioned earlier in this thread (I forget by whom) but not really picked up on. And that is that there are many "historical" films which totally misrepresent the events that they purport to portray. I understand that Braveheart falls into this category and there are numerous Hollywood-made WW2 films that replace some or all of the original heroes with Americans to make them more appealing to American audiences. Clearly, such changes are made with the intention of increasing a film's appeal with its intended audience. And changing historical fact, with the effect that people end up believing that this is how it really happened, irks me far more, and seems to me to be much more of a crime, than altering what is, after all, a fictional story.

That said, in a recent poll concerning just this issue (perception of historical fact against filmic portrayal), something like 2% of the respondents believed that the battle of Helm's Deep was a historical event.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world?

Undoubtedly. But I would say that only a small proportion of those who have read and enjoyed the book are quite as fanatical about it as the average Barrow-Downs member.

As for the contention that the changes made make little sense or somehow confuse the story or make it "dumber", I take the point. I simply disagree. With very few exceptions, I found the changes to make complete sense. In my view, they do not make the story "dumber" - they just make it different. There are a few inconsistencies and plot-holes, yes. But I am sure that careful scrutiny of most films, certainly those of the same oeuvre (nice word, Rim), would reveal much the same. After all, how many film scripts are written with the same dedication, devotion and time that Tolkien lavished on LotR?

[Neithan]

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books.

Yes, I was beginning to think I was losing my mind given some of the comments about this movie. Glad to see someone agrees with me on that issue. However, I thought these movies were some of the worst I have ever seen! The acting was awful (meaning the younger actors for the most part). I like the HP books but I was so disgusted with the second movie that I stopped watching them and will not watch any of the others.

As far as the popularity of the LotR movies goes I don't think that it makes any difference to the argument at hand. The successfulness of a movie does not always reflect on its quality.
I know I have said in the past that I love the movies but when I was watching RotK recently I noticed something. The reason I like the movies is not because of any merit of their own but because of the books. I usually just skip to those scenes that stick closest to the books now and don't bother with the rest.

By logical and intelligent standards

Yes, very good! The quality of the films is not a completely subjective thing. They could have been objectively better than they were.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neithan

The reason I like the movies is not because of any merit of their own but because of the books.

Eh? Even if it is fair to say that the films are only good in the scenes where they stick most closely to the book (a point with which I do not agree), surely the act of rendering these scenes on film gives rise to merit in the film itself. Jackson and co did not just sit back and let such scenes jump magically onto the screen.

Originally Posted by Neithan

They could have been objectively better than they were.

If one accepts this proposition then it follows that, objectively, anything could be better than it is (including the book). But, for me, quality is an entirely subjective thing, although subjective opinions may be widely shared and thereby gain some degree of objectivity.

[the phantom]

Really phantom! Such blatant selective quoting does not become an intelligent debater such as yourself!

Oh, fine. I'll quote the whole thing you said and explain why I left out the parts I did.

Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations - whether that be because they have not read the book, because they have read the book but don't have such strong feelings about it, or because they have strong feelings about it but (like me) are content to have their cake and eat it.

I left the following groups out of my quote last time-
Group 2- Read the book and don't have strong feelings about it.
Group 3- Read the book and have strong feelings about it but don't have reservations about the movie.

Why did I leave them out? Because I was focusing on individuals who had not read the book. I couldn't stand to see this group mentioned even one more time in someone's post. The whole point of that last post I made was this- of course non-bookers don't have reservations about changes that were made! They can't see the changes! Their opinion has no place in this debate because they DON'T HAVE one.

I found it absurd that you included them on your list of people without reservations. They have no weight in this matter.

Now I guess I'll go ahead and give some thoughts on groups 2 and 3.

Group 2- If they read LOTR and don't have strong feelings about it then are they going to care that much if the movie sticks to the book or not? No. They won't care either way.

Group 3- Honestly, how many people are there who really care a lot about the book and don't have reservations about changes to the film? How many book fans honestly have no problem with the changes that PJ made (particularly the changes that caused inconsistency)? Do you realize that, even though you claim to be, that you are not a member of this camp, Mr. Saucepan?

Why would I say this? Here are some quotes from you earlier in the thread-

I certainly felt uncomfortable (at first, at least) about some of the changes made

Some will think they were better as a result of this process, while others (and I would probably include myself in this category) will think that they would have been better without at least some aspects of it.

I agree that it is difficult to remove sections of the story without this having a knock-on effect. And I also agree that there are places where Jackson and co could have handled it better.

the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.

From your very own mouth (or should I say fingers), you, The Saucepan Man, have reservations about the changes that were made to the book. You do not belong in group 3. Group 3 is fiction. I doubt there is a person in the world who read LOTR, loved it, and also had no problems with PJ's changes.

It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else

It is the second statement that we differ on.

Umm... by definition if they don't care then they aren't going to be effected. But okay, let's pretend... If they were effected, it would certainly be positive. I mean, is there any way that making the storyline more sensible and making the characters more consistent could be a bad thing?

Let me ask- was it Arwen's character inconsistency that sold all those tickets? Was it the Nazgul incident in Osgiliath that got LOTR the Oscar? Was it the little corny or ambiguous lines and moments that made LOTR popular?

NO! Obviously not. Then why in the world have you, for the past five pages, been trying to cling to the idea that the critic reviews and fan numbers were somehow improved by the changes that we are complaining about?

[Neithan]

Eh? Even if it is fair to say that the films are only good in the scenes where they stick most closely to the book (a point with which I do not agree), surely the act of rendering these scenes on film gives rise to merit in the film itself.

In a sense yes. What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens. Basically what I am saying is that whatever merit they might get for rendering the book onto the screen is connected to the Tolkiens work. It is the screenwriting that I have a problem with, not the visual effects. I hope you can understand that, I am having a hard time explaining it.

But, for me, quality is an entirely subjective thing, although subjective opinions may be widely shared and thereby gain some degree of objectivity.

Well first of all no degree of objectivity can be gained through subjectivity. Whether or not quality of art can be objective is a philisophical question, one which I disagree with you on. I hope that the majority of people would agree that a plot that has no logical contradictions is objectively better than one that does. I would also contend that Tolkiens humor is objectively better than fart jokes, but this is a much more controversial. There is a whole philisophical argument behind it but even if I had time to effectively argue the point it would be way off topic, so let's just agree to disagree on that one.

[Aiwendil]

Neithan wrote:

What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens.

I think I may feel this way as well. When someone asks me whether I like the LotR movies, I tend to be a bit flummoxed.

Do you like the Lord of the Rings movies?

I'm a huge fan of the books.

But what about the movies?

Many of the changes really bother me.

So you don't like them?

Well, I own all the extended edition DVDs and have watched every special feature and listened to every commentary.

Oh, so they must be like, some of your favorite films.

No, I don't think so . . .

And so on.

The truth is that I have a hard time evaluating the films as films. I can point out the things I like and the things I don't like, and I can tell you why I like or dislike them. But I can't really tell you whether I like the movies or not. The book is simply too important to me for me to evaluate the movies as entities in themselves.

That's not to say that I think my complaints about the changes are unfounded - I think that many of these decisions were mistakes and I don't think that this view is merely the result of an obsession with the book. But somehow I can't really make an overall evaluation of the movies without it being an evaluation of faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the book.

[Essex]

I believe we are going around in circles. Yes, the films were dumbed down, as they didn't have 54 hours+ to show the books in their entirety. People have their own points of view, I just feel really sorry for people like Davem who were really dissapointed by the films.

Three words though, for ALL of us.

Live with it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Can't stop for long as I am at the airport.

Phantom, you yourself have suggested that non-book readers may find fault with the films. Accordingly, they can still potentially have reservations about the changed scenes even if they do not know that they are changed from the book. Their opinions therefore do count in this matter.

And I have never sought to claim that I find the films perfect. I am quite happy to admit that there are aspects of them which I think could (in my subjective opinion ) have been done better. But there is a world of difference between my approach and that adopted by the majority on this thread. The latter is the approach I was talking about when I referred to "such reservations".

Tsk! Really!

Must go - the money's running out ...