[Eurytus]

In reading this thread I would like to make two points. The first is a short one and that is to say that I think that some people are not clear about what ‘dumbing-down’ actually means. To take an example from near the top of this thread, the wizard fight from the first film is hardly an example of dumbing-down. Now you may not like it but it does not really make the film any easier to understand. The same is true to an extent of the Arwen scenes. Now I personally dislike them but they are not dumbing down. If anything they are an attempt to enrich the character of Aragorn. Sure there are examples where they have made things easier to understand but Film and Book are two very different media and it is simply necessary.<P>The second point is that whenever I see these discussions about book versus film, especially on Tolkien sites, I get the distinct impression that people have lost touch with reality when it comes to the book. Don’t get me wrong, I love the book and it will always have a place in my heart for encouraging my interest in reading, but it is far from flawless.<BR>Tolkien is great at invention, that’s for sure. That is the reason I actually prefer the Silmarillion to LOTR, the breadth of invention is so much the greater in that book. But Tolkien is not so good at writing dialogue and creating believable characters. Now some of his dialogue is great but much of it does not sound like someone really talking. It actually sounds like a Shakespearean actor emoting to an audience. Also as the books progress past FOTR the frequency of people saying “Lo” becomes a bit ludicrous. Some of the descriptive passages are a bit dodgy too. There is a scene during the celebrations after Frodo and Sam are brought back from Mordor wherein the joy of the host was “as swords”. Now that is either not good writing or a bit pretentious. <BR>And onto characterisation. I would not argue against the fact that Tolkien has given literature some of its most memorable characters. Gandalf in particular is a superb creation. But some of them are a bit basic to say the least. Take Legolas for example. In the book what does he really do or say that really moves the story along. He is basically an archetype and apart from getting along with Gimli a bit, goes through no real character development at all. And Boromir is even more problematic. Apart from a couple of memories from Pippin, Boromir is reduced to little more than a pantomime villain. The fact he snatches the ring is of little surprise. Added to the fact that (to the reader at least) Faramir is constantly shown to be so much more honourable and Boromir comes across as a little sad. In fact, Boromir is one of the areas where I really believe the film improves the book. In the film Boromir came across as a character I really felt sympathy for. His scene with Aragorn, fighting with the Merry and Pippin, and in the EE his short conversation with Frodo in Lorien really brought the character to life. In the film Boromir is a much more admirable character than in the book. He wants the ring, that’s true, but only for his people. They removed the stuff about him wanted to drive the enemy and the references to his own glory. That, to me, made the character so much the richer.<P>There were other similar touches, like Theoden breaking down and crying before his son’s tomb that I thought were also superb.<P>I guess in summation I would say that Tolkien’s characters are all too often little more than archetypes. All too often they are portrayed as having little feeling, and hardly ever do you really get inside the characters head. Compare this to the characterisation in something like George RR Martin’s a Song of Fire and Ice series and you will see what I mean.<P>Sometimes I get the opinion that some people would stand for nothing less than having the book made exactly as per the text, even though that would have meant at least 6 films in all likelihood. Six films would not have been financed; they would have been reduced to making one and seeing how that went. If the first film went exactly as per the first book of LOTR then it would likely have not been as popular as the first film actually was and hence the latter films would have been made on a reduced budget. We simply would not have got the time and investments we received this time around.<P>For my money PJ made a superb film. I cannot remember many films made with such obvious care and enthusiasm for the source material, a review of the EE special features reveals that clearly enough. If ROTK matches the other two then we will have had the best trilogy in movie history (in my opinion), the highest grossing movie trilogy in history (not adjusted for inflation) and a consequent revival of the fantasy genre. All of which is too the good. It seems churlish to forsake all that because Bombadil wasn’t in it or Boromir’s hair was the wrong colour.<BR>Sometimes, it is all too easy to forget what we have here. I still remember my excitement when I heard they were making the LOTR into a film. But that was tempered with my fears of all that could go wrong. Was it too big a project for PJ (a comparatively untried director, especially for films of this nature), would Hollywood balls up the casting (Sean Connery for Gandalf!! Some bankable star for Aragorn.), could the special effects convincingly portray hobbits (please no Willow), would it even get made in full?<BR>With all that could go wrong I think we can be truly happy how things turned out. Compare FOTR to the Ralph Bakshi cartoon and try to see any comparison. For me all my doubts about the films vanished with that first shot of Bag-End, as Gandalf’s cart went through the cutting, the camera rose and the music soared. I am not ashamed to say that it nearly brought tears to my eyes. After reading the books as a child the Shire was damn near the landscape of my childhood. There was an Old Forest down in the country near where I lived. One of the villages looked like Bree to my eyes. And seeing Bag-End, up on screen, exactly as I had imagined it brought it all back for me. Could the interior of Bag-End have looked any better? After, that seeing the note-perfect performance by Ian McKellen as Gandalf just made it all the better. His subtle expression change when Frodo says he will take the ring at Rivendell was priceless and worth the price of admission alone. And there are many such moments in the films. Too many to count.<P>Let’s glory in them. December will come all too soon for me. Then they will be gone and we may never see their like again.