Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
I don't disagree. There is a reason, however. Subtle wit does not (or at least is not perceived to) have the same broad appeal of obvious humour, running gags, slapstick etc.
There certainly is a great deal of very well done gentle humour in the book. But would it have had the mass appeal of Dwarf-tossing jokes? We don't know for sure, but the production team and those backing the films clearly thought not. And the films have been extraordinarily successful, albeit not entirely so with committed fans of the book. So their decision is justifiable on that basis.
|
Good point, though one I have thought about. Obviously what you say is purely speculative, and I am inclined to disagree on a couple of points:
1. I think those backing the films would not have had THAT much influence in terms of determining how a character was to be portrayed. I think the production team made the decision for the dumbed-down, mass-market appealing type of slapstick humour on their own, obviously believing that it "added" to the story in some way. I don't rate the writers and I blame them for not having sufficient talent or vision in producing more subtle humour.
2. As for the films being successful. that doesn't mean a thing. Plenty of films have been successful but of poor quality (Titanic, Pearl Harbour etc). People didn't go to see the movie because they wanted to see some farting and burping from a stupid-looking dwarf; they went because they had heard of this book called LoTR and wanted to know what all the fuss was about.
Is it better to have subtle, witty humour that adds to the film's appeal (which, IMO, WOULDN'T be detriment to its success), or sell your soul for some crap, cheap humour that spoils a good scene? I know which one I would prefer!
I think that is the problem: too often Hollywood's perceptions of peoples' intelligence is patronising, leading to the movies being undermined somewhat.
Who knows, maybe the films would have been better for it?