[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Saucepan, please realise that I feel for you, fending off us ferocious dogs single-handedly like you are!

Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate.

Mind you, 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?

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

However, a point I would like to send to you is this: I realise that the films have been immensely successful, but should mass opinion really be the barometer of quality here?

Fair point. No, I don’t think that it should necessarily be a measure of quality. But, to my mind, quality has always been a very subjective thing. My own personal opinion is that these films are extremely high quality in comparison with other films in the same and similar genres, but I value the book more. However, I do think that mass appeal is an appropriate measure when we are considering whether it was right to make changes to the story and characters or not. Films such as LotR have to be have mass appeal or they do not get made. And the film-makers clearly felt that they had to make changes in order to give the films that broad appeal.

Which does raise an issue that has clouded the discussion somewhat so far (and this may have been my fault for suggesting that the changes were necessary to make the film “relevant and accessible”). Not all of the changes were made in order to achieve that end. Many of them, including some of those discussed here, were made in order to fit them within the 3½ to 4 hours’ of screen time available for each film. This, for example was why The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs were excluded. Such changes and omissions were necessary, but they will inevitably have had knock-on effects in a story as tightly-wrought and complex as the one that Tolkien was telling in LotR. Without the Barrow Downs and the discovery of the Barrow Blades, for example, it is unclear why Merry’s sword has the power to wound the Witch-King. An explanation could have been given but it would have taken up precious time, and it does not really impair the films in any significant way. To my mind, a far more grievous omission (perhaps because Merry and Pippin are two of my favourite characters) is A Conspiracy Unmasked. Merry and Pippin simply bump into Frodo and Sam in Farmer Maggot‘s Field, and that’s it. They are off on a perilous Quest with them without even stopping to cancel the papers. But, again, I can understand the omission and their loyalty and friendship to Frodo is put across well enough not to make it a major issue.

Other changes were made because the film-makers wanted to bring across particular themes, such as the weakness of Men and the power of the Ring. Again, they have knock-on effects, but any film-maker will want to concentrate on particular themes to give the film greater cohesion, and what they choose will depend upon their individual interpretation. And yet more changes were made because the way that the story is told in the book would not have worked on film. In my view, this explains the concurrent, rather than sequential, telling of the tales of the War of the Ring (on the one hand) and the journey of Frodo and Sam (on the other), the movement of Shelob to the third film and the absence of the Scouring of the Shire.

I accept that none of these changes necessarily make the films any more or less popular. They are simply a function of the film-making process. I defy anyone to go away and produce a workable screenplay from the book for three 3½ to 4 hour films and come away without a bunch of gaping plot-holes.

But what we are really concerned with here is the changes that were made in order to make the films more “relevant and accessible”. Those that were intended to give it that mass appeal. These changes include Legolas’ stunts, the lengthening of the action sequences (which restricted the time available for other aspects of the books), the heavy use of special effects, the modern phraseology, the rationalisation of certain characters (Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Imrahil, Beregond etc), the increased role of other characters (such as Arwen), Gimli’s wise-cracks, and those moments that tended to provoke cheers amongst film audiences (such as Gandalf whacking Denethor). And I do firmly believe that all of these aspects of the films did go towards widening their appeal. We may not like some, or even all, of them (perhaps because they impinge on that “sacred text”), but for many others these moments were among the highlights of the film. Legolas’ shield-surfing is not to my taste, but I have seen people say (on this forum and elsewhere) that this was one of their favourite moments. I can well imagine word spreading of a good-looking Elf who did amazing stunts, thereby piquing the interest of those to whom such things would (quite understandably) appeal. Similarly, the humour introduced by Gimli’s wise-cracks, unsubtle though they were, and Merry/Pippin’s antics were of a nature that will have broad appeal without being unduly offensive (except perhaps to devoted fans of the book ). And modern idioms such as “Let’s hunt some Orc” and “You and whose army”, while not to my taste (well, I actually quite liked the latter one), will appeal to many people more readily than some of Tolkien‘s more archaic (for want of a better word) language and make the films more relevant to them.

Originally Posted by Neithan

If they wanted to make the films "accessible" then why not do them entirely in modern language, rather than switching back and forth.

Well, it was inevitable that the changes made to the story (due to time constraints, the process of adaptation to film etc) would require a major re-write job. As I have said previously, there are few writers who could credibly match Tolkien‘s style and maintain the broad appeal that he succeeded (almost unwittingly) in achieving. In light of that, isn’t it better that they used Tolkien’s lines where they felt that they were able to rather than not using them at all? Funnily enough, Tolkien himself has been criticised for using different writing styles in the earlier and later chapters of the book (the homely, familiar style used in the Shire and the journey to Rivendell in contrast with the epic style used on the plains of Rohan and in the Halls of Gondor) by those who find that these contrasting styles grate on them. I have never found this to be a problem, but then there are few lines in the film which really grate on me either.

And so we come to the character changes. Again, it seems to me that many of the changes made in this regard were intended to garner that mass appeal. So, Aragorn’s indecision over his destiny (which is there in the book, albeit fleetingly) is played up. He is made more “human” and less “lofty”. Similarly with Frodo and Faramir. The extraordinary resistance of the latter to the Ring is downplayed because the film-makers thought that it would lack credibility with audiences without greater screen-time being devoted to his development. I agree that these characters lose something in the reduction/exclusion of their mythical qualities. But I do also believe that, for many people, they become more credible characters as a result. I know that words such as “character arc” and “humanising” cause great distaste on this forum, and I agree that the changes made, to some extent, “Hollywood-ised” the characters, but it also increased their broad appeal.

Originally Posted by davem

These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Time and again I have people ask why Faramir did not just tell his father "where to stick it".

Actually, I have the same thoughts when I read the book. I recall that, when I first read it, I got very cross with Denethor for his treatment of Faramir, and also with Faramir for not standing up to his father. And I have to say that (perhaps for this reason) I found Faramir’s desire in the films to prove himself to his father, particularly after his brother’s death, very convincing and rather touching. And there are real life precedents of children yearning for the love of cruel and uncaring parents and doing all manner of things to gain that love.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To have done the Faramir sections properly would not have taken up any longer than they did when changed.

I think that they would have done. Faramir is not one of the principal characters. To develop his character to the extent whereby his attitude towards the Ring, as depicted in the book, would have seemed credible would, I believe, have taken up screen-time that simply was not available. Similarly, to have developed Denethor’s character sufficiently to portray him in the way he is portrayed in the book and to allow the audience to sympathise with a man who ends up trying to kill his own son would have taken time. The film-makers did not have the luxury of being able to devote the time to developing a relatively minor character such as Denethor. Believe me, I don’t like what they did to the poor guy. But I can understand why they did it.

So, all in all, I remain firmly convinced that the changes made to broaden the appeal of the films had just that effect. Those who were drawn to the films by these aspects may well go away and read the books and find that they prefer them. But, without such changes, they might never have gone to see the films in the first place, and they might then have ended up never reading the book.

And it seems to me that there are few of these changes (the ones intended to broaden the films’ appeal) that will have had the effect of confusing film audiences. On the contrary, to have included the book characters who were omitted or to have had Aragorn marry a character at the end of the trilogy who we had only met once before, briefly, in the first film, would only have served to cause confusion. To the extent that plot-holes and inconsistencies were introduced, they were largely a result of the changes made to fit the films into the time available and adapt them to the screen and, to my mind, this was an inevitable consequence of the adaptation to film of a story as finely-wrought and complex as that which Tolkien tells in LotR. That gets us back to the question of whether the films should have been made, to which I would answer a resounding “Yes!”.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Neithan

Saucepan is obviously anything but dumb but he said he likes pop music! Instead I tend to look at it as meaning the movies in themselves were "dumber" (that is, they do not stimulate us intellectually). You may like pop music for example, but you can not claim that Britany Spears(or even a real band like Metallica for that matter)

I should make clear that, by “pop music”, I meant popular music in general, as distinct from classical music. I am not a Britney Spears (or Metallica) fan (not that there is anything wrong with liking either), but I must say that, to my ear, the strains of Waterloo Sunset are far more pleasurable than many pieces of classical music.