[Lalwendë]

Firstly, my disclaimer. I love the films, as they are the only decent films of my favourite book, and on the whole, Jackson did a wonderful job, but they are not perfect. Is this that they simply are not perfect or that they do not live up to my expectations given that LotR is something of a sacred text to me? A bit of both, I think, but I've still watched them over and over and I collect memorabilia, so that should tell you that I do like them.

Originally Posted by SpM

I do believe that there are many people who have read the book who would not have done so but for the films (particularly as my wife is one such person).

This is one benefit that the films did bring, more Tolkien fans, and more chances to talk Tolkien. Though I'm sure that there is a little something inside all long time fans that feels as though a secret has been torn away from them, alongside that feeling of pride that we were there before the films. That's quite an honest thing to admit, I'm sure, but nevertheless its something that may have a bearing on exactly why many long time fans have such a critical tendency.

Originally Posted by SpM

But there are many more, I am sure, who have seen the films who will never read the book. Surprising as it may seem to us, there are many people in this world who would prefer to see a good film than read a good book. Books (or certain types of book) do not appeal to everybody. Neither does the kind of language that Tolkien uses appeal to everybody. There are many who simply saw the films as great action films - nothing more and nothing less (you know - they were the ones shifting uncomfortably in their seats during the final sequences ). And fair play to them, if that is what they enjoy. Who are we to regard them as somehow inferior or "dumb"?

But this is the very essence of dumbing down, that we should automatically assume that some people would be unwilling or unable to grasp, appreciate and enjoy more high-falutin' arts and entertainment. If the films had retained the more complex language and concepts then they would not have repelled anybody. Case in point, the well known BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice did not shy away from Austen's wonderful, yet to us somewhat archaic, dialogue and it was an immense success. Tarantino films are linguistically and symbolically complex but this does not prevent hordes of youths from adoring those films, and likewise, the Matrix trilogy got extremely thorny at times, but there was enough action and 'cool' stuff going on to keep the audiences coming through the doors. There is more than enough action in LotR to grip a non-reading audience and so there was simply no need to denegrate so much of the beautiful language from the books.

I could use the analogy of a good and a bad teacher. The good teacher has a class of 15 year old boys who want to do nothing more than mess around with their mates, but he/she presents lessons on poetry and Shakespeare which hopefully engage them. The bad teacher assumes they won't want to know this kind of thing anyway and so denies them the opportunity, instead focussing on such 'useful skills' as writing job applications and so forth. In the same way, there are people who think "art" is simply not for them and prefer to tune into reality TV etc. That's their choice of course, but they are denying themselves much pleasure. Sometimes I wonder if I would be happier not questioning things and just to get on with life without ever troubling my grey matter; after all, who is the happier? Who can say? But I think Tolkien's writing was spectacular enough to have been left umtampered with and the audiences would still have come rolling in, and it was a missed opportunity to get across some of that beauty.

And a "good on you" to anyone who has come to love the books from watching the films, as they must have found the language quite a weird experience after the way it was often used in the films.

Originally Posted by SpM

If that is "dumbing down", then yes the films were dumbed down. But I do rather dislike that term, as it sems to me to be somewhat patronising towards those who have different tastes to us and perhaps want something slightly different from their films and books.

As to the general idea of "dumbing down", I don't find it patronising at all. To me, to dumb down is to render complex things into simplistic things. And all too often, dumbing down consists of removing that which is considered challenging or difficult. It in effect denies people the chance to decide for themselves. To me it does not refer to something which is in its essence different to the 'high-brow', but to media/cultural products which have been altered. The Sun could not be seen as 'dumbed down' because it never was 'high brow', but if The Times started producing articles which were like those seen in The Sun then that would be dumbing down. I think my working class 'chip' is coming out now; too many years spent under the assumption I am not intelligent enough to grapple with 'big words' has made me a keen defender of our right to learn and use those 'big words'. I'll slink off now and read some Walter Greenwood