Dumbing it down

[Lalaith]

I didn't mind "one of those on our tail" or the surfing, but I do agree about the dumbing down in general...and of Gimli in particular.
One of the things that bugged me was that many of the additions made by the film-makers involved the spurious imposition of 21st century sensibilities onto these characters.
It's a small thing I know, but something that rankled with me was Theoden's weeping at Theodred's grave, "no parent should have to bury their child." Now, that is very much a 21st century feeling. In societies like that of Rohan, parents buried their children ALL the time. Illness, war and so on. I'm not saying they wouldn't have grieved deeply, of course they did, but it wasn't that feeling of "this is all wrong" that we have today.

[tar-ancalime]

It's a small thing I know, but something that rankled with me was Theoden's weeping at Theodred's grave, "no parent should have to bury their child."

I was just watching TTT last night, and this line struck me too, but for a slightly different reason. It made sense to me that Theoden should grieve openly--a king losing his only heir has wider repercussions than an ordinary death, and especially a king who's already been weakened by an outside influence should rightly be concerned about the future of his kingdom and about succession.

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

[Essex]

Originally Posted by tar-ancalime

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

No disrespect, Tar-ancalime, but I think if we were to disect the movie to this level, then we will be here till doosmsday!

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences. Perhaps they would have suceeded in equal measure had they not used the techniques described above, but we cannot know that for sure unless and until a more faithful film adaptation of the book is made.

I think that's why they fail for me - this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond, though we know at first he held out little hope for that. I've just finished reading 'The Lord of the Rings:The Films. the Books, The Radio Series' by Jim Smith & J Clive Matthews (Virgin Books) & their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably. They criticise Tolkien on virtually every page while praising Jackson & the writers for putting right all his numerous 'faults'.

I know movies have to appeal to a mass audience & studios are averse (to say the least) to any kind of risk taking, but my feeling has always been that if they didn't want to be as faithful as possible to Tolkien's work they should have written their own story & filmed that. Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible. One can argue whether the writers/director did that as far as the story is concerned, but I do question whether they had sufficient respect for Tolkien's language (or for the English language itself - 'Our list of allies is growing thin'! 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.' etc.). What irritated me most was characters jumping, often in the course of a sentence, from an archaic to a modern idiom. I have to agree with tar-ancalime in this regard. If we take the line given to Galadriel which I just quoted, it sounds wrong & out of character for her to say something like that because up to that point she has been using a very archaic style of speech. To suddenly change her speech pattern & phraseology causes serious problems for some of us, because one of those idioms must be 'false' - in the sense of not being her 'natural' way of speaking. Either the archaic style was false & the modern 'true' or vice versa. If the archaic is her natural 'style' then she is being condescending in suddenly adopting a modern idiom - which turns what she says into an insulting platitude - or if the modern idiom is her natural one then her earlier use of the archaic just comes across as pretentious. The language & speech patterns a character uses reflect the way that character thinks. Galadriel simply would not say 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.' because she wouldn't find that form of expression natural. She might say something like 'Oft has it been seen that the deeds of those deemed insignificant by the Wise have shaken the Towers of the Mighty' or some such (with abject apologies to Tolkien!!!) but she wouldn't talk about 'small persons changing the course of the future'.

(And I just know someone is going to pounce on all my grammatical fox paws in that post )

[Boromir88]

SpM:

From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences.

I would agree. It is second on Imdb.com, just below "The Godfather." This is an opinion poll of imdb's users on what movies would people MOST likely enjoy. Also, we can credit Mr. Jackson for having Tolkien recently being reinstated as the top selling Author's of this century.

I know for me personally, the movies got me to pick up the book again. I hadn't picked up LOTR for about 15 years, and when the movies came out it got me back into appreciating him like I did back in the day. As a fan of Tolkien that is the best thing the movie has done, introduced more people into the world of Middle-earth, and gotten them into Tolkien.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

davem, fox paws or not , I think that may be the best expression that I have seen given to my opinion on this subject. Thanks for putting it in those terms. Now on to the meat:

Personally I think PJ and team threw those lines in to help/ add a modern feel for the casual movie goer. Kinda of like the whole Aragorn and Arwen thing. Don't you think that would confuse people if at the end of ROTK Aragorn just married some random elf instead of Eowyn if you hadn't read the books? Things had to be added to help people who hadn't read the books. Posted by Kitanna

People frequently make this argument about Arwen's expanded role. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Arwen's part in the story is any more confusing in a film medium than it was in the original book. Her role is very small indeed as Tolkien wrote it and he took no pains to explain why Aragorn would pick Arwen over Eowyn. If we can understand it once we've read the book with no expansion of her role, I don't see that it makes a difference when translated to film.

So, though I disagree with the "more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film" argument, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than this one. This one, I feel, is patronising to the casual moviegoer.

Sophia

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Sophia the Thunder Mistress

People frequently make this argument about Arwen's expanded role. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Arwen's part in the story is any more confusing in a film medium than it was in the original book. Her role is very small indeed as Tolkien wrote it and he took no pains to explain why Aragorn would pick Arwen over Eowyn. If we can understand it once we've read the book with no expansion of her role, I don't see that it makes a difference when translated to film.

So, though I disagree with the "more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film" argument, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than this one. This one, I feel, is patronising to the casual moviegoer.

Sophia

Arwen's role in the book isn't confusing at all, if you actually read the Appendices. According to Brian Sibley, Tolkien wanted to expand on Aragorn and arwen's love and history together within the Lord of the Rings, but he could never figure out how, so he included it in the the appendices instead of the main body of the story.

Tolkien did intend his mythology to be relatable to his readers, but not in the sense that an adolescent raised on a steady diet of pop-culture would find readily familiar.

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by davem

Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible.

Is it really an obligation to do that? If they have the rights they can do as they choose. It's not what I would call an obligation, it's more of a respect thing. Jackson and company kept many things the same and I think that's more out of respect for Tolkien and his work then because they were "obligated" to. I can see though how taking respect as a moral issue, but I don't see this as an moral obligation.

[The Only Real Estel]

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

"No parent should have to bury their child" might have amused (or maybe enraged) Tolkien as a philologist, given the grammatical contradictions inherent in the juxtaposition of the words "Parent" (singular) and "Their child" (plural).

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

It's the grammar, my good Estel, the grammar...

Although if he had said, "No parent should have to bury his or her child," it really would have sounded awkward.

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture.

Quite possible.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

I think that's why they fail for me - this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond, though we know at first he held out little hope for that. I've just finished reading 'The Lord of the Rings:The Films. the Books, The Radio Series' by Jim Smith & J Clive Matthews (Virgin Books) & their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably. They criticise Tolkien on virtually every page while praising Jackson & the writers for putting right all his numerous 'faults'.

I agree. While I enjoyed the films, I find it disapointing that the films seem to be, in some ways tailored to the current generation.

Those who say that Jackson and crew supposedly "improved on Tolkien's work by making it more accesible" are really not taking it for what it is. In my oppinion, the biggest reason for the popularity of the films is because they dramatize Tolkien's epic, not because the characters drop "accesible" lines like "Let's hunt some orc". I really believe that if they had included more of the actual story, the films might have even been more succesful (they certainly would have avoided some annoying plot holes, like why Arwen braves the Ringwraiths sword in hand, and then spends the rest of the film pensively waiting, or why exactly Arwen was dying, or why Aragorn decided to let the Army of the Dead go when he did, instead of ordering them on to Minas Tirith).

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture. To just cite one example, one sentence of George Washington's inaugural speech lasted one and a half pages. The fact that we've been trained to think within the span of ever-shrinking sound-bites for three generations now, and the fact that the films tend to reflect this at times, is dismaying.