Dumbing it down

[Essex]

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

I think I remember reading about this problem with the English language a while back. i.e. We don't have a word to use in the place of the singular 'his or her', and have the use the (grammitically incorrect) plural 'their'?

PS anyone want to join me in a sacrificial burning of the book mentioned above that says the films are better than the books? It's their opinion ok, but it's the wrong one!!!!!!!!

[The Saucepan Man]

I have to admit that I find it strange how many people here are upset or annoyed by things in the films purely by reference to the books. I suppose that is inevitable with any adaptation of a book to film, particularly of one as well-written and well-loved as LotR. But it does seem to me sometimes that people here are going out of their way to find fault with the films.

As I have stated many times, I do not consider them to be perfect. But as films, they are some of the best that I have seen. And, as has been pointed out, they are there amongst the most popular and successful films ever made. So they must be doing something right.

I am sure that there are few (if any) here who would scrutinise any other film in quite the same depth to which they put the LotR films under the microscope. Of course, that's understandable, given that we are all here in consequence of a love of Tolkien's works. But woud you treat any other film in the same way? Personally, if I did not frequent this forum, then I would be blissfully unaware of about 90% of the criticisms that have been levelled against the films in this forum. Yes, I would be aware of the differences from the book, but most of those don't bother me. It is only those matters which are inconsistent or inexplicable within the context of the films themselves that concern me at all (and, to my mind, there are far less of those than the threads here might suggest). And, even then, they are not sufficient to impair my overall enjoyment of the films. Certainly, it would never occur to me to call into the question the likes of Theoden's line at his son's burial (which, grammatically correct or not, I thought was rather moving) or Galadriel's lines to Frodo in Lothlorien.

Tolkien was an exceptional story-teller with an in-depth knowledge of language and myth. Is it really any surprise that the screenplay does not fully do his lines justice? I should imagine that there are few writers around today who would have been able to write a script that would stand up fully in comparison with the lines that he wrote. Fewer still who would have been either able or willing to undertake the screenplay for these films. Perhaps they should have retained more of the original lines, but I was actually quite surprised at just how many they did retain (even though many were swapped between characters). Given that, on any view, major changes and omissions were inevitable in a translation of the book to screen, it was similarly inevitable that some of the lines would need to be re-written and additional lines added.

Perhaps I am just easily pleased. Perhaps I am strange in being able to separate the films from the books and enjoy them both without letting the one impair my enjoyment of the other. But I have never really understood why it is that people get so worked up about what I regard as fairly minor issues. As I see it, you either enjoy the films for what they are (and overlook their minor foibles) or you don't enjoy them (and don't watch them). Why should a "different take" on the characters or some dialogue which might seem at odds with the lines written by a man who was a master of language annoy you when you can sit and enjoy the films and then go and read the books and enjoy them even more? These are the kinds of questions that I always seem to find myself raising on threads like this, but I have never really got a satisfactory answer (or at least one that I can understand). I can come close to understanding those that say that the films are a huge disappointment compared to what they might have been. But would they really ever have been? And, in any event, I am one who tends to view the glass as half full rather than half empty. Or maybe, as I said, it's just because I am easily pleased.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

How could Tolkien's work be made more accessible? LotR was already one of the biggest selling works of all time, and most readers who were likely to have enjoyed it would have read it already anyway, unless they were too young to have done so by the time the films were released. It is not exactly a difficult or daunting read, so I wonder who are these people who would never have read LotR and had to have this accessible version? Surely this means all those people who never read books anyway? It can't mean those who read the books after the films and enjoyed them, as they would likely have come to the books in any case, despite the films. So the films were made for the class of people who hate reading? Or are they made for those who like reading but couldn't be bothered with the books? I know I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC adaptation of Middlemarch, as it saved me reading a book I found unutterably dull; is it for this reason that the films were made? To save people from having to bother reading the books?

I agree with you concerning the popularity of the book. But I would hazard a guess that the number of people (living today) who have read and enjoyed the book is still a small proportion of those who have seen and enjoyed the films. 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). 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"?

And that I would wager, is why the film-makers tried to (and quite clearly succeeded in) making the films accessible to as wide a range of film-goers as possible. 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.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I have to admit that I find it strange how many people here are upset or annoyed by things in the films purely by reference to the books. But it does seem to me sometimes that people here are going out of their way to find fault with the films.

Well said. I totally agree (not suprising). Some people seem to WANT to find fault in every part of the film.

But as films, they are some of the best that I have seen.

They are the best films ever made IMO. (But this doesn't go against what I said in my last post. To say they are far superior to the books is IMO ridculous)

I am sure that there are few (if any) here who would scrutinise any other film in quite the same depth to which they put the LotR films under the microscope.

Indeed, as I said earlier, we'll be here till doomsday discussing the films if we get down to grammatical issues (but yes, I've fallen into the trap, but am trying to explain Bernard Hill's use of words in my post)

Certainly, it would never occur to me to call into the question the likes of Theoden's line at his son's burial (which, grammatically correct or not, I thought was rather moving)

I have had to bury one of my children, so yes, this is very moving and heartfelt to me. I know his sentiments entirely. IMO you do not know grief until the loss of someone close to you or that you love, especially a sibling.

Perhaps they should have retained more of the original lines, but I was actually quite surprised at just how many they did retain (even though many were swapped between characters).

Yes, on re-reading the books, I was also surprised at how many of the lines WERE from Tolkien. Although I've yet to do this for the last film, but hey, this gives me an excuse to read it again!

[ohtatyaro]

It is not exactly a difficult or daunting read, so I wonder who are these people who would never have read LotR and had to have this accessible version

um... foreigners? That is, me? Probably? Sure, I was provided the books by a friend, but, I mean, I asked for them after I watched the movies.

[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

[lindil]

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 that the movies were dumbed down, though I am sure PJ would characterize it differently.

Tolkien created a masterpeice. PJ a bastardized 'hit'.
I have been criticized for using the 'bastardized' word in regards to PJ and his work before, but it really works best in a literal way.

PJ took something refined, morally uplifting, challenging, linguistically subtle and powerful and did something very different and very hollywood with it.

In virtually every case where he invents [or approves PB's inventions] the result is often pitiful.

I mean seriously, would any sane person not want to use absolutely as much of JRRT's dialogue as possible? Any substitution of JRRT's dialogue w/ recently fabricated hollywoodisms is and was a sad thing.

I wanted to like the movies I reallty did, and can pretty much enjoy the exp. FotR. but I lost all interest in the films after RotK. We have the expanded RotK, but I have never wanted to endure another watching to see what the actors and Howe and Lee managed top salvage of PJ's attack on M-E.

So I concur wholeheartedly Beleg C, it was dumbed down, and maybe it truly had to be, but then, maybe better to not do it, or maybe as Alf says in Smith of Wooten Major, "better a glimpse of Fairy than none of all".

-------------------------

addendum

Lalwende makes a few excellent points about old-timers and criticism and they all c ertainly apply to me. But I would say this, If the movie wee done with the same love of Tolkien and integrity as this website and forum is run by the Admins, it would have been a true masterpiece in far more peoples eyes.

Accomadations to modern tastes may be sweet for a season but it will never endure as long or deeply as JRRT's writings. They movies are destined I imagine to be a more than a footnote, but not much more, in the History of M-E.

Lalawende posted: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.

A long quote but 100% spot on imo.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Essex

I think I remember reading about this problem with the English language a while back. i.e. We don't have a word to use in the place of the singular 'his or her', and have the use the (grammitically incorrect) plural 'their'?

"No parent should have to bury its child."

Okay, I admit that sounds even worse than "their", but I had to say it....

Personally, I agree that Theoden would have been more likely to say "No father should have to bury his son." than the in-movie version, had he expressed such a sentiment out loud. Had it been a daughter who had died, he would have said daughter. Had it been a female character, she would have said mother (not father). Really, gender-inclusiveness has been taken too far.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

These films can be twisted to suit any propoganda.

You dare criticise? You patronise me!

You dare to love? You are dumb.

The films were dumbed-down; even those who do not like the expression still concede this when we consider the usual accepted definition of the term. Never let anyone tell you that you are an imbecile for caring as much about the films as you do about the book. However, it must be accepted by all right-minded people that the films are a pale imitation of the book.

Now I'm not knocking pale imitations: after all, I myself usually pose as a pale imitation of an intelligent person! *groan*

But facts are facts. Theoden's death scene in the book is better than anything ever seen on Big Brother. Opinions reflect truth.

[Eruanna]

As much as I love the books, I am also a huge fan of the films. Perhaps because I do not expect every word of the page to be literally translated to the screen.
As to charges that certain characters would never say 'such and such', perhaps this is true of some, but I fail to see why Galadriel would not try to make a humble, doubting little Hobbit feel better about himself and his appointed task, by speaking to him in plainer and kinder terms.
In the interview with Bernard Hill on the ee TT, he says that he himself asked PJ if he could say the line; "No parent should have to bury their child." The line had a personal resonance for someone he knew and he was pleased when PJ agreed. As a parent myself, I found the line (and his acting) very moving and was certainly not about to leap on his lapse of grammar.

The films may indeed have been 'dumbed down' but in my opinion only slightly. Peter Jackson and his team did a wonderful job in filming what many had said were unfilmable books, far better than I had ever imagined.

Give that man an Oscar...oh, they did

[Lalaith]

I abase myself humbly to those who accuse me of nitpicking about Theoden's line at the tomb. They are absolutely right - it is nitpicking. (Although it wasn't the grammatical subtlities of "their" or "its" or "his/her" that bothered me)
But I also still maintain that this line, while full of truth and resonance to us, in the 21st century - and my especial respect and sympathy to those of my fellow Downers for whom it has personal meaning - is still not the right thing for a king of Rohan to say. He is the king of a people who would have seen so many of their children die of disease, their young men die in battle, and so on. What I was trying to get at, by talking about this line to illustrate my point, is that it seemed to me one of those moments, if not perhaps the most obvious one, that was shoehorned in for the sake of Relevance To A Modern Audience.
But do you want to make a classic, timeless piece of art, or something that might, in 20 years time, feel too much 'of its time' to be anything other than a dated if charming period piece? I'm not a snob about film, I think it can be art in the same way as literature, music or painting. But if you spend too much time listening to the focus groups about how it's going to play to the 15-17 year olds of Armpit, Arkansas in December 2003, then you're going to lose a lot in the process.
There were many moments in the movie trilogy when I felt moved, in the way that I do by great art, and I pay tribute to the creators of the films for their achievement. The trilogy is a masterpiece, I think, but nonetheless a flawed masterpiece.

[davem]

Some comments by Anne C Petty in this with Herenistarion (no, not him)interview seem relevant here:

Heren Istarion. Do you feel there is justification for the changes made to characters in the films?

I have a love/hate relationship with Jackson's films. I love the look and feel of the films and the exquisite detail put into the production. For the most part, I also enjoyed the earnestness and integrity with which the actors portrayed their characters; Jackson's attitude of approaching the films as if they were shooting history rather than fantasy contributes to the things that make me happy about the films. On the "hate" side of the equation I have to place the scriptwriting and the film editing (i.e., the manipulation of the storyline). I am most appalled by the way some characters have been shifted off plumb and torqued to serve a dramatic purpose that has little to do with Tolkien's story.

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.

I also highly dislike the misuse (and deliberate misreading) of Faramir. I really don't buy the excuses the scriptwriters have given for this change, and feel compelled to point out that it's important for Faramir to mirror Aragorn in his ability to withstand the lure of the ring and to see the greater vision of where Middle-earth is headed. Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. Denethor is yet another problem. In the books, he is stern, with the potential to become a tyrant, but he's a genuinely noble, capable leader for much of his stewardship. Tolkien says he's the closest the line of Stewards has come in many years to the Númenóreans of old. It's Denethor's belief that he has the High Númenórean ability (supra-human strength of will) to challenge Sauron through use of the palantír that erodes his leadership into madness. In the films he is just a crazy old pig of a despot who hates his second son for no apparent reason. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

And Elrond… eh, don't get me started. Hugo Weaving certainly looks the part and acts with dignity, but the scriptwriters have turned him into a cranky, frowning, angry old Elf who shows no love at all toward his foster son Aragorn. I think the Hobbits were better served than Men and Elves by the scripts. But the films certainly are beautiful to look at, and the music is rapturous for most of the ride.

(Whole interview: http://www.herenistarion.org/parmano...Interview.html)

[Lalaith]

I enjoyed reading that, thank you davem. And I agree with her....and I also have to agree with this quote from the interview:

Do you feel that Tolkien's humanity and world concerns come across in Peter Jackson's film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings?

That is perhaps where Jackson's films most closely resemble Tolkien's great story
I think the films convey a genuine sense of concern for one's fellow creatures and for the fate of their world in general. The emotional impact of the films on that level seems to be quite strong.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

Some comments by Anne C Petty in this with Herenistarion (no, not him)interview seem relevant here:




(Whole interview: http://www.herenistarion.org/parmano...Interview.html)

Wow! Thanks davem, great interview. That's my thinking exactly.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by davem

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.

Yes this is a problem. Besides the fact it's one of the things I missed very much from the books, it also fails to explain why so many men are willing to follow this man, this ranger, who’s shown as not much more then being good with a sword. There’s not really any majesty to him like there is in the books. He doesn’t want to be the king, in sharp contrast to the books, where it mentions Aragorn seeming to grow taller when he reviles himself from time to time he seemed “Tall as the sea-kings of old, he stood above all that were near; ancient of days he seemed and yet in the flower of manhood; and wisdom sat upon his brow, and strength and healing were in his hands, and a light was about him.” it’s just something I would have liked to see.

Sorry I don’t have much time to make this post very good.

[davem]

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources:

Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. .. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

Yes, I'm requoting what I quoted yesterday, because I think it sums up where the moviemakers went wrong. Its not only Tolkien's invented world that is strange & unique, but in many ways its also his characters. These beings, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, are not 'just like us'. They are not characters we are meant to 'identify' with. What the writers have done is take a 'legendary' figure like Aragorn, a being with supra-human wisdom, strength of character & a high destiny, & traduce him into an angst-ridden 'new man'. All the characters in the movie have to a greater or lesser degree lost their uniqueness, & have become 'cliches'. I'm not impressed by the movie characters because I've seen them in a thousand & one other movies. 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.

All the depth, the strangeness, the 'queerness', of Middle earth has been sacrificed & replaced 'hollywood standard' 'characters'. Yes, there are moments when something of the real Middle earth & its denizens shines through, when the light of another world briefly illumines us from the screen, but not nearly as often or as brightly as it should.