Dumbing it down

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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?

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neurion

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?

Then again, it's no skin off my nose if you would prefer not to enjoy them.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?

I enjoy most of them, up to RotK, but for the multifarious reasons mentioned above my enjoyment of the films is frustrated by the hasty and inexplicable nature of the increasingly gratuitious deviations from Tolkien's actual story.

[lindil]

SpM: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?

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart.

I would rather be able to completely segregate Denethor and 'Denethor' but alas, few things in this world are pure...

I think that the more a person has ritulaized or made the M-E archetypes one's own, as any community does with a myth, the more any 'tampering' is felt as a negative. For those to whom LotR was 'a great story', the movies may well be ' a great movie' or even a fantastic one [my wiife loved ROtK but may well never read the books and is thus a perfect example of th 'pure PJ fan' her appreciation has no books to contend with.

But for those to whom the Legendarium has taken the palce of myth, if not sacred writ, as it has admittedly for me, they seem to have rather less pure enjoymnent of the movies. Big generalizations but...

Of course, there is no right or wrong response to the movies, but it is fascinating to try and understand why we feel what we do.

my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies.

But I still enjoy coming here to serve back to PJ exactly what I experienced .

[ohtatyaro]

I LOVE the list

additional entry:

12. Leave out Eagles - no bird that big can fly! (or replace them with some flying machine 'wise elves' cotrived )

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by lindil

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories ... [so] my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies

Sometimes I do feel likewise, sometimes I can muster enough mental resource to segregate two sets of characters completely. Cf. Two Frodos , excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel

Originally Posted by SpM

But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach

Ah, but outright Like/Not Like is a bit simplistic, ain't it? It has to be a little more complex than that, so, BUT comes into play. Let me present you with an analogy:

I like my friend ***. I would not apply a term friend to him , if I liked him not, eh? He's handsome and clever, generous and funny, good playing mate when it comes down to bowling or billiard et cetera et cetera. But he's a bit talkative at times, and maybe tiresome too when in pursuit of his favourite subject. He's perfect, but for one flow. Now, and analogy is crooked, as neither I, nor any living man (but for himself) wield the power to eliminate that flow (that is, feature is a flow from my point of view anyways), and I whether like him 'as he is' or do not like him at all. But I may be inclined to say at times: *** would be a great person if only he could be less prolix.

Or, another analogy - imagine yours truly and his chosen in a haute style restaurant. We are served a dinner of our dream, with all proper things and stuff, four types of forks and knives, gentle candlelight, perfect band and the kind of service which helps you forgive and forget. Got a picture? Now, imagine spinach (that b*****d of a plant always apt to try the trick) stuck in yours truly's teeth. Imagine furthermore desparete, even hunted looks for toothpick-stand on behalf of yours truly, and disenchantment one feels as soon it is clear no toothpick-stand is present, and it is an alternative of finger-into-your-mouth-when-you-think-no-one-looks-but-in-fact-half-the-world-is-giggling-at-you technique or nervous tongue-action for the rest of the evening. (Of course, there is always a possibility to ask for one, but that's not the point here)

The fact being, I would not have complained about missing toothpicks in a snack-bar round the corner, and talkativenss would not bother me if *** were outright mean, not a grand person I know him to be.

Almost-perfect thing is more of a pest (or, 'almost' part of it is a pest), than the humble mass consumption product. You don't expect much of the latter, but when former falls short (and within an inch! - just a little less alteration, and it would have been nailed!) - well, it's not a nice feeling. Have you heard people nitpicking about Banshee cartoon details? Exactly for the films being so good, we can't help complaining, as it seems to us they might have been even better.

Hence the 'but' sticking in the middle of sentences starting with 'I love the films...'

[The Saucepan Man]

The latest posts provide some of the best answers that I have seen to my eternal question (and I find myself wondering why I always seem to agree with Aiwendil, even when we are discussing something that we disagree on ).

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words

Not at all. I find it very interesting to gain some insight into why it is that people feel the way that they do about these films (as opposed to simply the specific things that they dislike about them, most of which I have heard now about a hundred times each).

I do, of course, agree that the films could have been better. Flippantly, I might ask whether there is anything that cannot be improved on in some way, however minor (yes, including the book). But I too would have loved to have seen many of the scenes filmed just the way that Tolkien wrote them. My point is that a film which adheres as closely as possible to the book (within the constraints of the film medium) can and will probably never be made. Yes, another production team might have done things slightly different. They might have excluded more of the additional scenes and included more of the original scenes and lines. But any film-maker is going to approach it from his or her interpretation of what will work best and, in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.

When I first saw the films, TTT particularly, I did feel pretty disappointed with some of the changes that had been made. But, having now seen them a few times each, I just sit back and enjoy them. I take the view that they are what they are and, since I find them enjoyable, I might as well not let my initial disappointment spoil that enjoyment. That all sounds terribly analytical, but it is not really a conscious approach at all. It is simply the way that I have come to feel about the films.

But when one thinks about it, this explanation fails for most of the significant changes. In fact, many of those changes add events to the story and thus take up more time than would the story unembellished.

True enough. But audiences have come to expect thrilling action sequences throughout "blockbuster" films and so it is inevitable that they will be written in where they are not present already. Again, I firmly believe that the LotR films would not have been so successful if the action sequences had (as they are in the books) been fewer and further between. People have different expectations from films than they do from books. Books are there to be savoured, to take one's time over, whereas films are far more immediate. That's a massive generalisation, I know, but it applies when we are comparing the techniques used to write a tale such as LotR with the techniques used in making what is intended to be a highly successful blockbuster film.

I know that people will say that they should not have been made as blockbusters, but I really don't think that they would have been made in any other way. They would have been left unfilmed (which, though an appealing prospect, no doubt, to some, would have denied countless others of the pleasure that they derived from them).

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But I think that there is a third reason, one that perhaps accounts for most of the plot changes. Or perhaps it's not really a distinct reason but rather a facet of the "current Hollywood style" explanation. That is: I think that Jackson was quite over-concerned with maintaining tension and suspense.

Yes, I think that this does fall within the category of broadening the films' appeal. I do agree that the films might have worked with less outright action and more tension building. I often find people staring blankly at me when I say that my favourite of the Alien films was the first one. Most people seem to prefer the action-heavy second film in the series. But it is precisely because most of the first film is taken up by lengthy periods of suspense-building and has suprisingly few moments of full-throttle action that I find it superior. That said, I find the two scenes that you give as specific examples (the Cave Troll attack and the crumbling stair-block) to be incredibly exciting and enjoyable sequences.

We blithely refer here to the films being "Hollywood-ised", but this style of film did not just come about randomly. It arose to fulfil a demand. Film studios have sophisticated ways of discovering what it is that their target audiences want. They don't always get it right, but they are usually pretty accurate. They have found that people want lots of action in their blockbusters, and that's what the LotR films give them. But I would say that, in my view, these films are infinately superior and put across a far more uplifting message, than the average (or even above average) blockbuster film. In this regard, I would put them on a par with the Star Wars films (the first three) and the first of the Indiana Jones films, all of which have a special place in my heart.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I wonder whether this is a common phenomenon or whether I am the only one. Are there others who lament the popularization of the story and yet agree that in other ways, the films were quite good?

I would say that you are in the majority of those who have also read the book. As I have said, I was initially disappointed with aspects of the films, and I do still sometimes wonder at what might (but probably never would) have been. But mostly I just enjoy them for what they are.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Because a literary masterpiece is already a masterpiece. It already exists in something like a perfect form. If its perfect medium is literature, then cinema is not its perfect medium. So a cinematic version will never improve upon the story.

I do not disagree. And I can well understand why a man like Hitchcock thought it a good reason for him to make such films. But I do not think that it is a valid reason for the films not to be made at all. If they are made well enough (which I think the LotR films are), then they will bring pleasure and enjoyment to people and might lead them to read the original literary masterpiece. I think that is reason enough to justify their production.

Originally Posted by lindil

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart.

Thanks lindil for providing further insight into what I call the "sacred text" approach. I fully understand your reaction, even though I do not share it.

Originally Posted by lindil

my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies.

A sensible approach to adopt, I would say, given the way that you feel about them.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Cf. Two Frodos , excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel

Hehe. The dogs don't worry me. And they woudn't get any exercise if I wasn't here for them to bark at.

I have read and enjoyed that thread, HI, and I agreed with much of what was said. But I didn't feel that there was much more that I could add that had not been said already. I can't recall whether Helen has posted there, but I rather like her approach of keeping the two Frodos separate and appreciating the different qualities of each.

Originally Posted by HI

Let me present you with an analogy

You do surprise me!

As with the films, I would overlook the friend's minor flaws and simply enjoy his company. On the other hand, the spinach would bug the heck out of me (far more so than the changes to the films), so the analogy doesn't really work for me.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

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?

It's a fair question, and I am one of those people who really enjoys the films yet still criticises. It's something I have given thought to, however.

It may be that I simply love the books to such an extent and have loved them for so long, that it would be impossible to match up to the experience of reading them. I dreaded the films to a certain extent, as LotR is so precious (sorry!) to me and I only heard about them being made some three or four months before FotR arrived in the cinemas. I was excited, and yet I was filled with fear that they would be dreadful. When I finally saw FotR my fears were dispelled, yet I still found aspects of the film raised my hackles a little. I think it was the best of all three films, and the most true to the books (despite the omission of the Old Forest, Tom and the Wight). I knew I would be critical, as time and again I had seen films of much loved books, virtually all of which failed to meet my expectations.

Some of the changes made for the films were, and still are, incomprehensible to me. At first my main gripe was with the character of Arwen. Now I have come to the conclusion that it was acceptable to include elements of the love story, as they are in the text anyway, just hidden away in the appendices. It is not altering the storyline to show how the story of Arwen and Aragorn unfolds. But I still object to the action sequences, particularly the scene at the Ford as this denigrates the struggle and bravery of Frodo. In addition, it alters the character of Arwen in my mind, as she ought to be presented as the protected Elf maiden rather than a "She-Elf" who is allowed to ride out and out herself in danger. Now I can see why this may have been done: to cushion Jackson from the same accusations of sexism that Tolkien himself suffered. But it does not improve the film.

In the same way, Gimli was turned from a droll yet noble Dwarf into a bumbling belching buffoon. Yes, this gave some laughs, but again it was a denigration of a character. I now fear what any film of The Hobbit will be like, lest it sounds reminiscent of the QEII leaving port with all the bodily noises that Dwarfs seem to have been linked to. This was a shame as the performance given was good when the actor was not required to act basely - and I'm not prissy about that kind of thing, but it doesn't 'fit' to have a character eructating at a King.

Then there was Aragorn. One view of Aragorn in RotK that I've been asked about is "why didn't they make him into an inspirational leader figure who all the men wanted to follow?". Well, that's how Aragorn truly is, but just not in the films. It seems that Jackson picked up on his occasional moments of doubt and ran with them in an attempt to create Angst-a-gorn.

And the primary reason I get frustrated with the films is the alterations in plot which are inexplicable. This is a finely crafted plot and to alter it is incredibly risky. As I've already said, the messing about with Faramir was a ridiculously dangerous thing to do. I still cannot see why this change was made. It leaves a huge plot hole, and he may not be one of the Fellowship, but he is still an important character. It might have been better to leave him out altogether than to mess about in this way.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Maybe the sequence is exciting and suspenseful in itself; but again it uses up a non-trivial bit of time and it is unneeded. What these and similar additions have in common is that they add suspense or action to non-critical moments.

Aiwendil sums it up nicely. Perhaps some of the necessary yet seemingly "boring" scenes or exposition were omitted in order to include more "action". It is incredibly frustrating to think that certain parts of the plot were altered for inexplicable reasons, as these changes seem to have only resulted in greater inconsistency and incoherence.

Now about these changes being necessary to increase the popularity of the films. Who is all this action going to appeal to? I would say it would appeal to young men of course. And who are often stereotyped as typical avid readers of Tolkien? Well, a lot of young men, again. There was already plenty of action in the books, I would argue that there did not need to be additional action.

Then there is the question of language. A few of the new lines were amusing, yet others are glaringly obvious as poor writing. And when people pull out examples of their favourite lines in the films, they are invariably those written by Tolkien in the first place. Also, the themes and the characters are timeless and there is no reason to be updating these whatsoever.

So what did I like about the changes? There are a few, surprisingly. I thought that moving the episode with Shelob on to the final film was justified from a viewpoint of narrative, as it gave more 'story' for Frodo, Sam and Gollum in the final film and it did not alter the plot. As said above, bringing Arwen's love story into the main plot did not affect it and was acceptable. And some amusing new lines were written for the Hobbits; surely this was easier as their idiom is not quite so different to our own.

I think the films are quite beautiful to watch, the music is splendid and the acting superb. I like the way that so many little 'details' were brought in, particularly in the art/design ideas. I like the films a heck of a lot. But I still don't like that script. There are points where I feel like cringing, and others where I start wondering where my books are, as some parts just don't make any sense.

[Neithan]

Could they? Would they have been made?

OK so maybe Jackson didn't really have a choice, that doesn't mean I have to like it. I want to see the movies and recognize Middle Earth as I know it from the books. I feel the same way as if Jackson were taking real history and distorting it to entertain people, often I find myself thinking but that's not how it really happened.

But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.

So what? If Jackson had actually reduced LotR to the level of soap operas then this would be a different conversation, and he would have earned my undieing hatred.

As far as Arwen goes I think that the scenes with her are completely unecessary. All that was needed was to mention that she was Aragorn's bride to be and there would be no confusion. Then you would free up more time for other things.

There was a lot more I wanted to say but I have already spentway more time on this forum today than is wise considering all the homework I have to do. It's going to be another long night.