Dumbing it down

[Evisse the Blue]

Originally Posted by TPotSS

When you are reading a book there's never a time when you turn the page and something jumps out at you (unless it's a pop-up book ) and there is never a time where an unexpected loud noise scares you. A book cannot shock and surprise in the same way a movie can. A movie can shock and surprise in many ways (and shocks and surprises always get a reaction from the audience, which is what directors are shooting for) therefore movie people are more obsessed with shocking people. It's in their nature.

Still, a book can shock , as well. Not resorting to basic tricks like 'eerie music', a sudden noise, but to choice of wording, building an expectation over the course of many pages, then tearing it down with a carefully placed word or two. Take Harry Potter for instance. Granted, it's much more difficult to achieve such a thing in books than in movies for obvious reasons.
But this is a little beside the point.

But I guess it's probably super frustrating to have something that's really good when, in their minds, it could've/should've been "perfect".

This applies very well to me. Not perfect as in 'the Bible is perfect', but perfect as a world where everything falls into place. Yeah, I do believe Tolkien was a genius.

[ohtatyaro]

If you are a purist then you have to appreciate the movie version for it's scenery, costumes...

I have a feeling that images I would have had fo scenery and costumes and all if I only read the books before the movie, would been different . I mean, there might not be one to one likeness of what I imagine when someone says 'blue river' and what any of you imagine. I bet.

I dont mean anything in the long run . I'm just awed by this heated dbate

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

My distaste for religion had nothing to do with that post.

I actually don't know what your earlier statement means. I don't compare The Lord of the Rings to the Bible in any way. I am further baffled by this idea of perfection. The Lord of the Rings is not perfect nor imperfect; it is non-perfect, or rather, perfection has absolutely nothing to do with it.

An exact replication of the book was always a fundamental impossibility, so there could never be a "perfect replication" to be called "perfect". A very good representation would, however, have been very good.

[Aiwendil]

TPotSS wrote:

A book cannot shock and surprise in the same way a movie can. A movie can shock and surprise in many ways

This is true to some extent - however, it misses the point. What we are dealing with in the decision to have Frodo send Sam away is not a shocking visual or auditory moment. An example of the kind of shock you describe is Bilbo's momentary transformation in Fellowship. This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all; it is merely the kind of surprise one experiences on learning (in any way) that such and such a change has been made. And to the portion of the audience that had not read the book, it did not even offer that kind of surprise.

So to say that this "twist" was a cinematic effect at all seems incorrect to me.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all; it is merely the kind of surprise one experiences on learning (in any way) that such and such a change has been made. And to the portion of the audience that had not read the book, it did not even offer that kind of surprise.

Indeed. I can see why they chose to rewrite like this, as it makes certain psychological motivations easier to understand for a non-reading audience, but that doesn't mean I liked what they did. I thought it was an example of clumsy script writing and rather more obvious than I'd have liked. But again, it is the scriptwriting team's 'justification' which falls down flat. It wasn't going to shock anyone in the right way, just shock keen readers in that the plot had been altered again.

Books do offer shocks and surprises just as much as films do. Why else would thrillers and horror sell by the bucketload? And who hasn't been kept up all night with a real 'page-turner'? Suspense and shocking moments are one of the mainstays of plot, and you find it even in Jane Austen novels - though perhaps I ought to pick on a bad writer for a good example here.

[TPotSS]

This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all

I agree.

So to say that this "twist" was a cinematic effect at all seems incorrect to me.

Me too. That's why I didn't say that.

My point was that people involved with audio/video mediums are more shock obsessed than writers. Now yeah I may be generalizing a bit, but it seems like many film types have it in their heads that shock always equals good, so they are motivated to do some things (like change a story line) merely to shock a portion of their audience.

[lord of dor-lomin]

Now yeah I may be generalizing a bit, but it seems like many film types have it in their heads that shock always equals good

I suppose I could agree with that somewhat.

So are you saying we should excuse PJ and his partners because shocking people is in their nature? Even if that is completely true, I don't think that is a good enough excuse.

About the fight scenes- I don't really mind them. I think that sticking strictly to the book in battles does not work. The descriptions are too short. The battles are supposed to last for hours and yet they take up fewer pages than a five minute conversation. This would be ridiculous on the screen.

I agree about the lack of respect for teens. Let's extend it to everyone; the typical 'movie' audience.

What's wrong with that?

I had a general lack of respect for teens when I was a teen. Now that I'm older, I have extended this general feeling of disdain to the entire population. Some of us are just crabby, pessimistic people.

[The Saucepan Man]

The current discusion seems to be premised on the assumption that Jackson and co set out deliberately to shock fans of the books. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for this, and I do not believe that it played any part in the changes that were made.

As far as the quote from Boyens that Fordim referred to earlier is concerned, and as I said earlier:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Boyens didn't say that this was the reason for the change. She said that this was one of the reasons why she liked it (ie after the event). I suspect, in any event, that the comment was provoked by the more extreme reactions of some of the fans to the films. A kind of retaliation, if you like. But I seriously doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately winding up the book fans.

[davem]

Well, the reason the writers chose to alter the story at that point was that they felt it was necessary for Frodo to enter Cirith Ungol alone, & the only way they could think of to arange that was to have Gollum make Frodo turn on Sam.

I don't think it works, & they fall on their faces as a result. Perhaps its another example of their obsession with 'what will work cinematically'. They seem to have laboured under the assumption all along that certain things in the books just wouldn't work, without even trying them out. Perhaps the problem was that they were always focussed on what would work best in each individual scene & weren't able to step back sufficiently & look at the whole. Its clear that with Faramir they made alterations in order to increase the dramatic tension of film two, wthout realising the hole they were digging for themselves in film three. His volte face in the last couple of minutes of Towers is not only unconvincing but actually embarrassing to watch as the character has to change from a hardened warrior who's only concern is obeying orders to an all around nice guy - & why? Well, because they knew that in film three he would have to be someone the audience liked & cared enough about that they wouldn't freak out & object when Gandalf 'drops his general's baton' in the middle of the siege to go & save him.