Dumbing it down

[The Saucepan Man]

You mean it’s not legitimate to adopt contrasting arguments and tactics depending upon the nature of the discussion? But Bêthberry, that proposition runs counter to all of my professional instincts!

Actually I have never sought to deny anyone’s entitlement in this discussion to hold the views that they do. Nor have I ever sought to suggest that those views do not matter because they are outweighed by popular opinion. Indeed, I have been at pains to try to avoid giving that impression. I am simply trying to bring some perspective to the discussion. The fact remains that the views expressed concerning the films on this thread are restricted to a minority of the audience for these films. Whether the fact that they are held (to varying degrees) by a majority of those who hold the book most dear makes them any more valid would, I think, be an interesting discussion.

Not all popular films hold up over time, nor are all Oscar-winning movies remembered.

True. And there are a few real “stinkers” that have won Oscars (my opinion, of course). Titanic and Braveheart were both recently nominated amongst the top 10 “worst” films to win an Oscar, although they no doubt remain strong in the affections of many who saw them. My own perception is that the LotR films will hold up over time, since they have the same “groundbreaking” feel to me as the likes of Star Wars (the first) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. And I have a feeling that Jackson will become as much a household name as the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. But that’s just my opinion.

For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text.

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based.

[Rimbaud]

If the sauce fits, I suppose.

Some of us though are in the uncomfortable position of having watched the films entirely due to the books, and therefore our relationships with the filmic versions are inherently temepered by their relation to the original text.

That is to say; I would not ordinarily watch such a motion picture, that is not necessarily stating that the oeuvre is 'unworthy', merely not to my taste. Yet, as I see little of filmic merit outside of a welcome translation of a literary enjoyment, such book-divorced discussion is of little scope. I may or may not be alone in this.

Textual healing

~Rim

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based.

What if, however, the filmic problems are one and the same as those pertaining to the differences between the books and movies? How if the filmic difficulties in the movies could have been resolved by remaining more faithful to the books?

For example, in my opinion, the Aragorn/Arwen kiss at the end of the RotK was an extremely corny, Hollywood-esque, sequence, put in for dubious reasons. Indeed, the whole sequence of the calm, tame, subdued Arwen arriving in Gondor does not jive with the Arwen seen rescuing Frodo. Her relationship with Aragorn is off kilter. This is, in my mind, a filmic difficulty, above and beyond any canonicity-related issues concerning Arwen. Quite frankly, Arwen isn't consistent within the movies.

But had they depicted Arwen as she was in the book, this need not have happened. We need not have had a conflict between a warrior princess and a more domesticated princess. And we certainly wouldn't have had to contend with a corny Hollywood kiss.

Now, you can't make a filmically perfect movie by following a book, but you could have improved on the film that they DID make by staying closer to the book in various places. The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

Better in what way? For whom? By whose standards?

As for accuracy, well the films clearly tell a different story from that told in the book with different characters. They are therefore entirely accurate on their own terms.

Alas, though, I suspect that Rimbaud is right. It would be nigh on impossible to hold a discussion on this Forum about the qualities (whether positive or negative) of the films purely as films without it descending into a comparison with the books given the prevailing opinion (with which I do not wholly agree) that they would have been better as films had they more closely mirrored the book.

[Essex]

But the BBC radio series dramatised LotR in 13 hours without making any significant changes to characters or events - apart from missing out the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode (which was later dramatised seperately - & which worked very well in spite of all the comments I've heard that it cannot be done)

Wow, who did the Tom Bombadil bit, and where can I get it?

PS radio medium totally different to film medium.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Wow, who did the Tom Bombadil bit, and where can I get it?

PS radio medium totally different to film medium.

Brian Sibley, who co-authored/adapted the radio series wrote another series 'Tales from the Perilous Realm', which adapted the Bombadil/Barrow Downs, Leaf by Niggle, Smith & Farmer Giles. Its available under that title on CD from the BBC (you can get it on Amazon. Smith isn't very successful (imo) but the others (with Brian Blessed as Giles & Alfred Molina as Niggle & Michael Horden as the series Narrator) work very well.

As to divorcing the book from the movies, well, I can't. They're adaptations of the book & stand or fall by whether they tell Tolkien's story well or not. Again, in my opinion, they don't. Neither do they work as movies, for smoe of the reasons I've given. The writers/director's obsession with what looks impressive on screen works against telling the actual [I]. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Tolkien's judgement of the fifties radio version & call them a 'sillification' but in parts they come close to being just that.

Again, I'd say that the real problem is their obsession with size & spectacle worked against them. Bigger isn't always best & whatever Jackson might say CGI still isn't up to the job Jackson wants it to do. Basically, he's putting too much weight on the technology & it isn't convincing enough. For instance, Gollum domminates the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline because PJ clearly believes that the CGI is good enough to convince & as a result he loses control of the character - who, as in the books, should only be seen through the eyes of the other characters, & never given screentime on his own. Same with the Mumakil & the Army of the Dead.

Now, am I glad they were made? Did I get anything from them at all? Something, certainly. But was it worth all the 'annoyances'? Probably not in the end. If others enjoyed them I'm happy for them, but I can't say they've added anything to my appreciation of Tolkien's work. I suspect they'll fade from public attention very quickly. The ones who onlylike them as movies will move on to other movies, the ones for whom they have served as an introduction to Tolkien's work will tuen to the books & the movies will fade into the background for them.

As movies I don't think they're as good as the first two Star Wars films (episodes IV & V), & as adaptations of the books they leave too much to be desired. If they were original works perhaps I'd have been more impressed by them. but I don't think its possible to divorce them from the source - if you know the source that is.

The question that inspired this thread is whether they are a 'dumbing down' of the original & I can't see that anyone who knows the original can argue that they aren't. Are they 'dumb' movies? Certainly not. They ask questions which most maistream Hollywood movies wouldn't & confront issues of morality & power which Hollywood tends to either avoid or offer at best dubious & at worst immoral answers to. Bur in comparison to the books they offer dumbed down versions of those answers...

[the phantom]

For example, in my opinion, the Aragorn/Arwen kiss at the end of the RotK was an extremely corny, Hollywood-esque, sequence, put in for dubious reasons. Indeed, the whole sequence of the calm, tame, subdued Arwen arriving in Gondor does not jive with the Arwen seen rescuing Frodo. Her relationship with Aragorn is off kilter. This is, in my mind, a filmic difficulty, above and beyond any canonicity-related issues concerning Arwen. Quite frankly, Arwen isn't consistent within the movies.

Thank you for mentioning that. I've been forgetting to bring it up. You are right- Arwen was inconsistent. As soon as PJ threw her in where she didn't belong in the first movie, he was risking this sort of inconsistency. Remember what I said a couple of pages ago on the thread? ->

Every event has (or should have) an effect on the rest of the story. In other words, if Aragorn were to get his armed chopped off in the first film, that event should cause him to appear without an arm for the rest of the movie. If you add something, you must follow that change through to the end and make sure that the rest of the story reflects the addition you made. That is the danger in putting in things that did not actually happen.

This Arwen inconsistency is an excellent illustration of my point.

Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

I never read the book. I loved the movie. Same as my friends.

Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations

Yes that is true. And why is this? You answered it-

because they have not read the book

Hello! They haven't read the book! Therefore they are NOT going to have reservations about ANYTHING. They don't care! So why would we try to please people who aren't even going to NOTICE much less care about changes???

you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films

Yes, but we are the only group who would even notice a small change, so why not make it to our liking? Most of the movie followed the book so why not get rid of the parts that don't work (the inconsistencies of Faramir and Arwen)?? It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else.

I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them

And they STILL would've been "enjoyed by the vast majority" had a few minor changes been made.

a multi-award winning, hugely popular, massively successful and critically acclaimed pig's ear...

...is still a pig's ear.

Better in what way?

Coherency is better than incoherency.

For whom?

For people who notice such things.

By whose standards?

By logical and intelligent standards (ie my standards ).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Some of us though are in the uncomfortable position of having watched the films entirely due to the books, and therefore our relationships with the filmic versions are inherently temepered by their relation to the original text.

That is to say; I would not ordinarily watch such a motion picture, that is not necessarily stating that the oeuvre is 'unworthy', merely not to my taste. Yet, as I see little of filmic merit outside of a welcome translation of a literary enjoyment, such book-divorced discussion is of little scope. I may or may not be alone in this.

An interesting thought. I'm not entirely sure I'd have gone to watch the films myself had I not been such a fan of the books; I can take it or leave it as far as big budget action 'flicks' are concerned. So it's a very good point that as readers it is inevitable that we will bring a whole pile of presumptions and expectations with us along to the cinema with the bucket of popcorn. Alas, expectations make for an uncomfortable seat after 3 hours, and when I saw changes made that quite frankly confused me, I was quite cross. 3 hours is surely enough time to get across the plot and characters correctly?

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.

Still, I like the films, in fact, I love the films. I have watched them many many times and there are many things in them which delight me. So why do I get so narked and humpty about the changes to the plot? Because, as far as I can see it, there was no justification for such changes as the Faramir episode or Aragorn's acceptance of his destiny. I simply cannot see why certain stupid and frankly dumb things were included, when this time could have been given over to including the stuff which would have helped the films make more sense plotwise, the stuff from the books. Jackson showed he could make changes to some things and keep their integrity, but not to others. I got the distinct impression that the team got themselves into a tangle with their changes and could not really justify them.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Now, you can't make a filmically perfect movie by following a book, but you could have improved on the film that they DID make by staying closer to the book in various places. The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

I agree broadly with what Formedacil says here. It is indeed difficult to stick rigidly to a book when adapting it to a different medium, and I have yet to see a 100% perfect adaptation, but it could indeed have been so much better.

Perhaps I ought to stick to what I term 'pure film', where it is based on a new story, not on an adaptation.

Originally Posted by SpM

It is clear to me from everything that has been said on this thread that it is primarily because most here hold the book so close to their hearts that they feel disappointed and/or angry with (some or all of) the changes. But despite being the majority here, it is also fair, I think, to say that you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films. And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.

I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world? Of course, some may have not picked them up for many a year, but they have still read them. And even the membership of the 'Downs includes a significant amount of people who can be called 'Film recruits' (with thanks to Snowdog's thread for the terminology ), who have since read the books. I wonder how this translates within the wider audience of the films? I certainly know many people who have become addicted Tolkienistas since the films came out. Strange thing is, a rather large proprtion of these new recruits also bring up the changed scenes and criticise them. So it might actually be a smaller proportion of the audience than we think who are confirmed (committed?) non-readers.

Originally Posted by Essex

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books. But the interesting thing is that Prisoner of Azkhaban also wanders away from the text, yet is the best of the three films in my opinion. I think much of the success has to do with the quality of the adult actors in the HP films, something which also was of great benefit to the LotR films, as I find little to fault in that respect.

Originally Posted by SpM

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based.

There are a fair few of these on the boards, surely? I often find some decent things being discussed, and I don't always bring my gripes to the table.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.

This reminds me of a point which was mentioned earlier in this thread (I forget by whom) but not really picked up on. And that is that there are many "historical" films which totally misrepresent the events that they purport to portray. I understand that Braveheart falls into this category and there are numerous Hollywood-made WW2 films that replace some or all of the original heroes with Americans to make them more appealing to American audiences. Clearly, such changes are made with the intention of increasing a film's appeal with its intended audience. And changing historical fact, with the effect that people end up believing that this is how it really happened, irks me far more, and seems to me to be much more of a crime, than altering what is, after all, a fictional story.

That said, in a recent poll concerning just this issue (perception of historical fact against filmic portrayal), something like 2% of the respondents believed that the battle of Helm's Deep was a historical event.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world?

Undoubtedly. But I would say that only a small proportion of those who have read and enjoyed the book are quite as fanatical about it as the average Barrow-Downs member.

As for the contention that the changes made make little sense or somehow confuse the story or make it "dumber", I take the point. I simply disagree. With very few exceptions, I found the changes to make complete sense. In my view, they do not make the story "dumber" - they just make it different. There are a few inconsistencies and plot-holes, yes. But I am sure that careful scrutiny of most films, certainly those of the same oeuvre (nice word, Rim), would reveal much the same. After all, how many film scripts are written with the same dedication, devotion and time that Tolkien lavished on LotR?

[Neithan]

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books.

Yes, I was beginning to think I was losing my mind given some of the comments about this movie. Glad to see someone agrees with me on that issue. However, I thought these movies were some of the worst I have ever seen! The acting was awful (meaning the younger actors for the most part). I like the HP books but I was so disgusted with the second movie that I stopped watching them and will not watch any of the others.

As far as the popularity of the LotR movies goes I don't think that it makes any difference to the argument at hand. The successfulness of a movie does not always reflect on its quality.
I know I have said in the past that I love the movies but when I was watching RotK recently I noticed something. The reason I like the movies is not because of any merit of their own but because of the books. I usually just skip to those scenes that stick closest to the books now and don't bother with the rest.

By logical and intelligent standards

Yes, very good! The quality of the films is not a completely subjective thing. They could have been objectively better than they were.