Dumbing it down

[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.

[Eruanna]

Originally quoted by Davem:

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.

And yet one of the most sympathetic characters in the books, Faramir, is perhaps the worst written in the films. His characterisation is one of my few 'niggles'.

I saw this quote by Professor Tolkien and thought it was quite ironic, considering how much emphasis some place on the sanctity of his writing:

"A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, but there he came walking through the woods of Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir."

[tar-ancalime]

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve.

In my original post, perhaps I was too hotheaded about the grammar and not emphatic enough about what really bothers me: as other people have pointed out, the tone and style of the dialogue is not consistent through the films, even within the lines of individual characters. To my ear, this line of Theoden's is a modern linguistic insertion (as well as a modern sentiment, as Lalaith rightly points out) into a film that, while outside of any historical chronology, is definitely not set in the modern day. For me, this line is just as clunky and out of place as "Game over" or "That's because my axe is embedded in his spinal cord" or Gandalf's "on our tail" line, for exactly the same reason.

Also, I really do love these films--I wouldn't know them well enough to pick out the (relatively few) lines that bother me if I hadn't seen them multiple times, right? And Theodred's funeral is one of my favorite scenes of all the films, so perhaps that's why this one tiny linguistic nit sticks out to me as ripe for the picking.

[InklingElf]

I thought the movies were beautifuly made. While the standards of modernity often tweeks the device of appeal (such actors as Bloom etc.) in book-based movies I think it is safe to say that there is really no point in complaining about the little things...

OK I admit - that Legolas scene with the surf/shield board jig was a tad bit too macho but OH the cinematography. As a whole the movies are a piece of art and I admire Jackson for his visual genius - keeping in mind to slightly adjust some aesthetic aspect of the text -> movie to engross younger audiences - and namely people who have not read any of the books.

I don't think anyone could do a better job than Mr. PJ though

As Lalaith said before

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.

My first time posting here. Thought I'd jump in on something a little less intimidating than the chapter-by-chapter forum.

Alot of the changes in the films didn't bother me... Some seemed necessary in the interests of dramatic action...something which the book, with it's pages of pages of expositions(one of my favorite things about it, ironically!) would have needed more of to be directly "translatable" to a visual medium. Nevertheless the films have much more exposition that most films, albeit in a simplified way.

However there were some changes I didn't like, or was disappointed by, to wit:

over-simplification of the History of the Numenorean Kingdoms...though I realize that such a complex history would have had to have been simplified, the fact that there's no mention of Arnor, and little mention of Numenor bugs me...I got the impression that all the world knew of Aragorns identity...witness Boromirs awe during the Council of Rivendell...in the book, he seems unaware of Aragorns hereditary status until Aragorn dramatically draws the stub of Narsil...

No warg attack in Hollin! Pity, would've made a good battle scene.


GROSS oversimplification of the political situation in Rohan...it made no sense at all in the film...why would all of Eomers men follow Eomer in his "exile"? And how the hell do they travel "three hundred leagues" in a few days?

Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor?

"Evil" Faramir. While I appreciated seeing the ruins of Osgiliath, it made no sense whatsoever to me to do it the way Jackson et al did it: why let the halfling go after he's JUST offered the Ring to a Nazgul?? Sam's speech was moving, but no intelligent military commander would've done that. Much more credible in the book.

Simplified Denethor. IMO, Denethor and Faramir are two of the most interesting human characters of the book...they seem much more competent in the books than the movie...Denethor's madness and destructive pride seem much more of a tragedy...

Bombadil being cut, okay. Why cut the Woses out?

Didn't like Pippin's "tricking" of Treebeard into warring on Isengard.

Elrond delivering Anduril to Aragorns hand...where does he go afterwards?

No Scouring.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aquarius the King

Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor?

Originally Posted by The tennis Ball Kid

No doubt the timeline would have made more sense if they had left the scrapped "Arwen at Helm's Deep" storyline in.

Hmm. I am eternally thankful that Liv Tyler's many skills do not include fighting, as allegedly her scenes were so bad they had to be cut. I'd have been apoplectic if they had left those in! By way of interest, there are pictures on t'internet which people have taken from freeze frames of the film, showing Arwen lurking in the background of several scenes, including riding out with Theoden at dawn. So they did not manage to edit her out entirely. Possibly why the Elves turned up to fight there was something to do with the Arwen at Helm's Deep story line. Maybe they were simply too difficult to edit out, or else PJ thought 'what the heck, more elves will be good' and left them in.

[davem]

Just as an aside, what about this idea (for those who haven't watched the Appendices for RotK this was for a proposed 'addition' to the Battle before the Black Gates. Sauron was to appear to fight Aragorn but he first appeared in his earlier form of Annatar. The idea was that he would appear this way in an attempt to win over Aragorn & when that didn't work he was to adopt his earlier form from the Last Alliance)

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9499/d117hn.jpg

Would this have worked? Did the writers change their minds because they wanted to stay faithful to the books or because they feared the reaction of the fans?

The reason I ask is that I think this goes to the heart of why certain things from the books were left in despite changes in the storyline which made them seem at best incoherent & at worst nonsensical. How much freedom did they feel they had in making changes to the story? If the books had had a less devoted following would they have gone further than they did? And if they had felt they had complete freedom to 'adapt' the story as they wished, how different or how faithful would it have been?

Perhaps what we've ended up with is bits of two movies awkwardly stuck together - a 'faithful' adaptation of the book & another one which just uses the book as a starting point. Could this be the reason for all the 'back & forthing' we've been going through here - they simply couldn't decide whether they wanted to make a movie of Tolkien's LotR or their own?

[Lathriel]

At first I was horrified by the idea of Sauron appearing on the battle field and I'm glad it never appeared on film. However, when I heard the ideas behind it I thought it was very neat.
I think the filmmakers left it out for two reasons. One: it wasn't faithful to the book and would horrify the book fans Two:It would have confused the whole audience

[Ainaserkewen]

I’ve always had a certain mentality about Blockbuster movies. When I say Blockbuster I mean massively advertised, many theater-ed, multi-cultural, hugely popular movies...like Lord of the Rings. The way I view such movies is that they are entertainment. They are made for the “silver screen” as to be enjoyed by all that chose to see them. They entertain you with emotions, ideas, characters, plots, visual effects et cetera, and there is no reason to believe that if you pay to see a movie, that you will get anything more out of it. To me, that is a good blockbuster. In comparison, there are other movies and forms of story-telling art that are meant to contain more. Those types of stories are not made to make money or to be popular, simply to exist as what they are and what they were intended to be.

"more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film"

Marketable is exactly it. Blockbusters are meant to make money and if they happen to have elements in them that would turn some audience members, then what’s the harm in correcting those elements?

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

No, they really don’t. I could bring up hundreds of screen adaptations recent and old that are not only a reflection of the original author of the books their based on, but more so a reflection of the people who made the movie. Some people go see movies that are made by their favourite directors or screen writers, or Bob Anderson (I look for the movies he helped with now). Specifically, it’s the director’s style that will become more important to the audience, after all, it’s their work to make the movie, not the author’s.

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture.

I tried to think of an argument to this statement but depressingly, I can’t think of a good one. As a species we have become more advanced, more civilised, and more complicated than ever recently, but at the same time the value of intelligence and philosophy and downright thinking has decreased. This may just be my teenaged mind talking, I welcome arguments to this particular opinion of mine.

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.

No, that is how such things are meant to be viewed. Blockbuster movies are meant to be entertainment, if you thought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was entertaining, then it was a good movie. The books however, are on a different and deeper playing field where much more is expected of them. People are far more choosy about the books they read and eventually enjoy than the movies they like and see. The only books that defy this explanation at Harry Potter, but that’s a completely different argument.

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.

I would think that the “nitpicking” is a compliment. If it truly was a terrible drought of movies then we wouldn’t like to complain so much would we?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

No, they really don’t. I could bring up hundreds of screen adaptations recent and old that are not only a reflection of the original author of the books their based on, but more so a reflection of the people who made the movie. Some people go see movies that are made by their favourite directors or screen writers, or Bob Anderson (I look for the movies he helped with now). Specifically, it’s the director’s style that will become more important to the audience, after all, it’s their work to make the movie, not the author’s.

I'd still defend the 'moral obligation' point. Certainly they don't have any legal obligation to respect an author's views/moral position, but I think there should be respect among artists for each other's work. They've put Tolkien's name on these movies & made numerous references to him in interviews & thanked him when they've recieved their awards, etc, so as far as I'm concerned they taken that moral responsibility onto themselves.

Adapting a work of literature into a movie, rather than coming up with your own story, does impose certain moral obligations of respect for the original artist & their work. As Petty has pointed out in the interview, they have misrepresented characters like Aragorn, Faramir & Denethor, & rather than making them more 'real' & psychologically complex have actually reduced them to Hollywood stereotypes. They've done this purely to produce 'popular' movies which would make money. They have dumbed down the story & watered down the meaning. I keep quoting from a review in Mallorn, I know, but I think the point stands: 'Jackson clearly thinks Lord of the Rings is an action movie in book form.' But its not. Neither should it been seen as a 'first draft screenplay', to be improved upon in order to make it more 'accessible'. For one thing, if Tolkien himself had thought that way we'd either have no LotR at all, or we'd have got a very bland, shallow, 'Dungeons & Dragons' style fantasy which would have been a nine days wonder in the mid fifties & then disappeared forever.

The Downs, all the other Tolkien sites, & even the movies themselves, exist because Tolkien spent time & effort producing a profound, complex, moving & beautiful tale. His motivation was not 'popularity' or cash, but art.

In short, if his motivations had been the same as PJ & New Line then there wouldn't have been anything for them to make a movie of because by now The Lord of the Rings would only be remembered as a failed sequel to The Hobbit.

There are many things in the movies I do like - Theodred's Funeral being one - but overall I think they fail to be what they should & could have been...

[Lalwendë]

The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that. I thought I would extract and look at one aspect of the films which fails in comparison with the books, and that is the whole New Faramir episode.

I still fail to work out what the changes mean in terms of the revised plot as they simply do not fit into the narrative. If New Faramir has indeed been enraptured by the Ring, and he is taking it to Minas Tirith then what is the moment of realisation that he has done wrong? Is it when the Ringwraith appears above Osgiliath? Surely if he has indeed been enraptured then he is going to fight this Ringwraith in order to keep the Ring? And why does Frodo offer it up to the Ringwraith when he has been so successful in hiding it throughout? Why does the Ringwraith then not report back to Sauron on the whereabouts of the Ring, thus changing the eventual outcome of the story? These are just some of the puzzled questions that people who have not read the books have asked me.

I wondered why Jackson decided to alter this and I found this interview with himself and Boyens. His reasons for the changes are simply not justifiable. He says of New Faramir:

we've spent a lot of time in the last film and in this one to establish this ring as incredibly powerful. Then to suddenly come to a character that says, "Oh, I'm not interested in that," to suddenly go against everything that we've established ourselves is sort of going against our own rules.

But this does not follow on from the storytelling he has been doing. Frodo has already offered the Ring to various characters who have all recoiled in horror at the very suggestion that they take the Ring, so Faramir too should reject the Ring, if he is indeed a ‘good’ person on the same level as Aragorn or Gandalf. Instead, this episode detracts from the good nature of Faramir, as it makes him appear to have doubts, and ultimately, it ruins the whole plot line as it simply does not make sense. I shall be cynical here and wonder if the real reason behind the change was to get better value from the money spent on the Osgiliath set and the Fell Beast FX.

Jackson is a great film-maker, but neither he nor anyone else on his team comes close to Tolkien as a storyteller. LotR is not as simple a tale as your average bestselling novel, it has layers and complexities beyond imagining, and it’s risky to remove too many layers as eventually you will pull out the wrong one. It really does make me want to smack my head when I think of how easily he could have let the story alone and not created these plot holes, as the films are great renditions of Middle Earth. Did he make these alterations through over-confidence or was it due to financial reasons? Will we ever know?

[the phantom]

I skimmed the thread and I see a lot of people who think Jackson somehow made the films more relevant and accessible. First, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to change something awesome. Second, I think if the movies would've been done without adding silly little lines and making every character weak and flawed that the movie would've been far more enjoyable.

Besides, the visuals and such alone were good enough to fill up the theater. The movie could've been about a Dwarf boy band and quite a few people still would've filled the seats because the scenery, sound, and action sequences were great. I seriously doubt making the movie true to the book would've hampered attendance.

Plus, Jackson did not make the movie more accessible.

I recently watched all three movies with a few of my friends. None of them had ever watched the movies before (they hadn't read the books either).

I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-

1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?
(answer- same as before)
5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Theoden try to get all those guys to help him before?
(answer- same)
6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?
(answer- same)

And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."

And of course, I also mentioned at the end that Faramir and Aragorn weren't really that weak and Frodo didn't really send Sam home (and a few other little things). My friends said "Well, why the heck did they change it? It would've been better that way."

The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.

I love what Davem said-

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

That's the way the movies should've been done. It wouldn't have hurt sales and the movie would've been better.

PJ's movies are some of the best ever, but they could've been better. He took them down from what they could've been pretty much every time he changed something from the book.

If PJ really wanted to make the movie more accessible he would've-
1) combined Sauron and Saruman
2) trimmed the Fellowship to Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, and Gandalf
3) replaced Faramir with Boromir (and have him try to take the Ring in Ithilien)
4) leave out Arwen and have Aragorn end up with Eowyn
5) have Gandalf beat the Balrog and not die
6) leave out the Ents
7) make Sauron a bad elf and Gandalf an old man (so there's no maia-caused confusion)
8) leave out Celeborn (some people think the book did anyway)
9) have the characters continually get out a map and point to where they are
10) have the characters talk in third person (so we hear their names more often)
11) leave out the bit with the Ring

[The Saucepan Man]

Fascinating thread. And I’m beginning to get a sense of just why some people are disappointed, irritated or just downright angry over the films in some of the comments that have been made:

Originally Posted by davem

… 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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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 …

Originally Posted by lindil

Tolkien created a masterpeice. PJ a bastardized 'hit' … PJ took something refined, morally uplifting, challenging, linguistically subtle and powerful and did something very different and very hollywood with it.

I get the feeling that, as far as many here are concerned, Lalwendë is spot on with her description of LotR as a “sacred text”. The book is, of course important to all of us here and that is clearly what is behind our tendency to analyse the films down to the nth degree. But to some, it has clearly taken on a greater significance to the extent that they feel protective of it and react negatively towards any attempt to reproduce it in a form which they do not believe lives up to Tolkien’s high standards and ideals. I do not criticise this approach, and I think we all share it to some degree or other. I certainly felt uncomfortable (at first, at least) about some of the changes made, particularly in TTT. But, although LotR is a book close to my heart (and has been ever since I first read it many years ago) and one in which I can find ideas and themes applicable to my life, it is not, to me, a “sacred text” in the same way as I think many here regard it. And so my reaction to the films is far less pronounced than others. I can accept them for what they are rather than view them as an imperfect rendition of an invaluable masterpiece.

If you don’t agree, just ask yourself whether you would feel as strongly about a film adaptation of another classic novel, one which you don’t have particularly strong feelings for? Would you see it as a source of irritation? A bastardisation? A failure of a moral duty? Or would it not really bother you, on the basis that the original novel is still there for its aficionados to enjoy? I know what my reaction would be.

And so to that awful phrase, “dumbing down”. What does it mean?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

My main problem with the phrase is that it assumes, by the very nature of the words used, that those for whom things are “dumbed down” are indeed dumb. But I reject that assumption, in the field of arts at least. I do think that the phrase is applicable in the case of news, where it is assumed (perhaps correctly) that news must be simplified in order to be made accessible to everyone. To my mind, if people are not interested in having the news presented to them objectively and in its entirety, then they are dumb. I see the simplification, yes the “dumbing down”, of news as dangerous as it carries with it the risk of misinformation and manipulation.

But it’s different in the field of arts (and I use this term in its broadest sense). There is no danger in presenting people with art (whether it be films, books, theatre, visual art or television) in a format which appeals most strongly to them and with which they therefore feel most comfortable. And people who do not enjoy “high falutin’” art are not necessarily “dumber” than those who do. They simply have different tastes. I am a great fan of many aspects of pop culture. I prefer pop music to classical music. I am a great fan of reality programmes (or was, until they started to wear a bit thin). But I would not regard myself as dumb (no comments please ).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

But it seems to me that this is an artificial distinction. If one adapts or translates a work of art in order to meet a (perceived) demand, then one is essentially creating a new work of art. And if it is necessary (or perceived as necessary) to simplify it or make it less challenging in order to meet that demand, because that is what its intended audience wants, then I don’t see a problem with that. But it does not follow that the intended audience is in any way dumb, and so I regard the expression “dumbing down” as entirely inappropriate in this context.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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'.

Well perhaps I am revealing my middle-class liberal credentials when I say that I thoroughly agree that everyone should have the right to learn and use those “big words”, but that I don’t believe that it is something which should be forced on them. If, despite the accessibility of The Guardian or The Times, they still want to read The Sun, then that’s fine with me. If, despite the availability of Dickens, Orwell and Austen, they still want to read Archer and Collins, then so be it. If, despite there being some arty French film on the other channel, I still want to watch Big Brother, then that is my right.

Clearly, one of the objectives of the films was to appeal to as many people as possible. I do not believe that this was Jackson’s primary motivation, nor the primary motivation of most of those involved in their production. But it was clearly a major consideration, particularly for the studio and those backing the films. I accept that it was not Tolkien’s motivation in writing the book, and I accept that the book has ended up having broad appeal nevertheless. But self-evidently, the films would never have been made, at least not in a form that captured Middle-earth so wonderfully from a visual perspective, had commercial considerations not come into it. And because such considerations did come into it, they had to appeal - and therefore be made relevant and accessible to - as wide an audience as possible. Is that wrong? Does that mean that they should never have been made? Does that make them somehow immoral? I don’t think so for simple reason that they are meeting a demand and, in so doing, bringing pleasure to millions (and, I might add, doing no harm to anyone or anything, least of all Tolkien’s reputation). If they were not, then they would not be so successful.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

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.

Well, I said “If that is "dumbing down", then yes the films were dumbed down”, but I hope that it will be clear from what I have said above that I regard that expression as inappropriate in this context. Yes, it was made more relevant and accessible for modern audiences. Yes, Legolas’ boyish good-looks and acrobatic antics were included to appeal to particular sections of the audience. Yes, the language was simplified and updated. Yes, the characters were changed with the intention of making them more appealing and/or credible to modern audiences (whether you agree or disagree that they succeeded, that was their intention). But I do not believe that anyone who would have been disinclined to see the films as a result of the absence of any one or more of these factors is any more dumb than someone who found them irritating, unnecessary and/or gratuitous. I would not therefore say that they were “dumbed down”, but rather that they were simplified and updated and their appeal was broadened. As I have said above, I do not see anything wrong in that. Whatever may have been lost in the translation from book to screen is still there in the book.

So did this process of “simplifying, updating and broadening the appeal of” the films make them:

1. any better; or
2. any more popular or successful

than they might otherwise have been?

The first question is an easy one. Whether or not they were better is a subjective one, depending on the tastes of the individual. Some will think they were better as a result of this process, while others (and I would probably include myself in this category) will think that they would have been better without at least some aspects of it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

We can never really know for sure if the films would have been more successful if they had remained more faithful to, and retained more of the original language of, the book. My own sense is that they would have been successful, but less so. They would have been successful in the way that adaptations of the likes of Jane Austen are successful: respectably so but nothing spectacular. Certainly nothing on the scale of the LotR trilogy. A good thing? Perhaps, although they might then never have been made. And even if they had been, many who might otherwise have seen the films would not have seen them. And that would have been a shame for them, particularly as a proportion of such viewers will have discovered the book through the films.

As for Tarantino’s films and the Matrix trilogy, well I would hardly describe them as “high brow”. They are examples of pop culture. And, again, none of these enjoyed the critical or popular success of the LotR trilogy. And, personally, I found the pseudo-intellectual philosophising of the second of the Matrix films so off-putting that I couldn’t be bothered with the third (my opinion, I know).

I should add (in references to the phantom’s point) that individual experiences provide little evidence of a film’s broad popularity (and therefore, relevance and accessibility). Critics’ reviews, awards and, most important of all, audience figures, provide much better evidence. And it seems to me that, on the basis of that evidence, it cannot be denied that they have succeeded in gaining mass appeal. Indeed, the only criticism of the films that I have ever read in media reviews of the films is that they were too long and should have ended with Aragorn’s coronation. Imagine what a furore there would have been here if Frodo had not ended up sailing West!

Finally (do I hear heavy sighs of relief ), with regard to the changes made to the script - and Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh should take most of the credit/criticism (depending on your perspective) here:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that.

I agree that it is difficult to remove sections of the story without this having a knock-on effect. And I also agree that there are places where Jackson and co could have handled it better. But that would be asking a lot. It is inevitable, in adapting a book of the complexity and length of LotR to film (even 12 hours’ worth of film), that elements of the story, often quite lengthy and important ones, will have to be left out. I think that, had they been able to achieve this without the (to my mind limited) number of inconsistencies that are present in the films, it would have been an amazing feat. As to the specific example you raise, I do not see film Faramir as succumbing to the Ring. He does not want it for himself, but to prove himself to his father. The fact that he takes the Hobbits by force to Osgiliath and subsequently decides to let them go free is little different to the series of events in the book, when he takes them to force to Henneth Annun and then decides to let them go free. It just takes place over a longer period and wider geography. The incident with Frodo and the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.

But, given the changes that had to be made, a substantial degree of re-writing was necessary. And, as I have said, they were attempting to re-write the lines of a masterful story-teller and linguistic expert extraordinaire. How many of us could have done Tolkien’s lines justice, retained a (broadly) coherent script, and made it appealing to a wide range of the film-going public? In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that the adapted screenplay Oscar was well-deserved.

And quite clearly, to my mind, there are aspects of Tolkien’s writing that would seem strange to modern day sensibilities. It seems to me that Theoden’s line at his son’s burial is a case in point.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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.

I agree entirely. But wouldn’t it seem strange to modern audiences, and wouldn’t it alienate Theoden to a degree in their eyes, if he did not grieve over the loss of his son in this way? One might ask why modern readers don’t react in this way to the book. I don’t doubt that there are readers who find it peculiar that Theoden hardly grieves for his son. But I also think that it is easier convincingly to portray an entire culture, one quite alien to our own in many ways, in print than it is to do so on celluloid.

[Lalaith]

Here, out of interest, is an authentic bit of 10th century parental grief, which I thought was quite appropriate to Theoden:

But strength to cope
I could not muster,
so me seemed,
with my son's slayer:
soon will it be seen by all
how helpless
the hoary warrior.

(excerpt from the long poem Sonatorrek, or Loss of Sons, by the Viking poet Egill Skallagrimsson)

[the phantom]

I should add (in references to the phantom’s point) that individual experiences provide little evidence of a film’s popularity (and therefore, relevance and accessibility). Critics’ reviews, awards and, most important of all, audience figures, provide much better evidence.

You do realize I was never trying to say that the movie would've been more popular? My whole point was that had they been faithful to the book it would've done next to nothing to popularity. It would've done next to nothing to awards and critics.

Almost every last thing that was good about the movie (what made it popular) was all Tolkien. The experiences of my friends watching the movie were included to demonstrate that much of what Jackson added got in the way.

Making the movie "right" would've cleared up the PJ problems, made us happier, and likely not done a thing to popularity.

And also, considering that every person I have watched the film with has been confused by at least one of Jackson's add-ons, I think that my "individual experience" does matter. My individual experience is a testament to PJ not making the movie easier to understand.

And if he didn't make it easier to understand then how was he making it more accessible for the masses? Yes, Saucepan Man, it was very popular and accessible, but you don't seem to get that it does not mean the same thing as more popular and accessible.

(Plus, if "individual experience" doesn't matter then why the heck are we posting? Why are we giving opinions on anything? We should just say "LOTR sold a lot of tickets and won a lot of awards so we can't say anything about it. We can't talk about making changes. It was obviously popular so there's no way we can make it any better.")

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I skimmed the thread and I see a lot of people who think Jackson somehow made the films more relevant and accessible. First, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to change something awesome. Second, I think if the movies would've been done without adding silly little lines and making every character weak and flawed that the movie would've been far more enjoyable.

I think so too, if PJ and Co had left more of the actual story intact then they would have been much more accessible. Things like “Arwen is dying” don’t really make any sense at all. Like you say and I said early on in this thread, the movies would have been better with less change.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Besides, the visuals and such alone were good enough to fill up the theater. The movie could've been about a Dwarf boy band and quite a few people still would've filled the seats because the scenery, sound, and action sequences were great. I seriously doubt making the movie true to the book would've hampered attendance.

Plus, Jackson did not make the movie more accessible.

I recently watched all three movies with a few of my friends. None of them had ever watched the movies before (they hadn't read the books either).

I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-

1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)

Originally Posted by the phantom

3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)

That bugged me to no end. Here is Gandalf, a Maia facing some half dead wizard who busts his staff, where as with Saruman who hits him with a fire ball and at that time still had power as great as Gandalf’s new power can not do anything to him. Wuz up wit dat?

Originally Posted by the phantom

4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?
(answer- same as before)
5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Théoden try to get all those guys to help him before?
(answer- same)
6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?
(answer- same)

And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."

And of course, I also mentioned at the end that Faramir and Aragorn weren't really that weak and Frodo didn't really send Sam home (and a few other little things). My friends said "Well, why the heck did they change it? It would've been better that way."

The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.

I love what Davem said-

That's the way the movies should've been done. It wouldn't have hurt sales and the movie would've been better.

PJ's movies are some of the best ever, but they could've been better. He took them down from what they could've been pretty much every time he changed something from the book.

If PJ really wanted to make the movie more accessible he would've-
1) combined Sauron and Saruman
2) trimmed the Fellowship to Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, and Gandalf
3) replaced Faramir with Boromir (and have him try to take the Ring in Ithilien)
4) leave out Arwen and have Aragorn end up with Eowyn
5) have Gandalf beat the Balrog and not die
6) leave out the Ents
7) make Sauron a bad elf and Gandalf an old man (so there's no maia-caused confusion)
8) leave out Celeborn (some people think the book did anyway)
9) have the characters continually get out a map and point to where they are
10) have the characters talk in third person (so we hear their names more often)
11) leave out the bit with the Ring

Wow…. LOL!!!!