Dumbing it down

[Essex]

I believe we are going around in circles. Yes, the films were dumbed down, as they didn't have 54 hours+ to show the books in their entirety. People have their own points of view, I just feel really sorry for people like Davem who were really dissapointed by the films.

Three words though, for ALL of us.

Live with it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Can't stop for long as I am at the airport.

Phantom, you yourself have suggested that non-book readers may find fault with the films. Accordingly, they can still potentially have reservations about the changed scenes even if they do not know that they are changed from the book. Their opinions therefore do count in this matter.

And I have never sought to claim that I find the films perfect. I am quite happy to admit that there are aspects of them which I think could (in my subjective opinion ) have been done better. But there is a world of difference between my approach and that adopted by the majority on this thread. The latter is the approach I was talking about when I referred to "such reservations".

Tsk! Really!

Must go - the money's running out ...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Perhaps another analogy would be useful at this point:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

Yes, the film is based on the book, but it is not the book itself. The differences between the two mediums is simply too great to make comparison possible except upon lines that are only and can ever be purely subjective: "I like this about the book but not this about the movie"; "I think this could have been done better in the movie"; "I enjoyed the book more." OK, wonderful opinions, but that's all they are and can ever be: these do not constitue some kind of objective means whereby we can establish whether or not the film is "successful" in any way beyond it's "success" in evoking (or not) these same subjective responses.

But to my analogy:

I adore Hamlet. It is a wonderful play. One of the things that I like most about it is its infinite variety (to quote another Shakey play. . .) It is such a rich text that there is just no way to do "all" of it in any one production or version -- the "definitive" performance of Hamlet is just not possible as there is too much, well, potential in the text for any single performance to bring out. That is why it is such a successful play in theatre history -- well, one of the reasons. Every Hamlet is different, and every one brings out different elements of the text. I like some productions and not others; some I think are brilliant and others are appallingly bad, but I never make the mistake of conflating the performance of the play to the text: they are different. Nor do I make the mistake of claiming that a performance of the text necessarily "dumbs it down" -- in the written version, all the potential and possible Hamlets are there, but for it to work on stage, there can only be one Hamlet. This is the nature of drama.

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not. The 'distance' between the text and the performance in the case of Tolkien's work is vastly greater than with anything by Shakespeare, which does even more to short-circuit any attempt to meaningfully or objectifiably compare them to one another in any way other than, again, through the purely subjective.

In a perfect world, there would be a dozen other film makers out there with the money, time and vision necessary to make their own versions of LotR. As has been happening with Hamlet for 400 years now, these different versions would bring out different views and aspects of the text, develop its different potentials, and slowly a dynamic, fuller view of it would be available in performative/dramatic form, but none of them would be in any way definitive or complete. To attempt such a thing is hubris. To demand such a thing of a performance is naive. To condemn a performance for not accomplishing it is unfair and entirely misled.

[Formendacil]

I find many of your points fascinating, Mr. 'Edgethistle, but I have to object to this:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

You can't make this comparisom at all, since apples and oranges have (if you are a creationist Catholic like myself) one and the same origin in the same God, created at the same time for separate purposes. Or, if you're an evolutionist, then they have separate evolutionary paths parallel to each other, not one derived from the other.

As has been pointed out so many times, the movie is derived from the book. It isn't an evolutionary journey, because that would make it a throwback. The story was not improved to adapt to its new environment, it was, at best, a step sideways. And many would say not even that.

Comparisom to the book is inevitable. It has to happen, just a portrait is inevitably compared to the subject. Until such time as the subject and everyone that knew it dies, the portrait cannot be seen except in the light of the subject. In this case, I think we all agree that the subject (the book) will outlive the portrait (the movie).

[lord of dor-lomin]

To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

You can't make this comparisom at all

You're right, Formendacil. To say that a DERIVATIVE WORK and it's SOURCE MATERIAL are apples and oranges is ridiculous. We're not comparing apples and oranges. We're comparing orange juice and oranges, and saying that orange juice is a dumbed down version of an orange.

And I also agree with what Eomer said. If you aren't enjoying this thread then just don't read it. I am enjoying all of the back-and-forth action. I get to see people's thoughts on something that I'm interested in. I like it. I say we keep this going for a million pages.

[davem]

This new piece on TORN seems quite relevant:

http://greenbooks.theonering.net/anw...es/030105.html

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not.

Perhaps this is the root of the problem - Tolkien wasn't writing a 'first draft screenplay' but Jackson & the writers seem to be under the impression that he was. LotR was never intended to be dramatised, so it wasn't written with that in mind. It seems most novels are now written with movies in mind & the film rights are negotiated along with the publication rights in many cases. Its seen as inevitable now that any successful novel will be filmed. Tolkien waswriting in a period when this wasn't the case.

I do wonder what LotR would be like if Tolkien had written it recently - would he have taken for granted that his book would be optioned & so have written it with that in mind & done some things differently? Its interesting how many pro movie contributors have argued that novels & films work differently & that a book cannot be translated to the screen exactly as it is. It strikes me that many current novels are written so as to be as easy as possible to adapt to other mediums.

I think this is perhaps what CT means by LotR being inherently unsuitable for dramatisation in visual form. It was never intended by the author that the story would have any other form. Hence the language (I don't just mean the dialogue)is central. Perhaps that's why I much prefer the radio series, because it not only retains most of the original dialogue but also place the narrator centre stage, & he uses Tolkien's original words. This means that the 'mood' of the tale, so much of which depends on the language & turns of phrase Tolkien used, is retained. In short, listening to the radio series feels like reading LotR, whereas watching the movies doesn't. The radio series is much more like a dramatised reading than a dramatiastion per se. Perhaps that's the only way it can work in terms of dramatisation..

[Essex]

Davem, yes the readio dramatisation was good, and worked well in the way you said above, but it also tinkered with tolkien's text and added stuff in where Brian Sibley felt appropriate. i.e. just 2 examples off the top of my head, he added in the witch king meeting up with wormtounge, and more text at the havens to make it even more weepy than it is. so it's not as faithful as one may seem. I was lucky enough to meet Mr Sibley at a london howard shore concert, and thanked him for a great adaptation. He's a nice, cordial fellow, and can dramatise a book very well, it seems.

PS the baski cartoon was a lot more faithful than PJ's versions. Are you saying this is a better adaptation?????

PPS to those I annoyed by saying Live with it. We have to, it's as simple as that. I have to live with the constant dissing of these movies by a seemingly large percentage of barrow-down movie thread writers, and the people greatly annoyed by PJ's interpretation have to Live with the Film itself. But we are going around in circles here (but I can't stop either as I can't resist an argument)

PPPS Don't get me wrong, the books are far better than the movies, but the films themselves are the best films ever made. you can therefore work out my feelings towards the book.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That's dedication Saucepan, or maybe it's just addiction...

Anywho, I'd like to bring up a point championed by myself on a couple of other threads. That being: why not talk about it? I love these discussions that may seem to some people to go around in circles. However, they are interesting. Please don't try and end them by saying "Live with it" or "Stop complaining."

I get the feeling this thread will roll on for a while yet. Page 5 is just as interesting as page 1.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Spm: If one accepts this proposition then it follows that, objectively, anything could be better than it is (including the book).

I hope I don't get stones chucked at me for this one, but I actually believed Jackson made improvements on Tolkien's books. It isn't anything big, or drastic, but the best example is having Eomer threaten Grima and not Gandalf. Tolkien has Gandalf say the line, to Grima, "Too long have you watcher her (Eowyn) under your eyelids, too long have you haunted her steps." Jackson gives this line to Eomer, which I think gives more emphasis, and meaning behind that line, considering it's coming from Eomer, her brother. Having Gandalf say it, I think weakens it, since he is just some mysterious old man, that comes once in awhile. I like this line given to Eomer, more than to Gandalf, which would make it an improvement on Tolkien's work. Surely it's not a big difference, but never the less, an improvement.

[Essex]

Wormtongue encountering the Black Riders - is taken (mostly word for word) from 'The Hunt for the Ring' in UT

Yes I read the hunt for the ring section, so let's add another new scene added in - the capture of gollum by the witch king and his torture in mordor. also, the first hobbiton scene where we have bilbo talking to frodo. (and many others) so the radio adaptation is exactly that - an ADAPTATION - if you want the book word for word, we must listen to the 54 hour narrated version.

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Yes I read the hunt for the ring section, so let's add another new scene added in - the capture of gollum by the witch king and his torture in mordor. also, the first hobbiton scene where we have bilbo talking to frodo. (and many others) so the radio adaptation is exactly that - an ADAPTATION - if you want the book word for word, we must listen to the 54 hour narrated version.

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

Of course the radio series was an adaptation. I'm not objecting to adaptations per se. I like the radio adaptaion because its faithful to the book in spirit & very nearly in letter. The movie is not anywhere near as faithful & in some scenes the changes made alter characters & events out of all recognition. I think what it comes down to is that Sibley & Bakewell wanted to tell Tolkien's story in the best & most faithful way they could (which would inevitably - & much to the adaptors' regret - require excisions & new connecting/establishing scenes) while PJ & the scriptwriters wanted to produce a blockbuster movie series using LotR as their raw material.

Whatever you think of the movies as opposed to the radio series I defy anyone to compare them both to the book & say the films were more faithful to the book , or comunicated the spirit of it more effectively.

[Essex]

I didn't say that. I said that the radio series wans't as faithful to the lotr text as
I thought you implied.

just to say one piece of work is better because it uses more of the actual text
from tolkien is one sided. I personally would have loved the films to have used more direct text from the books, and one of my pet hates is the changing of someone's line to other characters (which doesn't bother some people). But it's not just the text itself. It's the feeling and the emotions that PJ's version stirs up.

If someone said to me I was only allowed to view the films or listen to the radio adaptation I would pick the films every time.

[radagastly]

Essex:

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

Yes, Tolkien seems to have decided (according to Christopher Tolkien) that two days was not enough for Gandalf to escape Orthanc, get to Edoras and have Wormtongue get back to Orthanc from Edoras to inform Saruman. In the final version, it was the "Slant-eyed Southerner" who betrayed Saruman to the Witch King.

This brings up a point about this adaptation and about the 'knock-on' effect that Saucepan mentioned (though, of course, that scene itself has nothing to do with it since it was in neither the book nor the movie!) Tolkien crafted his story with as much care as was possible, and to make changes risks creating problems down the line that need even more explanation, thus creating more changes etc.

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)

Obviously, there are basically three things you can do to any story to adapt it into a different art form. You can add to it, you can change it or you can delete from it. In 'Fellowship,' the primary tool used was deletion, excepting, of course, Arwen's part which was enhanced for reasons that, I believe, were previously discussed. For the most part, in 'Fellowship' this works well, and only seems to disappoint because we look forward to favorite scenes and characters that are now missing. For example, I would have loved to have seen the Barrow-downs scenes intact, ("intact" is a dangerous word on this thread,) but I didn't expect to. My disappointment came and went before the movie was even released.

In 'Two Towers' we have a different animal altogether. "Wargs attack the people of Edoras!" "Aragorn dragged off a cliff!" "Elves at Helm's Deep instead of Eomer!" "Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul! (in Osgiliath, no less)" etc. I know these changes seem gratuitous, and some of them are, but imagine a truly loyal telling of the plot of 'Two Towers.' The entire battle of Helm's Deep would have to be over and done with in the first forty-five minutes to an hour, and we'd spend the first ninety minutes without knowing what may have become of Frodo and Sam. In the book, this delay helps to build tension and enhance the epic qualities of the story. On the screen, it would have had even loyalists like us walking out of the theatre. Many of the structural changes were necessary simply because film is a completely different language than literature. In a movie theatre, we spend nearly half our time sitting in complete darkness staring at a blank screen, waiting for the next frame to pop up. We just don't notice the gaps, because they happen so fast. A book can be studied and reviewed and re-read for detail that is simply not available to a film audience sitting in a theatre.

Fordim:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

I must say, I agree, but with certain reservations. I much prefer Tolkien's carefully crafted plot choices to Peter Jackson's visually exciting ones. Not the structure of their telling, mind you, just the plot elements themselves. Jackson's changes did create plot-holes that were not present in the book and need not have been present in the movies, if more care had been taken in making the changes he made. I wouldn't necessarily say he was 'dumbing down' the book so much as he was occasionally 'dumbing down' his own story without covering it later. Still, that's an analysis after many viewings and I have to say I was still swept along by the films when I first watched them, and enjoyed them immensely.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by radagastly

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)

This is a good example of where the scriptwriters obviously took care to make sure they had considered the needs of the plot, or even the continuity of the story as it were. Interestingly it is found in the first film, which I found to be the most carefully crafted of the three by a country mile.

But a thought has occurred to me here. In actually taking the care to do this, it is as though the scriptwriting team could have created something of an entirely new version of LotR, one which covers the plot holes, and creates new events which will have an effect on events further down the line. But by not carrying this through in all of the films, they missed a great opportunity. Did they become over confident, I wonder?

Originally Posted by radagastly

Many of the structural changes were necessary simply because film is a completely different language than literature.

I agree that some changes were indeed needed, and one of the major changes was to weave the tales of Books 3 and 4 together. Even the most keen cinema audiences might have struggled with a film of two distinct halves. Jackson defended this well, and he also gave perfectly valid reasons for moving the episode with Shelob into the final film. It's the changes which cannot be justified which I do not like.

[Essex]

radagastly, totally agreee, especially

and to make changes risks creating problems down the line that need even more explanation, thus creating more changes etc.

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)

The changes Boyens, walsh and jackson made do tend to give us plot holes in certain cases. In your point above, boyens was wrong in saying that 'pretend that they DID pass through the old forest etc' not just for the sword (which to me is one of the most pivotal plot lines in the whole trilogy) but also Merry mentions to Pippin as they're brought to fangorn by the orcs that 'you remeber the stories of the old forest, etc?' remember the stories, phillipa? you reckon they passed through there a few weeks ago! god, that bump on Merry's head must have caused some amnesia!

I find it interesting that a lot (perhaps most) people say that the Fellowship is the closest adaptation to the book. if we're talking about the number of deletions and changes, I would hazard a guess that it is the LEAST faithful to the books, even more so that TT (yes in TT we had the 'biggest' ones, faramir, etc). for example, at the begining we have gandalf meet Frodo. no he doesn't! but this is the curse of trying to be faithful to the books. How can we, unless we have a narrator talk over the film, which DEFINATELY wouldn't work for film. But the scene itself with gandalf and frodo was excellent, just transposing the narration to the characters instead. (Just like Frodo infront of the Nazgul at Osgilliath was transposed from the scene in the book where Frodo is tempted to show the Witch king the ring at Minas Morgul)

[Neithan]

First of all I think that the problem with the swords could have been cleared up by Aragorn saying that they were heirlooms of his people and were magic.

Anyway, I was watching some of the commentary in RotK the other day and noticed something that made me very angry. Several times Peter Jackson stumbled when trying to remember how things happened in the book as opposed to his changes. It became quite clear after he was corrected several times by the other commentators that he didn't know Tolkien's stories all that well. LotR is Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If he wanted to create a story of his own then he should have done so rather than adapting someone elses work. The most damning thing he said was something like, "I'm not really sure how it was supposed to work, we were just making stuff up as we went along, it doesn't really matter anyway". To be fair he was talking about a very minor change at the time, one which I didn't mind when I saw it, but even so it made me very angry. Making a mistake is one thing but to not care at all? I think that if you are going to write an adapted screenplay then you must first go through the work with as much, or nearly as much, detail as is being done in the CbC forum. Only then will you be able to create the best adaptation possible.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by radagastly

Yes, Tolkien seems to have decided (according to Christopher Tolkien) that two days was not enough for Gandalf to escape Orthanc, get to Edoras and have Wormtongue get back to Orthanc from Edoras to inform Saruman. In the final version, it was the "Slant-eyed Southerner" who betrayed Saruman to the Witch King.

Time.

Another major inconsistency in the movies.

Obviously, in converting a book to a movie, there will be a reduction in the time you have to show something. Obviously, you can't convey nearly as well the enormous amounts of time spent doing nothing. It isn't important to the film that there are 17 years between the Farewell Party and Gandalf's return. Nor is it important that Frodo "really" leaves Bag-End half a year later, and not the next morning.

And yet.... and yet....

It doesn't feel right.

The Lord of the Rings is a great, world-changing epic, and like most world-changing events (by world-changing I mean in middle-earth, not the real world), it takes TIME.

Does it feel right that a Ring that lay lost for 3000 years, and then right under Gandalf's nose for 60+ years is discovered by Gandalf to be THE One Ring in the course of, what the movie shows, as about 3 months? It doesn't feel right.

However, this is rather piddly stuff, and as such, it isn't much of an issue for me. Jackson does a great job in moving the Fellowship along its course to show the passage of time. Two weeks from Rivendell to Caradhras feels right. Three days in the Mines feels right. A month in Lorien feels possible (especially in light of Sam's queries on the River). A good job was done in the Two Towers of showing the elapsing of time.

Then, in the Return of the King, Jackson shoots his own work down, and has Elrond make it to Dunharrow in what appears to be a matter of a couple days, after establishing how long it took Aragorn to get there (if by a slightly longer route) from Rivendell. The journey of Frodo and Sam across Mordor, and the parallel journey of Aragorn's army also doesn't work in the same way the previous movies did. And the journey back to the Shire? What journey? It isn't even HINTED at.

Then, what REALLY baffles me: the amount of time from Frodo's return to the Shire until his departure to the Grey Havens. Jackson LENGTHENS the amount of time. After his shortening of time elsewhere, why on earth is he doing this? (Evidence: as Frodo is leaving for the Havens, we have a voiceover by him that it is four or five years, I forget which, since some event at the start of his quest. I apologise for the vagueness of the quote, but it was very clearly TOO much time. Frodo left in 1421. His quest occurred in 1418-1419. It wasn't four years since ANYTHING in his life. Let alone five.)

Has this distortion of time, more especially the inconsistency in its usage, and the lack of any apparent reason in some places, annoyed anyone other than me? I think that it constitutes a very genuine "dumbing down" of movies. Not because it was a change from Tolkien, but because it was done inconsistently, sometimes with no real reason, and quite often for the benefit of "the audience".