Dumbing it down

[Boromir88]

In other words he may hve left Rivendell not long at all after Aragorn did. You're right that the timeline isn't entirely coherent when viewing ROTK

Jackson does this with the Haldir scene, coming in to Helm's Deep...He basically said Elrond and Galadriel telepathically cybered after the Fellowship left Lorien, and Haldir approximately left at the end of FOTR. Sounds sort of like a cover up to me on a time mistake, but oh well.

I love on the FOTR EE when Jackson and crew are asked why didn't you have Glamdring shine when orcs are around like Sting? Jackson sort of squirms in his chair, and I believe it is Boyens who responds "budget restraints," and Jackson quickly agrees. It doesn't make a difference whether Glamdring shines or not, however you get the feeling Jackson wasn't as well learned as some of our very own downers. Of course who got everything the first time they read it...or even repeated readings? There's something new to find out each time you read it. Very fascinating.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I love on the FOTR EE when Jackson and crew are asked why didn't you have Glamdring shine when orcs are around like Sting? Jackson sort of squirms in his chair, and I believe it is Boyens who responds "budget restraints," and Jackson quickly agrees.

At least in this case Jackson is consistent. No one said anything about Glamdring glowing, so why would it glow (assume non-reader)? Sting had to as Bilbo said that it would.

Plus, it wasn't Glamdring...

After flying out of Orthanc, Gandalf either forgot his luggage or it was shipped to a different destination, never catching up with him, and so Saruman got to keep both his staff and Glamdring.

Luckily, on the way to Rivendell, Gandalf stopped at a 'Staff 'R' Us' shop (opening a new location in Gondor soon!) and purchased a 72" brown driftwood model. He 'acquired' a new sword from one of the ones sitting around on display in Rivendell.

[The Tennis Ball Kid]

If you look closely, Gandalf actually has a different staff after he escapes.



ttbk

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Tennis Ball Kid

If you look closely, Gandalf actually has a different staff after he escapes.

Really? Just how many staffs, swords does Gandalf have in the movie?

• He starts with one in the Shire, and I assume that he has Glamdring.

• He loses both when he visits Saruman.

• He gets another staff and sword for the journey to Moria. How he got a staff between Orthanc and Rivendell is beyond me.

• He loses both when he fights the Balrog. I assume that when his body burns away after throwing down the Balrog that he cannot carry the sword/staff with him.

• He gets a new white staff and a sword (PJ doesn't explain what happens to Gandalf when he upgrades from grey to white).

• He loses his staff to the WK during the Pelennor Fields battle, but at least he retains his sword.

• When he leaves ME with Frodo, he has yet another white staff, and I can't remember if he's still packing a sword.

Am I missing any staff appearances (i.e. the Coronation)?

The average viewer must think that Gandalf can get a staff/sword just about anywhere, and may conclude that they just aren't that special - except, maybe Anduril, Sting, and the son of Haleth's sword.

Merry's blade may just have been a random sharp piece of metal that he picked up after being thrown from Eowyn's horse. Again I would say then that PJ is being inconsistent as the WK is shown to be 'the bomb,' terrorizing and 'owning' the Balrog slayer yet being brought down by the hobbit's blade. Did Merry break the spell that knit the WK sinews together, or did he sting the WK, bringing him to his knees and causing him to 'freeze' so that (1) Eowyn could have time to say her line and (2) she could stab him in the face easily without the need of a step stool?

And while I'm ranting away, just how does Eowyn get 'almost dead?' After racking up an impressive body count, fighting Gothmog (2nd in command?), she kills the WK (and if that weren't enough), runs from the Gimp, and then...what are we to assume? She looks well enough when she chats with Theoden.

And remember, we're in PJ's world, and so information must be gleaned from what was on the screen.

[Essex]

Alatar

And while I'm ranting away, just how does Eowyn get 'almost dead?' After racking up an impressive body count, fighting Gothmog (2nd in command?), she kills the WK (and if that weren't enough), runs from the Gimp, and then...what are we to assume? She looks well enough when she chats with Theoden.

It's called adrenaline, and then shock. Just like the unsung hero Merry who was walking around unnoticed after he helped defeat the Witch King in the book, his wounds did not take their perilous hold until later. This has been transposed from Merry to Eoywn for the movie, as she was the one at Theoden's side for his death speech (because film wise the story could not fit a Merry/theoden bonding session in - but this is a pity).

Did Merry break the spell that knit the WK sinews together, or did he sting the WK, bringing him to his knees and causing him to 'freeze' so that (1) Eowyn could have time to say her line and (2) she could stab him in the face easily without the need of a step stool?

Yes, just as in the book (except she said the line before hand), Merry brought down the WK enabling her to kill the WK with a sword to his 'face'. If non book readers don't understand, and book reading cynics can't except it, then too bad.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

If non book readers don't understand, and book reading cynics can't except it, then too bad.

I hope that you understand my point. I've taken your advice, either 'filling in' where PJ left stuff out or 'separating' the movie from the books and enjoying each as a different thing.

Just wanted to point out more items that may not have made sense to the illiterate nor to me. With Eowyn, a major character, to be one moment a bit tussled and the next moment a bit 'dead' is was a bit (IMO) hard to swallow. Where was Merry after the encounter? Do hobbits have less adrenaline?

Would have been better, I think (like anyone cares!) if, upon stabbing the WK Eowyn screamed as if wounded. She could then have talked with Theoden but we might have had a sense that she too was filing, being mortally wounded, like Merry (luckily Aragorn saves them). Running from Gothmog didn't make her seem almost dead to me.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by alatar

• When he leaves ME with Frodo, he has yet another white staff, and I can't remember if he's still packing a sword.

.

well that was a few years later. I'm sure he had time to get a new one.

And wow!! I mean WOW this thread has really gone along since I was here last.

Plus a 5 Star (Or is that 5 bone?) rating! Truly I am the happiest dead thing alive!

Coming soon! More controversy from Beleg!

[lord of dor-lomin]

So, you would rather PJ made up something totally different if parts of his adaption, which were TRUE to the book, clashed with other changes he made? No way, I would rather he stayed faithful to the book as much as possible.

You've gotta be kidding me.

You'd choose a greater number of book scenes over coherency??

Even if PJ makes a change, you want him to be faithful to the book in a later scene and ignore the change??

Following that logic, PJ should have had Eomer fighting at Helm's Deep with Theoden and Aragorn, since that's what he did in the book. Never mind the fact that in the movie Gandalf rode away to get him. PJ should've, without any explanation, stuck Eomer in Helm's Deep.

Ooh, and he also should've had The Mouth of Sauron ride away on his horse with a fully intact head since that's what he did in the book. Nevermind that ten seconds ago we saw Aragorn cut his head off. We'd rather see another scene accurate to the book than to see things that make sense.

Brilliant idea, Essex.

But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?

I don't think PJ should've changed anything for non-bookers- I agree with you on that. BUT, he did change things, and once he changes something I think it's better to follow through on the change and have the rest of the movie make sense than to ignore the change later and end up with an accurate book scene that doesn't flow with the rest of the movie.

[alatar]

I would have preferred that Jackson keep to the book world, and modify only as needed to translate to the media. Additional information wasn't appreciated.

For example, wanting to show that the WK is very powerful by breaking Gandalf's staff - okay, as painful as it is for me to watch.

Aragorn falling off of the cliff into the river in TTT - what?

Eomer's not at Helm's Deep - okay, whatever; it keeps the focus on Aragorn, Theoden et al and shortens the list of main characters (i.e. no Erkenbrand).

Arwen at the Fords - okay, again to shorten the list and also keeps the 'romance' in the movies to attract a bigger audience.

Arwen at the Fords - "She elf..." need I say more?

[Essex]

Lord dor-lomin

Being faithful to the book in this way is a BAD thing, because PJ had already ruined it by NOT being faithful to the book when it comes to Merry's sword.

Davem

you can't pick & choose which bits you will faithfully reproduce from the book & which you'll change without a lot more thought for the implications than the movie writers seem to have put in...

I really can't argue with you anyomore if you take this viewpoint. So, you would rather PJ made up something totally different if parts of his adaption, which were TRUE to the book, clashed with other changes he made? No way, I would rather he stayed faithful to the book as much as possible.

In other words, you would have rathered Merry not attacking the Witch king at all? I really don't give a monkey if a non-book reader doesn't understand why Merry hit the WitchKing with such a savage blow. Read the books if you want to know. But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?

I've said countless times I wanted the sword from the Downs to be included, but I have to live with it. The scene, other than this, worked superbly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

In other words, you would have rathered Merry not attacking the Witch king at all? I really don't give a monkey if a non-book reader doesn't understand why Merry hit the WitchKing with such a savage blow. Read the books if you want to know. But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?

I've said countless times I wanted the sword from the Downs to be included, but I have to live with it. The scene, other than this, worked superbly.

The point is the movies are not internally coherent, which makes acceptance of the secondary world they depict more difficult than it should be & at times simply impossible. Every time you are confronted by something like Merry's stabbing of the WK the 'spell' is broken because it simply doesn't make sense that Merry (or anyone else) could cripple the WK with an ordinary blade. As I said, the radio series made it clear tha merry's blow did no more than distract the WK's attention, giving Eowyn the opportunity to strike the death blow. This made Merry's action a contributory factor in the WK's fall (less so than in the book, admittedly) but avoids 'breaking the spell' by not having Merry be able to bring one of the most powerful beings in Me with an ordinary sword. We are, after all, talking about the equivalent of bringing down a Balrog by stabbing it in the big toe with a toasting fork.

The whole point is that these movies don't work for book or non book fans & the reason for that is that Jackson & the writers couldn't decide who they were making the movie for.

Actually, there were original scenes in the movies which I think worked - some of the Aragorn/Arwen stuff, Theodred's Funeral. Other things weren't bad in themselves, they simply weren't integrated into the storyline properly & so irritated. I wish they had gone ahead & written their own fantasy story & filmed that, because I suspect they might have made a fair fist of it. But, to repeat an earlier point, it seems that they set out with a whole bunch of scenes from the book which they wanted to put on screen, but then came up with lots of stuff of their own which they also wanted to do. They clearly struggled to produce a script which could include both, & in the end they failed.

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, it seems to me that you are all thinking about this far too much.

Yes, there are inconsistencies within the films – things which (without further explanation, at least) don’t quite work or don’t quite make sense. I fully accept that. As a perusal of some of my comments elsewhere in the Movies Forum will quite clearly suggest, there are a number of areas in which I think that they could have been improved. But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Why is this? Are they somehow less intelligent or less discerning than those for whom these inconsistencies cause irritation or anger?

No, of course not. The reason for the different approach is, I think, mainly because such issues go largely unnoticed by the majority of viewers, or are just not considered sufficiently important by them to warrant any major concern.

To take the much-discussed Merry v Witch King scene as an example, I was obviously aware of the “barrow blade” issue having read the book (although I was more disappointed that more was not made of Merry’s role in the WK’s demise – we only got a fleeting glimpse of his contribution). But despite having read the book, it did not at that point occur to me to think “Oh, that makes the Witch King look weak” or “Oh, how come Merry’s sword was able to do that”. I was simply carried along with the scene.

I have mentioned before the immediacy of films, compared with books. Films (or films of this genre, at least) do not put great demands on their audience. They do not demand, or require, in-depth analysis while they are being watched. So relatively minor inconsistencies do not really spoil a film for most viewers, simply because they either do not notice them or because they are of little concern to them at the time. Of course, if they stick out like a sore thumb they can destroy a film, but I do not think that we are talking about that degree of inconsistency here.

Books on the other hand put great demands on the reader, who is required to visualise the story and construct it in his or her head. This requires thought and will often lead to deeper analysis. And books take time to read – there is much more time for inconsistencies to occur to the reader as he or she reads. One is not “carried along” with the action to quite the same degree as one is with a film, and there is much more opportunity, while reading, to pause, think and analyse.

Does that make those to whom films of this genre appeal any less intelligent or discerning? No, I don’t think so. I certainly hope not, as I am a great fan of such films. Of course, the genre is not to everyone’s taste. There are those who prefer more thought-provoking films (and there are those who like both). But that (in my view) is a matter of taste, not intelligence or discernment.

So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.

And, finally, perhaps it is fair to say that (by virtue of the immediacy of one and the demands of the other) one can get away with more errors in a film that one can in a book. Although I would come back to my point that there are very few authors writing today, let alone scriptwriters, who pay the same painstaking and time-consuming attention to detail that Tolkien did when writing LotR. Perhaps davem and others are right when they say that it was misconceived to try and turn such a complex and detailed work of literature into a film. But had Jackson and co not done so, then we would not have the films. And that, to my mind, would be a shame.

Should they have made them better? Perhaps. But they were the ones making the films and so the decisions on how to do so were theirs to take. And those decisions were not (as has been suggested) taken with the intention of “improving on Tolkien” or winding up the fans. Nor were the changes that were made randomly picked out of the air. They were, in my view, made in a genuine effort to broaden the appeal of the films and render them suitable for the big sceeen screen. And that being so, I am prepared to accept the changes (albeit not without the occasional comment ) and simply get on with enjoying the films for what they are.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Perhaps davem and others are right when they say that it was misconceived to try and turn such a complex and detailed work of literature into a film. But had Jackson and co not done so, then we would not have the films. And that, to my mind, would be a shame.

Had Jackson and Co not made these films, the Barrow-Downs would be comprised of those folk who were here before the films came out and the occasional Ranger. Nor would the Trilogy have been available on supermarket shelves and news-stands. A very large percentage of us would never have come to the Downs, and none of these movie-discussions would be taking place.

[Boromir88]

Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made.

I'd say that's most likely the circumstances. I think it also takes a bit of time. When I first saw TTT in the theatre, I'm like elves at Helm's Deep? Faramir taking the ring to Osgiliath? Gah!!!! Then after watching the director's commentaries, and rewatching the movies, again, and again, I've learned to come to terms with those changes, and realize "heck, it's not so bad." Same instance when first watching ROTK. The way they portrayed Denethor and the Green Slime both got me irked. I've come to terms about Denethor, since it would be time consuming to show before his mind was broken, and it dramaticized Aragorn's return, I'm ok with Denethor looking crappy. Some things just take time, and reviewing to sort of come to your senses and cool down. (I'm sure the screaming Orli fans were a big contribution to my hot-temperedness in the first viewing of the films).

A very large percentage of us would never have come to the Downs,

I must say mark, I wouldn't even be here at the downs. I probably wouldn't have picked up Tolkien's book ever again, or bought the Sil, or the Hobbit. The movies got me back into the mood. I had read the books long before, sure it was good, but it was something that I forgot. Then after watching FOTR in the theatres, I got to rereading, and rereading...and um...rereading, and now I admit, I'm just another nut. I thank Jackson for bringing back the "Middle-earth" spirit in me, and opening Tolkien's world to a wide range of people who never heard of Tolkien before the movies.

[Bêthberry]

by SaucepanMan

So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.

You provide a very interesting distinction between the way we read books and the way we read movies, SpM, but I don't think your dichotomy fits everyone. For instance, I am not one who approaches Tolkien as a sacred text, much as I greatly admire his work on fantasy and story telling. (Please, no rotten tomatoes from the groundlings.)

And I am a fan of action/fantasy flicks. At least, I love the original Star Wars. As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.

Now, this is not to ridicule those who weren't bothered by ill-timed humour or inconsistent characterisation. I simply demure and say my objections to the films are not explained by your very interesting theory.

I will run off now and attempt to calculate a standard deviation coefficient for your theory, to determine the standard error and mean and mode so as to know where I fall.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Yes, there are inconsistencies within the films – things which (without further explanation, at least) don’t quite work or don’t quite make sense. I fully accept that. As a perusal of some of my comments elsewhere in the Movies Forum will quite clearly suggest, there are a number of areas in which I think that they could have been improved. But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Clearly, there is some truth in this. The films are quite popular.

However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?

I ask because, quite frankly, I don't much care what other people think of them (whether ordinary film-goers, reviewers, or members of the film community). The complaints I have about the movies are, necessarily, based entirely on my appraisal of them. Certain things about the movies didn't make sense to me; certain things bothered me. And it doesn't improve my esteem of these points in the slightest to know that others were not bothered by them.

Of course, if someone gives me a valid argument for why such and such a perceived flaw is not really a flaw - then my evaluation of the point may change. But if millions of people say "Oh, I wasn't bothered by X", that is completely irrelevant to my appraisal of the films.

Bethberry wrote:

As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.

This is a good point, and I quite agree. I don't buy the "they were only movies, so you can't expect too much" line for the simple reason that, as you say, there are such things as great movies. There are movies that are internally consistent, believable, and so forth. There are movies that stand up quite well to endless study. I would agree that Lucas did better with regard to these things than did Jackson, and I think that the Star Wars saga is an excellent demonstration of the fact that movies can be just as coherent, as well-constructed, and as powerful as can books.