Is LOTR a dumbing down of the book?

[cameronkendrick]

Upon reading all the replies further I feel a little more torn between my opinion. Am I torn so far that I will no longer enjoy watching the movie? No way. No how. I feel the same as most of my peers on this board that the action scenes took presidence over the dialogues, but I feel this was a necessary evil. To put in all the dialogues, songs, etc would have led to a movie maybe in excess of 5 or 6 hours, which I would have sat through and enjoyed every second thereof, but what about the people taking their little children to watch it. My nephew is 4 years old and my brother took him to watch it. He loved it (as did I). Had he had to sit through a more true to the book Council of Elrond, he would have lost interest, even though me and you (collectively) wouldn't have. My point still is that the movie was done to 90% of my satisfaction and could have ended up being another horrible translation of a great book.

[IronParrot]

What is "dumbing down" the movie?

Answer that.

Until then, my answer to this topic's question is a resounding no.

[cameronkendrick]

Dumbing-Down is changing the book to make the movie appeal to people that would otherwise not have the mental capacity or good sense about them to watch the movie as it is portrayed in the book. The most glaring instance of this is with Arwen. In FOTR the book she has around 2 pages dedicated to her. In the movie they remove Glorfindel (one of my favorite characters from FOTR-even if his part was a small one) to extend Arwen (played by Liv Tyler-which they "had" to give extra screen time since she's a big actress). Then in the scene where they are flying towards Rivendell, the book has it that Frodo is placed on Glorfindel's horse and the horse goes on with just Frodo to the ford. In the movie Arwen craddles Frodo like a baby as him, her, and the horse make their break. It is small things like this that are dumbing-downs of the book. Many others exist, I just wanted to illustrate my least favorite. Do you understand a little better what dumbing-down is. It is a bit tricky to label.

Cam

[Radagast]

The aim of the film was to interpret the story for cinema. If you wanted the book, read the book. Judged as what it should be, as a film, it is a glorious epic.

[coolismo]

Yes dumbing down means upping the action and reducing the characterisation. The two can come together such as the line which for me is worse than the 'come and claim him' where Sam says to Strider..

'what are you doing them wriaths are still out there'

Here we have a dumb down because Sam merely speaks a line to enhance the action and anticipation of a chase sequence involving a character (arwen) he is now secondary to. It's a pure DD line. Diminishes the character, an is totally utilitarian ie it just pumps you up for the chase.

Just like an Arnie line ..'fot are yew dooink dose cyboorgs are steel owt vere.'

[coolismo]

BTW as the thread starter just to say that DD is not to denigrate the film. I think the movie is unique and has plenty of value. The more I see it the more the clever visual elements come out.

For example many lament the opening scene of Frodo reading in the tree. No such scene in the book. Fine but later we get Frodo flat out in the eye of the statue at Amon Hen. The little figure i cradled by the stone eye conveying how far he has come in the two or so hours we have witnessed. From the bountiful shire in spring to the hard stone of autumn in this faraway place. The eye again reflects that the eye of Sauron is both surrounding him and drawing him to greater peril. The loneliness of Frodo's upcoming choice in neatly prefaced. So that's unique and def not a DD.

As Lex Luthor says in Superman...

'Some may read War and piece and see a simple adventure story. Others may find the meaning of life on a chewing gum wrapper.'

[cameronkendrick]

Coolismo
That was something I'd never really put together about the movie. Upon reading your words it was all so clear to me. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Cam

[Bregalad]

In my opinion, Arwen replacing Glorfindel isn't an example of "dumbing down". Yes, it's a change, and a hotly debated change. But I don't think they did it to simplify the story because they didn't think people would be smart enough to understand. That is like saying "they did it because people wouldn't understand Glorfindel" and that doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion they changed it for a completely different reason. 50% of their audience is women, and most women like a little romance. And most men like a little female eye-candy. And let's face it, I love Tolkien and he was a brillient writer, but he didn't put much romance in LOTR and there are hardly any women in it at all. The only thing aproaching romance is the tale of Eowyn and Faramir near the end. Personally, the expanding of Arwen's character suprised me, but I liked it. This woman likes a bit 'o romance and I enjoyed seeing a dashing heroine amonst all those men!

[jerseydevil]

The only reason Tolkien didn't have more woman was because it was a "historic epic". There weren't a lot of strong woman characters during "the time" when LOTR takes place. Of course there were some - just like there were some in our own true history - Queen Elizabeth, Empress Matilda, Joan of Arc - but it wasn't normal like it would be in today's society.

I personally don't mind Arwen taking Glorfindel's place- I mind how the Flight to the Ford scene was changed. Her sneaking up on Aragorn, her racing all the way with Frodo, her defying the Nazgul, her "calling" up the flood", her then crying and "passing her life" to him. If she was all that - then why didn't she go with the Fellowship? Why wasn't she at the Council of Elrond?