Is LOTR a dumbing down of the book?

[coolismo]

Last night in the coffee shop a pal of mine was ranting about 'dumbing down' in movies. So we all got to trying to define 'dumbed down' and see if we thought FOTR was a dd of the book. The consensus was that for a movie to dd a book there had to be, additional dialogue, extended action at the espense of characterisation, rapid cutting, etc etc all the usual stuff but we also thought that the following were important signs of any dd:
1. Allusions to popular culture. There had to be inserted into the script references to current popular culture or urban myths or even current news. I once sat through a performance of The Caretaker by Harold Pinter where the director peppered the set with posters of star wars and ET and ruined it. So in FOTR Gimli says 'noone tosses a dwarf' and when the guardian of the gates of Moria ripples the water we get a cod Jaws theme.
2. The movie would be set to pay back the audience for choosing to sit through it. The idea here is that we could spend three hours on our play station or watching MTV but we choose instead the movies. So the movie has to pay us back for our decision to forgo these and give us lots of monsters and a rocking soundtrack.

I thought FOTR is not a dd because

...It leaves you with a difficult scene full of rich symbolism (Sam and Frodo at the Anduin) and leaves you to reflect on this by denying you a big final scene.
...the action is a reward for scenes that are positively arthouse (lothlorien, death of Boromir etc)
...FOTR is a genuine attempt to portray difficult themes in poular culture...

however the evidence against is...

...the mines of Moria is basically Fellowship v Beast wars. Those little running figures are straight out of playstation.

....Arwen at the Ford ...


do you think FOTR is a dumb-down?

[coolismo]

o no say it isn't so.....
http://www.ringbearer.org/docs/6177.html

[jerseydevil]

I think it was dumbed down. My main reason for feeling this - is the amount of action sequences that were added and extended in place of dialog and character development.

For instance - why did the Nazgul decapitate the hobbit when they were on their way to the Shire? Why did the Nazgul's robes have to be set on fire at weathertop? The robes, as I pointed out in other threads, were fine for the Flight to the Ford scene. Why did Elrond talk down to Gandalf as if he were a child that knew nothing about the consequences of finding the Ring? Why at the Gates of Moria did the Watcher in the Water have to be like the octopus out of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and hang Frodo up over his head? Why did Pippin and Merry get turned into imebciles and used just for comic relief?

I like action movies, but I just didn't like how many extended action scenes there were in it. A friend of mine said it was like Fast and Furious. He thought LOTR was great, but I couldn't believe he was comparing it to Fast and Furious. He hasn't read the books and of course has no desire to - he's happy with the movie.

In my opinion, Jackson traded characterization and dialog for action. He used the opening scenes of The Last Alliance and the History of the Ring to draw people into the movie and keep them there - instead of having it unfold slowly and build up the tension. Except for maybe 30 minutes - there were no slow points in the movie. Even Bilbo's party (which was actually Bilbo's and Frodo's) had to have Pippin and Merry shooting off fireworks in a tent. Every scene needed action. The Council of Elrond almost turned in to a bar room brawl - instead of everyone being quiet and stunned when it came time to decide what to do about the Ring. It was as if he just wanted people to sit there and have eye candy instead of have to think about anything. I am very glad however that Jackson did not use that cut frame technique to speed up the action scenes like in Gladiator or to get the gore past the sensors as was done in Scream.

Also the plot became much more 2 dimensional. The Dwarves and Elves hatred for each other as shown through Legolas and Gimli is pretty much nonexistent. Arargorn is now just in the Fellowship for the hand of Arwen, which is "very hollywood". Saruman is now just on the side with Sauron than actually thinking he's getting the Ring for himself (so now there is only one true enemy). Pippin and Merry are just along for the ride - instead of out of friendship, as comic relief. Basically all the subplots of LOTR have been removed. Pretty much what is left is take the Ring to Mordor and toss it into Mt Doom.

I also don't think that the strength of the Hobbits were portrayed very well or that the nature of the Ring really came across well. I was talking to a friend, who has not read the books but is getting his Master's Degree and is studying movie making/script writing, he argued with me on why Boromir should have been the one to take the Ring and that Frodo should have just have given it to him. He said hobbits are weak and a human should have taken it anyway - and that Boromir was probably the best choice. Of course the reason he thinks that Hobbits are weak in general and Frodo in particular is because the whole Flight to the Ford scene was changed so it could appeal more to the mass audience. When I tried explaining this to him, he then said that the Flight to the Ford scene was his favorite part of the movie.

[coolismo]

great reply and ammo for tinite's rematch debate at Franco's cafe.

[jerseydevil]

Glad to add to your discussion at the cafe. And I'm (Now I'm editing it back again, ) about that Saruman and spike death. I guess unless something even worse shows up in TT - that will be The Two Towers' Arwen at the Ford scene that everyone complains about.

[Wayfarer]

Yes.

[FrodoFriend]

It's not a dumb movie, but it is dumber than the book (in that sense I would say it's dumbed-down). But then, you could hardly make a movie as "smart" as the book. It would be horribly complicated and long, and lots of stupid people I know wouldn't understand.

[Bregalad]

I do not think the movie is a dumbed down version of the book, I think it is just been radically cut because of time restraints. And can you really blame them? They wanted everyone to enjoy Tolkien's world, not just the rabid fans who would sit through a 10 hour movie. Yes there were things I missed, Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, The Barrow-wights, the strained relationship between the elves and the dwarves, the character developement of Gimli, Legolas, Merry, and Pippin. But honestly where would you put all that stuff and still keep it down to 3 hours? I think the next movie will be more complete, because they won't have to eat up all their time with mountains of exposition. And I don't think it hurt the movie to concentrate on the action scenes. It's not like they made them up, they are in the book, and those are the scenes I most wanted to see! There was more than enough talky exposition for me, I know it was necessary, but I didn't need more of it. The LOTR books are an action packed adventure. Yes, they are fleshed out with history, philosophy, and character development, but I just can't see cutting out important parts of the action to make more time for those things. What would you have them cut out? Weathertop? The race for the ford? Lothlorien? Moria? The atrocities Saruman is comitting at Isengard? All of these things are vital to the trough-line of action. Personally, I'd love to sit through a 10 hour movie of this, but I really can't blame them for making the cuts they had to. I think they did an excellent job with such a complex and enchanting story.

[sun-star]

Compare it to other really Hollywoody films, and it's not dumbed down at all. It could have been so much worse. Books aren't the same as films (well obviously... ) and you need all the exposition for people who might not have a clue about LOTR to follow it. These companies have to make some kind of profit...
That said, some of the omissions seem to make it harder to understand.

[luinilwen]

in part yes, in part no. i agree with FrodoFriend and sun-star that it IS a comparitively cerebral movie when set against... oh i don't know... legally blonde? my best friend's wedding? errr... hard to remember the titles, as they are all quite disposable (imo!!).

however i also agree with jerseydevil. i feel that a lot of the changes and edits weren't necessary, and that they were made to make a smoother viewing. three hours IS a long movie, and the audience needs to be kept engaged with things like pretty scenery, pretty actors, lots of violence and a plot and dialogue that's easy to follow. LOTR is a subtle and complicated story, and that is hard to convey in a movie without confusion and loss of interest, hence the inclusion of the opening scenes, as jerseydevil mentioned.

however, at least this story is still recognisable as FOTR, which is something we should remain grateful for. some adaptations, such as of dickens' "great expectations" with tom cruise and gwyneth paltrow (*shudder* imagine her as galadriel!!! ), shouldn't even bear the name of the original text. with the exception of a few of the characters bearing the same or similar names, the original and the adaptation are incomparable. can you imagine the feminist uproar if "ten things i hate about you" was entitled "the taming of the shrew" ? or if "clueless" had at all afiliated itself with austen?

hmm perhaps i'm getting a bit off subject...

[jerseydevil]

True - the movie could have been a lot worse, but it could have also have been a lot better. I'm not saying it was a terrible movie - it just could have been a lot better IMO. I liked it, but I don't think it was the greatest movie ever. If it wasn't LOTR it probably wouldn't be a movie that I would get on DVD right away.

A lot of LOTR in my opinion was reduced to appeal to the lowest common denomiator viewer. Too much contained the standard Hollywood formula. I was looking for a more intelligent movie - not an action movie.

I know people have said that the books had action - which is true - but the movie was almost nonstop action. It even had additional action scenes - and if the scene in the book didn't have enough action it was extended.
To me - Excalibur is a far superior film and LOTR does not come close to touching it.

[niggle]

I remember years ago a friend raving about "Excalibur" (I'd been trying to get him to read the "Once and Future King"). When I saw that film, I had T H White's book in the back of my mind, and didn't particularly enjoy the film. Perhaps we should just enjoy the film without reference to the book?? Actually (coming clean) I think White's book works better as a novel than LOTR.

Personally I don't think Jackson is guilty of dumbing down LOTR, but he obviously couldn't film the Appendices, the Silmarillion, the bits from Unfinished tales that expand on LOTR or any of the other material that many of us enthusiasts call upon when re-reading and enjoying the trilogy. In fact, to my mind so far he has dealt better with one of the key weaknesses of the book - the relationship of Arwen and Aragorn. It seems to me improbable that Arwen would wait 2,500 years old to fall for Aragorn when he had attained the age of 49. (To put it crudely, has she gone 2,500 years without nookie???) You simply cannot express that relationship in normal human terms, and so Tolkien (in my view quite wisely) keeps Arwen out of the way for most of the story. PJ has opted to expand the role of Arwen, and I think his decision to increase her role by giving her more action scenes is very sensible. I can see why Aragorn might fall for the feisty Elf that PJ presents. I can't see how anyone could fall for Tolkien's Arwen.

[jerseydevil]

Actually Excalibur has nothing to do with the TH White's Once and Future King. The musical Camelot and the Disney cartoon The Sword in the Stone are based on his version of the Authurian Legends.

Excalibur is based on the Le Morte D'Arthur which was written in 1460 - 1470. The movie can only be compared to the book it was based on. TH White's book is like a cartoon.

[Bregalad]

Jerseydevil, have you read The Once and Future King? And if you did, did you make it past the first book, The Sword in the Stone?
I agree that you can't really compare Excaliber to it, but I don't find it cartoonish at all, especially once you get past Arthur's childhood. Camelot is based on Athurian legend, but not particularly T H White's book. As for the Disney cartoon, yes. it's loosely based on The Sword in the Stone, but it's all prettied up and Disney-fied. After all, that's the same company that told us a sweet little story about Pochahontas having a nice little time in England, but we can't tell the kiddies the white man dumped her and she died of syphalis!

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I rabidly agree with what you said about Aragorn and Arwen, Nibble! I was thrilled to see Arwen with a bigger part. And we can see why Aragorn wants her, she's a true heroine!

[jerseydevil]

I did read The Once and Future King - but didn't really like it. I agree that the second book was different. I don't remember that much of the book. But you can't really compare Excalibur to The Once and Future King - since the two aren't even related. Le Morte D'Arthur is the classic story of King Arthur.

I agree with you that Arwen's visiblity around Aragorn and their relationship was important to expand . But I do disagree about the amount and the role she has been given.

[niggle]

Thanks for clarifying that the film Excalibur was based on Le Morte D'Arthur - Jerseydevil - I wouldn't have assumed that from what I recall of the film.

T H White based the Once and Future King on Le Morte D'Arthur which was pulled together from various sources (French and English) by Malory, and later edited and printed by Caxton who made a few of his own alterations. What interests me in the parallels between LOTR and Once and Future King, is the similarity of structure. Both move from an opening book with a fairy-tale style and structure to a trilogy concerned with more weighty subject matter. The last paragraph of the Once and Future King is extremely powerful and for me ranks alongside Sir Ector's lament for the death of Lancelot (in Malory). I would put it above anything in LOTR - (hurriedly adds - but that's just my opinion Folks). What I enjoy about LOTR is the sheer scale of the undertaking. It's like those people who build detailed models ships out of matchsticks. The workmanship, ingenuity and effort are astonishing. This can only be hinted at in the film.

[anduin]

Sorry this is off topic but I had to butt in here and say that I love your user name niggle! I can't believe that no one has used it before now. Oh and while I am at it, welcome to Entmoot.

[niggle]

Thanks Anduin - I couldn't believe it either!

[afro-elf]

I tend to think that the vast majority of Hollywood films are insipid.

hollywood knows the mob, and bread and circuses sells


people tend to think that 'i like it' is synonymous with 'it's good'


but i'm bitter and jaded

[cameronkendrick]

Are their differences from FOTR the book and FOTR the movie? Yes. Do they dumb down the movie? A little. Putting Arwen in Glorfindel's spot in the movie definitely was a dumbing down. But that scene lasts what 4 or 5 minutes. Being (in my opinion) the only blatant instance of dumbing down in the movie, if I were to complain about it I would be nit-picking. I applaud Peter Jackson on his determination in FOTR to stay relatively true to the script.