The Examples of Dumbing - Down

[Essex]

Eurytus,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don’t get me wrong, I love the book and it will always have a place in my heart for encouraging my interest in reading, but it is far from flawless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It is as near to flawless as I can see. The plot is perfect, the prose is beautiful, and the descriptions of the land are stunning. But also the atmosphere and heroics work superbly. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But Tolkien is not so good at writing dialogue….<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Tolkien has given English literature some of the most quotable dialogue ever! I won’t even start as I’ll be here for a couple of hours writing it down!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>…..and creating believable characters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What? Have you ever felt for any characters more in a book? I have not. (Please let me know and I’ll give those books a read!). Didn’t you cry for Sam, Frodo, Pippin and Merry? I’m not ashamed to say I did. Some characters where not so ‘3 dimensional’, but you’ve got a sweeping epic here. One of Tolkien’s points in the prologue was that the book was not long enough. If it was longer, we may well have seen more of (say Legolas’s) character.<P>His superb characterisation can best be seen in Book 4, (the best book in the whole LOTR), where we see Frodo Sam and Gollum trek towards Mordor. Stunning.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now some of his dialogue is great but much of it does not sound like someone really talking. It actually sounds like a Shakespearean actor emoting to an audience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maeglin has already answered this. All I can say is that the language is beautiful, and works well with the story.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Tolkien has given English literature some of the most quotable dialogue ever! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Totally and utterly disagree. This dialogue is simply not quoted at all outside of Tolkien fan circles.<P>Whatever the quality compare quotes from Star Wars, Jaws, Casablanca or in literature, The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange.<P>I am sorry but Tolkien is not good at dialogue and it was not because he was trying to create an old-english style mythology. He was with the Silmarillion and hence I have no problem with the dialogue in that. But LOTR is first and foremost entertainment and it was written as a book for the 20th century. Taken in that context it is simply not good in terms of dialogue and characterisation.<P>As for a suggestions as you ask. I already mentioned it, A Song of Fire and Ice. Simply put the characters in that are 10 times more believable in their motivations and reactions than Tolkiens.<BR>LOTR may be a classic. But to claim it is nearly flawless is not realistic. Put simply there is better dialogue in the SS Indiana scene in Jaws than in nearly the whole of LOTR. That one scene, with a minimum of dialogue tells us more about the three lead characters in Jaws than does the whole of LOTR tell us about Legolas. And he is one of the major Characters!

[Eurytus]

Perhaps it would be easier for me to summarise my point of view like this. The major thing a book needs to contain is believable characters.<BR>Any book that spends more time describing the landscape than it does the main characters feelings, viewpoints and trials has a major problem. Frodo and Sam apart you very rarely get any real insight into what makes these characters tick.<P>Ask yourself this. Aragorn's love for Arwen is one of the major things that drives him on. He wins a kingdom, in part to satisfy her father's condition for winning her hand. Tell me, in all 1,000 plus pages of LOTR, do we have find out anything of value about WHY Aragorn loves her? What he really feels about their relationship? This relationship is a VERY important part of the build-up of one the main characters psyche and yet is it given less word-count than the description of Tom Bombadils House.

[Liriodendron]

The "beautiful" language used in the characters dialogue is my absolute favorite thing about LoTR! I would not want it any other way! The elf eyes line is in the book, but Gimli is saying it, as a joke. I don't care for Aragorn using it, it doesn't fit his distinguished, eloquent character. I could hear Aragorn saying....."Alas that I do not have the vision of the elves! Legolas, tell me, what do you see?"....if the point of superb elven vision needs to be made quickly, but not "What do your elf eyes see?" <BR>Middle Earth is a noble, dignified world, where beautiful speech is used, (except in the Shire, maybe! ) I interpret the beautiful speech as one vehicle to show the beauty, and lofty ideals of the "good" characters. The orc's foul, coarse language, just the opposite. Language was very important to Tolkien! He got it right! (IMO) <BR>As far as the Arwen /Aragorn storyline, I can figure that out (why his love for her was one of his motivations) easily, I didn't need a love chapter in this fascinating, already overly complex tale! Tom Bombadil's house was far more interesting! <p>[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> To that I will say, there are always DVDs and ever increasingly bigger television sets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>True, but we will never have that nervous wait until the next film comes out will we. With the questions we wanted answered.<P>How will they do the Balrog?<P>What will Shelob look like?<P>How on earth can they do Gollum with CGI?<P>And just how cool with the Battle of the Pelennor Fields be?<P>I can't wait for the third film to come, and the EE DVD too and yet I am sad that it has to come to an end.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm not saying Tolkien was perfect but the expression "Lo!" could easily translate to "Damn!" if i understood its meaning correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Unfortunately I do not have my copy of the book with me so I will be unable to furnish the correct quote but here is my problem with it. Now apart from Lo being very antiquated language (and before you say but it’s meant to be, Book 1 and to an extent Book 2 got along without it fine) my main problem with it is this.<P>It is overused and doing so creates a very false impression. Indeed it is one of the reasons I mentioned the comparison to Shakespearean actors ‘emoting’ on stage. Now there is nothing wrong with Shakespeare, but the language used in Shakespeare is so used because it is written for a play. There are limits to what you can show in a play so often the actors will have to describe what is happening. They will say things like “see how our foes turn tail and run, weak at the knees with fear”. Now that is not Shakespeare (you will no doubt have noticed) but the principle behind it applies to the use of Lo in LOTR.<P>There is a specific example towards the end of Book 5 when Aragorn uses the word “Lo” several times in just a couple of paragraphs. He is basically describing events on the battle field or some-such, I forget the exact specifics. But what is important here is that he is describing something that is happening to the reader. Now in situations like this the old adage holds true. “Don’t tell me, show me.” The story is far more engaging when you are right there enmeshed in the story. When you have a character start describing what is happening right in front of them it takes you out of viewing the story from their eyes and plonks you down watching a Shakespearean play.<P>Such instances take away from the story in my opnion.<P>And as to Bombadil’s house being more interesting than Aragorn’s motivation. Well I guess that’s why Bombadil has not been included in either film version or the radio version. Most people who adapt these stories know that what engages an audience is not what landscapes the characters are walking through but what they feel and why. What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take, make the wrong decisions they take.<P>That is where LOTR’s weak point lies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Eurytus, I can see the point that you are making, but I think that you overstate it. I would never say that LotR is flawless in technical terms. But, of all the books that I have read (including a good many "classics" as well as popular fiction), it is the one which I have most enjoyed and which has made the greatest impression on me. Of course, there are many who disagree, who regard it as "just a good yarn", or who slightly deride, or actively dislike, it. And there are numerous academics who argue that it can never be counted among the classics because it is "only fantasy" or by because it suffers from the supposed technical flaws that you have identified. Witness its treatment by the "media" and "academic" panelists on the BBC's "Top 21 Books" program the other night (which I thought was shameful - one woman described it as "rubbish" having not even read it - "life's too short," she said ).<P>But there are a good many other people (including myself) who would count it as their favourite book, regardless of whether it might also be regarded as a technical masterpiece. It has, after all, made it in to the BBC's "Top 21" (and it will be interesting to see how it fares now).<P>But all this talk of the merits of the book is rather off topic. This is the film forum, after all. Nevertheless, it is the great love that people here have for the book (technical flaws aside) which is behind the adverse reaction that the changes made in the films frequently receive on these pages. Sometimes this is too extreme for my tastes (the "Arwen hatered" syndrome, for example), and sometimes I do think that people risk being as "snobbish" about the films as the likes of the BBC panelists were about the book. But at the same time, loving the book as I do, I can understand where they are coming from.<P>Personally, I don't mind the changes per se. It is when they lead to plot holes that I have my doubts about them. But, you are right, a fairly large degree of "dumming down" was essential, given the complexity of the story told in the book and the sometimes archaic language used. I made this point earlier in this thread, when I said I thought that this was a good thing overall since it makes the films accessible to all, not just the Tolkien afficionados. Without it, there is a good chance that these films would never have been made (at least not on such a grand scale with such amazing visuals). <P>Incidentally, I do dislike the term "dumming down", used in the context of these films. It suggests that anyone who sees the films but has not read the book is ignorant, which is manifestly not the case. They just don't have the inclination to read the book, which is of course their right. It does not mean that they necessarily are any less intelligent than those who have read the book.<P>I think that someone mentioned "Matrix Reloaded" earlier on this thread, which I saw on DVD recently and would certainly regard as a film which could have done with some "dumming down", or perhaps I should say explanation, for those like me who are not "Matrixites". I have seen the first film, but that was some time ago now, and so I spent the first 20 minutes of this film wondering what an earth was going on. Once I had worked that out, I had to go back and replay some of the opening scenes again. And I don't regard myself as a "dummy" . I can therefore imagine how the LotR films might have been received by non-readers had the story not been simplified in the way that it was.<P>Finally, I had an interesting conversation last night (in the context of the BBC's "Top 21" list) concerning the extent to which the films may have lessened the degree of seriousness with which the book is regarded. Has the reduction of the story to blockbuster film status, and the simplification that this has necessarily involved, reduced the standing of the book in any way? Personally, I think not, since (as I touched on earlier) there have always been, and will always be, those who will never regard this book as a serious work of literature.

[Essex]

your point <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And as to Bombadil’s house being more interesting than Aragorn’s motivation. Well I guess that’s why Bombadil has not been included in either film version or the radio version. Most people who adapt these stories know that what engages an audience is not what landscapes the characters are walking through but what they feel and why. What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take, make the wrong decisions they take. <BR>That is where LOTR’s weak point lies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book. This is not a weak point. Bombadil is not about just walking through a landscape as you insinuate above. It is about the LEVEL of control the ring had (not total), the history of middle earth (the barrow wights), the mysterious forces of nature (old man willow, bombadil and goldberry), and the NEED for Frodo et all to get off the road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and for merry to get his sword, not to be given one from Galadriel…….<P>The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. Jackson’s is definitely not!!!!!<P>PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language.<P>PPS one of Jackson's worst descisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (ie not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarissing to hear them speak like this).<P>ppps, you point on <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>what motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film:<P>1/ Merry<BR>2/ Pippin<BR>3/ Legolas<BR>4/ Gimli<P>NOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book. ie why they followed and were part of the fellowship. Oh yeah, we can't show that in the film because of 'pacing'. I forgot. <P>The Book wins over the film hands down. Don't get me wrong, the films are excellent, and jackson has done a great, but not flawless job. film 9 out of 10 book 10 out of 10!

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

Well, I would certainly agree that the characters in the books are undeveloped, but I do not necessarily agree that this constitutes a fatal flaw.<BR>In my opinion, as this is a history of the War of the Ring, the characters are only mentioned at all for the part they played in it. Therefore minor details such as the colour of Legolas' hair are frankly irrelevant. I suppose the places were described more vividly to create the world more fully- and IMO it certainly worked. I could go on much longer, having written about 8 pages on the subject for my English coursework, but what I have just said pretty much sums it up for me and so I won't bore you. Certainly the book has its flaws, and the films no less, but the book's strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. I would have to say its main strength is the sheer depth it goes into, with all the details of these separate languages and cultures that you find in each place- like Lothlórien, the Shire, Rivendell, Rohan, Gondor...oops, I said I wouldn't continue... <P>EDIT: Ahh yes, one last thing...frankly I was glad all these versions have left Tom Bombadil alone, because I think he is too individual and 'out-of-this-world' for any actor to achieve without him simply looking ridiculous, which he certainly is not in the book.<P>Oh yeah, and I think I recall that Merry and Pippin followed the Ring in the films because they were listening when they shouldn't have been and decided that they didn't want to be left behind. Not sure about the others though...<BR> <p>[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1 ]

[Olorin_TLA]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><P>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> *Gandalf speaks Black Speech*<BR>"Oh...heheh...jsut a joke of mine, Elrond!"<P>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Oh come on, thats dramatising it a bit. The dialogue they used was pretty much the same as they used in the book. <BR>And the line "Give it to me!" seemed like a quite powerful line from Sean Bean to me. And again it was taken exactly from the book :P <P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, I wasn't being sarcastic there. I was just pointing out how they <I>have</I> to basically slam the audience's face into the fact that Boromir's going to take the Ring isntead of letting it happen as some form of sursprise. For all PJ's talk of making Faramir "better" (ie: worse, imo) he should have paid more attentionm to that greta element of "surprise!" <BR>I actually really like what he did with old Boromir. Made me really like the poor guy. I just wish someone had siad at the Council of Elrond "Um...hang on...that guy's not safe to go with them!" after all PJ's zaniness.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Eurytus, I can see the point that you are making, but I think that you overstate it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Saucepan Man, yours was a good post and in reference to the above, I am aware that I may be overstating it and that, in part, is in response to comments like the below;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. Jackson’s is definitely not!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>People are describing the book as flawless so I hope I can be granted a little leeway. Bear in mind, after all, that I did state that LOTR is one of my favourite books. But favourite is not always best.

[Eurytus]

Essex, your point about the changes required and what should be emphasises was as follows;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Pretty much corroborates my main point. You say it yourself, a film is not a book. Therefore changes have to be made.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In regards to the above point. That is true of the Silmarillion. It was not originally true of the LOTR. That Tolkien later changes his mind is apparent from the sudden shift in the books tone subsequent to FOTR and especially after Rivendell. LOTR was originally started as a sequel to the Hobbit. Nothing more. Hence why Aragorn was originally a Hobbit called Trotter with wooden shoes!!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> one of Jackson's worst descisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (ie not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarissing to hear them speak like this). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually I can see why this decision was made. There is a precedent within Tolkien’s own writing. The Trolls in the Hobbit talk with a distinctly Cockney feel and this may well be where the idea came from.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> what motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film: <BR>1/ Merry<BR>2/ Pippin<BR>3/ Legolas<BR>4/ Gimli <BR>NOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In my opinion their motivations were not much better handled in the book. Sometimes comically so. Legolas basically appeared to be on a jolly although it was hard to tell given his comparative muteness.<BR>As to your other point,<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Whilst I disagree to some extent with the first point. Great characters can effectively do very little in terms of plot and still make a story interesting. Whereas a great plot will still be hamstrung by paper-thin characters, if we debate it we will get in endless debates about their relative importance.<P>However as regards the second point. Well I regard that as well wide of the mark. Firstly I will say that I cannot think of any work of art that can be termed flawless. Perhaps only Ein Kleine Nachtmusik by Mozart and Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony come close to me.<BR>In fact, take Salieri’s comment about Mozart’s music in the film Amadeus, “take away one note and there would be diminishment, take away a phrase and the structure would fall.” That is about as close to a description of flawless as one could get. Does it apply to LOTR. In my opinion, clearly not.<BR>So what do I think are the flaws in LOTR? Well a couple would be as follows;<P>1. The Dark Lord Sauron. A being of supreme evil, already somewhat of a cliché even by the time LOTR was written. Hell even the Wicked Witch had more characterisation than Sauron. The best villains for me are the ones you can understand. You may not agree with them, you may hate them, but you should be able to see why (in their opinion) what they are doing is desirable. Can this be said of Sauron? Not really. Why does he want to conquer Middle Earth? What would he do with it when he has conquered it? Why? None of these questions are clearly answered and all you are left out is a cardboard cut-out villain. He is evil because, well he just is, and all you need to know is that he opposes the good guys. For a great villain study the character of Jaime in a Song of Fire and Ice. For the first two books he is seen through the eyes of other characters and you hate him. But by book three you start to see things through his eyes and whilst it does not diminish the evil that he does. You can, at least, see why he thinks it necessary. The mark of great writing in my opinion.<BR>2. The ring. The ring was the only thing that Tolkien could think of to tie his two books together. He had originally planned to have Bilbo try to return his treasure but then settled on the ring as the important element. As a result some aspects of the Ring seem a bit haphazard. Firstly why does Sauron forge it? Well for power would be the obvious answer but do we really see any examples of the power this grants him. No. We don’t. Indeed shortly after forging it he is shown the worthlessness of his ring when the Numenoreans scare him rigid. It is interesting to note that he brings about their downfall without needing to rely on the Rings great power at all. In the book it does not appear to avail him any in the battle with Elendil and Gil-Galad either. In fact it seems to be more of a problem than a benefit.<BR>3. The Orcs. It has to be said that creating a race for your book that is born evil and incapable of anything other than evil is a little lazy. Basically it allows your pure-blooded heroes to slaughter thousands of them with total impunity. Far better to have some more shades of grey in there I think.<BR>4. Not dealing with the more interesting moral questions. One of the ones that interests me is the question of the Dunlendings. In the distant past they were evicted of their land by the blond haired, blue eyed Rohirrim. When they ally with Saruman to attempt to get their land back they are given a damn good kicking. Why is no attempt made to deal with the legitimacy of the Dunlendings claim to live on that land. Was it right that the Rohirrim evicted them from the lands? Seemingly it was fine. Why? Because the Rohirrim are the good guys so don’t ask questions.<BR>5. Lack of real loss. Tolkien vehemently hated being accused of this but I am afraid it does ring true. Frodo apart, no-one really suffers any in this story. Given that the heroes are often going up against near impossible odds the fact that they all come home again with hardly a scratch is very unrealistic and all the harping on about Frodo getting no credit and having to leave home won’t change that.<BR>6. Cardboard characters. See Legolas and to a lesser extent Gimli. I can’t see how there is no time to develop them in a 1,000 page book. With Legolas the shallowness of his character is near ludicrous. As well as that we have Boromir aka Bad Brother and Faramir aka Good Brother. Far too simple by far in the book.<BR>7. Tom Bombadil. I have already stated how vital Tom Bombadil appears to be. i.e. he isn’t. All adaptations take him out. Why? Because he is an indulgence on Tolkien’s part. He was put in originally because he was based on a toy that one of Tolkien’s children owned and later Tolkien ascribed nuances of him being the spirit of the Oxfordshire countryside onto him. Either way totally non-vital to the plot. Frankly nothing made me happier than when he was left out of the film. A stoned, dwarf hippy with yellow books would have invoked laughter from much of the cinema going public. And not in a good way.<BR>8. An inability to start the quest. How many ‘safe houses’ does Frodo visit en route to Rivendell? Answer, too many. Let’s see. He has supper with the Elves, has the same with Maggot, has a nice bath in Crickhollow, the same with Bombadil, gets looked after to an extent by Butterbur too. Those first 4 happen in the space of less than a week. Jesus Frodo, get going boy.<BR>9. Convenient events. All too often the good guys have something happen to get them out of a jam. The most talked about of which is, of course, the Eagles. Throughout the Hobbit and the LOTR they show up to rescue Bilbo and Co, help out at the Battle of the Five Armies, save Gandalf from Saruman, pick up Gandalf from the top of the mountains after his duel with the Balrog, turn up at the Battle at the Black Gate and then go to rescue Frodo and Sam. Forget about the Istari, Manwe should just have sent more Eagles. Added to them you have the Ents and Huorns sorting out Saruman and Saruman’s army at Helms Deep and The Deadmen sorting out the fleet of Corsairs near Pelagir. All in all there are too many occasions when the heroes are helped out.<BR>10. As I have already mentioned you also have the preference of description of surroundings to what goes on inside the characters heads (the latter is always more interesting) and the pompous dialogue that takes over in ROTK.<BR>11. The latter point also illustrates that the LOTR is an uneven book. It starts out as a sequel to the Hobbit and then progresses into a sequel to the Silmarillion and the transition is not as seamless as it could be.<P>I think in total that to describe LOTR as flawless is a stretch too far. It’s a good book certainly and we can give thanks that it invigorated (though did not invent) the Fantasy market. But when you start claiming that the book is sacrosanct and that any change is blasphemy well there is really only one solution that one can suggest isn’t there. Make a version that satisfies yourself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread has has taken a turn that is not only off-topic, but even off-forum! Since it began as a movie discussion, I can't really move it to the Books forum. However, I ask those who would like to discuss the merits of the book to find an appropriate thread on the Books forum or begin a new one there. Thanks!

[Eurytus]

I would only say that I am aware that my last post was 'book heavy'. However since many of the arguments in this thread are taking the form of "any change from the book is bad because the book is flawless" I do think that combating the idea that the book is flawless is necessary to illustrate that some changes were required.<P>However maybe my last post was a bit too 'involved'.

[Essex]

Eurytus,<P>I think I'll start a new thread in the books section to reply to you.<P>But when did I say that Jackson's was a bad film?<P>We seem to get two extremes of people in these forums. one lot loves the books and defend them, another lot love the films and defend them. It is hard to find the middle ground.<P>but to me, the films ARE dumbed down, and have to be. But what I will never agree on is adding in extra scenes just for "action's" sake, as Jackson does. This leads to more 'dumbing down'.<P>Anyway, see you in the book section......

[Essex]

Eurtyus. my reply to our long winded argument is now in a Duming down the books thread in the books section