So I know we have talked a lot about this, but I wanted to go into it a little bit more. Last class we talked about how books tend to have more wrap up at the end, like Tolkien, he ties up all the lose ends to his book, telling us what happense to all his charcters after the quest is complete. Obviously, the movie does not do that as much, taking away some of the end material, such as the scourging of the Shire. And while we all like to complain about that, I do think it was a smart part for the movies. With a book, it is easy to see how much is left, and we can alwasy go back to a specific page and pick it up from there. With books, you are spending a lot more time in them, so you want to know everything that happens. But it is really different with movies. Basically, you only have the audience for 2-3 hours (yes I know that LotR movies are longer, but humor my point) and they are only devoting that amount of time, so they want to see the resoultion at the end of it. When you have a visual story that keeps going after the climax, the audience rapidly loses interest, which is something that can happen in both film and plays. By making the decision to not keep going, I think the movies are doing a good job of keeping the audience in mind.
Movies overall, tend to be a bit more accessable to people, people dont really want to devote too much time to reading books now (this is a broad statement). It is a lot easier to sit down and watch a movie and learn the story than it is to read +1000 pages of a book. However, because the movies hit all the big plot points and does so fairly well, it sparks interest in the story, and would direct more people to then go and read the books. Its a good starting point, especially when considering how overwhelming the books might be at a glace. I know we all like to talk about what the movies did wrong and how they should be better, but not everyone is taking a class on Tolkien and movies are an easier way to consume media.
I really appreciate this post because these are points that I've wanted to say for a while but I wasn't quite sure how to articulate them! Being someone who was initially introduced to the Lord of the Rings through the films, when I first read the books and witnessed all the extended endings and plot details, I realized how it's difficult to compare the books to the movies. You're definitely right about how an audience's expectations for a movie are almost completely different to a reader's expectation for a book. Movie audiences generally limit their attention and interest to that 2-3 hour period and thus I find it hard to discredit the LOTR films for removing some smaller plot lines (or at least ones that are not obvious to the central story). Considering other book-to-movie adaptations that strayed drastically from the source material, I personally believe the LOTR filmmakers did an impressive job adapting such a lengthy book series. Sure, they took their liberties here and there for the sake of drama and intrigue (again, factors that excite and attract movie audiences), but despite those thing, I can still appreciate them for what they are.
ReplyDelete