A theory

[Bacchus]

At the outset, let me say that I am not attempting to denigrate or in any way belittle the opinions of any individuals. I am honestly curious about this, and I think it might make for an interesting discussion.

Is there a correlation between the age of individuals and their willingness to accept changes made to the story in the movie adaptation? Speaking for myself, I made a conscious decision to seperate the books from the movies, and to judge the movies based upon their own merits or lack thereof. Having done so, I can honestly say that I think the movies were very well done, despite the fact that certain plot and character elements were changed to a greater or lesser degree. But here's the catch. 15 years ago, I would have been screaming to the heavens about the changes. I would not have been able to evaluate the movies beyond noticing all the myriad little (and big) changes. Even more recently, I recall being angry at hearing that Elijah Wood had been cast as Frodo-Frodo was 50, not 20. Perhaps age has mellowed me to the point that I no longer consider it critical that the movies match precisely. I really don't know.

Thoughts?

[Elf Girl]

Eh- no. I'm 13, jerseydevil's an adult, Ruinel's 7000. I can't speak for the pro-movie faction.

[Dúnedain]

Well as I think I've made it apparent, I am a huge fan of the books, but yet I am in the same boat as you Bacchus. I love the movies and appreciate what they have accomplished, changes or not. I am 25...

[zinnite]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well as I think I've made it apparent, I am a huge fan of the books, but yet I am in the same boat as you Bacchus. I love the movies and appreciate what they have accomplished, changes or not. I am 25...

Me three? While I do dislike some of the stuff in the films, I also keep them seperate from the books (as I do with almost all book-to-film adaptations).

I'm 28 by the way. I don't think age has as much to do with one's reaction as does one's familiarity with the books. Maybe the less experienced fans are more accepting of the films because they've read the books only once, maybe twice, as opposed to a grizzled old Tolkien veteran who has the background and knowledge to be more critical. I know a couple 15-16 year olds who fall into the latter category, and old fogeys who fall into the former. Age really isn't the issue, IMO.

[Beor]

I agree, age doesnt really seem like an issue, more of a personality thing, how much you are willing to budge on the subject. some will not budge at all, and some will. It just depends on how you view the books. Same with that Jesus movie that is coming out (I dont know what it is actullly called), some people will probably hate it, and some will like it. Just depends on how you view the suject matter.

(if you can find one coherent thought here, you win!)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
Even more recently, I recall being angry at hearing that Elijah Wood had been cast as Frodo-Frodo was 50, not 20.

I want to correct you on this. He was only 50 in hobbit years. Going by that fact that "coming of age" occurs when a hobbit is 33 and is generally 18 for humans (in todays age). Therefore Frodo would have been similar to a 27 year old human - which I believe Elijah Wood did perfectly. I never had a problem with Elijah Wood as Frodo - he actually looked like I thought. Except for the ridiculous eye rolls and stuff, which I blame the director for - I think he did a good job.

As for the question at hand - I'm not going to claim I kept them seperate. I expected certain things from the movies - especially with Jackson's proganda of saying how much he couldn't change this or that and then to go into the theater and see Flight to the Ford. I was expecting a more intelligent movie and not a dumbed down action movie with the cliched cheap low brow jokes. As movies go - I think they are just average. Great scenary though - he captured the LOOK of Middle Earth great.

And yes - I am an adult. And I do not like the movies. I don't even have the extended edition yet and not sure when I will get it. The only real reason I need the movie is so I can discuss it on the moot.

I read the books 12 times in 6 years starting when I was a freshman in high school and reading them two times a year (spring and fall). Zinnite - I was one of those 15-16 year olds who fell into the latter category. I used to know everything about Tolkien and Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings. Sadly I have lost too much of my knowledge. But I do know that Jackson's movie does not contain the heart and soul of the Tolkien.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

JD: I think it was actually more of a difference in culture than actual biology. Remember, Hobbits usually lived to be about a hundred years old; that is of course much older than humans, but if the Hobbit "coming of age" were to be equated to the human "18", then Hobbits ought to live nearly twice as long as humans, as of course 33-18=15. So I think it's more of a cultural thing, though there is some biological difference. However, I will agree to the extent that it wasn't bad, since Frodo was pretty well unchanged from the age of 33-50.

I used to keep the films separate; in fact, when BB categorized the purists here a long time ago, I coined the term "Separatist Purist" to describe myself. However, I am afraid that since then, my love of Tolkien has been traumatized severely by the same BB's constant singing of the praise of Jackson and his nigh on perfect adaptation, which has made Tolkien's work better (but not replaced it ) to the point that I'm afraid my "separatism" has been damaged too severely to be used for some time in this regard.

[brownjenkins]

36 here... little or no problem with the changes

i don't know if your theory is true for every individual... but there may be a general trend... rock-solid principles in my teens became nice ideals in my mid-20s, and are now just something to write about on message boards

When you say that you agree with a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. ~Otto von Bismarck

[Valandil]

Originally posted by zinnite
I'm 28 by the way. I don't think age has as much to do with one's reaction as does one's familiarity with the books. Maybe the less experienced fans are more accepting of the films because they've read the books only once, maybe twice, as opposed to a grizzled old Tolkien veteran who has the background and knowledge to be more critical. I know a couple 15-16 year olds who fall into the latter category, and old fogeys who fall into the former. Age really isn't the issue, IMO.

I'm quite OLD , (41!!!) - there seems to be no correlation with age though, from the posts here.

I disagree that it's familiarity with the books though. I think another poster was perhaps more on target when he mentions "personality". I have read the books a number of times now - at least 6 or 7. I prefer the books as books, but I like the movies - and concede that they're probably better as movies than a direct translation (not sure if that's the best word - it'll have to do) from the book to a movie would be as a movie.

[The Gaffer]

I'm 38, and you can put me at the point on the spectrum that says

"Design and production excellent. Realises that changes have to be made in adapting a book, but felt that some of them weren't the right ones or didn't work."

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I'm 38, and you can put me at the point on the spectrum that says

"Design and production excellent. Realises that changes have to be made in adapting a book, but felt that some of them weren't the right ones or didn't work."

I DO agree that I don't like ALL the changes, but I figured there'd be some changes and couldn't expect to like them all - just from personal preference.

Would you say though, as I would, that all-in-all, you're glad we have the movies... warts and all?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, looks like I'm the senior here at 48 I read the books when I was 16 and have read them several times. I remember way back when, looking forward to the Bakshi film coming out. Went to see it and was quite disappointed, although I think it was a bit truer to the books. I have to say that I have enjoyed the Jackson films and found that I could seperate myself between books and movies, but with some disappointment at times where the films just may have gone a bit too far or not far enough, with the omission of certian characters, and what I thought were some drastic changes in scenes that were unneccessary and at times just plain silly, but overall, I liked the movies. I have found that you have extreamists with both movies and books, and then you have your seperatists. Not sure how much age has to do with it, but how much you know Tolkien and how far your devotion goes, and can you still be a devoted Tolkien fan if you like the films, or is it a crime to try to have an open mind. Does liking the films condem you as a true Tolkien reader?

[azalea]

I think you might be onto something. I haven't seen anyone over thirty who comes on here rant about how they hated the movies as adaptations. It's those hot-headed youths. Then again, I don't know the exact ages of some of the adult mooters, so I don't know that we can ever get a definative answer. Plus, I do know someone IRL who thought they were poorly adapted and he is over thirty. So who knows. It might have more to do with feeling compelled to speak one's mind than how much one did or didn't like them (IOW, the younger ones who didn't like them tend to post about it more, whereas an older one would not, perhaps viewing posting about something they didn't like as being a waste of time. Conversely, if you like something, you want to post about it no matter what your age. I don't know, I'm just guessing.)
BTW, I'm 32, and although I had criticisms, I enjoyed the movies.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Well, looks like I'm the senior here at 48.

Depends on your birthday.

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Does liking the films condem you as a true Tolkien reader?

If my experience here at the moot is any indication, it does. It's a shame that a talented group of Tolkien fan filmmakers can't be respected and appreciated for what they've accomplished. Instead of calling the changes made by the filmmakers "silly," Tolkien Purists might want to take a few minutes to browse the EE of FOTR and TTT and understand there were very important reasons for everything they did -- or didn't -- do. You don't have to agree with the choices they made, but at least respect the fact they were made for valid filmmaking reasons.

[Bacchus]

Thank you for the responses thus far. I have a few reactions:

1. jd, I disagree with your model equating 33 to 18, but further discussion of that is probably better addressed in a separate thread in the books board.

2. I intentionally omitted my age so as not to bias the hypothesis, but I'll gve it now. I am 33, and first read the books about 20 years ago. Since then, i've read the books on average twice annually.

3. I took a university Tolkien class at age 28. I recall having feelings of trepidation going in, relating to Tolkien's admonition (in "On Fairy-Stories") against overanalyzing the 'bones' that fed the 'soup'. I worried that academic study of the works might destroy the magic. I was mistaken in my fears. My feeling is that taking the class and being forced to think about the works in new ways both increased my appreciation and expanded my tolerance for other interpretations.

4. brownjenkins captures my thought well. I have no doubt that there are exceptions to my posited theory, but I was curious to see if generalizations were possible.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If my experience here at the moot is any indication, it does. It's a shame that a talented group of Tolkien fan filmmakers can't be respected and appreciated for what they've accomplished.

There you go again. Jackson has given NO indictaion that he is actually a fan other than him saying he is a fan. But he has also said many ignorant things and obviously doesn't know the books as well as he tried to claim.

As for respecting the filmmakers? I don't have to respect them. I think some of their changes were crap. I don't care if it was Tolkien himself who did the movies. I think they were dumbed down hollywood action movies.

Instead of calling the changes made by the filmmakers "silly," Tolkien Purists might want to take a few minutes to browse the EE of FOTR and TTT and understand there were very important reasons for everything they did -- or didn't -- do. You don't have to agree with the choices they made, but at least respect the fact they were made for valid filmmaking reasons.

They were NOT made for valid filmmaking reasons - they were made because Jackson wanted to make a fantasy acrtion movie - not Lord of the Rings. There is NO excuse for Flight to the Ford, there is NO excuse for the dwarf tossing jokes, there is NO excuse for osgiliath or Faramir. He may say he has reasons and usually his reason are just becuase he "needed to make it more intense"

So don't feed that old line about he had to do everything the ay he did it becuase of the restraints of making the movie - he didn't. It's a load of bull.

An I did look at the EE of FotR - I just don't buy his proganda and trying to convince the Tolkien as to why he did things.

[Bacchus]

azaelea, you also make good points relating to selection bias. Can we generalize based on a possibly biased sample?

[Bacchus]

The point of this thread is NOT to discuss whether the movies were good. It is rather to discuss whether ones perceptions of the movie might correlate with age.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Bacchus
azaelea, you also make good points relating to selection bias. Can we generalize based on a possibly biased sample?

Maybe you can, but I have no idea what that means. (I'm a dunderhead when it comes to probability and all that mess, and greatly respect people who can...probabilize. )

[BTW, I forgot to mention in my first post that I first read LotR all the way through when I was around 14 (my dad had read book one to me when I was about 8).]

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by azalea
Maybe you can, but I have no idea what that means. (I'm a dunderhead when it comes to probability and all that mess, and greatly respect people who can...probabilize. )

[BTW, I forgot to mention in my first post that I first read LotR all the way through when I was around 14 (my dad had read book one to me when I was about 8).]

LOL! Sorry, I drifted into technical jargon. Basically, the point you raised is a common problem in statistical analysis. If a subgroup (say for instance movie haters under 30) is more likely to respond than other groups, generalizing to the overall population is a tricky proposition.