# Dumbed down for movies, TV, etc. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 27, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421 "2009-07-27T13:57:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/41 "2009-07-28T22:14:34Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > On the subject of Contact, in the novel at the end the main character sets her SETI computers to examining Pi. And they find deep into it an indicator of a message, essentially a block of 0s and 1s that forms a square with a perfect circle in it. > > This would strongly suggest that the universe was created, that spacetime was designed to be as it is since Pi is built into the universe. If something encoded a message in Pi it did it from outside our universe as its laws and geometrical axioms were being written. > > That’s just fucking awesome. But I’m willing to bet the average matthew mcconaughey fan just isn’t up to it. 😃 This is precisely what I came in here to say - the ending of _Contact_ was definitely dumbed down to the lowest denominator and the ending of the movie, philosophically, is 180-degrees opposite from what was meant in the book. In the book, one person searches for God by means of reason and science… and finds evidence pointing towards a Creators existence. In the movie, however, this person glibly tells Congress (or whatever), “Well, hu-yuck, I guess you gotta take me on faith, yuck-yuck”, which is an approach Sagan argued _against_ in the book. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/42 "2009-07-28T22:20:11Z")
> [@Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](#): > > To be fair, “License revoked” would have made for a bad title song. They could have always got around that by not mentioning it, like they did for _Octopussy_. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/43 "2009-07-28T22:26:16Z")
> [@Push\_You\_Down](#): > > Remember that the GI JOE cartoon was made to support the first few waves of action figures. At that time Snake-eyes and Storm Shadow were becoming fan favorites thanks to kid support and Hama’s stories but not the central crux of the entire mythos. Considering that Snake-eyes got any play thanks to being drab looking for a cartoon and NOT talking is pretty remarkable. He was always treated as a solid second tier character. The cartoon came along slightly later than the first few waves, otherwise the Joes would’ve all been dressed in military green (other than Snake Eyes and Scarlett) and the Cobras would’ve all been the same generic blue clad soldiers. Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow might not have been the central crux at the time of the first miniseries, but they were getting there, and by the time the ongoing cartoon started they certainly were the most popular part of the line, both in the comic and with the toys (just try finding a Snake Eyes or Storm Shadow on the shelves back then, it was near impossible, and quite frustrating to my younger self). It was unforgivable to some of us kids how their whole story was completely ignored. You can say Snake Eyes looked drab, I guess because he was all in black, but where he might not have been colorful, he still looked really cool, and coolness overcomes lack of color. As for not talking, that right there makes my point that it’s dumbing down. It’s not like he could talk in the comic either (not even thought bubbles) yet he still had the best storylines. But they had to dumb things down for TV, so that mute guy, yeah, let’s marginalize him to the point where he could be replaced by Quick Kick and nothing would change on the show. That’s not even getting into how incredibly dumbed down (or more accurately dumbed up) the origin of Cobra Commander was on the toon compared with the comic. Snake people, wtf? ---
**Author:** ![Harvey\_The\_Heavy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Harvey\_The\_Heavy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harvey_The_Heavy)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/44 "2009-07-28T22:51:30Z")
Jurassic Park III, Dr. Grant, a paleontologist, calls an aviary a “birdhouse”. I know there was no novel that it was based on, but it seemed obvious the scriptwriters thought the average moviegoer wouldn’t know what an aviary is. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/45 "2009-07-28T22:53:19Z")
> [@Harvey\_The\_Heavy](#): > > Jurassic Park III, Dr. Grant, a paleontologist, calls an aviary a “birdhouse”. But then we get that awesome line. “It’s a birdhouse.” “For WHAT?” BIRD ATTACK! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/46 "2009-07-29T12:23:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > my favourite spoof of dumbing-down is [this adaptation of _Watchmen_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w). Whatever, n00b, this _nails_ the tone of the original graphic novel. ---
**Author:** ![Chanteuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de053/32.png) [@Chanteuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chanteuse)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/47 "2009-07-29T13:20:11Z")
> [@The New and Improved Superman](#): > > 1. In the British mini-series _the Life and Loves of a She-Devil_, the self-absorbed romance novelist is on the phone with the manager of the rest home. > > Rest-home manager: “You’re mother simply needs a little T.L.C.” > > Novelist: “T.L.C.? What’s that?” > > Manager: “It stands for Tender Loving Care…” > > And then, in the Hollywood movie _She-Devil_ that’s based off the mini-series, the dialogue in that scene is repeated almost verbatim, with a small change - > > Manager: You’re mother simply needs a little T.L.C." > > Novelist: “T.L.C.? What’s that? _Is that some new kind of drug?_” > > Manager: “It stands for Tender Loving Care…” > > In the British version, the fact that the novelist doesn’t know what T.L.C. stands for says all you need to know about her relationship with her mother. In the American version, somebody decided the audience simply wouldn’t get it, and that it was necessary to add that extra little dig in there. Funny–I never thought of it as “dumbing down.” I always saw it as describing a woman who is so self-centered that she’s oblivious to the concept of loving and caring for her mother, so into her own little world that she’s never heard of the phrase TLC and has to have it explained to her. I saw the scene in light of the fact that her mother had in fact been, until recently, constantly sedated, so that it was natural for Mary Fisher to assume that the manager was suggesting a new and better medication. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/48 "2009-07-29T13:39:42Z")
> [@Chanteuse](#): > > Funny–I never thought of it as “dumbing down.” I always saw it as describing a woman who is so self-centered that she’s oblivious to the concept of loving and caring for her mother, so into her own little world that she’s never heard of the phrase TLC and has to have it explained to her. I saw the scene in light of the fact that her mother had in fact been, until recently, constantly sedated, so that it was natural for Mary Fisher to assume that the manager was suggesting a new and better medication. I would say that the whole stupid U.S. “She-Devil” movie was a profound dumbing-down from the brilliant British “Life & Loves of a She-Devil”. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/49 "2009-07-29T14:34:34Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > He’s also not the type to go for “Amantine”, which is not even a type of wine. > > In the book, Lecter mentions a “big [Amarone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarone)”. Sometimes it’s simply acknowledging the fact that in a book, you can stop and digest what someone has just said and go look up a word that you aren’t familiar with if you need to. In a movie, if you throw the audience something too unexpected, you either have to stop and explain it or risk the audience missing the next 15 seconds of dialogue while they try to process whatever their ears tripped over. Variety of wine notwithstanding, I daresay most laypersons would trip over someone describing wine as “big.” ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/50 "2009-08-01T19:15:13Z")
Starship troopers,the original Heinlein novel contained some radical ideas,the main character was not an out and out hero,the troopers actually used tactics when fighting,the enemy although alien had a structured,believable society whereas the the movie wassssssssss ,yes tripe,total unashamed tripe. An insult not only to the author but to the viewers intelligence as well. And then the sequel… Talk about twisting the knife. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/51 "2009-08-01T22:02:28Z")
I think in a way the film of _Empire Of The Sun_ is a “dumbing down”. In the book, part of what makes it so interesting to read is that the boy very much identifies with his captors, he respects the Japanese, and their brutality IIRC. This was alluded to in the film but never really explored. ---
**Author:** ![Sebastienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a698b9/32.png) [@Sebastienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sebastienne)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/52 "2009-08-02T06:30:51Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > I recall, when the James Bond movie “License to Kill” came out in the late 80s, it was based on a book entitled “License Revoked”. The argument I read at the time was that the producers believed that too many Americans wouldn’t know what “revoked” meant. It would not at all surprise me if a producer really did expect American vocabularies to be so deficient, but I think “License to Kill” is ultimately a better title. “License Revoked” takes a non-Bond fan a moment to figure out (if they recall that Bond has a special sort of license at all) whereas “License to Kill” is immediately meaningful. I remember, as a kid, thinking the Ghostbusters movies were dumbed down from the cartoon. 😃 The cartoon did often have mythology references, a more developed universe, and the plots did vary quite a bit in how our heroes saved the day, but looking back I’m not sure if I’d really count it as being a smartening up either. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/53 "2009-08-02T19:24:40Z")
The Hunchback of Notre Dame. On the one hand, you’ve got Victor Hugo’s tragic novel with its themes of social justice and religious fanaticism. OTOH, there’s the Disney cartoon. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/54 "2009-08-03T00:26:03Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > I think in a way the film of _Empire Of The Sun_ is a “dumbing down”. > > In the book, part of what makes it so interesting to read is that the boy very much identifies with his captors, he respects the Japanese, and their brutality IIRC. This was alluded to in the film but never really explored. I watched this film the other day, and his respect for the Japanese was a main feature of it. He bowed down before the camp commander, stood saluting as the kamikaze pilots were ordained and sang a song in honour of them, and often spoke about how much better Japanese planes were and how he thought they’d win. At the end, his friend was a Japanese boy, albeit briefly. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/55 "2009-08-03T00:37:03Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > I watched this film the other day, and his respect for the Japanese was a main feature of it. > > He bowed down before the camp commander, stood saluting as the kamikaze pilots were ordained and sang a song in honour of them, and often spoke about how much better Japanese planes were and how he thought they’d win. At the end, his friend was a Japanese boy, albeit briefly. I haven’t seen the film or read the book in recent years but IIRC it was much more explicit and problematic in the book and I think there’s even sections where in contrast he describes his disdain for the Chinese. Those sections in the film can be interpreted as childish interest in pomp, soldiers, aeroplanes and the like. I probably should reread and rewatch the respective works though. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/56 "2009-08-03T00:53:42Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > I haven’t seen the film or read the book in recent years but IIRC it was much more explicit and problematic in the book and I think there’s even sections where in contrast he describes his disdain for the Chinese. Those sections in the film can be interpreted as childish interest in pomp, soldiers, aeroplanes and the like. I probably should reread and rewatch the respective works though. TBF, I haven’t read the book, so I can’t make any comparisons. It’s just that his adoration of the Japanese (especially Japanese pilots) is so obvious in the film that it’s hard to imagine it coming over stronger in the book. He even wants to join the Japanese air force himself. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/57 "2009-08-03T00:58:11Z")
I think perhaps you can more fully realise the implications of this adoration in the novel as compared with the book. Damn, I need to get my hands on both again. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cactus\_waltz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@cactus\_waltz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cactus_waltz)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421/58 "2009-08-03T11:28:48Z")
> [@kitemaker\_chuck](#): > > This all kind of sounds somewhat similar to the ol’ “As you know Bob” information dump. My friend, who studied film science, refers to it as “[chunking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(writing))”. At least when it comes to pieces of dialogue that are meant to fill in the viewer of past events, in ways that are often quite strained. “How are you, Alice.” “Well, after that horrible accident last week, the one in Chicago in which I lost both my parents, I have been quite sad.” “I see. Just like how I was saddened shortly after, when I lost my job.” Of course, this is not dumbed down as much as it is sloppy writing. However, the “As you know Bob” trope, where a biologist explains to another biologist what photosenthesis is, is dumbed for sure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dumbed-down-for-movies-tv-etc/504421.md?page=2)