[The Saucepan Man]

I've said my piece (at interminable length) on other threads, so I won't bore everyone again here. Suffice it to say that I have been an enormous fan of LotR (the book) for many years <B>and</B> I like the films. Not mutually exclusive.<P>But, one point, Squatter:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Now this is not the director's fault alone. All of these changes have the look and feel of having been dreamed up in a board room somewhere by a group of fat businessmen, whose reading for the past ten years had consisted entirely of corporate motivational literature; the sort of people, in fact, who would have been financing the whole enterprise. That's the problem, you see: those who paid for the project are a bunch of money-grubbing cretins, so the film had to be one that a money-grubbing cretin would imagine to be obscenely profitable. Unfortunately the original material was articulate, thought-provoking and intelligent, which are three things that the average executive will immediately write off as too risky for investment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My understanding is that they had great difficulty persuading the investors to go with one film, let alone three. I think that it was originally to be made with one film company, but when they insisted on only one, or at most two, films, one of the executives insisted that three were needed and set up a new film company to make it.<P>Now, I'm no apologist for "fat cat" businessmen, but of course they will be concerned about not making a risky investments. That's their job. And a good many great films would not have been made without them.<P>In fact, those who invested in this film were taking quite a (calculated, maybe) risk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there had been a blockbuster film in the fantasy genre previously (a few minor hits, maybe, but nothing really big). And yet they invested huge amounts of money in not one film, but three films all to be made at once and without really knowing what the audience reaction would be. Maybe they anticipated the success of the Harry Potter film that was then in production, but it was still a risk.<P>And I don't think that this is a "lowest common denominator" film. Yes, the characters and story were adapted for a modern audience, and of course the screenplay pales in comparison with the original words, but there are a lot less "intelligent" fantasy and sci-fi films out there). <P>So, personally, I'd much rather have these films than nothing at all ... and then go back and read the books (which is precisely what I did after watching FotR.<P>Oops - slightly more than one point, so I'll leave it there. <P>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]<p>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]