[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you want camp (or cheese), head to Isengard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Aw, you're just mad at Mr Lee because he refers to the films as capturing the essence of Tolkien, when he should know better. <P>Yes, although I dislike the phrase myself, I suppose that most of the examples cited on this thread can be described as examples of "dumbing down". Indeed, the films themselves represent an overall dumbing down of the magnificent tale told by Tolkien. But isn't this inevitable? The complexity of the novel is such that a significant degree of simplification was required in order to bring them to the big screen and make them accessible (and therefore successful). The films could never hope to capture anything like the scope and complexity of the books.<P>Personally, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I admire the immense amount of effort that went into these films and have enjoyed (and hope to continue to enjoy) them greatly. So, if a bit of dumbing down was required in order for them to be made, then I can live with that. My only real problem is when the attempted simplification of the story-line leads to plot-holes and implausible sequences, such as Frodo's confrontation with the Nazgul in Osgiliath. This is of course always going to be a danger with a story as complex and closely intertweaved as LotR. The quote given by lindil sums this up very well:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... as things move farther from their source and begining, that with out specific infusions from an higher order events will deteriorate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that, given the complex nature of the source material and the need to simplify it (or "dumb it down") so as to appeal to as large a cross-section of society as possible, it was inevitable that inconsistencies and implausibilities would arise. I may not agree with the manner in which Jackson and co went about resolving all of these issues, but on balance I would rather have the films in the way that they have been made than not have them at all.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Where we are witness to PJ's 'interpretation' we often see dumbing down, poor directing ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree with you here, lindil. Dumbing down yes, but poor directing no. Personally, I rate Jackson very highly as a director and I think that the overall standard of directing in these films is exceptionally high. As I have said, I may not like or agree with every single aspect of the films, but overall, I consider them to have been extremely well made indeed.<P>That is only my opinion, of course. But the popularity of these films (and the accompanying resurgence in the popularity of the books, I might add) and the critical acclaim with which they have been met is surely testament to Jackson's skill as a director. Yes, the nature of the source material helped in that he had a wonderful story on which tio base his films, but (as I have noted above) it also hindered, being highly detailed and interwoven and therefore requiring of necessity a dramatic re-working. And, of course he was ably assisted by a largely terrific cast and a higly adept production team. But it is (ultinately) the director's responsibility to select the cast and crew and bring them all together.<P>Jackson set out to bring the books to the big screen, make them accessible and give them mass appeal. He has greatly succeeded in doing so (I think that TTT is something like the third-highest grossing film of all time) and at the same time has received substantial praise from the majority of his peers and the media. Heck, RotK may even be the first fantasy film to win an Oscar. That certainly seems to me to be a job well done! <P>Sorry. I went on there a bit longer than I intended. But I do feel that Jackson does sometimes get an unduly raw deal on these pages, given the amount of effort and (to my mind) devotion that he has put into this project.