[The Saucepan Man]

Eurytus, I can see the point that you are making, but I think that you overstate it. I would never say that LotR is flawless in technical terms. But, of all the books that I have read (including a good many "classics" as well as popular fiction), it is the one which I have most enjoyed and which has made the greatest impression on me. Of course, there are many who disagree, who regard it as "just a good yarn", or who slightly deride, or actively dislike, it. And there are numerous academics who argue that it can never be counted among the classics because it is "only fantasy" or by because it suffers from the supposed technical flaws that you have identified. Witness its treatment by the "media" and "academic" panelists on the BBC's "Top 21 Books" program the other night (which I thought was shameful - one woman described it as "rubbish" having not even read it - "life's too short," she said ).<P>But there are a good many other people (including myself) who would count it as their favourite book, regardless of whether it might also be regarded as a technical masterpiece. It has, after all, made it in to the BBC's "Top 21" (and it will be interesting to see how it fares now).<P>But all this talk of the merits of the book is rather off topic. This is the film forum, after all. Nevertheless, it is the great love that people here have for the book (technical flaws aside) which is behind the adverse reaction that the changes made in the films frequently receive on these pages. Sometimes this is too extreme for my tastes (the "Arwen hatered" syndrome, for example), and sometimes I do think that people risk being as "snobbish" about the films as the likes of the BBC panelists were about the book. But at the same time, loving the book as I do, I can understand where they are coming from.<P>Personally, I don't mind the changes per se. It is when they lead to plot holes that I have my doubts about them. But, you are right, a fairly large degree of "dumming down" was essential, given the complexity of the story told in the book and the sometimes archaic language used. I made this point earlier in this thread, when I said I thought that this was a good thing overall since it makes the films accessible to all, not just the Tolkien afficionados. Without it, there is a good chance that these films would never have been made (at least not on such a grand scale with such amazing visuals). <P>Incidentally, I do dislike the term "dumming down", used in the context of these films. It suggests that anyone who sees the films but has not read the book is ignorant, which is manifestly not the case. They just don't have the inclination to read the book, which is of course their right. It does not mean that they necessarily are any less intelligent than those who have read the book.<P>I think that someone mentioned "Matrix Reloaded" earlier on this thread, which I saw on DVD recently and would certainly regard as a film which could have done with some "dumming down", or perhaps I should say explanation, for those like me who are not "Matrixites". I have seen the first film, but that was some time ago now, and so I spent the first 20 minutes of this film wondering what an earth was going on. Once I had worked that out, I had to go back and replay some of the opening scenes again. And I don't regard myself as a "dummy" . I can therefore imagine how the LotR films might have been received by non-readers had the story not been simplified in the way that it was.<P>Finally, I had an interesting conversation last night (in the context of the BBC's "Top 21" list) concerning the extent to which the films may have lessened the degree of seriousness with which the book is regarded. Has the reduction of the story to blockbuster film status, and the simplification that this has necessarily involved, reduced the standing of the book in any way? Personally, I think not, since (as I touched on earlier) there have always been, and will always be, those who will never regard this book as a serious work of literature.