[The Saucepan Man]

* Pandora and Eurytus. On the Barrow-Downs, we try to be respectful of the views of others, even though we might not agree with them. Discussions soon break down into slanging matches where people fail to adhere to this simple rule. So please moderate your posts and refrain from indulging in personal abuse. *<P>Lalaith what you say about the films working on a visual and (to varying degrees) emotional level, but failing on an intellectual level, is interesting. I agree that the films downplay much of the intellectual content of the books, although I would not describe them as devoid of intelligence. And I actually think that they work very well on an emotional level. The Aragorn/Eowyn relationship seems little different to me in the film than in the book. They have just played up the tension with Arwen on the "will she stay or will she go" issue.<P>In any event, the focus on the visual/emotional at the expense of the intellectual represents, to my mind, a good decision on the part of Jackson and the script-writing team. These kinds of films (action/adventure) work best on the visual and emotional level. That is not to say that those, like me, who enjoy these films are ignorant. It is just that we want to enjoy experiencing what we are seeing and feeling without having our attention diverted by complex issues requiring us to stop and think them through. Films like this work on an instinctive level. It is all about making them accessible.<P>Clearly, both you and pandora would have preferred to have seen a different kind of film. One which did not focus so much on the action/adventure but encompassed more of the intellectual breadth of Tolkien's work. I have no doubt that such a film could be made, although I agree that Jackson would not be the man to make it. But I suspect that it would have failed to raise the financial backing required to bring Middle-earth to life in the visually stunning way that Jackson has been able to acheive. And I strongly suspect that it would have been a far less successful film, in terms of box office receipts and critical acclaim. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the bizarre Aragorn horse-snogging scene, the to-ing and fro-ing in Fangorn and Osgiliath did NOT add anything to the cinematic experience. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree that Aragorn's white water adventure was gratuitous and unnecessary. Although I felt that the Arwen scenes were necessary, they could have been worked in elsewhere. Much of Fangorn I like, although I would have preferred to see the Ents make up their own minds to go to war. On the other hand, these scenes did give Merry and Pippin a chance to develop in stature (in more ways than one ), a process which is very much central in the third film, by the sound of it. Osgiliath (or something like it) I thought was necessary. A climax was required for the journey of Frodo and Sam to mirror the grand climaxes of Helm's Deep and the Ents' attack on Isengard, but it had to be one which would not overshadow them. Osgiliath provided this, although I think that it could have been handled better.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I went to see the film three times, each time with people who had never read the books, that is, representatives of those 'mass audiences' that PJ was trying to appeal to. They felt confused and bored by those scenes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen is a total flop; no one I have talked to - man or women - cares a jot whether he character lives or dies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>On the other hand, everyone that I have spoken to about these films, both fans of the book and those who have never read it, enjoyed them tremendously. It's funny how we can all cite examples of people who hold the same views as us, isn't it? <P>Suffice it to say that I disagree with much of what you say, pandora, on the merits of the scenes and characters that you refer to. There is little point in debating it further, however, since it will clearly make no difference whatsoever to your view. You are entitled to your opinion. I simply object to you stating points in a manner which suggests that they are absolute truths. They are not. They are matters on which opinions vary. Some acknowledgement that you are setting forth your opinions on these matters would not go astray, and would perhaps lead to a more constructive discussion.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I never said, and will never say that the film should have stuck rigidly to the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Eurytus, pandora is right on this (although, pandora, the preceding sentence is a prime example of where a little toning down would have been in order). Pandora, I accept that you are not simply claiming that the films should have followed the books in every respect (as some do). The difference between us is that I understand and, for the most part, accept the editorial and directorial decisions that Jackson and co made, whereas you clearly do not. I have little problem with them because they mostly work for me and because I accept that it was necessary for the film to achieve popular and critical success to recoup the financial outlay involved. As I said above, you would clearly have liked to have seen a different kind of film, one which, I suspect, would not have beeen anything like as successful as these films have been.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet no one ever offers any evidence of why they are well directed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is not true. Just take a browse through some of the older threads in this forum (this is, you will not be surprised to hear, a debate that has been raging for a long time) and you will see numerous explanations as to why certain scenes work on a cinematographic level. If you are really interested, take a look at some of HC Island's posts. He has not posted here for a few weeks (I suspect that he's avoiding RotK spoilers), but he is someone who has a good feel for film-making and a knack of explaining how and why scenes in these films work. Personally, I find it difficult to explain why a scene works for me: it just does. I have tried to set out my thoughts in a number of older threads, but I do not propose reiterating my arguments here because it would be going back over old ground and, in any event, there is, it seems, very little prospect of changing your mind. As I said, if you are interested, try browsing through a few old topics.<P>As for Jackson's skill as a director, Eurytus is right, in terms of what Jackson set out to acheive. Jackson set out to bring Tolkien's story to the screen in a format which has mass appeal. He has succeeded overwhelmingly in doing so. He is therefore very good at his job, ie directing. He may not appeal to you as a director, but that makes him no less skillful at what he does. Some of the directors that you have listed do not appeal to me. I do not enjoy their films. And yet I recognise that they are highly skilled directors.<P>And finally, once more, please can everyone show a little more respect for each other from now on. <p>[ 9:40 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]