[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Now, we'd better get back to discussing this sequence before The Saucepan Man shows up.

Here I am!

Unfortunately, I have not really had the time to contribute to these discussions as much as I would like. But I have been keeping an eye on them and, while they make very interesting reading, I do tend to agree with the general thrust of Essex's point.

There is certainly room in this discussion to critique the films and say what you don't like, what doesn't work and what you might have done differently. But there is also room to say what you did like and why you liked it, to discuss the film-making techniques that Jackson uses and to consider why Jackson made certain decisions (whether you like them or not). It does seem to me that the discussions to date have focussed on the negative at the expense of the positive. It's not a question of not criticising, but of getting the balance right. Too many posts have swathes of comments on what people didn't like with only a sentence or two saying "Oh, but I liked X". It would be nice to know why you liked "X" and how you think it adds to the films (rather than simply because it was how it was in the book).

Suffice it to say that, had I been able to contribute more, my comments would have focussed more on the positive. We have already covered some areas where I think that Jackson uses the film medium to great effect - particularly in the visual context. Some of the camera-work is top notch (the sweeping shot from the top of Orthanc down into the bowels of the Orcs' delvings, for example). I will try to go back and contribute where I can, although there is a lot to catch up on.

In the meantime, it would be good if people could give some more thought to the positive aspects of the film to balance out the negatives. Remember that these films are not just adaptations of a greatly loved book. They are films in their own right too. And they deserve to be considered as such rather than solely as adaptations.

Oh and alatar, you are doing far too good a job here for me to react too much to your comment about Jackson only making LotR only so he could make King Kong. But I will say this. While it is undoubtedly true that Jackson's first love, in film terms, is King Kong (as it was the original 1930s film which inspired him to start making films), I don't think that this diminishes his admiration for LotR. He is on record as saying how much he loved it when he first read it as a boy, and his tribute to Tolkien on recieving the Oscar for Best Director spoke volumes to me of his admiration for the man. It's probably true to say that he does not quite have the same feel for the book as many here, but then you must remember that we are a fairly exclusive bunch.

Oh and King Kong is a great film.

Now, on with the discussion ...