Giggles

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Quite so. And that is why I voice my (dissident, as far as this forum is concerned) opinions on these kinds if threads.

. . .

I agree wholeheartedly. But this is the problem with judging Jackson by Tolkien's standards. Jackson's approach and intentions were different in many significant respects, and understandable (in my view) by reference to today's "mass market" approach to films such as these.

Not necessarily, but generally so with "blockbuster" type films. As I suggested, that gets us back to the question of whether it was "right" in the first place to adapt Tolkien's work as "blockbuster" films. Should the “masses” (and I include myself in that) be given what they want, or should artists be seeking to “refine” their tastes. The latter may well be a laudable aim, but an unrealistic one, I would say, when we are talking about action films made specifically for the mass market. ...

Of course we always welcome your "dissent"voice, Sauce. Some of us, however, don't think "popularity" is always the most logical way to extend the debate.

I think any artist has the right to develop his or her own interpretation of another work, no less than any reader or viewer does.

The issue, I suppose, is how that secondary work is described or presented. If it is marketed as, "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings" comes to the screen!", then I think, yes, we have quite a legitimate right to consider how valid or effective that statement is, as it suggests some kind of faithful rendition of the original work.

If the secondary work is marketed as "Peter Jackson's Interpretation of LotR", then we can compare the two works for their differences and discuss how those differences change the story. The degree of "faithfulness" to the original becomes part of the discussion but would not be a defining aspect of the comparison.

Clearly, there was more brewing in Jackson's imagination than just his love of Tolkien. His concept of film also went into his vision, a concept in large measure devoted to his admiration for Lucas and the Star Wars trilogy. I think it is as legitimate to explore the relationship between Jackson and Lucas as it is between Jackson and Tolkien. To my mind--and this is just my humble opinion--Jackson does not see farther when he stands on either giant's shoulders.

As I have argued elsewhere, Lucas' use of humour is coherent with his characterisation, plotting, action, etc. I cannot now think of any line which made me groan. With Jackson, there are many. Now, is this a failure on Jackson's part or does it represent his own particular kind of humour? And perhaps my criterion of artistic unity or wholeness or coherence is, well, just too darn old fashioned. But my point has always been that Lucas' humour (as well as Tolkien's humour) enhances the story. (I would say this also about Speilberg's Indiana Jones blockbusters.) But Jackson's use of humour gets in the way of his own depiction of the story. I don't think he is as good a blockbuster filmmaker as Lucas or Speilberg. Or at least not yet.

Life is short. Art is long. Time alone will tell. imho