[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Rather like the little girl with the curl - when the films are good, they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> For me, it's more like - when the films are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad, they are mildly irritating. <P>When I first read LotR, aged 11, it seemed to me to be an action/adventure story and I enjoyed it on that level, and, perhaps more subconsciously, on an emotional level. My favourite chapter at that age was Helm's Deep. Re-reading it as an adult, I have gained much more from it intellectually. When I see the films, I think that they appeal to me in much the same way as the book did when I first read it. So the fact that it does not explore the book's themes as deeply as does the book does not disappoint me.<P>But the themes are still there. Dininziliel said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Again, if people come away from seeing one of the movies pondering and commenting on even one or two of the themes--faith, Love, commitment, hope, friendship, forgiveness, salvation, the wages of fear, the consequences of lusting for power and/or immortality--instead of the grandeur of special effects, stunts, and how cute an actor/actress was, then much can be forgiven. But I just don't see how that can happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How can anyone (adolescent blood fest fans and Nazgirls apart ) watch these films and not be moved by Frodo and Sam's friendship (and Merry and Pippin's, for that matter), Sam's loyalty, Gandalf's hope and faith, Aragorn's love for Arwen, the Fellowship's committment to the cause, the consequences of Saruman's lust for power etc? These themes may not be as developed as they are in the book, but they are present. And this, to my mind, is one of the reasons why the films have been so much more successful than any other film in the same genre to date. That is why people who would not ordinarily have any truck with Hobbits and Elves have reacted so favourably to these films.<P>I believe that it was suggested further up this thread that Jackson's films glorify war. Nothing could be further from the truth. In depicting the war against Sauron, Jackson, like Tolkien, is depicting a war that (like WW2 but <B>unlike</B> WW1) had to be fought. But, unlike Tolkien, he goes out of his way to depict the horrors of war. I found the scene before the Battle at Helm's Deep, where the children and old men are being armed for the forthcoming battle, with looks of utter dread and horror on their faces, to be exceptionally moving. That, to me, is a prime example of material that was not in the books which adds greatly to the film by conveying the very real horror of the situation they are facing.<P>If people think that the films glorify war, they are getting the wrong message. Just like (to use an extreme example) White Supremacists who hold the book up as encapsulating their beliefs are getting the wrong message. (Really. There is a website devoted to such bunk. There is a link somewhere around here if you don't mind being revolted by the dangerous rubbish that they spout, but I will not give it here.)<P>And just because some spotty, testosterone-driven youths see only the battle scenes and the Legolas stunts, it does not follow that this is all there is to the films. To my mind, these films are still conveying essentially the same messages as Tolkien was in the book, just in a more user-friendly package.<P>And, much as I love the Bakshi film (it is part of my childhood), I really cannot see that it can hold a candle to Jackson's films, whether we are talking faithfulness to the source material, visualisation or direction. (By the way, Eurytus, Celeborn <B>is</B> pronounced Keleborn ).