[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Now now Bb. As you know, I have never sought to claim that popularity is the only consideration in matters such as this. But it is a relevant consideration. If these moments of humour work for the majority of audiences (and my experience suggests that they do), then surely that goes some way towards justifying their presence.

It is all very well to talk of the qualitative aspects of these humorous moments, but this is very much a subjective matter. They do not appeal to many participating in this thread, but they do (in general) appeal to me. And they similarly appeal to many who have seen the films. It seems to me that it is difficult on subjects such as this to express much more than one's own subjective opinion (and, of course to point out how well these moments went down with "the masses" ). Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bêthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous . And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is. If a certain instance of humour works for its audience, then it is "good humour" in my book. Although that is not to say that it will necessarily appeal to me. For example, I have never understood the appeal of Friends but, given how popular it was, the writers were clearly doing something right.

It has been said that the more - um - rudimentary humour in the LotR films seems out of place. But is it really? Or does it only seem out of place because those posting here are intimately acquainted with the literary work on which the films are based? That is certainly the reason for my limited reservations over some of the humorous moments. But Jackson's motivations, intentions and objectives were, as I have said many times before, quite different in many respects from those of Tolkien. And the medium of film is a markedly different one from the medium of literature. In this regard, it seems to me that Holbytlass's comments are well made. It is only the likes of us, Tolkien fans all, that analyse these moments of the films down to the nth degree and find this kind of humour out of kilter with Tolkien's style. Of course, it will not appeal to everyone, whether or not they have read the books, but there is little, if any, humour that has truly universal appeal.

I find the comparison of Jackson's style with the styles of the likes of Lucas and Spielburg an interesting one. There is of course a subjective element attached to the question of whether they are (or were, when at the same stages of their careers) better directors, but they are good comparators as their "blockbuster" films appealed (in their time) to the same kinds of audiences as the LotR films do now. Jackson certainly has his moments that do not appeal to me. He is overly unsubtle in some of his direction and perhaps too ready to appeal to the "lowest common denominator". But neither Lucas nor Spielburg is without his clumsy moments. Both have a tendency to cloying sentimentality, Spielburg especially, which is not to my taste. And this is something that I find happily absent from Jackson's films. Lucas also seems to have a tendency to employing overly-cute creatures. Witness the Eowks and Jar-Jar Binks. Both mistakes in my opinion, but that's just my view. And neither is averse to using obvious humour on occasion, although perhaps their styles are not quite as crude as Jackson's.

I originally made a quick (glib) comment on this thread, hoping to get away with it. No such luck, with the likes of Bb and co around. So I suppose that I had better elaborate on my views concerning Jackson's use of humour.

The first point to make is that Gimli's wisecracks and flatulence are not the only forms of humour employed throughout the films. There are some wonderfully gentle moments of comedy, particularly those involving Gandalf and Sam.

But let’s look at Gimli. Now let's face it. He is not the most developed character in the book. In a film, even three very long films, there is scant time available to develop those characters who are not central to the plot, so he was never going to get even the (limited) measure of development that he gets in the book. So it seems to me that Jackson looked to focus only on the main aspects of his character that are apparent from the book. In this regard, there's his developing friendship with Legolas (and the associated theme of reconciliation between Dwarves and Elves), his skill in battle and his humour. Jackson incorporates each of these themes in the films, devoting as much time as he is able to each.

Ah, but doesn't he "warp" the humorous element of book Gimli's character? Well, yes he does. He makes Gimli and Legolas a bit of a double act, with Legolas playing the straight man to Gimli's wisecracking clown. The refined Elf and the unrefined Dwarf. A double act comprised of two opposites. It's a tried and tested formula (R2D2 and C3PO anyone?). And it works well with the theme of their developing friendship. An attraction of opposites. But why make Gimli's comedy (at times) so unsubtle and obvious? Well partly, I think, to accentuate the contrast with his film partner, Legolas. But also, in my view, because otherwise few would remember him. With Orlando Bloom's looks, there is no such danger with Legolas. But a gently humorous Gimli would not stick in the minds of many among the audience for this film (ie those who did not know him from the books). He would simply be the short bearded bloke who, along with everyone else, kills lots of Orcs. Rather than making him look silly, I think that his humour makes him a very appealing character to many who have gone to see the films. After all, what do they care of noble Dwarven lineages etc?

As far as Jackson's use of characters for humour goes, I was more concerned over his treatment of Merry and Pippin. Throughout the first film and for much of the second, they were used simply as a comedy double act. That was practically their only contribution. And, to my mind, there is certainly far more to them in the book than simply two clowns who like their mushrooms and pipeweed. The lack of any clear reason for them joining Frodo and Sam (and the absence of A Conspiracy Unmasked) means that (initially at least) we miss their bond of friendship and loyalty to Frodo and their immense courage in the face of unknown dangers. And the films failed to make any real attempt to distinguish between them, whereas, in the books, they are very sharply delineated. Of course, Bilbo apart, they are my two favourite characters in the book, so I am bound to find this rather annoying. As far as non-book readers are concerned, they make a very good comedy double-act and the set-up works very well. They become memorable and well-loved characters despite the limited time available for character development. Indeed, I have seen few complaints on the Downs concerning their treatment in the films, but there we have it. We concentrate on that which concerns us most. At least they got to prove themseves as more than mere clowns in the latter half of the second film and during the third film (although Merry was rather short-changed in the theatrical release of RotK).

Finally, I cannot let these comments pass:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

However, there are those who are strictly film critics, who have no prior reading to the books, who can pick a part the movies. There are a lot of editting mistakes, the people in charge of making sure there are no "mistakes" in the film missed a LOT.

Generally (as I have sought to establish elsewhere in this forum), the films were very well-received by professional film critics. The editing mistakes are, I would say, par for the course on a massive project such as this. And they are really only noticed by those who have a particular inclination to notice such things (or who have watched the films many many times).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

... there are times that he just slips back to his previous mediocre days

I have not seen a film by Jackson that I would describe as mediocre. Gross, low-budget, amateur and unsubtle are words that I would associate with his early films, but not mediocre. And Heaveny Creatures was a wonderful film, with very little evidence of the "heavy-handedness" with which he is otherwise associated.