[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But its more complex than that, &, as I said, it goes to the heart of Tolkien's philosophical vision/perspective. Staying faithful to the book is more than a matter of making sure Hobbits are half the size of humans & that Orcs are ugly, Elves beautiful, etc.

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it comes down to whether the concept of Saruman being a seperate, individual threat to the "good guys," or being a puppet/underling of Sauron would be too complicated and confusing, or not.

I don't think that it does come down to that at all. As I tried to explain in my post, it comes down to whether having Saruman, the main villain of the first two films, as an independent agent would have lessened the impact of Sauron as the main enemy overall. I think that it would have done.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I always get a little wary of an argument where filmmakers start shifting the blame onto an audience that -- without sugarcoating it -- is too dumb to get it.

That's not the argument that I am making. I certainly do not think that most viewers would be too dumb to understand the concept of an independent Saruman without getting confused. As Boro points out, it's a fairly straightforward concept that has been deployed to good effect in a number of films. The difference however is that, in those films, we get to see the main protagonists on each side plotting, talking, acting and reacting. We get to see nothing of the kind with regard to Sauron. Jacskon could have chosen to portray him as an active character, but I think that he made the right choice not to do so (and to stay faithful to the book in this regard). However, we do get to see a lot of Saruman (again, a correct choice in my view). To have Saruman as independent would have created an imbalance, in that he occupies most of the screen time (in the first two films) as the directing force of the Free Peoples' enemies, yet the audience was told at the outset that Sauron was the main enemy. The solution to addressing this imbalance was to set Saruman up as a "Sauron substitute" for the first two films.

So it's not about dumbing down the film for poor dumb audiences. It's about the balance of the film trilogy.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I like the way the book builds some mystery about what has happened to Gandalf -- he fails to show in Bree as promised, there are signs of his having been at Weather-top, etc. -- and I wonder if a similar construction might have worked here in the film.

I like this aspect too, and I think that this structure could have worked on screen. But I also believe that the structure which Jackson chose works well. They would create different tensions, but I could not say that one way would necessarily be better than the other in the context of the films. Incidentally, in the book, I think that the structure chosen for the films in this regard would not have worked nearly so well. Not quite sure why, but perhaps the answer lies in that old chestnut, the PoV.