[The Saucepan Man]

Indeed, Bêthberry, a point that had occurred to me. And even now many academics and literary critics look down on LotR as "childish" or "boy's own" fantasy rather than a masterpiece of story-telling. And his books still get relegated to the sci-fi/fantasy section rather than the classic literature section in most book shops.

But let me nail this “confusion” issue.

First, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This is not clear at all. We see Faramir listening to the pleas of Frodo and Sam to release them, but he does not. Thus Faramir is set up as having something essentially cruel within his character.

I accept that the Faramir presented on screen is a different character to the Faramir in the book. Whether or not a particular character change was justified and how we respond to it is subjective. You think that it is wrong to portray Faramir as having any weakness. I think that it actually makes him more credible and appealing (in the context of the film). Opinions on that will differ. But it’s not something that is going to cause confusion with audiences. They just get a different perspective.

Originally Posted by the phantom

But since you brought it up the Faramir/Osgiliath episode also adds something confusing to the story. It introduces the infamous "Nazgul moment", which you must admit was horrible planning.

I said earlier that I thought the Nazgul incident could have been handled better. I have no problem with Frodo (film Frodo, that is) trying to offer up the Ring. The intention here is to provide a trigger for Faramir’s realisation that the Ring is dangerous and should not be brought to Minas Tirith. Together with Sam’s words, this is what prompts him to let them go. Osgiliath is actually closer to their destination that Henneth Annun, so he’s hardly doing them a disservice and he stocks them up with provisions. The problem lies with the fact that, the Nazgul having seen the Ring, Osgiliath should have been swarming with them within minutes. I would have preferred to see Faramir shoot the Nazgul’s Fell Beast, which would explain how Sam and Frodo were able to get away.

Originally Posted by the phantom

I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-

OK then. I shall address each one.

1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?

Of course she was surprised. She wasn’t expecting it. If she had been, it would have made her look weaker. They are on the threshold of Rivendell. It doesn’t take much wit to work out (with a little patience) that the flood was invoked by either Elrond or Gandalf, who we subsequently learn is there, or both (as in the book). I can’t recall, but it may even have been explained in the following scene with Gandalf and Frodo. (Lalwendë, in the book it was Elrond and Gandalf that created the flood, not Frodo.)

2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?

Because she’s an Elf perhaps? (I can’t remember whether the films explain that she is a Half-Elf, but it doesn’t need to be explained for film purposes.)

3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?

Flippant answer: In terms of when the films were released, these incidents were two years apart, so does it really matter? If you think that it does, well it is made clear that the Nazgul can be driven off by fire by virtue of the fact that Aragorn does just that. They withdraw to resume the chase at a more opportune moment. That much is clear (and mirrors what happens in the book). I don’t really care for the Witch King breaking Gandalf’s staff, but it can be explained. To my mind, the film quite clearly suggests (in the scene in Minas Morgul) that the Witch King’s power is increased prior to the attack on Minas Tirith (and I think that there is book justification for this). Even though he is still not as powerful as Gandalf the White, it is clear that, in Tolkien’s works generally, sheer power is not necessarily the determining factor in any hostile encounter. It is not difficult to imagine that the Witch King was able to seize the initiative and momentarily get the better of Gandalf.

4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?

Who says Saruman was always in contact with Sauron? Who says Sauron wanted anything to do with Saruman once he had been defeated? There are any number of reasons why Saruman would not be able to communicate this to Sauron. Perhaps Jackson is relying a little bit on audiences using their imagination rather than treating them like dummies.

5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Theoden try to get all those guys to help him before?

Not much different from the book, except the number of defenders at Helm’s Deep is smaller. As in the book, the full force of Rohan could not be gathered without a full muster. This is clearly explained in the film.

6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?

Not much different from the book, save for the absence of the barrow blade. Since it seems to be generally accepted that it was right to leave out Tom Bombadil, and therefore the Barrow-Downs, how do you suggest this could have been included? Personally, I would have preferred some indication that Merry had a magical blade, but this would have involved further additional material. In any event, it is explicable on the basis that Merry got a sneak attack in on him. And it took another blow to kill him. That doesn’t make him easy to kill.

Originally Posted by the phantom

And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."

The first is a line designed to clarify. It may not have been necessary for everyone, but it will have helped explain what was happening to others. The second involves a change in character. Not confusing, just different. The third is a rendering of a concept on which Tolkien was very keen: that even the most humble can “show their mettle” and prevail. And it doesn’t seem too badly written to me. As I have already said, there are few screenplay writers who could have come up with lines to match Tolkien’s original dialogue.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If he had not allowed needless alteration of such fundamental aspects such as plot and character then his films would have been even more successful.

Whether you agree with them or not, Jackson and co clearly did not feel that the changes were needless, otherwise they would not have made them. And they obviously felt that they were needed in order to make the films more successful. The films were stunningly successful, and so it is difficult (to my mind at least) to fault their the logic. Your theory, on the other hand, is untested.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The main criticism I hear about them is that at times they were confusing, and the confusion always occurs where the storytelling was changed.

I don’t doubt you. But it is entirely different from my experience. The only criticisms of the changes that I have seen are those made by people who had read the book beforehand. I read a good many newspaper reviews of the films at the time that they were released, and not one of them criticised them for being confusing or unclear. The only significant criticism that I can recall, in fact, is that the last film was too long and should have ended with Aragorn’s coronation. Which matches up to my own experience. The feeling that the film had gone beyond its natural conclusion was palpable in some quarters of the cinema where I watched it. Imagine if they had included the Scouring of the Shire (one of my favourite chapters, I might add).