[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You provide a very interesting distinction between the way we read books and the way we read movies, SpM, but I don't think your dichotomy fits everyone.

Well, of course everyone approaches both books and films differently. We are all, after all, unique. But I think that, as a general rule, it is fair to say that the immediacy of films allows for a certain degree of leeway in the detail, whereas the opportunity for reflection allowed by the literary medium means that authors don’t necessarily have this luxury.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did.

Well I am not going to sit here and say that the (original) Star Wars films are not classics. I would put the LotR films on a par with them. I think it is probably right that they are more coherent and consistent, but the basic plotlines in the Star Wars films are far simpler. Jackson was dealing (and by necessity trying to simplify) some pretty complex source material. And you have to admit that the Ewoks were a mistake …

Also, the latest two instalments of Star Wars are a lot less smooth and do have a number of inconsistencies, which suggests to me that Lucas is not necessarily a better director than Jackson. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. But perhaps it is just a sign of the times, in that Lucas felt that, with the times-a-changin', more was expected of him and that he had to alter his approach to suit a more modern audience. (It is, after all, primarily only the Star Wars fanatics who have been up in arms about the recent films. Hmm, is there maybe a parallel here? )

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That doesn't hold true in my experience. I've had so many people ask me about incidents in the films which they did not understand or which they saw as inconsistencies and time and again I have to explain to them what the meaning of particular scenes was.

I do still doubt that this is an issue with a majority of viewers. It is certainly not my experience. But I would be interested to know whether they still enjoyed the films and whether they felt that these incidents impaired their enjoyment in any way. Were they particularly bothered by them? Might the fact that they noticed them have been because they felt particularly engaged by the films?

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?

My point is that these inconsistencies don’t seem to have greatly affected the popularity of the films. Nor were they picked up in the many reviews that I have read, which I would expect if they were major issues to anyone but Tolkien fans. It just seems to me that the vast majority of people were not really bothered by them.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The complaints I have about the movies are, necessarily, based entirely on my appraisal of them. Certain things about the movies didn't make sense to me; certain things bothered me. And it doesn't improve my esteem of these points in the slightest to know that others were not bothered by them.

Well, as I have said may times, the view one takes of the films is necessarily a subjective matter. I am most certainly not trying to tell you that these things shouldn’t bother you because they did not bother other people. But I am interested in trying to understand why you (and the majority of other contributors to this thread) were bothered, irritated or angered (as the case may be) by them and why many others were not.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I would agree that Lucas did better with regard to these things than did Jackson, and I think that the Star Wars saga is an excellent demonstration of the fact that movies can be just as coherent, as well-constructed, and as powerful as can books.

I remain highly doubtful that an entirely consistent film version of a book as complex and intricate as LotR could be made unless it duplicated virtually every scene and every line of dialogue from the book. Every omitted or attenuated scene or change made for filmic purposes has a knock on effect which has to be addressed in some way or other. And every director will emphasise his or her own themes and place his or her own interpretations on what is important, which will again have knock on effects. The whole Faramir/Osgiliath issue arose because Jackson and co did not want to lessen the power of the Ring in the minds of audiences and because they felt that some tension in the journey of Frodo and Sam was necessary at this point to counterbalance the action in Rohan. That seems a perfectly justifiable decision to me. Although it may not be one that you agree with, there was a filmic reason behind it. But in consequence of this change, they had to come up with a reason to have Faramir let Frodo and Sam go. Hence Frodo’s encounter with the Nazgul (which is my only real issue with the whole sequence of events). I tend to think that they could have come up with a better way of doing this. But the fact remains that it is a knock on effect from the changes they made earlier for what I see as perfectly valid filmic reasons and in those circumstances I think that (whatever the quality of the director, scriptwriters and film crew) inconsistencies will arise when the source material is so finely wrought.

Originally Posted by lord of dor-lomin

Obviously, yes, in some ways that must be true. If inconsistency exists but is not noticed by someone then that person is definitely less... what should I say... observant.

I disagree. If a person is less inclined to be bothered by an inconsistency, then they are less likely to notice it. That does not necessarily make them any less intelligent or observant than someone to whom the inconsistency is a major issue. As you said yourself:

Remember, WE are the Tolkien fanatics. WE, here on this site, are the Albert Einsteins of all things related to Tolkien. We are the experts. We are the ones who notice the most. We are the ones who see inconsistencies where others don't.

I entirely agree with this. It does not make the “Tolkien fanatic” any more discerning on a general level. Just more discerning on this particular subject. And, the way I see it, the films are not just for the Tolkien fanatics.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I think that SpM is arguing a slightly lopsided case in saying that it is possible to enjoy the movie as separate from the book, when you know the book with a strong degree of familiarity.

I don’t see the “lopsidedness” here, when that is precisely what I am able to do. What I really want to understand is why others here cannot do so, and what factors are involved in this. Certainly, close familiarity with, and emotional attachment to, the book is a factor. But I am not sure that it provides the entire answer, as I am clearly not the only Tolkien fan who is able to enjoy the films without letting the many issues that have been brought up on this thread significantly impair my enjoyment of them. And I trust that my "Tolkien fan" credentials, and those of others who have the same approach, are not in question.