[The Saucepan Man]

I am somewhat mystified as to why I am continually being pulled up on this thread for my references to the popularity of the films. I thought that I had made by position perfectly clear.

I am not saying that anyone’s (adverse) opinion on the films is wrong simply by virtue of the fact that they are popular. I fully respect that everyone has, and is entitled to, his or her own opinion. Nor am I saying that anyone should like them because they are popular. And I am most definitely not saying that the fact that they are popular means that they could not have been better. My opinion is that they could have been better and remained just as popular, if not more so. But, as I have said, you could say that about just about anything.

I do think that they would not have been as popular if some of the changes made to the story and the characters, with a view to (necessarily) simplifying the films and broadening their appeal, had not been made. In other words, I think that many (although not all) of the decisions taken with a view to achieving this goal were good ones. That is purely my opinion, although it is based on my own perceptions and experiences. I have no problem if people choose to take a different view, based on their own perceptions and experiences.

But I do firmly believe that, when we are discussing the merits of the films and considering the extent to which they have been (to use that expression that I dislike so much in this context) “dumbed down” and why the story and the characters were changed in the ways that they were, then their popularity is a relevant factor. In seeking (as far as we are able) to establish on an objective basis the merits of the films as films, their (popular and critical) appeal must surely be a factor. If they are popular and successful, then they must be doing something right (and all the more so if their popularity acquires a lasting quality, although we can only speculate on that at this stage). I am not seeking to suggest that this is the only factor in determining their quality, and there have been some compelling critiques on this thread of certain aspects of the films which do, to my mind, speak to their quality. But it is a factor nevertheless.

Moreover, almost without exception, the changes that were made were made with the aim of enhancing their success as films. Why else would they make them? They wanted the films to succeed as films and to appeal to as many people as possible. And the popularity of the films, to my mind, suggests that they succeeded in this aim. In all likelihood, they could have achieved greater success by making different choices. But, the way I see it, the fact is that they made the choices that they did and those choices were (broadly) successful ones in the context of what they were trying to achieve. The fact that inconsistencies were introduced as a result does not change that, although I fully accept that it is a relevant factor when considering their quality (provided that one takes into account the incredible difficulty involved in adapting such a complex and carefully crafted book to the screen).

In addition, given that this thread has, at certain points during its history, become rather a cosy film “hate-in”, I thought it worth pointing out that the majority view here is not the only view, in order to bring a bit of persepctive to the discussion. There are many many people out there that consider these films to be great films. Whether you agree with them or not, that is, in my view, a relevant factor in this discussion.

And finally, in view of some of the contemptuous terms used to describe these films and the oft prevailing opinion that Jackson and co “messed up big time”, I regard it as appropriate to point out that there are many respects in which they did not “mess up” at all, but rather succeeded wildly.

Again, I am not suggesting that anyone should alter their views on these films simply because they are popular. Neither am I suggesting that their popularity alone establishes their quality as films. I am merely raising it as a factor relevant to this discussion.