joxy said:
That wouldn't work in most of the industries I've been used to. Maybe it's the sheer luxury of having so much money to spend that encourages such a casual attitude, but there again, you don't expect half the seats to have vanished from your plane between stopovers....
Personally I have never seen the disappearing barrels, and I assume that I've watched TT more often then you, since I actually enjoy it while you seem so irritated by the last half. However, I've read the
books many (MANY) times, and in all of my editions I notice typos- missing hyphens, missing 'ings', etc. Is the publishing industry as incompetent as the film industry? Can you name any industry which doesn't produce something analogous to a "typo"?
As for the 'closeness' of the film industry, this is approaching absurdity:
Professional critics, who are only successful in that people agree with their recommendations, say that the films are
technically good. This can be observed in both the tomatometer score and the average rating at the
Rotten Tomatoes Web Site, where the three films averaged a 9.0 Average Rating (RotK highest at 9.2) and a 96% approval rating (TT highest at 98%). The first two were each given the Web Site's "Best reviewed movie of the Year" award, while RotK was runner up to Finding Nemo this year. Now, if the critics are needlessly praising
these movies (and why should they? Was the world's supply of critics bought off in its intirety by PJ?), then the general movie audience will see that they have lied, and the critics will lose credibility. The livelihood of the critics relies on them giving an honest and 'accurate' opinion of movies- what makes you think that they are going to threaten that by saying these movies are good, if they really aren't? Perhaps the critics are nothing more than a bunch of close-minded, elitist snobs who only give movies good reviews so that they can then laugh at the poor misled public?
Fair enough, we'll ignore the issue of the critics for a moment. What about the general audience who sees these movies? Amazing! Each of the films has had staggering box office success. Each of the first two have reached the top 5 Worldwide grossers (as can be seen
HERE)- and Return of the King is likely to become #2 all time! People from all countries, of all walks of life love these movies.
"Box Office numbers" you sneer (well, some of you do). "
Argumentum ad populum. People who dish out money for moooovies are generally idiots- just look at the #1 grosser of all times:
Titanic!" OK, fair point. At least about Titanic.
How about a slightly more select group- the audience viewers who vote at IMDB? These are people who enjoy movies as a hobby- not "professional" critics, yet more film savy and less vulgar than the dirty proletariat. IMDB allows these people (quite an international group, I've found) to rate any movies they care to on a 1-10 scale, based on enjoyment and
technical merit. The results for all users who vote are tallied, adjusted to get a true Bayesian estimate, and then the top 250 movies are given glory in a list to be found
HERE. Hmm- scanning through the top 10 movies on the list I see almost no matches with the with the top 10 Box Office numbers- movies that do well in terms of box office like Titanic, Spiderman, or the Phantom Menace, are nowhere to be seen in the IMDB top 10. But of course, I said
almost. There are three,
and only three movies that make it on to both lists- those three being
The Fellowship of the Ring,
The Two Towers, and
The Return of the King. Amazing that the only three movies in both top ten lists happen to belong to a single trilogy! Could it actually be a reflection of the fact that these movies are good? Really,
really good even? But no, Shirley even IMDB is corrupted by the dirty common masses- the sort that goes in for such wastes of celluloid as
The Godfather,
Casablanca,
The Seven Samurai, and
Citizen Kane. Who could trust these sorts of people in their appraisal of technical merit?
Fine, I guess we have one chance left. If all we are interested in is something objective about these movies, something that speaks to tangible quality, perhaps we can look at industry professionals. These are people within the industry, who have been educated and steeped in all things that comprise cinema. If there is such a thing as a film cliche, then these people know every cliche there is. These people also know every 'trick' of the trade- if someone is consistently cheating the audience (i.e. jump cuts), then it will be noticed and rightfully condemmed by the people in the industry. So how does this last bastion of hope for objectivity feel about the trilogy? Fantastic- they have given them all manner of awards, from director, to screenwriter, to best picture, to cinematography, to score, to writing, to visual effects, to editing. Wow! And not just the American Film industry- the trilogy has done extremely well with the BAFTAs and
the Golden Globes, which I believe is largely composed of the Hollywood foreign press. So do we now admit that the movies are good? Of course not!!! Far more likely that the film industry is a group of back-slapping insiders, whose greatest joy in life comes from rewarding eachother for achieving ever higher pinnacles in momentary episodes of incompetence!
So what are we left with? Well, we can't bother jallan with the masses, as they are entirely too given to mindless entertainment. Do we want our opinions to be affected by people who watch Reality TV and attend Monster Truck rallies? Of course not.
And joxy remains equally skeptical of the critics and the film industry. Critics apparently derive some hidden pleasure from deliberately misleading their audience, while the sinister Film Industry is an old boys club, whose praise is meaningless because it comes from within a group that produces refuse like
The Shawshank Redemption and
Schindler's List. And some people have the temerity to suggest that these people are
artists!
And you know what? I am fine with this!! Reaction to a movie
should come from the viewer- if you don't like a movie it shouldn't matter that you're the only one in the world who doesn't like it. However, personal opinion is by definition subjective. If all objective measures are categorically disallowed in evaluating these films, then jallan can hardly say
jallan said:
The flaws in the book seem to me to be less serious and to come far less thickly than they do in the film. Part of the reason critics concentrate on such hard errors, however trivial, is that hard contradictions are easier to prove in debate than matters of style and tone and pacing and character. The Jackson-purist can more credibly and perhaps honestly deny perceiving the problems that the critic sees when style and tone and pacing is at issue. Errors more clearly proved are harder to deny.
The mantras "I accept it!" and "I don't see the problem!" don't work so well. If one points out enough such errors it becomes harder for an opponent to claim that the less provable lapses are all illusory.
Films like Casablanca have notorious lapes in logic and yet are still considered great films. But two or three great errors in logic and sensibility, even when they involve the foundation of the plot in the film are more easily overlooked when all else is so well done. Jackson stumbles more with far less reason.
This is a reliance on some sort of objective "hard errors". However, we have just denied the opinion of any group that can evaluate in an objective manner!
What's the point of my long-ish post? Well, it's to either accept that liking/disliking the films is subjective in nature, or to accept that objective measures of the films (as shown by the links which I have provided) show them to be on the same level as some of the "Greatest Films" ever made- rated higher, I note, than
Casablanca.