[Sauron the White]

[QUOTE]

The coincidence of three indicators, two of which are entirely arbitrary, carries no more weight than a single indicator. Remember Titanic? Boxoffice success is useless as a barometer of quality, and the Oscars hardly better.[/QUOTE]

These are not arbitrary. They are the three most obvious measurements of the success of a film as utilized and respected by the film industry and those who consider it an artform. Using these is an attempt to take this discussion beyond the personal whims of the individual regardless if it is you, me or anyone else.

Each and every individual person can posess their own measurement of what makes a good film. I am sure that for some out there the number of car chases or body count is their scale. For others it may be hot sheet activity of sexual intensity. For some it may be eye candy or display of fashion or bling. To each their own. And for others it appears that the scale employed is "how faithful is this film to its source material".

However, as personal as any of these scales of success may be in measuring the film for an individual - or even many individuals who may share it - it means nothing to the film industry and to those who follow film as an artform.

Worldwide box office is the measurement most dear to the studio which makes and distributes the film. How could anyone using rational thought not take that into account? Awards such as the BAFTA's and the Academy Awards are a public expression as to how the people who make up the motion picture industry feel about quality films. You are being flippant when you claim it is hardly better than the measurement of box office. To the people who make films, they are of a very high importance. They are also an expression of a degree of quality.

So you did not like TITANIC. That is your right. It did garner 11 Academy Awards and is the top grossing film of all time. Does this mean that every one of those persons who paid over $1.8 billion US dollars for a ticket is a raving idiot or cretin? If they do not like what you like they are those who dwell at the bottom of ignorance? Obviously, the people who make films felt that it was done well, was a quality film, and rewarded it. Of course you have the right to not care for it. But it looks like TITANIC was a huge success for its makers and for the vast majority of people around the world who purchased tickets to see it.

That leaves the professional critics. However, of that body of critics, some have never read Tolkien, most read him years ago and barely remember the book, and none are students or scholars of his work. Now it's not to be denied that Jackson's movies are fairly decent by big, splashy Hollywood standards- but it's no good appealing to film critics as to their legitimacy as renditions of Tolkien. You can't deny that with one or two exceptions the Tolkien-scholar community has been unremittingly hostile to these films- do not their opinions count?

It is not the job of the professional film critic to be an expert on the source material of any film if it is adapted from a previous source. It matters not a bit if they had read LOTR a dozen times or not at all. Their job is to be educated in the standards of what makes a good film and to be able to apply and employ those standards to what they see on the screen. Being a scholar or a member of the Tolkien community is irrelevant to thier job and profession.

In fact, you ask if the opinion of the Tolkien community counts, and I would say it is irrelevant to the question of the films quality. That has already been decided - and decided rather overwhelmingly in landslide fashion - by the three types of measurement used in the film industry.

The idea that some in the Tolkien community have adopted - (and I stress the use of the word some because it has never been demonstrated that this is the dominant opinion) - that the films are failures because they are not faithful enough to the books IS A STANDARD THAT CAN NEVER BE SUCCESSFULLY MET BY ANY FILM MAKER ADAPTING A BOOK. A book and a film are two different things. Period. They are like comparing apples to cinderblocks.

I remember seeing the film FOREST GUMP some years ago and enjoying it. Then I read the book upon which it was based and found it horrible. Besides being not especially well written, it had strong tinges of racism throughout it that I found disturbing. The filmmakers had cleansed their film of that undercurrent, had strengthened the story greatly, and had produced a very successful film by the three normal indicators of measurement. I shudder to think what the film would have look liked had it been a "faithful" adaptation.

The idea of a book being "faithfully" adapted is immaterial and irrelevant to the success of a film as a film.

Ah, you call this 'snobbery.' No, it isn't. It is perhaps slightly defensive. For half a century we've been assailed by sneering Literati (the real snobs) who dismiss the Lord of the Rings as merely an exciting adventure story- likened to Boys' Own or even Biggles. What is maddening is this lot's utter lack of perception, a failure or refusal to see beneath the surface, to get beyond mere chases and fights and monsters. But nearly as maddening is the indisputable fact that many Tolkien 'fans' are similarly blinkered, failing to see that JRRT differs not only in degree but in kind from hacks like Brooks and Eddings.

Ah. So this is some type of payback then is it? The Literari dismissed something you liked - LOTR in book form - so now its your turn for payback since the film experts embraced and rewarded LOTR in film format. Not the strongest or most noble of motivations.

If all you see in the Jackson films are monster and fights then I think you have not seen the same three films that I and millions of others have seen. Perhaps you are a "glass is half empty" type of person ? Perhaps you watched it expecting that anything less than a slavish page by page translation to the screen would be less than acceptable?

There is beauty in the films. There is the subtle and the sublime. There is the history and lots of backstory that the vast majority of filmmakers would have never included. There is characterization of true human emotion. Its all there if you look with an open mind that was not made up. It also helps not to view the films with eyes, mind and heart locked in with standards that are irrelevant to a films success.