Entertainment Weekly calls LOTR Trilogy second best movie of the past 25 years

[Lush]

Does anyone else think they listed Spinal Tap at 11 for the sake of a gag?

LOL

All lists like that are highly subjective, and usually take into account not only the quality of the actual film, but things such as hype, star-power, nostalgia etc. (which is why I think "Casino Royale" is on that list, not that's a bad film.... just... new classic? I don't know).

I can make my own top 25 list, and I'm sure plenty of people would call it idiotic as well. In fact, I know they would.

But if you're in entertainment journalism, this is the sort of thing you do. It's fun, to be sure.

[Sauron the White]

To say that anyone could make a list or somebody does not like something completely misses the point. I would assume that in both the AFI survey naming FOTR as the #2 Fantasy Film of all time, and in the EW article, there was some sort of process, using various peoples ideas and critieria employed. For anyone - regardless of who you are - to compare one individual with the AFI - is more than a bit of a stretch and minimizes the honor by reducing it to the whine "its only an opinion and mine is just as good".

In point of fact. Its not.

Or if it is, please make you list, alert the media to your results, and I will stand by an await the resulting press coverage.

I love this site because of all the knowledge that people have about Tolkiens writings.
I find it wonderful in that respect.

When it comes to the movies and knowledge in general about how they are made and what the process is, it does come through loud and clear many times, in many threads, from many people, that the opinion of the movies displayed here is far more negative and far more petty and far more mean spirited than most other Tolkien sites.

I take the rose with its thorns.

[Nerwen]

So far, nobody on this thread has expressed surprise that LotR is on this "best movies" list. We are just wondering at some of the other films being on it. I mean, why is Titanic in third place? Not a bad film, to be sure– but the third best of the past twenty-five years? Really?

To put it another way– actually, these lists are subjective. Getting a job with EW does not grant you some extra-sensory movie-judging power that can't be argued with.

the movies displayed here is far more negative and far more petty and far more mean spirited than most other Tolkien sites

Really? I can see that your thought process regarding this thread has been as follows:

EW staff put LotR on the Top 25 list.
Downers question EW staff's taste (based on other choices).
Therefore they're questioning the worth of LotR.

Right?

Because even when we describe it as one of the

great films

we're just dissembling in order to, I don't know, lull you into a false sense of security, are we?

[Lush]

To say that anyone could make a list or somebody does not like something completely misses the point.

I didn't say "anyone" can make a list, I said I can make a list, and I am not anyone.

Furthermore, I'm glad the movies made it to that list. I don't like "Pulp Fiction" nearly as much as I like this trilogy, personally. And I would argue that it is a more accomplished piece of cinema, no matter how much I dig Tarantino.

[Sauron the White]

Nerewen..... if you go to other sites .... lets use theonering.com or theonering.net or board77 or halloffire or many others, you will find the opinion on the movies is not universal. I agree with that. But, and lets be frank here, there is a very loud contingent here who take real pride in putting on an air of superiority which goes something like this
*** we read Tolkien before Peter Jackson was born
*** we know more about Tolkien than most other people
*** we are above the crass commercialization of Hollywood film making
*** its the rest of the world that is badly out of step by embracing these films
*** poor Professor Tolkien was coerced by a bad evil government into making a bad deal to seel the film rights in the first place

Those ideas come through in many posts, from many people in many threads on this site.

Yes, I have read the posts and understand that many other EW selections on this list have been attacked. But is that not to give the tar and feather treatment to the very idea of putting LOTR on the list? After all, if you can show that there are silly or worthless selections on the list, then it also calls into doubt the inclusion of LOTR in such a lofty position doesn't it?

As I have stated, I return to this site again and again because it is a wonderful source of knowledge and information about Tolkien and his writings. There are many wonderful people here. But to deny the anit-film bias among a large crowd here is simply a denial of reality.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

As I have stated, I return to this site again and again because it is a wonderful source of knowledge and information about Tolkien and his writings. There are many wonderful people here. But to deny the anit-film bias among a large crowd here is simply a denial of reality.

I still thinking you're missing the point, Stw. Nobody was denying any anti-film bias. That wasn't even brought up. All that Nerwen was saying was that nobody is saying anything negative about the films being so high on the list. If anything, everyone said positive things.

Pretty much what it looks like is a misunderstanding- you thought they were attacking the movies, but they're not.

Anyway, I say ...congrats for LotR being #2! Although I think it should be #1, I won't have qualms with such a classic as Wizard of Oz.

[Sauron the White]

okay

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Yes, I have read the posts and understand that many other EW selections on this list have been attacked. But is that not to give the tar and feather treatment to the very idea of putting LOTR on the list? After all, if you can show that there are silly or worthless selections on the list, then it also calls into doubt the inclusion of LOTR in such a lofty position doesn't it?

I thought that's what you meant.

a.) I do not think all the films on that list are particularly good.

b.) I do think the LotR films are good films.

According to you, it is impossible to hold both these positions.

The part I can't work out, Sauron, is why we all feel the need to resort to such subterfuge. Do explain. I'm dying of curiosity.

P.S. It's Nerwen, not Nerewen.

[Quempel]

For the record I like the movies, I don't think they are on par with the books, but there is no way in the film media the entire set of books can be filmed. But I really like the movies a lot.

What I was saying is that the entire EW list, not just the LoTR ranking, was a little There are things on the list that make me wonder. And in the books list they didn't even mention the LoTR series, HP was on there, but no LoTR. And come on everyone knows Tolkien was a much better writer.

Having Amy Whinehouse on the list was a bit much too. And some of the other choices made me think they put the names of things in a hat and pulled them out and how they came out of the hat was how they were ranked.

I did think Spinal Tap was a brilliant move though, it made me laugh. Has anyone seen the stage?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Yes, I have read the posts and understand that many other EW selections on this list have been attacked. But is that not to give the tar and feather treatment to the very idea of putting LOTR on the list? After all, if you can show that there are silly or worthless selections on the list, then it also calls into doubt the inclusion of LOTR in such a lofty position doesn't it?

No, it doesn't in the least. In fact, if you had read my first post, you would see that I had listed LotR (right between Schindler's List and Pulp Fiction) as a film that is actually worthy of a Top 25 ranking of movies since '83; however, it just seemed to me that this EW list was one of the most questionable overall that I'd ever seen. Die Hard is a fun movie, but it is nowhere near Amadeus or even Fargo as far as the depth of acting; Casino Royale is a good Bond movie (but there are better), but it pales to the intricacies of The Usual Suspects; Jeremy Irons was very funny as the voice of Scar in the Lion King (and the best character in that cartoon), but his performances in The Mission or Dead Ringers are far more nuanced and...well...superior. Can anyone explain to me how the Disney epic Toy Story *snickers* is better than Akira Kurosawa's epic Ran? I'd like to hear the argument.

I also agreed with AFI's inclusion of FotR as second to the Wizard of Oz (Oz being a far more iconic movie and viewable by a wider demographic than FotR). But even in the AFI's 2007 Top 100 of All-Time (which are only American-made or financed movies), there are only 15 movies made after 1983. Of these, five couldn't even crack EW's vaunted Top 25:

Unforgiven
The Shawshank Redemption
Forest Gump
Platoon
The Sixth Sense

Add to these three more that were on the 1998 original AFI list:

Amadeus
Dances With Wolves
Fargo

And one scratches one's head at some of EW's inclusions (and even more so their exclusions).

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Nerewen..... if you go to other sites .... lets use theonering.com or theonering.net or board77 or halloffire or many others, you will find the opinion on the movies is not universal.

Ummm...StW, having posted occasionally on theonering, I can tell you that that site is fanboy central for the movies. There is so much swooning for Viggo or Orlando or Liv that I want to wretch.

[MatthewM]

Listen, everybody, I've had my fair share of disagreements with StW. But fact of the matter is in Post #14 he said "okay" in response to my comment. I gather that he was admitting it was a misunderstanding. So...let's all get along here!

[Lush]

I suppose they had to throw Hannah and Her Sisters, Titanic and Room With a View in order to maintain the readership of the over 50 women's demographic

Older women's opinions possibly mattering to a mainstream publication?

Not that I think that this is actually the case, but if they tried to be inclusive it ought to be a compliment to them, not an insult.

Trust me as someone who works in entertainment journalism to a certain degree: the way these particular things work is that they look at the impact that a movie has made. Not all movies who make great impact are masterpieces. No matter what we say about the hokey dialogue and other travesties, "Titanic" is lush (no pun intended) filmmaking on a scale of legendary, Liz Taylor-era Hollywood. It's a throwback, and a gamble that really worked.

"Titanic," whether we like it or not, has had tremendous impact on the entertainment industry and on popular culture. So its inclusion here makes sense, 100%.

The fact that you would sneer at older women is no better than someone saying something like, "Oh they included LotR? I guess they need to keep the weird loser subcultures happy." It's using a stereotype, which is something you are far too intelligent for (and no, I don't mean that in a condescending, "awww look how smart you are" way).

I'm saying all of this as someone who really likes a lot of what you have to say, Morthoron, and as someone who is sad to see the degeneration of this thread.

StW - It's going to be ooookay. No need to lose your temper. I am here to help keep the fangirl banner flying - ever since 2001, baby. It doesn't always help me win friends and influence people, but it's a job someone has to do.

I do try to do it without derailing otherwise good threads. *wink* *nudge*

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Looking over this thread, I see that those posting have been members long enough to know how discussions are conducted on the Downs. I am therefore simply deleting posts or parts thereof that address other members about their way of arguing instead of addressing the subject being discussed. Take personal comments to PM, people, and post on the topic of discussion here. Thank you! Thread temporarily closed for renovation...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lush

"Titanic," whether we like it or not, has had tremendous impact on the entertainment industry and on popular culture. So its inclusion here makes sense, 100%*

I am ambivalent about the film, but you will notice I did not include it in the ones I felt were out of place, but neither did I include it in the ones I truly cared for. I assigned it to purgatory, particularly because Celine Dion sang for it.

Originally Posted by Lush

"The fact that you would sneer at older women is no better than someone saying something like, "Oh they included LotR? I guess they need to keep the weird loser subcultures happy." It's using a stereotype, which is something you are far too intelligent for (and no, I don't mean that in a condescending, "awww look how smart you are" way).

You misunderstand me. I wasn't sneering at older women, rather, the three movies I cited seemed really out of place genre-wise with the rest of the movies chosen; therefore, the only feasible reason I could think of for their inclusion (other than their worth as films) was that EW felt they had to appease a certain demographic (and considering those were movies my mother and aunts liked, I chose an older demo -- I can't see them watching Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights or The Matrix, although it would be hilarious to watch them watching the movies).

Originally Posted by Lush

"I'm saying all of this as someone who really likes a lot of what you have to say, Morthoron, and as someone who is sad to see the degeneration of this thread.

No specific demographic was harmed in the making of these posts; or actually, from what I've read of the replies, it seems I've insulted a wide spectrum of various demographics. At least I am consistent.