In Reply to: I don't get your analogy posted by Bulkington on June 27, 2005 at 12:55:27:
It is important to know of the individual's biases in assessing the value of their opinion. If a reviewer was a dyed in the wool tube-o-phile, and they disparaged a solid state design, what would you conclude about their opinion? Probably, they like the sound of tube amplifiers, not solid state, and were therefore given to dislike the solid state amplifier before they even listened to it, and their opinion is probably too colored to be of any value, unless you too are a dyed in the wool tube-o-phile. And writing that they like the fantasy genre, even though they have never seen one they liked, is like saying they like solid state amplifiers, but have never heard one they liked. Makes no sense. And I loved the Sinbad films, warts and all.I think the point of the folks who defend LOTR is that there are many different kinds of films which attempt to achieve different results, and are designed to satisfy different tastes. Do you listen to the Beatles with the same frame of mind and with the same goals you do Bach? Do you compare The Beatles with the same analysis you do Bach? Would you judge The Beatles with the same criteria you would Bach? LOTR is not "high-art", nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be escapist fun, the operative word being fun. If your life is always serious, and devoid of fun, then LOTR is not the film for you. Save yourself time and energy.
Do you not listen to some music just because it makes you feel good? Do you always look for some amorphous concept of "art" in music or films? Do you not watch some films simply for entertainment? To escape reality? To enter a different world? If not, then I would respectfully suggest you are missing a large part of the fun of films in general, and LOTR in particular.
At the end of the day, the only question is whether you had fun watching LOTR, because that is all is asks. Because you concentrated on the warts and logical gaps, it was more of a mental exercise, and you disliked the film. Fine. I concentrated on the visuals, and the escapist trappings, the hollow fun and joy of filmmaking that was evident on the screen, and, despite flaws, had fun.
How smart can you be in asking a film to deliver something it never intended to deliver, and then criticising it for it's failure? Obvously, too smart. To paraphrase Quint, film's philosopher extrodinaire: "It proves you college boys do not have the education to admit when you are wrong."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I don't get your analogy - jamesgarvin 15:26:41 06/27/05 (12)
- Re: I don't get your analogy - Bulkington 07:38:10 06/28/05 (0)
- You live by your analogy, and you die by it - Victor Khomenko 16:20:32 06/27/05 (10)
- Jeeesus, Victor...Shrek?!?!? n/t - PCL 11:00:18 06/28/05 (8)
- Shocking... heh? - Victor Khomenko 14:17:41 06/28/05 (7)
- "Patrick might tell you I also love Clueless..." - I think that you love BEING clueless! (nt) - Audiophilander 16:08:34 06/28/05 (6)
- Re: How profound and cute of you! nt - patrickU 05:06:28 06/29/05 (5)
- It would be even more profound if your nom-de-plume were "Clueless," but I doubt that you'd find that as cute. (nt) - Audiophilander 10:35:46 06/29/05 (4)
- Re: Well you are some kind of slow.... - patrickU 11:27:06 06/29/05 (3)
- Re: Well you are some kind of slow.... - patrickU 12:05:51 06/29/05 (1)
- Only to anger. - Audiophilander 13:37:45 06/29/05 (0)
- Archivists. (nt) - Audiophilander 11:50:58 06/29/05 (0)
- Re: You live by your analogy, and you die by it - jamesgarvin 08:26:05 06/28/05 (0)