Tygre, I’m really sorry about the spoilers. For some reason my brain cramped up and I missed/forgot about your last line. I’ll have to learn how to make them purty spoiler tags in the future.
And Cisco, andros may have been an asshole with his posts, but that doesn’t mean that you’re justified in being an unquestionable asshole in return. What are you, five?
Yes Jester, I am five.
But seriously I did overreact a bit. I apologize.
I do think people should lighten up about spoilers though. Like I said, if you don’t want a movie “spoiled” then stay away from all references to it. Everything is a potential spoiler.
No, but she’s a damn nice woman who’s been putting up with some incredible shit for daring to dislike the movie. No, I’m not her. When I saw she posted a negative review, I emailed her, telling her that she was brave to risk the Wrath of the Geekssup[/sup]. I know; I’ve been called a fucking bitch because I gave a bad score to a game.
They’re just opinions, people, but if there’s one thing this message board should’ve taught anyone who’s spent more than two days on it, it’s that absolutely nothing in this world exists that could garner 100% support.
FTR, I’ve read only one review and not even this thread in entirety. I haven’t read the books, so I don’t want to spoil the movie before Saturday.
Somehow, I’m having a hard time working up sympathy for reviewers that draw millions to their tiny sites with minor rants and have to put up with some junk mail from three-year olds. Everyone that has an email address on a webpage gets insane hate mail: it’s all part of the trade.
That said, her review was certainly honest and unpretentious.
Now this other guy… suffice to say that I didn’t think FOTR was all that either, but at least I don’t blame it on the fact that the unwashed masses just can’t appreciate Wagner like I can.
Thank you Lynn. FedEx and Godiva are now coordinating their production and delivery schedules.
Well done.
Sure, turn it into an innuendo. 
No, those two points do not go together. He does not know the books, sure, tbut that in itself does not make the review bad. (Wanna see a really bad review? Check out the Onion AV Club’s orgasm all over Pete Jackson’s face. Yeeeesh.)
Why on earth should a film reviewer have to study the background and source material of the films he/she reviews?
Tolkien helped create the fantasy genre. Bully. A movie reviewer doesn’t have to care. He reviews the movie, not the emotion and sentimentality surrounding it.
The fact that a cheesy or labored plot point or bit of dialogue comes straight from the books doesn’t change the fact that it’s a cheesy or labored plot point or bit of dialogue. It’s in the movie, and the movie reviewer is reviewing the movie.
I guess my point is simply that no, they don’t. As a sometime reviewer myself, I think I can safely say that many people review films solely on their own merits, without doing any research. Movies are pretty much supposed to stand alone in most cases. (Isn’t that one of the things we geeks are so happy about with LotR–that the movies can survive as movies?)
I don’t have to know beans about Oskar Schindler to review Schindler’s List as a movie. It would probably make the review more interesting to read, granted, but it’s still quite possible to determine how well the movie works as a movie without knowing the backstory.
And that’s all I think this reviewer has done–reviewed TTT as a film, not as a cultural icon. Now, of course, it carries its dangers. I mean, if I were to say in a review that the premise of Schindler’s List was just too far-fetched to be believable, I’d be laughed out of town, and understandably so. I don’t think this review goes anywhere near this far.
Anyhoo, it sounds to me like your main beef with the review is that he doesn’t like the movie, and hasn’t read the books and he’s snotty about the whole deal. And I submit that negative reviews are scarce enough that fans can simply get over this one.
I’m not down on her for "daring to dislike the movie, I’m down on her for not doing her job properly. The examples I provided showed that she either didn’t see or wasn’t paying attention during the first movie, and she provided a spoiler, which is verboten as a critic. I understand that in the course of writing a review that some info is revealed, but to include a you think he’s dead but he’s really not! spoiler like that in the review is something a critic isn’t supposed to do.
Point of order: I was the one who called Blessedwolf. So my second post, addressed to him, was intended as humor for his benefit.
Beyond that, though . . :shrug: It’s the Pit, it’s for flames, I flamed. So sue.
Now then, Cisco, if you can’t tell the difference between spoilers regarding a 50 year old book, and spoilers specific to a brand-new movie, then I don’t know what else to say.
Sorry andros, but your arguement doesn’t hold a thimble full of piss. It would have, if not for the reviewer’s final paragraph:
The moment she makes a comparison between the movie she’s seen and the book she has not read, and makes a judgement call on the quality of the transfer, she has stuck her head so far up her ass she can see daylight.
He. The woman that some folke are talking about I someone else entirely.
:shrug: I don’t see how that invalidates my argument, such as it is. But it’s a fair cop, I suppose. He shouldn’t have brought up Tolkien at all. Nevertheless, I don’t see how it’s a crime to make assumptions based on reputation. The reviewer is making the assumption that the “kitsch” comes from Jackson and not from Tolkien. I agree that it’s a false assumption. I disagree that it invalidates everything I have to say. And I disagree that it makes the review automatically horrid, or the reviewer automatically an evil hellbound sinner.
Blech. “The woman that some folks are talking about is someone else entirely.”
More coffee.
The reviewer is trying to claim that the reason he didn’t like the movie is that he is so much more sophisticated than the hoi-paloi yet he hasn’t read a book that any well read adult in the western world should have read. He is claiming that he is to “sophisticated” for the movie, yet his every word betrays the fact that he is not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
See, I think that’s closer to my point.
You think that “any well-read adult” should already have read LotR, and not having done so invalidates all claims to literary sophistication. I disagree.
I think the main problem is that there’s a difference between a negative review, and one that’s biased.
Lines like
and
pretty much tell which kind this is.
OK. I can accept that the guy didn’t like the movie. But he went into the theatre knowing that he wouldn’t.
Like I said earlier, there are some reviewers who shouldn’t review certain films. This is an example of one of those reviewer/film pairings.
Oh, I know you weren’t, Mojo. I guess I was a little irked after she showed me an email where she was told to die and called a bitch and a faggot whore who wasn’t fit to lick Peter Jackson’s nutsack (of course it was all in caps). My apologies for projecting that onto you.
When I opened the thread, I thought it would be about a review I read in which the reviewer complains that they “brought back Gandalf” for the second movie, and goes on to say something like, “Why can’t dead be dead anymore? Why do they have to bring back popular characters even after they’ve died?”
I was boggled. Boggled enough to actually say out loud to the newspaper, “Dude…did you even READ the books?”
What, is that a required prerequiste to seeing the movie?
It is when you think that one of the major plot points is something that has recently been written.
If they make a new movie version of The Odyssey, it would be equally ignorant to say something like, “Why do movies nowadays have to have mystical creatures? And isn’t this whole hero-returns-home-only-to-find-it-in-disorder thing getting a bit old?”