Gravity

[Smaug's voice]

You hit the nail V!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Well,
Beautlin just expressed himself saying he can't judge Cuaron's
suitability seeing those 3 films. He didn't ask an explanation though
you were the one who gave one. But I have no problem with this
discussion.
But personally I think you are leaning too much on Cuaron for some reason. Since we can't judge the suitability by previous works why is only him being mentioned? There are loads of other great directors out there.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I explained myself because yovargas responded to Beutlin with the following:

But I believe what PtB means more that the visual style is that the themes Cuaron tends to be interested in exploring align well with Tolkien's themes. I don't think he's wrong.

Which was a reasonable thing to say, given that I have been the main proponent of a Cuaron LOTR!

[Passdagas the Brown]

And whether you like it or not, PJ's films garnered rave reviews and established one of the largest fandoms today. And they have brought millions of people to the books and are still bringing everyday. It is regarded as a cultural phenomena. Probably one of the most successful franchises at the oscars. And is considered as a bar on how great a given fantasy film is (something that Prisoner of Azkaban isn't). It is even compared to the original Star Wars by critics and fans alike. Pretty sure many years from now LotR would be considered as a classic. So if that is not success, I wonder what is.

Anecdotally, I have heard far, far, far more people say that they didn't plan to bother reading the books because they saw the films. The reasons for that come in two forms:

1. They enjoyed the films, and don't feel the need to "slog through" the early parts of Fellowship (which many try to do, and fail)

2. They thought the films were awful, and expect that the source material is too.

Now, sales of the books have most certainly gone up as a result of the films. That is true and indisputable. Whether or not Tolkien's fanbase has grown is another story.

Any stats on that?

[Passdagas the Brown]

If nothing else, I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Cuaron is a better and more thoughtful director than PJ, much as I ultimately love the LOTR films.

That's certainly not a controversial statement to me!

I don't think it is so much controversial as silly. It's comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit, but different kinds of fruit. Jackson and Cuaron are both directors, with different styles. They both have positive qualities and less positive qualities. Both have had major successes, and some less successful efforts. Personally, I prefer Jackson's work, and largely don't care as much for Cuaron's style, but I would never say that that means that Jackson is a better director than Cuaron. Even the statement that Cuaron is more "thoughtful" that Jackson is nonsensical to me. Jackson certainly has his excesses, but there are equally ways in which he is very thoughtful. And while I thought Gravity (since this is a thread about Gravity) was visually stunning, I certainly would not consider it a demonstration of a "thoughtful" style (for the reasons that I already discussed).

I just find this kind of statement to be unhelpful, at best.

Peter Jackson is a "better" director than Alfonso Cuaron just as much as 48fps is a "better" format than 24fps!

Are you sensing any irony here?

Today's word of the day is...the same as yesteday's word of the day..."subjective!"

[Smaug's voice]

Of
course! Especially outside Europe and among the current generation. Just take a look over most
Tolkien-fan sites, say TORC. I have found nearly 70% of them were
introduced by the films and have read the books.

IMO, the anecdotes you gave are outnumbered by a vast majority by those
who did end up reading the books. And in that you also have to consider
the style of LotR is not like any modern fantasy today, which led to
early disappointments/turning away from the text. I know pretty well the massive influx of new Tolkien fans because of the films. Me being an example of such a case.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Of
course! Especially outside Europe and among the current generation. Just take a look over most
Tolkien-fan sites, say TORC. I have found nearly 70% of them were
introduced by the films and have read the books.

IMO, the anecdotes you gave are outnumbered by a vast majority by those
who did end up reading the books. And in that you also have to consider
the style of LotR is not like any modern fantasy today, which led to
early disappointments/turning away from the text. I know pretty well the massive influx of new Tolkien fans because of the films. Me being an example of such a case.

I assume you're right, but I'd love to see some detailed polling on the subject.

[Smaug's voice]

Sorry but I
have no stats on that. Just as you can't give stats on the anecdotes you mention.
What I said is purely on what I have observed which I know is a fact.

Well one indirect comparison you can make is by the no. Of members on
Tolkien fan-sites that were there pre-movies and post-movies. (yes,
talking about TORC!). A friend there told me how TORC was a close
community with comparitively limited numbers. And see the no. Of
members today!
And you could also look at TORN. You'll find many such fans there.


btw, you said book-sales have definitely increased but not sure whether
the fanbase has widened. That is sort of contradictory to me. Do you
mean lots of people, inspired by the films, read the books but most of
them found them boring????

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Peter Jackson is a "better" director than Alfonso Cuaron just as much as 48fps is a "better" format than 24fps!

Are you sensing any irony here?

Today's word of the day is...the same as yesteday's word of the day..."subjective!"

(a) I never said that it would be "controversial" to hold a different opinion than the one that I expressed, or anything else that implied that people who disagreed with me were stupid for doing so. That is my main objection to this statement.

(b) It's a different type of issue altogether. That would be like equating saying that CDs are better than LPs with saying that Neil Young is a better songwriter than Keith Richards. They both are opinions, but one is based on some kind of measurable data, where as the other purely subjective.

[Smaug's voice]

Peter Jackson is a "better" director than Alfonso Cuaron
just as much as 48fps is a "better" format
than 24fps!

Are you sensing any irony here?

Today's word of the day is...the same as yesteday's word of the
day..."subjective!"

The sense I got from V's post is that everyone has a different taste for directorial style. Like he prefers PJ over Cuaron (and myself too atleast for a Tolkien film - that is after seeing 3 of Cuaron's films mind you!). Unlike you, he didn't say PJ was better than Cuaron. Just that PJ is better than Cuaron in his opinion.

[yovargas]

If nothing else, I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Cuaron is a better and more thoughtful director than PJ, much as I ultimately love the LOTR films.

That's certainly not a controversial statement to me!

I don't think it is so much controversial as silly. It's comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit, but different kinds of fruit. Jackson and Cuaron are both directors, with different styles. They both have positive qualities and less positive qualities. Both have had major successes, and some less successful efforts.

Are you saying that it's silly and pointless to compare two artists? You may not be interested in doing so but I certainly don't think it's silly. Would you have reacted the same if I had said I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Tolkien is a better and more thoughtful author than Dan Brown"?

[Passdagas the Brown]

Smaug,

I agreed with you, so take it down a notch.

First of all, please try not to question my honesty. Among the circle of people that I know, there are far, far more people that saw the films, and had no intention of reading the books, than the opposite. It is no more than a personal anecdote. How in the world can you be sure that a personal anecdote is exaggerated, without essentially accusing me of lying? In any event, as I said, I assume you are right that the Tolkien fan base may have increased as a result of the films.

Secondly, I have always said that Cuaron is a better filmmaker IMO. To accuse me of saying otherwise is preposterous. It is this sort of thing that leads people to infect their posts, me included, with cumbersome IMOs all over the place.

As I said, the word of the day is "subjective."

And to V - no, the measure of frame rates is not a reliable or objective measure of quality. That's like measuring how good a director is based on the length of a film. There is far more to shooting a film than the frame rates, just as there is far more to directing than the length of a film. If you can measure an optimal balance between frame rate, stutter, shutter speed, lighting, lens size, etc., then perhaps you could get closer to an objective measure of quality.

There is no difference between your assertion and yov's. They are opinions coated in a thin veneer of fact, and as such, can seem a little insulting.

Especially as you made it clear in past posts that you felt people who didn't appreciate 48fps were somehow deluded by habit. That they were objecting to something "better" because it's "better."

If you can't see how insulting that is, I can't help you.

But just to be safe here. I believe Cuaron is a more thoughtful and visionary director than PJ. That's my belief, and nothing more.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Are you saying that it's silly and pointless to compare two artists? You may not be interested in doing so but I certainly don't think it's silly. Would you have reacted the same if I had said I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Tolkien is a better and more thoughtful author than Dan Brown"?

No I'm saying that it is silly and pointless to imply that any opinion that disagrees with your own is stupid. I would have no problem with you saying that you believe that Tolkien is a better or more thoughtful author than Dan Brown or even just saying "Tolkien is a better and more thoughtful author than Dan Brown." But once you include the "controversial" language, it becomes a value judgment about anyone who holds a differing opinion. That is not necessary.

Indeed, I have expressed very similar sentiments in discussions on this board about Dan Brown. And while I probably would agree that Tolkien is both a better and more thoughtful author (although I enjoy both in their own ways), I still would think it was a silly and pointless thing to say that expressing that opinion is 'fairly uncontroversial'. Such a statement does not promote thoughtful discussion; it hinders it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

My understanding is that yov's use of "uncontroversial" implied that his opinion is likely popularly shared, or at least shared by a majority of the class of people that analyze such things (such as film critics, amateur and pro). In other words, it doesn't seem to imply that those holding a different opinion are "stupid," but rather, that those holding a different opinion may not be part of "mainstream" opinion, either among the public at large, or among critics. In short, the opposite of yov's statement, that it would be "controversial" to believe PJ is a more thoughtful director, does not at all imply stupidity.

So I'm scratching my head a little at your reaction, V.

Nonetheless, it's all very simple. Opinions about art are subjective, no matter how hard we try to make it otherwise. Yes, I think certain artists are better than others. But it will always just be something I think, not something that's true.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

His opinion, not her opinion.

ETA: And I certainly don't think it is necessarily true that a majority of film critics would agree that Cuaron is a "better and more thoughtful" director than Jackson (and I notice that you conveniently left the "better" part out of your post). And even if they did, it would not change my belief that a statement like is designed to belittle anyone who holds a contrary opinion. And that is the last that I have to say on the subject.

2nd ETA: Actually, one more brief thought. It occurs to me that yov's example about Tolkien is quite ironic, because for years literary critics have used comparisons to other so-called more serious authors in order to criticize Tolkien (and by implication, anyone foolish enough to like his work). And Tolkien himself lambasted critics who denigrated Beowulf's anonymous poet by comparing him authors who wrote about serious subjects instead of monsters in his classic essay the "The Monsters and the Critics."

[Passdagas the Brown]

"Better and more thoughtful" doesn't change the definition of "uncontroversial," which implies a majoritarian opinion.

In many fields, I find controversial opinions to often be quite intelligent, so I don't see yov's post as deliberately belittling. And knowing yov (well, clearly not enough to get his gender right!), I don't think he either thinks you're stupid, or intended to imply that you were stupid.

In any event, I agree with you completely. I do not base my opinions on literature or art on the literati, or the art critic world, respectively. I have personal tastes, and that's it. I like what I like, and dislike what I dislike. And I don't begrudge anyone having wildly different opinions. Heck, I know a brilliant physicist whose favorite films are the "Transformers" series. Who am I to say he's wrong to feel that way?

[yovargas]

Uh, not sure why you took any extra meaning from the word uncontroversial. It means just that - not a lot of controversy. I have no idea why you would take that to mean that I believe there would be no disagreement or that any disagreement would be stupid.

Anyone can think whatever they want but outside of LOTR, PJ isn't generally considered that great while nearly all of Cuaron's movies have been generally well received. Cuaron simply has a far better track record as a director than PJ as well as a track record of making more thoughtful moves than PJ.

PS - I just finished watching TTT and that movie is damn astounding.

[Passdagas the Brown]

That is true. Apart from LOTR and Heavenly Creatures, PJ's films have gotten very mixed and sometimes very poor reviews. Lovely Bones was the most recent critical failure (IMO, a really atrocious film), before the very mixed reception of AUJ.

Cuaron's recent films: Y Tu Mama Tambien (even if the subject matter makes you uncomfortable, its very well done), Little Princess, Prisoners of Azkhaban, Children of Men, and Gravity have all met with significant critical acclaim.

But to be fair, the critical disparity for their recent films is not THAT wide. So I'm not yet sure that such a statement would be wholly uncontroversial.

But I certainly think that Cuaron is a better filmmaker! (just clarifying, in case people weren't sure)

ETA: TTT is also as a whole my favorite of the LOTR trilogy (I think...), and the first half is, IMO, very good. I think the second half of the film is, however, not nearly as good as the first hour of FOTR, and not as good as the Frodo and Sam portions of ROTK...

So I guess it's hard for me to choose one whole film over the other...I'd rank my favorite LOTR films as:

1. First hour of FOTR
2. First hour of TTT
3. Frodo and Sam in Mordor

[yovargas]

First hour of TTT

If the point where TTT starts going downhill for you is HD, then that's closer to the first two hours.
(And I'd definitely pick the last 45 mins of FOTR first!)

[Passdagas the Brown]

First hour of TTT

If the point where TTT starts going downhill for you is HD, then that's closer to the first two hours.
(And I'd definitely pick the last 45 mins of FOTR first!)

Okay, then the first two hours! But I really dislike all the Treebeard stuff.

I like the last 45 minutes of FOTR for its emotional punch, but there's nothing awe-inspiring about it (apart from the Argonath). It all looked rather drab, and the film-making seemed like pretty standard action fare (though Boromir's death was certainly powerful).

The FOTR prologue, on the other hand, and the near-flawless scenes in the Shire, are impeccably composed, shot and acted, and are imbued with a richness that Tolkien deserves.

The film is, IMO, all downhill after Frodo and Sam bump into Merry and Pippin, with brief moments of awe in Moria and Amon Hen.

But that first chunk of TTT is really good stuff.

[yovargas]

I saw a film just last week that I found to be more emotionally vacant than AUJ.

I didn't wanna Osgilliate that other thread but I just had to comment on this - while I mostly had the same issues with the movie that you did, I can't understand how anyone could watch that movie and not be left in awe and wonder and terror of the universe we live in. Which is much more what the movie was about then a couple somewhat cloying bits about Bullock's past.