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

In the recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, the staff indulges in a mad rank-a-thon where they deem the best 100 Movies, Books, Music, etc etc of the past 25 years. Or what they call "The New Classics." Pulp Fiction got their nod for the classicist new classic movie, and Lord of the Rings (as a whole) resides in the second spot.

Since I had nothing better to do than page through the whole magazine, I can say that many of their choices in all categories are, eeemmm... subjective at best (Amy Winehouse is in the top ten for both Music and Style, which begs the question, what kind of drugs is she buying the EW staff? But I digress) so I wouldn't exactly jump up and down and cheer at this distinction. Or put much weight behind it, really.

But it amused me. Here's what they had to say:

(If you click on the Photos tab you can read blurbs for all their selections.)

EW's 'supposed' Top 25 can be found here...

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,2020...442_23,00.html

The Top 25 List (I didn't bother looking at the Top 100, for reasons that will become apparent) was rather anti-intellectual and, well, juvenile in its tastes. I agreed with perhaps 9 or 10 of the inclusions, but the rest should have either been placed further down the list, or not have appeared at all. Just scanning quickly through my DVD collection for movies past '83, Amadeus (a 1984 release), Unforgiven, Se7en, The Last Emperor, Broadcast News, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dangerous Liaisons, The Pianist, Forest Gump, Fargo, The Sixth Sense, Shawn of the Dead, Shawshank Redemption, A Beautiful Mind, Usual Suspects, and Kurosawa's Ran are not listed in the Top 25, but the Lion King, Die Hard, Edward Scissorhands, Boogie Nights, The Matrix, Toy Story and Casino Royale are so good they have reached a pinnacle of film-maker's art to warrant such an honor? How old were these subjective movie critics? Have they yet to emerge from prepubescence?

I have no qualms with such great films as Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Schindler's List, LotR, or Pulp Fiction (even Spinal Tap and Shrek are phenomenal in a genre-bending sense), but EW's choices as a whole are mind-bogglingly banal, and meant for those among us who: prefer their words to be in single syllables, like lots of colorful flashing light and jerky movements, and don't want to be forced to think in increments longer than 10 minutes (with the remote's pause button obviously well-worn for numerous potty breaks).

If this is the direction of 'great films' in the future, then I suggest everyone watch a silly but obviously relevant movie titled 'Idiocracy' for a true taste of where our society is heading.

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

Perhaps the staff of EW has never been to this site and read all the things wrong with the films.

I wonder where they get the idea that the films were popular and well respected?

Could it have been the $3 billion dollar box office?

Could it have been the near universal positive reviews of professional film critics?

Or maybe the boatload of Academy Awards and other awards the films garnered?

ANd to add insult to injury, the prestigious American Film Institute just this week named FELOWSHIP OF THE RING as the #2 Fantasy Film of All Time, second only to the 1939 classic WIZARD OF OZ.

Makes you wonder what world they are living in.

Well well well
 

I just got through looking over the lists....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I am not sure about these people who did the rankings, I think they must have been partying with Winehouse too much.

Hmmm...Michael Jackson's Thriller is the biggest seller of all time and won boatloads of awards. It doesn't mean I have the CD in my stereo.

On a serious note, the movies only mean something here because of the subject matter. Folks take their Tolkien seriously, probably more so than nearly any other author. I have a profound dislike for the characterizations and the scripting (which in many cases are deplorable); however, the cinematography is incredible, and the sets, make-up and details (costumes, music, architecture, CGI, etc.) are astounding. The production itself (with three movies filmed synchronously) most likely will never be duplicated. It is a paradox and a supreme irony that one can love and despise a film at the same time, but there it is.

I have to say though, that I'm not sure whether getting onto this list constitutes an achievement. I really have no idea what half the other entries are doing there.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

okay

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. :Merisu:

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

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 :rolleyes: 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. :D

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?

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).

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.

But Tolkien's work is much older. They are specifically discussing more recent works.

Blasphemy! Swooning is a wonderful pastime. It helps you burn calories. :D

Hah! Good ol' Barrow Downs, I'd almost forgot the inevitable rancor which follows the Movie discussions around like a small, yapping dog. :p

Not going to argue the points about the 'Downs having a rather large contingent who despise the movies. It most definitely has that.

My intent with posting this wasn't to really make a judgment call on whether or not LotR deserves to be on that list (it's number 1 in my book) but rather to share a tidbit I discovered in my morning mail. Well, afternoon mail, really. My comments about the dubiousness of the distinction stemmed more from having read the entire magazine and found many of the lists oddly chosen. I had the most beef with the music list, but then, I cannot remember ever agreeing with EW on that front.

To be fair, this list isn't so much about "best" as "classic" -- in the sense of cultural impact and popularity. Films that will define this era in the memory of the future (in the EW staff's estimation). So films you might find juvenile in their appeal (like Star Wars, though being pre 1983, is a movie for a different list) are going to trump some better quality films.

For instance:

Oh my head.

Why would you even compare the two? Apples ≠ Oranges.

Toy Story changed the way family/children's movies are made and put Pixar on the map as one of the foremost animation studios. I have not seen Ran personally, but from what I know about it, it's not a children's movie. So why would you even attempt to compare then on any other level than how they've impacted their respective genres and/or how visible they are in mass culture?

That's because LotR was not published in the last 25 years.

At any rate, I do think that all points about whether the Jackson succeeded in not desecrating the books aside, LotR IS indeed one of the most important fantasy movies ever made.

Diamond, the point is not whether the downs has "a large contigent which despises the movies", but whether the people who disputed EW's choice of films are part of that contigent and are making a sneaky attack on the LotR films while claiming to like them.

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!

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

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*

Moderator's note
 

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...

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.

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).

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.

The link for the music list is now working for me. Wow...

I think reading Entertainment Weekly would give me very high blood pressure. It is, as Mothoron suggests, designed to include some picks that will appease certain demographics. Even allowing for this ridiculous limit, was it necessary to include Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera? :D

I read it using advice from Diamond and Lush, considering cultural impact or whatnot. The music list totally fails, even taking into account impact over quality, so the credibility of the film list is to me suspect. ;)

I hadn't looked at the 25 New Music Classics previously. Now I wish I hadn't. But I am surprised no one complained that The Lord of the Rings Soundtrack was left off! ;)

If this is what they consider a profoundly and 'culturally-impacting' music list (as opposed to actual great music, which it aint), then Western Civilization is further down the road to exctintion than I surmised (anyone know what time it is on the D-Day clock?).

Be that as it may, I am wondering how they could even list a superb album like Paul Simon's Graceland alongside a Beyonce album, or Cat Power next to Lauryn Hill's Miseducation (to be honest, I've never even heard of Cat Power-- although I recognize everything else on the list -- so much for culturally-impacting)? Does anyone really consider any Mariah Carey album having cultural or musical importance? Perhaps I'm becoming more like my parents (ie., old) in regards to distaste for certain genres of music, but was there a necessity to have Kayne West as a top 5 choice? *shrugs*

Here's a few albums they left off from the last 25 years. I considered these as superlative albums in their respective genres (even though I may not like said genre), as well as having an impact culturally and among musicians. You tell me if EW is off-base:

So by Peter Gabriel -- A sublime album, and, more importantly, the videos of Sledgehammer and Big Time were technically and thematically far advanced of any others on MTV for the time, and made music videos an art form. In Your Eyes and Don't Give Up are gems.

If I Should Fall From Grace With God by The Pogues -- This album defies labels. It is an amalgam of Gaelic folk, Spanish, Middle-eastern, jazz and punk influences. Aside from having some of the best drunken bar ballads available anywhere (and the Pogues obviously influenced other bands, The Dropkick Murphys and The Young Dubliners are but two), the haunting Fairytale of New York, The Broad Majestic Shannon and Lullaby of London counter the fiery, whiskey-soaked fever of other songs on the album.

Joshua Tree or War by U2 -- Why EW chose Achtung Baby as more relevant than Joshua Tree or War is beyond me.

Master of Puppets by Metallica -- I am not a big Metallica fan, but I do know that my thrash guitarist friends and head-bobbing metal junkies consider this as perhaps the greatest heavy-metal album ever made (I prefer Black Sabbath personally, but that's an argument for 1970's bands). The video game Guitar Hero is played by millions and millions of folks and is a cultural phenomenon, with Metallica featured prominently.

Ten by Pearl Jam -- Along with Nirvana, Pearl Jam codified the Grunge sound (from what I recall, either one was a Curt Cobain or Eddie Vedder acolyte), and Grunge (with Pearl Jam as the anti-establishment, anti-rock star poster child) was a radio mainstay for much of the 90's. The video of Jeremy is considered by many to be one of the defining music videos of all time (and MTV certainly played it to death).

It Takes a Whole Nation to Hold Us Back by Public Enemy -- Ummm...Kayne West? Please meet the the real rap deal. Public Enemy's downright scary album influenced nearly every other rapper (including media darling Kayne).

Freedom by Neil Young -- A brilliant reinterpretation of his classic album Rust Never Sleeps. Incendiary guitar work and incendiary political statements (Crime in the City and Rockin' in the Free World -- used by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11), mingled with lush acoustic ballads to make an intriguing album.

The Bends by Radiohead -- I just like it better than the one EW chose.
*shrugs*

Raising Hell by Run DMC -- Again, I am not at all a rap fan, but wouldn't it make sense to have had this album as culturally impacting, seeing as it was the first great crossover hit?

You know, I could go on and on, adding such albums as Murmur by REM, The Downward Spiral by Nine Inch Nails, The Division Bell by Pink Floyd, Tracy Chapman by Tracy Chapman (take that, Amy Winehouse!), Rhythm Nation 1814 by Janet Jackson (Beyonce who?), Undertow by Tool, Grace by Jeff Buckley, or BloodSugarSexMagic by The Redhot Chili Peppers, each as having a profound impact on music and society, and far better than most of the choices in that top 25.

Bah! I've drank too much coffee again!

P.S. And this, I suppose, is just a roundabout way of saying I question the precarious judgment of EW in choosing its top 25 movies (whether LotR was on the list or not); in fact, I would have argued just as vehemently for LotR if had not been put on the list, and given the odd choices EW made, I'm surprised they managed to sit through the entire film without fidgeting.

Not sure that this is the right thread, but it was announced that US President Barack Obama presented British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a gift of "25 classic American films," as can be read here. Obviously missing from the list is LotR, and so apologies to PM Brown.

"I went all the way to Washington DC and all I got were some DVDs?!?"

Now would seem a good time to define "classic Amercian films" with the emphasis on American. We might even develop a good discussion on what constitutes cultural citizenship for Tolkien, who was English (some may say, Old English) but whose books appear to transcend tribal/cultural divides. But let's keep this to the films now.

Let's see now.

LotR was filmed entirely in New Zealand, right? Where was the post-production work done?

Is Peter Jackson an American? Are the writers of LotR film Americans? And the Producers, the Cinematographers, the--well, everybody who goes into participating in and producing the films. Heck, even the coffee and sandwich caterers and the janitorial staff, because everyone plays a part in producing the final work. And were the teachers of these participants Americans? Were their parents American? And did clearly American works influence their aesthetic/artistic development?

Is New Line an American company? How about Time Warner and MGM?

How many of the actors in the trilogy films are Yanks? How many Brits or Kiwis or Auzs? Or Other European States?

How do the Awards community categorise LotR? How does the media? How does the European media as distinguished from the American media?

I could carry on, but I think my point is clear as mud. Or tax returns definitions.

Hmmm. I saw the movies in America, I bought the DVDs in America, I'm an American, ergo...

Isn't there a Latin phrase for that?

All of those items you note, Bb, surely are interesting, but don't impact on my beliefs in the slightest. :D

As they say, follow the money.

New Line is an American company, they paid for the movies, no money no movies... you see where this is going.

Indeed. Why it's not at number one is beyond me.

Had a look at that one too and while I enjoy both the number one (Prince's Purple Rain) and the number two (The Miseducation Of Lauryn Hill) selections a lot I certainly wouldn't list the two as the most sublime music made in the past 25 years. I also happen to agree that Achtung Baby is U2's best work. The rest of the list is very peculiar though and it seems there's no real theme to the selections. They certainly haven't based it on artistic pedigree, as the likes of Shania Twain or Beyoncé can hardly qualify on this basis, cute as they are. Nor can it be based on cultural impact, since fex. Interpool or Cat Power hardly made any. Oh, I am familiar with Cat Power: she is a marginally talented but very much derivative indie-star, and whoever said she made one of the classic albums of the past 25 years is clearly out of his or her mind. Popularity and sales figures aren't it either. I suppose it's a purely subjective list made by people with questionable tastes. Perhaps there's a marketing twist to it that I don't get. Although I haven't seen the movie list I wouldn't give it much credence if it's anything like this one.

You tear apart the article for being completely subjective, and having no rhyme or reason, yet want to use it as a marker where society is heading? You can hardly tell where society is going based on some pop EW list.

I know 5 friends who do not like Billy Joel, the rest love his music and even less who do not like Bob Dylan. Amy Winehouse doesn't sound bad, she's just a major crack addict. Although I still have no idea how she's impacted music, no matter what "list" says she will not be remembered for her music. The young generation isn't screwed, I think the older ones just forget the past.

I can't? Oh. Never mind then.

Just saying you can't tell what we like based on a list in a magazine. Did you know Bill Withers' "Lean on Me" is still an extremely popular and relevant song? As you questioned the ways in which this magazine judged impactful movies, music, I'm questioning your use of it to judge whether society is going down the toilet or not.

I hope I'm not coming off as rude, because I don't mean to. I'm new to this whole forum thing and I probably mistook what was meant. It just bothers me when people say we are ruining culture because we happen to like different things than older generations. And felt you needed to know the EW list is anything but representative. Shawshank Redemption and Lawrence of Arabia are still watched and loved by my generation. Fads and brand names come and go, many classics are simply irreplacable. Casablanca, ehh :p

Nope, there was no mistaking what was meant. Unfortunately, your ire is misplaced. Please see below.

First, I have no idea what 'generation' you are, and I'm quite sure you don't know my 'generation'. Frankly, I don't care. Second, I was not denigrating any generation specifically, I was mocking EW's dim staff and their ill-advised and poorly researched lists. Third, whether or not you choose to believe it, society is going to Hades in a handbasket: the world is going to end in 2012 according to the Mayan calendar, Lindsey Lohan wants to be considered a serious actress, and someone is paying Michael Jackson $1 million a show to perform again. The signs are there for anyone to see, and if any generation is responsible for riding the downward spiral to impending doom, it is the generation currently holding political power.

But on the bright side, The Hobbit movies might be released before the Mayan calendar runs out. Hopefully I'll get to see the first one, in any case. The second movie, which may contain wholly derivative material invented by the filmmaker, I will consign to the flames at world's end.

It was that was my mistake. I thought that from your criticisms of the article (and those who wrote it), and then talking about society going up in flames, you were saying young people (myself included) were causing it because we are the age who like most of the things on the lists. Which is why I felt the need to point out, yes much of the current music and movies we do like, but we still listen and love some of the classics. My bad.