[Neithan]

Eh? Even if it is fair to say that the films are only good in the scenes where they stick most closely to the book (a point with which I do not agree), surely the act of rendering these scenes on film gives rise to merit in the film itself.

In a sense yes. What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens. Basically what I am saying is that whatever merit they might get for rendering the book onto the screen is connected to the Tolkiens work. It is the screenwriting that I have a problem with, not the visual effects. I hope you can understand that, I am having a hard time explaining it.

But, for me, quality is an entirely subjective thing, although subjective opinions may be widely shared and thereby gain some degree of objectivity.

Well first of all no degree of objectivity can be gained through subjectivity. Whether or not quality of art can be objective is a philisophical question, one which I disagree with you on. I hope that the majority of people would agree that a plot that has no logical contradictions is objectively better than one that does. I would also contend that Tolkiens humor is objectively better than fart jokes, but this is a much more controversial. There is a whole philisophical argument behind it but even if I had time to effectively argue the point it would be way off topic, so let's just agree to disagree on that one.