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

[Sauron the White]

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.

[Quempel]

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

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

[Nerwen]

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.

[Lush]

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

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.

[Sauron the White]

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.

[Nerwen]

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.

the movies displayed here is far more negative and far more petty and far more mean spirited than most other Tolkien sites

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

great films

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

[Lush]

To say that anyone could make a list or somebody does not like something completely misses the point.

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

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

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.