I realize that you've deliberately put this up to provoke people like me (or maybe just me). And I should not rise to your bait. But:
It makes sense to me that fantasy, or myth, might not be your taste; maybe you find it boring or difficult to relate to. That's one thing, very common, totally understandable. "Ed" is not to my taste, for example.
But why LOTR would "disgust" you is more confusing. It can't be the filmmaking – surely anyone who aspires to see people's passionate artistic visions being given due respect (and money) by producers and audiences alike has to be heartened by the objective success and quality of these films.
Does the story's idealism make you that uncomfortable? or that angry? What is it that disgusts you about this?
"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the men of Numenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."
(The Two Towers)
Having foolishly risen to the bait, I'm now going to slip the hook out of my mouth and swim back to the deep water.
Bee Boy — Mon, 5/31/04 5:23pm
Yep. Pretty much just you. :-)
But, I was also giving voice to the frustrations shared by other (lurking) readers.
For the record – and this should be at least fairly clear to those who read the Oscar article – I'm not disgusted by LOTR. It is not to my taste, which, as you pointed out, is a perfectly valid response. I'm disappointed by many of the filmmaking choices, but I'm not disgusted. What really bothers me is all the fanfare that makes the series out to be a lot more than it really is.
I'm not even disgusted by the Oscar sweep, although "disappointed" falls far short of describing my reaction. What disgusts me, however, is the slavering frenzy of adoration that EW, in particular, continues to heap onto the franchise. (Again, the Academy didn't exactly help, but that must be considered a separate issue.) In my opinion, if the fanboys at Entertainment Weekly wanted to devote so many pages to even more LOTR coverage – as if we don't already have enough information – and DVD easter eggs, then they should've published a little book and sold it at newsstands. They should not have made a "special double issue" which supplants not just one, but two, issues of the actual magazine that I paid for with my subscription.
The beauty of a magazine like Entertainment Weekly is its broad approach. In every issue, there's something for me – no matter what I'm looking for. Even if Pink is on the cover, there might be an interesting actor profile, or an industry column I'd like to read. The LOTR double issue, however, features none of the usual content. No book reviews, no TV reviews, no Jim Mullen's Hot Sheet. It is – for me, at least – kindling. Parrot cage liner. And yet, my subscription has been decremented by two issues, no matter what. Look at the Oscar preview (#749/750). Double issue. Plenty of jubilant column inches devoted to how LOTR is the best thing ever. But we still get our TV reviews and Stupid Questions with Scott Baio. It just doesn't seem fair. Maybe "disgust" is too harsh a term here, but I doubt I'd have been able to bait you with "I don't particularly care for this."
"Holly" — Mon, 5/31/04 10:39pm
Fair point, re: the magazine and how you paid for two issues you essentially didn't receive. I can see how that would be irksome.
I doubt it's a function of fanboys at the magazine, however; surely a significant national magazine like EW decides to publish a special issue almost purely because they know it'll please (and make money from) the majority of subscribers and potential readers at newstands.
...Unless they're dealing with me, who got a free copy from Andy. Woo hoo.
Point is, you just happen to be in the minority this time. Normally I would congratulate you, being someone who finds herself in the minority most of the time when it comes to storytelling. At the moment, however, I'm too busy basking in the fact that for once – FOR ONCE – lots of people like what I like! it's kinda cool.
And who knew you had a parrot?
splash
"Holly" — Mon, 5/31/04 10:46pm
You're getting your money's worth from this bait, I gotta say...
"What really bothers me is all the fanfare that makes the series out to be a lot more than it really is."
You've written this like a factual statement, but of course it's your opinion. For some of us, believe it or not, the fanfare is justified. For some of us, these movies really were/are THAT significant.
To clarify, however, I don't consider idiotic commercial tie-ins like "LOTR" Cingular phones to be "fanfare." I can join you wholeheartedly in disgust for those.
Although... did anybody else think those Air New Zealand planes were kinda cool? I mean, creepy, yes, with those giant staring eyes, and obviously a symptom of capitalism run wild, but ... whoa.
Bee Boy — Mon, 5/31/04 11:59pm
Firstly, I can't thank you enough for rising to the bait, even against your better judgment. The only reason I restricted the entry to just the title and the image was that I was hoping to spill out my rant in response to your comments. (This "save some for the comments" approach backfired miserably on me on the New York Minute post, so I was very worried about trying it again.) I'm inexpressibly grateful.
"...me, who got a free copy from Andy."
Exactly what I meant about the lurkers. My minority's growing!
Capitalism run wild I can deal with. Fanboyism masquerading as "news" or "critique" is irksome to me. It's certainly the case that EW sees the profit potential in doing an all-LOTR issue. (I still say it shouldn't have been forced upon subscribers unless it also contained the magazine's regular features, though.) However, I assert that their assessment of this profit potential comes through the filter of their rabid fandom. ("How can everyone and her cousin not buy three copies of this?! LOTR is the best! Thing! Ever!") They love LOTR, which is their right. (Some of my favorite people love LOTR.) They make it out to be a lot more than it really is, which is their right. I'm "disgusted" – which is my right.
And the best part is that I can write things like this as though they're factual statements, because it's my damn website and I'll rant about whatever I please! :-)
"AC" — Tue, 6/1/04 10:25am
My deal is, this would have made more sense if it were meant to coincide with the movie. I'd still get rid of it, but at least I'd be able to see the point (I liked the movies). But the DVD?? This is clearly overkill. And it's only the first low-frills edition at that. I shudder to think what will happen when the Super-Duper-Special Edition comes out with all 50 DVDs, a Gollum beer stein and a lock of Andy Serkis's hair. SHUDDER
AC — Tue, 5/20/08 7:10pm
Amount of time it took me to read this (and next) week's double issue celebrating Sex and the City: 30 seconds. Ugh. Why do they do this shit?
Bee Boy — Tue, 5/20/08 9:18pm
Ha ha! I was going to post on that but at least this issue included a few other articles around the "63 pages of sex!" I was glad those 63 were relatively centrally located – I was able to rip 'em out and recycle them right away. Now I can skim the "What To Watch" section at my leisure without fear of happening on that page reminding us, with the attendant rise of vomit in the throat, that SJP's laptop is in the fucking Smithsonian. (At least it's a Mac.)
"Holly" — Mon, 5/31/04 2:19am
I realize that you've deliberately put this up to provoke people like me (or maybe just me). And I should not rise to your bait. But:
It makes sense to me that fantasy, or myth, might not be your taste; maybe you find it boring or difficult to relate to. That's one thing, very common, totally understandable. "Ed" is not to my taste, for example.
But why LOTR would "disgust" you is more confusing. It can't be the filmmaking – surely anyone who aspires to see people's passionate artistic visions being given due respect (and money) by producers and audiences alike has to be heartened by the objective success and quality of these films.
Does the story's idealism make you that uncomfortable? or that angry? What is it that disgusts you about this?
"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the men of Numenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise." (The Two Towers)
Having foolishly risen to the bait, I'm now going to slip the hook out of my mouth and swim back to the deep water.
Bee Boy — Mon, 5/31/04 5:23pm
Yep. Pretty much just you. :-)
But, I was also giving voice to the frustrations shared by other (lurking) readers.
For the record – and this should be at least fairly clear to those who read the Oscar article – I'm not disgusted by LOTR. It is not to my taste, which, as you pointed out, is a perfectly valid response. I'm disappointed by many of the filmmaking choices, but I'm not disgusted. What really bothers me is all the fanfare that makes the series out to be a lot more than it really is.
I'm not even disgusted by the Oscar sweep, although "disappointed" falls far short of describing my reaction. What disgusts me, however, is the slavering frenzy of adoration thatEW , in particular, continues to heap onto the franchise. (Again, the Academy didn't exactly help, but that must be considered a separate issue.) In my opinion, if the fanboys at Entertainment Weekly wanted to devote so many pages to even more LOTR coverage – as if we don't already have enough information – and DVD easter eggs, then they should've published a little book and sold it at newsstands. They should not have made a "special double issue" which supplants not just one, but two, issues of the actual magazine that I paid for with my subscription.
The beauty of a magazine likeEntertainment Weekly is its broad approach. In every issue, there's something for me – no matter what I'm looking for. Even if Pink is on the cover, there might be an interesting actor profile, or an industry column I'd like to read. The LOTR double issue, however, features none of the usual content. No book reviews, no TV reviews, no Jim Mullen's Hot Sheet. It is – for me, at least – kindling. Parrot cage liner. And yet, my subscription has been decremented by two issues, no matter what. Look at the Oscar preview (#749/750). Double issue. Plenty of jubilant column inches devoted to how LOTR is the best thing ever. But we still get our TV reviews and Stupid Questions with Scott Baio. It just doesn't seem fair. Maybe "disgust" is too harsh a term here, but I doubt I'd have been able to bait you with "I don't particularly care for this."
"Holly" — Mon, 5/31/04 10:39pm
Fair point, re: the magazine and how you paid for two issues you essentially didn't receive. I can see how that would be irksome.
I doubt it's a function of fanboys at the magazine, however; surely a significant national magazine like EW decides to publish a special issue almost purely because they know it'll please (and make money from) the majority of subscribers and potential readers at newstands.
...Unless they're dealing with me, who got a free copy from Andy. Woo hoo.
Point is, you just happen to be in the minority this time. Normally I would congratulate you, being someone who finds herself in the minority most of the time when it comes to storytelling. At the moment, however, I'm too busy basking in the fact that for once – FOR ONCE – lots of people like what I like! it's kinda cool.
And who knew you had a parrot?
splash
"Holly" — Mon, 5/31/04 10:46pm
You're getting your money's worth from this bait, I gotta say...
"What really bothers me is all the fanfare that makes the series out to be a lot more than it really is."
You've written this like a factual statement, but of course it's your opinion. For some of us, believe it or not, the fanfare is justified. For some of us, these movies really were/are THAT significant.
To clarify, however, I don't consider idiotic commercial tie-ins like "LOTR" Cingular phones to be "fanfare." I can join you wholeheartedly in disgust for those.
Although... did anybody else think those Air New Zealand planes were kinda cool? I mean, creepy, yes, with those giant staring eyes, and obviously a symptom of capitalism run wild, but ... whoa.
Bee Boy — Mon, 5/31/04 11:59pm
Firstly, I can't thank you enough for rising to the bait, even against your better judgment. The only reason I restricted the entry to just the title and the image was that I was hoping to spill out my rant in response to your comments. (This "save some for the comments" approach backfired miserably on me on the New York Minute post, so I was very worried about trying it again.) I'm inexpressibly grateful.
"...me, who got a free copy from Andy."
Exactly what I meant about the lurkers. My minority's growing!
Capitalism run wild I can deal with. Fanboyism masquerading as "news" or "critique" is irksome to me. It's certainly the case thatEW sees the profit potential in doing an all-LOTR issue. (I still say it shouldn't have been forced upon subscribers unless it also contained the magazine's regular features, though.) However, I assert that their assessment of this profit potential comes through the filter of their rabid fandom. ("How can everyone and her cousin not buy three copies of this?! LOTR is the best! Thing! Ever!") They love LOTR, which is their right. (Some of my favorite people love LOTR.) They make it out to be a lot more than it really is, which is their right. I'm "disgusted" – which is my right.
And the best part is that I can write things like this as though they're factual statements, because it's my damn website and I'll rant about whatever I please! :-)
"AC" — Tue, 6/1/04 10:25am
My deal is, this would have made more sense if it were meant to coincide with the movie. I'd still get rid of it, but at least I'd be able to see the point (I liked the movies). But the DVD?? This is clearly overkill. And it's only the first low-frills edition at that. I shudder to think what will happen when the Super-Duper-Special Edition comes out with all 50 DVDs, a Gollum beer stein and a lock of Andy Serkis's hair. SHUDDER
AC — Tue, 5/20/08 7:10pm
Amount of time it took me to read this (and next) week's double issue celebrating Sex and the City: 30 seconds. Ugh. Why do they do this shit?
Bee Boy — Tue, 5/20/08 9:18pm
Ha ha! I was going to post on that but at least this issue included a few other articles around the "63 pages of sex!" I was glad those 63 were relatively centrally located – I was able to rip 'em out and recycle them right away. Now I can skim the "What To Watch" section at my leisure without fear of happening on that page reminding us, with the attendant rise of vomit in the throat, that SJP's laptop is in the fucking Smithsonian. (At least it's a Mac.)