Why the Double Standard?

" Of course, quite a few critics are criticizing ROTK right now for being just an effects-laden spectacle with no character development and little story. Is that fair?"

Who are all these critics you speak of? Looking at Rottentomatoes.com, the reviews there have given great praise for ROTK with an average rating of 9.2 our of 10.


REVIEWS

(9.0/10) The Fellowship of the Ring - (94%) 172 positive, 10 negative
(8.7/10) The Two Towers - (98%) 197 positive, 5 negative
(9.2/10) The Return of the King - (96%) 185 positive, 7 negative

(7.0/10) The Phantom Menace - (63%) 91 positive, 54 negative
(6.8/10) Attack of the Clones - (63%) 125 positive, 72 negative

(9.2/10) Star Wars: A New Hope - (92%) 36 positive, 3 negative
(9.3/10) The Empire Strikes Back - (98%) 46 positive, 1 negative
(7.3/10) Return of the Jedi - (80%) 32 positive, 8 negative

 

Just because you are good at math does not mean you can teach it. So just because you you see a lot of movies does not mean you have a better opinion.

ani, the correct progression of the second half of your analogy would read:

"Just because a critic has reviewed alot of movies doesn't mean he can make a good one."

And you know what, they don't.

The crux of a review isn't the writing style, its what is written....the content. Not how he wrote the review, but what he is writing about.

Go-Mer:

I am not saying a critic's opinion isn't valid, it's just not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

Arrogance in a critic isn't attributed to their panning of every film under the sun, it simply comes down to acting like their opinion is somehow better than anyone elses.

It's not.

Sure they are. Just as an art appraiser can recognize the value of art, so too can a film critic explain the merits of film. There is a level of experience here that you or I do not have. The essence of your perception of the PT is based solely on personal preference which is biased. So is mine. I will readily concede that point even though I like SW. but critics have no axe to grind do they? They bring years of experience to the table and base a film on merit.

and is their opinion better? No. Perhaps more informed or more critical of things we dismiss. But as a measurement or explanation of a double standard between LOTR and the PT, I think you would be dissappointed. Critics like LOTR based on the reasons I've given time and time again.

Fans are gonna love Sw no matter what. but to get a sense of where the film truly is in cinema, there is no greater or more objective barometer than a critical review.

 

Oh so I just have to watch a lot of movies to become a critic?

It certainly helps. As does being able to express yourself clearly in print. The ideal film critic can examine the film in question, both piecemeal and as a whole, and explain how it does or doesn't fit together in a coherent written piece. If you can do all that, great. If not, then you're less of a critic than you could be.

Really go sit in on a college writing class.

Writing was my major. That and film.

Now, if you look back and see my edit, you'll see why informed opinions carry more weight. It's a fact of life; it's part of how society works. You don't have to like it, per se, and that's part of the beauty of it, but the fact remains, in all walks of life, that someone who knows their stuff, whatever that stuff may be, has more substantial things to say than someone who knows less.

You can say all you want about how writers only present their side of the story, but consider this: If you had two articles in front of you, both about, say, life in Inida, one from an author who'd lived there for years, and another who'd never been, which author's take would you put more stock in?

There's knowing something. Then there's teaching something. Just because you know math does not mean you can teach it.

Maybe you're right. What do I know about teaching math? I had to guess, and I was wrong. See how it works?

To link this math business back to the topic, not everyone who knows how to criticize film has all the right stuff to make quality films themselves?which is a shame, having all that knowledge and not many ways to apply it. However, that doesn't diminish what knowledge they have in the least.

And, as Phillip points out, you ignore one other key issue: The question of where critics' opinions come from. When nearly all of them praise one movie, or slam another, do you ever think to question why?

 

This is so far of from anything having to do with AOTC. It needs to be locked. So if someone can tie this into AOTC's then go for it. If not then it needs to be locked.

Now, if you look back and see my edit, you'll see why informed opinions carry more weight. It's a fact of life; it's part of how society works. You don't have to like it, per se, and that's part of the beauty of it, but the fact remains, in all walks of life, that someone who knows their stuff, whatever that stuff may be, has more substantial things to say than someone who knows less.

Last I will say about this. Because it has nothing to do with AOTC.

So someone who is a music critic and listens to all kinds of music would have a better informed opinion as to what a good metal band is? I don't think so.

The music critic can listen to as much music as he want's. But when a music critic calls Linkin Park a metal band I think it is really funny. Because they have no idea what a metal band is really like.


on't change your opinion to match theirs simply because they gave it first; listen to what they say, compare that to your own assessment, figure out how the two of you came to different conclusions (or happened to agree), and go from there. It's a great way to enrich your knowledge of film, and that kind of thinking can only do you good.

So it all comes down to you need a critic to back up what you say.

 

According to Christopher Lee, George Lucas admitted to him that he couldn't have done Lord of the Rings.

Christopher Lee interview

 

ani, we're having a mature, civilized conversation here, and calling for everyone to stop because you don't like it anymore is anything but mature.

Your answer to the sum total of every point everyone's made here is "I don't think so?"

That's not how discussion works. You don't just contradict the other guy and then repeat what you just said. If you do that, then you're not discussing at all; you're just talking to hear yourself talk.

When you can respond to what other people say in an orderly, thoughtful fashion?take some lessons from Go-Mer, if it helps?then we'll have something to talk about.

So it all comes down to you need a critic to back up what you say.

...No, ani, you completely misunderstood that entire paragraph. Would it help if I rephrased?

 

Wow... straight from ol' Georgie's mouth. He couldn't have done Lord of the Rings.

 

And we're all waiting with baited breath for Peter Jackson to create his own original saga

 

...or Steven Spielberg to create his own saga, but I don't hear anyone complaning about that and he is three times the director Ol' Georgie Boy is.

 

I don't how it's relevant that GL thinks he couldn't do LOTR.

I don't think he could either, but it doesn't make PJ a better director. I certainly don't think PJ could make a good SW movie.

Just as I don't think Terry Gilliam could make a good children's movie... or Kevin Smith could make a good Shakespeare adaptation... or Ivan Reitman could make a good action-adventure flick.

And yet I think they're all good directors.




Rick McCallum loves you!

 

That's not how discussion works. You don't just contradict the other guy and then repeat what you just said. If you do that, then you're not discussing at all; you're just talking to hear yourself talk.

When you can respond to what other people say in an orderly, thoughtful fashion?take some lessons from Go-Mer, if it helps?then we'll have something to talk about.

Nice flame there.

 

Yeah, George certainly created his own saga... nevermind that he borrowed heavily from a myriad of sources... LOTR included.

And I am not certain that I would boast much if I had created the Prequel saga... in fact, if I were Mr. Lucas I would be tempted to say "It was McCallum's idea!".

 

The thread is no longer about AOTC. It really needs to be locked.

 

My wife and I went and watched a movie today. We both enjoyed the movie and the movie is getting rave reviews from critics and has Golden Globe nominations including for picture, performances and directing.

This movie has dialogue and performances that are appropriate for this movie and is simular to what we see in the STAR WARS Prequels.

Double standard?

As far as I'm concerned, double standard(acknowledged or not) or no double standard(acknowledged or not), neither influence the fan I am. Neither change the person/professional Lucas is. Neither change the movies the STAR WARS Prequels are.

By the way, Natalie Portman is in the movie I refer to. She was incredible. And she is a great cryer. Way to go, Natalie.

 

Or move it to the Community forum - and the we can discuss if Tarintino would be able to pull off a Harry Potter film or not

 

This is getting a little far away from AOTC. Draw it back, please.

Darth Geist, you're drifting out of line towards flaming. Play nice.

 

Well in order to save this thread I am going to point out some other consistency issues. People always complain how Obiwan does not kill Jango when the tensION is built up between him and Obiwan. Well, in LOTR, there is A LOT of tension built between Gandalf and the Witch King. And who kills the Witch king? Some woman. Wow. Goerge would get shot by fans if he had Padme kill Jango or Dooku.

 

Gandalf has a showdown battle with the Witchking, who breaks his staff. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time for it in the theatrical, but it will be in the Extended Edition.

 

FOTR and TTT both ran a lot smoother in the Extended Editions, that's for sure.

Just because some critics have said LOTR is an example of spectacle doesn't mean they gave it bad reviews. It's just that they considered it "good" spectacle, as opposed to the Matrix sequels, which they considered "bad" spectacle. They still look at it as an effects movie. I personally liked both Matrix sequels. Critics look at movies like Matrix, LOTR ans SW differently than they look at a movie like Cold Mountain. Which is fair enough.

I'm sure GL couldn't have pulled off LOTR. He'd had been too interested in making his own original story. That's why I'm glad he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon way back when. An adaptation of anothers work would be a waste of Lucas' creative mind and talents. Leave it up to capable genre directors like Peter Jackson to handle that kind of stuff. A visionary like Lucas need his own story to tell.

To place this back in context with AOTC, how about how the critics were all over the Anakin/Padme romance, yet had nothing critical to say about the insipid Arwen/Aragorn scenes in TTT? Those scenes and dialogoue were every bit as corny and not anywhere near as important to the overall story-unless you actually buy into how Jackson ties the ring and Arwen's fates together in ROTK, which I think is bollocks.

Double standard indeed.

 

As far as the Witch-King goes, it's a shame that his confrontation with Gandalf didn't make the theatrical cut, but it does exist and will reappear, as opposed to the Obi-Jango showdown that never existed at all.

In the meantime, Eowyn's duel with the Witch-King makes dramatic sense for a number of reasons. First off, Eowyn is hardly "some woman;" her identity and place in the characters' heirarchy are well established by that point.

Her duel serves as the climax of her character's arc, the end of a discernible path from the repressed and essentially powerless figure we first meet. Giving her such a heroic deed to accomplish, and in defense of her uncle, pays off both her major character threads: Her desire to fight, and her devotion to Theoden. (And let's not forget, Gandalf makes it clear right off the bat than no man can kill the Witch-King anyway.)

It also gives Merry, who at that point has become her sidekick, a chance for a heroic act of his own, and in her defense. In suicidally attacking a seemingly invincible opponent for the good of his friends, Merry cements the end of his character's journey; he's gone from bumbling oaf to fearless defender of his comrades.

With respect to characterization, that's all top-notch storytelling, and bears no likeness at all to the Mace Windu fiasco.

First, Mace has no backstory, no arc to his character, no significant ties to any other character (except Yoda, who isn't there), and attacks Jango not because Jango threatens his friends (not that he has any), but because Jango decided to pick a fight to the death with a Jedi Master for reasons known only to God.

As for Aragorn and Arwen, you call their lines corny, but I challenge you to back that up.

 

The Arwen/Aragorn romance was at least a lot more believable. They were obviously in love with each other, while Padme showed absolutely not interest in Anakin, but then all of a sudden confesses her love out of the blue.

And where are these corny lines you speak of? I didn't hear any comparisons to sand.

 

Ain't it Cool is reporting a list of the scenes to be added back into the film for the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended DVD. These include Gandalf confronting Saruman at Isengard, Merry pledging allegiance to Theoden at Edoras, Aragorn using the Palantir to reveal himself to Sauron, the Witch King confronting Gandalf during the battle of Pelennor Fields, the Houses of Healing scene in which Faramir and Eowyn meet, Frodo and Sam joining a column of orcs on the way to Mt. Doom and the infamous 'Mouth of Sauron' scene at the Black Gates. Glimpses of a few of these appeared in trailers for the film. We've also heard that the drinking game at Edoras between Gimli and Legolas will be added back in, along with possibly more footage showing other characters going into the West at the end of the film. Peter Jackson has said that approximately 65 minutes of material was cut from the film for its theatrical release, so a good portion of that could find its way back into the extended cut.

 

appleseed, I take it you didn't like the Arwen/Aragorn romance scenes in TTT. But really, what does that prove to me? I liked it better (much better) than the AOTC one. Why would I criticize it if I liked it? That is my opinion. Picking something you didn't like and then smugly saying people have a double standard is just wrong. There are people out there who think the Arwen/Aragorn romance works well. I could make a wild accusation to one movie you liked (AOTC) and one you probably didn't, and then accuse you of double standards too. Example: So how come you liked the awful AOTC romance but didn't like the Trinity and Neo romance in The Matrix? Double standards indeed. (You see, there is no point in making these statements). I am assuming you think the AOTC romance was awful, whereas you felt it worked. I would be wrong in making such an assumption on your part. Well, why are you assuming I didn't like the Arwen romance? I don't care if you hated it, but why are you telling me what to think here?

It is obviously down to personal opinion. Stop accusing others of having these "double standards." I will respect the fact you liked the AOTC romance if you can respect the fact some people didn't. This whole double standards thing is getting ridiculous. Just because I criticize the AOTC romance does not mean I'm saying you're wrong in liking them. Feel free to love them all you want. However, what you are doing is saying that I have double standards in loving something like ROTK over AOTC, and that I'm not being "fair" to AOTC. Um, wrong. I personally feel ROTK is just a better movie overall. No need to insult others for having their opinions.

The music critic can listen to as much music as he want's. But when a music critic calls Linkin Park a metal band I think it is really funny. Because they have no idea what a metal band is really like.

anidanami, so critics, music or film, make mistakes from time to time. You are using your few examples and saying EVERY critic out there is worthless, just because they make a few mistakes. I've read some mistakes regarding AOTC (the critic spelled the names wrong of a few planets). That does NOT mean every single critic out there is an idiot and are worthless. And I also agree, a critic should be a good writer, but it is their CONTENT that sets them apart. Ebert is respected for over 40 (yes, 40) years because he shows he has knowledge and great insight in his field, and he can be humorous and witty at times. If all you're looking for is a great writer, you might as well send a robot in there. You need to imbue some personality into your articles or they might as well hire someone else.

 

The Arwen/Aragorn romance was at least a lot more believable. They were obviously in love with each other, while Padme showed absolutely not interest in Anakin, but then all of a sudden confesses her love out of the blue.

Well I think you're not paying enough attention to the visuals in AOTC there. Look at Padme in the scenes with her and Anakin, a good example is the scene in her coruscant apartment. When she first notices him, look at her face and more importantly her eyes, its clear (to me at least) that she finds him attractive and is quite taken aback by the young man before her.
And thats really the thing with Padme, alot of her interest in Anakin lies in her facial expressions, the look in her eyes, and her own body language. Its a very subtle nuance and one I'm not surprised most guys dont recognise (to be frank we aren't the best at figuring out what women are actually feeling).
Plus she even gives away her feelings towards Anakin in the fireplace scene, despite her denial of any relationship they can have. And thats pretty early on, and its those feelings which help cement her revelation after the events of Tatooine and the situation on Geonosis.

 

Well I feel partly responsible for getting us off topic. I mentioned that critics conveyed a sense of objectivity and that negated any sense of double standard on their part with reviewing LOTR versus the PT.

But I think it still is on topic. I wasn't looking for someone to breakdown and say, "Ok, the PT is bad." I was hoping to inject some sort of measurement that we may go by - apart from fan opinion - that could demonstrate why critics liked LOTR better than the PT.

So it all comes down to you need a critic to back up what you say.

ani I think you keep demanding from me to provide evidence to you that reflects my position. When I do, you dismiss it - that's not discussion. But as it goes, you counter that you do not need any other position to back your opinion up - an opinion that you consider infallible with regard to the PT or LOTR or both. Again, that is not a defensible position. We're trying to find empirical evidence as to the heart of this whole double standard business.

I've shown, through critical reviews, that no double standard exists. You dismiss the review itself.

I've tried to explain that critics exercise cinema fundamentals when creating a review. You dismiss the critic as merely a good writer with an opinion.

There seems to be a door we're not getting through here. lol