People who try to force their views on you! (1 Viewer)

[David Ely]

[rant]
This is something that gets me SO MAD!!!!!
I was talking to someone today about Lord of the Rings. I was telling him how I really didn't enjoy the movie and was extremely disappointed. He then proceeded to say "your comments will look absurd when it wins untold awards as it surely will".
You can imagine my utter amazement after hearing that comment. So basically he's saying that if the movie wins awards, my opinion of the film would be wrong? Ya, that makes perfect sense.
He then proceeded to tell me how he loved the movie. I told him that I was happy he enjoyed it. There are many people who enjoy this movie, but I didn't. Because of this he keeps arguing that I'm wrong in not liking the movie!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
I've never understood this kind of behavior. I'm always showing my friends movies and introducing them to new music. If they don't like it, I don't put them down because of it. They're allowed to dislike things I like, and I'm allowed to dislike things they like. This guy (who is NOT a friend) didn't see things this way. He was right, and there was no question about it.
I'm sure I'm not the only person that hates this kind of behavior. Why can't people allow others to think for themselves rather than force beliefs on one another?
[/rant]
Thanks for letting me vent
EDIT: HAHAHAHAHAHA, I had no idea there was actually a tag called 'rant'.

 

[Dan Hine]

[rant]you didn't like Lord of the Rings?!!! You fool!!![/rant]
Just kidding. I agree completely. People like that drive me mad. I liked the movie but am not about to start throwing best picture awards at it. Anyhow, happy holidays!
Dan Hine

 

[Patrick Sun]

Well, I didn't think LOTR was all that and a bag of chips. It's one thing to ponderously film what's in a book, it's quite another to adapt the material in the book so that it flows cinematically, and doesn't bore the pants off the audience.

 

[Henry Carmona]

I loved the film!
It was the best ive seen in a long time, surely way better than TPM, blah!
I wasnt bored for a second. And if the audience was, then they must have been clapping for no reason

 

[Sean Conklin]

David, when I want your point of view, I'll give it to you
Just playin', I know exactly how you feel, I find this all the time with my Musclecar friends, AND people I discuss films with, don't let it bother you, the worlds full of people like this and there's not much you can do but let it go in one ear and out the other.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I didn't think LOTR was all that and a bag of chips. It's one thing to ponderously film what's in a book, it's quite another to adapt the material in the book so that it flows cinematically, and doesn't bore the pants off the audience.

Patrick,

Did you read the book???

Also, just because you were bored doesn't mean the rest of us shared those feelings.

Furthermore, whenever an artform works for me such as a film, book, or even music I'm thankful that I received some level of enjoyment from that experience. However, when the same artform doesn't work the same magic for somebody else than I'm sorry for that person because their experience didn't achieve the same level of enjoyment as mine. It doesn't make me right or them wrong in our perception of that artform but just different about our feelings from that experience.

I'm sure there is a film out there that you simply loved but for others it bored them stiff. So what????? A director of a film can't please everyone, it's just not humanly possible to do so but he can make a film that strikes a chord for a major segment of his audience which in the end, is all that he can ask for and hopefully achieved. The final word is still out on whether Peter Jackson achieved that goal but so far he is looking good in that regard but that's just based on the people I've personally talked to about the film and from what I've read and heard from moviegoers and film critics alike. We'll see in the next several weeks, whether he truly struck that chord!

Crawdaddy

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

To paraphrase Shakespeare:
The fault, dear David, lies not in our films but in ourselves.

I liked the movie but not enough to have orgasms over it like some HTF members.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The only reason to bring up my reaction to LOTR is due to the topic at hand, which is the attitude that it's okay to slight those who didn't enjoy LOTR. That's the topic. I haven't gone around telling people who enjoyed the film that they are easily entertained, and are buying into the hype that this film is the next best thing to sliced bread. I realize there are tons of people that enjoyed the film, and the HTF population seems polarized in a positive fashion, but I don't poll people to see how I feel about a film. I would tend to make up my own mind, rather than let a collective speak for me. To do otherwise would be dishonest.
As I've stated before in other LOTR threads, I have not read the books, but have talked to my friends who have, and they confirmed some of the straight out of the book stuff, and even told me about stuff that was totally edited out of the film. Even they mentioned that the film has problems in recounciling the vast amounts of time that passes on screen with the amount of time that truly passed for the characters.
I'm judging this film from a cinematic level, not from a "having read the book first, thus versed in the mythology" level and sitting there trying to absorb what PJ is trying to convey, and in doing so, I found myself bored to tears at some points in the film because it flowed unevenly and never engaged me as a viewer into this glimpse of middle earth.
When Frodo wakes up in Elf-land (I forgot the name of the place), I couldn't readily tell if Frodo is dreaming or if it was real. And I doubt if many of the audience (who hadn't read the books) could tell either. That's just bad storytelling on PJ's part.
Sure, some of the landscape looked nice, and the CGI's battles looked okay, but for me, a film has to give me a protagonist whose fate I care about. In 3 hours, I found very little of the characters to warm up to. To me that means PJ failed in giving me a hook into the story. What do we really know about Frodo after watching this film? Practically zip. He's the poor chap who got the short end of the stick, and is now stuck with hauling this damn ring all over creation, else all hell breaks loose. I wanted more characterization, more urgency and immediacy of the perils ahead. Instead, I got pretty landscapes and one-dimensional characters.
PJ gets kudos for the getting the look and feel of the setting right, but props and set design does not a film make.
Did I get my $7's worth in entertainment? Well, I did get to see some swell landscapes and CGI, and I guess that's worth $7. Oh, when Frodo becomes invisible by wearing the ring, I did like those effects from his vantage point, that was nifty.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The only reason to bring up my reaction to LOTR is due to the topic at hand, which is the attitude that it's okay to slight those who didn't enjoy LOTR. That's the topic. I haven't gone around telling people who enjoyed the film that they are easily entertained, and are buying into the hype that this film is the next best thing to sliced bread. I realize there are tons of people that enjoyed the film, and the HTF population seems polarized in a positive fashion, but I don't poll people to see how I feel about a film. I would tend to make up my own mind, rather than let a collective speak for me. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

Patrick,

Believe it or not I never read the book(s) either but I found the movie very entertaining. Is it a perfect film? Nope, and like you I was bored at certain times but overall the film worked for me and I have no gripes whatsoever about it or at least not to the degree of not seeing it again and recommending for others to see the film. I've read some of your comments about this film here and other forums, maybe I was reading too much between the lines but I felt you were indirectly questioning others as to why they loved this film while you found major faults with it that you couldn't ignore. Points of contention regarding the cinematic value of any film will differ from individual to individual, therefore I try not to think about why a film worked for one and not another. To me, it's a waste of time because everyone is different as to what's important to them in their cinematic viewing. Also, I found other factors come into play as to whether I enjoyed a film during my initial viewing of a film. Things such as the following, was I tired, in a bad mood, didn't like the theater, had other issues on my mind or a number of other variables that could have influenced my viewing pleasure besides the actual film itself.

Crawdaddy

 

[Mike Broadman]

[Logical paradox]

I think that people who try to force their views on other people are wrong, and if you disagree with that, than I'll make you change your mind.

[/Logical paradox]

 

[Patrick Sun]

Robert, perhaps I'm guilty of seeing the trees before the forest w/r/t LOTR:the film.
When I get that "I saw a great film" buzz coming out of the theater, that usually does it for me as a barometer for when a film worked for me cinematically. Maybe I was tired from the length of the film, with no buzz materializing at all from the viewing experience, and then I read these glowing reviews and wonder if I saw a different film. That's all I was curious about.
A film like LOTR, I almost expected a nice ride for a film, when I got off that ride, I had desire to get back on the ride. Thus my discontent for the film that was supposed to rock my world.
Plus, the weight of expectations of a game that no one is really qualified to quantify among the masses. If it worked for them, great.
Either way, I think I've beaten this Hobbit to death.
Happy holidays!

 

[Adil M]

LOTR was a very bad movie and my local theater sucks. These 2 may have interacted some, but I still believe LOTR was a poor movie based on it's own "merit"'s.

I have read the book. However, I never really liked the Godfather that much due to hype and having read the book first, but on viewing it again I'm quite enamored and so that is my little ray of light for the LOTR.

Movies almost never compare to the written versions. My imagination is superior.

Judgements made right after watching a movie are often gut-based or confused attempts. I like to decide on a movie the next day after I've mulled it over somewhat.

 

[William Ward]

So there is yet another thread discussing LOTR. Well, I guess this one is for the After Hours Lounge.

Forcing viewpoints on someone is not a good idea. It will only serve to further strengthen their resolve about their own viewpoints. Instead, make your point, and move on. If asked about it again, repeat your previous viewpoint, and move on.

But Pan & Scan is still wrong because it modifies the movie from the way it was originally.

 

[Don Black]

This kind of things goes on all of the time in this forum. Take the OAR issue, for example. Some people are adamant about converting every release to OAR only. In doing so, they refuse to acknowledge the millions of TV owners in the world that don't own WS/HD TVs. For the record, I have a 120" front projection televsion and only buy WS DVDs. However, I also understand why full frame exists and am content to be patient about the eventual conversion away from 4:3.

 

[Sean Conklin]

This kind of things goes on all of the time in this forum. Take the OAR issue, for example. Some people are adamant about converting every release to OAR only. In doing so, they refuse to acknowledge the millions of TV owners in the world that don't own WS/HD TVs. For the record, I have a 120" front projection televsion and only buy WS DVDs. However, I also understand why full frame exists and am content to be patient about the eventual conversion away from 4:3.

Uh..Nevermind, not the place or time.

 

[Jack Briggs]

About forcing one's views on others:

What makes the current spate of OAR-is-in-danger threads disturbing is that some members are trying to make the case for pan-and-scan transfers to us. Now, that's something I can live without. But the threads themselves are important.

As for The Lord of the Rings, it's precisely because I slogged through all three books, as well as The Hobbit, like any good child of the '60s that I decided to forego this film--that, in addition to some of the tasteless marketing and Burger King tie-ins. I'll see it eventually, but, so help me, I don't think the books are all that good as literature. (No offense to all those who liked the film--which, I'm sure, is pretty good.)

 

[JonZ]

Concerning movies,it doesnt bother me, because I have great taste in movies, and Im right and theyre wrong.

But it does bother me when it comes to religion,social and political views. A good debate is always welcome, but Im talking more about the radical types.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I think this whole thread is pointless and irrelevant!
Seriously, when someone is so desperate for me to agree with them or resort to calling me wrong, that is when I tune them out. I can debate with merit. I can quarrel and banter and examine and dissect with anyone who is interested in conversation. If they have no other agenda than to belabor their point and obstinance, to throw up road-blocks to any point I bring up, then I throw in the towel.
Bruce

 

[Walter Kittel]

Jack,
Tsk, tsk, tsk. First you didn't view A.I. Artificial Intelligence theatrically and now you are planning on forgoing The Fellowship of the Rings.
My goodness, what ever are we gonna do with you?
Bruce,
Kinda like the Star Wars threads? You can decide for yourself whether that is aimed at the pro or con Lucas camp, or both.
- Walter.

 

[Jack Briggs]

But I'm planning on purchasing the DVDs, Walter. Does that redeem me? Sort of?