Are women just bored of the rings?

[johnsemlak]

If she's writing for the NYT, she can't be stupid. So she's just making these claims for effect.

Uhh, hmm, well, ..., ya' know..., never mind.

Keep in mind this woman is writing for an audience that is, well, not us (for the most part). To the circle of readers she's aiming at agrees with her before they read the article.

 

[Desdichado]

My wife is an intelligent, thoughtful woman with a great love of film.

Her geek credentials include occasional gaming, years of active RenFest and SCA participation, and her second favorite film is 'Conan'. Plus, she married an Ur-Geek like myself.

But she loathed the trilogy.

1. She realy disliked Fellowship. The novelty of being amused by the trickery involved in shrinking the Hobbits wore off rather quickly. "Xena on steroids" is a direct quote.

2. If she disliked Fellowship, she hated Two Towers.

I could easily list all of her complaints (or even invite her in to do so herself), but I'm not interested in the resulting flame-war.

I've fought it too many times in real life

I've got almost the opposite statement (although I'd say the first line of your post applies to my wife as well! ) My wife has absolutely zero geek-cred. She tried gaming and the whole concept seemed silly to her. Star Wars is the only science fiction she can stomach, but that hardly counts because Star Wars is a cultural phenomena.

However, my wife loved the Lord of the Rings movies, and even organized a huge group of our friends to go see them Friday night. We were first in line at a sold-out show because my wife wanted to experience that. After we had already seen it together on Wednesday night.

 

[Desdichado]

And just out of curiosity, why do people keep calling this a review? It isn't one and doesn't pretend to be. Its a column style peice about a movie. I've seen dozens of them about different movies, and they are really easy to tell apart from reviews, good or bad.

I suppose by calling it a review, you can say it fails as a review and give it some extra insults, but then I could pretend that LOTR is a documentary about renisance fairs and insult it on that basis... wouldn't say anything about the film.

Its a column. Calling it a bad review doesn't insult it.

Kahuna

Maybe because very few of us have NYT online subscriptions, and thus can't read the original article?

 

[Quartermoon]

First, I'm a woman, and I guess a flavor of geek, tho not many of the other PTA moms can tell. And I love the movies, as I love the books.

My husband and I brought many friends into the fold with these movies, most of them women. The most eager one is a woman who ranks about 0 on the geek scale. She is the one who demands that we watch the two extended versions the day before we go see Return, so she can get the full effect. She begs me for backstory, for details on who's who and what's what.

And I know several other women who think the movies rock.

Also, here's a bit from a Wall Street Journal article another woman friend (who has already made me promise to take her to see Return once our kids are back in school) sent to me:

Lords of the Preteens

The 'Rings' Trilogy Was Pitched at Fans
Of Action But Scores With Families, Too

By BRUCE ORWALL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

(....)

When Time Warner Inc.'s New Line Cinema set out a few years ago to make a trilogy of movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," the studio figured the target audience was geeky 35-plus men who grew up obsessed with the book. Because of the intense action the series would entail, they certainly didn't rely on anyone younger than teenagers to propel it at the box office.

But a funny thing happened on the road to Mordor. For many parents, the story's "never lose hope" morality tale ultimately prevailed over the severed heads and spurting blood. Some educators got behind the movie and encouraged kids to see it. And stars like Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen blossomed into heartthrobs, drawing young girls -- and their mothers -- away from Harry Potter and toward Legolas and Aragorn. New Line marketing chief Russell Schwartz says that young girls have in fact become among the "most ardent supporters" of the "Rings" series, right up there with the hardcore Tolkien freaks.

I don't like being called a "hardcore Tolkien freak" either, but his wording just makes it clear that this writer isn't overly biased. And he's right...half the girls in my Girl Scout Troop are fanatical about these movies.

For what it's worth.

 

[Storm Raven]

sorry, it wasn't. Or at least it didn't work as irony.

It appears to have worked well as irony for most other people. You seem to be the only person reading this thread that didn't get it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Let's not kid ourselves here. The books are solidly in the camp of boy's adverture, which doesn't preclude women from liking it, but does make it less likely.

The books are in the camp of "epic" (in the traditional sense of the word), not "boy's adventure".

The characters are all male, barring two minor ones.

Three. You missed a female character.

 

[Ysgarran]

The reviewer (CARYN JAMES) never mentions whether she has read the books or not either. I get the strong impression that she has not read them. Or if she has read them she is not a fan of the works.

Ysgarran.

<snip>It seems pretty clear to me that this reviewer entered into the theatre with her opinion already in mind, if she in fact even watched the movie at all. A good movie review should at the very least mention something about

 

[Richards]

Originally posted by Piratecat:

For cryin' out...

I always picture you as being about 24, an eternally young genius who will always turn out "Ecology of the Flumph" articles whenever needed to satisy my personal Dragon-reading needs. And you have a 14 year old granddaughter?

All I can say is, I hope she was named after a D&D monster.

Sorry to break the illusion, Piratecat...but it's really not as bad as you think. Actually, she's my 14 year old step-granddaughter - it's what comes of marrying a woman nearly 16 years older than I am. The fact that my wife had two high school age daughters when I married her makes it possible for me to have a 14 year old granddaughter when I'm only 39.

And if you do the math: yes, I was a grandfather at age 25. That's one of my greatest prides in life. (Samantha wasn't named after a D&D monster, but then I wasn't consulted when her parents picked out the name. Heck, I could even have met them halfway with "Salamantha," but knowing them, they wouldn't even have considered it...)

I imagine I'll be picking up the LotR DVD set for her once all three are available (next year sometime, no doubt). By then, she'll have probably read through the book trilogy at least once and re-read all of the parts where she can picture Orlando Bloom in her head.

Johnathan

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

And just out of curiosity, why do people keep calling this a review? It isn't one and doesn't pretend to be. Its a column style peice about a movie. I've seen dozens of them about different movies, and they are really easy to tell apart from reviews, good or bad.

The "columnist" was making a qualitative analysis of a film. The whole thesis of her column was that she found the movie boring and lacking any reason for a woman to be interested in it. Not to be snide, but that's a review. Just because it didn't have stars at the end of it, or it wasn't written by someone with "Film Critic" in their byline doesn't mean it shouldn't be construed as a review.

 

[Banshee16]

I don't think this is a very fair assessment. I've found that a lot of women are drawn to movies that have these themes. In fact, it's silly to say "It's guy-oriented" vs. "It's a chick flick". These themes are, like Buttercup said, pretty much universal, and a well written, well acted is always going to have broad appeal.



And yet, the amount of screen time given to Eowyn, Arwen, and Galadriel is relatively insignificant. I somewhat doubt that is the film's sole appeal to women.

You know, in the end, the article is essentially trying to turn what is a difference of personal opinion and likes/dislikes into a gender gap, which from what I've seen, isn't the case. :shrug:

It sells papers. IMO, there's a difference between good journalism and selling papers. I see actually good, well-written, well-thought out articles in the papers. That's journalism. Then I see the crap that's there for general reading. It might be popular, or funny....but I regard it on a lower level.

I remember when I was editing a student paper (obviously not the same level as the New York Post), and taking training classes on reporting, they emphasized "finding the issue" or the "take" as much or more than they emphasized giving the news. IMO, giving the news is supposed to be *the* point. Not supporting a personal viewpoint or vendetta.

Not sure what it's like in the U.S., but up here in Canada, half or more of our print media is owned by one company, which really takes away from just how free the press really is. Many Canadians don't realize it, or don't care. Some (such as myself) care, but aren't really sure how we can change things (if it can be done).

Banshee