# Are women just bored of the rings?



## Krug (Dec 21, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/movies/21JAME.html



> I CLOCKED my first yawn at 50 minutes, lulled by too many pale-blue mountains, computerized tricks and a plot so intricate all I knew for sure was that Gandalf had called for help. And did I care if help arrived? I did not. The final entry in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy reveals once more that what the chick flick is to men, this trilogy is to women — or at least to a large secret society of us for whom the series is no more than a geek-fest, a technologically impressive but soulless endurance contest.
> 
> ...
> Like the two earlier installments, it also arrived with unmistakable social pressure to gush over its sheer size and spectacle. In a cultural version of political incorrectness, expressing anything less than ecstatic praise seems unenlightened if not downright boorish.
> ...


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

Well, I certainly loved the movies.  I've read the books somewhere around 15 or 16 times.  But I also DM, I like Babylon 5, I hang out at internet message boards, and have been called an uber-geek by my geeky friends.  So I guess I'm not typical.  

Of the 9 people I work with every day, one has no interest in the movies.  Two have only mild interest.  The rest are enthusiasts.  And only one of these people is a man.  Of course, I work in a library, so again, we may not be typical.

I'm sure Lord of the Rings does not appeal to women who only read Danielle Steel and Harlequin romances.  And frankly, who cares?

Having said that, we did notice while we were waiting in line for RotK that there were 12 males for every female. Honestly, I don't understand that.  But I also don't understand the appeal of Danielle Steel.  So maybe I really am a geek.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 21, 2003)

I think it's probably true:
LotR has not many good female characters, Fantasy as a whole is widely regarded as a male's genre (and might turn off women simply because of that). But "tailored to an adolescent's fear of sentiment"? With all the love and trust and Frodo and Sam hugging and gazing at each other? It's almost hokey!


----------



## tetsujin28 (Dec 21, 2003)

All the women I know have been gaga over it. Then again, I'm in a university town, and an English one at that.


----------



## Wombat (Dec 21, 2003)

Well, the best example I can come up with is my sister.

She has never read the trilogy, but decided to see the first film anyway, because I had enjoyed the books so much.

She is now desperately in lust with Viggo  

As she says, "No man wears dirt as well as he does."

But that is not the only reason she has enjoyed the films.  She has liked the action, the drama, the scenery (...she is trying to convince her husband that they need to vacation in NZ very soon...), and all the rest.

Her other comment was, "Now I see why you always liked those books so much!"


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 21, 2003)

My mother-in-law is more fanatical about the movies than I am. Every woman I know thinks they're great. No, I don't think this is a male-only phenomena.


----------



## storyguide3 (Dec 21, 2003)

I attended Trilogy Tuesday, perhaps the most hardcore "geek" way to see the films, and something like half the people in the theatre were women. And I find that any review that feels the need to defend itself from accusations of "backlash", is backlash, just the kind that the author wishes to disguise.

Anyone who actually SAW the movies without a closed mind and could still say "...obscured what the series really is: an FX extravaganza tailored to an adolescent male's fear of sentiment and love of high-tech wizardry. " must have spent too much time in the concession line and the bathroom. Yes, Frodo and Sam's friendship is catering to adolescent male fears of sentiment. Bollocks.


----------



## ASH (Dec 21, 2003)

I loved the movies.. I can say that most of the girls i know like the movies.
  I am a border gamer geek, but the girls I hang out with are not.
They are young, single, girls who dont really read, and if they do its not fantasy.. usually romance novels..  !

They like the movies just as much as me, and I think they are the best moives I have ever seen.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 21, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> I'm sure Lord of the Rings does not appeal to women who only read Danielle Steel and Harlequin romances.  And frankly, who cares?




I'm sure it also doesn't apeal to highly intelligent women who don't read fiction at all, perfering popularized science and occasional political analysis, but that wouldn't be as insulting and dismissive, would it?   

The movies apeal strongly to geeks, and fairly well to men who are not geeks. They apeal to a much lesser extent, imho, to women who are not geeks. A few scenes with frodo and sam being close platonic friends doesn't compare to the amount of action, action, CGI, bad jokes and more action.

And obviously one part of the review was spot on... "Like the two earlier installments, it also arrived with unmistakable social pressure to gush over its sheer size and spectacle. In a cultural version of political incorrectness, expressing anything less than ecstatic praise seems unenlightened if not downright boorish." - or its seen as an excuse to insult the person's intelligence and value as a consumer...

I'm not particularly interested in seeing the newest movie. I woudn't mind, but I'm more interested in getting last minute holiday stuff done and cleaning up after my solstice party. I know if and when I do go, I'll spend part of the movie enjoying myself, part mildly bored by the epic spectacle, and a good chuck closing my eyes to avoid vertigo from the huge swooping slightly out of focus landscape shots.    Man I hate those... Actually the combination of cgi battles and swooping cameras gave me a headache when I watched the first two in the theater. 

And I am a geek. Go figure...

Kahuna burger


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 21, 2003)

For a writer who makes comments about political correctness, and its affect on what we are supposed to think (as a culture) about these films, she makes no bones about the fact that it just happens to be _extremely_ politically correct to crack on anything that appeals to 67% percent of men and only 33% of women, and to dismiss anything that requires a little concentration as a "geek-fest," when really it is just too much for the writer's "chick-flick"-rotted mind.  She can't tell Sauron from Klingons or Jedi?  Well, I can't tell one Julia Roberts or Hugh Grant movie from the next.  Oh...wait a minute...yes I can, because I bother to use my brain sometimes.

That article is utter poppycock and folderol, a vomitous mass of words spewed forth from a head whose cranial cavity is most likely a bone-barrel of sloshing fluids.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Dec 21, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I'm sure it also doesn't apeal to highly intelligent women who don't read fiction at all, perfering popularized science and occasional political analysis, but that wouldn't be as insulting and dismissive, would it?




Given the *highly* condescending and self-important tone of the article itself, I find Buttercup's comments to be pretty appropriate in terms of tone.  

Honestly... can you really argue that the article is written from an objective viewpoint?  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 the plot or the characters, if only to prove that the reviewer actually blew 8 bucks for her job.  This article, however, is the worst kind of movie review, i.e. one that doesn't actually inform the readers.  For alll of the drivel she spouts, her review ultimately boils down to "if you have breasts, you'll hate this movie."

What. Utter. Drek.

Is it too much to ask that the world's movie reviewers actually be literate?  All it takes to enjoy this movie is the capacity to enjoy a good story.  Period.  Ask your parents about LOTR sometimes... this phenomenon extends way beyond the "geek" culture... it always has.

-F


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> As she says, "No man wears dirt as well as he does."



Heh.  That's true.  However, I've got a strange hankering after Theoden too. (I think the actor's name is Bernard Hill.  Never heard of him before this.)  Weird, huh?


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> ... a vomitous mass of words spewed forth from a head whose cranial cavity is most likely a bone-barrel of sloshing fluids.



I love it when you talk dirty.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I'm sure it also doesn't apeal to highly intelligent women who don't read fiction at all, perfering popularized science and occasional political analysis, but that wouldn't be as insulting and dismissive, would it?



Psst.  That was irony in my post.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2003)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> Is it too much to ask that the world's movie reviewers actually be literate?




It is probably too much to ask that every last one of them be literate, yes.  In any reasonably sized collection of human beings, you're goning to get some with whom you have disagreements so strong that they make you question their intelligence.  That's okay.  At the same time, they're questioning your intelligence 



> All it takes to enjoy this movie is the capacity to enjoy a good story.  Period.




Femerus, don't be dim.  There is no accounting for taste - meaning that there is no formula, no certainty in any artistic creation.  You can't please everybody.  And while I don't really agree with the lady's article, I think you're blanket statement there - which is effectively, "those who dont' like it lack the ability to enjoy a good story" - to be pretty darned narrow-minded.  At least as narrow as the offending critic.  Why don't you actually leave some room for differences in tastes?

I mean, cripes - "enjoy a good story".  As if "good story" had some simple definition that applied objectively to all?  Gimme a break.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 21, 2003)

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


----------



## Pants (Dec 21, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Psst.  That was irony in my post.



I can't tell irony from a Klingon or a Jedi.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But she _loathed _the trilogy.



My sympathies.  It sounds like your feelings about the trilogy are as disparate as my husband's and mine about Bob Dylan.


----------



## Richards (Dec 21, 2003)

Because of the movie trilogy, my 14-year-old granddaughter asked for the book trilogy for Christmas.  Even if it was only due to a sudden infatuation with Orlando Bloom, I can't help but see this as a good thing.

Johnathan


----------



## Pants (Dec 21, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> My sympathies.  It sounds like your feelings about the trilogy are as disparate as my husband's and mine about Bob Dylan.



Yeah, but for in order for that analogy to work, Bob Dylan must have fans.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2003)

Eh, it sounds like the whole thing was basically too complex for the so-called 'reviewer' to handle, so she had to make up stuff to (1) not sound like most other critics, who love it, and (2) make her word-count. If I were her editor I'd probably have said 'Go back and actually watch the film this time, stupid.'


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 21, 2003)

Richards said:
			
		

> Even if it was only due to a sudden infatuation with Orlando Bloom, I can't help but see this as a good thing.



Speaking of Orlando Bloom, has anyone else read FoxTrot recently?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index2&cid=1065&pg=1


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

I've got to revisit this one.  The NYT author says:



> They offer an escape into an imagined world of warriors, where emotions are paid lip service but never truly expressed — an approach that is always easy for adolescent boys to embrace.



Did she even watch the movies?  If Sam was not expressing emotion, then I've never seen it.  Or how about Frodo?  Merry?  Pippin?  Faramir? Boromir? Gimli? Eowyn?  

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


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 21, 2003)

My mother and sister are both huge fans of the movie.

In fact, nearly every woman I know IRL loved these films.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 21, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Or how about Boromir?




Hell, yeah.

-Hyp.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Dec 21, 2003)

On behalf of all movie critics everywhere:

I apologize for that particular crackpot.

Anyone who thinks the LotR films are "soulless" should be made to sit through a marathon of Matrix sequels, Sandra Bullock films and any Ben Affleck action film to find out what "soulless" really means before they go bandying that term around.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Dec 21, 2003)

Well, I'd kind of say that about LoTR, but I know what you're on about.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 22, 2003)

> it also arrived with unmistakable social pressure to gush over its sheer size and spectacle. In a cultural version of political incorrectness, expressing anything less than ecstatic praise seems unenlightened if not downright boorish.



I wonder if the reviewer also said this about Titanic? (An infinitely worse movie to which this statement could genuinely be applied, IMO)


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 22, 2003)

Never forget, it is cool to dislike what is popular, and it is doubly cool to dislike something that was first popular among geeks. Triply cool to be the first to say you don't like it.  (But saying "I don't like it either " is a few steps shy of cool, so those people have to be extra harsh and psuedo-intellectual in their dislike to make up for it)


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 22, 2003)

Not everything is for everyone.  For example, neither my parents nor my grandparents would care at all for LotR.  If a story can't happen in the 'real' world they simply have no time for it.  This seems to be the situation with this critic as well, but instead of stating it thusly she's decided to make it a male/female thing.  Personally, what with swordfights, armies clashing, and all sorts of giant monsters and whatnot in them I am surprised that there are as many women that enjoy these films as there are.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 22, 2003)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Never forget, it is cool to dislike what is popular, and it is doubly cool to dislike something that was first popular among geeks. Triply cool to be the first to say you don't like it.  (But saying "I don't like it either " is a few steps shy of cool, so those people have to be extra harsh and psuedo-intellectual in their dislike to make up for it)




Yeah, I agree. Sometimes that is the thought behind some of these reviews. But also, sometimes because they simply don't 'get it' or they just don't have the tastes for such things. Either way, well said Aaron.

I'll add to the list of real life women accounts. My mother never has read fantasy novels and rarely reads fiction. Just a Grisham book or two. Anyways, she got totally hooked on LotR since "Fellowship". She wanted to know how the trilogy ended. I refused to spoil it for her. So she borrowed my books to read how it ended. Unfortunately, with English being her second language, she didn't have the endurance to read Tolkien all the way. So she just settled on waiting for each movie to come out. My mother is in her mid-sixties. There's an example of LotR even appealing to an older conservative generation.

Then, a friend at work told me how his sister is now into the films. She has always been described to me as one of those women who grew up beautiful and popular. Cheerleader in highschool, sorority queen type, aspiring young actress in her twenties, etc, etc. Never into her geeky older brother's D&D or fantasy book reading. But now.....into LotR. 

That reviewer was basically saying how LotR is a guy-flick for guys like how some movies ( I guess like "Beaches" and "Steel Magnolias") is chick-flicks for girls. (although I enjoyed "Beaches"...so it can't all be for girls eh?)

I disagree. If you had to make broad stereo-types as what are guy-flicks....LotR isn't one of them. Why is it that certain reviewers think just because there's not many women in the film, that it's meant for men? They seem to based it on quantity not quality. How can anyone argue the quality of the women in LotR? 

If you want total guy-flicks, I think they are more along the lines of "Braveheart" and "Black Hawk Down". IMHO.

Not the LotR trilogy.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 22, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Psst.  That was irony in my post.




sorry, it wasn't. Or at least it didn't work as irony. It worked very well as being condescending, and I suppose a steretched point could be made that the similarilty to the orriginal writes tome made it ironic... but not that great. The "psst - tell me how I'm supposed to read you" is also condescending. It seems to be a trend.

There are a lot of great ways to agrue your point, trying to tell me that I don't understand you isn't one of them...

Though it's worked great for defending the LOTR against critisism around here...   

Kahuna burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 22, 2003)

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


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 22, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/movies/21JAME.html






Hmm...well, my girlfriend loves the movies, and she's not a geek in the slightest.  A number of the women in my office are raving about the movies, and have been waiting and waiting for them to come out.  And they're not geeks either.  I mean, they were talking about it all thursday, as two in particular hadn't read the books, and they were debating how the third movie was going to end.  It was a little amusing to listen to.

But definitely not men only.  I'd question the author of that article.

The "hit music" radio station in my town though, had a female reviewer come on, and start griping about how long a movie it was and that if they were going to have "hotties" like Liv Tyler and Viggo Mortensen in the film, they could have at least managed to fit in some "pillow time".

I think it's a mind set, and not gender, that might determine whether someone likes the movies.

Banshee


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 22, 2003)

This is why I don't read reviews never have never will. I make up my own mind about what I like and don't like.

The group that I went to see it with had four woman and two men and we woman loved it as a matter of fact I have already been back to see it with a female friend.

I think that cutting down something as popular as LOTR is kind of snobbish way to show how smart you think you are. (if you truly don't like the film that's one thing give me a reason why you didn't like it) I noticed that in this thread someone had to bring up Titantic which is one of my favorite films and a lot of people loved it as well but I do remember it was the in movie to cut down.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 22, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I'll add to the list of real life women accounts. My mother never has read fantasy novels and rarely reads fiction. Just a Grisham book or two. Anyways, she got totally hooked on LotR since "Fellowship". She wanted to know how the trilogy ended. I refused to spoil it for her. So she borrowed my books to read how it ended. Unfortunately, with English being her second language, she didn't have the endurance to read Tolkien all the way. So she just settled on waiting for each movie to come out. My mother is in her mid-sixties. There's an example of LotR even appealing to an older conservative generation.
> 
> Then, a friend at work told me how his sister is now into the films. She has always been described to me as one of those women who grew up beautiful and popular. Cheerleader in highschool, sorority queen type, aspiring young actress in her twenties, etc, etc. Never into her geeky older brother's D&D or fantasy book reading. But now.....into LotR.



My mother never read the books, and never liked fantasy either.....but she has seen the first two movies.  It's taken a bit, because she had trouble figuring out what was going on, but she's admitted that she's gotten into them, and they're cool movies.

My sister "got it" as well.  She's very athletic, super-popular, bright, etc.  And she's loving them.  And they convinced her to read the books.

For that matter, I know more guys that have seen the movies, and didn't like them, than girls that have seen them and didn't like them...

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 22, 2003)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is why I don't read reviews never have never will. I make up my own mind about what I like and don't like.
> 
> The group that I went to see it with had four woman and two men and we woman loved it as a matter of fact I have already been back to see it with a female friend.
> 
> I think that cutting down something as popular as LOTR is kind of snobbish way to show how smart you think you are. (if you truly don't like the film that's one thing give me a reason why you didn't like it) I noticed that in this thread someone had to bring up Titantic which is one of my favorite films and a lot of people loved it as well but I do remember it was the in movie to cut down.




You could have a point.  There's a certain perception of this being "revenge of the nerds".....and some people are probably somewhat threatened by the idea.  Hence they make broad stereotypes..

Banshee


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> There are a lot of great ways to agrue your point, trying to tell me that I don't understand you isn't one of them...




Um, Kahuna Burger, it also seems to be a tred for you to read things as condescending.  This is an informal message board, where her tone isn't uncommon at all.  From where I sit, her phrasing seemed more a friendly note than looking down at you. 

Even in more formal discussion, a statement to the effect that "My message did not get across previously, this is what I meant" is entirely reasonable- and that what she did, in less formal language.  It isn't a way to argue the point, so much as a way to clarify previous statements.


----------



## Look_a_Unicorn (Dec 22, 2003)

Read the article, laughed at it...

Then became genuinely curious- most females I know are either geeky, intellectual, literary or a combination of the above. Thus realised that those I associate with probably aren't the best at exhibiting the trends of the "general populace"- they all love it for whatever reason.

So I began reading the thread to try to see if there did seem to be any that the female populace thought that LoTR = Yawn.

Then I realised that the populace of ENWorld, by and large, would fit into the above categorisation of "geeky, intellectual, literary or a combination of the above" (which is one of the reasons I love this place!)

SO. My question is, given that most geeky/int./lit. type females, will, for one reason or another, be a fan of the LoTR movies- what about the females who aren't one of the above? Does anyone on EnWorld have female friends with completely dissimilar interests, who might better reflect your more "standard" populace?

Though I'm guessing they'll still like it, if only because they can perv on Viggo & Orlando .


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 22, 2003)

Richards said:
			
		

> Because of the movie trilogy, my 14-year-old granddaughter asked for the book trilogy for Christmas.  Even if it was only due to a sudden infatuation with Orlando Bloom, I can't help but see this as a good thing.
> 
> Johnathan




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.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 22, 2003)

> Originally Posted by *Elf Witch*
> I noticed that in this thread someone had to bring up Titantic which is one of my favorite films and a lot of people loved it as well but I do remember it was the in movie to cut down.



That was me, I didn't have to, but I chose to .
I was just wondering out loud (so to speak) if the author of the article made the same type of comment about Titanic - whether or not she liked it.  The comment in her article seems to be an attempt to say "I'm hip because I'm smart enough to realize how bad this movie the masses like really is."  I think its silly, if you don't like a movie say what and why you don't like, but don't try to elevate your opinion.
(I could tell you why I dislike Titanic, but that would be a hijack)


----------



## Iron Sheep (Dec 22, 2003)

Look_a_Unicorn said:
			
		

> SO. My question is, given that most geeky/int./lit. type females, will, for one reason or another, be a fan of the LoTR movies- what about the females who aren't one of the above? Does anyone on EnWorld have female friends with completely dissimilar interests, who might better reflect your more "standard" populace?
> 
> Though I'm guessing they'll still like it, if only because they can perv on Viggo & Orlando .




I can give two data points to for discussion:

Firstly, at the trilogy tuesday here in Las Vegas, almost half the audience were women. My wife (who is definitely a geeky/intellectual/literary type) and I were expecting a much lower proportion.  So I guess this shows that amongst people who really like the movies, there are almost as many women as men.

Secondly, my wife works as an environmental/liberal activist, and the women in that community, although intellectual/literary (but not geeky for the most part), have almost no interest in the movies.  Some of them have seen them, but it seems that they did it more from social pressure than anything else ("Everyone else is seeing the movie, so I thought I'd go have a look").  But then the men in that community seem to have a very similar attitude about Lord of the Rings to the women, so I'm not sure that its a gender issue.

A wild hypothesis here (and women who are posting in this thread might like to comment on this), but I suspect that Eowyn may be a huge part of the reason that LotR has a following amongst women.  She's about the only woman in the books whose character is developed to any great extent, but she's a very strong character, and she definitely got huge cheers from the audience in the third movie (the line "I am no man!" in particular got most of the women cheering).  Is Eowyn a role model for geeky/intellectual/literary women?

Just some thoughts.

Corran


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 22, 2003)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> That was me, I didn't have to, but I chose to .
> I was just wondering out loud (so to speak) if the author of the article made the same type of comment about Titanic - whether or not she liked it.  The comment in her article seems to be an attempt to say "I'm hip because I'm smart enough to realize how bad this movie the masses like really is."  I think its silly, if you don't like a movie say what and why you don't like, but don't try to elevate your opinion.
> (I could tell you why I dislike Titanic, but that would be a hijack)




I was not trying to imply that you were being a snob for not liking Titanic just wanted to make that very clear.  

I have noticed that certain types pf people and some of them happen to be reviewers often like to take pot shots at popular movies. I have seen them do it to Star Wars and ET and other big films. 

It is one thing I cannot stand is snobs. Who can only feel good about themselves by looking down their noses at other people's taste of entertainment.
And making this about gender just makes it worse in my book. Both the times I saw the Return of the King I would say the audience was about equal.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 22, 2003)

Iron Sheep said:
			
		

> I can give two data points to for discussion:
> 
> Firstly, at the trilogy tuesday here in Las Vegas, almost half the audience were women. My wife (who is definitely a geeky/intellectual/literary type) and I were expecting a much lower proportion.  So I guess this shows that amongst people who really like the movies, there are almost as many women as men.
> 
> ...




Speaking for myself I am a geeky/intellectural/literary woman and the fact that Eowyn is a strong female was not the main reason that I love these films. I loved the grand story and the bonds of friendship between the characters. I will admit that a small part of the appeal is the fantastic looking men in this movie.  I have a friend who is really not a geek does not read fantasy she loves these movies because Orlando Bloom is hot. And she has been hooked on the story. As for Eoywn her reaction whenever she ia on scren is to hiss and when she is near Aragorn her reaction is "back off B**CH"


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 22, 2003)

Well, there is at least one female movie reviewer who liked LotR. Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave top ratings and positive reviews to all three LotR films. She also picked RotK as the top film of 2003, the second time in the last three years she named a LotR film as the top film of the year; the other was FotR in 2001. TTT was in her top 10 for 2002, just not the No. 1 film.

I remember in her review for FotR she said she normally didn't like big, special-effects heavy, blockbuster-type movies, but that FotR won her over with its emphasis on strong acting and emotional storylines to go along with the FX.


----------



## Skade (Dec 22, 2003)

Had it not been for the girl I am seeing, I would likely have only seen the movie once this week.

Let me describe this girl a bit.  She's young, until recently never been appreciated as anything more than a pretty face, used to social situations that require alchohol as its facilitator, and one of the *cool* people.  

The words geek, nerd and fan-boy (girl) don't apply here in the least.  Yet, this is the girl who begged me to take her to see it twice in as many days, who asked me questions about plot and character and even the technology in making the movie.  She loves them, so does her roommate, who is much like her.  I asked her about the idea of this being a geek movie, or for guys and she thought that was just silly. 

She loved the fantasy, the break from this world and the ability it had to draw you in to something wholly real, with all the terror and joy it was capable of.  What more could anyone want from a movie?

Admittedly, her favorite scene was Aragorn and Arwen "hooking up" but, hell, I wanted to see that kiss.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 22, 2003)

By all rights, I should have been more geeked about this trilogy than I was. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED LotR, from Fellowship to King, but my wife, well, she's gone a little bit nuts over the whole thing. We had to get LotR Risk, re-purchase the priginal books and re-read them, and hey, why don't we get the pewter minis and the Star of Arwen while we're at it (I managed to talk her out of the latter two items).

When it comes to appreciating these movies, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm at a about a 9 where my wife is clearly an 11 or 12.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 22, 2003)

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 characters are all male, barring two minor ones.  The themes are guy-oriented themes (undying friendship, sacrifice, courage, honor - strip out the fantasy and you have a war story).  Jackson fleshed out Arwen and gave Galadriel more screen time, but the core is still there.  There's no shame in that.  It is what it is.  It's not _as likely_ to appeal to women as it is to men.  That doesn't mean that it's not good, or that it _can't_ appeal to women.

No matter how much you love a work of art, there are people out there that don't share your opinion.  Attacking them because they don't share your tastes is silly and a little childish IMO.

And attacking an opinion column for not being a review is also rather silly.  The NYT's ROTK review can be found here:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/movies/16RING.html


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 22, 2003)

Re: linking the LotR movies because of Eowyn, that's not it for me, at least.

The books changed my life.  Exageration, you say?  Nope.  I didn't read them until high school.  Hadn't ever heard of them before that in fact.  Some girl in my political science class was reading The Hobbit, and I asked her what it was about.  She couldn't describe it, but said it was really neat, so I picked up a copy.  I was instantly hooked, because I had never read anything like it.

After reading LotR for the first time, I immediately re-read it.  And then again.  I was completely fascinated.  So I started reading about Tolkien, from whence I found out about his influences.  I found out that runes were a real, historical alphabet, albeit somewhat different from the ones he uses in the book.  I found out the source for his dwarf names, and had to investigate that.  I got interested in celtic and scandinavian mythology, history and culture.  I got interested in English history, mythology and literature.  I had to learn Anglo-Saxon so I could read Beowulf in the original.  Years later, I woke up to find I had acquired a degree in Medieval English Literature while I had been chasing Tolkien.

Right, ok, but that tells you why I like the books.  What of the movie?  Well, I'll admit that I was really worried about them.  My husband really had to work to convince me to see Fellowship.  I feared major suckage would take place. But what I found was a movie that, while not a word for word rendition of the book, was obviously done by someone who loved and respected the text as a work of art and wanted to do it justice.

Finally, Spatula, do you really believe this? 


> The themes are guy-oriented themes (undying friendship, sacrifice, courage, honor ....



Why do you think women don't care about these things?  I think they're universal.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 22, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The characters are all male, barring two minor ones.  The themes are guy-oriented themes (undying friendship, sacrifice, courage, honor - strip out the fantasy and you have a war story).




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.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Jackson fleshed out Arwen and gave Galadriel more screen time, but the core is still there.




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:


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 22, 2003)

> 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 (Dec 22, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 22, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Quartermoon (Dec 22, 2003)

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
> ...




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 (Dec 22, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 22, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 22, 2003)

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.



			
				Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> <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 (Dec 22, 2003)

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 (Dec 22, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 22, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 22, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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.



Well, I won't argue that the books have appealed more to men than women. However, how much of that is social -- to what degree have they appealed to men because women have been discouraged from investigating this kind of material?

Obviously the answer is we don't know because we're not able to conduct experiments on stuff like this -- we only have one example, and of course no counter-examples, so who knows?

All that aside, I question how much value there is in generalizations like "Women tend not to like this book." I mean, once you've made that observation, then what? It doesn't provide any predictive power -- you have no way of knowing whether or not any given woman is going to like the book or not, so what good did the generalization do?

Besides make us feel smart, of course. 


			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> The themes are guy-oriented themes (undying friendship, sacrifice, courage, honor - strip out the fantasy and you have a war story).



Now here I must take exception. The idea that friendship, sacrifice, courage and honour are themes that women don't connect with is pretty insulting when you think about it. I certainly don't for a second think you meant to be insulting, and when I read your post I didn't even recognize the problem with the statement -- it wasn't until I read Buttercup's response that I started thinking about this statement and saying to myself, "Of course friendship, sacrifice, courage and honour matter just as much to women as to men."

I think more relevant to the "more men than women" appeal of LotR are elements like swords, castles, monsters and constant descriptions of women as beautiful. Not that those things don't appeal to women, but that at least in our society, women are more likely to be considered a little oddball for demonstrating a prediliction for such things. Which could be seen as a form of discouragement.

Again, Spatula, I don't believe you were trying to make an insulting statement, and I understand the idea you were trying to get across -- which is NOT that women don't care about friendship, sacrifice, courage and honour. But I do think it's interesting to note the manner in which you put your ideas -- and again, I think it's interesting because at first I accepted it without question.

Gender roles run pretty deep.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 22, 2003)

Look_a_Unicorn said:
			
		

> Read the article, laughed at it...
> 
> Then became genuinely curious- most females I know are either geeky, intellectual, literary or a combination of the above. Thus realised that those I associate with probably aren't the best at exhibiting the trends of the "general populace"- they all love it for whatever reason.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm....well, my mother and my sister, who while bright, are not geeky.  My sister's athletic...the type that spends all her time either working out, going out, kayaking, sailing, sailboarding, or climbing mountains.  She's popular and very social.  And not into RPGs at all.  And she loves the movies.  She's at RotK as we speak.  Or just getting out.  My mother's a scientist, but not a geek either.  She's never even read a fantasy.  She reads the Danielle Steele type stuff, typically.  And she's really been enjoying the movies.

My girlfriend doesn't understand my enjoyment of computers, and definitely isn't a geek.  Very attractive, in the fashion industry, popular, excellent social skills, outdoorsy type girl.  And she loved the movies.  She's tried the books and really has had difficulty getting into them.  But she still loves the movies.

So, those are non-EN World type females that definitely aren't gamers, and the most immediate examples in my own life, at least..

Banshee


----------



## theburningman (Dec 22, 2003)

A rebuttal by Stephanie Zacharek, one of the film critics for Salon.com:

"Lord of the Rings" is for boys . . . 


And I happen to agree with her.


----------



## Krug (Dec 22, 2003)

Urgh.. can't read the Salon article without subscribing..


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Dec 23, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Urgh.. can't read the Salon article without subscribing..



 


			
				Stephanie Zacharek said:
			
		

> "Lord of the Rings" is for boys ...
> A New York Times critic falls for lazy gender-typing.
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> *By Stephanie Zacharek*
> ...





Of course, I had to register Santa Clause to vote in Colorado to get this...

-F


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 23, 2003)

> Are women somehow less well-equipped to enjoy a picture that's beautifully shot, and whose story is well told, intuitively acted and marvelously paced, just because it has a masculine aura around it?




Well, All I can say hereis that there is a _reason_ we understand what people are talking about when they say "Chick Flick", _and _ a reason that they manage to draw as much money as they do from a female demographic.

I have no figures with me, but I would lay money that *Master and Commander* is drawing most of its revenue from a male audience.

I'll also add that there must be some reason that they decided to remake _*Arwen*_an ass-kicking, sword-swinging Nazgul defeater rather than, say *Glorfindel* (a male for those unfamiliar with the books)...

It's because women--in general--don't particularly like what are classically considered to be mens movies. That is why they are considered _men's movies_.

The prevailing thought in film when they are short of "Female energy" (to quote Miranda Otto who plays Eowyn) is to "get some women in there" at any cost, as women don't like to watch movies without "Female energy" in them.

The author of that article came across as a snide and contemptuous geek-hater...but she was basically right. When you strip away all the Dragons and Midgets and suchlike, this is a war movie, and it's source material didn't have much in the way of female parts. 

So some were made/juiced up, because that is the reality of the demographic. women won't go see a movie about men being heroic, and the fact that your Mom or Sister or whoever really likes the film doesn't change that at all.

And there is the rub. The author _was _ speaking generally (which is what allows people to discuss large groups), and that always brings out the "not My wife/mother/girlfriend/sister" anecdotal evidence folks.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Three. You missed a female character.



You're right, I forgot about Bombadil's girlfriend.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 23, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Finally, Spatula, do you really believe this?
> Why do you think women don't care about these things?  I think they're universal.



*sigh*  I didn't say guy-exclusive.  Replace "guy-oriented" with "typically masculine" (in the words of the Salon.com writer) if you prefer.

EDIT: Or read Teflon Billy's post, above.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 23, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

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



NYT registration is free.  If you don't like giving out your email address, just create a temporary hotmail account to get through the registration process.







			
				Krug said:
			
		

> Urgh.. can't read the Salon article without subscribing..



You can get a free day pass to Salon that allows you to access just about any article on the site by watching a brief advertisement.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 23, 2003)

> Quoted from my husband, Iron Sheep
> Secondly, my wife works as an environmental/liberal activist, and the women in that community, although intellectual/literary (but not geeky for the most part), have almost no interest in the movies. Some of them have seen them, but it seems that they did it more from social pressure than anything else ("Everyone else is seeing the movie, so I thought I'd go have a look"). But then the men in that community seem to have a very similar attitude about Lord of the Rings to the women, so I'm not sure that its a gender issue.




Actually, dear, the opinions where I work have been a bit more varied than that.  The 64-year old woman who claims to have read the books many times but doesn’t remember anything about Frodo missing a finger has been passingly interested in the movie, mostly as you say, from social pressure to belong.

The 30-year old environmentalist who reads all kinds of literature but has not read these books hated Fellowship and gave the comment, “I wish they’d just skip all of this crap and throw the ring in the damned volcano already.”  Her beef seemed to be much more with the length than anything else.  She hasn’t seen the second two, to my knowledge, although her partner may drag her there because he’s deeply into it, mostly as a professional in set design here in Vegas.

The 40-something male in the office basically never reads fiction and has no interest in this or most other movies.  He wasn’t even aware of the name “Frodo” when I talked about it.

Then there’s the 50-something male seeing the 30-something female.  He has NO interest whatsoever, but she’s really into it and we’ve had long discussions of the various nuances of the films and the books.  I won’t name their organization but let’s just say it’s a big group that does a lot of social justice/freedom of speech/etc. work, and when I told her my theory that the entire LotR thing really boils down to an anti-death-penalty message (if Gollum, the unredeemable criminal, had been put to death at any point, the entire fate of the world would have gone down the tubes), she latched onto that as a possible way to get her partner to be interested, as an anti-death-penalty activist.  No word yet if she’s worked him into it.

And as for me, I am totally into these movies, loving them entirely, watching the DVDs and commentaries over and over, read the books multiple times, and actually learned to read using the Hobbit before I went to kindergarten.  But then, I’m a total geek.  A D&D playing, Python-quoting, computer-gaming, formerly tech reporting, webmastering geek.

So really, as quoted here…



> Quoted from Banshee16
> I think it's a mind set, and not gender, that might determine whether someone likes the movies.




…that’s exactly it.  People come to this story as they would any other story; because they’re interested in some aspect of it.

I, as both a female and a writer with a cross-genre book, am sick to death of being told whether I ought to like something or not based on my genitals.  Leave my good bits out of this!  My vagina holds no bearing on the books I choose or those I leave aside.  I mean, if I let my vagina choose my reading material, the covers would get all sticky, wouldn’t they?   

This whole peg-the-gender-in-the-genre madness has been very much on my mind lately.  I’ve been having a bugger of a time marketing my own novel because there’s kissing and love in it, so it gets called a “romance.”  But if you’ve ever actually read a romance novel, you’d know this book doesn’t fit that genre at all.  Romance novels are fairly formulaic (some heavily so…check out Harlequin’s submission guidelines for how strict they are)…boy meets girl, they date, they have a token fight, they make up, happy ending.  It’s a plug-and-play scenario in various settings.  And for people who like that, that’s great.  I’m happy for them.  But I HATE that predictability and sameness.  My book is NOT like that at all, but because of narrow-minded genre labels, I’m getting lumped into the “fantasy-romance” genre which puts off most fantasy readers.  Heck, I’m put off by the label!

I’m so sick of this notion that men don’t like to read about love.  Hellooooo…last I checked, men like kissing and nookie too.  Not every man is a wannabe thug.  Lots of ‘em even like snuggling, believe it or not.  Look at Guy Gavriel Kay’s novels…they are fantasy with romantic elements (which is what I like to call my own book), and plenty of guys read those.

This reviewer or columnist or whatever she is just doesn’t get it.  She can’t whine that this is a boys’ club movie and stereotype men at the same time: that’s hypocrisy.

And there’s plenty of emotion in this book and movie.  Did she miss the whole Merry and Pippin thing?  Going from laughter to tears to frustration to anger and all around and back again a few times?  Geez, for pity’s sake, Merry crying at the end made ME cry, and I almost never cry at this stuff.  If this columnist doesn’t feel that emotion, she must have a heart of stone.  And don’t give me that Sam wasn’t full of all kinds of emotions as he fought for Frodo, carried him up the mountain, etc.

If she didn’t like the movie, great.  But I’ve had it with people who apply stupid concepts like gender determinism to entertainment.  You like what you like, you don’t like what you don’t like, and the shape of the flesh between your legs doesn’t enter into it!

On one other side note while I’m posting…



> Quoted from Elf Witch
> As for Eoywn her reaction whenever she ia on scren is to hiss and when she is near Aragorn her reaction is "back off B**CH"




*shrug* You can have him.  He’s okay with the dark wig and all, but I really don’t find Viggo all that hot, even though I know I’m apparently in a minority of female fans on that.  Heck, in our household, these days if we notice someone lusting after someone else, we call it being “Miranda over Viggo.”

Give me Jason Carter as Marcus Cole in B5 any day…*much drooling*


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 23, 2003)

*shrug* You can have him.  He’s okay with the dark wig and all said:


> Wow what a great post.    Actually she's nuts over Orlando Bloom but she was saying the back off for Arwen.  We are both rather dewy eyed    over the Aragorn and Arwen love story.
> 
> Me I am Jerry Doyle as Garibaldi B5 fan.
> 
> ...


----------



## KaCee (Dec 23, 2003)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I refuse to label myself or deny myself I read everything from hardcore SF to fantasy to gothics and romances and mysteries. I love Steel Magnolia's, LOTR and Kung Fu movies.




Me too.  I like a good story with good character development and a rich plot.  I read some romances because I considered it unfair to judge against them sight unseen.  Unfortunately, all my suspicions were confirmed after going through several selections.  I don't like barfing from beaucoup de fromage.

But a good love story can still take my breath away.  I was actually less dewey about Arwen and Aragorn and moreso for Sam and Rosie.  Their "romance" was much lighter, but still fraught with peril between Sam's dangerous journey and his previous inability to express his feelings.

Nothing beats what Marcus Cole did for Susan Ivanova on B5, though.  *melty sigh* 

I wish there were more stories that had love as something other than the backdrop for an action hero, or as something boring and predictable.  That's why Kay's books are so AWESOME.  I strive with every word I write to be half the writer that he is!


----------



## fusangite (Dec 23, 2003)

Somehow people have got the ridiculous idea that for a movie to be great, it must be equally appealing to everyone. What a load of crap. Movies that get awards are often movies that are deliberately inaccessible to those who don't have a particular cultural or literary background. And we're fine with that; a movie can be a "great movie" even if it makes itself deliberately unappealing to a majority of the population. 

So what if LOTR appeals more to men than to women? I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue about it. It seems like a self-evident truth. There are all kinds of movies that are unappealing to me that I can credit as good or great films. 

In my view, in order to reach for greatness, most movies have to sharpen and hone their message and symbol system in a way that deliberately selects a certain kind of audience. Frankly, I would have been happier with LOTR if it had been even more skewed towards the male geek demographic by following the books more closely. 

Teflon Billy is right when he says that a bunch of annecdotal evidence that some women liked the movie _in no way contradicts_ the contention of the article's author. The author is not stating that _every single woman on the face of the earth_ will be uninterested in fantasy war movies but that _most women_ will be less interested than men. It's a sound observation. 

The sad thing is that in today's society, while columns like the one that started this thread can be published in the New York Times, there is precious little room for a column by me explaining why _Mona Lisa Smile_ is sexist and, for me, as boring as whale excrement.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 23, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> I, as both a female and a writer with a cross-genre book, am sick to death of being told whether I ought to like something or not based on my genitals. Leave my good bits out of this! My vagina holds no bearing on the books I choose or those I leave aside. I mean, if I let my vagina choose my reading material, the covers would get all sticky, wouldn’t they?



So, I guess that was your Vagina Monologue. 

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 23, 2003)

Further evidence that the NYT columnist was full of it is the fact that "Mona Lisa Smile" starring Julia Roberts -- a _chick flick_ if there ever was one -- was the only other movie to open last weekend in wide release. And it only grossed $11.5 million, the lowest opening weekend for any movie with Julia Roberts in a lead role since "Mary Reilly" in 1996.

The studio specifically released that weekend the same weekend as RotK as counter-programming, hoping to attract female moviegoers who didn't want to go to RotK. Guess what? It looks like the female moviegoers were going to see RotK, or at least more female moviegoers went to see RotK.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 23, 2003)

*Shrug*  I've given up on arguing with people on whether or not to like LotR.  They either like it or they don't -- and I have no idea what it has to do with one's genitals, either (yep, got it, lots of battles, minimal female roles, etc, etc).

Anecdotally -- this is hardly a relevant sample -- I've yet to meet a woman who didn't like the trilogy, though I've met men who didn't like it.  My wife, both my mothers, and both my sisters are big fans, for example.  Go figure.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You're right, I forgot about Bombadil's girlfriend.




That actually brings the tally to four. Which is wrong. There are five. Who can name all five? I can, but that would be cheating.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That actually brings the tally to four. Which is wrong. There are five. Who can name all five? I can, but that would be cheating.




All I can think you're talking about is Eowyn, Arwen(in the books? Not really...but I'm trying to get five here!!), Galadrial, Bombadil's girl(can't remember her name), and Rosie(pushing it on this one...I'm just trying to get five! )


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> All I can think you're talking about is Eowyn, Arwen(in the books? Not really...but I'm trying to get five here!!), Galadrial, Bombadil's girl(can't remember her name), and Rosie(pushing it on this one...I'm just trying to get five! )




That's the five. All of them have lines in the book (which differentiates them from a handful of other female characters who are mentioned, but don't have any actual "screen time". Galadriel and Eowyn are the biggest female parts. Goldberry is Bombadil's spouse, Arwen shows up in the Rivendell scenes, and again when Aragorn ascends to kinghood. Rosie has some lines during and after the scouring.

And I missed one last character: Lobeila Sackville-Baggins. So that's six.

They mostly aren't _big_ parts, but the books are about a war. How many female parts did _The Big Red One_, _Saving Private Ryan_, or _The Great Escape_ have? Is there a real need to manufacture additional female characters in a story where they would be out of place given the culture of the time period portrayed? Female characters generally show up where they would in a "dark ages" setting, and generally don't where they wouldn't.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's the five.




Woo! Got it! Though I knew I was was forgetting something...the Sackville-Baggins were definatly a memorable part of the early sections of the book...and I forgot them! Arrrgh!


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> An absolutely spot-on explication.



Kimberly, you are a goddess.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

Stormraven, there is another woman with a speaking part in the books. In RotK, there is Ioreth. She was the chatty nurse in the Houses of Healing.

So in the books, we have:

Goldberry
Arwen
Galadriel
Eowyn
Lobelia Sackville-Baggins
Rosie
Ioreth


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Stormraven, there is another woman with a speaking part in the books.  In RotK, there is Ioreth.  She was the chatty nurse in the Houses of Healing.




Dang. Forgot about her. That's seven.

Seven female characters! Who said there aren't any female characters in Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 23, 2003)

Curses! Off by two now! Hmm...so who's going to find the EIGHTH female character? With the way this is going, we may find out that the main characters aren't what we thought...


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 23, 2003)

"Lord of the Rings" is for boys ...
A New York Times critic falls for lazy gender-typing.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue about it.



Don't be a killjoy.  We're having fun arguing about it.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 23, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Curses! Off by two now! Hmm...so who's going to find the EIGHTH female character? With the way this is going, we may find out that the main characters aren't what we thought...




Does Shelob count?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 23, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

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




the title and quoted comments are actually sufficient to realize that its not a review... And though I have never subscribed to the NYT following the link worked for me... *shrug* So you are defending your misjudgement by stating that your are judging the article without reading the whole thing?    Thats not usually something you bring up in these discussions...

Kahuna burger


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 23, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> So what if LOTR appeals more to men than to women? I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue about it. It seems like a self-evident truth.
> 
> The author is not stating that _every single woman on the face of the earth_ will be uninterested in fantasy war movies but that _most women_ will be less interested than men. It's a sound observation.



My beef with statements like this isn't that they are or aren't _accurate_ -- it's that they aren't _useful_, critically speaking.

Having made the observation, now what? The only use of such an argument (in a critical sphere) seems to be, as the woman writing for Salon suggested, providing a means of shutting down debate. If you can say, "This is uninteresting to me because I'm a woman," well, there's not much anyone can say about that.

"No, you're not."

Doesn't work so well. And of course you can provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but as fusangite's pointed out that doesn't do anything to reverse the general trend.

But while such observations are useful for marketing weasels who need to design posters and predict profit margins (and the fact that Hollywood remains as crappy at that as ever suggests that these generalizations are less accurate than people want to believe they are), they offer no interesting critical insights, and are rightly considered unhelpful when made as critical opinions of a work.

The reason I'm uninterested in _Mona Lisa Smile_ isn't because it's a "chick flick" -- I loved _Four Weddings_, _Erin Brockovich_, _Sense and Sensibility_, all of which could probably be described as "chick flicks" -- but because it sounds _bad_. I may have read reviews which said, "This sucks because it's a chick flick" -- but those wouldn't discourage me. It's reviews which say, "This sucks and here's half a dozen reasons why," that make me steer clear.

Now it may be perfectly true that most men look at the poster and say, "Chick flick," and don't go. That doesn't make it an interesting critical statement.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 23, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> So, I guess that was your Vagina Monologue.




Probably. 

That's an awesome play that both men and women enjoy.  There were plenty of men there when my husband and I went to see it last year!


----------



## KaCee (Dec 23, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Kimberly, you are a goddess.




Every woman is.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 23, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Hmm...so who's going to find the EIGHTH female character? With the way this is going, we may find out that the main characters aren't what we thought...




Well...has anyone actually *checked* under Gimli's beard?

Not that I'm volunteering, thanks.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 24, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Curses! Off by two now! Hmm...so who's going to find the EIGHTH female character? With the way this is going, we may find out that the main characters aren't what we thought...




You called?

8) Farmer Maggot's wife gets two sentences when he's going to drive them to the ferry.

9) Mrs. Cotton gets the same amount when Sam goes to see Rosie and her during the Scouring.

Anybody else want to take it into double figures?


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 24, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> If she didn’t like the movie, great. But I’ve had it with people who apply stupid concepts like gender determinism to entertainment. You like what you like, you don’t like what you don’t like, and the shape of the flesh between your legs doesn’t enter into it!




Except that, statistically speaking, it _does _ enter into it.

This idea that it is impossible to market to a gender because every person is so different is just feel-good nonsense. 

To quote Tyler Durden "You are not a special snowflake"

People of the same gender can, on average, be expected to share certain tastes and traits (no no...not your mom, not your sister and certainly not _you_. I mean those _other_ members of your gender).

That is why gender-based marketing works more often than it doesn't.

The fact that it works more of ten than it doesn't is why they keep doing it.

It's been empirically tested. It works. It's true.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 24, 2003)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> That is why gender-based marketing works more often than it doesn't.




Then by your reasoning, why have LotR, Spiderman, Star Wars, and the Matrix all been huge blockbusters when so-called "chick flicks" don't make anywhere the same amount of money?

Women comprise slightly more than half of the population and are in charge of more disposable income on average.  That's why so much marketing is aimed at women; because women are more likely to do the shopping for a household, from everything from weekly groceries to Christmas gifts.

So if there are more women than men, and women spend more than men, why didn't Mona Lisa Smile beat RotK at the box office, or even come close?  Why are so many of the allegedly male-centric movies the ones that make all of the money?  It can't just be the action angle, because look how badly Charlie's Angel's 2 flopped, and that certainly had a "chick flick" aspect to it.

I agree with you that marketers perceive people in terms of delineating factors such as gender, age, race, and geography.  They absolutely do.  But that doesn't mean they are right...it just means that it's a hell of a lot easier to assume men think with their penises and women with their vaginas than it is to sell products using more honest and ethical tactics.  That's why so many things are badly mismarketed.  Look at Fight Club.  That's a really cool movie that I had NO interest in seeing when it was marketed as a lame-o penis-flick.  But then my brother-in-law made us watch it under the promise that it wasn't like its marketing, and boy, was he right.  Stupid marketers went for the dick angle instead of promoting the story.

Look, maybe you are everything you are stereotyped to be.  But I haven't met anyone yet who lives up to even half of their gender and racial stereotypes.  Sure, I know women who are obsessed with shoes and shopping, but some of them hate babies and don't care how their butt looks in those pants.  The point is, you can't take these multitudes of generalizations and use them to describe diverse groups.  You can try and you'll be right once in awhile by chance, but I live in Las Vegas, and let me tell you about the perils of betting on chance...


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 24, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> Then by your reasoning, why have LotR, Spiderman, Star Wars, and the Matrix all been huge blockbusters when so-called "chick flicks" don't make anywhere the same amount of money?



Maybe because (IIRC), US movie audiences are primarily male (and young).

Don't know why that is (if, in fact, it is).


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 24, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> Then by your reasoning, why have LotR, Spiderman, Star Wars, and the Matrix all been huge blockbusters when so-called "chick flicks" don't make anywhere the same amount of money?




Because women will not turn out to their Gender-Marketed "event" movies in numbers comparable to men. 

Unless you are  _actually _ saying that you believe women to be the majority of the audience for the films you listed? 



> Women comprise slightly more than half of the population and are in charge of more disposable income on average.  That's why so much marketing is aimed at women; because women are more likely to do the shopping for a household, from everything from weekly groceries to Christmas gifts.
> 
> So if there are more women than men, and women spend more than men, why didn't Mona Lisa Smile beat RotK at the box office, or even come close?




Because women are more flexible about what they will go see? Men are less likely to see a "Chick Flick" than women are to see a "Men's Movie"?



> Why are so many of the allegedly male-centric movies the ones that make all of the money?




Because women generallly consider movies to be less important than men?

Because Women generally consider moives to be "dates" while men consider them to be events unto themselves?

Because, again, women will not turn out to their Gender-Marketed "event" movies in numbers comparable to men.

I'm not really sure. I am sure what the crowds around me at the theatres during a "men's movie" look like. Mostly guys.

Look at the lineup of "Die Hards" waiting for event movies. What's the gender breakdown there? 50/50? Not where I live.

Men are more likely to be super enthusiastic about their Gender-Marketed "event" movies (like the Matrix, Star Wars Etc.) than women are about theirs (like The Hours, Charlies Angels etc.). 

I'm not saying that there are no women present a the guy's movies; I'm saying they are in the minority.



> Again,   It can't just be the action angle, because look how badly Charlie's Angel's 2 flopped, and that certainly had a "chick flick" aspect to it.




It's not just the action angle; it's that it was marketed at Women, it was critically panned and it was--by all accounts--more in the mold of a men's movie than it's predecessor.

I liked it incidentally

Think of this a working definition of what I mean by "Chick Flick"; 

A film where...


the story is told from the woman’s point of view, or... 
A woman is the clear lead protagonist, or... 
The story centers around women and women’s issues.

So *The Hours* counts. So does *Charlies Angels*. So does *The Piano*. So does *Pretty Woman*.



> I agree with you that marketers perceive people in terms of delineating factors such as gender, age, race, and geography.  They absolutely do.  But that doesn't mean they are right




Except that they are right enough of the time that people keep using this as their model for not losing money.

Chick flicks get made becasue they are a smaller ecomonic model; Actresses get paid less, Chick flicks are less Special Effect-heavy, therefore they don't need to take as much at the box office to be considered a success. 



> ...it just means that it's a hell of a lot easier to assume men think with their penises and women with their vaginas than it is to sell products using more honest and ethical tactics.  That's why so many things are badly mismarketed.  Look at Fight Club.  That's a really cool movie that I had NO interest in seeing when it was marketed as a lame-o penis-flick.  But then my brother-in-law made us watch it under the promise that it wasn't like its marketing, and boy, was he right.  Stupid marketers went for the dick angle instead of promoting the story.




I must've missed those commericals. Dick angle?



> Look, maybe you are everything you are stereotyped to be.  But I haven't met anyone yet who lives up to even half of their gender and racial stereotypes.




No, nobody is _everyting_ they are stereotyped to be, but you are suggesting that stereotypes are _entirely_ baseless, and I'm saying that they are the way in which we are able to discuss large groups and predict behaviour. It works more than it fails.

When I say, for example, most of the audience for...pro wrestling... is male, your response (following th logic you've layed out here) should be something akin to... 

"No it's not, because--given that women do most of the spending in the world, and the WWF is financially successful--this implies that the audience is not mostly men. Plus, women's tastes are entirely individual so the fact that the subject matter is designed to appeal to men means nothing."

It also fails to take into account that if you open your eyes and look around at a Pro wrestling event you are seeing mostly men...evidence I find compelling (if anecdotal)



> Sure, I know women who are obsessed with shoes and shopping, but some of them hate babies and don't care how their butt looks in those pants.




But if you take a larger sample group than "women you know" fairly obvious patterns emerge. Christ, the examples you list above (Shoes, Shopping, Babies and Butt-Size) would appear on the list of "typical female concerns"..._you_ obviously recognize them as such. 

Why Shoudn't the rest of the world?



> The point is, you can't take these multitudes of generalizations and use them to describe diverse groups.  You can try and you'll be right once in awhile by chance...




By chance? Just sheer random luck? 

I'll stick by my notion that you can predict the genral preferences of large groups and wait for my senses and experiences to tell me different.


----------



## ASH (Dec 24, 2003)

I like to see, mostly, the same types of movies as the guys I know.  I think that their a lot more girls willing to go see  _Too fast 2 furious_, than their are guys that will go see _The Hours._ 

I dont think that LotR is in either catagory, its an all around great movie. Much like any of the Indiana Jones movies, or any Bond movie. Action, with a healthy dose of romance/emotion is supposed to be aimed at the whole audience of men and women.


----------



## Zander (Dec 25, 2003)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself I am a geeky/intellectural/literary woman and the fact that Eowyn is a strong female was not the main reason that I love these films.



Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.

Both that deviation from the book and the voluble reaction of some women watching it were objectionable. The former displeased me because political didacticism in entertainment is condescending and exploitative. The latter saddened me because the only act by a female character to generate cheers from women in any of the three LotR films was one that was manifestly masculine (aggression and violence have been shown by psychologists to be overwhelmingly male characteristics). Why is it that some (possibly even many) women find masculinity in a woman appealing? The notion that a woman has to be masculine not to be suppressed by men is not supported in the LotR films: Galadriel's character is both dominant and feminine.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 25, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.
> 
> Both that deviation from the book and the voluble reaction of some women watching it were objectionable. The former displeased me because political didacticism in entertainment is condescending and exploitative. The latter saddened me because the only act by a female character to generate cheers from women in any of the three LotR films was one that was manifestly masculine (aggression and violence have been shown by psychologists to be overwhelmingly male characteristics). Why is it that some (possibly even many) women find masculinity in a woman appealing? The notion that a woman has to be masculine not to be suppressed by men is not supported in the LotR films: Galadriel's character is both dominant and feminine.




The reason I think Peter jackson gave the woman more to do than just be window dressing is that this is now the year 2003 woman go to war and die along side their male counterparts. We have gone to space and we have enter so called male professions in droves. This was not the case when Tolkein wrote LOTR by Peter Jackson doing this he gave woman characters to identify with. Who were the same sex as they were.

As for violence being a male trait well that may be but I don't see what Eoywn did as violence for violences sake she was willing to die for the people and the King she loves just like her brother was willing to do. I happen to think she was just as feminine and srtong as Galadriel. I think that was why woman were cheering I cheered for several reasons one is that the evil was defeated and Eoywn got to fulfill her dream of being heroic and having honor. I also clapped when Pippin found his courage.  

When I play RPGs I always play a female and sometimes they are very strong woman who are also very feminine. I happen to personally love being a woman and I don't feel as if to be equal to a man I need to be masculine hey I can like shoes and babies and worry about my butt being to big as well as understand loyalty and courage and sacrifice. I can fantasize that I am strong sword weilding amazon and also fantasize that I made playmate of the year or Miss America. 

All three woman Arwen, Eoywn, and Galadriel were strong beautiful and feminine woman who just happen to choose to do things to fulfill themselves differently.


----------



## Dispater (Dec 26, 2003)

Uh yeah, but as for being film characters in the -films- what did these women really do? Arwen had a crucial role in FOTR when she saved Frodo, but in TT was left hanging, and in ROTK showed up for the ending Galadriel seems to have more importance for the quest, but her presence is like Arwen, passive and in the background.

I argue Eowyn is the only female character of any importance. She develops and her actions come with their consequences. That she slew the witch king was critical to the outcome of the batle of Pelenor fields and thus the whole quest.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Null Boundry (Dec 26, 2003)

Simply for my own thoughts but can I just confirm that the point of this thread is that the idea of not likeing Tolkien is a crime. Anyone who says different is an idiot with barely enough brains to string two words together.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 26, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.




What deed was this? In the book, Merry stabs the Nazgul in the leg and then Eowyn sticks her sword between helm and mantle. That's what I saw in the movie too.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 26, 2003)

Null Boundry said:
			
		

> Simply for my own thoughts but can I just confirm that the point of this thread is that the idea of not likeing Tolkien is a crime. Anyone who says different is an idiot with barely enough brains to string two words together.



Null Boundry, I'm not sure what you're saying.  Are you suggesting that we, the people who have been posting in this thread think that people who don't like JRRT are idiots?  Or are you stating your own belief that people who don't like his stories are idiots?

If the former, I don't think anyone has said that.  What people have objected to is the idea that liking or disliking his work and the movies has more to do with gender than anything else.

If the latter, well, I think you're wrong.  But you are entitled to your opinions.


----------



## pogre (Dec 26, 2003)

Well, this has been an amusing read.

Not sure where I fall on the arguments, but I tend to agree with Teflon Billy. Marketers are not lazy - they work their tails off to figure out what sells and why.

I also agree that LOTR is less of a male movie than many others, but the fact that it may appeal to males more should not be surprising.

I see no reason that a film about pseudo medieval warfare should have significant female roles. That does not necessarily mean that it will not appeal to females. 

The first column presented in this thread was most certainly backlash - definitely I am above the crowd tone there.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 26, 2003)

pogre said:
			
		

> Well, this has been an amusing read.
> 
> Not sure where I fall on the arguments, but I tend to agree with Teflon Billy. Marketers are not lazy - they work their tails off to figure out what sells and why.
> 
> ...




If the movie is 'pseudo" medieval not based on actual history then there is no reason not to have significant female characters. I get rather tired of this argument in fantsay movies books and RPGs. That woman did not have a significant role in the real middle ages so that is a good reason not to have them. Well, there were no wizards, elves or hobbits in the medieval world either but that did not stop them from popping up all over the place.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 26, 2003)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> If the movie is 'pseudo" medieval not based on actual history then there is no reason not to have significant female characters. I get rather tired of this argument in fantsay movies books and RPGs.




Agreed!  Again, that's why I love Kay's books.  There's always at least one strong female role, not bound to ridiculous modern stereotypes.  I make an effort to increase the roles for women in my own books too.  The sequel to my current novel will see a woman get really pissed off and go to war over it, while her supposedly more powerful brothers can't be bothered.




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> That woman did not have a significant role in the real middle ages so that is a good reason not to have them.




Except that women did have significant roles...they were just often forcibly excluded from history.  I'm not one of those raving loonies out to rewrite history and call it "herstory" (ugh, what a horrible term), but I heartily recommend Vicki Leon's Uppity Women series, which offer plenty of examples of women who made huge differences in history.  You will have heard of many of them, but some were deliberately eradicated by the next generation of patriarchal males.  Not that that always worked...see Nefertiti.  There are reasons more folks today know about her than her husband, Akhenaten.  And the only reason Akhenaten's son Tutenkhamun is famous is because his tomb was intact.

Women weren't the majority of newsmakers by far, but there's plenty of 'em to be recognized. 

Seriously, check out Leon's books.  They're a really good read for any history buff, and great inspiration for RPGs.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 26, 2003)

*re*

I saw alot of women at the theatre when I went. My friend's mother even enjoys these movies. I still think the majority of the audience was male, but I would bet at least 30% to 35% was female. I don't know why folks complain about Tolkien. 

This is the same kind of debate certain critics have about Tolkien's lack of minorities. Where's the article about how this movie is a snoozer to non-whites because it lacks non-white characters? I'm sure that is out there somewhere as well.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 26, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> This is the same kind of debate certain critics have about Tolkien's lack of minorities. Where's the article about how this movie is a snoozer to non-whites because it lacks non-white characters? I'm sure that is out there somewhere as well.




Heh.  I just had a horrible flash of a movie with Jet Li as Legolas, Bill Cosby as Saruman, and Wesley Snipes as Boromir...

-Hyp.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 26, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> Agreed!  Again, that's why I love Kay's books.  There's always at least one strong female role, not bound to ridiculous modern stereotypes.  I make an effort to increase the roles for women in my own books too.  The sequel to my current novel will see a woman get really pissed off and go to war over it, while her supposedly more powerful brothers can't be bothered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I have read one of the uppity books.  The uppity woman of the new world I did not realize there were more of them I willhave to go look for them.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 26, 2003)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have read one of the uppity books.  The uppity woman of the new world I did not realize there were more of them I willhave to go look for them.





I've got a list of them here with a brief review and a note about a duplicate under a different title: http://kimberlychapman.com/books.html  (way down near the bottom of the page).  They're linked to Amazon but I'm sure they're available in lots of other places.


----------



## Zander (Dec 26, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> What deed was this? In the book, Merry stabs the Nazgul in the leg and then Eowyn sticks her sword between helm and mantle. That's what I saw in the movie too.



I could be mistaken but I didn't see Merry attacking the Witch King. It looked like all Eowyn's doing. In the book, both in the narrative describing the fight and in Aragorn's words in a later chapter, Eowyn would have lost and been killed had it not been for Merry. IIRC Aragorn says that Eowyn was not the equal of the Witch King "in mind or body". So the fact that she was not a "living man" (to quote the nazgul in the book) was not the reason she succeeded. If anything, Tolkien was making an anti-PC statement, not a PC one (in as much as concepts such as PC were understood when LotR was written). By altering Merry's role, Jackson has made it PC. I'm hoping to see the film again tonight and will double check Merry's contribution.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (Dec 26, 2003)

Well,

I'm a woman and I LOVE the movies. I think that the female characters are awesome. I mean come on...one of them is more romantic princess and the other is a kicka$$ fighter... It's like the best of both worlds...And on top of it, you have Legolas and Aragorn, and I know a couple of women who'd literally watch anything these guys are in.

Actually I know one woman who is disturbingly attracted to Gandalf...but that's another story 

I personally could care less if a movie has a bada$$ female character or a couple of hot guys. If it's a captivating story, I'm going to like it, regardless. And LoTR is a GREAT story. Not to mention just watching the film is breathtaking. The locations, the effects and the actors are all great. I could watch these films a hundred times and not get sick of them.Maybe that makes me weird.

What really amazed me is that my mom is even interested in them, mostly because of Aragorn    but also because she thinks they look "pretty" and "exciting" (of course, they are!)

I think these films just have so much to offer to so many people; not just those who are interested in fantasy. 

If the women they asked about it for this survey think it's boring, well, I feel kind of sad for them, if they can't find at least something in the films to enjoy. But if they'd be more excited by Sweet Home Alabama   I guess that's their choice.


----------



## KaCee (Dec 26, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> I could be mistaken but I didn't see Merry attacking the Witch King.




You must have blinked.  He did.  Brought the Witch King to his knees, making a nicely lined up shot for Eowyn to stab him in the face.

As for what Eowyn says in the book...



> A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'
> 
> 'Hinder me? Thou fool.  No living man may hinder me!'
> 
> Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest.  It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel.  'But no living man am I!  You look upon a woman.  Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.  You stand between me and my lord and kin.  Begone, if you be not deathless!  For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'




Then there's a big long description that essentially comes down to Merry stabbing him in the back of the knee and Eowyn using the opportunity to drive "her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her."

As for what Aragorn says in the book...



> "Alas! For she was pitted against a foe beyond the strength of her mind or body.  And those who will take a weapon to such an enemy must be sterner than steel, if the very shock shall not destroy them.  It was an evil doom that set her in his path.  For she is a fair maiden, fairest lady of a house of queens."




Then he goes on about how great she is and how he wishes he could have helped her and how she'll be remembered amongst the greatest queens.

There's absolutely nothing there to refute that she succeeded as a woman where a man could not.  However, if you maintain that there is such a passage, I invite you to quote it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 26, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> I could be mistaken but I didn't see Merry attacking the Witch King. It looked like all Eowyn's doing.




Yeah, in the film version, he sticks the dagger he got from Galadriel in the FotREE into the back of the Witch King's leg, there's a black flash, and he falls back clutching his arm and collapses.

-Hyp.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 27, 2003)

I posted all of the following a page back or so any have yet to see any response. I thought it was fairly well-written. Any comments?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


			
				KaCee said:
			
		

> ...Look, maybe you are everything you are stereotyped to be.  But I haven't met anyone yet who lives up to even half of their gender and racial stereotypes.




No, nobody is _everyting_ they are stereotyped to be, but you are suggesting that stereotypes are _entirely_ baseless, and I'm saying that they are the way in which we are able to discuss large groups and predict behaviour. It succeeds more often than it fails.

When I say, for example, most of the audience for...pro wrestling... is male, your response (following the logic you've layed out here) should be something akin to... 

"No it's not, because--given that women do most of the spending in the world, and the WWF is financially successful--this implies that the audience is not mostly men. Plus, women's tastes are _entirely _ individual so the fact that the subject matter is designed to appeal to men means nothing."

Your theory also fails to take into account that if you open your eyes and look around at a Pro wrestling event you are seeing mostly men...evidence I find compelling (if anecdotal)



> Sure, I know women who are obsessed with shoes and shopping, but some of them hate babies and don't care how their butt looks in those pants.




But if you take a larger sample group than "women you know" fairly obvious patterns emerge. Christ, the examples you list above (Shoes, Shopping, Babies and Butt-Size) would appear on the list of "typical female concerns"..._you_ obviously recognize them as such even as you dismiss two of them.

Why Shoudn't the rest of the world recognize them?



> The point is, you can't take these multitudes of generalizations and use them to describe diverse groups.  You can try and you'll be right once in awhile by chance...




By chance? Just sheer random luck? 

I'll stick by my notion that you can predict the genral preferences of large groups and wait for my senses and experiences to tell me different.


----------



## Corinth (Dec 27, 2003)

Note: If it weren't Arwen badgering Elrond to do it, the shards of Narsil would never get reforged into Anduril; Aragorn would never have survived the Paths of the Dead (because it was the sword that allowed Aragorn to press his claim, both in its own right and as a symbol of Aragorn's authority); Aragorn would never have saved Minas Tirith, nor taken control of Gondor's military, nor performed the distraction needed to buy Frodo and Sam the time need to get to Mount Doom.

Yeah, Arwen caused all that happen in the last film.  Her small act of defiance--along with her choice to life as a Man instead of an Elf--was the lynchpin that made all of Aragorn's deeds possible.  Arwen wasn't a throwaway character.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

This is a subject I find interesting on many levels. for background purposes, I am a young gay male gamer fantasy fan "geek" (although I dont really like using those terms).
  All my female friends and family love the movies and/or the books.
teflon Billy is partialy right...most sterotypes do have some basis in fact. However, I think in the case of gender stuff, its less about gender and more about societal gender roles and conditioning. Yes many traits are to be found in most men, and many different ones in most women, but I think a lot of that is cultural more than something physicaly or pyschologicaly inherent in the genders.
  obviously, the author of the articles statements about lack of emotion are simply absurd. Both males and females showed emotions of all sorts, directed at both others of the same, and oposite genders. This was indeed one of the most emotional movies I've ever seen...I would have broken down completely if I'd let myself.
  As for female roles in LOTR, and in Tolkien in general, well lets examine the Big 3 ladies in LOTR. Eowyn. Strong willed, formidable in battle, loyal in the extreme, commiter of probably the 2nd greatest mortal act in the 3rd age(destroying his Incorporeal Idiocy. the 1st would be frodo surviving till mount doom). Arwen..well she doesnt have a supper big role in the books but remember, in books and movie...she was Aragorn's motivation. And in the books she also helped ease Frodo's suffering prior to his departure. Then we have my favorite, and probably my favorite of all the characters, Galadriel. Her raw power is never really shown in LOTR, but she is indeed powerful and dangerous. However in LOTR, by her own statement (in the books) her purpose lies not in what she can do, but what she knows. She's one of the only people in the books who's lived through almost the entire history of Middle-Earth. In the book its she who truly explains whats going on to Frodo and Sam, and shows them important truths in her mirror.
  Addmitedly, there arent a lot of super big female roles in LOTR. but if you look at the rest of Middle-Earths history, their are quite a few more. Of course the Valier, particualrly Varda, Yavanna and Nienna. Ariane the powerful Maia who guides the vessel of the Sun. And of course Queen Melian, who kept an entire kingdom hedged against evil for centuries. Indeed, Varda Elbereth in a way does appear in LOTR...the very mention of her name creates some powerful and important effects (driving away the Nazgul from Weathertop, enhancing the power of Galadriel's phial). And in a way, the real power of the Phial belongs to Yavanna and to Varda
  Even though as I said, sterotypes do have some accuracy, it does all come down to each person in the end.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 27, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> ...Teflon Billy is partially right...most stereotypes do have some basis in fact. However, I think in the case of gender stuff, its less about gender and more about societal gender roles and conditioning. Yes many traits are to be found in most men, and many different ones in most women, but I think a lot of that is cultural more than something physically or pyschologically inherent in the genders.




..and that makes absolutely zero difference to what I said, or the point I was making when I said it. 

I was talking about the way things _are_, not the root causes of the situation..



> As for female roles in LOTR, and in Tolkien in general, well lets examine the Big 3 ladies in LOTR. Eowyn. Strong willed, formidable in battle, loyal in the extreme, commiter of probably the 2nd greatest mortal act in the 3rd age(destroying his Incorporeal Idiocy. the 1st would be frodo surviving till mount Doom).




I have nothing but love for the Eowyn character. Her killing of the Witch King was the only point in the movie where the women attending the showing I was at audibly cheered. Which (again, anecdotally) reinforces my suspicions that women won't cheer for male heroism (at least not in the numbers they will for female heroism, or in the numbers which men will cheer for male heroism).

Which is why, thanks to the miracle of test marketing and demographic-driven rewrites, we get...



> Arwen..well she doesnt have a super big role in the books but remember, in both the books and movie...she was Aragorn's motivation. And in the books she also helped ease Frodo's suffering prior to his departure.




Yup. But none of that involves her being as physically combative/active as a man...which is what tests well with the modern female demographic.

Tending to the wounded and being "inspirational" does not get women into a theatre, so we get a rewrite with Arwen as the new Glorfindel.



> Then we have my favorite, and probably my favorite of all the characters, Galadriel. Her raw power is never really shown in LOTR, but she is indeed powerful and dangerous. However in LOTR, by her own statement (in the books) her purpose lies not in what she can do, but what she knows. She's one of the only people in the books who's lived through almost the entire history of Middle-Earth. In the book its she who truly explains whats going on to Frodo and Sam, and shows them important truths in her mirror.




Yes...and? I thought Galadriel's role from Book to Film was largely unchanged.



> Addmitedly, there arent a lot of super big female roles in LOTR. but if you look at the rest of Middle-Earths history, their are quite a few more. Of course the Valier, particualrly Varda, Yavanna and Nienna. Ariane the powerful Maia who guides the vessel of the Sun. And of course Queen Melian, who kept an entire kingdom hedged against evil for centuries. Indeed, Varda Elbereth in a way does appear in LOTR...the very mention of her name creates some powerful and important effects (driving away the Nazgul from Weathertop, enhancing the power of Galadriel's phial). And in a way, the real power of the Phial belongs to Yavanna and to Varda




Which would probably be fine were we not watching the film adaptation of "Lord of the Rings" but rather "The Silmarillion".



> Even though as I said, sterotypes do have some accuracy, it does all come down to each person in the end.




What do you mean "in the end"? 

Decisions to alter source material to appeal to demographic target-markets are made well before "The End" and the decisions made are economically sound more often than not.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

I wasnt really responding to your post directly. I was just mentioning that you were right..to an extent.
  I always have a tendency to deal with things in terms of their causes...I find cause and effect diffacult to seperate in thease situations.
  The rest I was just giving my opnion on the issues being discussed in the thread.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 27, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I always have a tendency to deal with things in terms of their causes...I find cause and effect diffacult to seperate in thease situations.




Allright then, what bearing do you think the cause has on this discussion?



> The rest I was just giving my opnion on the issues being discussed in the thread.




Ok, I must have missed that. Can you clear it up for me a bit, because I just re-read your post and it looked like your opinion was just a listing of the "Big 3 ladies" and a mention of some other womenfolk in the Silmarillion.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

No thank you, I dont really feel a need to justify the validity of my posts to you. I apologize in advance if you ment it some other way but it sounds like your saying my post had no bearing on what was being discussed.


----------



## Zander (Dec 27, 2003)

KaCee said:
			
		

> There's absolutely nothing there to refute that she succeeded as a woman where a man could not.  However, if you maintain that there is such a passage, I invite you to quote it.



My point is (and was) that in the book Eowyn's belief that she could hinder the Witch King because she was a woman (and not a man) was false:

"With a cry of hatred that stung the ears like venom [the Witch King] let fall his mace. [Eowyn's] shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill. 

  But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind..."

Clearly, the fact that Eowyn was a woman was not what made her success possible. It was Merry who hindered the Nazgul.

Still not convinced? Try this: re-read the encounter between Eowyn and the Witch King but imagine that Merry isn't there. What happens? The Witch King proclaims "No living man may hinder me!". Eowyn counters "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman" which seems very PC except that when they fight, the Witch King kills her without much difficulty and moves onto Theoden. Hardly a ringing endorsement of PC by Tolkien.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 27, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> No thank you, I dont really feel a need to justify the validity of my posts to you. I apologize in advance if you ment it some other way but it sounds like your saying my post had no bearing on what was being discussed.




Close; I was saying I didn't understand what bearing it had, and was inviting you to clarify.

However if you felt that listing the names of women in the Movie (and some of the books)--and identifying some of their traits-- was your point, then I guess I will just content myself with reminaing in the dark.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 28, 2003)

well, there was also :teflon Billy is partialy right...most sterotypes do have some basis in fact. However, I think in the case of gender stuff, its less about gender and more about societal gender roles and conditioning. Yes many traits are to be found in most men, and many different ones in most women, but I think a lot of that is cultural more than something physicaly or pyschologicaly inherent in the genders. ( realize you thought this was irrelevent, although I dont understand why.)


andbviously, the author of the articles statements about lack of emotion are simply absurd. Both males and females showed emotions of all sorts, directed at both others of the same, and oposite genders. This was indeed one of the most emotional movies I've ever seen...I would have broken down completely if I'd let myself.


Basicaly, people had already said most of what was to be said about thease things. I didnt feel there was a lot more I could add.
  As for the rest, I wasnt just listing the 3 big female roles and there names and atributes. I was attempting to explain why I disagree with the idea that there are not strong important females in the stories, by listing the things that thease characters did that were important to the story.
  I'm sorry if that wasnt clear. It might not be my best thought out post ever.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> Still not convinced? Try this: re-read the encounter between Eowyn and the Witch King but imagine that Merry isn't there. What happens?




Only the author can answer such "what if?" questions.  Unless you want to claim you can speak to the dead, or have some other document of Tolkien's that we haven't heard of, you cannot claim to know what would have happened if the hobbit wasn't there.  

Maybe Eowyn would succeed just the same.  Maybe she'd fail.  Maybe she'd succeed, but die in the attempt.  We don't know.  None of us were the author, and we should not presume to speak for him.


----------



## Zander (Dec 28, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Unless you want to claim you can speak to the dead, or have some other document of Tolkien's that we haven't heard of, you cannot claim to know what would have happened if the hobbit wasn't there.



I don't need to be able to speak with the dead, to have access to an unknown source of information or to have asked him when he was alive (a possibility you seem to have neglected). It's right there in the book, in black and white. The passage that I already quoted makes it perfectly clear what was going to happen. Any other interpretation is patently absurd.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 28, 2003)

> Any other interpretation is patently absurd
> 
> 
> > and that is patently incredibly rude and arrogant. Please lets at least try to remember our manners


----------



## Zander (Dec 28, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> ...and that is patently incredibly rude and arrogant.



Hardly. Given Umbran's statement, it's measured and tempered. 

By not addressing Tolkien's words (that is, without any evidence), Umbran dismisses my argument out of hand. That, by itself, warrants my reply. 

But Umbran doesn't just do that. He (or she?) attempts to undermine my credibility by rhetorically suggesting that I am claiming supernatural powers or access to secret sources. 

So not only does Umbran implicitly assert that my argument needn't be discussed because it has no value, he also tries to ridicule me.

And somehow, in your estimation, I was being "incredibly rude and arrogant" while Umbran was above reproach.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> By not addressing Tolkien's words (that is, without any evidence), Umbran dismisses my argument out of hand. That, by itself, warrants my reply.




Huh.  I don't dismiss it out of hand, and I note Tolkien's words.  Or lack thereof - I mark that there's no explicit statement backing you up in any document of which we are aware.  Anything else is interpretation.  

Interpretation is not knowledge, as any teacher of literature will tell you.  Interpretation is a process in your mind, not the mind of the author.  Interpretation might tell you how you might have written it, or how it seems to you would be most consistent with what else is present in the text.  But it does not tell you anything about the author's mental processes without question - so you cannot be sure of answers to "what if?" questions.

The very statement that "any other interpretation is patently absurd" is itself absurd, especially when you're faced with folks who have already voiced other interpretations.  Again, interpretation is a process within the reader's mind - many minds means many interpretations.

This is an informal forum, so I chose to point out the nonsensical notion that interpretation equals knowledge with a bit of my own nonsense.  Sorry if it offended.  The basic notion is still sound, though.  You don't _know_ Tolkien's mind better than anyone else here.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 29, 2003)

All I saw him say was that no one but the author can make unequivical statements about might-have-beens. And this is correct.
  What you said was extremely rude, period. Wether he was as well is irrelevent..I responded to what I saw.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> *Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.*




The only problem with you argument is that Eowyn killed the Witch-King in the book, with an assist by Merry. You can contort all you want, but the text makes clear that Eowyn killed the Witch-King, Merry merely distracted the nazgul long enough for Eowyn to deliver the killing stroke.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> *I don't need to be able to speak with the dead, to have access to an unknown source of information or to have asked him when he was alive (a possibility you seem to have neglected). It's right there in the book, in black and white. The passage that I already quoted makes it perfectly clear what was going to happen. Any other interpretation is patently absurd.*





Okay. Imagine Eowyn isn't there, but Merry is. How does the story turn out then?

I'll give you a hint: Wounding the Witch-King in the leg doesn't kill him. Further, the Witch-King can reform himself if he is not properly killed, and come back. Merry, being male, could not destroy the Witch-King, merely wound him.


----------



## Zander (Dec 29, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> ...I note Tolkien's words.  Or lack thereof - I mark that there's no explicit statement backing you up in any document of which we are aware.  Anything else is interpretation.



"[The Witch King] raised his mace to kill." Tolkien's words. It's explicit.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> "[The Witch King] raised his mace to kill." Tolkien's words. It's explicit.




It says he raised his mace to kill. It doesn't give any indication whether or not his strike would have been delivered in time even if Merry had not been present. "He raised his mace _to kill_", not "he raised his mace _with the certainty of a kill_". You can play "would have" all you want, but in the end, you are just playing with what _might_ have happened had the events transpired differently. The only one who knows that answer would be Tolkien, and you aren't him.

But the key point is this: the actual sword stroke that _killed_ the Witch King, was made by Eowyn. Merry's stroke didn't kill the wraith, it merely distracted him. The killing blow was Eowyn's strike through the "head" of the Witch-King.


----------



## Zander (Dec 29, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The only problem with you argument is that Eowyn killed the Witch-King in the book, with an assist by Merry. You can contort all you want, but the text makes clear that Eowyn killed the Witch-King, Merry merely distracted the nazgul long enough for Eowyn to deliver the killing stroke.



That Eowyn killed* the Witch King in the book is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Tolkien was making a PC statement. It is my contention that he wasn't. Merry didn't just assist; he saved Eowyn's life. Despite her grandiose declaration, the Nazgul would have made short work of her without Merry.

Incidentally, Tolkien didn't imagine Eowyn to be a great warrior. He once wrote in a letter that Eowyn was "not really a soldier or 'amazon'".

*Actually "reduced to impotence" according to Tolkien.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 29, 2003)

Thanks for retreating from "pugnacious and argumentative" back to "polite discussion," gang. It's appreciated.


----------



## Zander (Dec 29, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> "He raised his mace _to kill_", not "he raised his mace _with the certainty of a kill_".



The two are synonymous. The latter is a more modern way of saying the same thing as the former. It's not Tolkien's style, that's all. 

Remember that Tolkien was the product of a British Victorian/Edwardian education. Even though LotR was written much later, he still wrote in a manner that reflected his background. There's a plethora of Tolkien's writing that seems old-fashioned nowadays.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> I'll give you a hint: Wounding the Witch-King in the leg doesn't kill him. Further, the Witch-King can reform himself if he is not properly killed, and come back. Merry, being male, could not destroy the Witch-King, merely wound him.




Merry got him in the Wraithly Hamstring, bringing him to his knee's. Merry also was reduced to worthlessness by the stroke, but there's no indication that the Witch King was about to jump up and do something.
Did Merry get felled by the Witch King explosion? or was he still conscious...
It's all impossible to tell really. It does seem very unlikely that Eowyn could have beat the Witch King alone. She didn't really seem to have any skill at arms, just dodging the killing blows and not even very effective at that.

Also, isn't the line that the Witchking will not fall to Man? He fell to Merry, Eowyn just finished him off. In the other thread, it comes up that Man in most of the Saga means "human" not "male".

The Hobbit (being no Man) felled the witchking with a sword specificially forged to fight the forces of the Witchking. I think the credit is more for him than Eowyn, but Eowyn's part is important also.


----------



## kengar (Dec 30, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Merry got him in the Wraithly Hamstring, bringing him to his knee's. Merry also was reduced to worthlessness by the stroke, but there's no indication that the Witch King was about to jump up and do something.
> Did Merry get felled by the Witch King explosion? or was he still conscious...
> It's all impossible to tell really. It does seem very unlikely that Eowyn could have beat the Witch King alone. She didn't really seem to have any skill at arms, just dodging the killing blows and not even very effective at that.
> 
> ...




_"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."

The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them._

The Witch King wasn't sure whether Eowyn could hurt him or not. Further, her act of defiance in the face of the fear and terror the Nazgul brought gave Merry hope to act when before he merely cowered on the ground. Eowyn proved to be a skilled warrior v. the attacking hell hawk when _"A swift stroke she dealt, skilled and deadly. The outstretched neck she clove asunder, and the hewn head fell like a stone."_

The way the fight plays out in the book, Merry was undoubtably helpful and may even have saved Eowyn's life by wounding the Witch King, but it was her and not the hobbit whose strength and defiance gave them both the courage to fight at all.

As far as credit to Merry goes, Aragorn proclaims in Chapter 10, when Merry wishes to travel to the Black Gate (I know he was there in the film, but he stayed behind in the book): _"You are not fit for such a journey," said Aragorn. "But do not be ashamed. If you do no more in this war, you have already earned great honour. Peregrin shall go and represent the Shirefolk; and do not grudge him his chance of peril, for though he has done well as his fortune allowed him, he has yet to match your deed."_

IMNSHO, Eowyn is _THE_ lead female of the LOTR. She is the most realized woman in the story as well as the one with the most depth. She undergoes the most development and change in the story. For the male characters, the hobbits are the leading males, followed -in terms of character development- by Theoden & Faramir. The rest of the characters in the books are largely static: Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, etc. all of them are really rather static and boring.


EDIT: and -for the purposes of race ("mankind" v. male)- according to Tokien's letters, hobbits are considered human.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> *The two are synonymous. The latter is a more modern way of saying the same thing as the former. It's not Tolkien's style, that's all.*





No they aren't. Saying that they are doesn't make it so. If Tolkien had meant to use the meaning you think shoudl be there, he would have written the passage differently.

You keep working on a "what if" basis. "What if" Merry wasn't there is a pointless question. Both Merry and Eowyn were required to be at the scene for it to resolve the way it did. Trying to figure out what would have happened if one or the other was absent is silly, since the only person who can tell us that has been dead for many years. The end result is that Eowyn killed the Witch-King with an assist from Merry. Had either not been there, it is _likely_ (although not certain) that the battle would have gone differently.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Merry got him in the Wraithly Hamstring, bringing him to his knee's. Merry also was reduced to worthlessness by the stroke, but there's no indication that the Witch King was about to jump up and do something.[/b]




He didn't get the chance, since Eowyn almost immediately whacked him through the "head". But had this not happened, remember the fords at Rivendell. All of the nazgul were completely physically destroyed, and yet reformed within days, whole and unharmed. I don't think the Witch-King would have been more than inconvenienced by Merry's stroke had Eowyn not been present.



> *Did Merry get felled by the Witch King explosion? or was he still conscious...*




Merry was laid low by the black breath. There was no Witch-King explosion in the books.



> *It's all impossible to tell really. It does seem very unlikely that Eowyn could have beat the Witch King alone. She didn't really seem to have any skill at arms, just dodging the killing blows and not even very effective at that.*





Other than, for example, single handedly killing the fell beast the Witch-King rode on, and having the force of will to stand and fight him at all.



> *Also, isn't the line that the Witchking will not fall to Man? He fell to Merry, Eowyn just finished him off. In the other thread, it comes up that Man in most of the Saga means "human" not "male".*




Man can mean either. In many cases it is used to distinguish between elf, dwarf, orc, and human, but in the context of the prophecy (given by Glorfindel, an elf) it seems clear that he doesn't mean "human", since he (an elf) declines to chase the Witch-King on the basis that no man can kill him.



> *The Hobbit (being no Man) felled the witchking with a sword specificially forged to fight the forces of the Witchking.*




The hobbit _harmed_ the Witch-King, which is always possible, no matter your sex, with a weapon forged by forces opposed to Angmar.



> *I think the credit is more for him than Eowyn, but Eowyn's part is important also.*





Without Eowyn, the Witch-King would have been back on the battlefield as soon as he could get a new mount (just as the nazgul were back in action as soon as they got new mount after the ford at Rivendell). Merry _helped_ Eowyn, but his help would have been useless without her involvement.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> Okay. Imagine Eowyn isn't there, but Merry is. How does the story turn out then?
> 
> I'll give you a hint: Wounding the Witch-King in the leg doesn't kill him. Further, the Witch-King can reform himself if he is not properly killed, and come back. Merry, being male, could not destroy the Witch-King, merely wound him.




Merry is not a "Man". and he was armed with the proper sword in the book.

edit: but it was Eowyn who would've gained the xps in 1edADnD.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 30, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> EDIT: and -for the purposes of race ("mankind" v. male)- according to Tokien's letters, hobbits are considered human.




but what about the powers of the ent water...the age of the character (in terms of his fellows, both he and pippin were considered young (again not '"men" at the beginning)...and the fact they considered themselves hobbits and not "men"


----------



## kengar (Dec 30, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Merry is not a "Man". and he was armed with the proper sword in the book.
> 
> edit: but it was Eowyn who would've gained the xps in 1edADnD.




It was a knife in the book, but -on a hobbit- it was the size of a sword. Much like Sting with Bilbo, in _the Hobbit_.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Merry is not a "Man". and he was armed with the proper sword in the book.




Merry was a man for the purposes of the prophecy. If you go back to the original prophecy, if your interpretation was true, then Glorfindel (an elf, and not a "man") could have offed the Witch-King centuries earlier when he made the prophecy that the Witch King would not be "felled by the hand of man".

If "man" in that context meant "not human", then Glorfindel could have done the job then. But he determined that he could not, which means that "man" in the context of the propohecy means something different than "not human".

And Merry was armed with a dagger made by the foes of Angmar. The dagger had no special properties other than that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

*


			
				diaglo said:
			
		


			but what about the powers of the ent water
		
Click to expand...


*
What about them? It didn't change their race or sex?



> *..the age of the character (in terms of his fellows, both he and pippin were considered young (again not '"men" at the beginning)*




Actually, Merry and Pippen are both in their forties at the time of LotR, which makes them fully grown adult hobbits.



> *...and the fact they considered themselves hobbits and not "men"*





Which is irrelevant for the purposes of the prophecy itself.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Dec 30, 2003)

It's interesting the way Fate works in Tolkien's books.  Basically, it's pointless to debate whether or not something would have happened differently had the conditions been different, because the event was fated to happen that way and thus the conditions would have been fated to be favorable to the event occurring.

In other words, it's pointless to debate whether or not Eowyn could have killed the Witch-King without Merry being there, because the way Fate works in Middle-Earth, there's no way Merry wouldn't have been there.  Eowyn was _meant_ to kill the Witch-King, and Merry was _meant_ to be there to help.  When the Witch-King himself first heard (and believed) Glorfindel's prophecy, he fulfilled it then and there.  While he believed no man COULD harm him, Glorfindel actually said that no man WOULD harm him.  And by believing the first interpretation to mean he was invulnerable, he faced Eowyn in combat, and was killed.  If he had chosen to believe the second interpretation of the prophecy (that no man WOULD kill him), perhaps he would have been more cautious facing Eowyn.  As it is, his belief in the prophecy was what caused it to come true (though not in the way the Witch-King hoped).

So in other words, what I'm trying to say is that the actual mechanics of the combat doesn't matter - Tolkien made a PC statement when he put it in black and white that the Witch-King was fated to be killed by Eowyn.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 30, 2003)

Zander said:
			
		

> Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.
> 
> Both that deviation from the book and the voluble reaction of some women watching it were objectionable. The former displeased me because political didacticism in entertainment is condescending and exploitative. The latter saddened me because the only act by a female character to generate cheers from women in any of the three LotR films was one that was manifestly masculine (aggression and violence have been shown by psychologists to be overwhelmingly male characteristics). Why is it that some (possibly even many) women find masculinity in a woman appealing? The notion that a woman has to be masculine not to be suppressed by men is not supported in the LotR films: Galadriel's character is both dominant and feminine.




Source please.  Given that my degree is in Psychology, I do believe I have some grounding in the topic.  Women in fact initiate aggression with as high or higher degree of frequency than men do.  It's not a popular opinion, but many studies have demonstrated this.  Aggression by men tends to be more violent, and more physically destructive....but it's aggression in itself is not a predominently male only trait.

It's possible that war movies may appeal more to men than to women.  But stating that the only act in the film by a female character to generate cheers was for a masculine act isn't quite correct.  In fact, it's just another form of gender-typing.

I'm not innocent of those tendencies at times myself...but the aggression angle is one that I always found interesting, because these days we're socialized to believe that men are the source of most aggression, when in fact it is a human trait...not a male one.

Banshee16


----------



## Zander (Dec 30, 2003)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Given that my degree is in Psychology, I do believe I have some grounding in the topic.



Given that I have two degrees in Psychology, I do believe I have more grounding in the topic. (I also have a degree in Politics & Sociology).



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Women in fact initiate aggression with as high or higher degree of frequency than men do.  It's not a popular opinion, but many studies have demonstrated this.  Aggression by men tends to be more violent, and more physically destructive....but it's aggression in itself is not a predominently male only trait.



It should have been clear from the context that I meant physically aggressive. If not, please consider that to be my meaning. 



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> It's possible that war movies may appeal more to men than to women.  But stating that the only act in the film by a female character to generate cheers was for a masculine act isn't quite correct.  In fact, it's just another form of gender-typing.



Gender types are not inherently false; some may be but not all are necessarily. Please see Teflon Billy's series of posts above. 



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm not innocent of those tendencies at times myself...but the aggression angle is one that I always found interesting, because these days we're socialized to believe that men are the source of most aggression, when in fact it is a human trait...not a male one.



I don't have easy access to an academic library but IIRC there's a strong relationship between male hormones and physical aggression. Examples can be found in people with endocrinal conditions, people who undergo gender re-assignment hormone treatment and in (non-human) animal models.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I posted all of the following a page back or so any have yet to see any response. I thought it was fairly well-written.



You would.  

Sure, I got your response right here.


			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> you are suggesting that stereotypes are _entirely_ baseless, and I'm saying that they are the way in which we are able to discuss large groups and predict behaviour. It succeeds more often than it fails.



Anyone here remember Orion Films? Anyone familiar with the financial history of MGM Studios? Cannon Films?

"More often than it fails"? Yeah, maybe I'd go for that. "Good enough to run a railroad"? No, I don't think so.

The entertainment industry is notoriously bad at predicting audience reaction. Few other industries are as consistently volatile. If predicting group behaviour was particularly successful, every film would be a hit. The fact is that nobody has come up with a system that predicts market success with any accuracy at all. The industry is forever getting blindsided by hits that come out of nowhere, and forever getting burned by trying to repeat previous successes. Behaviour prediction is overrated -- mainly by the very marketing flacks who depend on its putated accuracy for their livelihoods.

You're not a marketing flack, are you?  


			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Your theory also fails to take into account that if you open your eyes and look around at a Pro wrestling event you are seeing mostly men...evidence I find compelling (if anecdotal)



But not evidence of a, let us say, physically-based tendency. It may be evidence that men are socially directed towards such events and women are socially directed away. Certainly history gives us many examples of women who were raised "as men" and who went on to value and enjoy the sorts of things associated with men -- which offers vague, "not-really" evidence that it's all social.

Which I understand is rather tangential to your point. Whether it's social or genetic, if it exists it ought to be addressed.

And I don't argue that it exists. I'm just ruminating.

But just to offer my own anecdotal counter, last night we watched _Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!_ (which surely has to rank as about as "male-directed" as any film can get, consisting largely of scantily-clad women shaking their enormous ta-tas and driving fast cars recklessly -- simultaneously, if at all possible) and my wife not only loved it, she has announced that we must _own_ a copy.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 30, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But just to offer my own anecdotal counter, last night we watched _Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!_ (which surely has to rank as about as "male-directed" as any film can get, consisting largely of scantily-clad women shaking their enormous ta-tas and driving fast cars recklessly -- simultaneously, if at all possible) and my wife not only loved it, she has announced that we must _own_ a copy.





That's one hell of a woman you've got there!


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

Truly, I am blessed.


----------



## Richards (Dec 31, 2003)

Originally posted by Banshee16:







> Given that my degree is in Psychology, I do believe I have some grounding in the topic.



Originally posted by Zander:







> Given that I have two degrees in Psychology, I do believe I have more grounding in the topic.



Okay, we're currently at _two_ Psychology degrees...do I hear _three_?  Looking for _three_ Psychology degrees...anyone?

Johnathan


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 31, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You're not a marketing flack, are you?




Nope.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> [Snipped a bunch of psychobabble]...Which I understand is rather tangential to your point. Whether it's social or genetic, if it exists it ought to be addressed.
> 
> And I don't argue that it exists. I'm just ruminating.




Then we agree. All I've said the entire time is that these stereotypes exist in acutality if you take groups larger than "women I know"

Whether social or genetic is not something I've commented on (or care about).



> But just to offer my own anecdotal counter...[snipped Barsoomecore's account of his hot, awesome wife]




I've said time and again here that anecdotal "But, girls I know..." examples don't change anything about the gender-wide recognizable patterns I was talking about.

You haven't poste a _counter_, exactly. You've posted another example that doesn't affect what I'm talking about.

PS. Did you get my email?


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 31, 2003)

Richards said:
			
		

> Originally posted by Banshee16:Originally posted by Zander:Okay, we're currently at _two_ Psychology degrees...do I hear _three_?  Looking for _three_ Psychology degrees...anyone?




heh, I got nothing


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 31, 2003)

Richards said:
			
		

> Originally posted by Banshee16:Originally posted by Zander:Okay, we're currently at _two_ Psychology degrees...do I hear _three_?  Looking for _three_ Psychology degrees...anyone?
> 
> Johnathan




No, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> He didn't get the chance, since Eowyn almost immediately whacked him through the "head". But had this not happened, remember the fords at Rivendell. All of the nazgul were completely physically destroyed, and yet reformed within days, whole and unharmed. I don't think the Witch-King would have been more than inconvenienced by Merry's stroke had Eowyn not been present.



But, why did her stroke do something different that any other stroke from any other blade through the Ages?
Mentioned elsewhere, but I kind of always figured the witch King would have reformed eventually, had the One Ring not been destroyed.




> Other than, for example, single handedly killing the fell beast the Witch-King rode on, and having the force of will to stand and fight him at all.



She gets full XP for the fell beast, sure. She didn't really do much against the Witch King though. She stabbed and collapsed. Merry should still get the majority of the XP since it was his slice that did it.



> Man can mean either. In many cases it is used to distinguish between elf, dwarf, orc, and human, but in the context of the prophecy (given by Glorfindel, an elf) it seems clear that he doesn't mean "human", since he (an elf) declines to chase the Witch-King on the basis that no man can kill him.



Well, he saw that his death was "far off", but he still could have done many things to the Witch King. The fact that he saw that his end wasn't immediate doesn't mean he couldn't have done something to him.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

> You've posted another example that doesn't affect what I'm talking about
> 
> 
> > What would be a response that would affect what your talking about just out of curiosity?


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2003)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> You haven't poste a _counter_, exactly. You've posted another example that doesn't affect what I'm talking about.



 Okay, so I'm bragging about how cool my wife is. Sue me.  


			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> PS. Did you get my email?



Nope. I'll send you one -- then you can just hit the "Reply" button. Easier for you marketing flacks.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *But, why did her stroke do something different that any other stroke from any other blade through the Ages?*





Because she was fated to destroy the Witch-King, as she was not a man.

You misunderstand the prophecy. The prophecy wasn't an indication of invulnerability (which the Witch-King misunderstood it to be), it was a prediction, a vision of future events. Not "he cannot be destroyed . . ." but rather "he _will not_ be destroyed . . . " It is similar to a Celtic gesa in this regard.



> *Mentioned elsewhere, but I kind of always figured the witch King would have reformed eventually, had the One Ring not been destroyed.*




Had Eowyn not been involved, probably. But as Eowyn was involved, he didn't. Because he was destroyed in the manner fate had chosen.



> *She gets full XP for the fell beast, sure. She didn't really do much against the Witch King though. She stabbed and collapsed. Merry should still get the majority of the XP since it was his slice that did it.*




Just standing up to the Witch-King is a powerful action in and of itself, given that most brave warriors throw down their weapons and cower helplessly or run in terror when confronted by his power.

Her cut did the deed. His attack merely wounded and distracted the wraith (and he stabbed and collapsed as well, for the same reasons Eowyn collapsed). If mMerry's stroke _had_ killed the Witch-King, then Eowyn _would not_ have collapsed after her stroke, because she was affected by the negative conseqeunces of striking the Witch-King with a weapon. Had Merry's stroke "killed" the Witch-King, she would not have suffered that consequence.



> *Well, he saw that his death was "far off", but he still could have done many things to the Witch King. The fact that he saw that his end wasn't immediate doesn't mean he couldn't have done something to him.*





He, however, did not do any of these things. He held back, knowing anything _he_ would have done would have been ineffective. In the context of Glorfindel's prophecy, based upon his actions, and the nature of the resolution in Tolkien's text, "man" means male.


----------



## Zander (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If mMerry's stroke _had_ killed the Witch-King, then Eowyn _would not_ have collapsed after her stroke, because she was affected by the negative conseqeunces of striking the Witch-King with a weapon. Had Merry's stroke "killed" the Witch-King, she would not have suffered that consequence.



That's a "what if" statement.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You keep working on a "what if" basis.... Trying to figure out what would have happened... is silly, since the only person who can tell us that has been dead for many years.



If I were unkind, I would say something about digging one's own grave. As it is, I will simply ask why you are entitled to make "what if" arguments and I am not? 


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> He, however, did not do any of these things. He held back, knowing anything _he_ would have done would have been ineffective. In the context of Glorfindel's prophecy, based upon his actions, and the nature of the resolution in Tolkien's text, "man" means male.



Not true. 







> ...the words of Glorfindel long before to King Earnur were fulfilled, that the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man. For it is said in the songs of the Mark that in this deed Eowyn had the aid of Theoden's esquire, _and that he also was not a Man_ but a Halfling [sc. Merry] out of a far country...



(Tolkien, LotR, Appendix A, my emphasis). 
Tolkien wasn't making a PC point at all; he was playing with words - something he does on at least one other occasion.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Because she was fated to destroy the Witch-King, as she was not a man.



There's no proof of that, and it's not really a sure thing. We can't say if the Witch King was destroyed at that time, or he would have reformed a week later. Her sword being effective because it was her sword doesn't make sense to me. Her sword doing more because the Witch King was particularily vulnerable at that juncture in time, maybe.



> You misunderstand the prophecy. The prophecy wasn't an indication of invulnerability (which the Witch-King misunderstood it to be), it was a prediction, a vision of future events. Not "he cannot be destroyed . . ." but rather "he _will not_ be destroyed . . . " It is similar to a Celtic gesa in this regard.



yeah, I understand he was speaking of the future fall.



> Had Eowyn not been involved, probably. But as Eowyn was involved, he didn't. Because he was destroyed in the manner fate had chosen.



The thing is, besides taking the discussion too seriously, you've decided that the prediction meant Eowyn and that is all you can see. In a more general sense, the Witch King was felled by the underdogs. In ME, hobbits and women didn't fight, so that's what brought the great enemy low.



> Just standing up to the Witch-King is a powerful action in and of itself, given that most brave warriors throw down their weapons and cower helplessly or run in terror when confronted by his power.
> 
> Her cut did the deed. His attack merely wounded and distracted the wraith (and he stabbed and collapsed as well, for the same reasons Eowyn collapsed). If mMerry's stroke _had_ killed the Witch-King, then Eowyn _would not_ have collapsed after her stroke, because she was affected by the negative conseqeunces of striking the Witch-King with a weapon. Had Merry's stroke "killed" the Witch-King, she would not have suffered that consequence.



She finished the corporealness of him. Merry is the Cause of His Fall. The prediction is not absolute, and is open to different interpretations.


> He, however, did not do any of these things. He held back, knowing anything _he_ would have done would have been ineffective. In the context of Glorfindel's prophecy, based upon his actions, and the nature of the resolution in Tolkien's text, "man" means male.



He saw that the Witch King's "death" was way off, so he didn't try to kill him. Nothing says he couldn't have imprisoned him or hindered him in other ways. That's all I meant. The prediction wasn't an absolute "no one shall hinder his plans" because plenty of people do, indirectly at a minimum, probably more directly at times as well.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jan 2, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> > You've posted another example that doesn't affect what I'm talking about
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good question.

The answer is for someone to read a post of mine that says "generally speaking; women are like this..." and not react as if I said "Generally speaking; women are like this _because_..."

Look at Barsoomcore's post, I'll quote it here...



			
				Barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But not evidence of a, let us say, physically-based tendency. It may be evidence that men are socially directed towards such events and women are socially directed away. Certainly history gives us many examples of women who were raised "as men" and who went on to value and enjoy the sorts of things associated with men -- which offers vague, "not-really" evidence that it's all social.




See, he goes on and on for an entire paragraph--ostensibly responding to a post of mine--without touching on any point I made. But he at least finishes up with...



			
				Barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Which I understand is rather tangential to your point. Whether it's social or genetic, if it exists it ought to be addressed.




...which, to my mind, at least shows that he knows--and admits--that he didn't address anything I had said. He got to ruminate on the specialness and uniqueness of each human being. It's nice. It makes you look good to self-styled Iconoclasts. 

However, to do it by way of quoting my posts first and pretending you are countering something I've said is cheap and ennobling rhetoric. 

Let's take a look at your post, the one I said was irrelevant...



> Teflon Billy is partially right...most stereotypes do have some basis in fact. However, I think in the case of gender stuff, it's less about gender and more about societal gender roles and conditioning. Yes many traits are to be found in most men, and many different ones in most women, but I think a lot of that is cultural more than something physically or pyschologically inherent in the genders.




You chose to list a bunch of points about social conditioning vs. genetic predisposition to which I replied that the causes were not relevant to my post.

The kind of response I would consider to be relevant would be one that said something like "You are totally, 100% right Billy   "

Seriously, the kind of response I would consider to be relevant is one that addressed what I said, as opposed to one that uses my post as a jumping off point for refutation of points I didn't make.


----------



## Merlion (Jan 3, 2004)

Well...I dont see how anyone can address what you said aside from agreeing to it as far as it goes, as I and others have done. What else is their to say about what you said? Either refute or agree or discuss reasons(which for some odd reason you dont care about)...what other responses would you have?
  And of course the fact that my post was "irrelevent" to your post is irrelevent because I wasnt really responding to your post...I was responding to the thread. I just mentioned that what you said was right, as far as it goes.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 4, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> See, he goes on and on for an entire paragraph--ostensibly responding to a post of mine--without touching on any point I made.



"Goes on and on" indeed! As if I wasn't the very soul of brevity. I couldn't possibly say too much on that subject.


			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> He got to ruminate on the specialness and uniqueness of each human being. It's nice. It makes you look good to self-styled Iconoclasts.



I've lost track. Which of us is the Iconoclast?

You are totally, 100% right Billy.

But what about the point I _did_ make -- that behaviour prediction can't be very accurate or marketing flacks would be better at their jobs? Or did my mention of Russ Meyer goodness distract you?


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jan 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But what about the point I _did_ make -- that behaviour prediction can't be very accurate or marketing flacks would be better at their jobs? Or did my mention of Russ Meyer goodness distract you?



 No offense, but that wasn't much of a point. You point out all the movies that flop and say, "That's because market research is crap." Well, what about all the successful movies? Were they successful in spite of the marketing flacks, or because of them? Might it be some point in between?

 To use LotR as a case-in-point, I'm sure some demographics goon at New Line, when the movies were first floated, said "It won't play to women. There's only one strong female character in the book, and she doesn't even show up until midway through Act II, and doesn't get to do anything 'strong' until midway through Act III." (I'm speaking of Eowyn, obviously) Now I'm not saying the demographers were responsible for beefing up Arwen's character, but tell me they didn't give that particular change their seal of approval. Tell me building up Arwen's character, casting her as one of the few "names" that average moviegoers would recognize, and proceeding to present her as a centerpiece at every interview and press junket for the film didn't _maybe _sell a few more tickets.

 Marketing isn't an exact science, but it's not all hokum.  Hollywood is best described as "cruelly meritocratic".  If it didn't succeed (in dollars made) more often than it failed, those people would be out of work.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 5, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Marketing isn't an exact science, but it's not all hokum. Hollywood is best described as "cruelly meritocratic". If it didn't succeed (in dollars made) more often than it failed, those people would be out of work.



Keep in mind that these people DO go out of work quite regularly -- entire corporations have been known to simply collapse -- such as Orion, Cannon, and MGM all did at one point or another. Big companies, employing hundreds if not thousands of people.

Brought down because somebody thought some film or other was a good idea.

_Cutthroat Island_ probably looked like a good idea to the marketing flacks.

I agree that Hollywood is meritocratic -- for the most part, crappy films get smacked. But it's also famous for providing talentless nobodies with healthy livings -- and not all of those are the actors.

If demographic-based marketing worked (based on gender or any other quality) with significant accuracy, studios would only create films that the marketing showed would be successful. Indeed, studios DO only make films that their marketing says will be successful. And they keep on losing money, kept afloat only by the occasional blockbuster that supports all the other losers. The film industry is one of the most volatile industries anywhere -- because marketing is so crucial to what they do, and their money gets made (or lost) in such brief spans of time.

Let's note that the marketing departments of no other studio in Hollywood was able to foresee the immense success of LotR -- not one. That property's been kicking around for ages, and every studio has passed it up -- even once PJ got involved he was still struggling to find a studio to finance it. Yeah, those marketing flacks got it ALL figured out, don't they?  

 

Clearly market prediction in the film industry is not very successful. And that's the gist of my point -- that Billy's contention that gender-based behaviour prediction works more often than it fails may not be entirely realistic -- or at least that the film industry offers some reason to believe it isn't perfectly straightforward.

Now, as I've said, I broadly agree with TB's remarks. I think you CAN predict behaviour of large groups with some success, and you can predict that sort of behaviour based on gender, sure. And obviously certain sorts of entertainment appeal more to one gender than the other. Knowing that boys go to more action movies than girls do isn't much help when it comes to actually creating an action movie that boys will want to go see.

Really, Billy said, "How come nobody's responding to my post?" and I felt sorry for him so came up with something to say.  

I'll admit it's not much. But I'm just that sort of guy.

And for the record, _Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!_ totally rocks.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 6, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The entertainment industry is notoriously bad at predicting audience reaction. Few other industries are as consistently volatile. If predicting group behaviour was particularly successful, every film would be a hit. The fact is that nobody has come up with a system that predicts market success with any accuracy at all. The industry is forever getting blindsided by hits that come out of nowhere, and forever getting burned by trying to repeat previous successes. Behaviour prediction is overrated -- mainly by the very marketing flacks who depend on its putated accuracy for their livelihoods.



(a) Marketing isn't everything, it's only part of a film's success.  Quality is still a factor.
(b) Marketers aren't perfect. Films (quality ones or otherwise) can be poorly marketed.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 6, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> (a) Marketing isn't everything, it's only part of a film's success.  Quality is still a factor.
> (b) Marketers aren't perfect. Films (quality ones or otherwise) can be poorly marketed.



When I talk about marketing -- I'm talking about the ability to predict behaviour of groups based on shared qualities. Gender, class, race, whatever. We are NOT very good at that, despite many years now of research. What we can do with some accuracy is predict what sort of people will compose the majority of people who like a particular entertainment. We remain very, very poor at predicting what sort of entertainment people will like, which suggests to me that we are not very good at predicting group behaviour except in the most obvious cases -- most football fans are men, most cosmetics purchasers are women.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 6, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> To use LotR as a case-in-point, I'm sure some demographics goon at New Line, when the movies were first floated, said "It won't play to women. There's only one strong female character in the book, and she doesn't even show up until midway through Act II, and doesn't get to do anything 'strong' until midway through Act III." (I'm speaking of Eowyn, obviously) Now I'm not saying the demographers were responsible for beefing up Arwen's character, but tell me they didn't give that particular change their seal of approval. Tell me building up Arwen's character, casting her as one of the few "names" that average moviegoers would recognize, and proceeding to present her as a centerpiece at every interview and press junket for the film didn't _maybe _sell a few more tickets.
> 
> Marketing isn't an exact science, but it's not all hokum. Hollywood is best described as "cruelly meritocratic". If it didn't succeed (in dollars made) more often than it failed, those people would be out of work.



If you are saying Liv Tyler was cast as Arwen to appeal to female moviegoers, I would say you are wrong. She was more likely cast to appeal (as eye candy) to male moviegoers than as a draw to female moviegoers.

As far as building up Arwen's character, that likely had less to do with marketing and more to do with the fact that two-thirds of the team that adapted the books into the scripts were females.

Hollywood doesn't succeed in dollars made more often than it fails. There are between 200 and 250 movies released each year. The average movie costs $50 million to make. Add on promotion and distribution costs, that raises the budget to close to $100 million. That's why Hollywood makes such a big deal about movies grossing $100 million -- that's considered to be the break-even point.

Last year, only 25 movies grossed $100 million or more. And that was a record. The top grossing film (so far) was "Finding Nemo" with $340 million. So it paid for itself, and two other films. Even if every film that grossed more than $100 million paid for itself and two other films, that's only 75 films breaking even.

Hollywood is notorious for charging off expenses from one film, which bombed at the box office, against the budget of a film that grossed more than it cost. So in effect, no movie in Hollywood ever makes a profit. That's why star actors and directors will sometimes, instead of a salary, take a percentage of the gross, and not a percentage of the profit. A few decades ago, they took a percentage of the profit, and got burned because the movie never showed a profit.

There was a high-profile case a few years back involving the Frank Sinatra movie "The Manchurian Candidate." It was a big box office success. But according to the studio's books, it never showed a profit because they charged off expenses from other, less successful films against its budget. Sinatra got pissed and sued the studio. Not that this was an isolated case; it went on all the time. It was just that Sinatra was one of the few people with enough power to take on the studios and not worry about career ramifications. Because this lawsuit kept the movie tied up for so long, for years it wasn't available on video tape -- and later DVD. The studio and Sinatra eventually settled the lawsuit.

The practice came up again in a lawsuit filed by columnist Art Buchwald over failure to get paid for originating the idea for "Coming to America." And the practice of charging off expenses from one film against the budget of another still goes on.

And there are more people "out of work" in Hollywood -- in the film industry -- than there are people working in Hollywood in the film industry. That's why so many people in the industry take other jobs, waiting for that big break, or that next big break. And that's not just for actors -- it's true for directors, writers, and all sorts of technical people. As well as people on the business end -- accountants, marketing people, PR and advertising.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 6, 2004)

Zander said:
			
		

> *That's a "what if" statement.*





Except that it isn't. You don't seem to understand what a "what if" statement is. My statement is a examination of what actually happened based upon the information we know. We know that striking the Witch-King has associated negative consequences, including the incapacitation of the assailant and the destruction of the assailant's weapon. We know that these consequences are associated with no other incident in the books.

We know that Eowyn suffered these consequences after her encounter with the Witch-King at the Battle of Pellinore Fields. Hence, we know that she struck the Witch-King. Since her strike occurred _after_ Merry's attack, we know that the Witch-King was still alive and corporeal when Eowyn attacked. Thus, Merry's blow _didn't_ kill the Witch-King, and amounts to an "assist" for Eowyn's killing stroke. It isn't a "what if", it is a "what did happen" statement.



> *If I were unkind, I would say something about digging one's own grave. As it is, I will simply ask why you are entitled to make "what if" arguments and I am not?*




Since I'm not making "what if" arguments, your point is moot.



> *Not true. (Tolkien, LotR, Appendix A, my emphasis).
> Tolkien wasn't making a PC point at all; he was playing with words - something he does on at least one other occasion.*





As his text makes clear, Eowyn did the killing, Merry did the distracting. Merry's efforts, while brave and necessary, didn't fulfill the prophecy by themselves.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 6, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *There's no proof of that, and it's not really a sure thing. We can't say if the Witch King was destroyed at that time, or he would have reformed a week later.*





We do know that he doesn't appear to be present at the battle before the gates of Mordor which takes place more than a week after he is destroyed by Eowyn. Given that the rest of the nazgul are present, one would expect him to be there too, if he was able to do so. 



> *Her sword being effective because it was her sword doesn't make sense to me. Her sword doing more because the Witch King was particularily vulnerable at that juncture in time, maybe.*




The hand that wields a weapon (or other tool) is in many cases just as important as the weapon (or tool) itself. Kingsfoil in the hands of anyone by Aragorn is a weed, in his hands, it is a potent healing herb. The ring in Frodo's hands grants invisibility, the ring in Saruman's hands is a source of power and domination. Why does it not make sense in a myth system in which the personage of the actor is important in so many other instances, that the personage of the actor would be important in this instance?



> *The thing is, besides taking the discussion too seriously, you've decided that the prediction meant Eowyn and that is all you can see.*




No, what I see is that the prediction was _fulfilled_ by Eowyn.


----------

