h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Proles? Proletariat?

1) It can be = Attack of the clones. It cant be = the grinch.

2) Probibly not, but my point is that as a critic you have to expect critism. As someone recently said, "live with it"

3) Because i felt it necessary to show that i wasnt another guy off the street giving a mindless opinion on a complex subject. As i said.

4) Nice Nineteen Eighty-Four referance. It depends on your veiw of society how you see the mythical average movie goer. I see the average movie goer as a faceless blob living in america, with a wife and two kids because its a nice sterotype to use. I dont see individual people with differentiating intelligence, i see people with cash.

5) You failed to mention your veiws on the trilogy though, which is probibly annoyed me the most. You touch upon it as part of the trilogy, but barely touch on it as what it is. You dont touch on the trilogy itself. You do quite rightly say: "it just doesn't surpass expectation and vanquish cynicism in the way The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers did" but dont actually realise that the cynicism that you expected wasnt there this time because people new that this was the finale and that it was going to prove them wrong like the last two did.

What im saying is that you should have mention how it fits in the trilogy. Many matrix reloaded/revolutions reveiws didnt touch on the film properly because they didnt acknowledge its place within the trilogy (apart from some that mentioned reloaded as a bridge between 1 and 3 ) You dont mention the trilogy as a single peice and thats what so grated me about your reveiw. You mention return of the king in quite good detail, but not lord of the rings.

You keep citing the LOTR and SW franchises as evidence when they're both unique cinematic phenomena - LOTR for being a single pre-planned nine hour story, SW for inventing the modern FX-driven fantasy blockbuster. You can't say 'X is true of a SW/LOTR movie, therefore it is true of all movies ever made'.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion, but I do object to people saying that the opinion is objectively wrong. It's an *opinion*. You can't tell me I didn't find a film rushed or disappointing. I know the responses a film produces in me.

You may think your qualification lends your arguments added force. Do you think they need reinforcing? Would they be any less convincing if you didn't have the A level? Let the arguments speak for themselves, forget about what classes you've been to.

You may be happy dealing with stereotypes (your expression). But that's all they are. Have you ever met the average citizen? He doesn't exist.

Don't ever tell me how to review a film. I was reviewing *ROTK* so I wrote about ROTK. I haven't seen the films back-to-back or edited together yet and so I don't have an opinion on that subject yet. When I write I speak only for myself, the cynicism I spoke of was my own. I don't presume to speak for other people, what right have I to do that?

Go and ahead and criticise my writing all you like. But I'd rather you had a go at the things I've actually written, instead of things I should've written or haven't written yet.

1) Yes i do and ill quite happily do it again again. You can put it down to a unique phenominan, but lets be realistic, any film as succesful as these two can be called a unique phenomian.

2) Im not saying your opinion is totally and utterly wrong awix. For part i agree with what you are saying. My point is that, as a skilled reveiwer, you have missed out mentioning the trilogy as a whole. Now whether you've seen them back to back makes no difference. You should have mentioned the entire trilogy and rotk's place, even if only a small paragraph at the end. I dont understand how you can review the ending for the biggest trilogy of the past decade without mentioning any other parts (apart from two name drops)

3) Okay Awix. But you dont seem to have understood what i am saying to you.

4) I am not happy dealing with sterotypes for the most part. But to be honest it doesnt really matter. If it has cash and is paying for more then themselves, thats all that matters.
As someone who is going to be an film editor - the cash is all im interested in, not the person thats spending it. Other people can bother with that.
Harsh but true.

5) Why not? all i was annoyed at was that you havent acknowledged the trilogy, and the fact that this was the final chapter. You dont mention anything about how it finishes the trilogy and what your opinion of the trilogy is over all as Return Of The King is the ending of a trilogy. Essentially the last third of the entire film.

6) Well ill go then Awix. I attempted to point out the flaw in yourt otherwise good peice. Obviously that doesnt matter. I still believe that you should have mentioned the trilogy as a whole, because it is a whole, not segments.
You wrote a review, i am critising its overall content. It should have included things - it didnt - and so falls short of what could be a quite excellent review.

'Acknowledged the trilogy'? What is that supposed to mean?

You keep going on about how this can be viewed as one nine (or ten, or whatever) hour film. Fine, but in order to review that I'd need to have seen it all together, which I haven't.

I know exactly what you're on about as my perspective on FOTR and T2T changed radically after seeing them in a double bill. But I haven't seen the three films together yet.

Reviewing the 'big film' or the trilogy, without having seen the three films all at once, would be like reviewing a regular film after having watched it in half-hour chunks over the space of a couple of months. It's not the same at all. It wouldn't be a balanced review.

'Otherwise good piece'. Good God, is that praise? Catch me, HPB, I think i'm going to faint!

'acknowledged the trilogy' meant to mentio the trilogy itself and its part, like i said if i remember rightly.

Thats fair enough, dont review it as one film then - but at least mention that little fact and do a quick summary of the trilogy, and rotk's part in it as a finale. You dont mention the trilogy as a whole. ROTK is the end of the trilogy - not a singular film in its own right (little charecter establishment for instance) - this you quite rightly in small chunks. But you should have mentioned the trilogy as a whole. Dont review the trilogy then, im non to fussed, but you should have mentioned it because its a trilogy.

No not praise, more of an even comment. The review is hits a fairly average note with me, mainly because it falls short.

Hah!

Don't tell me how to review films. It's not as if there's a right way and a wrong way. I'm not going to get all precious and reverent and give any film special treatment just because it happens to be your personal all-time favourite.

*Every* ROTK review I've read has been a review of ROTK (surprise surprise). People aren't paying to see the LOTR trilogy, they're paying to see ROTK, so that's what they want to hear about.

If you think you can do better, be my guest. I've been doing this for a while now and my reviewing style has been applauded more than it's been criticised, so I'm not going to change it based on a single rather partisan complaint.

*applause*

Well said Awix, well said.

*bangs head on table repeatedly*

Theres nothing wrong with your style of writing - thats not my main complaint.
Theres no right or wrong way to right a reveiw - ive read enough to know that.

But its the end of a trilogy. Essentially a single film. My point was you dont mention the other films at all apart from a single line. One pathetic line. Now you havent actually expressed your veiws on the trilogy itself, but i would like to know because you seem to be taking great.

I will do a review, but not of 1/3 of a film. I believe that all continual trilogies are essentially one film. So when i get a spare few days i will quite happily write one.



You do not mention the other films - that was my complaint. because of that it drags your review down, with your small attempt to rectify that error making your peice looked rushed.

There you go Awix, the gauntlet is down! Give him a guest slot on your 24 Lies a Second, and see how the Hootoo community likes AD the reviewer....

Im doing as a guide entery, which might take an hour, might take a month. Depends how busy i am.

But i already know that if i accept then (after this thread) there will be two people sharpening the knives.

Well Awix has proffessional integrity so he won't slag off someone guest writing part of his column, and I'm not that bothered. So there's only HPB.....

Or are you chacken?

I make a few comments about an article ...
Not chicken, just cautious. Awix may be unbiased, but i reckon that he sees this as an attack on his actual reputation; which it isnt.

Assuming the finished peice gets accepted for the guide, then ill gladly accept this challenge - even though it is a challenge that you cannot actually give.

"i reckon that he sees this as an attack on his actual reputation; which it isnt."

Well let's see shall we. A list of your attacks on his style, point of view, etc.

"your peice looked rushed."
"The review is hits a fairly average note with me, mainly because it falls short."
"you should" is used somewhere in the region of 12 times.
"i am critising its overall content. It should have included things - it didnt"
"you dont seem to have understood what i am saying to you" Attack on his intelligence there?
"as a critic you have to expect critism. As someone recently said, "live with it" " Just plain nasty is that one!
"My use of the mention of an A(S)-level was to show that i do actually know what im talking about," Now I don't want to tell you what my Psychology AS-Level tells me about that.....
"Law is not the media, and having studied only law it makes you "no more qualified to talk about the ins and outs" of a complex subject and rubbish the arguement of someone whos worked damned hard to learn his stuff." A little pop at me there, and seeing as the most artistic part of law is the arguing of your point. And I haven't studied "only law" which acedemically is one of the hardest thigs to learn successfully!
"Dumb as in choices. The average cinema goer will go to see what he or she has been told to see by the media." A little whinge at people who you view as stupid. By the way, how did you find out about LotR? The media or your psychic powers?
"media studies always demands evidence for things that it says" On a personal vendetta note, so does History and Law.
"I loved/love donnie darko (i got it on pirate before it went big)." That would be illegal Mr Roles. Not something to advertise on the net.
"True i do, but i know from what ive studied that your wrong on this." Your 16 months of MS is infinitely better than Awix's x years reviewing films and his undisclosed qualifications. Nice little dig.
"You may have like the Two Towers, but you were never meant too like it" Said Media Studies qualification tells you that TTT was designed as a film people shouldn't like. Hmm. Do they give you marks for spelling your name right on these papers?

So there's the pick of your attacks in an easy to read format! Enjoy!

1) A referance to his article, a comment about ROTK. I disagree, and wanting to be a professional editor i know when somethings rushed. It wasnt.
2) Happy with that. It falls short because of what wasnt in it.
3) And you use enough bad language for me to report you, whats you point?
4) Happy with that, See two.
5) No not an acttack on intelligence, merely the fact that ive had to repeat myself.
6) Point me to the post please! i dont remember - but if you read film reviews in published magazines, there is feedback.
7) Probibly something similar to mine. A relevant enough statement.
8) Not true, as law is pretty much totally written down, where as media is a multitude of patches of grey, which can not be defined fully (audience preferance shifts for one). I know laws similar, but in law you have set presets to fall back on, called laws.
8) A shred of news clipping in a magazine called white dwarf was the first i heard about it. And when lord of the rings first came out i wasnt studying media academically - now i am and am quite proud of AOL Time Warners clever tricks.
9) I never said those subjects didnt, merely stated mine did and i did have such evidence.
10) No more illegal then the several hundred pounds worth of albums and songs on your PC, which when i was last round your house, you quite merrily boasted about (iirc, you claimed that you had more songs and full albums on your pc then my pc could actually take)
11) Possibly, possibly not. In regards to that comment i never specified it as only media. As you can clearly see andrew, it says 'from what i have studied' - oh and in regards to the first bit, slap and extra two months on, wouldnt want your evidence to be wrong now would we.
12) You werent meant to like it - you werent meant to go in wanting more aka wanting to see the finale. If you want to be totally literal (which from this act you do) that comment is wrong. However, in a non linear, literal sense, its totally correct. You arent meant to leave the cinema thinking thats a good enough film, i've got a fair idea of how it ends, i'll wait for the video.



To awix: Andy and i have a slanging match going on over various parts of H2G2, so any negative comment against me is usually seized upon within seconds. I have tried to give this up for the most part, where as andy hasnt. For proof, please read through the conversations of papaclip (link on his PS) where you will find captain sadact, and various other psycorp related comments.

I still stand by my point - you should have mentioned the other films.

Let this die!

You see that little button marked 'unsubscribe', Jar Jar?

I'm not getting sucked into your little slanging match (one is quite enough to be going on with), but anyway...

As I've said, it was a *ROTK* review. I have written at length in the past in this column about both FOTR and T2T, and I said extremely complimentary things about both of them. I made a conscious choice to focus mainly on the film that had just been released rather than repeating myself.

Not talking more about the whole of LOTR was something deliberate. If they're going to release them as separate films they've got to expect them to be viewed as such, at least partly. (Were you there two years ago, writing indignant letters to all the critics, saying 'you can't properly review FOTR yet, it's not a film in its own right'?) Yes, I agree we can now pass final judgement on the trilogy as a whole. Just not yet in my case.

And, BTW...

'Now you havent actually expressed your veiws on the trilogy itself, but i would like to know because you seem to be taking great.'

Taking great liberties? Talking a great amount of sh*t? Sorry, do you mind taking another pass at that please, I'm genuinely curious about what you meant...

Sorry about that last bit, a train of thought that went one way while i was writting, it was neither of those - ill try and remember exactly what the hell i was going to say, just to get little bit out of the way first off..

Seperate films, yes to a degree. With anything that long you have to make some allowances, but like the book it was always meant as one long saga.
I still think you should have mentioned the other 2, or maybe even linked to the two guide enteries that are floating about somewhere.

He didn't need to. There's a 'Vault'.

Oh where is it..?

*goes to dig it up*