Sunday, February 1, 2015

Informal Poll for Fun...Interesting Results

So last month I put a poll up for fun, about what everyone's favorite Star Wars movie was, and it got almost double the amount of votes than any of the Geekdom Madness contests. I also found the results fairly interesting.

1. A tie between Empire and Sith with 8 votes each, 25% of the polls. Which means 50% of the votes were between these two films.
2. A surprising second is my own favorite Phantom, with 6 votes (19%)
3. Jedi had 4 votes (12%)
4. Clones got 3 votes (9%)
5. Perhaps most surprisingly, Hope was dead last with 2 votes (6%)

I mean, I am in no way suggesting that this is an accurate cross-section of the entire fandom, but I did find it intriguing that the results went this way.

I'll be testing out more polls in preparation for GM 2015


  1. I see you left out the R/B RotK from the LOTR poll. For shame. :P

    (it's no big loss, really--even as an ardent R/B fan I don't care for it very much, though I at least like it better than the Bakshi film)

    1. I was trying to keep the options equal, and you have to admit Bakshi got more of the story completed.

    2. Well, yeah--I mean, practically the only reason R/B even *got* RotK in the first place was 'cause the Bakshi film did the first two and the license to do the rest was still up in the air after the sequel got scuttered. I mean, I was honestly surprised to see the animated films be included period, so I'm really just teasing about excluding this one.

      (it's a shame, though, that we never got a full proper animated LOTR. I would've loved for a full series done in the style of the R/B Hobbit, with that stunning design work and musical qualities, doing a more lyrical and homely take on the franchise. But as is we just have the Bakshi film (which I find almost unwatchable) and the R/B RotK (which is basically just a somewhat lazy retread of their Hobbit, with very little to recommend it outside of a few really well-done scenes). Alas)

    3. While there are a lot of laughable elements to Bakshi's LotR, I really don't find it all that bad for a first attempt at tackling the story. I know you have a dim view of Bakshi in general, but I've always appreciated his style and his attempts to bring animation to different audiences.

      Although from a purely aesthetic standpoint, I do prefer Don Bluth and Richard Williams when I think of more independent animators.

      And, of course, the Rankin-Bass Hobbit is a classic and will be the first Tolkien media my future children will consume. As much as I love Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, it really depends a lot on seeing LotR first, and my kids will need a foundation before I even attempt to show them LotR.

    4. A reviewer I respect once commented on Bakshi that his ambition with animation was seriously commendable, but unfortunately exceeded much of his actual skillsets as an animator. I think I kinda agree--I can appreciate much of what he's trying to do with LOTR, but it's such a messy melange of styles that I'm just thrown off by the whole thing (especially the character animation, which often looks more befitting to Saturday morning cartoon than a feature). IIRC I quite like a lot of the backgrounds and the sequences with the Ringwraiths, but other than that it's never been my cup of tea.

      A shame, because I remember liking the script--it *was* adapted by Peter S. Beagle, after all, and I don't think I disliked the voice cast, either. Just...if it worked a bit better visually, is all.

    5. Yeah, like I said I felt there were an awful lot of just ODD choices (Viking Boromir was especially distracting for me), so I can certainly understand why it struggled to find an audience, but I still don't think it was nearly as bad as it's reputation.

      I think Bakshi was very fond of mixing realistic and cartoony styles together for the juxtaposition, and was for better or worse trying to push rotoscoping to its absolute limit. At the same time, it's apparent that his budgets weren't all they could be. I think that's why his films are often such a mixed bag, but I do think that when a good part appears that it IS really good.

      With LotR in particular, I also don't remember if the fact that it was intended on being a two-parter was as widely advertised as with Jackson's trilogy. I was under the impression that many reviewers at the time viewed it as unfinished, ironically killing the second one. Although I admit I am not nearly as well-versed in this film's lore, so I may be mistaken.