XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk   
      
   On 2017-08-23, Sandman  wrote:   
   >   
   > In article <1oi1ncd6reihvfkf1fo5nahi66a7juc5sd@4ax.com>, Paul S  Person   
    wrote:   
   >   
   >> ..   
   >> IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/   
   >> play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see   
   >> (which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or   
   >> money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see   
   >> because everybody else is or because they read the book.   
   >>   
   >> Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.   
   >> PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.   
      
   Getting on for a hundred million people have paid to see PJ's films,   
   and at least in my anecdotal experience - even among a circle of   
   friends particularly predisposed to dislike them - a large majority   
   did not feel it a waste of time or money.   
   So why, in your own definition of "good", are they not "good"?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)