Oscar Best picture do overs. . .

[JSWalsh]

It's simple to have overkill in that kind of material, or ANY material, when there's virtually an hour of just one thing, and it becomes repetitious -- then tedious. Paul's point is dead on -- battle sequences in movies like BRAVEHEART worked and were effective, and yet only took up 10 minutes at a time. The Helms Deep battle in THE TWO TOWERS went on for four, five times that amount. It wasn't necessary, and I became bored by the endless hack 'n slash myself. I liked the movie, but it's one of the main reasons I don't love it.

Well, they worked for you. I found BRAVEHEART laughable in its battle scenes, they reminded me of the Monty Python skit with the women's group re-enacting Pearl Harbor.

Again, you're comparing screen time devoted to one battle to screen time devoted to another battle, which makes no sense at all, none. OK, you were bored by the action--I wasn't. That doesn't mean anything more than a difference in personal tastes, it has nothing to do with how a scene shown more economically is somehow better. Where is this rule that something show with less screentime to get the point across is somehow "better"?

Nowhere. It's purely personal taste.

[JSWalsh]

"Fall Of The Roman Empire" IMO suffers enormously from ponderousness. It simply has no strong focal point in the way Heston is a strong focal point in "Ben-Hur".

I think "Ben-Hur's" strength as a story would have been better recognized if it had won the screenplay Oscar, which was denied it because Christopher Fry didn't get screen credit.

I couldn't "hook" into FOTRE. I loved the visuals, but there were no characters I could get into.

[John Johnson]

[/quote]

Well it is partly because historic events need to be depicted with fidelity, since those events are still of importance to people today (as with Sherman's march in the American south, Agincourt is still a sore point among some of the British and French).

[/quote]


St. Crispin's Day.

[JSWalsh]

Well it is partly because historic events need to be depicted with fidelity, since those events are still of importance to people today (as with Sherman's march in the American south, Agincourt is still a sore point among some of the British and French).

I'd love to see any evidence that the battle of Agincourt was shown with fidelity.

The Helm's Deep sequence also contains elements not found in the book, such as Legolas imploring Aragorn to abandon the people (which was totally out of character for Legolas) as well as having a company of elven archers arrive to help. These superfluous inventions were a waste of time (in addition to convoluting the characterizations).

Convoluting to you is deepening to me. I found that moment a sign of weakness in the character in the face of danger. Without it, he's a complete Ken doll (as opposed to just a partial Ken doll). The arrival of the archers was a pretty interesting moment because it shows the scope of the clash--it's not just about this one people vs. the horde, it has a much larger importance. Similarly with the other battles happening, and the crosscutting, we see that this is a war, not just a skirmish.

Are fantasy films supposed to be tedious and overlong in order to be true to the genre?

Also, while Lord of the Rings has been a huge influence on fantasy kitsch (like D&D, and lesser books / movies) I hesitate to call Tolkien's work "fantasy". LOTR was the product of a cultured, venerated university don, whose knowledge of mythology, folklore and the bible was consummate. Its more than a cut above Eregon or Dungeon Master tales.

You're reminding me of the folks who don't consider Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 science fiction because they're good, so they COULDN'T be.

If LOTR isn't fantasy, then nothing is.

And this is one of the main reasons the LOTR film's were dissatisfying to me. They were the work of a man who refused to eat anyplace but McDonald's while he was at the Cannes Film Festival.

Are you serious? Where the guy eats is indicative of the quality of his filmmaking?

I mean--come on, man.

Tolkien was a devout Christian, and the books are strongly informed by his beliefs. Despite the use of mythological characters and elements, the story's essentially Christian overtones are easily recognized by someone with even a cursory knowledge of of Christianity. Peter Jackson however said that LOTR was a celebration of all things pagan. If Jackson is about paganism he should have made The Mists of Avalon instead.

That Tolkien said that he didn't set any scenes in anything like our churches or other recognizable religious settings shows that LOTR is an extended allegory. There are so many moments that I noticed as being nods to his belief that it doesn't matter what Jackson or some of the fools in the cast said. It's there in the material. It's a blessing the movie wasn't made by someone who felt the need to nudge the audience with every symbol.

Agreed. But my argument has nothing to do with the genre. I'm talking about how the LOTR films waste time on tangents and devote more time than is necessary to a great many scenes.

Yet you brought up how the history-based movies used less screen time.

Again, it depends on one's idea about screen time. Why do movies have to make a simple plot point and then rush off? That method sure didn't help LEGEND.

JSW"I think we're talking about something as simple as different ideas about what movies can be."

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the LOTR films being tedious because the material as filmed can't sustain their running time.

And I'd simply say that that's an expression of your idea of what movies can be. I see otherwise. Thus my point stands.

They also lacked a smooth narrative arc, in so in the films the sequence of events unfolds very awkwardly. Also I never really cared about the characters or got caught up in their plight. And again, I loved the books. (And just to be clear, I'm not such a purist that I can't accept a director's adaptation, as I enjoyed The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and am a huge fan of the Harry Potter movies.)

I don't understand why you'll defend the LOTR films to the hilt, and debate my charges that they were tedious, yet you gave up on the books -- because you "couldn't get thru" them.

Because I enjoyed the movies and didn't enjoy the books.

[Jedbu]

I have never been a fan of BRAVEHEART, and I do believe that Gibson really loves to punish the main characters in his films so much that if done by one of the makers of the current genre of horror films would get their sanity called into question. True, William Wallace was drawn and quartered and everyone knows what happened to the Christ, but what happens to the characters in APOCALYPTO borders on some truly sick stuff, IMHO.

Plus, everytime I see the battle scenes in BRAVEHEART, I see what Orson Welles did much better in CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT. Gibson said he did not view Welles' film before he shot his, but the influence is clearly there.

As for ROMAN EMPIRE, there might not be a strong central character to root for (too bad Heston declined the role-he would have made it strong just appearing onscreen; Boyd just didn't have the strength) but Plummer is just so great, as is Mason and you cannot say anything bad about that score by Tiomkin, which I think was his crowning achievement. And if anyone has surpassed Samuel Bronston in the last 40 years for producing epics that really were epic in stature because he built the big sets and employed the thousands of extras, I'd like to know who that is. For all they can do with CGI in creating crowds, they still look fake-just compare the Roman forum crowds in BEN HUR or ROMAN EMPIRE with the same in GLADIATOR-no comparison.

[Paul MacLean]

I'd love to see any evidence that the battle of Agincourt was shown with fidelity.

The English routed the French. That's the main thing. And Kenneth Branagh depicted this without having to invent a scene where Fluellen goes out of character and implores the king to abandon the army. Nor did Branagh invent a scene in which a company of foreign archers coming to aid the British.

These superfluous inventions were a waste of time (in addition to convoluting the characterizations).

Convoluting to you is deepening to me.

It isn't deepening when it contradicts the character himself -- particularly if the alterations to the character are made by someone other than the author.

How can you make these arguments defending Jackson's alterations when you never even finished the books? Liking the movies for what they are, that's fair. But what are you basing it on when you argue that Jackson's alterations are improvements?

Are you serious? Where the guy eats is indicative of the quality of his filmmaking?

Anyone who travels to Cannes -- which is rife with exquisite international cuisine -- yet refuses to eat anyplace but McDonalds, is not particularly cultured. This doesn't categorically mean Jackson is bad filmmaker, but all good artists are open to new experiences, because they know that a wider appreciation of things will deepen their work. Jackson seems disinterested in expanding his horizons. Sticking to one restaurant is narrow enough. But limiting one's self to McDonald's? That's kind of pathetic. And as a result his films are the cinematic equivalent of Big Macs and fries. (Altho in fairness I am hesitant to insult fast food by comparing it to Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles!)

Fortunately for Jackson he was coasting on Tolkien's genius, and (for many people it seems) the allure of the author's work shines thru (pointing to its timeless relevance). But I look at the LOTR films and I don't see any cinematic influences other than D&D and horror movies. And I ponder the arbitrary alterations to the narrative and I conclude that the director didn't really understand the source material.

[JSWalsh]

double double post post

[JSWalsh]

Following in Jedbu's footsteps, I'm thinking about choices outside the nominations. If I were awarding Oscars, I would probably make different choices--I'd be awarding them to movies which moved the artform forward.

I'm going to just give 'em to the movies I LIKED the most for each year.

1932:I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang

Other Nominee: Scarface

1933:King Kong

1934:20th Century

The Thin Man, It Happened One Night

1935:A Midsummer Night's Dream

The Bride of Frankenstein

1936:Dodsworth

1937:The Awful Truth

1938:The Adventures of Robin Hood

1939:Gunga Din

[AndyDursin]

Well, they worked for you. I found BRAVEHEART laughable in its battle scenes, they reminded me of the Monty Python skit with the women's group re-enacting Pearl Harbor

I haven't run into that sentiment before but, guess there's a first time for everything.

Again, you're comparing screen time devoted to one battle to screen time devoted to another battle, which makes no sense at all, none.

I can't help that it makes no sense to you. To me it makes PERFECT sense. The battle sequences in THE TWO TOWERS are five times as long but I can recall the battle sequences of BRAVEHEART, which run a fifth as long in duration, as being more effective and memorable than all the bombastic, endless battle sequences of Jackson's film.

Where is this rule that something show with less screentime to get the point across is somehow "better"?

Since when was I writing rules? I'm giving my opinion. And again, you are leaping to conclusions.

It's not "better" just because it's shorter -- it's "better" because it was more effective to me as a viewer, in how it was shot and edited. And indeed, it accomplished more in a more economical running time than Peter Jackson did, who overstates everything as a filmmaker and stays so long at the party he doesn't know when to quit.

Why do movies have to make a simple plot point and then rush off?

Who said they needed to? Again, I just don't get how you leap from the basic points that we're making and then come to these broad conclusions like that one.

BTW I could turn that around and ask, why do movies that are only making a simple plot point need to go on for over 3 hours if they don't really need to? I didn't see a whole lot of depth in THE TWO TOWERS, most of the movie was comprised of the battle scenes and they went on FOREVER...

I have never been a fan of BRAVEHEART, and I do believe that Gibson really loves to punish the main characters in his films so much that if done by one of the makers of the current genre of horror films would get their sanity called into question. True, William Wallace was drawn and quartered and everyone knows what happened to the Christ, but what happens to the characters in APOCALYPTO borders on some truly sick stuff, IMHO.

That's fair, I don't agree with it, but I can see how you feel that way. I happen to think those films, and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, are three of the strongest pieces of filmmaking I've watched in the last 10-20 years.

[JSWalsh]

I'd love to see any evidence that the battle of Agincourt was shown with fidelity.

The English routed the French. That's the main thing. And Kenneth Branagh depicted this without having to invent a scene where Fluellen goes out of character and implores the king to abandon the army. Nor did Branagh invent a scene in which a company of foreign archers coming to aid the British.

Neither you nor I have any idea how the characterizations shown in the movie were anything like what occured in reality. That the same end is depicted is putting a low threshhold on fidelity--by that logic, you should be perfectly pleased with the LOTR fight because the good guys beat the bad guys. Branagh's depiction based on Shakespeare has nothing to do with reality outside of that very low threshhold--neither you nor I nor Shakespeare nor Branagh knew what REALLY went on with the battle. I'm pretty sure it didn't take ten minutes, either.

The actual winner won. In LOTR, the fictional winner won.

It isn't deepening when it contradicts the character himself -- particularly if the alterations to the character are made by someone other than the author.

It doesn't contradict a character to have the character go beyond one note.

How can you make these arguments defending Jackson's alterations when you never even finished the books? Liking the movies for what they are, that's fair. But what are you basing it on when you argue that Jackson's alterations are improvements?

I am defending them only as scenes in a movie. I only know they are alterations from the books from comments like yours. If the characters in the book are as you and others say, I would have bailed on them even if I pressed on. I find one-dimensional characters dull. I find heroes who have their moments of doubt much more believable.

I am basing it on what you and others tell me.

Anyone who travels to Cannes -- which is rife with exquisite international cuisine -- yet refuses to eat anyplace but McDonalds, is not particularly cultured. This doesn't categorically mean Jackson is bad filmmaker, but all good artists are open to new experiences, because they know that a wider appreciation of things will deepen their work. Jackson seems disinterested in expanding his horizons. Sticking to one restaurant is narrow enough. But limiting one's self to McDonald's? That's kind of pathetic. And as a result his films are the cinematic equivalent of Big Macs and fries. (Altho in fairness I am hesitant to insult fast food by comparing it to Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles!)

I like Pepsi. If I went to Cannes I wouldn't start drinking champagne.

I like people who don't put on phony airs to impress folks who go to Cannes. That kind of self-acceptance--being who one is--is far more impressive to me than what one eats. I have never heard of the idea that one can judge an artist's work based on their choice of food.

I guess you aren't a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock, who ate the same thing for lunch every day.

Fortunately for Jackson he was coasting on Tolkien's genius, and (for many people it seems) the allure of the author's work shines thru (pointing to its timeless relevance). But I look at the LOTR films and I don't see any cinematic influences other than D&D and horror movies. And I ponder the arbitrary alterations to the narrative and I conclude that the director didn't really understand the source material.

One can dislike the movies, but I wouldn't say years of work is coasting. Also, I find it odd how people call Tolkien's work timeless when it hasn't even been around a century.

[JSWalsh]

I haven't run into that sentiment before but, guess there's a first time for everything.

I have my own opinions and don't look for others' to support mine.

I can't help that it makes no sense to you. To me it makes PERFECT sense. The battle sequences in THE TWO TOWERS are five times as long but I can recall the battle sequences of BRAVEHEART, which run a fifth as long in duration, as being more effective and memorable than all the bombastic, endless battle sequences of Jackson's film.

Apples and oranges. Both movies have completely different aims.

"Where is this rule that something show with less screentime to get the point across is somehow "better"?"

Since when was I writing rules? I'm giving my opinion. And again, you are leaping to conclusions.

Andy, you say I leap to conclusions when I repeat what is the underlying meaning of the examples you use, and then you wonder where I get this stuff. The answer is that I am merely articulating in concrete terms what your examples are illustrating. You and Paul seem to be saying that screen economy is in itself a virtue--is that what you're saying? Is a scene that gets across its plot points in less screen time better than one that takes longer to get across its plot points? It's not a trick question.

It's not "better" just because it's shorter -- it's "better" because it was more effective to me as a viewer, in how it was shot and edited. And indeed, it accomplished more in a more economical running time than Peter Jackson did, who overstates everything as a filmmaker and stays so long at the party he doesn't know when to quit.

It's merely a matter of personal taste, no more no less.

Who said they needed to? Again, I just don't get how you leap from the basic points that we're making and then come to these broad conclusions like that one.

Well...it's there. You're making points about a specific movie; I'm addressing the substance of the point, not just the example. Why is that so odd?

BTW I could turn that around and ask, why do movies that are only making a simple plot point need to go on for over 3 hours if they don't really need to? I didn't see a whole lot of depth in THE TWO TOWERS, most of the movie was comprised of the battle scenes and they went on FOREVER...

It's a big fantasy epic. If someone--I'm not saying you--is looking for movies that just leap from plot point to plot point, it's perfectly valid. In fact, if one wants the most basic rule of Hollywood formula storytelling, it's to cut out anything that doesn't address the plot. It's the complaint of so many directors and writers who have tried to push the Hollywood movie to be something more.

I think the idea that these movies have to address a plot point and move on is part of the problem with post-Spielberg filmmaking. I enjoyed RAIDERS--and yes, I know, I'm not agreeing with the majority on this--but one of the moments where I really grasped that I could like Pauline Kael even if I didn't agree with her picks was her review of RAIDERS. She put her finger right on the mechanical, controlled (and professional) direction. It was very eye-opening, and I never enjoyed the movie again after that--it is so bloodless to me.

I've noticed that kind of direction proliferating, which is why I so enjoyed the shootout in HEAT--it seemed truly chaotic, like the camera had come upon the situation.

Which leads me to the LOTR battles, which I don't think went on as long as you did. I think they were built up to well, and there was plenty of variation in the pacing. (The complaints about the alterations from the book seem puny, too.) But my opinion is based on the leisurely pacing of much of the movie. I really enjoyed seeing something that didn't feel like it was sketched out on a board in Spielberg's office--"OK, time for a chase, hmm, this thing is going on too long, let's cut it short." The climax of TTT was the first in a fantasy movie of this type that actually seemed to be a WAR happening, not just a battle that went on until the moviemakers got bored or had made their point (This guy is a Hero, this baddie is dead).

In the end, it's all about one's personal taste. I don't think some people like that idea, but that really is it. Just as I laughed through much of BRAVEHEART, a truly ridiculous movie (and one which had little loyalty to accuracy), I thoroughly enjoyed the overblown, ridiculous TTT--I mean, it's a movie with talking trees fer Pete's sake, why get so serious about it?

Oh, and fidelity to literary sources is rubbish in practice, not to mention impossible, so I never get hung up on that. Maybe that's why I don't care about the alterations to LOTR.

I think I've said all I have to say on THAT subject for awhile.

[JSWalsh]

I haven't run into that sentiment before but, guess there's a first time for everything.

I have my own opinions and don't look for others' to support mine.

I can't help that it makes no sense to you. To me it makes PERFECT sense. The battle sequences in THE TWO TOWERS are five times as long but I can recall the battle sequences of BRAVEHEART, which run a fifth as long in duration, as being more effective and memorable than all the bombastic, endless battle sequences of Jackson's film.

Apples and oranges. Both movies have completely different aims.

"Where is this rule that something show with less screentime to get the point across is somehow "better"?"

Since when was I writing rules? I'm giving my opinion. And again, you are leaping to conclusions.

Andy, you say I leap to conclusions when I repeat what is the underlying meaning of the examples you use, and then you wonder where I get this stuff. The answer is that I am merely articulating in concrete terms what your examples are illustrating. You and Paul seem to be saying that screen economy is in itself a virtue--is that what you're saying? Is a scene that gets across its plot points in less screen time better than one that takes longer to get across its plot points? It's not a trick question.

It's not "better" just because it's shorter -- it's "better" because it was more effective to me as a viewer, in how it was shot and edited. And indeed, it accomplished more in a more economical running time than Peter Jackson did, who overstates everything as a filmmaker and stays so long at the party he doesn't know when to quit.

It's merely a matter of personal taste, no more no less.

Who said they needed to? Again, I just don't get how you leap from the basic points that we're making and then come to these broad conclusions like that one.

Well...it's there. You're making points about a specific movie; I'm addressing the substance of the point, not just the example. Why is that so odd?

BTW I could turn that around and ask, why do movies that are only making a simple plot point need to go on for over 3 hours if they don't really need to? I didn't see a whole lot of depth in THE TWO TOWERS, most of the movie was comprised of the battle scenes and they went on FOREVER...

It's a big fantasy epic. If someone--I'm not saying you--is looking for movies that just leap from plot point to plot point, it's perfectly valid. In fact, if one wants the most basic rule of Hollywood formula storytelling, it's to cut out anything that doesn't address the plot. It's the complaint of so many directors and writers who have tried to push the Hollywood movie to be something more.

I think the idea that these movies have to address a plot point and move on is part of the problem with post-Spielberg filmmaking. I enjoyed RAIDERS--and yes, I know, I'm not agreeing with the majority on this--but one of the moments where I really grasped that I could like Pauline Kael even if I didn't agree with her picks was her review of RAIDERS. She put her finger right on the mechanical, controlled (and professional) direction. It was very eye-opening, and I never enjoyed the movie again after that--it is so bloodless to me.

I've noticed that kind of direction proliferating, which is why I so enjoyed the shootout in HEAT--it seemed truly chaotic, like the camera had come upon the situation.

Which leads me to the LOTR battles, which I don't think went on as long as you did. I think they were built up to well, and there was plenty of variation in the pacing. (The complaints about the alterations from the book seem puny, too.) But my opinion is based on the leisurely pacing of much of the movie. I really enjoyed seeing something that didn't feel like it was sketched out on a board in Spielberg's office--"OK, time for a chase, hmm, this thing is going on too long, let's cut it short." The climax of TTT was the first in a fantasy movie of this type that actually seemed to be a WAR happening, not just a battle that went on until the moviemakers got bored or had made their point (This guy is a Hero, this baddie is dead).

In the end, it's all about one's personal taste. I don't think some people like that idea, but that really is it. Just as I laughed through much of BRAVEHEART, a truly ridiculous movie (and one which had little loyalty to accuracy), I thoroughly enjoyed the overblown, ridiculous TTT--I mean, it's a movie with talking trees fer Pete's sake, why get so serious about it when its aim is to entertain with heroes and sword battles and monsters, even as it pushes those "corny" values of loyalty and courage and all that fun junk? It just seems cranky to complain that it's not loyal to the book when it does so much. (I'm not saying anyone has to like it. I'm saying i don't understand the complaints about accuracy, when it seems accurate in this instance in all but minor points.)

Oh, and fidelity to literary sources is rubbish in practice, not to mention impossible, so I never get hung up on that. Maybe that's why I don't care about the alterations to LOTR.

I think I've said all I have to say on THAT subject for awhile.

[mkaroly]

"Fall Of The Roman Empire" IMO suffers enormously from ponderousness. It simply has no strong focal point in the way Heston is a strong focal point in "Ben-Hur".

I think "Ben-Hur's" strength as a story would have been better recognized if it had won the screenplay Oscar, which was denied it because Christopher Fry didn't get screen credit.

I couldn't "hook" into FOTRE. I loved the visuals, but there were no characters I could get into.

FOTRE was hard for me to stomach. When Plummer comes out of that device at the end of the film, it looked like the doors swung open by hydraulic means. That really bothered me.

[AndyDursin]

Andy, you say I leap to conclusions when I repeat what is the underlying meaning of the examples you use, and then you wonder where I get this stuff. The answer is that I am merely articulating in concrete terms what your examples are illustrating. You and Paul seem to be saying that screen economy is in itself a virtue--is that what you're saying? Is a scene that gets across its plot points in less screen time better than one that takes longer to get across its plot points? It's not a trick question.

I answered that already, explicitly. Here once again is what I already wrote:

"It's not "better" just because it's shorter -- it's "better" because it was more effective to me as a viewer, in how it was shot and edited."

You must definitely leap from Point A to Point C. You are taking examples of how I'm viewing ONE PARTICULAR MOVIE or two movies or whatever and then applying it in "concrete" terms to how I view movies in general. All I can tell you is that's not accurate. But I'm also not here to go through every review I've written and point why it's inaccurate, because it's not fun for me, much as the discourse in this thread is no longer fun.

It just seems cranky to complain that it's not loyal to the book when it does so much

Does so much FOR YOU. He already pointed out what he finds to be drawbacks in the movie, which you don't find to be drawbacks, so why is he "cranky" and you aren't -- just because he doesn't agree with you and your opinion is more valid than his?

In the 5 years I've had this site, this has seldom been an issue, but I don't appreciate anyone characterizing viewpoints they don't agree with in those kind of terms. Paul is "cranky"? I'm "lazy" (as you called my viewpoint in the BSG thread)? I'm not here to argue for the sake of arguing, and I don't appreciate that kind of discourse simply because one does not agree. I have this board for fun, and once it stops becoming fun, I'll re-evaluate its intent, because there's no need for these sorts of topics to be as contentious as they've been lately.

[Paul MacLean]

Neither you nor I have any idea how the characterizations shown in the movie were anything like what occured in reality.

Anyway, going back to my original point: I find the Helm's Deep sequence to be simply turgid and overlong, and if brevity is sufficient depict Agincourt, it ought to be sufficient for Tolkien's invented mythology (and Tolkien would agree I'm sure).

How can you make these arguments defending Jackson's alterations when you never even finished the books? Liking the movies for what they are, that's fair. But what are you basing it on when you argue that Jackson's alterations are improvements?

I am defending them only as scenes in a movie. I only know they are alterations from the books from comments like yours. If the characters in the book are as you and others say, I would have bailed on them even if I pressed on.

Well I'm flattered that you place so much weight on my description. However, without the first hand experience of having read the original material yourself, it is impossible for you to make that call. It may seem to you that a character is "one dimensional" because he doesn't behave the way he did in a film adaptation, but you don't know the context, nor do you have any sense of how the character behaves throughout the book.

Until you go back and finish the books, your argument on whether the film is an improvement or not is totally invalid, because you're position is entirely based on speculation.

I like Pepsi. If I went to Cannes I wouldn't start drinking champagne.

Try it. You might like it. And even if you didn't like it, you'd have the experience under your belt and you'd be more well-rounded. You'd be able to argue the merits of champagne vs. Pepsi.

And of course I mean that somewhat figuratively. It is applicable to trying new things in every realm, not just drinking champagne.

I like people who don't put on phony airs to impress folks who go to Cannes.

Opening one's self up to new experiences -- even culinary ones -- is not "phony". I don't eat sushi to impress anyone. I decided to try it and I liked it. I didn't try black pudding to impress anyone. I decided to try it... and hated it. But at least I know.

That kind of self-acceptance--being who one is--is far more impressive to me than what one eats.

But as Sidney Lumet once said "Great work changes us". A variety of cultural experiences enriches our work and lives. There's nothing wrong with junk food (in either the literal or figurative sense) but a steady diet of it is unhealthy -- unhealthy physically, mentally and creatively.

I guess you aren't a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock, who ate the same thing for lunch every day.

But Hitchcock didn't eat at McDonalds.

Now I know you're trying to convolute what I'm saying and make it sound like "anyone who eats junk food does bad work". I don't mean that per se. But one's aesthetic choices -- be it surroundings, hobbies, diversions, and food -- all directly relate to the creative impulse. That is what I am saying.

Also, I find it odd how people call Tolkien's work timeless when it hasn't even been around a century.

Most people consider Stravinsky to be timeless. And his body of work is less than a century old.