Lord Of The Rings - Oscars, We Loves Them 1000
Suhas writes "The New Zealand Herald and many others such as Yahoo/AP are reporting that Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King has swept the Oscars by winning in all the 11 categories it was nominated in. Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award! The official Oscar site has a full list of the winners."
11 Wins (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They didn't win in one category they were in (Score:5, Informative)
Loved 'em all, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They didn't win in one category they were in (Score:5, Informative)
Alec Baldwin, The Cooler
Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams
Djimon Hounsou, In America
Tim Robbins, Mystic River
Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai.
Re:ROTK was robbed!! (Score:5, Informative)
The stuff of records... (Score:5, Informative)
"Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King" tied both "Ben-Hur" (1959) and "Titanic" (1997) with its 11 awards, the record for most Oscars in a single year.
"Rings" is also the first fantasy film to win the top award.
Aside from best picture, the awards "Return of the King" won were: director (Peter Jackson), adapted screenplay (Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens), song ("Into the West"), score (Howard Shore), visual effects, art direction, costume design, makeup, sound mixing and film editing.
Re:WETA (Score:3, Informative)
What more do you want?
Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Best Director (Score:1, Informative)
Another New Zealander that deserves note (Score:0, Informative)
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:4, Informative)
Some of the gravity things, I'd have had to actually re-calculated the stuff. Now it might be he forgot a number of things, but most of it sounded reasonsable.
Some of the nuclear weapons might have been wrong. Some of the stuff involving the heating/cooling of the cylinder might have been off (I'm not sure).
I enjoyed the book soley because it seem to have an accurate physics setup, but thought the plot was incredibly dull. (The book could have used a little bit more direct conflict to be interesting, but oh well).
Novel that you picked Ender's Game, that was had some very obviously bogus physics in it (the whole concept of faster then light transmission of ansibles thing, althought the physics might have been more accurate, they we're also a smaller portion of the actual plot of the books), as a sci-fi, over "Rendezvous with Rama".
Kirby
Re:Posting anonymously (Score:5, Informative)
No, especially since Christopher Tolkien has explicitly stated he holds no ill-will toward the filmmakers or the films.
He didn't disown his son, he removed him from any control over the Tolkien Estate over the fact that his son wanted official involvement with the movies.
Next time you regurgitate rumor memes, research them a little. Hell, J.R.R. Tolkien himself is the one who signed over the movie rights and even suggested in one of his letters cutting Helm's Deep. He said it was "unnecessary."
As things like that illustrate, the amusing thing about Tolkien purists is that their beloved god Tolkien was more liberal about changes then they are.
Re:ROTK was robbed!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not. It's been in development hell for several years. Every now and then someone stumbles over the website [rendezvouswithrama.com] and gets excited, but it hasn't been updated in years. (The Comdex appearance they highlight was in 2001.)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why Jackson won best adapted screenplay. Also Ian McKellen gave a big shout out to Tolkien when introing a LOTR clip at the beginning of the award show.
Re:The "awkward text" of LOTR (Score:3, Informative)
"I especially just lastly want to thank our wonderful cast who just got their tongues around this rather awkward text and made it come to life with such devotion and passion and heart," said "Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson...
Jackson said this in his acceptance speach for best adapted sceenplay. Thus he was speaking in a self-depreciating manner about his own script, not about Tolkien.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Informative)
And strictly off the top of my head, in 1904 the first Vanderbilt Cup auto race would be held under the auspices of the AAA, and the Japanese attacked Russia at Port Arthur, which event would have repurcussions throughout the first half of the 20th century.
KFG
Re:Geek movies rule the universe! (Score:5, Informative)
Rank Title Total Box Office
1 Titanic (1997) $600,743,440
2 Star Wars (1977) $460,935,655 10
3 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459 242
4 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444 -
5 Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375 -
6 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003) $361,118,934 4
7 Jurassic Park (1993) $356,763,175 -
8 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) $340,478,898 5
9 Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367 88
10 Forrest Gump (1994) $329,452,287 120
11 Lion King, The (1994) $328,423,001 -
12 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891 -
13 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) $313,837,577 7
14 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583 -
15 Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,064,373 130
16 Independence Day (1996) $306,200,000 -
17 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,411,224 224
18 Sixth Sense, The (1999) $293,501,675 87
19 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $290,158,751 15
20 Home Alone (1990) $285,761,243 -
21 Matrix Reloaded, The (2003) $281,492,479 -
22 Shrek (2001) $267,652,016 128
23 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $261,970,615 -
24 How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) $260,031,035 -
25 Jaws (1975) $260,000,000 79
Using my own judgement, the geeks have 15 of the Top 25. This is just US box office. International box office is more slanted towards sci fi / fantasy, with 18 of the top 25 spots...
US Box Office [imdb.com]
World Wide Box Office [imdb.com]
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:5, Informative)
Untrue. Both "Titanic" and "Ben-Hur" achieved this. Neither of them managed to win in all the categories they were nominated in, though. (Which actually suggests they may have been "better" since they were nominated in 12 or more categories)
Anyway, nice try, but you lose.
Re:The bit at the beginning (Score:5, Informative)
It was a joke, not a message. After checking his camera, he found the One Ring in his Crackerjack box, put it on, and was teleported into a bunch of movies. The highlight was probably seeing Michael Moore squashed by one of the Mumakil. Later he cracked a joke about Johnny Depp's "slightly gay pirate" in Pirates of the Caribbean being Jack Valenti's worst nightmare.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:3, Informative)
My personal opinion as a scientist is that FTL communication/travel is not possible because the laws of physics we know seem so peversely designed to prevent it. This suggests at least two possiblities to me. First, God designed the universe, it has a speed limit, and you *will* obey, or second, that there is a much simpler set of laws of the universe, one of which is "speed = c", and the rules only look peverse because we are describing them in a peverse way. I hope I am wrong on this one, though.
So, using entanglement for FTL communication is fine for a sci-fi book (and a truly brilliant book at that), but it is still science fiction.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:4, Informative)
(with things like thought inducted teleportation, ect)
Re:Where else to ask... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Geek movies rule the universe! (Score:5, Informative)
Top 50, adjusted for inflation [boxofficemojo.com]
LOTR is doing real well there, infact nothing in the top 10, from the last decade except titanic.
#1 is still Gone With the Wind, which grossed 198 million in 1939 dollars.
1 Gone With the Wind MGM $1,218,328,752 $198,655,278 1939
49 The Return of the King NL $361,940,947 $361,940,947 2003
Re:Why not cinematography (Score:3, Informative)
Also, considering that FOTR won cinematography.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:3, Informative)
Quantum Non-locality [aip.org]
The link goes to an American Institute of Physics bulletin on successful instantaneous determination of a photon's energy from a distance of 10km. It's still got a long way to go until it's true 'communication', but this stuff was known back in 1998.
A google search on 'Wolfgang Tittel' brings up quite a few interesting links, including discussions on Quantum Cryptography.
It seems that we're limited currently by our tools, but it's entirely possible that these limitations can/will be overcome in the future.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully not all of them, though. I'm looking forward to seeing how the CS Lewis films turn out.
For anyone who doesn't know, they're already in pre-production, starting with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe [imdb.com]. They're being produced in New Zealand again, although this time the production is centred in Auckland rather than Wellington.
Re:It's been a fun ride. (Score:3, Informative)
Ah yes, and I remember the first UF cartoon after the trailer was released: here [userfriendly.org] - note that userfriendly.org discourages deep linking, but you can copy and paste the URL into a new browser window and then it should work.
Really? (Score:4, Informative)
The way I read it is thus: Photon A has a known engergy level. It is then split into photons B and C, each with an unknown energy level. But, due to the law of conservation of energy, we know that B's energy plus C's energy equals A's original energy. Therefore, B and C are entangled -- if you measure one's energy level and subtract it from A's, then you have determined the other's energy. The trick is, you have determined it instantaneously over a significant distance. That is "spooky action at a distance".
In order for this to be usable for communication, you would have to be able to somehow force B's measurement to a desired result and have that result thereby influence C's result at a distance. And that (as a certain South Park attorney might say) does not make sense.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Informative)
The word "we're" is an abbreviation of "we are." The word "were" is the past tense form of "be."
I wouldn't have mentioned it, but you made the mistake not once, not twice, but THREE times. This denotes an actual misunderstanding, as opposed to a simple lapse of grammatical analitiy (if I may be allowed to coin a word).
Grammar: it's your friend.
Re:Didn't like the LOTR movies. (Score:3, Informative)
A lot is left untold, to keep the whole story comprehensible to an audience that has not read the books. If you crave more dept, I indeed suggest that you read the books and watch the Special Edition. I have read them about 15 times, and keep understanding the characters better.
Adriaan Renting.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, I jumped on it, and so far it has been very interesting. We read Wells' War of the Worlds; Butler's Wild Seed; Clarke's Childhood's End; LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness; and Haldeman's The Forever War. There's also a bunch of books about scifi in general, for example why Star Trek is such a success.
A lot of people were incredulous that this class was being offered, but I think it points to a growing respect for the sci-fi genre.
In a related note, courses on mythology, including stuff about goblins, trolls, dragons, etc, have been offered for some time. But the focus is mythology, and not really modern fantasy.
Bad Taste (Score:2, Informative)
Bad Taste [imdb.com]
Meet the Feebles [imdb.com]
These made me a huge Jackson fan years before LotR!
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:2, Informative)
Ha, they've already done that, and it was perfect. Wizards, Warriors and a Word from our Sponsor [inwap.com]. Even the official movie wouldn't get better than that. =)
Thanks PJ! (Score:3, Informative)
The Lord of the Rings might not be what everybody wanted but it was good enough to satisfy a lot of people. One movie to rule them all..
Re:Didn't like the LOTR movies. (Score:2, Informative)
I've been reading and re-reading the triology for over 20 years, plus I've read most of the interesting "extra" material (Silmarillion etc.), and I agree with you -- it wasn't Oscar worthy. And not because Tom Bombadil/the Barrowdowns/the Scouring was left out, or because of all the minor little discrepancies 'tween the triology and the original books.
Several of the central characters and important parts of the storyline was seriouly messed up, and in the process they actually managed to make the story largely incomprehensible to anyone who never read the books.
I don't care that a fantasy film finally "made it", or that (some of) the special effects were marvellous, that doesn't make it the best film of the year!
And I don't care much that a lot of /. posters are gonna hate me for saying this either ...:)
Re:While one could argue they should have swept... (Score:3, Informative)
Continuity errors and inconsistencies are not necessarily editing errors. Editing is not about determining the flow of the plot, but of camera shots. Good editing means pacing each scene right and cutting between scenes properly. It's the 'tempo' part of good cinematography.
Your quibbles are with plotting errors, which are marks against the direction of the film, I would say. Editing is not concerned with plot logic; it is part of the visual language of film. I think that ROTK's editing was very well done for such a huge production, and considering the vast visual scope of some of the shots and scenes. Whether it was worth an Oscar, I can't say.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Movies: Citizen Kane, Its a Wonderful Life, anything by Scorcese, anything by Altman, anything by Peter Weir, anything by Kubrick anything by Hitchcock (!!!).
Actors who never won a competitive Oscar: Peter O'Toole, Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Johnny Depp, Peter Sellers, Monty Python, Orson Welles, The Marx Bros, etc etc.
As you can see, there's no shame in never being recognised by the Academy. I'd argue that the company you keep outside the academy is a more exclusive club.
I gave up on the Oscars when Al Pacino won for that movie where he plays a blind guy... a thoroughly forgettable film, a very basic performance from Pacino. But the Academy had missed so many other movies they felt it necessary to recognise him. Fortunately they didn't make the same mistake with Scorcese and Gangs of New York.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
My Vote (Score:2, Informative)