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."
Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, we may see now a lot of crappy fantasy movies just riding the wave
It didn't deserve (Score:1, Insightful)
Finally!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Retroactive Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They didn't win in one category they were in (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, Andy Serkis for Best Supporting Actor.
Oscars? (Score:2, Insightful)
That said...Best. Oscars. Ever.
Ian McKellen Robbed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Enough About RotK, Bring on The Hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worst. Oscars. Ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
tsssk (Score:2, Insightful)
The Oscars are rigged : LOTR sure desserved something but not all.
Re:Retroactive Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's with all the Bush bashing? (Score:1, Insightful)
How many more reasons do we need to get rid of this freak?
Andy Serkis snubbed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shoot, he was the best actor in the lot of them, with the possible exception of Ian McKellan.
what a load of codswallop. (Score:1, Insightful)
lotr should've been banned from some categories so that smaller, deserving films could've gotten a chance. perhaps they should give a retroactive 'unfair competition' award out every year and give lotr a bunch of them.
sofia copolla had a chance to make history, and because of LOTR, she didn't. thanks, peter jackson.
hell, the matrix didn't even get a single mention. what kinda loada bollox is that?
so no love goes to the academy. none. screw the oscars.
Re:They didn't win in one category they were in (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WETA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:11 Wins (Score:1, Insightful)
Geek isn't geek (Score:5, Insightful)
Whither geek?
Re:11 Wins (Score:5, Insightful)
All the good karma generated by the first two movies helped ROTK enormously. If it had been a stand-alone film then it's highly doubtful that it would have been so successful at gaining the votes of the Academy's members.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:11 Wins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not cinematography (Score:5, Insightful)
The winner of that category, Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World was absolutely in a different class to the rest of the field, ROTK included. I don't think Peter Jackson would argue that he was slighted in that department, especially after his 11 out of 11 haul.
Re:Ian McKellen Robbed (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S. Bill Murray should have won. Freaking Sean Penn, that pretentious prick? Loved Billy Crystal's knowing quip to Bill afterward.
Re:Why not cinematography (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yawn.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit circular, the logic. The Oscars are a valued commodity, whether or not we personally think they mean anything. Because they're valued, we want to see the folks we're interested in receive them. Because we care that the folks we're interested in receive them, they're a valued commodity.
Having said that, I didn't watch the Oscars. But, again, I did wish to see Peter Jackson and LoTR receive them, as Peter Jackson lives in a world where they are valued.
Re:Best quote of the night (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you so sure that Hollywood sees fantasy as anything but? Sure - Jackson was able to fight the good fight and create this epic (in both film and production). But it's important to note that he had to fight to keep his vision intact. Jackson did a good job (critics aside). But will anybody else do as well?
Or will the previous poster's prediction [slashdot.org] hold true and we'll be inundated by more crappy fantasy?
The important thing here isn't that the LotR trilogy was fantasy. It's that it was an epic work, a good story, and a good series of films. That just happened to be a fantasy.
Re:Worst. Oscars. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can the Canadians and New Zealanders be *stealing* jobs, when it's Hollywood itself that's paying the star actors and actresses upwards of 20 percent of the budget of the film?
Besides, shipping entertainment jobs overseas isn't new - we lost pretty much all the local TV animator jobs back in the 80's. You think you were the first ones to have to train your replacements?
Rant aside, I think it's a good thing for the WHOLE INDUSTRY when movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy are made. Success means more money for similar films, and more money in this category mean more work for everybody, both overseas and locally. Besides, there were Americans working on that production as well - you going to piss all over their efforts just because they went to NZ to work?
I say, congrats to Peter Jackson, and may he and his crew make bigger successes!
Re:This was well deserved! (Score:3, Insightful)
1) This award was more for the music of the whole trilogy. They said it was for the film, but these rewards were saved up for the trilogy.
2) A Mighty Wind had better songs, but honestly the music for "The Triplets of Bellville", especially the piece in the club where the old ladies improvise with a newspaper, a vacuum cleaner, and an old refrigerator, blew away the competition. I was sad to see Triplets not get any awards. C'est la vie.
New titles for LOTR Oscar experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would J.R.R. think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I don't know. Think about to what you remember from studying history, and try to recall events from 1904. Anything spring to mind? Within that era, I guess I think of the invention of the airplane (I know, I know, not exactly in 1904). It was just before WWI. That's all that comes to mind, initially.
Who do we really remember after 100 years? If you're really important, maybe you'll have a statue built of you, or a library or school or a museum exhibit named after you. After 200 years? Half a millenium?
I loved the trilogy, I watched the Oscars, and I was extremely happy for all of the awards ROTK won, but it's difficult to think that 100 years from now that this will be anything more than a footnote in history.
Bill... (Score:1, Insightful)
While one could argue they should have swept... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one will see this seeing as I'm not registered, but RotK should not have even been nominated for editing. While I'm sure the extended edition of the film will flow better, there were some very bad glitches in the editing.
Take, for example, the moment in front of the Gates of Mordor. The group rides out, then back. The speech is missing, as is the Mouth of Sauron. These will be included (or so I have heard) in the extended edition, but it came off foolishly in the film itself.
During the battle at Minas Tirith, there were a few moments that were somewhat skittish with Eowyn and Eomer, and comments about Corsairs that made no sense to those who hadn't read the books simply because of omissions from the film.
Further, I don't know whether the Palantir of Denethor will be included in the final film, but I was very surprised to not see it given how many comments along the lines of "I have seen" and the sort were made. Denethor has no REASON to go mad the way the films were edited with no Palantir, and to those who didn't know he had it, that was very poor editing.
For my own thoughts, I would have given Director to Clint Eastwood simply because Mystic River was a very solid package in and of itself, but if they wanted RotK to sweep and give it the other 10, so be it. But the video editing was, while admirable considering the scope of what all they had to cut, not glossy enough to recieve an Oscar.
Re:11 Wins (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a meaningless statement. It wasn't a standalone film. If it was it would have been made entirely differently. Return of the King in its current form simply would never exist without FOTR & TTT, so what's the point in creating such hypotheticals? Its not meant to be a standalone film, why would you treat it line one?
Re:Oscars? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, not really. The show was entertaining, but there were NO surprises. All the front-runners with the oddsmakers for acting awards went home with Oscars. Anytime LOTR was nominated, it won. I loved LOTR and am ecstatic that ROTK received the recognition it so richly deserved, but there were some other excellent films this year that weren't rewarded. It wouldn't have taken anything away from ROTK's night if Master and Commander or Pirates of the Caribbean had won a few of the technical awards. I'm most excited about Best Director and Best Picture. Everything else is just gravy.
No interaction? (Score:5, Insightful)
NY Times Screwup (Score:2, Insightful)
We ALL know Peter is a New Zealander (like me)
Re:What's with all the Bush bashing? (Score:2, Insightful)
For us, the answer is probably: yes. Saddam was a secular dictator, and didn't have much use for fundamentalist terrorists such as Osama. Right now Iraq is probably Osama's wet dream as a recruting ground.
Re:Well deserved (Score:0, Insightful)
I know I'm going to get a lot of flames for saying this, but I really didn't find the first two LoTR movies to be Oscar quality. I haven't seen the third one yet so I'll have to see how it turns out before I judge the trilogy as a whole. I am curious how the whole thing pans out in the end (no, I didn't read any of the books). I hope the fellowship guys beat the bad guy because it'd really suck to have an unhappy ending with the Mordor guy taking over the entire world with his monsters.
Geek movies rule the universe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Top 10 grossing films:
1. Titanic (okay... not so geeky... well, maybe a little geekish)
2.Star Wars, Episode 4 (geek enough?)
3. E.T. ('nuff said)
4.Star Wars, Episode 1 (see #2)
5. Spider-Man (See #3)
6. LOTR, RoTK (Classic geekdom)
7.Jurassic Park (geek-o-saurs)
8.LOTR, TT (Classic geekdom, redux)
9.Finding Nemo (Geek fish?)
10. Forrest Gump (Geek is as geek does)
The top 10 certainly is dominated by the science fiction/fantasy/comic book genres which are, natch, close to any geek's heart (including this one's).
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're falling all over themselves to rent "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) and "Going My Way" (1944).
And "How Green Was My Valley" (1941) is much more famous than that year's "Citizen Kane".
Re:What would J.R.R. think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the idea that Tolkien could probably not have anticipated the realism of modern computer graphics is the most common argument I see raised in defence of the film's existence. However, I think Tolkien answered this point early on in the excerpt I quoted:
"In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it."
He means this for those who see the painting, not just those who paint it. I think the same applies to a graphically-rendered film production.
Much the same as the hand of the painter 'outruns' both his mind and, presumably, the minds of those viewing the painting, I think Tolkien would argue that the graphics of a film adaption 'outrun' the minds of its viewers. That is, the film imposes a calculated and predetermined vision of the narrative on the eyes, which is expressly intended to be faster than the thought and imagination of the viewer.
I'm a pretty diehard Tolkien fan, and I seriously considered not seeing any of the movies for fear I wouldn't be able to read any of the books properly again. I went anyway, and I'm glad I did, but I do hope that most of the kids encountering Tolkien now through the movies will be able to read Lord of the Rings without having visual scenes from the movies constantly in mind.
Screw The Hobbit...what about The Silmarillion? (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, Peter Jackson just said on live TV (E! Network) that New Line has the rights to film The Hobbit, but MGM/UA has the rights to distribute it. Lots of lawyers have lots of negotiating ahead of them to clear the way for a film adaptation of the book. He also said he'd want Ian McKellen back as Gandalf and to make it feel like it was part of the same story as LOTR.
Best Adapted Screenplay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to put things into perspective, don't you think it's quite the coincidence that Francis Coppola's (director of Godfather) precious little daughter happens to have written the best original screenplay? Oh, what that little monarchial actors' clique does to make little Sofia happy.
Well, okay, but the music still didn't deserve it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean.. Jeez! I understand that people like things that are bad. Like candy bars, for instance. You may also like the music for LOTR, but it was still bad. Boring themes, tired arrangements, incredibly monotonous, embarrassing use of wood flute. Film scoring 101, basically. The Triplets of Belleville, among others, had much much better scores.
Doesn't anybody realize this? I found this particular award insulting to all musicians who actually have an original voice.
To be fair, it's a hard job to score three 3.5 hour movies. Still, that doesn't make the music better. Just adequate at best.
Oh, well. You can't win them all.
- Lebofsky
Re:And yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I knew about those. I don't pretend to know his motivations there, and I have no objection to him selling movie rights, or to there being a movie. I just don't think the movies are fantasy, and based on what I know of him through his writings I don't think he would have either.
Amusingly, Tolkien was much more liberal about Lord of the Rings than his own fans--he was editing and changing his mythologies up until the very end of his life. He stated several times he would have done things differently had he the chance to write the book over again.
Yes, if you read the Book of Lost Tales, or any of the many (too many!) books Christopher Tolkien has published, you'll see the development of these stories in detail.
Did I appear to do this? I see no reason against getting uptight if there's reason for it. Sure, Helm's Deep could go, and I'm happy they got rid of Bombadil. I didn't mind the Scouring of the Shire being gone either.
However, the crap they did to Denethor and Faramir really did bug me. Not because I think Tolkien is God or his word is golden or some such crap, but simply because Jackson took interesting, nuanced characters and turned them into something less interesting and less developed. And it was not for lack of screen time he did this.
Fanboy, not so much (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see where Lucas even enters in that line of thinking.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
well... let me clarify that--it is unfortunate that it took so long to have fantasy considered serious, but it shouldn't be surprising once you consider the evolution of other quasi-similar genre's.
The first basic pulp fiction magazine (the Argosy) appeared in the late 1800's. (1896 actually)... Some of the first SF pieces people tend to offer up are Atlantis (1628), Utopia (1516) and even Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1817) though the latter has since fallen moreso into the horror genre.
Jules verne took over the room in the 1850's and started pumping out all kinds of things. Later (1894), H. G. Wells was considered the man. And even though almost all of these titles faired well with the public--none of them were considered "serious" literature for decades --some for hundreds of years.
The Oscar voters are not the only critics to dispute the validity of fantasy and SF--this has been going on for hundred(s) of years. Back in the day, critics didn't even take tragedy and comedy drama as serious "art"... they used whatever would sell. Macbeth was rewritten numerous times with comical subplots (the witches songs) inserted so the public would keep dishing out their money. The Jew of Malta (generally considered the first comic-book-style evil villain ever written) wasn't at all taken seriously for hundreds of years after ben jonson wrote it.
All genre's take time to be accepted and considered serious. Tragedy and Comedy were written back with Sophocles and Aristophenes... critics respect this "age" and likewise respect them more. Every piece of pottery you look at in art 101 isn't the greatest example in the world--most of them were piles of crap back when they were made--but they're considered fabulous examples now just because of their age (this obviously doesn't apply to every example).
Western literature is another perfect example. Owen Wister's "the virginian" , zane gray's "riders of the purple sage", and jack schaefer's "shane" are all fabulous pieces of art... but only very recently have they even been considered literature at all.
It's not the content that's holding them back... it's the age and the way critics interpret this--and this really shouldn't be all too surprising... even if it is wrong.
Re:Geek isn't geek (Score:1, Insightful)
LoTR wouldn't gone over well with our better halves without Orlando, Vigo, and the general spectacle that made it tolerable to them.
Three hours without peeing for elves, hobbits, dwarves and wizards? Come on, this is guy stuff and youn know it. It's the combination of things that made it tolerable to the fairer sex.
Re:Dear Mr. Lucas: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh... and Jackson's King Kong and/or Hobbit will disappoint those who think he's the second coming, just like the Matrix sequels disappointed Wachowski-ites, Jackie Brown disappointed Tarantino-ites, B5 S5 disappointed JMS-ites, and so on, and so on.
If you only expect absolute greatness, you'll only be disappointed. View the movies for what the are, not what you want them to be, or what you think they'll be.
Re:Why not cinematography (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be a good point, but I wonder if you realize how much of the scenery in th LotR trilogy was *not* CGI? In fact, I would say most of the backgrounds were not, they were either real locations or "bigatures". Edoras was actually built full-scale on that windswept hill. Helm's deep was a colossol bigature built in a quarry. Even the Black Gate and both Towers were physical models, not CGI.
Besides, most of the naval warfare shots in M&C:FSotW were actually digital, so I don't see that it is all that different from RotK in terms of cinematographic technique.
Re:And yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting how one's mind twists the novel into the mold one's mind insists upon.
While Jackon's changes to Faramir were against the Sacred and Holy Canon of LOTR, it actually made Faramir MORE interesting and MORE developed. In the books, if you turn off your automatic mental redaction engine, Faramir was the epitome of the "goody-two-shoes" supporting cast member with no weaknesses. Gandalf was terrified of the ring's *temptation*, and he was immortal, yet Faramir wouldn't touch it if he found it lying in the road. Get real! Name one character flaw that Tolkien gave to Faramir.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:4, Insightful)
Curiously LOTR:ROTK missing nomination. (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO this movie (LOTR Trilogy) deserves to win this category.
Instead the movie won "only" 11 categories this year.
mixed blessing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Geek movies rule the universe! (Score:1, Insightful)
I could certainly understand someone putting Shrek on that list as well. It had a great geek appeal because of the technology involved. The story itself was great, but all I remember hearing when it came out was how great the animation was, etc, etc.
Re:bzzt (Score:2, Insightful)
'jfb
Re:Something odd about the Oscars... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it's your right to be bitter at life, but don't begrudge other people for indulging a little.
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:11 Wins (Score:3, Insightful)
It works both ways.
Re:While one could argue they should have swept... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, considering the "knowing scenes that will appear in the extended edition," is that not what video editing is? Removing portions of the film before it goes to theatre. Proper editing results in a seamless feeling, improper editing results in a few oversights. Those that I mentioned arise from the movie itself, not just from the books.
A complaint from book to movie would be the fact that Glorfindel was replaced by Arwen at the ford. I didn't like that, but realize that wouldn't make one whit of difference to someone who hasn't read the books.
Taking it further, it would be a glitch to someone who is more familiar with Tolkien's work that Denethor bit into a cherry tomato. This is what Tolkien originally had and purposely changed to pickle when someone pointed out that medieval times, which he was trying to emulate, did not have cherry tomatoes. So one could argue (if they were rediculous) that this is going willfully against Tolkien's design. I personally could care less.
While I haven't seen the movie in some weeks so I can't quote the middle portion, the other two relatively stand. When they arrive at the Gates of Mordor, they arrange themselves on the hill, then a group rides forward. Then back. While it may cut to scenes on Mount Doom in between, there is absolutely no purpose, nor reason for that ride forward given. The fact that I know what should have happened actually makes the err MORE forgivable rather than less, seeing as I realize what should fill in the gap. Therefore, it was not poor scene writing, but poor editing. Which is what the award in question pertained to.
Similarly, Denethor constantly talks about something he's "seen." How they would fall, how it would all end, how he knew that Aragorn was coming. To those who had read the books, it made sense....they knew he had a palantir, which gave him the opportunity to do so. Those who had not read the books were left questioning how he had "seen" these things, and why he dispaired so early. It felt...inconsistant. As if they had missed something.
Now whether that is editing or an oversight on the part of the writers, I can't say. But from what we've seen, I would assume that there was some short scene concerning the palantir which was dubbed "expendible."
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Around the World in 80 Days.
KFG
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:4, Insightful)
If want bad movies look for Battlefield Earth, or Howard the duck.
Fast food for the ears. (Score:3, Insightful)
The use of the wood flute in movies is so overused and unoriginal that it is no longer funny.
Sorry, speaking as a professional musician, I guess that makes me somebody somehow pretentious, although knowledgable, about this subject.
Re:Something odd about the Oscars... (Score:2, Insightful)
And about damn time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Peter Jackson the genius? Well, maybe... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think a lot of adaptations fail so miserably because directors are too concerned with the quick audience appeal to make a short-profit. They truly twist some great works into what might sell, instead of what is already great to begin with.
If Peter Jackson is a genius at all, it is for recognizing how monumentous the Middle Earth culture really was, and not manipulating an already great story.
Just stay true to the novel, and the dollars will follow.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, thats why it would take a director and actor capable of getting that character right. Unable to decide wether to love or hate him.
Re:Something odd about the Oscars... (Score:3, Insightful)
A note to Peter Jackson: Jesus Christ, man, fix your collar and tighten up your fucking tie.
I just saw the clips at the gym and personally, I love the fact the he looks so dishelved and out of his element. That's us. The everyday joes. Not buying into the pretension of the whole thing.
Re:11 Wins (Score:5, Insightful)
A fair amount of the voters who voted for ROTK weren't just voting for ROTK they were voting for the trilogy as a whole. In essence, it's likely that ROTK won Oscars in several categories that it wouldn't have won solely on it's own merits.
Being the final film in a trilogy (and a trilogy that was played out to audiences over a relatively short period of time), ROTK greatly benefited from earlier parts of the story when it came to the Oscars and other awards.
Similarly, the first two films will, to some extent, have been hurt by the fact that they were the opening and middle acts of a trilogy, and some people who were blown away by The Fellowship Of The Ring or The Two Towers or both won't have voted for them because "it wasn't the right time" to recognise Peter Jackson's achievements, for fear of having the trilogy monopolise the awards for three years running, etc.
Oscar voters don't always recognise the best performances. Often people will win awards "because it was their turn". Martin Landau winning Best Supporting Actor for his performance in Ed Wood over Samuel L. Jackson for his turn in Pulp Fiction is the best example. Michael Caine's recent Oscar for Cider House Rules is another.
Whether you want to admit it or not, it's a simple fact that, sometimes, voters ignore the rules and reward people for their careers rather than for any single effort. In a way, the voters were doing that to some degree when they feted ROTK this year.
If you still think I'm talking rubbish ask yourself this question: why did ROTK win so many Oscars, every single one which it was up for, when both FOTR and TTT came away relatively empty-handed? Was ROTK that much better than it's predecessors? Was it that groundbreaking compared to what had come before?
To answer your question directly, the point isn't to create a hypothetical and ask "What if there hadn't been two other movies?" the point is to recognise that all three movies were being voted for this time around, not just one.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's human nature to enjoy being validated, even if it's just a validation of your tastes. Just as children enjoy being told that their drawings are good, adults enjoy having some aspect of their personality praised, whether it's their sense of humor or their taste in movies.
Just to be clear, I haven't even seen ROTK (not out on DVD where I live); I'm speaking generally.
Re:Well deserved (Score:5, Insightful)
The LOTR trilogy was far too complex to stay true to in the movie. There are somethings that I disagreed with that were change. After watching the cometary of FOTR, I now know why he stressed the Uruk Hai, and that was because an Evil Eye far away is hard to show visually. But I accept most of his changes, even with Frodo fighting with Golum at the end, and falling over the cliff. He paid homage to Golum in his glee, but if he would have just fallen over the edge, then that would have been visually anticlimactic. The fight with Frodo is much more exciting to watch.
I'm not a die hard LOTR fan so I can accept the changes made without being too upset, even if I disagree with him. I don't believe that PJ was trying to be better than Tolkien, he was just trying to make it better visually. It's hard to compete with someones imagination, and I thing PJ did a good job.
Re:Well, okay, but the music still didn't deserve (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in the 80's there was a shakuhachi (I'm too lazy right now to check the spelling) flute patch that was used on *every goddamn film score* for a movie that had trees in it. I was so glad in the 90's when people learned how obnoxious that was and eased back on it a little bit. Suddenly, trees... horses... wood flute... AAAGH!
- Lebofsky
Re:I can't believe the consensual approach here... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's actually in the books. At each succesive battle the company faces greater and greater odds, much like sam/frodo faced greater and greater odds in trying to dispose of the ring. I'm sure there is some fancy smancy literary term for it like, um,
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:3, Insightful)
Congrats to Peter (Score:3, Insightful)
What the heck? (Score:1, Insightful)
[keeps silently hitting his head on the desk]
Crap. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not taking away from PJ's LOTR adaptation trilogy, but seriously, the genius involved wasn't PJ, it was JRR Tolkien. The effects were good but certainly not all that much better than, say, those produced in SW:Ep 2 (with the exception of the Gollum character). In fact, a lot of the effects in the LOTR movies were clearly homages to the the Star Wars series.
I know this will be moderated down because it's not in line with the current Slashdot dogma that anything related to the LOTR movies is brilliant and anything related to Lucas' Star Wars movies is crap, but it does need to be said. LOTR is a classic epic, there are a number of directors around right now that could have made a movie as good, if not a better, than PJ has managed. And no doubt there will be a remake some time in the future which will surpass the current trilogy.
Re:And yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now take into account that this book (LOTR) has a legion of fans ready to shout "crap" at every single deviantion they do. As they did "it dosen't have Tom Bombadil" or "Aragorn would never do that" and etc... There is a site listing them all.
In my opinion this movie is very close to the book, and it is a very good adaptation and should not be looked lightly. It did satisfied a great portion of the fans and more the great public who may never have heard about Tolkien before.
Re:Geek movies rule the universe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And yet (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Peter Jackson the genius? Well, maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
People have expectations and will want 'all' of the book in the movie. Or will diagree on how the characters look, and parts the were skimmed over, etc etc etc.
You set yourself up for a lot more critics, doing a book than making up a new one.
Of course when done correcty the rewards are greater.
Re:What would J.R.R. think? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Well, okay, but the music still didn't deserve (Score:3, Insightful)
He uses styles and references to mediaeval, folk, and other music suited to the setting; he writes highly appropriate music for some of the many songs that feature in the book; he evokes the magical, the mystical, the transcendent, the strange, the ugly, the fearsome, the heroic, while only rarely dropping into cliche or banality.
But more than this, his use of leitmotif is almost Wagnerian. His themes, far more than just attaching to particular people or emotions (as in most films), are connected with abstractions like fellowship, the power of evil, hope, inheritance, and destiny. If you listen closely, his music doesn't just underscore the emotion of a scene, but comments on its deeper meaning, and makes allusions which can be surprising in their insight.
Yes, it's good that some people came out of theatres humming a couple of the tunes, but that's not why Howard Shore won.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:4, Insightful)
I too find it amazing that the third RotK did not get nominated for cinematography.
As for the actor nominations, that does not surprise me all that much. You have a sweeping epic story with a humongous cast. Just, exactly, which character carries the story? None. They're really almost all supporting actors, and each one has a smaller part of the whole. (with the exception of Frodo, who it could be argued resembles a lead character, at least in relation to Sam...). Or, I suppose, you could argue there are something like 12 lead actors/actresses. Either way, I don't see how you could select just one when all were so good.
The only thing that bugs me is that it didn't beat out Titanic in total wins or noms. While I liked Titanic (I'll admit it, I thought it very well done) I believe that movie pales significantly compared to the incredible trilogy Peter Jackson produced. (Actually, most do). And something should be said about Ben-Hur's achievement here as well, it won at a time when there were significantly fewer categories, which is something that should not be forgotten.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:4, Insightful)
And surely this is an even bigger night for Jackson, who's been working on these films for 5+ years of his life and has yet to receive any industry accolades, than it is for the 'Leafs,' who get a title shot pretty much year.
Why not cheer?
Belleville (Score:2, Insightful)
It was excellent - by far the most inventive animation I had seen in years.
Any cartoon where stick grenades are used for frog fishing is OK in my book - and the references to Reinhardt, Tati and Trenet were delightful.
I've not seen Nemo, but doubt whether it was a fraction as inventive as the Triplets - just shows you where the values have sunk to, when it's popularity that defines the worth of a piece of art.
It doesn't make it the BEST either.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure this will get modded as either troll of flamebait, since for some reason moderators can't stand to have someone disagree with the "geek consensus". But I have to say it.
Agreed, it wasn't a bad movie - but it wasn't the best of the year IMO. I think the academy was a little biased this year, simply because of the other two movies in the trilogy. It was a great movie, I don't dispute that - but I don't think it was the best of the year. I think the academy voters, like Slashot, are a bit jaded. They were looking at the trilogy, not just ROTK. Hey, the trilogy was an amazing set of work that deserves a lot of recognition. There aren't too many sequels that are very good, let alone trilogies. But for ROTK by itself, I don't think it stacked up against the other nominated movies. I don't think Peter Jackson did that great of a job directing this movie, in comparison with the other nominees. He deserved to be recognized for the trilogy, but I don't think ROTK was the best of the three (I'd but it at a solid #3).
And before you say "The academy is the only opinion that matters here", I'd say you are right. It is their award show, whooptie doo. They also gave Titanic 11 awards, and I could hardly sit through that stinker. I thought it was cheesy. I hoped Lost in Translation would win. I thought Bill Murray should have won for best actor, although I didn't see some of the other performances. I thought it was ironic that before the best picture announcement, they said it was a combination of all of the other awards - yet nobody from ROTK was nominated for a best acting award, let alone won. If there is no great acting in a movie, then it has to get by on something else - like sets and special effects, or the story. ROTK was 1/3 of a story that many people hold fondly, and THAT is why it won. I don't think it had half of the elements necessary to win best picture, yet it won anyway.
Just another opinion to think about. Not that it matters much now.
Re:What would J.R.R. think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...pretty much every year, except when the Devils decide to play. Though you did say 'shot,' and not 'realistic shot.'
I don't think the Devils are gonna have much of a run in the next month--not the kind of run they usually end on to indicate a good post-season. So are your Leafs up to taking care of those stinkers from Ottowa?
Anyway, to get back on topic, I think the two--Academy Awards and Stanley Cup--are more alike than different.
It's gonna happen every year. Even if there aren't any outstanding performances or every team sucks, someone's going to get a trophy at the end. And although the award is given for a particular year, there's usually many, many years of work that went into getting to that point, and usually many, many more people behind the scenes that made it possible for a few to skate around onstage holding up a naked gold man.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but yelling at a TV set, or applauding (which seems to happen a bit in theaters) seems self-congratulatory.
Just to be clear, I haven't even seen ROTK (not out on DVD where I live); I'm speaking generally.
I don't watch the "Oscars" as with the Grammys and a few other award shows, I feel they're pretty phoney. It's Hollywood's big chance to toot its horn, but I see enough movies to realize some of the best don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the much promoted favorites. It's rather like going to the track where half the horses are ballyhooed no end, while the other horses gates are locked just to be sure there's no surprises.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel they're pretty phoney. It's Hollywood's big chance to toot its horn, but I see enough movies to realize some of the best don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the much promoted favorites
Thank you for saying what I attempted to say [slashdot.org]. Glad I'm not alone. They might as well just give the awards to the most-hyped, most-expensive, biggest budget film that comes out that year. Why bother with pretending that it's going to be any other way?
Re:Best quote of the night (Score:2, Insightful)
What I love about these movies is that they express many of the themes and much of the feel of Tolkien's works in a way I thought was compelling. The genius I see in them is brilliant adaptation -- Peter Jackson managed to successfully adapt a work I didn't think was adaptable. He did it well, which from my point of view means that he didn't get caught up with the details, but focused on what was important, which in this case was theme, emotional overtones, etc. I agree that they were dramatic and overacted, but in part that's because the characters talked a lot like Tolkien's characters do. That's the material they were working with, and that's one of the things I liked.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:2, Insightful)
Because Master and Commander, though an enjoyable movie, was pretty much the same movie as ST2: The Wrath of Khan. Good, but placed against LOTR it didn't stand a chance.
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why does LOTR deserve best picture over Master and Commander, Lost in Translation, or dare I say (even though it wasn't nominated) The Last Samurai? Because it had a bigger budget and was hyped more?"
Jackson and co. deserves their accolades. The entire trilogy is one of the most breathtaking and painstakingly crafted achievements in cinematic history, and deserves some recognition for the monumental scope, art, dedication, blood sweat and tears and LOVE that went into making these films. Quite frankly it infuriates me to listen to people like you suggest it's only because of the budget or hype that these movies won. Thousands of incredibly talented people from all over the world came together and poured their heart and souls into this thing for FIVE YEARS, the end result is awesome (4 years ago everyone said LotR COULD NOT be adapted to the screen, period), and it deserves some respect.
There, I answered your question. Now why don't you answer it yourself? (Instead of just saying "X was better") What exactly does Master & Commander, Lost in Translation, and Last Samurai have that proves superior "artistic merit"?
Mega-hyped massive-budget blockbusters do NOT win every year. Is that what you would call "A Beautiful Mind"? Or how about "American Beauty"? What about "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Rainman"?
In my opinion, Gladiator WAS a better movie than Chocolat. It wasn't better than Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but that was a foreign language film, and it won in its appropriate category.
One for each ending... (Score:2, Insightful)
Loved that quip "one [an oscar] for each ending". That person is a genius.