Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Lord of the Rings Media Movies

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lord Of The Rings - Oscars, We Loves Them

Comments Filter:
  • Great (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blahbooboo2 ( 602610 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:15AM (#8426560)
    This is great to see a fantasy film get the recognition it deserves...a masterful film, even if I actually didn't care for it :)
    • Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)

      by tankdilla ( 652987 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:24AM (#8426669) Homepage Journal
      From the yahoo link, Return of the King swept all 11 categories in which it was nominated. It matched the record 11 wins of "Titanic" and "Ben-Hur" and became only the third movie to sweep every nominated category, following Gigi and The Last Emperor, which both went nine-for-nine.

      Quickly reading that, I thought it said Gigli, and that I had somehow ended up in Bizarro World.

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by woohoodonuts ( 734070 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:24AM (#8427028)
      It's actually not that surprising that this took so long, really.
      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.
  • by bigjocker ( 113512 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:15AM (#8426565) Homepage
    This is the first time a Fantasy movie wins the Best Picture award ... yeha!!!!!

    Of course, we may see now a lot of crappy fantasy movies just riding the wave ...
  • by MoonFog ( 586818 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:17AM (#8426578)
    Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!

    I don't always agree with the Oscars on who should receive it, but IMHO Return of the King deserved each and everyone of them! Kudos to the jury for finally giving Peter Jackson the recognition he rightfully earned after creating (again IMHO) one of the most memorable film projects ever!
    • by hattig ( 47930 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:33AM (#8426752) Journal
      Dunno about that bland Annie Lennox song ... A Mighty Wind's At The End of the Rainbow was a much better song, IMO. However in all other respects the film deserved the awards.

      Note: Ben Hur was nominated for 12, and Titanic was nominated for 14 ... so LOTR:ROTK is the first (to win 11) to win all the awards it was nominated for.
  • by theRhinoceros ( 201323 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:17AM (#8426583)
    No doubt many of these awards are symbolic awards for the efforts in creating the entire trilogy, not just RotK. I have my doubts if the third LotR movie was that good, especially given some of the films it was up against, but the trilogy as a whole merits siginificant recognition and I think that was given tonight.
    • by r0xah ( 625882 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:24AM (#8426663)
      Some of the awards this may be true, but the best director at the very least is deserved even for just RoTK. Peter Jackson had to conduct an army of actors, extras and stage hands. He more than likely worked his ass off from before the first day of shooting till the final cut of RoTK was ready to be shipped out. He has done an amazing job of translating an amazing book into 3 amazing movies.
    • by Erbo ( 384 ) <> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:28AM (#8426707) Homepage Journal
      That was my thought, too...that the Academy was waiting until the whole story was complete before showering LotR with the honors it so richly deserved. The whole trilogy will stand forever as the first successful attempt to translate one of the greatest works of fantasy literature in history into film, one that caused so many of us (including me) to sit back and say, "Yes...that's what it's supposed to look like."

      And here are the two things I had to say when RotK completed its sweep:


      "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and with the Oscars bind them!"

      • by boobox ( 673856 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:55AM (#8426891)
        Actually, geek movies have certainly ruled the box office for quite a while (Check the top grossing films here []).

        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).
        • by Gmalloy ( 668764 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:31AM (#8427067)
          Take it to the next step:

          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 []
          World Wide Box Office []
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:30AM (#8427266)
          lets make it more interesting

          Top 50, adjusted for inflation []

          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
  • by vinit79 ( 740464 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:17AM (#8426586)
    Bohoo ...... Why wasnt it nominated for best cinematography ??? I havnt seen better cinematography before.

    We loves our precious
    • by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:36AM (#8426775) Journal
      In terms of cinematography, the footage of the fires calling Rohan to Gondor's aid was fantastic, but overall the cinematography wasn't that impressive. You've got to remember that a great many scenes used mainly CGI backdrops, and I'm not sure this category was designed to cover footage of non-live scenery and action.

      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.
      • by LMCBoy ( 185365 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:27AM (#8427052) Homepage Journal
        You've got to remember that a great many scenes used mainly CGI backdrops, and I'm not sure this category was designed to cover footage of non-live scenery and action.

        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.

    • by avkillick ( 698274 ) <avkillick AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:37AM (#8426779) Homepage
      Too much CGI - especially in the backdrops. This does not go down too well with the powers that be in this categroy - the cinematographers.
  • WETA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crumbz ( 41803 ) <(moc.liamg>maps ... uj>maps_evomer> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:18AM (#8426591) Homepage
    It is interesting to see a movie that contains a leat one digital artifact in every shot or sequence simply overwhelm the awards. When will we see the effects groups have a category?

    Oh yes, Bill Murray should have one for best actor. No doubt.

  • by TheLinuxSRC ( 683475 ) <[slashdot] [at] []> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:19AM (#8426602) Homepage
    not everyone did... Check out this list of deviations. []
  • by destine ( 109885 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:19AM (#8426608)
    Ian McKellen deserved an Oscar for his performance, not only because he was consistently great in all three movies, but his acting didn't overshadow and it easily could have. It's a pity he was nominated this year.
  • by aardvarko ( 185108 ) <> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:20AM (#8426618) Homepage
    Sam: What we need is a little bit of recognition.
    Gollum: What's recognishin, precious? What's recognishin, eh?
    Sam: Rec-og-ni-tion. Honors, awards, critics in a stew. Lovely big golden awards with a nice nameplate on the bottom.
    Sam: Even you couldn't say no to that.
    Gollum: Oh yes, we could. Spoilin' nice shinies. Give it to us raw and unfinished. You keep nasty awards.
    Sam: You're hopeless.
  • by Scot Seese ( 137975 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:21AM (#8426632)
    I for one cannot wait to hear that Peter Jackson has untangled the legal web surrounding the rights to The Hobbit. As a child I enjoyed it much more than the trilogy. It's the perfect 3 hour film. Massive battle at the end. The dwarves! The eagles! Smaug! Mirkwood, the elves en masse - PJ, please get King Kong out of the way and give us The Hobbit in 2007 or 2008!
  • by youknowmewell ( 754551 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:21AM (#8426634)
    They should have been nominated for best foreign film. I mean, there were at least 3 different languages besides English that they spoke in it! I'm sure there is a country out their who's population speaks Elvish or whatever it is people from Mordor speak!
  • by Nick of NSTime ( 597712 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:23AM (#8426650)
    Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!

    Yes! I know he was mad at the Academy for overlooking Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive!

  • by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:23AM (#8426658)
    Someone had to say it.
  • by blockhouse ( 42351 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:25AM (#8426680)
    I thought the whole idea of including Andy Serkis in the live-action flashback scene to Smeagol vs. Deagol was to make him eligible for the Best Supporting Actor oscar. I thought he would have at least deserved consideration for his work in LotR: The Two Towers, but apparently actors cannot receive that oscar if their character is computer animated.

    Shoot, he was the best actor in the lot of them, with the possible exception of Ian McKellan.
  • by eidechse ( 472174 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:25AM (#8426689)
    Don't bother.


    The Mgmt.
  • The Hobbit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evanbro ( 649048 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:26AM (#8426690)
    Maybe Peter Jackson will have some encouragement (not to mention financial backing) to do the Hobbit now. Given what they pulled off with Gollum, I'd like to see what Smaug would look like...that would be awesome.
    • Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Informative)

      by bckrispi ( 725257 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:35AM (#8426770)
      Peter Jackson has the encouragement and the studio backing to do the Hobbit. What he does not have is the legal right to film an adaptation of the book. Those strings, I believe are still held by the Tolkein Estate. And judging from the fact that Christopher Tolkien disowned his own son for supporting Peter Jackson's efforts w/ LOTR, I don't see him giving a green light to do the Hobbit any time soon.
      • Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:52AM (#8426866)
        What he does not have is the legal right to film an adaptation of the book.
        My understanding is that NewLine does indeed have the rights to film an adaptation of the Hobbit. What they don't have is the rights to distribute that movie. Those rights are owned by MGM/United Artists. I think that there is a very good chance that it will happen in the next five years. The Tolkein estate is not involved at all.
      • Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dzym ( 544085 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:56AM (#8426900) Homepage Journal
        Actually, that's not quite true. While Chris Tolkien has a certain antipathy to the LOTR movies, the Tolkien Estate as a whole has released statements to the effect that they are not standing in the way of a Hobbit adaptation.

        The blame for this one can be laid squarely at the feet of MGM/UA.

  • Whew (Score:5, Funny)

    by Derkec ( 463377 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:27AM (#8426699)
    Guess we won't have to witness the Nerd Riots [] after all. And I had my D20 prepared and everything.

    Never had more fun watching the Oscars. That said, by the end, I almost felt sad that so many other films weren't winning. Oh well, I'm sure it was an honor just to be nominated.
  • by Howard Beale ( 92386 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:29AM (#8426709)
    The previous record for a film winning all its nominations was nine, set by "Gigi" (1958) and "The Last Emperor" (1988).

    "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.

  • Geek isn't geek (Score:5, Insightful)

    by screwballicus ( 313964 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:29AM (#8426721)
    A victory for geeky fantasy culture, some might say. But I think if it really is that, it can only be because high fantasy of this sort just isn't specifically geek anymore at all. Some people still persist in categorising fantasy mythoi and this kind of thing as nerdy, geeky stuff, but I think the term is losing its usefulness. Geek seems to imply something freakish or countercultural, and this just isn't. This is as maintstream as culture gets. It's popular with everyone. Certainly, there's greater attention to it among self-identifying geeks, but the fact is that News For Nerds is in cases like this now really just News For Everyone. There's no meaningful distinction. Being very seriously interested in high fantasy really no longer means anything regarding one's status in society. The pen and paper D&D generation grew up and now are urban professionals. And furthermore, high fantasy is on the screen as possibly the most famously beloved movie of our generation.

    Whither geek?
  • by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:30AM (#8426723) Journal
    As happy as I am that this year's Oscar sweep didn't go to a movie that sucked, I still don't think Tolkien would be happy with the state of things, were he around to see it. In his famous essay On Fairy Stories [], he explains why he believes Fantasy is best left to words, and that Fantasy and Drama are inherently different and incompatible:

    "In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. 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. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or "imagination" that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy."
    • by chazwurth ( 664949 ) <> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:48AM (#8426844)
      Interesting, and I'm somewhat sympathetic, but -- in regards to the last sentence -- keep in mind that he wrote this before effects and costuming could do what they can today. The orcs in these movies didn't come across as men dressed up as animals, or as buffoons or mimics.
      • by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:08AM (#8426964) Journal
        keep in mind that he wrote this before effects and costuming could do what they can today. The orcs in these movies didn't come across as men dressed up as animals, or as buffoons or mimics.

        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.
    • And yet (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:56AM (#8426903)
      And yet Tolkien was the one who signed away the movie rights, and even suggested editing changes, such as removing Helm's Deep because it was "unnecessary" to the story. Read his letters sometime.

      If Peter Jackson had suggested cutting Helm's Deep, how many of the purists would be saying things like "Tokien would be turning in his grave!" Meanwhile, Tolkien suggested it!

      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.

      People who quibble because someone said something that someone else said in the books, or the Ents didn't decide to go to war and instead had to be convinced, etc., are UPTIGHT.
  • by colmore ( 56499 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:30AM (#8426735) Journal
    Reading the series has forever been on my "to do" list but I never have. I enthusiastically sat through the first two movies, but half way through the third I thought to myself "something just isn't clicking here." Upon rewatching the first two movies, I have to say, now that the "oh wow" factor of big monsters fighting on beautiful scenery has worn off, I really didn't like these films.

    And I think the reason is this: the characters do not interact with each other, and are for the most part not interesting. There's a tedious romance encountered entirely via flashback and voiceover. There's an INCREADIBLY obvious and overstated (again and again and again) little rivalry with Sam and Gollum for Frodo's attention. Aside from that the characters really have no relation to one another, they just wander together, and by the end we learn (but never really see) that they've all become the best of pals. Even more eggregious, the bad guys have no direct connection to the good guys. No character has a personal stake in what he's working toward. They're just bad, and the fellowship is working against them because they're the heroes. No further explanation is really provided.

    Upon watching the third movie I realized that maybe Aragorn was reclaiming some sort of birthright or something, but why this is a really big deal (aside from the movie's vauge assertion that kings are better than other forms of leadership) is beyond me. The rest of the characters either literally wandered onto the screen with no real explanation (in the case of 3 out of 4 hobbits) and stuck with the quest just because they were nice guys, or showed up already billed as heroes around a table. I never knew who Legolas was and I never really cared.

    Boromeir was pretty interesting, and the rivalry/respect he had going with Frodo and Aragorn was the only conflict between individuals that was the least bit interesting in the whole trilogy. Every other time individuals clashed with each other it was the result of an evil mage or something, and there was no ambiguity whatsoever to what was going to happen.

    I voiced all of this to a friend of mine and he said that if I read the books, people's motivations would be a little more fleshed out. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. I'm watching these movies as movies, and they're too long and don't really make much sense.

    They're certainly better than most sci fi blockbusters, I just don't think ROTK was Oscar worthy. They beat the entire Alien series hands- down. They're more consistently entertaining than the old Star Wars and way better than the new one. The first Matrix was a better movie, but the sequels were a mess of "cool" with no logic. Perhaps the fantasy / sci-fi action genre isn't for me, but the movies seem universally poorly written. I don't see why it's so hard to have interesting, believable people interacting with each other inside a fantastic environment.
    • No interaction? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:51AM (#8426863)
      I guess Sam and Frodo holding each other at the "end of all things" wasn't enough interaction. Nor was Gandalf's soothing speech about the afterlife (literally...after all the suspense, suddenly he calms things with a few lines, go Ian) to Pip. Nor Merry and Pippin's interactions with Treebeard and the Ents, leading them to battle. Nor the dynamics between Eowyn and Aragorn, or Denethor's horrible disdain for Faramir...ah, who am I kidding? You'll never like the films. Aragorn's quest for kingship was about shedding self-doubt and accepting fate. I don't get people who don't like these movies. So many universal themes touched on.
  • by Daikiki ( 227620 ) * <[ln.oodanaw] [ta] [ikikiad]> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:31AM (#8426737) Homepage Journal
    This post [] is from August 25th of 1998, more than five years ago. It's the first mention of the movies being made that I could find on Slashdot. No comments, but it's interesting to realize that tonight's awards ceremony has been the the culmination of a story we've all been following here for more than half a decade.
  • Fanboy much (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:40AM (#8426798) Homepage Journal
    Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!

    Why? Did you see the other nominated films? By what metric do you determine the 'best director'? If you feel he has been snubbed in the past, that's too bad. The nomination was for this film. (Yes, the voters have frequently righted past wrongs or close calls). A body of work award is typically rewarded specially, and much later in the career.

    It's not as if Jackson is particularly old, either. So what is the reasoning behind the 'finally' comment? I just don't see it. There were plenty of good contenders. Nope, it boils down to plain old nerdish fanboyism.

    And while I'm burning karma, perhaps the voters were actually thinking of G. Lucas when voting for Jackson. Sure, Jackson pumped out a couple of great movies, did wonders for product management, but Lucas helped define a genre and a generation, both in the insular world of Hollywood and in US culture in general. Yet he's never been 'blessed' by AMPAS, as space opera was too kiddyish. Here's the chance to correct that mistake.

    • by mooman ( 9434 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:20AM (#8427014) Homepage
      I'm no fanboy of the series, but I did see one of the documentaries that said that Jackson had something like 9 different film crews shooting scenes at the same time, around 15000 extras, and 3 separate movies being filmed concurrently... If doing that for over 3 years straight and coming up with the eye candy and enthralling films that make the LOTR doesn't earn the right to "Best Director", then I guess I'm not clear on what does...

      I don't see where Lucas even enters in that line of thinking.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:50AM (#8426857)
    They should not have won eleven awards.

    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.
  • by t1nman33 ( 248342 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:55AM (#8426892) Homepage
    And so the great Nerd Riots of 2004 were prevented, and Peter Jackson took the Oscar into the West.
  • What next? (Score:5, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:10AM (#8426973)
    Any chance we can talk Peter Jackson's team into making the Star Wars Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, so that they don't suck?
  • by Woogiemonger ( 628172 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:12AM (#8426979)
    ROTK winning best adapted screenplay is a joke! But then I can say the same for most of the Oscars. I'll cede best direction, best score, best fireworks, etc, to ROTK, but do any of you realize how many people are writing how many screenplays? Just because people go "Oooooooooo" and "Aaaaaaaahhhhhh" at the pretty ROTK doesn't mean it HAPPENS to have the best writing in the world too. It was mediocre writing at best, with decent acting and very good presentation. American Splendor or even City of God were MUCH more deserving for the best adapted screenplay award.

    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.
    • by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:37AM (#8427090)
      It's the best _adapted_ screenplay, yeah, I agree with that. It took an -amazing- amount of work to convert that from book to screen. No other project took even a tenth amount of work as LOTR did.

      Best movie? No, to me, that was Lost in Translation, hands down. I'd put ROTK as maybe 4th, _maybe_ 3rd best movie of 2003. Nah, probably 4th. Maybe even 5th, depending on my mood. Freaking whiny Frodo, Sam & Gollum annoyed me no end. Fortunately, in ROTK all the other characters had great big important things to do. By far the best of the three LOTR films for me. Would love to see a Peter Jackson version of the Hobbit - let's hope all the legal wrangling gets sorted out. Definitely interested in seeing his version of King Kong.

      Anyway, best original screenplay? LIT won, and it _absolutely_ deserved to. What a subtle & sublime joy that film was. If they'd been kowtowing to Sofia, I guarantee you LIT would've won more than just what it did. _11_ for ROTK? Gimme a break - that's excessive, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, they were kind of stuck. Having ignored the LOTR movies more than they should've previously, they kind of had to give it a lot this time around. That's okay - Sofia & LIT have won so many awards in so many other awards shows recently, I think everyone knows how fantastic it was. It must suck not to be able to enjoy LIT, but some movies aren't for everyone. Strange that something so many geeks have loved for so long is the more mainstream option, but there ya go. If you look at the all-time box office champ list, you'll note that the vast majority of the top films are sci-fi or fantasy. Strange how the sci-fi/fantasy literature world doesn't get much respect, even though sci-fi/fantasy novels are generally FAR superior to what gets made into movies. I don't consider LOTR to be the height of fantasy literature, though I know many do.

      As for best movie? No _way_ did it deserve that. Even Finding Nemo was better than ROTK, but it got shunted off into another category.
  • by Lebofsky ( 141548 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:14AM (#8426986)
    I mentioned this last time people were celebrating the accumulation of LOTR Oscars, including an Oscar for music. Giving an award to the music once a couple years ago was a big mistake, twice is a horrific joke.

    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

    • by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:44AM (#8427127)
      Yeah, right. You're one of those pretentious "movie soundtrack" guys.

      I heard people humming the Fellowship theme as we came out of the theaters. Same thing happened with the Rohan theme coming out of Two Towers, and the Gondor theme from Return of the King. You're smoking crack. From the Charge of the Rohirrim to the rising crescendo of the lighting of Gondor's beacons to the creeping thing of Gollum, the soundtracks were genius.

      Tell us what exactly was wrong about the "embarrassing use of wood flute?" How pretentious.
  • by Poligraf ( 146965 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:40AM (#8427107)
    It is kind of OT, but I can't help noticing that even Hollywood outsorces A LOT of production.

    LOTR was made in NZ; most of movies and shows that depict Seattle are actually made in Vancouver, BC (for example, Highlander the series). Some others are made in the other parts of Canada.

    I do also know from a struggling animator friend about outsorcing of the cartoon making to South Korea etc.

    American creative workers look more and more like the elves whose power (technological edge ;-) diminishes, and who can't protect their turf against invaders (not that they are orks and goblins or evil).
  • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:05AM (#8427203)
    is how it wasn't even nominated for the category of Documentary Feature I mean just look at the amazing footage they got of all the major figures and major events in the quest to destroy the ring. And how they convinced a camera crew to go along with Sam and Frodo on the trek to Mount Doom incredible. How they can ignore this stunning documentary of one of the most crutial events in the history of Middle Earth and...

    why is everyone looking at me?
  • by brocktune ( 512373 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:12AM (#8427226) Homepage
    I've seen all the nominated films.

    Mystic River and American Splendor were clearly better adaptations than Return. And the Annie Lennox song was crap, and worse, not relevant to the film. The Mighty Wind song, sung on the show in character, was cute, but the Triplets of Belleville theme was the best.

    Master and Commander, Lost in Translation, and Mystic River were all better films than Return. Only Seabiscuit was inferior. Of course the wins for Return were for the whole trilogy. Rings as a whole deserves high praise. Master and Commander is a better action/adventure film than Return. It's also far better than Gladiator, the other Crowe genre film that won Best Picture.

    As an emsemble film, Return neither received nor deserved any acting nominations.

    I'm in complete agreement with the technical awards. Return probably would have won Cinematography if it had been nominated, over the more deserving M&C.

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam