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."
Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
Quickly reading that, I thought it said Gigli, and that I had somehow ended up in Bizarro World.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
Well technically, Gigli did win for all categories it was nominated.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
It did win all the awards it was nominated for elswhere though. [razzies.com]
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:Great (Score:5, Funny)
And then the vomiting began.
*sigh*
-fren
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, we may see now a lot of crappy fantasy movies just riding the wave
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Interesting)
But hey, Ender's Game is on the horizon.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Funny)
Blue Wizard is Dying!
Pale Nerd needs Popcorn!
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, one thing I promise, you will NEVER see Peter Jackson produce anything even close to a 'crappy' movie. The guy is a true genius.
Re:A great day for fantasy (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001392/
Take your pick. Meet the Feebles springs to mind first.
(It's late, didn't feel like HTML'ing on this crap. Sue me or mod me down...just don't take my twinkies.)
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.
This was well deserved! (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:This was well deserved! (Score:5, Interesting)
Note: Ben Hur was nominated for 12, and Titanic was nominated for 14
Retroactive Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retroactive Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retroactive Recognition (Score:5, Interesting)
And here are the two things I had to say when RotK completed its sweep:
"GEEK MOVIES RULE THE UNIVERSE!"
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and with the Oscars bind them!"
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: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: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
Why not cinematography (Score:5, Interesting)
We loves our precious
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: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:Why not cinematography (Score:5, Insightful)
WETA (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yes, Bill Murray should have one for best actor. No doubt.
Re:WETA (Score:5, Insightful)
Loved 'em all, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Ian McKellen Robbed (Score:5, Insightful)
We loves it, oh yes. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Enough About RotK, Bring on The Hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have been nice... (Score:5, Funny)
Best Director (Score:5, Funny)
Yes! I know he was mad at the Academy for overlooking Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive!
"This one goes to 11!" (Score:5, Funny)
Andy Serkis snubbed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shoot, he was the best actor in the lot of them, with the possible exception of Ian McKellan.
Dear Mr. Lucas: (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks,
The Mgmt.
The Hobbit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Hobbit (Score:5, Interesting)
The blame for this one can be laid squarely at the feet of MGM/UA.
Whew (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Geek isn't geek (Score:5, Insightful)
Whither geek?
What would J.R.R. think? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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."
Re:What would J.R.R. think? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
And yet (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Didn't like the LOTR movies. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
It's been a fun ride. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fanboy much (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Fanboy, not so much (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see where Lucas even enters in that line of thinking.
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: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."
Thank Goodness! (Score:5, Funny)
What next? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Best Adapted Screenplay? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Well, okay, but the music still didn't deserve (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Speaking of Outsorcing (Score:5, Interesting)
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
What I can't figgure out (Score:5, Funny)
why is everyone looking at me?
Not deserving of a sweep (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:They didn't win in one category they were in (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:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Great job, PJ & Crew!
Ryan
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm. Hard to think of too many. Many fantasy series are so long its not doable in a single movie, and I don't see too many more multi-parts in the near future.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well i'd be happy with anything that wasn't The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I managed to drag myself all the way through the first trilogy and definitely wasn't impressed, but i gave up half-way through the first book of the second trilogy when it became aparent that it was going to be as lackluster as the first trilogy. Covenant was too whiney and annoying to be a good hero, and too pathetic to be a good anti-hero. Of course the fact that the first thing he does is rape a girl because he can't restrain his "manly urges" didn't really endear him to me.
Mirror of Her Dreams on the other hand was very good, wouldn't mind seeing a movie of that one, although there are other books i would nominate first.
I loves it/hates it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
There's a new Mel Gibson movie everyone's talking about (does mythology count?).
Re:11 Wins (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: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:11 Wins (Score:5, Funny)
So it wasn't all bad.
Re:ROTK was robbed!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Funny)
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:Finally!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
That said a lot of Oscars are political and judged more on the basis of fickle opinions of people with poor taste than anything. Box office gross also plays a disturbingly large role. When you get down to it the Academy Awards are prestigious in name only having long ago lost any actual indication of a film's merit. In Stanley Kubrick's entire career the only Oscar he ever won was for Special Effects on 2001 despite the quality of his films.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got a dozen Charlie Chaplin DVDs, not quite 100 years on but 60-80.
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:Finally!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Best quote of the night (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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: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: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:Posting anonymously (Score:5, Interesting)
You're wrong about how C.Tolkien feels about the movies: I was quoting a story on CNN's "Paul Zahn" show 3 days ago with a Bio on Michael Tolkien. They said there was bad blood and C.Tolkien did not like the movies.
But Tolkien did sell the rights, in the late 60s. He thought it was impossible to make them.
I'm not that much a purist: I would like to see in 20 years an all photorealistic CGI version made in 6 movies, one for each "Book" (each volume is two books), and a more faithful one.
Part of the joy of Tolkien's work is knowing that this river is 20 miles from that hill. Those who have read the books hundreds of times know it that well. (And it has been emboddied in the Tolkien MUCK.) They missed the boat on the magic.
Re:Posting anonymously (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.simontolkien.com/final%20review/prof
"I haven't spoken to my father, except in an annual business-meeting context, for the past four years," he says, as matter-of-factly as possible. "My father is very angry with me - angry to the point that he never wishes to have anything to do with me again.
"He communicates with me now through his lawyer, so I have to live on the basis that he will never speak to me again as long as he lives. He will never see my children. He will never have anything to do with me." He pauses. "And I grew up thinking this was such a wonderful person."
Funny thing is (Score:5, Funny)
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.
The original creator of a story is not always the best one to edit it. I mean, have you never seen anyone create a revised edition of a story that was worse that their original?
(Lucas?)
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for that image that I now have to burn out of my mind, you insensitive clod!
Re:And one naked gold man (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so happy I'm not you.
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: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: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.