Slashdot Mirror
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
E1ven writes "The Lord of The Rings: The fellowship of the ring won four awards, including Cinematography, Makeup, Music (Score), and Visual Effects. "
At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director. They
definitely deserved the ones they got.
A little OT, but...
Next year's Oscars may not have as many other good films. Do you think that the Two Towers is the likely canidate for next years?
Everything is mainstream now.
Congratulations Frodo! Now you are 'pauses' Lord of the Oscars! *sighs* I need a nap.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
uh
Plus, what person would be so insensitive to vote for the best picture for a film entitled The Two Towers in this post 9-11 age? I hope Peter Jackson shows a little sensitivity and changes the name.
good films? the oscars? shake your head Wakka.
case in point : beautiful mind. mediocre film, mediocre acting, best picture oscar.
same old same old.
The two remaining movies? Or is Taco talking about the Blockbuster Awards... *chuckle*
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
One Ring to [win] them all..
slashdot!=valid HTML
Which goes a long way to explain why I don't watch the academy award shows. It's more political and business than what really should be done, but, hey they have to sell advertising time while they pat themselves on their backs, right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, I'll bet they've got two more chances at this one.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
isn't this a little late?
beautiful mind already one the best picture and best director, making a total of four for them too... plus they got the better awards, not just the editing ones.
linkage: the winners and nominees listed here
also, after her proformance last night, halle berry really is an actor...
score -1, troll... sorry, i just hate it when hollywood pats itself on the back for bad jobs.
Runnin' On Empty
Well, my guess is that Two Towers won't be as impressive as Fellowship, because the ground has already been broken. Everyone now knows what Peter Jackson's Middle Earth looks and feels like. The rest of the trilogy, while I'm sure it will be great and I can't wait to see it, just won't have the same power to overawe the viewer.
Unless the sequels strike off into new territory - better special effects, for example - they will be "just sequels". Which is fine by me ... the source material is one huge book, and I want to eventually watch a 9-hour LOTR marathon and see it as one huge movie ... but not so fine for continued Academy Awards.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
In the UK our favourite film won 5 baftas (UK version of the Oscars) including Best Film and Best Director. See the BBC [news.bbc.co.uk] website for more info. My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives? Post-Sept-11 nationalism? Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?
"My word is my bond" - Cugel the Clever Jack Vance
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? Sure, it was certainly the most popular on /., but it would have been nice if you had said something like "A Beautiful Mind got the awards for best picture and best director." I dare say that A Beautiful Mind is also a film that alot of nerds found good. I mean, the movie is about a mathemetician who wins the nobel prize for pete's sake. And there were loads of other movies that the /. crowd really seemed to like as well.
This will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
Did the Academy even see LotR? The guy's a genius...he's exactly how I imagined Gandalf to be.
But it's all politics, I guess...hated, hated politics.
I close this post with these words of Sir Alec Issigonis that sum up the Ocsars as a whole: "A camel is a horse designed by committee."
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
I know it's proably my Geekness talking but I think LOTR was a much better picture then the Best Picture winner last night.
Of course I'm strange as hell. I mean I enjoy watching digimon.. (Tamers is the best season so far)
You have to love the state that this world is when the biggest news of the day is which movie got an award. There has to be more important things that happen then an award show which for me personly has one maybe two movies that I have seen or have enev thought about seeing. Here in Ontario, Canada the premier of our province is retiring and his party just elected a new leader over the weekend. And just looking at the front page of todays paper, grant not a indepth look but all I saw was a big head line about some record at for the award show.
When I look at the newpaper I want had happened in the world over the past day or so that I didn't catch on the radio.
We as a society need to get our priorities start on what is important in the world. Yes is good to know that LOTR:FOTR won 4 awards which they desevered but that information should be in the entertantment section where it belongs, not the front page where important news should be.
Forever live the fighters!
annie hall (woody allen) was a great comedy. the problem lies in the fact that comedies these days are mostly slapstick and rather cheap humor; when a good comedy comes out such as annie hall the acedemy considers plenty...
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director.
As far as the Academy is concerned the two other movies are just sequels and should not deserve more credit. Face it, unless they consider Sam a retard or re-shoot the scenes to let Russel Crow play someone they're not getting best picture.I truly believe LOTR should have won best picture. If you look at the history of the Oscars the film that got the most nominations always won best picture if it was nominated for that category. Yet no science fiction/fantasy movie has ever won either. I agree with one of the postings earlier that it's political. People can't seem to think of this genre of having any seriousness. I don't think they realize it's this type of movie/writing that keeps alive the myths, traditions, and legends.
The general public should read The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell just to see what is being saved.
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
The oscars have never been about the best films. From day 1 (back in 1927), they were all about hollywood patting itself on the back.
It was started by film and production executives, is chaired today by the same types of people. The only way to even get involved in the voting for the oscars is to be invited to join the Academy by the Board of Governers and is limited to 'those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures'. A link with the brief history is here.
You'll never see a movie like LotR take top honours, now or ever, for a very good reason. It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.
To sum up: the Oscars are of the hollywood crowd, for the hollywood crowd, by the hollywood crowd. This is why I never watch awards shows.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
I'm going to stray away from the usual soft and hardware conversation, and point out that for the first time in 74 years, a black actress, took the oscar home for best actress in a lead role. A BARRIER THAT MUCH NEEDED TO BE BROKE DOWN.
Plus, what person would be so insensitive to vote for the best picture for a film entitled The Two Towers in this post 9-11 age? I hope Peter Jackson shows a little sensitivity and changes the name.
"9-11" should get the same treatment that "Nazi" gets on Usenet.
"Won't get trolled again", with apologies to The Who.
What were the skies like when you were young?
It's too bad Gandalf, I mean McKellen, didn't get an Oscar. (It's been said before, but here we go) He sure did a great job as leading actor.
(Beacuse, admit it, if FOTR has a leading character, it is Gandalf)
Denzel deserves his Oscar, though.
No sig to see here. Move along.
My entire apartment (not to mention most of the folks I know) is in an uproar over the academy's choices last night. LOTR rightfully deserved Best Picture, as well as best editing and best supporting actor (Gandolf). Perhaps this upset, more than anything else, will further support the "other" award events. I know it has for me, I have lost faith in the academy and their ability to spotlight the best of the best.
While I 100% agree that fantasy movies aren't 'serious enough' for the navel-contemplating academy, it stands to reason that a movie that is essentially 1 giant movie released in 3 parts (unlike, frex Star Wars or Jaws, where the sequels were rationalized appendices to the original movie) would not seriously come up for consideration until all 3 were out.
Yeah, it's not really fair but it makes a *kind* of sense.
Plus it's 99% who slept with whom. Shakespeare in Love won best pic over Saving Private Ryan, remember.
-Styopa
I figure that the academy is just waiting... They know that there are two more movies to go, with the final installment (hopefully) going to blow everything away when it is released. I would be happier if they clean up the awards that year rather than be ignored merely because they won it this year.
I know that movies should be judged in the Oscar season that they were made, but since when did the academy play fair?
This movie was as bad as the books.
I am into the copy and paste.
Was I the only one who actually became bored watching this film due to the intense CGI overload ? Don't get me wrong, I love a good CGI fest, but there is a level where enough is enough (Starship Troopers is probably the best usage of CGI in my opinion). Also, this is obviously a film in which CGI must play a great part to "capture" the feeling of the book, but I felt like I was being pounded by Maya (or whatever it was, I am not cluebie enough on CGI) for three hours. Where do we draw the line ?
What were the skies like when you were young?
Hear Hear! Of all the movies over the past year, LOTR had **by far** the most substance (costumes, set design, effects, atmosphere, actors -- not just a few scenes in downtown LA or in some dark studio). But yet it was not created for film, it was an ADAPTATION! If that doesn't count for something towards Best Picture, then I don't know what does. And heck, they didn't even win for the best screenplay adaptation.
If this isn't Hollywood bias and ignorance, I don't know what is.
When you take into account the scope and work that Peter Jackson did, I don't see how he could not be voted best director.
He shot three films at the same time. Never Been Done Before.
He directed scenes in remote locations. Remote meaning remote from him. While he was directing local scenes. Never Been Done Before.
He created a beautiful work on screen of a masterpiece of fiction that most directors wouldn't even have the gonads to try. I don't agree with all his choices, but I respect them (well, not the Arwen character.)
While Ron Howard is a good director, and A Beautiful Mind was a nice film. Peter did so MUCH MORE and did it well that he deserves Best Director.
Now, as for Best Film. That is still a matter of taste. My movie choice wasn't even nominated.
Sorry, guys, but no way in hell was LOTR:FOTR the best picture of 2001. I saw 5 films in 2001: Shrek, Amelie, LOTR, Waking Life, and The Royal Tenenbaums. LOTR wasn't even the third best film out of that limited selection.
I like Peter Jackson, too (Meet the Feebles is something else) but he wasn't the best director of the year, either.
And now, even though it has nothing to do with LOTR, I would like to once again razz the Oscars for not even nominating Waking Life for best animated film, instead picking 2 blockbusters (Shrek, Monsters Inc.) and a glorified Nickelodeon pilot (Jimmy Neutron).
Of course, this is to be expected - the Oscars are a crock of shit anyhow. Figure skating is a more objective contest with less corrupt judging. Basically, the winner in each category is decided by bloc voting and horse-trading by the studios who control the bulk of academy members - so says a former professor of mine who's a member of the academy and actually has an Oscar under his belt, whom I'm inclined to believe. Most Oscar voters haven't even seen all the films in the categories for which they're voting - there's just too damn many films up for consideration for anyone to watch and still have time to do anything else.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The Oscars have worse judging than NBA referees, in terms of "make-up calls". The only reason Russel Crowe won last year was because people felt he should have won for LA Confidential. His acting was nothing phenominal.
This year's prime example is Randy Neuman (sp?) winning for best song for that Monsters Inc tune. That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs. But the dear old Oscars club wasn't going to let him go 0 for 16. The LOTR Enya song was by far the best, even my wife agreed!
It's all a sham and show put on for the drooling masses who get to see their movie star idols act like their not assholes. I'm surprised Russel Crowe didn't bite a chunk out of Whoopi's neck when she cracked on him.
Pay no attention to these awards. George C. Scott was the only smart one in the bunch. He wasn't even there when he won best actor for Patton. He was home watching hockey. He believed that these "competitions" spoiled the quality of films, making them pander to the masses instead of trying to raise intellectual and artistic bars.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
What does it really matter if LOTR won or was nominatied for a dozen oscars or zero? Does this affect your enjoyment of the movie or the story any more or less? The quality of the resulting movie has zero affect on how non-scifi/fantasy fans view this class of story. They just see it as a good movie.
It's only karma, so no biggie.
Why would a site that is so anti-MPAA give a hairy orcs ass what the MPAA thinks of a movie? The whole Oscars/Grammys/Emmys/Tonys thing is nothing more than a studio circle-jerk, and the People's Choice voting is simply the public regurgetating what they're told to like.
Excellent movies come out every year that kick major ASS on whatever winner is given the Oscar ("Gladiator"/"CTHD" comes to mind), and many of them aren't even nominated.
For the love of god, he's got a link to adequacy in his sig.
--Chag
"The Lord of The Rings: The fellowship of the ring won four awards, including Cinematography, Makeup, Music (Score), and Visual Effects. "
In other words, it won all the meaningless ones. Sure, they're nice but does anyone actually remember who won any of those awards last year? 5 years ago? And it isn't like they are going to put that on any of the DVD boxes. FOTR was just a good fantasy movie and there is no way they could get around that.
Of course it wasn't like they came even close to choosing the best nominees. Denzel, in Training Day? Penn in I am Sam? WTF! They aren't even pretending to nominate favorite sons for good movies anymore (although their acting was suspect at least when Sean Connery and Burt Reynolds won they were for two good films). And don't get me started on the sham of a remake that was A Beautiful Mind (let's just say I know there is a special place in Hell for Opie now).
The Oscars are a sham. Does anyone remember Forrest Gump anymore? And what lost to it: Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, and Hoop Dreams.
What didn't get nominated this year for best picture or directing? Memento, Bully, Chopper, Ghost World, Monster's Ball, Mulholland Drive, Sexy Beast, Faithless... on and on. Any of which are deeper, more stylistic, more satisfying, and infinitely more memorable than any of the crappola that won or was nominated.
In truth they never meant anything. On the Waterfront lost and from that point on the Academy has been living a lie ever since.
Ok, that's it. I'm done.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Are they still giving those out? I thought it ended
when both Raging Bull and Elephant Man
lost to Ordinary People and everyone realized
what a joke it was.
* Give Frodo a incurable disease;
* Have Gandalf take a shot to the head and be mentally impaired for the next two movies;
* Arwen's role in Two Towers should be to sleep with some Orc played by Billy Bob Thorton;
* Sam gets Rain Man autism;
* Strider overcomes his disabilities and is able to kill Orcs using only his left foot;
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Do you remember when ET got the oscar?
no? really? why?
IT DIDN'T GET ONE!
the academy wouldn't know a good movie
if it smacked them with a large trout.
At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director. They definitely deserved the ones they got.
See, right there, that was the attitude of the members of the academy. Jackson has got two other chances for oscars, so no need to give it to him now. Totally moronic and makes the oscars even more illrelevant to me.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
LOTR, in my opinion, was not even close to being the best picture. I ever thought, even for a second that it had a chance. It's simply not that good. Try to view it without your Tolkien loving eyes for a second and view it as a stand alone movie, with no ties to your childhood or other memories.
It really was not that good. As I said, in my opinion. Not saying Beautiful Mind was the best picture, I didn't see every movie last year, but it was certainly better than LOTR.
What could be more serious than a film based on a book whose central theme is the nature of evil and the corruptibility of people? Post 9-11, what better to celebrate than the courage of ordinary people in extraordinary situations? In response to epic events, what kind of story should people turn to but an epic?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Sure the LOTR people deserved the awards they got. The visual effects and all that stuff was awesome..
But some of you are complaining over the fact that they did not win best picture or best director, and have all kinds of exuses for it. "Fantasy films will never win because they are not considered serious enough" etc.
Am I the only one here that thought that the movie was actually pretty weak? If I had not already read the books I wouldn't have had a clue to what was going on. You would need to make 3 movies out of each book to be able to cram enoug detail and background material in there to tell the whole story.
Who was it that said the LOTR story is not filmamble? Spielberg? Lucas?
I think that whoever it was, they were right.
.sig? Get your own damn
Uma Thurman's breasts. Yowza! Where's she been hiding those???
*Note: I realize that she just had a child and that they are artificially milk-inflated, to which I state: Who cares? Yowza, again!
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
I was pretty sure LotR wasn't going to win best picture and even though I though Jackson deserved Director, I knew the Academy in all its wisdom would snub him. But not giving LotR best screenplay adaption is just a travesty. The books are so massive and detailed that its a wonder that this film did such a magnificant job bringing them to the screen.
The only thing I can say is that most of the Academy knows nothing of the original books, their scope and the difficulty involved in adapting them to the screen. How many of the Academy do you think actually read the books?
For that matter, how many in the Academy do you think can actually read?
Matthew
Why do we give a damn about the Oscars? This is simply the fscking Hollywood types patting themselves on the back.
These are the guys who are pushing the abomination of CBDTPA.
These assholes have an overinflated sense of their own importance. I mean, they essentially shut down Hollywood Blvd for a week before hand. A fscking week!
Do we really care about these jerks?
P.S. Since I didn't watch, did Valenti make a Grammy-ish "Evils of Piracy" speech?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Let's not forget the Matrix sequel as well. It's going to be a three-way battle in the visual effects categories.
:-\
And I thought this year's battle with Moulin Rouge was lousy.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
I have to agree completely. LOTER was sure a fun watch but deserving of best picture it was not. Neither was A Beautiful Mind which is as based on a true story as LOTR is. What the hell happened to films like Amelie or Mullholland Drive (the latter which was only nominated for ONE Oscar)?
Did Redford in his speech almost say something about the current dcma, legislation?
Derek
IMO, Moulin Rouge should have gotten the Oscar for "Best Cinematography". There was some good work in LOTR, but I thought the cinematography in MR was simply stunning. Of course, I also think that Ewan Mcgregor should have gotten the nod for Best Actor, but he wasn't even nominated.
And yes, LOTR *did* deserve to win for Best Picture. However, the Academy is generally biased towards adult dramas, so it's not terribly surprising that they shafted LOTR.
---
It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time!
Sure, it was certainly the most popular on /., but it would have been nice if you had said something like "A Beautiful Mind got the awards for best picture and best director."
/. crowd really seemed to like as well.
That sort of general news is available at dozens of other places like CNN.com or MSNBC.com. Slashdot is "News for Nerds."
I dare say that A Beautiful Mind is also a film that alot of nerds found good. I mean, the movie is about a mathemetician who wins the nobel prize for pete's sake. And there were loads of other movies that the
It's about more than just liking movies. The LotR books introduced the whole fantasy genre; its author has reached mythical proportions comparable to those he wrote about. And the film has done justice to the epic. The LoTR events--the books and the film--are milestones that deserve recognition.
The coolest voice ever.
Once again the standard three-act schmaltz piece came out on top thanks to Hollywood's belief that awarding a ham-fisted, sledgehammer approach to a sensitive issue will sell more advertising space.
Then again, they never claimed to do anything else, so why complain.
I am a Karma Library.
As far as precedent dictates, The Two Towers and The Return of the King are just as eligible for Oscars as The Fellowship of the Ring.
Take Star Wars for example. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both sequels to A New Hope, but both ESB and RotJ won awards, even after ANH won 6 Oscars.
I'm sure there are other examples as well, but this was the first one that came to mind.
Furthermore, IMHO, "Towers" and "Return" have a greater potential of being recognized, simply because the story was just getting started with "Fellowship". The next two will hopefully be even better than the first.
Don't give up hope!
I don't understand how an award ceremony where the winners are decided by politicking counts as either "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that Matters."
It's nothing more than a semi-fixed election, or if you prefer, a professional wrestling match, where the outcome is already known by those involved, and the actors just have to increase the drama for the viewing public, to keep the ratings up.
For those who watched. Did anyone else want to reach inside their TV and smack Halle Berry, not just for completely losing it, but for thanking her lawyer.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Ok, so maybe LOTR was not the most serious film made this year. Maybe it wasn't filled with insight into the human condition. Maybe it was lacking any serious theme or philosophy. Maybe it didn't push the boundaries of art or inspire the audience to think. I'll buy that. But so what? It was just trying to entertain, and it did a good job of it. Why is that wrong? Let's lighten up. It's basically a kids movie, and one of the best ones in years. It deserved to win.
It seems a lot like the US are trying to save their children from dangerous foreign thoughts. Or is this just the usual free trade^W^WAmerican protectionism?
Shut the fcsk up.
they've decided to destroy the post office. Well, it might make the front pages of *some* of the papers I guess (but be less important than hally berry sobbing).
Now go read Nasar's book and the screenplay that came from it, actually have some basis with to judge which is better.
Personally I didn't like Nasar's book at all and claims of "whispering campaign" aside thought that the film really did ignore the some relevant but uncomfortable bits about Nash's life. However honesty aside given what the book offered the screenplay did a marvelous job of bringing the characters to life in a 2 hour visual medium.
Better the LOTR/FOTR? For a screenplay adaption: Yes. Tolkien's source material is much richer, more visual, already plotted. Then it's more a case of condensing then actually rewriting and creating anew.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I humbly suggest that you check out keepersoflists.org for some funny on the subject of the oscars.
I am simply a servant of this humble order.
"The Madness of Richard III (British film) was renamed (without the III) in American cinemas because audiences believed it was a follow-up to Madness of Richard II which they obviously hadn't seen."
Wrong on two counts:
1. It was George III, not Richard III
2. Americans traditionally refer to George III as "King George" because Georges I and II didn't fsck up relationships with the colonies. (IMHO, the Declaration of Independence reads as a "Dear John" letter; they point out exactly what George kept on doing wrong despite all attempts to accommodate him. It's a masterpiece of restraint; and I speak as a Brit here.)
The Academy Awards have very little to do with the quality of the motion pictures this year, or the esteem in which they are held by the movie-going public. In the depths of their political pandering they have become entirely irrelevant.
I loved LOTR:FOTR as much as anyone else here, but even out of the nomminees it wasn't the best movie. As many have said, the oscars are nothing if not a giant marketing campaign, and A Beautiful Mind does not deserve Best anything, but if anything "In the Bedroom" deserved every one of those rewards. The sheer emotional weight of that movie made it one of if not THE best movies of all time. The charecters were so real that some scenes in the movie almost physically hurt, and while the ability to scale down LOTR to a movie is impressive, the ability to make charecters that seem, not "Well written" but REAL is a True talent not often seen in writers, let alone Hollywood movies.
This is not a sig
... the Best Investment Oscar?
Or is that the Meta-Oscar anyway?
I liked the LOTR, but I love to see Jacky Chan movies also, so that doesn't count too much.
Where is Amelie, where are all the good films done outside Hollywood?
A show of self-applauding with glycerin tears.
But why not? Have seen worse movies and shows during the last 12 months. Still shuddering from Bin Laden's "Lord of The Holy War".
Wow, check this out. As of right now, about 30% of voters are surprised (and probably a bit upset) of "Fellowship of the Ring being largely shunned".
Maybe Slashdot should start giving out awards. How about little golden statuettes of CowboyNeal? I can't imagine anybody who wouldn't want one of those.
(Plus, I doubted Jackson had a chance against Howard, that was nearly a shoe-in for him. And I suspect that because they 'had' to give ABM the top nod given that they were unable to give the Best Actor nod to Russell Crowe (with Denzel in the competition), and that might have made up for it).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
How about a new category for LOTR so I can ignore it?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
"A beutiful mind" is a movie based on a anti-semetic book, and the film retains lots of the anti-semetic elements. Israel and Great Briton and Japan are our only somewhat-powerful allys, and it would be STUPID to loose Israel in such a strategical position.
/. are not nerds.
With websites all over claiming that Israel is terrorizing the palestinians, and the media against Israel (I bet you never heard Arafat is recieving money from the EU, and then gives it to his terrorist networks...).
A lot of nerds liked it? Get a life! Lots of folks on
This will probably get moderated down even though it has sense, contrary to the parent post.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Did anyone else think that the direction for this year's show was horrible?
I only watched them for an hour or so, but in that hour I saw so many cheesy pans, misplaced shots, and missed action. They gave a humanitarian award to the guy directing the show, but it seemed to me that he was doing a horrible job.
Why is it that the academy loves movies about the mentally ill/challenged? For example Rain Man, Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind. I'm sure there are others but those pop to mind first.
Perhaps it is a difficult role to play? I'm not sure, but it seems like a disproprotionate number of these sorts of movies make it to the oscars?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
many of the critics claim that the fellowship of the rings lacks a strong central character which is why it is not deserving of an oscar. obviously these critics have never read the trilogy for in the book there is no one central character. Just when we think that Frodo is the most important fellow, Sam shines through. The same thing will occur in the two towers, there will be no one central character, and the idiots will bitch. But who cares, Peter Jackson accomplished exactly what he had set out to do and I must say that it couldnt really have been any better, short of extending it by another 2hours as to include the book in its entirety. The two towers will be fantastic, there is no doubt about that. I cant wait to see Shelob, I am willing to bet that she will put the Balrog to shame. But oscar? I dont think so. Lets not forget that the Academy voters are probably the ones who think that AOL is the internet and that Windows 98 is their processor. It's ok for us to be elitist, we are much smarter afterall.
Seriously, Memento has the best written screenplay that I've ever seen. The only to truly simulate Leonard's condition was to write the movie backwards. Well, they did it, and it works! That achievement alone is worth an Oscar.
Will win the honors for Best Picture and then Frodo and SamWise will get best actor and best supporting. As is the case in the Oscars it is not just about what was done this year...but can also recognize a high level of work over a few if not several.
When it is all said and done the three movies that will make up LOTR will be the greatest cinematic recreation of one of literatures greatest stories. It will overtake the violent, bloddy story of a ruthless criminal family (Godfather I,II and III) as the best series of films. LOTR will win more Oscars than any other series when it's all said and done.
The Fellowship was really a great movie it's only going to get better because the story gets so much better.....
Someone just told me Ian McKellen is a homosexual. Is that true? I really hope it's just a misunderstanding because I really liked him as an actor before I learned that. After I learned Tom Cruise was gay AND a scientologist I never was able to watch Top Gun again! :-(
Of course I didn't pay. That's what a grappling hook thrown onto the roof of the movie theater and then smashing the solar panel on the roof while simultaneously dropping a few capsules of sleeping gas down at the ushers takes care of.
;-)
:: Got Mono?
It was a great film, but the snoring started to get a little annoying after awhile
m o n o l i n u x
The only reason I cared about the Oscars was the hope that the post-Oscar surge in attendence for nominated movies might finally push LoTR past Harry Potter for the highest grossing movie of 2001. Harry's almost out on video, and LotR is only $15 million behind ($300M vs $315). Not that I really have anything against Harry, it just wasn't anywhere near the movie that LotR was. I do need to see A Beautiful Mind, tho.
Don't be a git. Of course LOTR was the best film. I've awarded it an honorary Oscar myself and that's good enough for me. As to why Hollywood doesn't agree - I blame the stonecutters.
Is it any coincidence that LoTR is only one letter away from being able to spell 'troll'?
Once again the Academy has taken the safe route and selected the movie that followes the tried (even tired) and true path of portraying someone with a handicap (mental or physical)overcoming all odds and being successful as a means of achieving oscar gold. (Hey maybe there's an oscar winning movie in that concept, making a movie of making a movie of a handicap person overcoming long odds to be successful). I can't help but wonder if 5 years from now we will all be saying "A Beautiful what?" (Anyone even remember "Shakespere in Love"?).
For once I'd love to see the Academy recognize a picture that took a chance and broke new ground. Both LoTR or Moulin Rouge would have been better choices in my opinion.
Well if it any consolation for all my fellow LoTR geeks out there, the LoTR trilogy will long be a classic when "A Beautiful Mind" will just be a footnote in movie making history.
The Oscars are awarded by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) NOT the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
Unlike the Grammy's where we got rewarded for watching the music industries love-fest with a harangue about piracy, the only appearance by MPAA President Jack Valenti was him talking about his favourite film during one of the documentary clips at the beginning of the show.
AMPAS is made up not just of studio executives but also of the artists (actors directors cinematographers, makeup, etc.) themselves. If you think that the rantings on SlashDot against the RIAA and MPAA are meant to imply that artists don't deserve recognition or compensation for their work, then you haven't been paying attention. The MPAA and RIAA like to imply that they are standing up for the rights of artists by crushing fair-use rights, when in actuallity they have traditionally fought against artists rights since payments to artists are just another drain on their profits.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
About people and places that didn't exist, don't exist, and will never exist. Doing things that have no relevance to our reality. If that is modern American "literature" it explains much about the condition of modern America.
Good films? Crazy, The Oscars has been degraded into an award for
mediocrity, were any of the movies nominated this year that great? No, the
were just put out by rich producers. Just look at that animation category,
Final Fantasy or Waking Life not even nominated over Jimmy Neutron? Right.
We haven't had a Great year for movies since 99.
If you want to watch a good film from last year, try these that were
neglected by the Oscars(some are not out in video yet):
Ghost World
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Royal TenenbaumsMetropolis (US Release)
The Dish
Unfortunately, the likelyhood of Two Towers getting a Best Picture nomination is slim to none. The original Star Wars was nominated for best picture and lost (to Annie Hall no less). Empire, which is leaps and bounds better than A New Hope, wasn't even nominated. In fact, A New Hope was considered to be sappy, un-artistic commercial drivel aimed at kids and therefore ultimately of no consequence other than a slick looking marketing tool for selling action figures. Annie Hall was more artistic. Fast forward 25 years. Star Wars is responsible for influencing American culture more than any other movie ever made and, IMHO, ultimately a more valuable and important movie than Annie Hall could ever have been. Why was Annie Hall picked then? Because even though everything in Empire was better it was viewed as simply "more of the same". The Tow Towers will be viewed with the "been there, done that" attitude. The problem lies in the basic philosophy of the people that make up the Academy, who, like all celebrities, are obssesed with themselves and their own superiority. Their definition of Best Picture is only refers to the ethereal artisitc qualities rather than the overwhelming impossibility of making a movie like LOTR and succeeding. Oh well. In twenty five years when nobody remembers what in the hell A Beautiful Mind was about but we are all watching the LOTR trilogy with our grand kids with nostalgic tears in our eyes, we will all know what really was the best picture.
Sorry if the logic doesn't work out.
Speaking of Shelob... I wonder if they will keep the distinctive split of books 3 and 4 in the two towers.. you know, the whole ent's thing in one book, with no mention of sam & frodo.. and then the next book being JUST sam & frodo w/ the whole minas morgul and shelob thing..
Or do you think that for the sake of the movie they will mix it up a bit, so we see both concurrently?
I'm just pleased to see a major motion picture fantasy epic (if not THE fantasy epic) done with enough quality to get nominated for serveral categories. And, perhapse, even the fact that it WAS nominated at all. Awards are just a bonus for those who received them.
Thinking is hard. So they avoid it.
The sexual images in Amelie, regardless of their context, absolutely insured it could only get an R rating. Old blue haired women and efeminate aged men cry and lament the death of movies like State Fair that the children would flock to. To this end, they have been given the ability to "rate" films and determine whether people they don't know are fit to see them. The studios kinda have to tolerate it, as without this sort of agreement, the puritans of small towns would certainly sue the studios for violating local standards at the behest of some child molesting minister. It's stupid, it's wrong, but it's pragmatic. It solves the problem in a way that the stupid deny themselves exposure to interesting things.
Hell, I know where I see movies, the ratings aren't a factor at all. Paying doesn't even seem to be much of a factor. I've seen groups of a dozen or so kids "sneak" into movies. But "sneak" is something of a misnomer, since they are so blatant. Theaters don't seem to care if people even pay, I doubt they are checking ids.
But crap like this comes from the political struggle in america where the poorer, and land owning people of the midwest have disproportunate power to that of the richer, more liberal people in the cities. The poorer, more religious, people seem to eschew personal responsability in favor of a "smaller government" that's big enough to make sure that everyone isn't thinking impure thoughts.
Personally, I think God doesn't like hypocrisy so he sends tornados to destroy their trailers.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
This is a public service announcement ... WITH GUITARS!
I personally think that it would leave a far greater cliff hanger to see frodo being carried away by the orcs and gandalf riding away with pippin while the nazgul follows. I have heard rumors that Shelob wont even be seen until the beginning of the return of the king. I also hope that pippin does not remain a slack jawed screwup through out the rest of the films. I can just picture his battle victories occuring accidently by him falling over a rock or something.
I dont believe it! Was it only me who found the score of LOTR overbearing, with inappropriate emphasis? I thought it was the worst thing about the movie and other people I spoke to agreed...
You want a good score? How bout last year's Couching Tiger, or this year, Mulholland Drive? Badalamente's music was the main source of tension in the whole first half of the film. These were noticably incredible scores. The LOTR score was yet another swooping orchestra.
-Baz (feeling tired and opinionated today)
Face it, as long as a movie involves some form of mental illness it's virtually a lock. How else to explain "A Beautiful Mind" winning over the most popular fantasy/fairy-tale turned extraordinary movie ever?
The thing that gets me is that in two years very few people will rememember ABM, but LOTR will be still be part of pop culture (and not just because there are two more movies in the shoot).
As soon as I saw the big ol' crowd of movie people, with the grand poobah officiating the ceremony to tell them which of them were the finest, most respectable of their bunch, I thought of a giant hobbit party.
Your
In my opinion, its as good as starwars once was.
LOTR however I dont think should have gotten that away for best makeup and visual effects, Spider man the movie has the best visual effects Ive seen done.
LOTR however does deserve those other awards, Its one of the best movies of the year, its the best directed movie of the year so far, Its a really good movie.
Next year, I predict winners will be the Matrix and Terminator 3.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I agree it's hard to separate out my attachment to the book from my reaction to the movie. I think it's hard for anyone to separate out their feelings, positive or negative, for the book or even the entire genre from the movie. I don't think it is impossible. As much as I love the Harry Potter books, as faithful to the book as the movie was, I'm very aware that the movie itself was mediocre. Despite having found the movie fun, I doubt I'll rent or buy the movie on DVD. On the other hand I will almost certainly buy FotR when it comes out on DVD.
I haven't read the LotR trilogy probably in twenty years. When I was "into" them, they were kind of an elaborate alternate universe I could escape into. I expected to enjoy seeing as much of this brought to the screen as was possible, and I was not disappointed. However, I had another reaction to the movie that I had not expected, which catharsis. As much as I enjoyed reading and rereading the books, they never really engaged me on an emotional level before.
I think that because the movie can distill a lot of the details into visuals, the storyof the trilogy is stripped of many accretions and its heart laid bare, much to its improvement. Personally, I have always disagreed with the LotR fans that dismiss "The Hobbit" as "Just a Fairy Tale". I find the very idea you can denigrate a work by putting in the same category as "The Snow Queen" or "The Glass Coffin" absurd. I always preferred "The Hobbit" because it was a fair tale, and like all fairy tales it is about the possibilities of the extraordinary in ordinary people. The film very skillfully, in my opinion, shows how the trilogy is really of the same material.
Many people have greatly enjoyed this film, ordinary moviegoers and critics alike, who probably would never get through the first few chapters of the trilogy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Peter Jackson has said he intends to mix it up and split TTT to show the 3 stories equally, and not how the book was.
That was one of the main things talked about in discussing A Beautiful Mind. It was definitely a challenge (though I don't necessarily think it was successfully pulled off) to rewrite the story to concentrate less on the mathematical specifics of the main character's abilities and more on the general storyline he goes through.
It was only because of Ron Howard's previous record in directing that the film even got the greenlight (Imagine trying to sell: A romance/man-against-himself story with a mathematician as the hero!)
"one dimensional script (basically just the book)." thats like saying a movie adaptation of gone with the wind, or war and peach was just one dimensional, it was just, you know, the book thats all!! DUHHHHH, could you try to hide your bias even a bit better???
my precioussss is lost, it is. ...
Nasty Opie takeses it.
Gollum will have his sweet revenge, yes preciousssss, next year preciousss will be mine again
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
So to see it win best music goes to show the Academy doesn't know what they are talking about. At least John Williams didn't win either (another overrated film score hack if there ever was one).
- Lebofsky - www.lebofsky.com
I apologize if this is redundant b/c I am at work and don't have time to look at all the comments but I really don't think LOTR ever stood a chance.
Fantasy/Sci-Fi is really a niche market, and even though it sometimes has a rabid fan base(ie: Star Wars) the movies generally lack mainstream appeal due to the stigma they bear(ie: sci-fi/fantasy is geeky). I haven't seen any of the other movies FOTR was up against so I can't comment on whether it deserved the award or not. I'm just saying that it (and the the sequels) have virtually no chance of getting top-dog honors, simply b/c of the genre
Eeaasy, dude.
Agree wif your comments, but no need to revel in simple folk's misfortune, hey?
Its good to see Peter Jackson and the New Zealand film industry finally getting a littre more acceptance. New Zealand is making some great films (admitidly in this case with America's money) and im glad we can share them with the rest of the world. Other recent good New Zealand films are Rain, Snakeskin and Vertical Limit
What did piss me off was the introduction of the Best Animated Film award. This just gives the jury a reason to ignore animated films when looking at Best Film. Shrek and Monsters Inc were both good enough to be nominated for Best Film but instead are pushed in the ghetto of "specialist" categories.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
In "A Beautibul Mind", the lead character imagines a different reality where he's saving our country. All of us Slashdotters can just as easily collectively imagine that LotR won best film, actors, and supporting actors last night. Hopefully, no one out there will try to give us shock therapy to correct our illness.
this sourkrout guy is so annoying
The zealot support LOTR receives in some fronts makes me applaud the decission to give it only minor Oscars.
The acting got lost in the efects, and as a Fantasy or action movie is in the same league with many others. So what is so grandiose about this particular movie?
Is nicely done, a good movie, but to compare it to truly masterpieces is a bit gross honestly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think LOTR was the best picture of 2001. But even if the other two movies in the series are better (which they probably won't because after reading the books, I think the FOTR is the best as far as plot goes), there's no way they'll give the Oscar for best Picture to a sequel. Maybe at the end of the series though, they'll give an Oscar to the entire triology. That's not possible, but maybe they'll give a special award to Jackson for making such a great trilogy.
You saw only FIVE films in an entire year, and feel qualified to judge what the Best Picture was??!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Meesa thinks yousa confusin' him whit Pip-Pip Binks!
I don't know the specifics, but the DVD version of the film supposedly will have an added 40 minutes of deleted footage put back into the movie (not added in as a 'deleted scenes feature', but actually incorporated into the film itself). So hang in there. Honestly, I'm not sure the film would have been better had they made it even 10 minutes longer for the theatrical release.
And there were several scenes that didn't pass the chuckle test: "I'm trying to help you."
Play Command HQ online
That was rings best shot one of the "major" awards.
It unfolded exactly as I expected.
LOR picked up a clutch of technical awards.
First off, Oscars is not about just being the best.
There is politics and a lot of other nonsense.
How many times do great films and performances get
passed over only to reward those involved at a later date for lesser works performances?
More often than not.
The Oscar motto should be:
"Later, Dude"
Even though the fogeys who vote on Rings may
have loved it, they have a hard time thinking
of it as important enough to honour with the
serious awards.
It's the same with the Book.
You have your critics like Edmund Wilson (despised the Books ) who had a brilliant intellect but a pedestrian imagination.
Then you have poets like W. H Auden who loved the
Rings.
to get into the other thing is why should the film be different from the book?
Loved beyond all others, yet never respected
officially".
A Beautiful Mind is a great movie but we have seen it's like before countless times.
The LOR was something different and represents
an unparalled acheivement in film making.
The second thing is that there are two kinds of
people: those who have seen the light of the two
trees and those who haven't.
Most people have pedestrian minds and don't have
the imagination to appreciate the LOR.
Fear not, Oscar may yet give LOR movies their due.
In the meantime it has triumped beyond all hope
at the boxoffice.
My hope is that as Galadriel states in the
prolouge:
But in the end the power of the One Ring could not be undone.
Well, most of the people in the academy aren't celebrities. My college writing professor is in the academy, for example, and he is anything but a celebrity. He has a co-writing credit on one movie from the mid nineties, and that was enough toget him in. Lots of costume designers, sound editors and the like are also members. It's not all actors and directors.
I think the main problem with a movie like LOTR or SW winning is that people basically vote for what they like, and who they like. Most of the people in the academy probably aren't geeks, so SW and LOTR, while they probably liked them, didn't really grab them. Also, there is a huge impetus to vote for people who "deserve it" after a career... Like Denzel winning for Training Day when he didn't win for Philidelphia, Malcom X or Hurricane.
Quite frankly, despite the youthful enthusiasm of many a slashdotter for this yarn, The Lord of the Rings is a very minor work in the history of literature, and a movie based on it can't deserve more than what it got: just a few technical awards.
There was no way whatsoever this movie can stand its ground against any of its competitors for the top awards, as we have so clearly seen.
Next year's Oscars may not have as many other good films. Do you think that the Two Towers is the likely canidate for next years?
Doesn't matter. It has zero chance of winning; science fiction/fantasy films never win for best picture. Ever.
obviously these critics have never read the trilogy for in the book there is no one central character.
;)
Why do you have to read the books to critique the films? It would seem to be a failing in the movie, if you had to read the source material to understand it. That said, I've never read the books (beyond the Hobbit in elementary school) and I really enjoyed LOTR - thought it was great. Maybe I don't get every little thing, but I was never confused about the story. I never even got up to use the bathroom, and that's the mark of an entertaining movie as far as I'm concerned,especially if it's 3 hours plus.
It's ok for us to be elitist, we are much smarter afterall.
Well, you obviously have just as big an ego as a hollywood celeb, at least.
Well, Issac, I disagree with you.
It may not have been the _best_ film but it was
certainly one of them.
Comparing the judging with figure skating was hilariouslly true.
Also the bit about Block trading.
It should be remembered that many of the Acadamey
Voters don't even watch the films in their entirety.
The awards like more and more institutions in America has the faint taint of corruption.
Go to Boston and tell me how liberal people are there. I'll give you a hint, they aren't.
mental illness, love, and accomplishment
Oh um, these are some of the themes "a beautiful mind" was about, which recieved 4 oscars, too. I found it a lot more interesting that LoTR!
Life sucks.
you along with many posters have nailed the problem.
Oscars are always playing catch up for what they
should have done in the past, thereby creating
a fresh backlog of acheivements to recognize.
Alas due to human nature even if they got caught
up they would quickly be out of synch.
As opposed to the stuff you've recorded and posted on your site? Riiighttt....I guess if it doesn't sound like a cat shitting on the strings, it must be garbage.
FWIW, I think the LOTR soundtrack was one of the best parts of the film. Howard Shore is a craftmaster.
Every person that I have talked to that hasn't read the books didn't like the movie. It's a let down. Unless you've read the books and know how it concludes (which I personally haven't) it's just a random walk. Fate takes them to this place and then to that elven place and then to that cave place, etc. The movie doesn't have much of a plot to speak of. It was incomplete. The ending was a completely unabashed set up for a sequel.
Probably the only reason it got nominated in the first place is because some of the nominators have read the books. Otherwise, nada.
I read the books about 15 years ago, and reread the FOTR in time to see the movie. That was a good thing - I'm a much better reader now.
Anyway, after seeing the movie, I couldn't imagine how anybody who hadn't read the books could really follow what was going on. One thing is the vastness of time - the movie made it seem like they were travelling for a week or so, but in the book it was months! And THE most exciting part of the FOTR was Moria - they took like a week in the book, but it was a one-nighter in the movie.
You don't get a sense of how absolutely gi-normous Middle Earth is, the feat of engineering and hard work that Moria was.
It was nice seeing the book visualized, and I still thought it was a great movie, but like most adaptations, the book is still better.
And, of course, like a lot of people, I still can't get over Elrond and thinking (as many have joked about before): "welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Baggins", and "Hobbits are a disease"...
I know it's getting bad, but I laugh out loud at all of these.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Leaving them spilt just wouldn't make them a good movie. And there's precedent: the Gandalf-Saurumon stuff was shown chronologically instead of the order it's told in the book.
For very silly movies.
enough said.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I can't believe either LOTR or ABM were in the running for best adapted screenplay with a film like Ghost World. It was an amazing comic that was perfectly adapted to the screen. It captured all the sadness and beauty of that story without resorting to cheap manipulation (cough...A Beutiful Mind...cough). It's an insanely underappreciated film, and I can't believe it gets no mention on a site supposedly devoted to "nerds".
Check this article on Salon. Perfectly mirrors my thoughts on the Oscars.
Once the Fellowship started out, the movie spent most of its time on Aragorn and Gandalf. Sure, they were great Heroes, but when it came down to it, it was the Hobbits who got the work done.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
What is jugded is the artistic quality of a work, not how much sweat was used to produce it.
Which three films did he do at the same time? And so what? Maybe for having his hands in so many things at the same time he could not make it the best movie, which is horribly dificult whit a movie where the stars are the battles and visual effects.
Movies are much more than pliatives for videogames, people that know what movies are all about recognize that, other people think that if something is midly enjoyable or amusing it is the best of all times ever.
Which is a bunch of nonsense because most probably have not seen movies older than 5 years.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
shot with modern cinemetograhy.
It only resonates because of the renewed patrioism
in America.
A good film, but not one for the ages.
....I'm pretty sure that Matrix II is scheduled for the summer of 2003, not 2002. But hey, tell me if it's otherwise, because I'm not sure I can wait another year.
The only reason Russel Crowe won last year was because people felt he should have won for LA Confidential. His acting was nothing phenominal.
;)
LA Confidential is a movie from 1997, and Russel Crowe was not nominated for it. He was nominated for the Insider in 1999, but the Oscar went to Kevin Spacey. Many felt that Russel's performance in the Insider was superior (phenominal? [sic]) to that in Gladiator, but he certainly did deserve it last year. Aside from the visual eye candy, Gladiator was carried by little more than Crowe's character. He was the whole story and the (almost) whole movie.
I am yet to see several nominated performances, such as A Beautiful Mind, but Training Day really did have two incredible actors in it. I was a little disappointed that Washington's character was so much like his previous roles, but nonetheless that image fit the part very well. Remember that the Oscar is not for the Best Acting, but for the Best Performance. Pending a screening of A Beautiful Mind, I am willing to say that perhaps Denzel deserved the award.
IMHO, of course,
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
Why does this story need to be trimmed to fit neatly into three films?
How many Police Academy movies did they churn out? 6 or so?!?
I would have loved to sit through 6+ films that accurately depict the events in the books.
Frodo Lives!
whoops! amerocentrism strikes again.
I don't go to see films of books I've read - I find they always make it a different way to the way I imagined it. The imagination of your mind is far more powerful than Hollywood's special effects any day.
Video Game cheats, hints a
A movie has a host of criteria to be concerned about, as does a book. But those criteria have very little overlap between movies and books. A book can spend a chapter on Nash's bi-sexuality without losing focus, but for a movie to properly handle it would require too much time and distract from the focus of the movie (Nash's illness and recovery through force of will and the love of his wife.) Even such an integral fact such as Nash's divorce and re-marrage districts from the focus. Picking any one facet, scene, or even sub-plot of a book to judge a movie to set yourself up for disappointment.
Books can ponder the nuances of their story, but movies must have tunnel-vision like focus. That's to be expected, they are different media. If you want long winding passages that have questionable relevance to the final plot, read the book. If you want amazing visual to help with your questionable imagination, watch the movie. And if you want bad graphics and questionable interface, play the game.
-sk
(Gandalf in Bag End, Bilbo in Rivendel, Galadriel in Lorien).
While I didn't really mind Gandalf in Bag End (the movie was just beginning and I hadn't had time to judge it or get a feel for it), Bilbo in Rivendell is horrible, and Galadriel in Lorien had to rate as the worst scene in the movie.
How bad? We're talking cringe and grimace inducing bad. I saw the movie with my girlfriend and literally dreaded having to explain to her what was supposed to be going on in that scene. So, she turns blue and starts talking in a wierd digitally enchanced voice, without reading the book I wouldn't be sure What the hell was going on. Of course, by that point I had already come to the conclusion that this was not the movie I had wanted to see. Except for the 3rd book, the first two are slow atmospheric works designed to help give a feeling for the place. The movie unfortunately made them into action pieces. I wonder how many people saw the movie, went out and bought the book and never finished it because of the slow pacing.
People are saying that A Beautiful Mind (which I haven't seen, so I can't judge it) shouldn't have won Best Picture or Best Adapted Screenplay as it was unfaithful to the life and works of John Nash. By that same reasoning, LOTR is right to have not won, as it was unfaithful to the books.
I can understand them leaving out Bombadil, but watching it I had the feeling that it should have been labelled as 'inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien' and not 'based on'.
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
Full frontal nudity on naked pregnant woman (her mother)
Not worthy of an R in Europe, but in the U.S....
I know I am in the extreme minority here, but, for goodness sake!
While FOTR was cleverly made in certain places, the overall product was middling at best.
I would have liked to see 6 or 10 episodes, perhaps done on television, WITH the light parts included with the dark, (so much beauty cut out, so much sorrow left in!), WITH Tom B included, WITH Elves that didn't fail to score in multiple ways, ("Welcome to Rivendale Mr. Anderson. You have now been knocked out of the story teller's embrace.") --WITH the proper pacing restored!
LOTR is a story about a Journey. --One where you live and grow with the characters to the point where you genuinely love them by the end. In this film, even Sam felt like a stranger to me. What bullshit! This was not a Journey. --I did not get the idea at all in the film that any significant time had passed from beginning to end. This was a massive problem for me! Tolkien understood the importance of pacing in this respect; he understood the importance of the Journey to the point where he was moved to write that wonderful little line, which I will misquote here: "The road begins at your front door.")
The movie felt like a high-speed, over-slick, Cole's-Notes version of the real thing which was trying like mad to adhere to some sort of Advertiser's guidebook about winning the viewer with hypnotically fast images. It felt afterwards as though I'd just eaten a piece of greasy McMeat stuffed in an over-sugared bun. Maybe Jackson was earnest in his attempt, and maybe he made a passable film. But LOTR it was not.
--And I have heard every apologist's excuse for why it 'Had To Be This Way' for reasons of funding, film pacing, blah, fucking blah.
Sorry, but Tolkien would have hated it. This is NOT what he intended. And the worst thing is knowing that it could have been done right with a proper captain at the helm.
Jackson is an uppity kid with a handful of childish horror flicks under his belt. Of COURSE he was going to fall short of the mark in capturing a Master Work which took Tolkien a lifetime to create; Jackson is a grasshopper with a budget. And that's alright. We all must learn, but damn if it isn't a crying shame that he had to cut his teeth on such a culturally significant work.
Best Picture, my ass. The Oscars are basically the embodiment of pure evil, but at least they made the right call, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
-Fantastic Lad
The part of the movie I was most disappointed with was "The Council of Elrond". This wasn't omitted from the movie, but I thought the book did a much better job of exploring what they might do.
They have the ring; Sauron is back; now what? Use the ring against Sauron? Keep it safe, without using it? Throw it into the sea? Melt it some place other than Mt. Doom? Give it to Bombadill? :-)
By the time they decide to send Frodo to Mordor, the book had me convinced that it's the only thing they could do; they had explored all other options. And the fact that Sauron didn't even see it coming is my favorite part of the entire series.
Unfortunately, A Beutiful Mind was tepid, predicatable, and poorly written. The highlight of the film is the suffering the lead character undergoes. It pales in light of the suffering of the audience, but at least we're not alone.
My biggest complaint with ABM was the way it ignored everything even potentially unpleasent about John Nash's life, and focused on the warm fuzzies instead. The *real* John Nash had an affair, a bastard child, and was arrested in an FBI trap for homosexuals. The fictional John Nash was just misunderstood, and never did any of this. Who's schizophrenic now?
LoTR, on the other hand, was incredible on so many levels; it was Epic, it was well paced, and it really made an effort not to patronize its audience. It wasn't a masterpiece of cineaesthetic, but it was at least moderately intelligent, and entertaining to boot.
*sigh*
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
what I am saying is that since this movie follows the book closely, without seeing the big picture, ie) the entire story, one would not be able to see the reasoning behind the lack of a strong central character. The whole story must be known before one can critique the technicalities of the story.
Both of the first 2 Godfather movies won the Best Picture oscar as well as several others.
Jackson was quoted that they moved it into the third movie, so that Frodo and Sam have more screen time in the third movie (they do not have much to do after Shelob). It is a fact.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I do think LoTR was one of the best movies of the year (other favorites were Memento, The Man Who Wasn't There, O Brother, and a few others).
But saying LoTR had the best makeup seems pretty stupid to me. It's an abortion that the film with the best makeup didn't even get nominated, yes Planet of the Apes. Sure it was mediocre, but the makeup was fantastic and better than anything else this year (I can't believe Beautiful Mind got nominated for this category, urrrgh).
I feel like the only human that was not oeverly impressed with LOTR... in (almost) any respect (minus the fight scenes, those were cool).
The special effects were not all that special to me, it's not like they were bad, but I certainly didn't think they were any better than movies from the last couple years.
Probably the worse part of the film to me was the story, it just wasn't that great. No I didn't read the book and after seeing the movie I'm certainly glad that I haven't because that story was basically boring. There were even parts (like that elf chick towards the end) that didn't need to even be there. Anyway, I give the film a 2.5 out of 5.
-- "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
You who think /. shouldn't be posting stories like this because its MPAA related (insert random bullshit) - how the hell does it come that there's twice as many comments here that there's after the average "ooh new lunix kernel?" story?
When all is said and done, as a filmie of long standing (lifetime member of Cinema Seattle, my brother-in-law and some cousins voted for these awards, etc.), I found this year the final selections were more connected with politics than actual "best of" choices.
I've seen many of the movies and discussed them with many people - and we knew who should have received awards, and why the winners were chosen, and it's pretty disgusting this year. The awards that Moulin Rouge won were not the ones they should have won - but the voters for this chose them for obvious reasons.
Sigh.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The reason Denzel won was not for this film, it was for his consistent good acting in other films. Most of the Oscars go to people who are good actors, or directors who are good directors - the actual movie is not so important as whether or not you "deserve" it.
The fact that LotR got four Oscars is amazing, considering how high the deck was stacked against them. And one of the reasons for animated movies having their own category is to shun them, as they don't spend as much money on hiring actors and directors and so on - just animators and programmers with some minor voice work.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Pending a screening of A Beautiful Mind, I am willing to say that perhaps Denzel deserved the award.
I still need to see "Training Day" again, but I believe that Washington's win is pretty similar to Crowe's win last year. Anyone who's seen "The Hurricane" knows that Washington's performance was a vastly superior performance to Crowe's Maximus. Problem was, the Academy owed Crowe for "The Insider." Luckily, I don't think there was a performance this year that merits a payback next year.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Anyone know who the french judge voted for;)
I stole this Sig
Having seen all the movies up for that category, this was one of the few choices where the internal politics of the Academy coincided with the best choice for best actress.
Most African-American women that I know don't like her as an actress, but even though she's uneven in her acting and roles chosen, she deserved the win for this film.
The bizarre thing is that this should be news. We should have gotten over this 40 years ago. This is still a strange country on this issue.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
This movie was everything I hoped. My friend and I were talking about the movie before it started and he said, "You realize we have been waiting for this movie for 20 years?"
I recently downloaded the DIVX of it (three part of almost 200 MB each). Before you freak out, let me say that I saw it twice in the theater, one of which was in one of those dine & drink theaters at $16 a ticket. Also I can't wait for the DVD's since I will buy all of them as soon as they come out. The DIVX is just so I can memorize every damn second of each character's performance until I can close my eyes and see it playing on the inside of my eyelids.
I know they can't do without something like this in Hollywood but IMHO this screws up the plot from the book badly.
In the book Isildur doesn't have a slight idea of what ring does, he takes it in memory of his father, Elendil, who with Gil-Galad died slaying Sauron.
In the movie Gil-Galad is replaced with Elrond for simplicity.
They should have given the award to fourth Oscar to Sir Ian McKellen. The Oscar for the best screen play doesn't even sound funny.
is great when you've got an unlimited budget, but it makes the film easier artistically, since the entire crew/cast is well aware of what has occured already, and so don't need as much direction.
Complete amateurs, and corrupt slush fund trustees choose chronological shooting sequence, either becuase they don't know any better, or because they have lots of nephews to employ.
The Royal Tenenbaums wasn't neglected by the Academy. It was nominated for best original screenplay, but lost to Gosford Park. Neither was Ghost World, which was nominated for "best adapted screenplay, and lost to A Beautiful Mind.
I vote with my money. If I liked Lord of the Rings enough to see it three times--in fact, it's the only film I've seen this year--while I didn't go see A Beautiful Mind even once, obviously I've voted for LotR (thrice) as the best film.
Let's presume that other people vote with their money as well, knowingly or not--not so great a leap, given the equation of money with votes in the political arena. Then, the matter of which film was the best for a given year would be as simple as determining which film made the most money, ie., got the most votes.
Or we could accept that opinions are like assholes, and yeah, the Academy may have different ideas of what makes one film better than another. But I don't see where the Academy advertises its opinion as any more "right" than mine or my fiancée's or even CowboyNeal's. It's certainly more publicised, and perhaps based on more filmmaking experience. . . but that's it.
And in the end, it doesn't matter a lick to me--when it comes down to where I vote with my money, there's only one opinion that matters.
(No, not CowboyNeal's.)
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I can't believe this actually made front page news. I guess what's trash to one person is gold to another.
- Sonnyjz
Watching the Oscars(r) last night, I was really impressed by how the Academy(tm) managed to recognize a number of very good films and actors that in past years would have been neglected.
;-).
I was very pleased to see Jim Broadbent finally get recognized for years of excellent work. In past years a black actress would never have received an Oscar(r) nomination, let alone an award, for a film like "Monster's Ball."
"The Dish" was nice, but in no way Oscarworthy. As others have noted, the other films were recognized with nominations, but didn't win. Its hard to compete with mental illness when playing for sympathy from the Academy
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
What is also cool about the win for Effects, is the fact that Weta uses Linux for its render farm.
Yeah OK so do lots of other visual effects houses, but Weta won the award ok?
gadgetophile.com
I don't think that Waking life was animated--it was just a filter over live action. A very good movie though (even if it tended towards pretension when the characters were espousing philosophy).
If you haven't read LOTR and watching the movie, there's a big let down. the non-ending, ending. You would expect some sort of closure, at least for the main plot/issue of the movie. When it just leaves you hanging, you feel cheated. Now when you are really in to LOTR, you know what to expect but for the ones who's never read the books it's just "WTF?? now what, what kind of ending is that". The the rest of us, it's not a ending, it's just a episode.
So that might count against the movie on some level.
That's just my 2 cents.
Wow, could you be any more delusional, offensive, or egotistical? It's obvious to me you consider yourself superior to the majority of the American public. Guess what? You aren't.
"It solves the problem in a way that the stupid deny themselves exposure to interesting things."
What a wonderful way for you to feel self-righteous about your viewing habits. Did you ever stop to think that some of us prefer not to see movies with an "R" rating simply because we have more important things to think about than this image of some guy having his head blown off play through our heads the next day? Movies receive an R rating generally due to language, violence, or sexual content (and, in some rare cases, mature themes absent any of the above). Some people choose to be polite by refusing to use gutter language, and choosing to ask those using it to refrain from doing so in their presence. Some people choose to remain faithful to their spouses in both thought and action by avoiding graphic depictions of others having sexual relations. Some people choose to avoid seeing gratuitous violence because even the thought of killing another human being makes them physically ill, and movies depicting them makes them want to barf.
"the poorer, and land owning people of the midwest have disproportunate power to that of the richer, more liberal people in the cities."
Oy, veh, what another spurious helping of horse manure this is. Farmers are not all poor. Some are, some aren't, same as you get in cities. Land owners, similarly, are not poor. Land is a commodity by which wealth has been measured since time immemorial. As to the issue of disproporionate power, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Clinton stole thousands of square miles of revenue-generating land from Utah public school systems (Grand Staircase Escalante Monument) to please green-loving city folk. I choose to live by standards established since the dawn of recorded history as set down in the Ten Commandments. That I vote for legislators who think the same way simply reflects my belief that it is my obligation to support the self-interest of my self and family, the same as you do when you elect foul-mouthed womanizers with a drinking problem.
"The poorer, more religious, people seem to eschew personal responsability in favor of a "smaller government" that's big enough to make sure that everyone isn't thinking impure thoughts."
More pure hogwash. I take this personally simply because you are insulting my people and culture -- that of the mid-western religious family. I don't work to restrict your rights. That some do is within *their* rights, and it is your obligation to see that they do not succeed. I wrestle with civic and moral questions daily, examining each decision in light of what will help my family, community, and nation continue to function. That I choose to eliminate R rated movies from my patronage is simply an expression of my belief that most movies are crap, and I'm glad to have a large portion of them ruled out from the get-go from wasting my valuable time deciding whether to see them or not. I take personal responsibility that I am educated on views I deem important, particularly regarding Constitutional rights and technology issues. If I were to take the time to also view every twisted rated R movie made by a director who simply likes to watch women writhe around naked I would have no time for anything else.
I take personal responsibility for helping ensure that I and my family make wholesome viewing decisions. I couldn't care less about enforcing your viewing habits, but I am grateful for the rating system simply because it means someone else is doing an unpleasant job. I am not the one cleaning latrines at the campground, picking up poop after elephants at the circus, or doing every single job at my place of employment. Others do it so I don't have to, and by simplifying and specializing in my life I am able to contribute a larger amount to my pocketbook and the welfare of the nation.
"Personally, I think God doesn't like hypocrisy so he sends tornados to destroy their trailers."
That's like saying "I think God doesn't like hypocrisy so makes people crazy enough to fly airplanes into large buildings".
I sure hope that in real life you aren't as much of a bigot as your post portrays. There are decent, hard-working people who take their religious, civic, and family obligations seriously in all walks of life, and in every city, town, and rural area of the planet. That you deride them, and the efforts of the ratings boards to help people simplify their choices of entertainment, does both an injustice.
Sure, call me and my neighbors sheeple if you want. But what I care about, I care about passionately, and I'm glad to delegate here and there so I don't go crazy from trying to be everything for everybody at once. All of life is choices. That I and others choose to use our time wisely by avoiding the worst of the filth Hollywood has to offer does not impugn your choices, nor deprive you of any essential liberties.
As an aside, I *do* choose to view rated R movies from time to time. I decide whether or not to view them based upon reviews by my peers and whether I am interested in the subject matter. I've discovered that, in general, the ratings board seems to be right: most rated R movies have foul language, excessive violence, and strong sexual content which I would rather not see. I also do not allow my children to see these until they are of an age (17) where I won't have to wake up repeatedly in the middle of the night to deal with their terrible nightmares from the filth they have viewed.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
In other news...
Sorry, guys, but no way in hell were The Beatles the Best New Artist of 1964. I saw 5 bands in 1964: The Beatles, The Dixie Cups, Manfred Mann, The Four Seasons, and Roy Orbison. The Beatles weren't even the third best band out of that limited selection.
I like John Lennon, too (Yoko Ono is something else) but he wasn't the best frontman of the year, either.
And now, even though it has nothing to do with The Beatles, I would like to once again razz the Grammys for not even nominating Dean Martin for best solo... need I go on?
The icing on the cake is to mod me into negative numbers.
>>This will probably get modded down as flamebait
>>or troll, but whatever.
>I need to turn this into my signature, because
>you f***ing no that any time someone writes
>this, they get +5.
You wouldn't be the first to think of it.
She starts out all blubbery, in a "Me? Really?!" sort of way and ends up thanking her lawyer with an almost "Black Power Rulz!" attitude. Sorry, baby, you can't play the race card both ways. About the only redeeming part of her speech was recognition of some greater (and lesser) actresses that have come before her, who, perhaps, were cheated of recognition because of their race.
Generally, "door-opening" by victims of systemic social discrimination has happened because individuals overcame the obstacles they faced, and were so much better than any contemporary competitors, that to deny their achievements would be clear evidence of that very discrimination, otherwise subtle, hidden, and plausibly deniable. It isn't fair to have to work harder to be just as good, certainly, but if you manage it, there can be no doubt as to your achievement. Said undeniable achievement, then, serves to destroy any bogus arguments of inability, or inadquacy. That's "door opening".
By comparison, Berry's win suggests, if anything, that there is no racial discrimination anymore, or worse, that there is grudging "accomodation" given to produce an equity of outcome in spite of an inequity of ability that is "unfair". "See, racism is dead... Berry won an Oscar." Sadly, Berry's win shows only that racism is an embarrasment, not openly admitted, but hardly dead.
You could've hired me.
I'm not going so far as to say that the adaptation was a hatchet job, but it's pretty bad. Except for the scene where Bilbo tells Gandalf that he feels he needs a permanent holiday, and the famous exchange between Frodo and Gandalf about Gollum ("Many that live deserve death," &c.--for some reason Jackson rips this scene out of context and crams it into another part of the story), the screenplay preserves hardly any of Tolkien's dialogue. Jackson's attempts to sex the story up are unfortunate (e.g. the stupid "Meet Cute" where Arwen sneaks up on Aragorn), and his attempts to make the story funny are dismal (e.g. everything that was done to Gimli, especially the "Never toss a dwarf!" line.) Important expository or character-building scenes are jettisoned in favor of fight scenes and action set-pieces, most of which either aren't in the book or which Tolkien disposes of in a paragraph or two.
Jackson's film is entertaining enough, but to claim that it merits Best Anything awards is ridiculous. The most that can be said for it is that's it's better than most movie fantasy (one things of wretched stuff like _Legend_ or that D & D movie with Jeremy Irons.) But any script that contains stuff like the dwarf-tossing line, any other of the bits where Gimli acts like a complete fool (e.g. welcoming the Fellowship to Moria and the hospitality of his cousin Balin), a Council of Elrond scene which turns into a barroom brawl, the Gandalf-Saruman slugging match, or the completely fabricated scene where Boromir petulantly cuts himself on Narsil in Rivendell, isn't a Best Adaptation by a long shot.
Well, excuse me! What the hell is wrong with this country?! Who let the black devils in this contest anyway?
...then why weren't they used.
Sniper 1: I have a clear shot at Nicholas Cage, should I take the shot.
Swat Cmdr: Fire at will.
*two shots are heard and Nicholas Cage and Will Smith fall dead*
Oh well, 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
I'm surprised it won best Cinematography. All those '360 degree heli shots' really ruined the movie for me -- how many were there, 20?
I mean, I know it's a classic trilogy, but COME ON, no need to go overboard like that...
it's trolling. :-)
I honestly would love to meet someone in real life who would actually suggest and believe the idea of changing the movie's name so I could actually kick their ass. (unfortunately, that one person would probably be my mother.)
I think I definately surround myself with people that would never suggest an obsurd idea as that though.
--
"I don't believe in America, or the 'American Dream'. I don't believe in Nationalism, we're all the same." - Anti-Flag
Join The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout [slashdot.org] Apr 21-27
"Teachers leave us kids alone
Screw the Oscars and screw Hollywood. Let's not forget that the fucking bastards that won't (ever) give Best Picture to a film like LotR are the same ones that are pushing SSSCA (or CBDTPA) through Congress right now. Boycott Hollywood!
Who thought this movie sucked a fat cock? God damn that was just horrid. My $6 would have been better spent on a hammer to bang on my head. It was like 3 hours of the same relentless shit over and over. Run, hide, run, fight, hide, run, run fight, run, hide. God damn.. oooh neat-o special effects.. that must be what I paid $6 to see...
I watched about a whole 2 hours or so of this shit and just said fuck it.. my ass hurts, the bastard in front of me gets up every 10 minutes to go smoke and comes back smelling like asshole, and this movie blows hard cock. So I left.
But hey if you all like it, more power to you. I like a story with a little more to it.
Obviously, I never read the book myself or it was in a parrallel universe because I sure don't remember as much fighting as in the movie! Or many many other details. I wouldn't give the book as an argument considering the way it has been bastardized.
You know what I wonder is if a large majority of the 'normal' population actually even knows that there will be 2 additional movies already. Or, when the previews start showing up, will they just think "Hey, looks like they decided to do a sequel to that neat LOTR movie. I wonder if it'll be any good." - just thinking that the 2 additional movies are add-ons to the first, rather than continuations on a just as grand (if not more grand) of a scale.
My initial reaction to the end of FOTR was good, I thought the movie wrapped up nicely, and I knew that there would be more to come. However, looking back I'm not so sure that others who have not really heard of the tale will think the same. In making the movie, I'm sure Jackson did not want to leave the audience completely hanging in anticipation of a future movie, as that would be undesirable in the movie making mind, and that would leave the unknowing thinking that the movie ended badly. However, he prolly did not want to close the end up too much either, as that is not what the story does and would make it even more difficult to reopen the second movie.
I just hope that everyone will be able to make the correct correlations and links to enjoy the movie so greatly. It'll be interesting to see some people's reactions.
Thanks to all of you for lining my pockets with sweet, sweet cash.
Sincerely,
Jack Valenti
This is the first movie I've seen which I wanted to walk out on. It had nice sets and occasional nice scenes (Moria wasn't too bad). But mostly it was pure Hollywood style cheese. Grandstanding individualists facing off against one another. The book was much more about opposing mass forces, not Aragorn vs The Super Orc, live tonight, only on Pay per view. Shallow crap. The only fault of the movie I can excuse is its (not so) subtle homoerotic subtext since the book had similar issues.
This is the question.
A screenplay is more than just dialog. It has to describe the mood of the scene, the characters, the emotions that the director has to express to the audience. The question is, Is it a good screenplay? Not how closely does it resemble the book?
The acadamy has just decided to split the award into two sections. Those whose story has been based on another medium, and those that are completly original.
Quoth the parent:
My initial reaction to the end of FOTR was good, I thought the movie wrapped up nicely, and I knew that there would be more to come. However, looking back I'm not so sure that others who have not really heard of the tale will think the same.
When i saw it on opening night there were definitely more than a few people who actually WTF'ed the end of the movie.
and when i took a pair of my cow-orkers to see after work on christmas the one who hadn't read the book was disappointed that "it just sort of ended." Now that i've lent her the books she understands why it ended there and was glad they left out the forest, the barrows and bombadil (she was complaining for a week cuz she hadn't had much time to read that they were taking forever to get out of the forest).
--- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
There was no other movie this past year that provided me with the one thing I want most from a movie: a good story told through images. LOTR defines the ability of film as a medium to tell a wonderful story with pictures. Yes, the dialogue was weak. Yes, the character development was virtually non-existent. Yes, if you know the story, it's better than if you don't. Yes, it felt like the events in the movie took place over the course of a few days, not the months that one senses from the book. But the way Jackson told the story is the most important part of the movie. I walked out of that movie with the same feeling I get from reading the books: the feeling that I was actually there. And that results in caring about the characters and the story. In fact, the further I get from my viewing, the more I feel that this movie was one of the best I have ever seen.
For example, the scene right after Gandalf dies. This scene was perfect. In the book, Tolkien describes the characters weeping and lamenting. And you know how bad it is, because the book does a good job of developing the relationship between Gandalf and the others. The movie might not have shown us all of that development, but when you see the characters' reaction to his death, you definitely feel what he meant to them. And it isn't just the character's reactions--Jackson slows down the pace, he shows us the fellowship sundered, scattering all over the mountain, falling down on the hard desolate rocks. Even the landscape conveys sorrow. If you look carefully, I'm sure you would recognize the use of a particular kind of filter, or a soft focus. Jackson (and his cinematographer) used the tricks and abilities of the medium to convey an incredible amount of the story through the picture. You must realize that movies are not stories driven by dialogue, but by imagery.
Another example: the very end. You can feel just how hopeless Frodo is about his journey. Why? Because the path he and Sam face is obviously such a hard, unforgiving path (all those miles of sharp volcanic rock). The viewer doesn't need to be told the task is hard, the viewer can simply see it.
The problem with the critics of this film is that they fail to understand that when characters say "This is hard," it is less believable than when the characters say nothing and the director simply shows the audience how hard it is. The best acting in movies is understated, because the camera itself magnifies everything. Movies are visual and the best movies tell us a story with more imagery and less explanation. To quote an oft-quoted maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Movies laden with dialogue often drag and end up unfulfilling. Movies that take advantage of the medium to tell a story with pictures are generally superior. That's why I think LOTR should have won Best Picture over A Beautiful Mind. (However, A Beautiful Mind also took advantage of the medium--the audience sees Nash's hallucinations, we don't just hear Nash talk about them.) At the very least, though, LOTR won and deserved the cinematography Oscar.
Too bad Memento came out in 2000, making it a (potential) contender for last year's Oscars.
Amelie was the sweetest, lightest bit of romantic fluff I've seen in a long while. There was far more violence in Monsters Inc than there was in Amelie, which isn't hard because there zero (that's right, zero, none, zip).
There were, however, a couple of sex scenes. One involves the main character having rather unsatisfying sex with a boyfriend, the camera close in on Amelie's face looking bored with the whole procedure. The next involves a sequence of brief vignettes depicting a variety of couples around Paris having an orgasm, in the context of Amelie sitting at the top of a hill (Montmatre?) wondering how many couples are having an orgasm at that instant. It's a very, very funny scene. Finally, Amelie plays matchmaker and two characters disappear off into the bathroom to have a quickie. This is depicted with their silhouette through the frosted glass and increasingly loud noises from the bathroom.
Now, sure, If I was a parent of an 11-year-old, I probably wouldn't take an 11-year-old to see it either (a 14-year-old, sure). But give them horrible nightmares? Only if they've had all manner of neuroses about sex drilled into them... oh, I forgot...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
1) My egotism? Yeah, I probably could be more egotistical. For instance I might deem myself annointed by a magic guy in the sky to be the final arbitor of what people should be allowed to see, read, and or hear. I prefer to let individuals make individual choices. There are plenty of instances where the puritan minority tyranny excersices disproportunate control over a more liberal majority.
:). But you're right, the silly and arbitrary ideas of what passes for approved and not approved content, they don't apply to me anymore. I'm over 18 and I don't live where people care what I entertain myself with. But the fact that it doesn't directly affect me, doesn't make it right.
2) Your delicate sensibilities. Perhaps you haven't heard of trailers, movie reviews, word of mouth etc. But these, and other venues provide a good way for people to decide if they want to see a movie. I would say I get something other than I expect maybe 2 to 5% of the time. I would expect other peoples results to be similar. But should movie makers wish to be clear and make sure that the extream minority, unable to tease a reasonable expectation out of a preview, has a little extra information, that's fine by me. But the idea that this makes it right for some people to decide what's right for other peoples kids to see is crap. People should raise their own kids, see personal responsability.
3) Poor Farmers. Look at a graph of wealth over a map of the united states. How many square feet do you think you can get for a 1000$ in podunk arkansas? Your sophistry aside, even a quick look at the electoral college will show your claim for the sham it is. Not that we couldn't look further, say to the fact that cities pay for telephones, among other things, for the more remote areas.
4) Small Government, as long as it's big enough to force other people think like us. Small government, according to the puritans should determine what magazines are allowed to be sold in each local community, what movies are allowed to be viewed, what people in large cities thousands of miles away should be allowed to hear on the radio, watch on tv, oh and the particular brand of Jehova that should be the offical sponser of the school day. That is hypocrisy.
5) "Hey I'm personally responsible, and I completely endorse a system that tells people how to raise their kids!" And while you might not care what I watch now, someone just like you wanted to make sure I would have to make an extra effort to see some movies when I was younger. At least the kids seeing movies now, they won't feel this way, at least if they live in the cities. While the restrictions remain, they certainly don't seem enforced.
6) Bad Simile Theater. If you wanted to end the discussion, why not just bring up Nazi's and Hitler. Not that I don't find spurious comparisions ammusing mind you. I'm fine with being a bigot (everyone has their areas of inflexibility). But if you expect me to tolerate your intoleance, I must ask you do the same for me
And as an aside, if you decide, with a little help from your friends, which movies you should be seeing, and assumably previews, reviews et al, what exactly do you get from the ratings system? But most importantly the part of the ratings system that prevents (in theory) other peoples kids from seeing a movie you don't approve of.
You seem like the kind of guy who might not have much of a problem with Commando, but would think Pulp Fiction would be way out of bounds for kids, even young teenagers. What's really funny is how this might come back to haunt your kids later. One of my friends was raised like that. And when it comes to the cultural knowledge a larger group of people assume to be common, he's uncommonly deficent. Sometimes he might take a little crap for it, but what's probably even worse are the times when it's not exactly appearent, but he can't really participate. While each incident, might be meaningless in and of itself, I think the pattern probably has an impact. It'd be an interesting sociology experiment.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I finally saw LoTR on Saturday and I was a little bit disappointed with the visual effects. I found the fake hobbit feet short legs to be rather unconvincing and there was some "blue screening" that was kind of distracting.
But then again, there was some pretty neat stuff as well. And I was in the second row, about 12 feet from the screen. Plus, I haven't seen the other two movies that were nominated for Visual Effects so maybe it deserved the Oscar anyway.
Ron Howard, as much as I like some of his films, (try Apollo 13, not some of that other c**p), was always going to get the most awards for his film just because it was American, and better than the rest of the American films.
Denzel Washington, while he is a good actor, should get an award for a good film he acted in, not just another trashy, "excuse for violence", cop film.
And finally, to prove my point, how about the two awards for Pearl Harbour, just about the most blatent case of, "We can't really give it an award for anything, it's such a turkey, we'll give it best sound and best sound editing".
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
I have to say that the movie had stunning effects. However the movie was a dissapointment as an adaptation. The added love plot was unnescesary, gandalf was overplayed, the half hour intro could have been replaced by the actual events of the book. I could go on but I won't. All in all it was a true disapointment and I hope that people would learn how to read and find out that the movie had substandard characters and plotline. Way to ruin another one Hollywood.
In terms of your central claim, I think you're wrong. Although Godfather 2 completely revises your understanding of the characters in Godfather, Godfather stands well on its own.
I don't think the lack of a strong central character has anything to do with why LotR lost, btw. I think it was always a close race; I would have like to see LotR win, but frankly genre pictures always have a disadvantage going into it. I, too, doubt that Two Towers has a crack (of Doom!) at the Oscars next year, but Return of the Je^H^HKing might.
Tottally fucking crappy overrated piece of shit.
test.
The oscars aren't so much about achievment but patting ones self on the back.
Look at the John Williams 'tribute' to scores. Every third one was one of his own. Call me crazy, but if I was famous, doing a tribute, I wouldn't be sounding my own god damned horn.
Ah well, the night provided some entertainment. When Sting came on, I kept thinking, "Feyd Rautha.."
Reading idiots like you makes me understand better how Hollywood and the Oscars work.
There must be something in the air or water there which turns people into clueless fucks.
Perhaps that makes up for 2001 not winning?
Can you say 'bigoted hollywood types pick pc best actor/actress/movie instead of LOTR'
We have to pick someone because we've never picked someone of that ethnicity.
My personal position is that character development was so completely absent from the movie that there was no real reason I could find to sympathise with any of the characters. Sure, the world's about to end, but if the world ends and I don't identify with any of the characters in it, the accompanying dramatic flourishes will just seem tacked on. And so they did in LoTR. What can I say? The music was largely of an unimaginative, generic canned orchestral variety. Characters were thrown into the plot in medias res. It had about the Action Scene/Character Development Scene ratio of Commando (but I'll stop my kvetching...)
I can't say that LOTR was a state of art but it was as close as Gladiator for example. I like the idea that the movie is shot on 60mm film and not on digital crup which is really common in Hollywood. You even can see that it was shot on the mountains for real.( The mountain scene has more blue because of UV). Cinematography is great you can really feel that you're there. It deserve the oscar there. Computer graphics is great. It showes what Maya and Linux cluster can do:). Makeup. Someone said that POTA is better. I agree POTA was much better. But still LOTR deserves oscar too. Support actor - LOTR should won it as well but some crup like Beautiful Mind (Most idiotic movie I've seen) took over. After all book is always better just because you visualize yourself. Well my visualization and Jackson's are different. I wouldn't imaging Liv Taylor saving Frodo. LOL. I think she is a biggest assplug in the movie. Mr Jackson is trying to put her whatever he can, then in the book she is just a minor figure. And I didn't think that Arven looks like Liv Taylor anyways. I expected something more bautiful:). Galadriel in LOTR looked like she can be hellowen witch. Again expected something more then queen Ann look.:) All story line is shifter into kinda love romance story and ring is just a secondary object. And at last: It really feels like Frodo taking out his watch and saying "Holly shit boys we have only 3 and half hours to get to the Lorien" we should be fast. In the book all trip there and back took almost 2 years. In Jackson's it may take a week or 2 max.
Seriously, which film is going to be remembered in a couple of years (or really a couple of weeks) - Training Day or Harry Potter?
Best Original Screenplay for "Gosford Park" shows the lack of originality in Hollywood. It must be time for another three asteriod movies, a couple more Robin Hoods released in the same year, or a few more sixties sitcom remakes.
For example Rain Man, Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind.
Gee, I don't know, perhaps because all of the movies you listed were good movies?
At it's heart, AMPAS is a very conservative, very predictable organization. The Academy tends to be very elitist in it's choices for Oscars. The last time I saw unbiased, gutsy voting on their part was back -- well, I haven't lived that long.
Unfortunately, Fellowship comes from a genre of dubious pedigree. Some fantasy movies, like Willow, are entertaining, but hardly world class. Some, like Labyrinth, are only notable because they starred David Bowie. Until this year, few were truly outstanding.
On the other hand, the esteemed members of the Academy can vote for a movie like A Beautiful Mind. It stars Russell Crowe, a very capable actor whom I think generally does really good work, whatever he stars in. Jennifer Connolly also did a good job. We all knew Ron Howard could direct after Apollo 13.
But that's not the point. More than anything, A Beautiful Mind is the type of film with which the Academy feels comfortable voting, despite the fact that, underneath, it's nothing more than an exhumed and reanimated version of Shine, with the brilliant-but-tortured musician replaced with the brilliant-but-tortured mathematician.
Today sees movie producers and directors routinely designing movies to target the Oscar judges. Pick a story they'll vote for (usually based on a well-written-but-not-well-read book), veteran actors with a lot of political karma, lobby like an Enron exec, and if the film has any quality at all, it might be a contender for "best picture".
-_-_-_-_-_-
I've looked: I don't think a science fiction or fantasy movie has *ever* won one of the big 3 Oscars. Even powerhouse movies like Star Wars, 2001 and Crouching Tiger were unable to break through. They're always placated with technical achievement awards and then sent on their way.
"including Cinematography, Makeup, Music (Score), and Visual Effects. " At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director. They definitely deserved the ones they got."
...proving, I suppose, that the Academy aren't the ONLY nitwits with not a clue of what they're talking about. Shore's score may not have been the absolute *worst* licks-balls bad score of the year, but it was close.
The man can't compose his way out of a wet paper sack, but ignoramuses like you and the Academy hand him an Oscar just so LotR will get one more. Like to you it's some sort of weird math, "this movie deserves this many Oscars!" instead of "This ASPECT of this movie deserves AN Oscar", which if you were half the computer geek you claim to be, you'd realize, Taco.
Of course, you morons all have to stop for a moment and scratch your heads to remember that movies come with music. Apparently if it doesn't include screaming lyrics and electric guitars, people think it's not worthy of notice.
Frankly, Shore's score was the biggest disappointment in the entire movie (that and the presence of Liz "Can't Act" Tyler). Those who claim his score is good film music, don't know what good film music IS. Shore's Oscar was politics, plain and simple, and totally undeserved. Just like Horner didn't get an Oscar for Braveheart's score, which was hands-down the best film score of its year - politics. So quit yammering about "deserve". The Oscars are utter garbage and deserve to be ignored.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
LotR vs Star Wars: based on current showing, I'd say that's a no-brainer, LotR all the way. Remember that Two Towers is the start of the major battle sequences. Can you think of much more impressive than the siege of Gondor and the Rohirrim riding, especially based on the evidence of the start of Fellowship with the elves and humans fighting Sauron? And the fight choreographer on LotR is so damn good, the Jedi fight scenes in SW just don't look a patch on it.
Grab.
Well, it's same as Empire Strikes Back. It just kind of ends, but you know there's another film which'll pick up the story. Nothing wrong with that, and ppl who don't get that are a bit dumb.
Grab.
No, you're wrong. It's a stand alone movie and any failings withing that movie can (And will be critiqued).
If they wanted them to be critiqued as one, they should have released them as one. They didn't, so they are open to criticism. Once all three are released as a boxed set, then they can critique them as a whole but the whole point of critics is to discuss a movie so you can think about whether you want to see it or not.
If the plot was not clear to people without seeing all three or having read the books, then that would be a problem. I don't think that was the case, as I never read the books and I understood and enjoyed it.