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.
<i>I hope Peter Jackson shows a little sensitivity and changes the name.</i>
Dude I was there and I don't hope he changes the name. Enough! The towers should still be in Spiderman too.
This
Oh please. All of this post-911 oversensitivity crap really has me on edge. Editing references to the towers out of NYC-based movies, "Fireman-chic", etc. and now you want to change the name of a movie (which has nothing to do with terrorism, NYC, or even any real place, for that matter) based upon being "sensitive"? Come on.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Well, I'll bet they've got two more chances at this one.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
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
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Insensitive?? That book was named before the friggin buildings were built. Why should it have to change its name because some psychos blew up the buildings that stole its name?
We can't suddenly start censoring reality because something horribly happened. If we did that we are injuring our freedoms as Americans. And if we lose these freedoms then what is left of the country? The power of the United States comes from the incredibly smart men who drafyted the constitution and design our government. They gave us what no other country had, freedom. If that freedom is taken away then all is lost, the initials U-S-A mean nothing, the terrorists will have won.
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
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
The politicaly correct are weak willed psuedo-intellectuals that would not know how to hold a book without pictures right side up if the utne reader did not come that way. Those that feel justifed in meeting social problems with expedient political solutions that are far removed from the root causes of the situation should be drove to the sea and forced to crawl back in till they evolve a suitably advanced brain for deductive logic.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.ok, let me ask you something. did you see all of the nominees in the best foreign film category? if not then I hardly think you have the right to say that Amelie deserved it more than the others. If so, well sorry to tell you, the academy awards aren't all about the "best" movie, because obviously no one can say what's best, it's a matter of opinion.
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?
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.
I completely agree.
When I look in the newspaper, I want to only read about the horrible atrocities that get me depressed about the state of our nation. There should be absolutely nothing pleasing at all on my front page, because I don't care if someone's happy. I only care about the sad things, and that's all I want to read about.
...The Two Towers in this post 9-11 age? I hope Peter Jackson shows a little sensitivity and changes the name.
Absolutely! Only by forgetting the past, erasing painful images, and ignoring anything that makes anyone, anywhere the least bit uncomfortable, can we get on with our blissful, ignorant lives under the rule of our teleprompter programmers who tell our "elected" officials what to say and do.
Perhaps we can also finally put to rest those rumors of a "Holocaust" in Germany in the late '30s and early '40s. But you probably have already managed to put any reference to THAT out of sight and out of mind as well.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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
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.
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!
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.
Memento was nominated for "Film Editing" and "Writing (Original Screenplay)" this year. And it lost to Black Hawk Down - shame on you, Holywood!
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.
"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???
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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).
To quote Homer (Simpson not the Greek):
"He didn't give you 'gay', did he? DID HE?!?!"
Does Ian being gay make you like LOTR less than you did before you found out? Personally I just found out last night. I said "Oh. His buddy is pretty young." and was done with it (my wife kept saying it's probably his son, denial I suppose).
His being gay shouldn't affect you at all. If it does, it's your problem, not his.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?
And would that really be all that terrible? Shouldn't this be about which movie is best? If LotR is the best for three years in a row, than it should get that award three years in a row. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Might mean that other movies would strive a bit harder for the next two years.
I'd like that. Might see us some real quality instead of the usual drivel...
Thanks to all of you for lining my pockets with sweet, sweet cash.
Sincerely,
Jack Valenti
Tottally fucking crappy overrated piece of shit.