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.
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
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
Of course, Tom Cruise's nauseatingly self-congratulatory "we need Hollywood more than ever" intro took the edge off this.
But Nora Ephron's tribute to New York movies was brilliant. In fact, the short specially-produced films were the highlight of the entire show.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
"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?
Now, personally: I enjoyed LOTR: FOTR, but there were much better films this past year, some of which weren't even nominated. FOTR is a good flick, but it isn't high art and it isn't Best Picture.
For that matter, I wouldn't have voted for ABM, either: I would have voted for In the Bedroom, though I think Black Hawk Down and Monster's Ball should have been nominated.
As much as /.ers think that the Academy wouldn't recognize an F&SF flick for Best Picture, it would be my argument that FOTR was the most commericial and the most Hollywood of the choices in the Best Picture category. FOTR ranks right up there with Forest Gump in terms of marketing, and would have won for the same reason if Opie hadn't made a decent movie this year.
So, no, no upset here. Oh, and it's Gandalf, dammit!
if this were true, shouldn't they have given the "Best Director" award to Altman??? he's been around for ever, and is getting up there in years...meanwhile, Opie Howard will be making movies for years to come...
i'm not necessarily saying Opie shouldn't have won the award...just presenting the opposite side to your point...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
(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:
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?
> Tom Bombadil is important to set the atmosphere and background of Middle Earth. I feel that the point is that some things are older and more mysterious than can be explained, even though they seem so warm and familiar.
a di l.html ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letters, p. 174)
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/tombomb
" it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists);
But I think leaving something like that out of the movie was entirely reasonable.
rant
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
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.