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.

Comments

How many do you think Two Towers is going to win?

[The Great Wakka]

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?

Which "two chances" would those be?

[ZaMoose]

The two remaining movies? Or is Taco talking about the Blockbuster Awards... *chuckle*

Re:Which "two chances" would those be?

[Dephex Twin]

The two remaining movies? Or is Taco talking about the Blockbuster Awards... *chuckle*

I figured Taco meant the next two movies in the LOTR series would have a chance as well.

mark

It had to be said.

[zapfie]

One Ring to [win] them all..

Re:It had to be said.

[ackthpt]

"You must roll D20, 18 or greater to win Best Picture."

*roll*

11

Oh well, 2 more chances. :]

Amelie gets zilch nada

[ackthpt]

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?

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[Teknogeek]

We all know it's the homosexuals that control Hollywood

Then explain Ian McKellan not winning an Oscar.

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[jonr]

Like spoken from my heart!
And best original script?!? Gosford Park? A Agatha Christie wannabe! Memento and Amélie were in different league than that drivel. TFOTR never had a chance; A fantasy directed by the guy who made Bad Taste? Sureley people didn't really believe that he would get an oscar?
I just hope that Hollywood producers strain their self padding themself on the back! Bah!

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[ziggles]

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.

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[jilles]

Getting a lot of oscars is not a good recommendation IMHO. I see a lot of movies and I have sort of developed a taste for movies that actually have a plot not consisting of just cliches. Most Hollywood movies generally don't qualify as such.

I saw lotr. Nice visual effects, decent acting, one dimensional script (basically just the book). I wasn't impressed at all by the music and frankly my impression was that it was a bit overdone. I would definately not be interested in obtaining it on CD or even downloading it with Kazaa. The sound effects are what you expect to get when you trow in a couple of million. I suppose LOTR being such a hit it deserves some oscars. Tolkien deserves all of the credit for the story and Jackson deserves some credit for translating it to the screen which is quite an achievement.

What I've seen of a beautiful mind it was just your average dumbed down hollywood drama. I also saw gosford park (had a few nominations) and nearly fell asleep. Jesus, what a boring stupid story.

Amelie was by far the best movie that actually received nominations. IMHO it not getting any actual oscars says more about the process of awarding them than about the movie itself. Of course, be sure to watch it in french and not the translated version. Subtitles are good and you lose a lot of the subtlety, quality and non-verbal communication with dubbed movies.

I've seen lots of other small movies (e.g. memento, requiem for a dream, together) that I enjoyed very much (much more than I enjoy most blockbuster movies). I'm not sure if they were all of last year since we generally see them a few months after release in Europe.

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[bitrott]

Amen. Amelie loses out to YET ANOTHER WAR FILM. The greatest romantic film of all time, the msot original film of the year, and the most gorgeous art direction short of Moulin, and it loses to YET ANOTHER WAR FILM. It's time for the stuffed shirts and the life-haters to realize that love is as powerful, if not more powerful an emotion than despair, trial, or tribulation. And that most people would rather watch a beautiful french lass, than YET ANOTHER WAR FILM

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[damiam]

Something tells me that if LOTR had won, no one would be making this complaint. As it is, this entire page is just full of bitching about the objectivity of the Oscars.

Re:Amelie gets zilch nada

[blamanj]

If you think Godford Park was actually about the murder, then you've kinda missed the point.

True enough, but I had the opposite reaction. The point was not only clearly made, but it was beaten to death with a pointed stick. Not only that, but the class system is pretty much a non-issue for an American film by an American director.

I think Monty Python did the equivalent of Gosford Park in one five-minute sketch, the Upper-Class Twit of the Year Contest. It has the "carriage envy", the sex with the debutante, the insensitivity, and much better very of the shooting party.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[ellem]

<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.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[Teknogeek]

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.

What idiot modded this guy up? If we went around changing classic works of literature to keep anyone from being offended, you'd lose all those sexual innuendos that make Shakespeare so much fun to read!

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[ZaMoose]

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.

Screenplay adaptation?!

[MadAhab]

My only comment is that I can't believe they didn't win for best screenplay adaptation. I've reread the books since seeing FotR and it's amazing how many changes they made without subverting the original story, and how many smart decisions they made about compacting the story for the screen, and yet how much original dialogue made it into the film word for word. It's not easy satisfying rabid fans while also meeting the needs of the film. There was even a bit of commentary during the awards that the film almost wasn't made because it was deemed to difficult to bring it to the screen. No one said that about Beautiful Mind.

Well, I'll bet they've got two more chances at this one.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[JordanH]

I reread the books and I have to say that I'm disappointed in a number of places with the adaptation.

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.

Events that would shed light into the relationship between Frodo and Sam were edited badly. Why was the Hobbit's (and especially Sam's) natural fear of water not mentioned? (Did I miss it?) It would have added great dramatic weight to Sam's almost drowning at the end. Why was Sam not present at the viewing of the mirror? His vision was important in the book, but deleted completely from the movie.

To my mind, Sam is the everyman hero of the books, yet his role seems to be being played down. This nobility of the common man (or Hobbit) is an important message of the books and is being glossed over.

I would have liked to have seen the Dinner scene at Rivendell where Frodo meets Gloin. The discussions at that Dinner sets the background for Rivendell, what's going on in the rest of Middle Earth, etc.

I understand why they rewrote the scene at the River when the riders were closing in, but it's unfortunate that Frodo's challenge to the riders and the breaking of his sword are missing. Like I say, I understand that they wanted to setup the love story between Arwen and Aragorn so they decided to give Arwen a big role there. Actually, if I were to criticize the books, I would have to say that women were not given important enough roles, so this all may be to the good.

I also liked the scene in the book where Gandalf realizes that he's facing a Balrog...

"A Balrog," muttered Gandalf. "Now I understand." He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. "What an evil fortune! And I am already weary."

Don't know why that was changed (do I not remember the movie correctly?).

Now, admittedly, they had to edit for length. I'm not sure what else I would have left out instead. I guess I would have liked to have seen 6 movies on all 6 books, but perhaps that wouldn't have sold well.

Taking into account the necessity to edit for length, I guess I would only really criticize the deemphasis on Sam's role.

Sorry if I've misrepresented the movie above. I've only seen it once. I don't like to watch movies more than once a year or so. I've just never seen a movie that didn't seem flat if I tried to watch it again too soon and I hate having that experience with movies that I otherwise enjoy.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Those kinds of things bothered me too, but what hurt the most was the way Elves were portrayed. Agent Elrond aside ("What good is a Ring of Power, Mr. Baggins, if you are unable to speak!"), they all seemed kind of surly. Call me crazy, but that isn't the "Merry and sad at the same time" concept Tolkien had in mind. That, and why twist Sauruman's role in the whole affair? Instead of Sauron's dupe he becomes a fanboy hatchet man, and all of the sudden you have wizard fights that look like bad episodes of Xena, Warrior Princess. Things like this bother me because they're not done in the interest of time, but more out of extravagance and sensationalism. Maybe Jackson was true to the fans, but he wasn't true to the spirit of the novels.

That's why I don't think this movie deserves best adaptation or whatever. Great makeup, terrific cinematography, and outstanding setting--give it Best Picture, I don't care--but please, don't parade this as the profoundly perfect adaptation everyone seems to think it is.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[singularity]

In the past year I have read both A Beautiful Mind and Lord of the Rings.

Giving the award to A Beautiful Mind endorses a mockery of the man's life.

I write a few of the major changes in the screen play in this post.

Basically, *every* major scene in A Beautiful Mind was completely made up.

The movie is loosely inspired from the actual book, and I do not think that anyone who has read the book can say that it is "based" on the book at all.

FotR deserved that award. Yes, there were a few problems with the adaptation, but there always are going to be them. Even Shawshank, which I consider to be the best adaptation ever, has a major problem with the amount of time that Red spend wandering around, looking for the tree.

I gave up on the Academy Awards when Forrest Gump won over both Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[armb]

> 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.

http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/tombomba di l.html
" it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letters, p. 174)

But I think leaving something like that out of the movie was entirely reasonable.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[JordanH]

I'd never seen that letter from Tolkien! Kind of gives me the big head that I was apparently so intune with Tolkien about Bombadil.

• But I think leaving something like that out of the movie was entirely reasonable.

Setting aside the length of the film issue, why is this entirely reasonable?

It deprives the movie goers of a delightful character and a mystery to take away with them.

Maybe because movie goers like everything wrapped up in neat little endings? I can see where the Bombadil characters would have been an enigma to most people, but that's his function.

Things like this are what have aggravated me as to the common description of the Movie you hear. "It's so faithful to the books!" When they leave out things like Bombadil.

I like the Movie, I like the Books. I don't think it's a tragedy that they aren't exactly the same story. I don't think the movie was that faithful to the books, however.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[gowen]

It deprives the movie goers of a delightful character and a mystery to take away with them.

The mystery being: "Why the hell didn't they cut that tree-hugging, drivel-spouting, badly dressed hippy, since he clearly has no relevance to the rest of the movie."

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[ajs]

A whole lot of what you point out are limitations in time. This was a three hour movie, and yet you're suggesting four or five sceens that you think should be added?!

I think that, given the limitations of time and the medium this is an astounding take on the books. Could you take this movie as a starting point and imrpove on it? Probably (or at least I imagine someone could), but that's not where P.J. started. He started from scratch. This is, IMHO, the best adaptation of a novel to hit the big screen. I can only think of a handful of other movies that even come close, but most of them set off in very different directions than the book(s) (Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Oddesy, To Kill A Mockingbird). To remain so faithful, and yet do so good a job... I've just never seen it.

Hopefully, the next two movies keep the same level of fidelity (which, since they were made at the same time, I imagine they will).

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[NuShrike]

There were many scenes that are subpar when compared to the writing of the book. Changes to make them faithful to the book would have taken zero time and only added extra drama, mystery, and a better appreciation of the book.

Such as, some time is made to point out that Frodo's sword glows, yet they never made Gandalf's Glamdring glow also. Didn't have to explain Gandalf's sword, but could have only "added" to the background mystery.

When Strider showed himself to Frodo and the gang at Bree, he declared himself as Aragorn of a royal heritage. Only a few more extra seconds and would've added much to the drama, and later "feeling" for this ranger during all the battles.

Showing a ring on Galadriel's finger at the mirror pool. Zero time and would've have hinted she's ALSO a ring lord.

In the book, nobody knew that Frodo was alive and wearing mithril until after they got out of the Moria during the last battle in there. It was revealed immediately in the movie. Deflated the suspense and drama quite a bit. I guess they didn't want to spend time showing Frodo getting carried around.

Talking about bits that should have been cut out,
the Gandalf/Saruman battle. Does not really exist in the book, and is entirely unnecessary to the whole plot screentime wise when dialogue to explain it would do, IMO. Time better spend would have been more background about Hobbits and water, even a short Tom Bombadil episode, more bits of Galadriel's gifts.. not altering Arwen's/Glorfindel's role at the river at Rivendell, etc...

So summary, fairly good adaption of the books much in the style of the Dune movie to the books, but it lost quite a bit of the deep layering of the story, and intensity of the scenes.

Layering that would not have added much more time (if any!) considering the unnecessary made-up scenes that could have been left out instead.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[Artagel]

There is no way LoRT deserves best screenplay adaptation.

I am not quibbling about various inaccuracies that are required by the extrememly compressed format. For example, turning Arwen into Xena-warrior-princess was gutwrenching. This is all the more because there *is* a Xena-warrior-princess later in the person of Eowyn. (Marry a woman like Eowyn, and you better not cheat on her. Would take Lorena Bobbitt to a new level.)

People who had not read the books do not and cannot reasonably take in the time scale of events to understand the scope of the epic. This transforms the book in two ways that are bad.

First, it drops the implication of intermediate time that is so important to understand why these little hobbits are so heroic. One loses a sense of how far Bree is for them, much less Rivendell, much less Lorien. One needs not only space, but time to explain how far they hobbits are going.

Second, it lends the impression that the action scenes that take perhaps 50 pages of the book are adjacent events. While it makes for a much better action story, it does not tell Tolkien's story, which is much more of a travel log. The places I saw, the people I met etc.

Elisions like Tom Bombadil are nits to pick, but the overall character of the work changing, and for the worse, takes LoTR out of consideration for best adapted screenplay.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[WNight]

I thought Sauruman's role was handled well. He intends to betray Sauron, as evidenced by the scene with the Uru-kai where it says it serves him, not Sauron which directly contradicts the orders Sauruman received from Sauron.

The things they could have left out imho were some of the effects like the worms and bugs crawling over the hobbits when they were hidden, and the rock walkway in Moria where they rocked back and forth.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[WNight]

I can't understand what Bombadil is supposed to add to the story...

The first part of LotR was written as more of a kid's book, a romp, like The Hobbit. Bombadil was based on a favorite doll (?) of Tolkien's children.

He later said in some of his letters that the first half (or so) of the first book didn't suit the tone he later decided on.

That's why so many parts like the party and selling BagEnd, Bombadil, and Brie seem silly and out of place.

IMHO it was a very good choice to decide to stick with a consistent feeling throughout and remove excess bits as an editor should have done long ago.

Really, Tolkien wasn't a great writer. His books are enduring because of the rich world he creates and the attention to detail in its design. But to stick to every last word he wrote doesn't make sense when in many cases he simply didn't get around to fixing it up.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[bogado]

Why set aside the lenght of the movie?? This is the single point of failure of this (wonderful in my opinion) movie. The movie is too long and has too many character and settings for a single movie. People who didn't read the book find hard too follow the movie, and you blame the director to withdraw a character that has very little impact in the rest of the movie?

I do belive that the movie was realy wonderful, but I had read the book (even thought I remembered very little from it). I knew the characters and settings I was expecting things to be there, and they were there.

A movie is not a book, and certanly you cannot expect that it would be that book witch is very rich in detais on settings, history and characters. Peter Jackson and his crew made the right choice (in my humble opinion) to take out tom bombadil and even some very good scenes that he implied like the old man willow or the barrow downs. People should be leaving the theaters and longing to read the book, not thinking that they just lost three hours of their lifes.

Well I will stop before people start moderating me as a troll or flamebait. :-)

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[G-funk]

Why was Sam not present at the viewing of the mirror? His vision was important in the book, but deleted completely from the movie

I believe it's because the ending will be different from the books. That's the biggest problem with a film of LOTR. The ending of the book is a terrible ending for a movie. By the end of the movie, the people (who haven't read it) will be expecting a collossal battle with frodo,gandalf, and perhaps aragorn fighting sauron, with the film quickly winding down after that. Having another half hour short story at the end won't sit right with the viewing public. Not having it won't sit right with the geeks. Personally I'm dying to see what they do :-)

Also, don't discount the possibility of extra scenes for us geeky tolkien readers being on the dvd. My ass was pretty sore after 3 hours in a crappy cinema chair, but on my couch that's not gonna be a problem and jackson knows it.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[RedWizzard]

Jackson has already said that the scouring of the shire is not going to happen in the movies so you're right. The glimpse in the mirror was "a tribute to it" according to Jackson. It will be interesting to see how they end it.

The extra footage for the DVD release is (again according to Jackson) mostly extra character development - small scenes that add to feel of the characters. E.g. more on Aragorn, development of the Elf/Dwarf rivalry, that sort of thing. Also more in Lothlorien, including the complete gift-giving scene.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[cperciva]

One of the news reports mentioned that Nash was in the audience for the awards. While I agree that the movie completely mangled his life story, if it were really as bad as everyone says I don't think he would have attended. You can never make a historically accurate biography into a popular movie... the fact that Nash has in effect shown his approval indicates to me that he at least judged the result to be reasonable.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[singularity]

The problem is that they made his life look a lot better than it was. One of the biggest problems is that it makes it look like he overcame paranoid schizophrenia by sheer willpower when, in fact, he went into an admittedly rare remission.

The screenplay makes for a good story, perhaps, but for a terrible adaptation from the book.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[G-funk]

Cool I didn't know that. Cheers.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[cperciva]

One of the biggest problems is that it makes it look like he overcame paranoid schizophrenia by sheer willpower when, in fact, he went into an admittedly rare remission.

s/an admittedly rare remission/a "remission" unlike anything ever observed in a paranoid schizophrenic patient/

In light of the past decade, the original diagnosis is rather questionable.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[Pxtl]

My biggest complaint was how they turned Gimli into Lieutenant Worf - his job is to grunt and give all of the bad suggestions. He exists solely as a loudmouth and source of bad ideas.

They removed the whole chivalry side of the character, the thing that made him respectable, that made him more then just a dumb dwarf. Damnit, he was my favourite character.

That, and I kept wanting the elves to say yrch instea of orcs, but I guess that's too much to ask.

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[ajs]

Several things: first, take off your list everything that you suggest would not have taken much extra time.

You have to stop and think about what a heart-breaking job the editor for this film had. It came in long, which almost certainly means that what was on film was about 3.5-4 hours. Even then you can't fit all your favorite stuff. You trim a phrase here, a reaction shot there, just to save time.

You say that the Saruman/Gandalf battle was not required? Step back and think about that. How do you introduce Saruman, and make him credible in the second movie? How do you explain the Eye's power? How do you get the audience to fear Sauron's reach over the world? The book did so by going on and on about the history of Middle Earth, but to have a droning naration in the movie would have destroyed it (it worked in the book because we are much more willing to read a history than watch it).

Go back to the movie. Wipe the book from your mind and look at what Jackson has done. There's a new generation of viewer who now understand the power of what Tolkien created. Not fully. Not who/what the elves really are. Not why there are wizards, and why they don't count as "men". Not the fact that there really is an Elvish language, and that's the whole reason he wrote the books in the first place. But far more than the Dune movie did for Dune. Far more than any movie has done for a classic, IMHO (though as I say, To Kill a Mockingbird was pretty darn good).

You point to where the moview changed the book, and you complain. I say, make a better adaptation and we'll talk. This is the best one yet, and I find it hard to imagine that someone could make better (perhaps you could as a play, but that's another matter).

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

[armb]

> Setting aside the length of the film issue, why is this entirely reasonable?

"Apart from that, did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?"

The length of the film is the key issue here. To have a commercially successful film, they were going to have to cut _something_. A character who has no known connection with anything else, a character who isn't affected by the ring, seems like a good choice.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[psamuels]

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?

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.

LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...

[myraid]

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?

Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...

[the_2nd_coming]

no, just the fact that Fantacy films comedies and cartoons (eccept beuity and the beast only becasue Disney lobbied hard) never get best film.

they want people to play retards and crazy people or psudo-true historical crap. they need a film that shows a personal obsticle that can be over come.

they are sort of like puritins, if it feels good to watch, it must be a bad movie :-)

Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...

[theCURE]

It's all politics. Ron Howard is why LOTR didn't win. I honestly believe it has nothing to do with the film itself. Everything now a days is run by politics, and this is just more of the same. What's interesting is that people were shocked, as if they didn't see it coming.

Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...

[tswinzig]

My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives?

Why not ask the people that voted, instead of slashdot, for starters.

Post-Sept-11 nationalism?

Nationalism? Huh? I don't think anyone in the states really thinks of LOTR as a "british" or "new zealand" movie. I seriously doubt that played into it at all.

Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?

Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?

Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...

[Aanallein]

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...

Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...

[edhall]

I think Howard deserved an Oscar for Apollo 13 -- which was a much better film than ABM. But he didn't get one that year.

The Acadamy seems to carry an unofficial scorecard over who is "owed" an Oscar, and sometimes awards them for inferior work to correct for what is felt to be a past oversight. I suspect this might have been a factor in nudging things Ron's way (along with the fact that he is a pretty popular guy in Hollywood, having literally grown up in the "industry").

-Ed

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[myc]

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.

I most certainly hope that he does NOT change the name. What does the title of a book written 60 years ago have anything at all to do with current events? Tragic as events were, political correctness and sensitivity can go too far.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[gowen]

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?

But it will have the next Star Wars installment to battle for the technical visual effects/art design/make up/costume. On top of that, the make up will be less novel (excluding new characters: Ents) plus the desire for a consistent visual will mean they'll still be using (essentially) last years tech.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[hooded1]

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.

Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[gmplague]

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.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[Hektor_Troy]

Well - it's not like it was an interesting Nobel prize anyway. I mean - a Nobel prize in Economic Sciences? Damn that's so exciting I can't help but fall asleep ... hehe :-)

Yeah, so it's for developing some game theory:
"for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non- cooperative games"

But it's still boring.

"Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?"

Probably because more slashdotters have read The Lord of the Rings than have heard of John Nash or even care about game theory.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[tswinzig]

This will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.

I need to turn this into my signature, because you fucking no that any time someone writes this, they get +5.

Coincidence? I think not!!

Oh well, this will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[bryanbrunton]

At least LoTR was up front about the subject matter and focus of the film being Fantasy. On the other hand, what we got from A Beautiful Mind was a Fantasy in the guise of a realistic depiction of John Nash's life. Major problems with ABM:

(1) ZERO attempt to actual explain in even layman's terms the theories that Nash was working on.

(2) ZERO attempt to show more of the actual and historic strife in the relationship that Nash had with his wife.

(3) ZERO attempt to even hint at the fact that Nash was bi-sexual.

Ron Howard so candy coated the life of John Nash that this film deserves nothing but disrepect.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[p3d0]

Duh...

Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

If you want balanced coverage of the Oscars (or anything else, for that matter) you have come to the wrong place.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[Gaijin42]

The did explain in laymans terms game theories that arent zero sum games. That is a HUGE element of modern economics, one I spent many years studying in college and for masters.

I thought the scene with "the blond" was a great way to explain the whole thing.

They could have tossed in the prisoners dilema too, but they didn't have a good jail sequence :)

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[JordanH]

• Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

Because CmdrTaco likes the books and the movie, a lot.

That's what I like about this place. The editors aren't afraid to show their own tastes in their story selection. They aren't constantly second guessing themselves saying things like "I wonder if this story will have the right geekiness to have wide geek appeal?"

They just publish what they like. This place has character. Unlike most media.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[JabberWokky]

What pisses me off is how they left out the rather important hallucination Nash had early in his life's travels where he meets a man with a yellow hat and blue trousers who runs around singing. After that, he always refered to his wife as "Goldberry" and asked her to wear green. (Of course, they also left out his wife's long term dementia, constantly telling Nash "I have fought my way here to the castle beyond the goblin city to take back the child you have", and demanding he sing "Suffragette City").

--
Evan

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[Brand X]

I dare say that A Beautiful Mind is also a film that alot of nerds found good.

I guess that depends on the nature of the nerd. This nerd found the blatant dishonesty of the movie, which softened the harsh edges of the already dishonest feel-good book into something that, frankly, made me feel vaguely ill, to be such a turn-off that I almost felt as betrayed by this awards ceremony as I did with Titanic.
I guess you just have to actually be the kind of nerd who really tries to understand things about things, even if they aren't things in whatever field of nerdhood you subscribe to, rather than just giving them a casual glance. I mean, I wouldn't have really had an opinion on the movie if I hadn't seen it and read the book, and I suppose if I had seen it, or even read the book, without knowing anything more than that about Nash, the general social environment of mathematics as a field (I'm a physicist working in software design and algorithm development - I know mathematicians...), schizophrenia (I spent a decade of my life under the shadow of a clinical diagnosis of MPD for what was really enviromentally induced DPD... eg, severe shell shock... and have seen the insides of clinics... so I also know the disease that I was essentially misdiagnosed with), I might have thought it was a passably decent film. Nowhere near the best film, for any reason, of the year.
Don't get me wrong. Technically, the portrayal in "A Beautiful Mind" was more accurate than, say, "The Fisher King"... but it was, emotionally, far less honest, and from some of the interviews I've chanced on, I'd go so far as to lable it deliberately decietful for the sole purpose of a social objective that is, in this particular case (schizophrenia, not mental illness in general) rather misguided, given its emphasis on PC social acceptance instead of concentrated efforts to cure the root problem.

As for FoTR? Not sure. Of all the nominations for Best Picture, I would have gone that route, because:
"Mulan Rouge!", while displaying threads of genius in certain profiles, had a lot of shoddy joisting showing. Poor writing and plot, dialog swinging radically between brilliant wordplays and drivel, as if it were a bunch of brilliant ideas stitched together with less-than adequate execution. Kind of like a lot of Neal Stephenson's work, really, but thinner on the brilliance.
"Gosford Park" wasn't all that great, and I didn't see "In The Bedroom"
FoTR was, in some ways, a better story (as opposed to literature) than the original form. I've long considered Tolkein's significance more historical than anything. His brand of fantasy predates him, and has been done better by others, though rarely with the consistancy. Nontheless, he did much in his time for the acceptance of Fantasy into Literature, at least in theory. I'd rather read Brust or Lindholm (as Lindholm, though her work as Hobb is readable) or Le Guin, but I don't think I could have ever been as ...elevated... by a movie based on anything by any of those authors. I was impressed by the impact. Still, does anyone know what won Best Picture in 1978 (hint: it had a Woody, not a Wookie), and the badly played role model for non-ill neurotics is all but forgotten.

For the Record, I thought "As Good As It Gets" was a great movie, and I have a lot of respect for them for making it honest and feel-good at the same time.

As for Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, and Sidney Poitier - it was scripted, and I'm too cynical not to be turned off by that, but they all deserved the recognition - especially Poitier - really, really, really especially Poitier - and there's a part of me that somewhat hopes for a little spillover into awareness of the current prejudices against asian leads... because I still want to see a serious movie about the 442nd/100th and lost Battalion, focussing on the AJAs, not the damned Texans, as the heroes, sometime in my lifetime. And without a few major male Japanese stars, it's not going to happen.

I still wish someone had thought to nominate Memento for Best Director. I thought it deserved the original screenplay, but it was really the absence of a best director nomination that I was most offended about.

Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

[jdavidb]

As near as I can tell, that's the spark that makes a slash site work. I remember just being awed by Taco's response to queries about the code being open and people trying to compete. "Let them try; more power to them." He's not scared of that possiblity at all.

For all the griping and complaining around here, you can't deny that people like this place because they like what the editors like.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[linzeal]

If he changes the name I swear to god I'm going to fly a crack team of the finest slashdot veteran trolls to kiwiland to follow him wherever he goes.

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.

State of the World

[Pez69]

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.

Re:State of the World

[Blackwulf]

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.

Re:State of the World

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Agreed. The attitude you bemoan is what allows Hollywood to buy and sell Senators (Fritz Holling and Dianne Feinstein come to mind), and to push such drivel as the CBDTPA.

On a side note, has anyone yet pointed out the irony that when someone tries to regulate the movie industry they cry "First Amendment"?

Re:State of the World

[geekoid]

There are also GOOD things that are far more worthy then a movie award.
Sometime there are changes that are more important then a movie award.
The poster states that some important election had just taken place, persoanlly I think its more important to know who is in charge then some movie that wins an award.

not true!

[dollargonzo]

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

Re:not true!

[Chundra]

What person would be so insensitive to claim this about a film named after a woman (a woman!) in this post Sun Yi age? I hope Woody Allen shows a little sensitivity and changes the name. That disgusting sexual deviant.

Re:not true!

[RedWizzard]

Annie Hall may have been a great commedy but I doubt you'll find many people here who would believe it deserved the nod over Star Wars.

I doubt it

[teslatug]

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.

Re:I doubt it

[Sabalon]

You forgot the Tom Hanks factor.

Oh wait - Cast Away didn't win - the fickelness has moved on.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[Bearpaw]

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.

That's a great idea, but the Secret Service might object.

LOTR should have won.

[Parsa]

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.

The oscars aren't about the best films...

[ari{Dal}]

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.

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[mark_lybarger]

exactly. it's all about whoring yourself out to the academy. the best whores normally come out on top. it's how it works in business, how it works in gov't why would we expect the movie industry to work any better? don't we loathe the MPAA here on the site?

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[kaisyain]

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.

Your theory doesn't make much sense given that comedies like Annie Hall, fluff pieces like Shakespeare in Love, and fantasy like Gladiator and Titanic and Forrest Gump have all won Best Picture Awards. Do you really think The Sound of Music and Oliver! weren't "silly" films?

Maybe we didn't see The Fellowship of the Ring take top honors for best film because it didn't deserve it?

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[km790816]

For instance: I love Denzel Washington--amazing actor. Although for this year, I thought Russell Crow and Will Smith had better performances.

Now if you're the Academy you're saying: Russell won last year; Denzel deserves one for his life's work, let's give it to him. It really destroys the legitimacy of an award show.

On the other hand, I'm glad Halle Berry won for best actress. The water works on stage were a little much, but it's hard to dispute the quality of her performance.

There's my 2 cents.

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[tswinzig]

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.

1973: The Sting
1984: Amadeus
1994: Forrest Gump

2004: LOTR: ROTK?

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[nomadic]

The water works on stage were a little much, but it's hard to dispute the quality of her performance.

I didn't see any of the movies involved in the best actress nomination, but from looking at the clips it seems that the only way to win the award is to play a weepy, self-pitying, hysterical, neurotic. I mean, like every clip involved the nominee erupting in tears. Except Judi Dench.

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[Sinjun]

I didn't see any of the movies involved in the best actress nomination, but ...

Please disregard and NEVER mod up a comment that begins like this.

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[Bodrius]

Actually, the Oscars are usually given to the actors that everyone thinks should have gotten it the previous years. It's meant to be that way: it allows market analysis, and it builds anticipation?

So it really doesn't matter much if the performance on the current year was his best or not. Denzel Washington got one because the Academy figured they had ignored him long enough, and the mainstream public expected it.

I think they ignored Crowe for some time as well, and they will ignore Will Smith for a long time to come.

I'm not entirely sure the last is a bad thing, I have yet to see "Ali" but I confess I'm extremely skeptic over his capacity to play someone other than his I-day/MIB/TV-series persona.

Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...

[nomadic]

That's quite alright, my uptight friend. I have 50 karma, and don't need any more mod ups.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[gowen]

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

Ignoring this (splendid) troll, what I found most interesting about the Oscar ceremony was that, early on, Whoopi made a joke based around the September 11th events. (A reference to "the national tragedy suffered this year" turned out to be about Mariah Carey's acting career). This is a sea change compared to every previous reference in the US media, which quite understandably, has tended to treat as beyond any joke. My desire to indulge in uninformed psychology tells me this must mean something about the nation's mood, but I don't know what.

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.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[fruey]

it's always going to be a dreary mainstream serious film.

Well, I don't think that is entirely fair. For all the hype, crap and bullshit that goes with each Oscars ceremony, what it is really about is universal appeal to a panel who all want to pick a good film that is somehow "universal".

Mainstream films are the only films that ever get a look-in at the Oscars, but comedies have won. Some people might even say that LOTR is a great book, but a dreary mainstream adaption. Visual effects aside, I didn't find the characters anywhere near as pensive or wrapped up in their world as in the book.

And, of course, no comment about your comment about changing names of films, but a couple of references for the fun of it:

1. The film, for most cinema goers, will be called Lord of the Rings II anyway
2. People made similar suggestions for SWII (The Clone Wars) because of cloning paranoia
3. 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.

He is a masterful troll, if such a thing exists.

[little_fluffy_clouds]

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.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[ConceptJunkie]

Get real.

The WTC was usually referred to as the "twin towers" not the "two towers".

If Peter Jackson changes the name of the movie for that feeble reason then you'd better find a replacement for him because a brilliant man has obviously had a major stroke.

LOTR Upset

[green pizza]

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.

Re:LOTR Upset

[gamgee5273]

It wasn't an upset - everybody expected ABM to win (look at the Vegas line if you don't believe me).

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!

Re:LOTR Upset

[RedWizzard]

FOTR is a good flick, but it isn't high art and it isn't Best Picture.

What's high art got to do with it? Oscars should be given to the film that will have the greatest lasting impact. Reasonably often it is, sometimes they get it wrong - can you name the film that beat out Star Wars in 78? In 10 years time no one will even remember ABM, FOTR is likely to be considered a classic. But if TTT is a disaster it will drag FOTR down and that is probably a large part of why FOTR didn't get the nod.

Re:LOTR Upset

[gamgee5273]

Actually, yes I can name the film that beat Star Wars in 1978: Annie Hall, which is a classic and is a better film, by far.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[sharkey]

...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.

Best Director

[Erore]

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.

Re:Best Director

[Triv]

Personally, I would've liked to have seen David Lynch win. I also knew that there wasn't a hope in hell that he would - "Mulholland Drive" wasn't...digestable enough for an Oscar.

Doesn't matter really - I gave up on industry awards when "Parade" didn't win the Tony for Best Musical.

Triv

Re:Best Director

[caesar-auf-nihil]

I think part of the reason why Ron Howard got best Director for "A Beautiful Mind" was that he filmed the movie in chronological sequence. To be more specific, most directors shoot a movie out of sequence - one scene from the end of the movie one month, another scene from the beginning after that, another one from the middle after that, and so on, finally editing the whole thing at the end from scenes all shot out of sequence. Ron Howard shot the whole movie in order. He started at the beginning and worked his way to the end. The commentary was that this has never been done before, at least not sucessfully.

All that being said, I think LOTR and Peter Jackson should have won best movie and best director, but I think Ron Howard's chronological shooting sequence, and his several previous nominations, probably helped him clinch the voting this year.

Re:Best Director

[Nightpaw]

I don't see the point of this chronological order trick. It makes the makeup & wardrobe continuity easier, and maybe it's easier for the actors to get in character, but you end up moving people and equipment around to different locations inefficiently and you're at the mercy of the weather much more than you would be.

So did he do it just for the challenge? Or what?

Re:Best Director

[geekoid]

Had a car in the background of a fantasy story, Never Been Done Before.
well maybe, but I couldn't resist... ;)

Re:Best Director

[Artagel]

But most of this "never been done before" is more of an argument for an award after the third movie is screened, to prove the consistency of the work before awarding for that.

Re:Best Director

[Graymalkin]

He tried to win an award for shortest series of shots in the history of any movie ever. It was like watching a flip book of different pictures and scenes and trying to make sense out of it all. Watching Moulin Rouge on acid wouldn't make you as dizzy at FOTR. Also how many of the scenes actually needed real direction? "Ok guys, walk along the top of that hill while the helicopter flies around filming", "Alright in this scene you're very scared...no no more scared than that. Don't worry we'll just move the camera around and cut the shot to two seconds so you look REALLY scared." I was kind of pissed FOTR won for cinematography actually, a failing third year art major with a Handicam could have shot that damn movie better.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[tswinzig]

all the voters want to show how important and meaningful Hollywood is by choosing the film that's serious and has a meaningful message.

First of all, LOTR has many 'serious messages.' More so than A Beautiful Mind.

So, forgot about a fantasy film, a sci-fi film or a comedy ever getting best picture,it's always going to be a dreary mainstream serious film.

LOTR *is* a serious film, and no, the movie that wins doesn't have to be 'serious.' Forrest Gump was essentially a comedy, and won. The Sting was not a 'serious' movie, and won.

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.

You are insane! The books were written and titled decades ago. I hope (no, I KNOW) Peter Jackson is not going to change the title. If anything, LOTR is a perfect movie for these post 9/11 times, the ultimate story of good vs. evil.

Newsflash: LOTR was not the best picture of 2001!

[isaac]

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

Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[rizzo]

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.

Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[bje2]

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...

Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[tswinzig]

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.

This argument is so incredibly lame. So by your thought process, the 'good old boys' decided it was OK for him to go 0 for 10, 0 for 11, 0 for 12, 0 for 13, 0 for 14, and 0 for 15. But absolutely NOT 0 for 16!!

Yeah...

And this quote: "That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs."

This shows how much you know. Randy Newman has scored way more movies than he's written songs for. (I imagine you don't know the difference.) His best ever, IMO, was The Natural... a great soundtrack for a great movie.

Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[rizzo]

I agree with you on the Natural.

I guess I was over-the-top, but I was referring to his song "jingles" that he has written of late. They all sounds the same.

And yes the secret society probably had some other poster boy to give the award to. The Academy is just there to pat itself on the back and not do anything radical. Any changes it makes are way behind their times.

Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[Derkec]

You're right that they Oscar awards sometimes go to people who have put in a string of very good performances rather than a single outstanding one. However, I'm not nearly as angry about it as you are. People who do consistant great work deserve to be recognized and if they are nominated as perhaps doing the best job in a given year, taking the past into consideration isn't evil. For instance, I agree with you about Neuman's song; I heard it and thought "isn't this the song from toy story?" However, if you get nominated 16 times, there's some injustice in not ever being able to take home a little gold statue.

Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[gmhowell]

How exactly did his role in Firestarter raise intellectual and artistic bars?

Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club

[Wraithlyn]

Are you kidding? Russell Crowe was AMAZING in Gladiator. He totally made the movie the success it was. Name a better leading man that year. He WAS that roman general. Imagine if say, Kevin Costner had played it? How that guy still gets major roles is completely beyond me.

Sure, mod me down

[fobbman]

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.

Re:Sure, mod me down

[bughunter]

Why would a site that is so anti-MPAA give a hairy orcs ass what the MPAA thinks of a movie?

Well, perhaps partially because the Oscars are awarded by AMPAS (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), not the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).

The former represent the actual artists and creative individuals, while the latter represent the investors who fund the pictures and take the majority of the profits. While the former may be petty and superficial at times, they're not solely motivated by greed and lust for every fraction of a percent of profit margin.

So that may have something to do with it.

Re:Sure, mod me down

[The Good Reverend]

Why would a site that is so anti-MPAA give a hairy orcs ass what the MPAA thinks of a movie?

First, the site isn't anti-MPAA. Many of it's users are. The site is a news and discussion forum.

Second, not all Slashdot readers are Anti-MPAA. Some don't give your hairy orc's ass about the issue. Some, like me, realize the issues and have come to an internal compromise. Some users haven't bought a movie ticket or DVD in years. You have to realize that there are many thousands of posters, and not all have the same opinions about issues.

Sure, industry awards are a circle jerk. So? Don't watch. Go to your local independant movie house and Fight The Power.

Just remember, /. is a community, but few communities hold a single viewpont on any given issue.

Re:Sure, mod me down

[RedWizzard]

If you're going to say stupid things you should be modded down. The MPAA has nothing to do with the Oscars.

Yes, films do get ignored, and yes some of the awards are contentious. The Oscars are voted on by people in the particular field relevant to the award. I.e. the cinematography Oscar is voted on by cinematographers. So in theory the results should be fairly reasonable. Unfortunately there does seem to be a lot of sentimentality and politics involved. One thing to remember is that we don't know how close the voting is - Oscars are often portrayed as being a unanimous decision when they are not.

In other words

[sielwolf]

"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.

Re:In other words

[gamgee5273]

Meaningless until the guys who won the awards are looking for new jobs to work on. Remember, the "meaningless" awards help some folks keep working if they are independent, like most designers are.

And Memento was from 2000, not 2001.

Re:In other words

[Sabalon]

Yup...Forrest Gump is a great movie. However, I watch Shawshank more often - probably cause it's shorter. Never saw Hoop Dreams and Pulp Fiction was entertaining tripe.

Ghost World was a movie I would have loved to have seen nominated for something more than best adapted screenplay.

Then again, I guess I'm shallow too - I only watch the awards to see who's wearing what see-thru stuff. I wonder who'll be the first chic just to say hell with it and show up nude.

Re:In other words

[gowen]

On the Waterfront lost and from that point on the Academy has been living a lie ever since.

Thats a really nice thesis that is let down in only one respect. On The Waterfront won the Best Picture oscar for 1954.

Re:In other words

[Jungle guy]

Memento was nominated for "Film Editing" and "Writing (Original Screenplay)" this year. And it lost to Black Hawk Down - shame on you, Holywood!

Re:In other words

[tswinzig]

Does anyone remember Forrest Gump anymore?

Uhhh, yeah? That's like saying, does anyone remember Titanic anymore, +4 years. Forrest Gump broke all kinds of records when it was released, so I'm pretty sure it's remembered. I watched it many times in the theatres, and own the DVD.

Re:In other words

[gamgee5273]

Really? It was released in 2000...I wonder how they pulled that one off...

And, incidentally, I liked BHD.

Re:In other words

[gamgee5273]

Check IMDB - the first user comment for the movie is September of 2000. There are about 36 comments in September - December of 2000. So, no matter what the Polaroid says, the movie was released in 2000 and seen at the 2000 Toronto Film Festival.

How LOTR can win more Oscars

[vjmurphy]

* 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;

Re:How LOTR can win more Oscars

[The Wookie]

Don't forget Gollum talking with a southern accent saying "My precious always said, life is like a box of chocolates."

After Helm's Deep & Isingard, the trees go on to attack a logging camp

I guess it's too late to put Leonardi DiCaprio and Kate Winslet on the prow of Boromir's boat.

Re:How LOTR can win more Oscars

[Nightpaw]

* Arwen's role in Two Towers should be to sleep with some Orc played by Billy Bob Thorton

Plus, no makeup costs!

Re:How LOTR can win more Oscars

[rizzo]

* Strider overcomes his disabilities and is able to kill Orcs using only his left foot;

Do you mean using his left foot to stand on or using it to beat his enemies with? The latter would be much more impressive. Say it was chopped off and he picked it up and starting swinging. Then afterwards he could have a hollow wooden leg in which he keeps his finest mead.

The Jam

[Infonaut]

"Going Underground" - ah, *that* certainly brings up memories. :-)

Serious?

[hey!]

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?

Re:late?

[gamgee5273]

Dude, Berry deserves the damn Oscar - she deserves a truckload of the things. Go rent the movie.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[-=OmegaMan=-]

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. :-\

LOTR didn't deserve what it got

[artemis67]

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!

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[-=OmegaMan=-]

Like revising E.T.?

Granted, E.T. is hardly a classic work of literature, but it's still a shitty thing to do.

On the Contrary

[LightForce3]

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!

Re:On the Contrary

[RedWizzard]

The obvious example is Godfather Part II winning Best Picture. Part of the problem for FOTR may be that if the others don't stand up then they will drag FOTR down so people may have decided on a wait and see approach.

Slashdot Poll

[DeadBugs]

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.

Re:Slashdot Poll

[he-sk]

Right here. I went to the bathroom when her cryfest started and came right back just before she thanked her lawyers. I guess I'm lucky that I missed the stuff in between.

BTW: LOTR was a good movie and I thought it should have gotten best screenplay adaptation, but what I'm really disappointed about, is that Amelie didn't won any of its nominations. It should have gotten every single one. Except for maybe best foreign picture, as I haven't seen the other four movies.

Re:Slashdot Poll

[gnovos]

That was the most significant award given all evening. In case you weren't paying atttention, that was the first Best Actress award to go to an African-American. Ever.

It's only signifigant because we make believe it's signifigant. Has the acadamy awards made a *point* of chosing winners in a racist way over the past 74 years? Have they sat around the table and said, you know, I'd really like to vote for so-and-so, but she's black, and I hate blacks, so I'll vote for Jodie Foster instead?

Sorry to break it to you, but no.

Before you start saying that this actress somehow has a special place, or that some great event has been achieved here, ask yourself where the Eskimo, Japanese, Indian and Afgani women getting thier "Best Actress" awards are? Is it just super racism that now only black and white women have won? No, it's just that everyone else isn't busy making the kind of tripe movies that get nominated for Oscars.

Re:Slashdot Poll

[curunir]

Yeah...I thought it was a bit odd that she thanked her lawyer and did NOT thank her co-star.

Am I the only one who thinks Billy Bob deserved a shoutout???

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[Lord Omlette]

Go to a country. Any country. Go to Canada or Mexico or England. Then read their newspapers. Then bring one of those back here and compare their paper to one of our good old American newspapers. See if even half the stuff they cover is mentioned anywhere in the US. Then come back and tell us how we shouldn't be censoring reality.

ratings of foreign films

[__aawsxp7741]

Speaking of which, I'm continually being surprised by the ratings foreign films are "awarded" in the US. I'd be very grateful if anybody could explain why e.g. Amelie or Lola Rennt were rated "R".

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?

Re:ratings of foreign films

[yesthatguy]

I haven't seen Amelie, but for Lola Rennt, there's a lot more foul language in that movie than is generally acceptable for PG-13. The general premise is also something that children really don't need to see. Rating something "R" is not a way of killing a movie; it often makes it even more popular - it's just a way of indicating that the movie is not something you want to bring 10-year old Johnny to see. As a comparison, The Matrix was an American movie, and also rated R, and that's definitely one of the most liked, most popular movies among teenagers and older.

Re:ratings of foreign films

[StevenMaurer]

I saw Amalie. Funny film. It definately deserved an "R" though.

That part where she goes onto the rooftops to imagine all the orgasms going on in Paris "right this instant" - immediately followed by shots of fifteen different lovers all going "oohhhhhh" - isn't quite the think I'd bring my 11-year old to see.

Remember that the "rating" system is voluntary for the parents. You can bring in your kid if you think they can handle it.

ABM Screenplay Adaption better then LOTR/FOTR

[maggard]

My only comment is that I can't believe they didn't win for best screenplay adaptation. I've reread the books since seeing FotR and it's amazing how many changes they made...

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 humbly suggest...

[El Camino SS]

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.

Let me count the ways...

[emil]

1. A Beautiful Mind is a whitewash of a draft-dodging deadbeat dad who is occasionally of the alternate persuasion and gifted with only marginal scholastic ability when compared to his peers of the same time period. Yes, I found its exposition of schizophrenia to be extremely informative, but the events of his life were so thoroughly edited (i.e. his divorce and remarriage) that the movie has very little to do with the truth.
2. The Fellowship of the Ring was a tremendous gamble for the studio, and they won big. Their efforts at remaining truthful to the novels deserve preference to the pack of lies that was A Beautiful Mind.

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.

Re:Let me count the ways...

[Gaijin42]

The esteem that a movie is held by the movie going public should have absolutely 0 impact on the oscars. The oscars are a peer awards. A movie could totally bomb at the box office, but still be "best" in a particular skill or area.

The public wants lots of explosions, and breasts. That doesnt mean it deserves an award.

On the other hand, the politics and scandals and campaigning is horrible. It would be much better for the industry if the awards were held privately, and not as the spectacle they are now. But that wont happen, because the shows that win get a big boost out of the awards.

Re:Let me count the ways...

[KH]

[Guess I should post anonymous to save some karma, but...]

Uma should have gotten the most eye-catching breast award last night.

Re:Let me count the ways...

[kubrick]

I think she's currently a nursing mother. The father is Ethan Hawke, which makes the entire scenario very Gattaca. :)

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[Amazing Quantum Man]

It's not like the plot calls for winged Nazgûl dive-bombing Isengard.

Now there's a movie I'd break my self-imposed CBDTPA movie boycott to go see! :-)

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[Sabalon]

C'mon pay attention:

you'd lose all those sexual innuendos that make Marlowe so much fun to read!

But you are correct - the more we go changing everything to fit with current views, the worst off we are for it. "Amos 'n Andy" was okay in the 50's and then got real controversial. It shows us where we've come from.

And if they rename the Two Towers, I want the third movie renamed, cause I don't want to be reminded of the former british oppression and the amount of money the monarch consumes for no benefit to the public. See...it's that simple :)

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[gowen]

The Madness of Richard III

Well, ignoring the fact that its "George", you should bear in mind that that story is not completely true (although "not totally untrue".

IMO...

[Masem]

The Academy will wait until 2004 to bestow Picture and Director; Jackson was able to pull off one of the books, but the Academy may be wanting to see if he can do all 3, particularly the second book which is probably the one with the most dramatics in it. The first is mostly setup that needed a good handling of both the initial chase and the caves of Moria, and the Elven council that is all plot set up. The last is mostly the flight of Frodo to destroy the ring and the otherwise huge battles. The second is where you deal with the consequences of the breaking up of the Fellowship, Frodo going mad with the power of the ring, and Samwise trying to stay close to his friend. Thus, I would expect a possible actor nod next year if it's pulled out well. But overall, the honor of Best Picture/Director should only go to LotR if no part of the trilogy disappoints, and that means waiting until 2004 Oscars to find out if Jackson is able to keep the vision up. I don't doubt he could, but I'd suspect that a similar feeling by the Academy is shared.

(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).

Re:late?

[gamgee5273]

Not liking an actor is legit - I've seen very little from Berry to prove to me that she is a strong actor (Monster's Ball and Bulworth are the only two that come to mind), but she won for a role worth winning for (unlike, oh, let's say Training Day or Scent of a Woman). I don't like Mel Gibson, but I'm not going to say he shouldn't win an Oscar if he does a great job at something.

I do really suggest Monster's Ball, even if you don't like her.

Re:grow up!

[EricKrout.com]

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.

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 :: Got Mono?

Re:Who gives a damn?

[harmonica]

Nope. IIRC, he appeared in the "what movies I liked" clip at the beginning, though.

But the academy seems to have a new president who kept his speech short. Good man! :)

AMPAS =/= MPAA

[Cy Guy]

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.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[Chonguey]

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.

Re:OT: oscar's direction

[Chris Parrinello]

You are not alone. To me it seemed extremely sloppy from the start of the show when we had to sit through a wide shot of Tom Cruise giving his opening monologue before somebody wised up and decided to go in for a closeup. It was all downhill from there.

What the heck was up with the after speech pan from the current winners to Cirque Du Soleil rehearsing in the background to some swopping tilted angle shot of Cruella De Ville and Hawkeye.

It was also, in the immortal words of Casey Casem "fucking ponderous, man".

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[Nutcase]

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?

Nomination Its Own Award

[_Sprocket_]

OK. Sure. The Academy Awards may or may not be a crock. LoTR may or may not have deserved more (or even what it did get). There are certainly other films Hollywood ignored. These are all fun points to discuss if this is your kind of thing. But I don't really put much weight to them (of course - don't let me ruin it for everyone else).

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.

Puritan war cry: What about the children!?

[Kibo]

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.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[celfie]

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.

Best SCORE???!!!??

[Bazzargh]

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)

Re:Best SCORE???!!!??

[Rand Race]

No it's not just you, me and all my friends had the exact same reaction to the score: It sucked wet farts from dead pigeons. FotR is the second best epic fantasy movie ever made; the only element that elevates Conan the Barbarian over FotR is Basil Pouledaris's score (IMO of course).

LOTR was a very good movie,

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:LOTR was a very good movie,

[HanzoSan]

Final Fantasy? Its not a very good movie

sure it has expensive effects, but they arent really the most realistic effects.

Final Fantasy could be compared to disney style effects.

Actually a movie which was great was resident evil, very good movie, very good special effects,

Re:Best Picture? My Ass

[hey!]

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.

Re:Hear hear!!

[maggard]

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?

How many folks who've devoted their lives to storytelling have read LOTR? Gee, you think not many? Look up from your People Magazine and realize behind the red carpet and dresses there are legions of talented creative literate people in the industry. Heck, they're not the ones rushing to make Tom Greene movies but bills gotta be paid...

For that matter, how many in the Academy do you think can actually read?

Those that voted on Best Screenplay Adaptation. So, did you read the other source material and their screenplays?

No?

But 'cause you liked LOTR/FOTR is has to be the best adaptation, right? So who is really the clueless unread zombie?

Not impressed by the music, ...

[carlcmc]

What did you wear earplugs in addition to blinders when you went and saw that film???? The drum beats, the chanting choruses, singing strings all made for a palpable tense mood inspiring setting in the mountains of moria. the music was sickly sweet in hobbiton, and dark and apprehensive in the caves of moria, and mysterios and lovely with the elves.

"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 Precioussssss ...

[ProfMoriarty]

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 ...

Re:My Precioussssss ...

[_archangel]

Make that your signature.

Makes up for Titanic

[nagora]

I had visions of another Titanic - 11 Oscars and no story, but the jury rightly ignored the mediocre LotR.

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

Re:Gandalf the Gay?

[Gaijin42]

Yes Ian is gay. And you can still like him as an actor. He isn't hitting on you or anything is he? If you don't like movies (or plays, or books, or music, etc) that have gay people involved with them, you pretty much need to stop going to the movies,or the theatre, or reading, or listening to music because the arts have a really dispraportianate nubmber of homosexuals involved.

You don't have to like gay people (but you are a bigot if that is the only reason you don't like them), but that shouldn't affect your opinion of their work if they have skill and talent.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[joshsisk]

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.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Favourite Clash Lyrics

[Infonaut]

but then there's - "orbitin' your living room, cashin' in the Bill of Rights"...

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[joshsisk]

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. ;)

A beautiful mind?

[NWT]

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!

Re:A beautiful mind?

[Charles Dodgeson]

Me, too.

While the challenge of adapting LotR/FR to a movie may have been greater than adapting A Beautiful Mind, one could take length of LotR as a failure to adapt it for the screen, which is probably why ABM deserved to win in that catagory. Maybe a bigger (ie, shorter) adaptation would have been possible if it weren't for all of us fans.

ABM departed wildly in every detail from the book, but that didn't bother me (with one exception below). It didn't bother me because they kept the essence of the one aspect of the story that was of interest to the film makers: The "becoming human through human interection as a cure" theme. Nash learned very late in life to value people whom he previously would have dismissed as idiots. And that was done well.

I also enjoyed that the movie was interesting, even suspensful, for someone who'd read the book.

The one departure from the book that bothered me was the bar scene where they described something that is almost, but not entirely, unlike the Nash Equalibrium.

Anyway, that is why I believe that ABM deserved to win best adapeted screenplay even if LotR may have faced more of a challenge.

Re:OSCAR NIGHT

[zzyzx]

If the barriers we have left to worry about are what Oscar awards people are winning, then racism is pretty much over.

I agree...

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Waitthehellaminute

[zzyzx]

In terms of the argument it could work. The orginal poster wasn't saying what the best picture was as much as what it wasn't. If I saw two films and liked one a lot better, I wouldn't call the second one the best of the year.

My biggest disappointment

[Bilbo]

To my mind, Sam is the everyman hero of the books, yet his role seems to be being played down. This nobility of the common man (or Hobbit) is an important message of the books and is being glossed over.

In my mind, looking back at the movie, this is my one biggest disappointment. Not so much the fact that they downplayed Sam's role, but that they made the story a Clash of Titans. I think a great deal of what Tolkien was trying to say (to the extent that he was trying to say anything) was the triumph of the "little people" against the Great Evil. Where the Mighty had failed, in no small part due to their own arrogance, the unasuming Hobbits were the ones to save the day.

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.

a few facts straight Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Bo

[Misha]

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, ;)

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[fruey]

Fruey reminds himself NEVER to quote film titles without checking IMDB himself.

Shame on me.

It's an adaptation, that's why...

[Squirrel Killer]

Don't know why that was changed (do I not remember the movie correctly?)....Now, admittedly, they had to edit for length. I'm not sure what else I would have left out instead.

They're called "adaptations" for a reason. It's impossible to condense 300+ page into 2 hours. There's a reason that Stephen King's short stories make for better movies than his books. Movies, for all their splendor, are about small events, short snippets of time. It's those reasons that I'm about as mad at Jackson for his LOTR changes as I am at Howard for his Beautiful Mind changes - that is, not at all. Their changes capture the essence of the book while keeping it viewable in one sitting.

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

Re:Newsflash: LOTR was not the best picture of 200

[GreenHell]

(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'.

Re:Gandalf the Gay?

[feldsteins]

That may be the most offensive comment I've ever read here on Slashdot. And if you're a regular reader you know that that's saying something.

Thank Goodness the damned thing didn't win BP!

[Fantastic Lad]

Maybe one of the next LOTR films will win a 'Best Picture' award if it bloody well deserves one. The first certainly did not.

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

Re:Thank Goodness the damned thing didn't win BP!

[geekoid]

Clearly nobody could have done a good job to someone like you. You have no grasp of context and medium.
Tolkien took a lifetime to do it because he just did it here and there, to tell a story.
All thing considered, the story survived the transition pretty damn well, probably better then is anybody else did it, and certianly better then if it was made for TV.
All directors have a medicore past, until they create the one great success.
Since you can talk to the dead, wy don't ypou talk to some one more importemt then Tolkien? I mean you knopw he would have hated it, so you must be talking to him, right?
I suggest you read some of his letters and prefaces. It seems to me he would have found it a fine piece of wiork, because its telling the story, and keeping it in context.

The oscars suck, but the embodimen of pure evil? haha. your right, killing millions of Jews, Tourching Civilians, and The acadamy awards.
sheesh.
You, like a great many people, seem to think the Oscars is for best moivie of all time, or for best movie that could of been. Its not, its for best movie out of a few for that year, that where actually made.
Its just a book.albeit, a great one.
Its just a movie.
I wonder if you have bothered to talk to any political figure about anything thats really importants. If you could channel this energy and do something helpfull with it, you might actually achieve something.

Id say, more like "knee jerking lad".

The Godfather Parts I and II

[briggsb]

Both of the first 2 Godfather movies won the Best Picture oscar as well as several others.

Best makeup? I think not

[Bluetick]

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).

Re:Gandalf the Gay?

[rizzo]

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.

Re:LOTR will never get best picture

[gmhowell]

I think you are thinking of a recent South Park episode where they say "It's been twenty years since AIDS started, so we can make jokes about it now."

Actually, that is probably referring to the same article as you mentioned.

Re:a few facts straight Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole

[curunir]

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.

I wonder

[quantaman]

Anyone know who the french judge voted for;)

Chronological shooting sequence ...

[GodSpiral]

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.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[Jeremy Erwin]

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.

Re:Blackhawk down just a good war flick

[gamgee5273]

It's an anti-war flick that really gets into the first combat my generation was involved in (we were just a touch too young for the Gulf). I think it is popular because of the renewed patriotism, but the US doesn't come off perfectly in the film (or the book, for that matter).

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[Boulder Geek]

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 ;-).

Re:Puritan war cry: What about the children!?

[Doc Hopper]

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.

Re:As expected

[bonch]

"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."

Riiiight, I'm pretty sure I won't be watching "A Beautiful Mind" 10 years from now.

I find it funny you label LOTR a minor work in the history of literature when LOTR was voted in several polls as the most important literature of the past century.

Re:The only surprize was that McKellan didn't win

[hughk]

Broadbent wasn't a bad choice, He had two good movies this year, Iris for which he was nominated and Moulin Rouge. Personally, I preferred the energy of the latter.

Everyone knows that Mr Jackson has done a trilogy, so I believe in the Ring and McKellan will get his Oscar either for the Two Towers or the Return of the King.

Absolutely revolting

[renehollan]

Halle Berry is either the world's best actress for that Oscar acceptance speech performance, or the world's slimiest person, for the same reason. Somehow I think she falls short on the first count.

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.

Best screenplay for FOTR? Not by a long shot

[hyacinthus]

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.

LOTR a great MOVIE

[{tele}machus_*1]

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.

memento

[bartyboy]

Too bad Memento came out in 2000, making it a (potential) contender for last year's Oscars.

Re:memento

[kubrick]

Tell that to the Academy -- it won best original screenplay last night.

Re:memento

[kubrick]

Sorry, my mistake... was nominated for best original screenplay. Gosford Park won that award.

Amelie *wasn't* violent

[Goonie]

SPOILERS FOR "AMELIE" AHEAD

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...

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[Lemmy Caution]

Then FotR fails as a movie (which it doesn't.) And shouldn't have even been nominated until the 2nd to films came out. (Which I don't agree with.) As far as the Academy - and people in film who are smarter than they are, for that matter - is concerned, films stand or fall on their own merits, end of story.

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.

In Praise of LoTR Dissent

[screwballicus]

For those of you who believe, like I do, that LoTR got, not only as much honour as was due it, but far more than was due it at the Oscars, here's a delicious piece of vicious criticism. Not very pithy, but satisfyingly vicious.

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...)

LOTR or Harry Potter will never get best picture

[Mandelbrute]

all the voters want to show how important and meaningful Hollywood is by choosing the film that's serious and has a meaningful message.

If it's not made in Hollywood it won't get the Oscar - it's surprising enough that LOTR got the awards that it did, especially since the Weta guys are not based in Hollywood. Face it, it's not a global award, but a USA event - if LOTR didn't have an American actor in it then it wouldn't have got a single award - Hollywood funding or not. This in not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that people should remember each year when the awards come out - it's not award for the best picture in the world but the best picture in the USA.

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.

How ignorant can you be, Taco?!

[Kasreyn]

"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

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[Grab]

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.

Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi

[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.

Re:Gandalf the Gay?

[feldsteins]

I'm not kidding at all.

Re:Gandalf the Gay?

[feldsteins]

It's a far, far better last name than "Coward," which is a name you certainly seem to be living up to :)