Slashdot Mirror


LoTR Takes 4 Oscars

E1ven writes "The Lord of The Rings: The fellowship of the ring won four awards, including Cinematography, Makeup, Music (Score), and Visual Effects. " At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director. They definitely deserved the ones they got.

20 of 613 comments (clear)

  1. Screenplay adaptation?! by MadAhab · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    1. Re:Screenplay adaptation?! by JordanH · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Screenplay adaptation?! by singularity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
  2. LOTR won Best Film & Best Director... by myraid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the UK our favourite film won 5 baftas (UK version of the Oscars) including Best Film and Best Director. See the BBC [news.bbc.co.uk] website for more info. My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives? Post-Sept-11 nationalism? Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?

    --
    "My word is my bond" - Cugel the Clever Jack Vance
  3. Re:LOTR will never get best picture by hooded1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Insensitive?? That book was named before the friggin buildings were built. Why should it have to change its name because some psychos blew up the buildings that stole its name?

    We can't suddenly start censoring reality because something horribly happened. If we did that we are injuring our freedoms as Americans. And if we lose these freedoms then what is left of the country? The power of the United States comes from the incredibly smart men who drafyted the constitution and design our government. They gave us what no other country had, freedom. If that freedom is taken away then all is lost, the initials U-S-A mean nothing, the terrorists will have won.

    --
    A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
  4. Re:It had to be said. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny
    "You must roll D20, 18 or greater to win Best Picture."

    *roll*

    11

    Oh well, 2 more chances. :]

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? by gmplague · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? Sure, it was certainly the most popular on /., but it would have been nice if you had said something like "A Beautiful Mind got the awards for best picture and best director." I dare say that A Beautiful Mind is also a film that alot of nerds found good. I mean, the movie is about a mathemetician who wins the nobel prize for pete's sake. And there were loads of other movies that the /. crowd really seemed to like as well.

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

    --
    __________________________________________
    Take comfort in your ignorance.
    Grandmaster Plague
    1. Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? by tswinzig · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    2. Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? by JordanH · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • 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.

  6. The oscars aren't about the best films... by ari{Dal} · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The oscars have never been about the best films. From day 1 (back in 1927), they were all about hollywood patting itself on the back.
    It was started by film and production executives, is chaired today by the same types of people. The only way to even get involved in the voting for the oscars is to be invited to join the Academy by the Board of Governers and is limited to 'those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures'. A link with the brief history is here.
    You'll never see a movie like LotR take top honours, now or ever, for a very good reason. It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.
    To sum up: the Oscars are of the hollywood crowd, for the hollywood crowd, by the hollywood crowd. This is why I never watch awards shows.

    --
    Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
  7. Re:State of the World by Blackwulf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Best Director by Erore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club by rizzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Oscars have worse judging than NBA referees, in terms of "make-up calls". The only reason Russel Crowe won last year was because people felt he should have won for LA Confidential. His acting was nothing phenominal.

    This year's prime example is Randy Neuman (sp?) winning for best song for that Monsters Inc tune. That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs. But the dear old Oscars club wasn't going to let him go 0 for 16. The LOTR Enya song was by far the best, even my wife agreed!

    It's all a sham and show put on for the drooling masses who get to see their movie star idols act like their not assholes. I'm surprised Russel Crowe didn't bite a chunk out of Whoopi's neck when she cracked on him.

    Pay no attention to these awards. George C. Scott was the only smart one in the bunch. He wasn't even there when he won best actor for Patton. He was home watching hockey. He believed that these "competitions" spoiled the quality of films, making them pander to the masses instead of trying to raise intellectual and artistic bars.

    --

    "More organs means more human." - Zim

  10. How LOTR can win more Oscars by vjmurphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    * Give Frodo a incurable disease;
    * Have Gandalf take a shot to the head and be mentally impaired for the next two movies;
    * Arwen's role in Two Towers should be to sleep with some Orc played by Billy Bob Thorton;
    * Sam gets Rain Man autism;
    * Strider overcomes his disabilities and is able to kill Orcs using only his left foot;

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  11. IMO... by Masem · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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).

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
  12. AMPAS =/= MPAA by Cy+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. My Precioussssss ... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    my precioussss is lost, it is.
    Nasty Opie takeses it.
    Gollum will have his sweet revenge, yes preciousssss, next year preciousss will be mine again ...

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
  14. Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi by joshsisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi by joshsisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. ;)

  16. It's an adaptation, that's why... by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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