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.
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
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
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.
* 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
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...
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.
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
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.
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