Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

There's a moral to this story by heironymouscoward · 2004-01-26 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

When making ambitious trilogies, shoot the whole set in one go. Do not try to make a Version 2 years after the first one made it big, or you will end up looking like a fool. And yes, I'm still regretting having seen the second Matrix movie.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

Re:There's a moral to this story by 1SmartOne · 2004-01-26 00:53 · Score: 0

You are absolutely correct. I'm glad that they shot it all at once. Too bad about Matrix.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anise · 2004-01-26 00:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

How likely does everyone think this is to carry over to the Oscars? Or will that awful wallow *Cold Mountain* win everything? (Yes, I just had to watch almost 2 and 1/2 hours of Jude Law covered in mud, blood, and fake beards, which kind of makes it pointless to have him onscreen, and Nicole Kidman getting her hair mysteriously re-highlighted during the middle of the Civil War.)
Re:There's a moral to this story by Wanderer2 · 2004-01-26 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Indeed. It also means you won't have many cases of different actors playing the same characters in different movies because the original actor died/wanted too much money/fell out with the rest of the cast and crew etc.

But there aren't many studios that would let you do such a thing, in case the first movie is a flop and the whole trilogy makes an enormous loss as a result.

--
I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
Re:There's a moral to this story by !the!bad!fish! · 2004-01-26 01:05 · Score: 0, Funny

Using the news.bbc.co.uk search results isn't an accurate method for judging a movie.
Try entering crap movie into the search box.
I see the Two Towers a number 1.

--
Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
Re:There's a moral to this story by Paradise+Pete · 2004-01-26 01:21 · Score: 1

How likely does everyone think this is to carry over to the Oscars?
Based on the odds for the Golden Globes, I'd say it's very likely. If you wanted to bet on last night's awards you had to lay 4-1 for it to win best picture, and 5-1 for best director. (In other words, to win $100 you had to risk $400 or $500, respectively.)
Re:There's a moral to this story by hanssprudel · 2004-01-26 01:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I were a Hollywood exec, I would draw the opposite conclusion from The Matrix. Look at the numbers for Revolutions. It didn't even make it's production budget back, with a total that is HALF of what Reloaded made. Given that Revolutions was no better than Reloaded, what could WB be expecting if they had another $150 million matrix movie coming up?

The LOTR movies are remarkable in Hollywood history. Two Towers was the first sequel EVER to a blockbuster ($200 million +) to make more then it's prequel, and Return of the King was the second. They managed this because they were excellent movies: fan liked them, wide audiences liked them, critics liked them. But Revolutions gives you some idea of what would have happened if Fellowship had been a disappointment. It isn't pretty...

So, my lesson from the Matrix would be: WB should never have footed the bill for a second sequel until they knew if the first sequel worked (*). The lesson from LOTRs is really just: sometimes gutsy, risky calls pay off in a big way. Most of the time they don't...

(*) Of course, Hollywood would have looked at the numbers for Revolutions and decided that it did, instead of realizing that it made that money on the back of the first movie, and had no legs to stand on it's own.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Ed+Avis · 2004-01-26 01:46 · Score: 1

Unless the characters are meant to grow older during the stories (eg Harry Potter - although that's bigger than a trilogy).

Or if you were making a Dr Who trilogy and the Doctor was meant to regenerate...

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:56 · Score: 0

> The lesson from LOTRs is really just: sometimes gutsy, risky calls pay off in a big way.

Hey, that's just like the message IN the movie!
Re:There's a moral to this story by moviepig.com · 2004-01-26 02:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

ALIENS and TERMINATOR 2 were both years-later "version 2"s, and not only didn't suck, but likely benefited from the lengthy hiatus.
(Maybe the moral is: get James Cameron. ...TITANIC: THE REVENGE?)

--
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
Re:There's a moral to this story by JimBobJoe · 2004-01-26 02:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

There's a moral to this story

Oh yeah, maybe in LOTR, but not in Hollywood. Hollywood has no morals, and if anything one lesson is that audiences will reward a film that makes the effort to stay true to the book. It was an extraordinary story (well, not for me, I'm not a fan) so why mess with it?

Movie making is about lots and lots of risks, and they tend to shy away from the costs of epics.
Re:There's a moral to this story by hanssprudel · 2004-01-26 02:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

The studio gets about two thirds the domenstic box office money, and about one third (or less) of the international box office. So the revenue estimate for WB from the theatre run of Revolutions is $175 million or so. Add the production and marketing budgets, and you will see that it is about ten million dollars short.

That isn't to say they won't make the money back, today films make as much or more again on video and DVD sales and rentals (for the Matrix and LOTR films possibly much more) so it certainly isn't a money looser for them. But look at what happened after Reloaded: the franchise went from guaranteed super-blockbuster to decent performance. Would you be willing to bet that if there was a third, it wouldn't flop completely?
Re:There's a moral to this story by Performer+Guy · 2004-01-26 02:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Flawed analysis. Movies often don't make the budget back at the domestic box office, international markets, rentals, DVD sales, TV rights, merchandising etc make up the margin and then some.

Just look at the "+ Overseas Gross" in on that page it's over a quarter billion, add to that merchandising, DVDs, Computer Games, etc and you're seriously in the black.

Yup the movies were ass but given your attitude LOTR would never have been made.

A second Matrix sequel while the other was in production may have been a safer bet that a new movie from thin air (which often bomb). In addition ofcourse the parallel production reduced costs on a number of levels giving you (at least in theory) more movie for your buck.
Re:There's a moral to this story by harley_frog · 2004-01-26 02:47 · Score: 1

It's very interesting when you look at the numbers for All Time Box Offices. Sure , Titanic grossed $600,788,188 in the U.S., but combined, Lord of the Rings has garnered $985,564,693, and that's not counting last weekend's box office receipts. Whether you think of LOTR as three seperate films or, like me, as one long epic told in three parts, it is an impressive performance and ranks LOTR among some good company.

--
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
Re:There's a moral to this story by HungWeiLo · 2004-01-26 04:15 · Score: 1

That is true. All the $5.99 straight-to-tape Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies that you don't hear about (because they're not released domestically at the box office) actually make pretty good money in the international market. There is a whole industry of Hollywood people who make their money overseas (Cynthia Rockwell, for example, IIRC)

--
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Re:There's a moral to this story by firstadopter.com · 2004-01-26 04:19 · Score: 1

Agreed. DVDs are where the money is, and LOTR has this game in spades. Theater version, extended version for every movie. What a smart move.

--
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
Re:There's a moral to this story by bluethundr · 2004-01-26 04:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

When making ambitious trilogies, shoot the whole set in one go. Do not try to make a Version 2 years after the first one made it big, or you will end up looking like a fool. And yes, I'm still regretting having seen the second Matrix movie.

While I agree that on the whole LoTR works a helluva lot better than Matrix did as a trilogy, I believe it's worth noting that Matrix was so experimental at the time it was made that the Wachowskis most likely had no clue that there would ever be more than one Matrix. They may have hoped there would be a sql. But its probably more the case that they felt fortunate to have made the movie they did, with the cast they had and would have had a great deal more trouble getting a trilogy based on a franchise as untried (nae, nonexistent) as Matrix was at the time "greenlighted".

--
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Unregistered · 2004-01-26 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember The Matrix wasn't supposed to be a trilogy. LotR was.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Zerbey · 2004-01-26 04:58 · Score: 1

This is usually the case, there have been some awful sequels made years later. The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions are good cases in point: they didn't need to make any sequels, they could have left it how it ended in the first movie and let our imaginations fill in the rest. This is just my two cents.

Then you get movies like Terminator 2 and the new Star Wars prequels - made years after the first movies but where still excellent. Even Terminator 3 wasn't that bad, but again I think they should have left it at Terminator 2.

Then you have real turkeys like Robocop 2 and 3... :-)
Re:There's a moral to this story by gfxguy · 2004-01-26 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like to think of it as one long story, but your comparison is just ridicules... if everyone had to pay three times the price of a ticket for Titanic, it'd have grossed over 1,900,000,000... twice as much as LOTR.

Frankly, I can't understand why people liked Titanic so much, just not my tastes. I don't understand how a movie like ROTK isn't going to gain first place in receipts, it's the first movie in almost 10 years that I've seen in the theater more than once.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:There's a moral to this story by gfxguy · 2004-01-26 05:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

"...Star Wars prequels - made years after the first movies but where still excellent."

Huh? Did you and I see the same movies? I watched TPM, not really liking it, but thinking "ok, let's give him a chance, let's see where he's going with this..." and then AOTC? WTF was that all about? Padme and Skywalker romance? About as much as two bricks can have. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen! I'll watch the third one if I can get it as a free rental.

Now, granted, my tastes do not necessarily reflect the tastes of a great many people here, but "excellent"? What were you smoking before you saw them that gave you that opinion? And did it make you hungry afterwards?

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:There's a moral to this story by danila · 2004-01-26 05:31 · Score: 0, Flamebait

IMO ROTK and TTT really sucked monkey balls, especially ROTK. I am aware that LOTR movies have become our next Linux (even among the general population), so we are not allowed to bash it, but the last PJ's film was really horrendous. Matrix sequals, on the other hand, were pretty solid films. Not to everyone's liking, that's for sure, but you can't say they were poorly made.

So the real moral is that there is no significant statistical correlation between quality of movies and the amount of awards they get.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:There's a moral to this story by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree, Jackson has proven that's the best way to go. If there are any Hollywood producers/directors out there, you should take note of this success. Now you know how he did it, all you need is material to work with. The following is just musings of what I'd like to see happen.
I can't decide which book series should be brought to movies first. A recent contender is George R.R. Martin's sleep-depriving, emotional rollercoaster. Another possibility is Jack Vance's Lyonesse trilogy, a wonderous high-fantasy of the distant past. Or, his Dying Earth collection; a fantastic, humorous, haunting fantasy of the incredibly distant future. Many prefer each of Vance's fantasies over The Lord of The Rings. Or, if you want a sci-fi trilogy to compete with the Star Wars franchise, this is a great one from Vance. Or, Niven's and Pournelle's masterpiece of Hard Sci-Fi.
As for the Middle-Earth storyline, I think that The Silmarillion, not The Hobbit, should be made next. But, instead of a set of movie releases, it should be a set of separate mini-series spread across a half-dozen seasons. The material is rich and shouldn't be wasted. Or, if one long series is preferred, it could be a complete series story-arch with a pre-determined ending date. As an aside, I'd choose Hallmark for production as they have a proven track record in dealing with fanstasy/mythological mini-series on TV/cable. Hopefully, they'd invest a little more into the special effects than they have in the past.
On the other hand, some people may be impatient for The Hobbit to be made. I suppose The Hobbit could be made into two movies at the same time as the Silmarillion series. One advertising for the other from different markets.
Anyone else have a favorite book series they'd want to see on film?
= 9J =
Re:There's a moral to this story by Simonetta · 2004-01-26 05:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Assuming that the numbers on BoxOfficeMojo are not just fantasy, it doesn't look like Matrix:Revolutions lost money. It made @140 million in boxoffice USA and @$240 million outside the USA. Assuming that half of the box office went to the distributors and exhibitors, and the video/DVD rental receipts will be 40% of box office, Matrix:Revolutions made enough money to pay for itself and make a small profit.

Idiot movies like this will continue to be made indefinitely because the cost of maintaining the luxurious lifestyles of the filmmakers, stars, and studio executives are considered part of the basic cost of the film.

I saw M:R in the second run theatre for $3 on the last 1960's era giant screen left in town, so I didn't feel all that cheated by the stupid dialog, redundant plotting, and boring cliches. But I only go to about 1/10th of the movies that I did five years ago. If all the people in audience follow my pattern, then the movie biz is in trouble because they are on the verge of losing their audience to boredom at the same time that they have locked themselves into making these horribly expensive movie projects.
Re:There's a moral to this story by swillden · 2004-01-26 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

A recent contender is George R.R. Martin's sleep-depriving, emotional rollercoaster
You can't be serious. LoTR was hard to adapt to the big screen because of its scope and complexity, and the only reason PJ had a prayer of doing it justice was because the studios knew that they had a base of hardcore Tolkien fans to count on -- there's no other way anyone would have dreamed of doing a story that required 11 hours in the theater for an *abridged* telling.
But Martin's masterwork (and it is, indeed, a fantastic series) vastly exceeds LoTR in terms of plot complexity and scope, even if the backstory isn't as well developed. Each one of Martin's tomes is nearly as large as all of LotR together, and I believe there are going to be five of them. The three books released so far comprise nearly 2500 pages, so if the next two follow suit, we can expect the total will exceed 4000 pages. Martin's total cast of named, at least marginally developed, characters is in the hundreds. It's incredible to me that he can keep it all straight.
No, I'd say that A Song of Ice and Fire is an excellent, even prototypical, example of a series that simply cannot translate to the movie screen.
I'd sure love to be proved wrong, though!

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:There's a moral to this story by craw · 2004-01-26 06:17 · Score: 1

Toy Story 2 made more money than the original and meets your $200M+ criterion. A third Toy Story could do even better, but the pissing contest between Pixar and Disney prevents this from taking place.

Not too shaby for a G rated flick.

Rush Hour 2 also made more than $200M (more than the original), and I would not call this sequel remarkable nor excellent (although I did enjoy it).
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ok. The only problem is that Peter Jackson is making a remake of King Kong next. There has been a lot of talk that he and NewLine are considering doing 'The Hobbit' in a year or so. ...But 'The Hobbit' came first, the LotR trilogy came second, both at JRR Tolkiens' pen, and in the story's chronology (according to his own account, one day when he was engaged in the soul-destroying task of marking examination papers, he discovered that one candidate had left one page of an answer-book blank. On this page, moved by who knows what anarchic daemon, he wrote: 'In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit'). Billbo has to steal the ring from Gollum somewhere --in the Hobbit. Where do you think the riddle 'A box without hinges, key or lid, yet golden treasure inside is hid'* came from? You now have an older Billbo, an older looking Galdalf, an older looking set of characters for the prequel.

*as Gollum himself said: 'eggzeeees'
Re:There's a moral to this story by alphaseven · 2004-01-26 06:34 · Score: 1

And don't forger Terminator 2, Austin Powers 2, X-Men 2, and heck even Matrix Reloaded made more money than it's predecessor.
But in general, sequels cost more and make less money.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Isbiten · 2004-01-26 07:15 · Score: 2

You know those other humans, what are they called... oh yes females. They all loved Titanic and went to see it on cinema a couple of times then they rented it and forced me to watch it again.

If you want to make big money make a movie that appeals to women. That goes for computer games too, The Sims anyone?

--
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
Re:There's a moral to this story by netsharc · 2004-01-26 07:46 · Score: 1

Do TTT and ROTK qualify as sequels anyway? The abrupt ending do entice people to come back and see what will happen next (not to say that's the only thing it had, yes the three films were amazing) Peter Jackson had always said, it's the one film in three parts.

Another film like that right now is Kill Bill, wonder how it will turn out.

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 08:54 · Score: 0

True,
the second matrix movie did suck.
Re:There's a moral to this story by the+gnat · 2004-01-26 09:54 · Score: 2, Funny

What were you smoking before you saw them that gave you that opinion? And did it make you hungry afterwards?

Funny you should mention this. I was drunk when I saw AOTC in theaters, and thought it was the greatest thing ever. In fact, I remembered liking it so much that I bought the DVD when it came out.

I don't combine movies and alcohol any more.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 09:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Two Towers was the first sequel EVER to a blockbuster ($200 million +) to make more then it's prequel

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
I guess you haven't heard of a little movie called Terminator 2 that made 5 times as much as it's prequel?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/actors/arnoldschwar ze negger.htm
Re:There's a moral to this story by the+gnat · 2004-01-26 09:56 · Score: 1

So the real moral is that there is no significant statistical correlation between quality of movies and the amount of awards they get.

No, the real moral here is that some people have a vastly different conception of good taste. I'm aware that many Slashdotters like to bash LOTR because they think it makes them look cool and different, but I suspect you're the only person here who thinks LOTR sucked but the Matrix sequels were good.
Re:There's a moral to this story by RedWizzard · 2004-01-26 10:45 · Score: 1

The studio gets about two thirds the domenstic box office money, and about one third (or less) of the international box office Have you got a reference for those percentages? I've been looking for one...
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 10:49 · Score: 0

Movies often don't make the budget back at the domestic box office, international markets, rentals, DVD sales, TV rights, merchandising etc make up the margin and then some.
This sentence does not parse. Not as English anyways.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 11:09 · Score: 1, Informative

Actually, the theory is generally that a movie is in the black for the studio when its domestic gross = production budget. Usually, the overseas market is enough to pay for the distribution/theater cut/ overseas partnerships etc.

It's not always true (movies that do much better worlwide than domestically don't follow this rule), but it's a pretty good rule of thumb
Re:There's a moral to this story by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 14:53 · Score: 1

You can't be serious. LoTR was hard to adapt to the big screen because of its scope and complexity
To be honest, I didn't think it could be done with justice. Which, I'm afraid, may show my lack of imagination. Now that I've seen it done, I think Martin's work is approachable. The most difficult part would be putting various plot lines into sequences that flow naturally, and don't confuse the viewer. Think of the daily soap operas housewives watch and the dizzying plot lines from season to season as myriad characters live, die, and live again. People still watch those and keep up with them. Have a soap junky explain the current season's plot and you'll be confused in the first minute.
Yes, A Song of Ice and Fire can be very complex, but so are many masterpieces brought to film.
As for the length, don't forget that there are to be nine Star Wars films, and I've already lost count as to how many Star Treks there've been. Due to the high mortality rate within Martin's books, you could actually film three movies at a time (let's say two books are equivalent to three movies for argument's sake), and not worry too much about the faults that crept into the Star Wars franchise which were filmed across several years.
I've learned my lesson not to underestimate the vision of some people to bring what's in their heads out into the world so that other people can watch their dreams too. Don't you think Jackson could do it? It may rob him of his health, but I bet he could.
= 9J =
Re:There's a moral to this story by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 15:37 · Score: 1

No, the real moral here is that some people have a vastly different conception of good taste. I'm aware that many Slashdotters like to bash LOTR because they think it makes them look cool and different, but I suspect you're the only person here who thinks LOTR sucked but the Matrix sequels were good.
Or, the fellow could be living proof that the Superman mythos is reality, and a Bizarro world really exists. Where cars have square wheels and Matrix-3 sweeps the Oscars.
= 9J =
Re:There's a moral to this story by WalksOnDirt · 2004-01-26 17:13 · Score: 1

I would like to see some top Oscars for LOTR, but I am not very optimistic. What was the last fantasy to win best picture?

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Re:There's a moral to this story by Maxime+Lefrancois · 2004-01-26 17:15 · Score: 1

Remember LOTR wasn't supposed to be a trilogy.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 17:48 · Score: 0

This sentence does not parse. Not as English anyways.

You need to lay your hands on an adaptive parser my friend.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 17:55 · Score: 0

"What was the last fantasy to win best picture?"

Does Gladiator count?

"I would like to see some top Oscars for LOTR"

It wasn't that great.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 17:56 · Score: 0

[I]f anything one lesson is that audiences will reward a film that makes the effort to stay true to the book.

If that is so why are these movies so successful?
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 19:32 · Score: 0

Sweet, my comment gets modded down even though it's totally correct, unlike the parent.

Stuff like this gives me the greatest of faith in Slashdot moderation.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-27 05:05 · Score: 0

Gladiator was historical fiction. Mary Poppins would count as fantasy, but it didn't win.
Re:There's a moral to this story by Fluid+Truth · 2004-01-27 10:06 · Score: 1

Quite true! The more correct thing would have been to say "Remember, the LOTR has all of that in the original story." ;-)

--
Apparently, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by aeneas · 2004-01-26 00:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

He deserves it!

Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:09 · Score: 0

For what? The Rape of Tolkien?
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by Kenja · 2004-01-26 03:27 · Score: 0

"I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar, he deserves it!"
Why? Hes a poor to bad director. The movies where good despite his involvment, not because of it. The only thing he should get credit for is for letting the camera crew and art department do their thing. Just look at his film bio, or better yet watch the LOTR movies with a critical eye. The directing is just bad at times. Not bad enough to spoil the movies, but not worthy of an oscar.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by Prowl · 2004-01-26 03:33 · Score: 1

So it's not just me who gets a headache during the fight scenes. The camera always seems too close to the action.

Although I really enjoyed "The Frighteners"

--
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by felipeal · 2004-01-26 04:11 · Score: 1

Just look at his film bio

He doesn't need an extense bio to be a good director (see the examples of Quentin Tarantino and Stanley Kubrick). Besides the LOTR trilogy, I only watched Heavenly Creatures , and that's an excellent movie: no big FX, no 9-digits, just a plain well-told story.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 04:40 · Score: 0

You lost all credibility when you said Quentin Tarantino was a good director. Talk about overrated. He had one relatively good hit with Pulp Fiction but everything else was just a step above crap. From Dusk to Dawn is one of the worst movies I ever paid to see.

With the exception of Eyes Wide Shut - Kubrick was pretty much golden.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by danila · 2004-01-26 05:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I really hope PJ's fanboys would stop obsessing about him and his crappy movies (not FOTR, it was excellent). But, oh well, the chances for that are pretty slim...

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by fnkleroi · 2004-01-26 05:55 · Score: 1

Yes his bio . . . hmmm. Doesn't it give you the warm fuzzies?!
Dead Alive
Meet the Feebles
Bad Taste

Such great movies, from just one guy. Oh, wait you didn't like them . . . oh, I guess we just don't agree on this then.
You see, I actually enjoy movies, not just the great ones (Lawrence of Arabia, Wizard of Oz, Logan's Run), but those fun pleasureable ones (Cemetary Man, True Lies, Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert). Hell, I even like Sean Connery movies.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by grolschie · 2004-01-26 08:45 · Score: 1

Actually, "Bad Taste" was an excellent movie (for what they designed it for). It was never meatn to be an Oscar winner. It was infact a low budget comedy horror, yet still has a strong fan base. Almost cult status. I know people who watched it more than times than they can remember.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 08:54 · Score: 0

Hes a poor to bad director. The movies where good despite his involvment, not because of it.

He did ALOT more than simply direct the 3 movies. Besides most movies are in the can in three to six months. LOTR took 7 years. Due to the scale of the job, you'd think people like you would cut him some slack.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by Ithika · 2004-01-26 09:15 · Score: 1

"From Dusk to Dawn is one of the worst movies I ever paid to see."
You do realise Robert Rodriguez directed From Dusk Till Dawn, don't you? You don't? Well, that just goes to show how little credibility you have.
Please try again later, thank you for calling...

--
the layman's guide to computer science
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by RedWizzard · 2004-01-26 12:36 · Score: 1

My wife was commenting to me yesterday that the only movies she's ever liked Uma Thurman in are Tarantino's movies. He seems to get more out of her than most directors. And of course From Dusk Till Dawn was not directed by Tarantino.
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... by RedWizzard · 2004-01-26 12:42 · Score: 1

Maybe you don't realise but as producer Jackson had a huge degree of control over every aspect of the production. The things that the art department and camera crew did, they did because Jackson guided them in the right direction. You should also be aware that Jackson did not direct every scene and due to the time constraints if a scene wasn't quite right they didn't always have the opportunity to reshoot. That "the directing is just bad at times, is not necessarily a reflection on Jackson's direction.

Congratulations all round by MrRTFM · 2004-01-26 00:54 · Score: 0, Redundant

They all did a fantastic job with the movies. I never would have believed it could be done so well.

--
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by 1SmartOne · 2004-01-26 00:55 · Score: 1

The singing was a bit odd. I thought the ending was good though.

I'm very happy about this by kentrel · 2004-01-26 00:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was delighted when I saw the news this morning. As a huge movie fan (sometimes snob) I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation. I'm glad they recognised it, and I hope the Academy recognises it. Movies like Cold Mountain come out every year, are usually nicely made, well acted but ultimately lifeless and only represent the generic Hollywood drama rather than push the boundaries of filmmaking, which movies are supposed to.

Well done to PJ who takes home another well deserved award. LOTR will be remembered fondly twenty years from now, and as the influence for a whole new generation of filmmakers. Cold Mountain will be remembered as that forgettable film way back in Jude Law's filmography.

Re:I'm very happy about this by sebi · 2004-01-26 01:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just a thought: Of all the films awarded last night the one that is probably going to influence most young filmmakers must be "Lost in Translation".

--
Hank! White!
Re:I'm very happy about this by jazzyseth · 2004-01-26 01:34 · Score: 0

Yeah probably! I kinda wondered what Bill Murray whispered in Scarlett Johansson's ear near the end - the ending was not laid out for the audience like most movies.
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-26 01:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Or Monster with its ambitious turn by Ms Theron playing a serial killer... or Owning Mahoney with its excellent performances by P.S. Hoffman and James Caan. The documentary/pseudo-documentary/cartoon American Splendor... the Morris documentary/deconstruction of Robert McNammara Fog of War. All have cinematic elements that are being lauded even now (who can't love "interrocam"?).

Of course our opinions don't seem to mesh with the standard /. line of "If I haven't seen/heard of it, it must not be good." One could point them to Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress which lead the way for a little movie called Star Wars (which then helped finance two more Kurosawa movies: Ran and Kagemusha)...

but, eh, who wants to complicate things? RotK was a good movie, so it must have been the only good movie of the year. I mean, just look at the box office receipts!

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:I'm very happy about this by MotherInferior · 2004-01-26 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thought I think you have a good point, I take issue with one statement: rather than push the boundaries of filmmaking, which movies are supposed to.

I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Movies are supposed to tell stories. Those that "push the boundaries" are great films. It's like saying every scientific discovery is supposed to be a paradigm shift.

Writers and artists must find their voice in the process. It isn't their job to push boundaries, unless they have to to get the message across the message of their art.

I wouldn't piss on Cold Mountain just because it doesn't have thousands of CG trolls mucking about in loincloths.
Re:I'm very happy about this by ObiWanKenblowme · 2004-01-26 03:05 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more - you can still tell an excellent story without it being a blockbuster epic that redefines the way stories are told. By definition, every movie can't be the end-all, be-all of cinema. That said, I won't dismiss Cold Mountain because it's not an epic spectacular - but I just might dismiss it after hearing Nicole Kidman's god-awful accent in the trailer.

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:I'm very happy about this by Artifakt · 2004-01-26 03:47 · Score: 1

Cold Mountain is actually not nearly bad enough to deserve the treatment, but there have been plenty of past Oscar winners where adding a thousand or so rampaging trolls in mucky loincloths would have been a distinct, if stinky improvement.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:I'm very happy about this by dancingmad · 2004-01-26 03:54 · Score: 1

I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation.

Have you seen the catalogue of Akira Kurosawa? He made dozens of great movies in his lifetime.

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Re:I'm very happy about this by TGK · 2004-01-26 04:11 · Score: 4, Informative

As someone who's spent some time in Tokyo I can answer a number of your questions.

1 - The average height of a Japanese male is about 5'4" in contrast to the average western male at 5'10". This is largely due to the still conspicuous absence of dairy in the Japanese diet.

2 - Japanese really don't distinguish between "r" and "l". I'm not sure why this is, but they pronounce English as "Engrish" and Groceries as "Glocelies." It's not really a sterotype if its true.

3 - Japanese food looks like toes. To the average westerner Japanese food is frightening. Raw fish, strange vegetables in stews, unususal sea dwelling creatures prepared in such a way as to show off their oddities. Westerners are used to their food coming shrink wrapped and packaged in such a way as to be un-identifiable. We then cook it until it's burnt and let it wallow in sauces. The Japanese prefer foods to be easily identifiable as to where they came from. Hence it is common practice to serve, say, calamari (squid) whole and steamed. The Japanese also utilize more raw foods in their diet, ranging from fish to eggs.

4 - Five star hotels in tokyo w/ shower heads below 7 feet? More than you'd expect. Hotels in Tokyo are divided into two categories "western" hotels (typicaly themed), and Japanese hotels. Western hotels will genrealy conform to a theme park atmosphere ("wild west" or "hollywood" are both popular themes) and have a resort feel to them. Some more buisnesslike hotels may maintain western facilities without these gimics. In these hotels you will genrealy find showerheads above 7 feet. Japanese hotels don't do this. They will maintain traditional japanese facilities (beds 6 feet in length, traditional restrooms, etc). In such a place you're lucky if the shower head breaks 5 feet (I had to shower on my knees).

The film is designed to highlight the experiance of culture shock.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:I'm very happy about this by afidel · 2004-01-26 04:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Umm any geek who hasn't seen Kurosawa's film's is hardly a geek at all (at least of the film variety). Kurosawa has made some of the best made films in history and while the general American public might not know them anyone who is serious about good movies has.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:I'm very happy about this by gowen · 2004-01-26 04:29 · Score: 1

The average height of a Japanese male is about 5'4"
But its not very funny, is it. A joke that consists of a tall westerner with some short Japanese people just isn't very funny.
Japanese really don't distinguish between "r" and "l"... It's not really a sterotype if its true.
But is it funny to mock the Japanese for this cultural difference. Many Japanese characters speak excellent english, neither USian speaks (or even attempts to learn) any Japanese. And yet the Japanese characters are continually mocked for their stupidity ("Cut-a! Cut-a!", say, or "Lip my stockings") as our "heroes" look down their noses at them.
Westerners are used to their food coming shrink wrapped and packaged in such a way as to be un-identifiable.
You might be; personally, I like sushi.
Five star hotels in tokyo w/ shower heads below 7 feet?
Murray was in a hotel clearly designed for and frequented by, westerners. But rather than reflect how western hotels are homogenised the world over, Coppola took went for the cheap "All Japanese people are short" joke (again).
The film is designed to highlight the experiance of culture shock.
The film is "designed" (although thats altogether too dignified a word) to get cheap laughs from Japanese culture. My intelligence was insulted at the paucity of ideas. Johannsen's arse was lovely, though.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-26 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

True, knowing Kurosawa is probably mandatory if one wants to be considered seriously for their cinema opinion. But I think that the 'film geek' ratio on /. is low. Where spending a lot of money on movies is somehow equivalent to seeing a lot of movies and thus being informed.

Granted, 90% of the folks on this site have probably heard of Kurosawa (that's actually why I brought him up. To point out how the roots of popular cinema is drawn from groundbreaking earlier works that one may have only heard of in passing). Of those you could say that maybe 9% then know of someone such as Beat Takeshi (even though more may watch Most Extreme Elimination Challenge and not realize who the main guy is). And that's before we get into the other masters such as Ozu or Mizoguchi. Or modern artisans such as Miike.

Popularity becomes the single measure of importance and therefore we end up with /. threads like this where earning the Oscar will just prove X is the best movie of the year. I know its the case since I've made the mistake of mentioning last year that City of God might be the best film of 2003... to which I was modded down as a troll.

I find it all funny since many of these same folks would battle endlessly if someone suggested that XP was the best desktop OS since it exists everywhere. In fact one could take these movie discussions, s/RotK/Windows/g and s/SomeLesserKnownMovie/YourFavoriteBSD*nixDistro/g
and get an interesting duality. Not that there is anything inherently bad about RotK or Windows (or good about Linux or some other indie release). Just that the vehemence and interest attached to OS's seems to disappear when talking about something just as "geeky" as movies.

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:I'm very happy about this by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:45 · Score: 0

Funny, my intelligence was insulted by the arse shot. Try pulling your head out of yours.
Re:I'm very happy about this by grammaticaster · 2004-01-26 06:47 · Score: 1

I personally enjoyed Lost in Translation and didn't find it offensive. My take on it was that Sofia Coppola has actually spent a lot of time in Japan and other countries where she felt alien, and she made a film about that experience.

I've heard from a couple of Japanese-speakers that when they watched the movie, they thought that it was Americans who were being made fun of, not the Japanese. After all, Bill Murray's character is the one who just doesn't "get" it.
Re:I'm very happy about this by Wraithlyn · 2004-01-26 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

But "best" means different things to different people.

Maybe you loved "City of God", but Joe Somebody would hate it. "Best" (or "good") is about as subjective a term as they come. I just read some reviews of it, most say it's a very shocking and disturbing film. I'm sure it's very effective. Does that make it "best?" Maybe to some.

So in light of that, why exactly do you denounce popularity as a good measure of a film's value? And I'm not talking about sales figures here. Pearl Harbour made tons, but most people didn't like it. Ditto your Windows example.. it's ubiquitous, but people hate it.

Popularity is simply an averaging of what people consider "good".

Something that is nearly universally loved is a great thing.

To dismiss that is elitism.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:I'm very happy about this by Drathos · 2004-01-26 07:59 · Score: 1

...In such a place you're lucky if the shower head breaks 5 feet (I had to shower on my knees).
You don't have to go to Japan for this..

In the last 4 months, I've been on about a dozen business trips and in all but one case, I could not take a shower standing erect. I'm about the same height as almost everyone (male) I know at 6'2", and the showerhead would hit me in the back of my head, usually right at the base of my skull.

--
End of line..
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-26 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

No where did I say that popularity wasn't a good metric. Just that to use it as the only one is foolish.

Take a look at IMDB's top 250 movies. This is the composed average of user ratings of all films in the database.

Now, by your logic, we should just be able to search down the list to find the top movie of 2003. According to the list it would be #4 RotK.

First, how does that seem. That this movie, less than two months in the theaters is now the 4th best movie of All-Time? Above Schindler's List, One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest, Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai?

Now although "best" is subjective, over a given period of time, there seems to be an exponential averaging effect that forces a piece of art's excepted quality to a pretty static point. Hindsight's 20/20. In time all things become clear.

Its when that initial excitement is gone and we can take this "thing" and put it into perspective.

And I think the best example is on that Top 250 list at #2, Shawshank Redemption. This movie spurted at the boxoffice (barely making back its small 25 million budget), even though it was loved by critics. In 1994, it wouldn't have even cracked the top 250.

So, by your logic, it shouldn't have been up for the Best Picture Academy Award (which it lost to Forrest Gump, along with Pulp Fiction).

But what happened? Well TBS and TNT playing the movie enough that it gained a cult following. In the following years word of mouth opened up this unsung movie to the point now that it is one of the most rented movies out there. Not only that but it means something to people. Esquire Magazine did a survey of their subscribers and they were shocked that Shawshank was the #4 movie among their "elitist" readership (a movie that they didn't even put on the list and was a written in ballot).

That is why I'm remiss to say "a lot of people liked it, so it must be good" because the operative part is "liked it then". What about in a decade (as with Shawshank) or 50 years from now (as with Seven Samurai?). I assume we agree that "Best Picture of 2003" means the Best, barnone. Not the one people liked most on the date December 31st, 2003.

It is the way we differentiate between fads and true phenomena of culture. Titanic was, at one point, the highest rated movie on IMDB. It was critically acclaimed, the king of the box office, and a big award winner. Now it isn't even in the top 250 just 7 years after its release.

Popularity is a tenuous thing. And although subjective, there are invariably standards in art that allow things like Mozart, Hemmingway, and da Vinci to inspire through the ages.

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:I'm very happy about this by donnz · 2004-01-26 09:24 · Score: 1

Well done to PJ who takes home another well deserved award

I'll second that. How she manages to fit in the Groklaw research at the same time I'll never know.

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Re:I'm very happy about this by David+Greene · 2004-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1

I dunno, I can't really get all that excited about the LOTR movies. Sure, they're enjoyable to watch, but in the end I feel like I've just seen another typical Hollywood special effects bonanza. I didn't really care about the characters all that much and the sense of mystery and wonder was much less for me than in the original Matrix movie. Maybe it's just that I enjoyed imagining this fantastic world on my own when I read the books.
I'd really like to see the Academy reserve the Best Picture award for films that truly deserve it. If no film in a given year meets the standard, just don't give it out. I realize this ruins the marketing potential of Hollywood, so maybe some independent body can conceive of such an award. We need more winners like Amadeus, The Last Emporer and Wings (which _still_ holds up as a gripping tale 77 years after it was made) and fewer winners like Titanic, Gladiator and Chicago (though I _loved_ the music).

--
Re:I'm very happy about this by Wraithlyn · 2004-01-26 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

"No where did I say that popularity wasn't a good metric. Just that to use it as the only one is foolish."

OK, so what other metrics should we be using? Professional reviewers? Sure, why not. RottenTomatoes has City of God with a 92% approval, RotK with 96%.

"Now, by your logic, we should just be able to search down the list to find the top movie of 2003. According to the list it would be #4 RotK."

No, that'd be the top movie of 2003 as currently identified by IMDB users. Which it is.

"Now although 'best' is subjective, over a given period of time, there seems to be an exponential averaging effect that forces a piece of art's excepted quality to a pretty static point. Hindsight's 20/20. In time all things become clear."

I see. Things must age before they can be subjected to a valid comparison with the "all-timers". Sure, I'll go with that, but how does this pertain to picking a top movie for 2003? They're all new. Maybe your appreciation of City of God will wear off in a few years too.

"And I think the best example is on that Top 250 list at #2, Shawshank Redemption. This movie spurted at the boxoffice (barely making back its small 25 million budget), even though it was loved by critics."

Once again, you are mixing popularity with initial market success. I cannot count the number of people I know who list Shawshank as one of their favourite movies. It engenders a nearly universal positive reception. So does Lord of the Rings.

"In 1994, it wouldn't have even cracked the top 250."

That is a completely unfounded assertion. It very well may have, had IMDB's voting system existed back then. It doesn't take massive quantities of votes to give a film a high rating, which seems to be what you're implying here.

"I assume we agree that "Best Picture of 2003" means the Best, barnone. Not the one people liked most on the date December 31st, 2003."

What do you propose? Should we hold Oscars for 2003 films, in 2013?

Your point about Titanic is an anecdotal exception, not a convincing argument. (Do you really think RotK will vanish from the top 250 in the next few years? I sure don't. They're easily better than the original Star Wars trilogy, and those are all still up there.) Titanic became a victim of its own commercial success, much like an overplayed radio song. It suffered massive backlash, because it couldn't live up to its own hype. LotR has, IMHO.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-26 10:32 · Score: 1

(Do you really think RotK will vanish from the top 250 in the next few years? I sure don't.

Well you know what? I do. And Titanic was the #1 movie on IMDB about 3 years ago. Recently. But again it fell off.

And so you talk about popularity but then deny a sample the size of the IMDB? Where about 80,000 people have voted for each of the top 250 movies? The statistical error of such a ranking not reflecting common opinion is probably pretty low.

We are now going down a rabbithole of hypotheticals and approaching flame-land. Shit, all of this is anecdotal. Why trust IMDB as you said? Why trust RottenTomatos when it uses film critics which either only like "wierd foreign indie shit" or are "right on the money" depending on if the person likes/dislikes the movie? There are no absolutes. And you too fall into the same trap: They're easily better than the original Star Wars trilogy... it couldn't live up to its own hype. LotR has, IMHO.

Like the acronym says In My Humble Opinion.

My original point was that 90% of the population out there has not seen 90% of the movies released in the last year. Regardless they take the best movie they saw that year and mark it as such. When informed of all those other movies they then use post hoc logic to defend it... instead of actually seeing the movie.

You know what? I'd love it if some folks on this site would go see Owning Mahoney, City of God, American Splendor, Monster, etc. to see if they measure up to what they think of RotK. Shit, I'd love have people to enjoy the bredth and variety of movies instead of complaining that the only good thing Swanson's puts out is Mac & Cheese. Fuck, they could come in here and say "You know what, you prick, I saw City of God and I thought it was just a rehash of Goodfellas and that was just a secondgrade hack of Mellville's Le Samourai." Nothing would make me happier!

I'd like to see frontpage discussions about how much of Irreversible is regurgitated Memento-like technique and shockvalue or that Slamdance is the superior Park City festival.

Like one of the original responders said above, this is important to film geeks. And I think that falls under the dispora of "Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters" to them.

We expect such a level of discourse when talking about software, OSes, and intellectual rights. Why not movies?

And regardless of what /. is or isn't, who doesn't benefit from exposure to art; a thousand lifetimes of differing experience?

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:I'm very happy about this by nathanh · 2004-01-26 11:18 · Score: 1

Of course our opinions don't seem to mesh with the standard /. line of "If I haven't seen/heard of it, it must not be good."

Eh? What sort of condescending tripe is that? So the "standard /. line" is a dismissive attitude and an illogical conclusion? Can you support this claim with any evidence at all? A single story? A single comment? Anything at all?
Or is this just another example of /.-bashing. Suddenly it's trendy to sneer at /. and everybody who is "cool" has been bashing /. since forever! Oh sure, you're posting on /., but I bet in your heart of hearts you think you're better than 99% of the people here. How else can you explain your condescending attitude?
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-26 11:48 · Score: 1

This comes from personal experience. In that I have been modded down as a "troll" and responded to as "Not staying on the fucking topic" because I decided to talk about other movies in a LotR post.

Like the original guy said, that's ancedotal. But, shit, its an opinion so that's what its gotta be.

How do I explain my condescending attitude? I guess because I'm a dick. Secondly because I bring up other movies and are generally told "I haven't fucking heard of it". So I guess it comes from the fact that I see, rent, own, and talk about a shitload of movies that are foreign or indie pieces of shit. I've taken courses on film and gone to several festivals.

I guess that's what they call "experience". And since that seems to be a-normal around these parts, I'd consider my opinion useful on this topic.

You know, what the big Linux, BSD, physics and developer heads use when they talk about those topics.

And you notice that this is a discussion about Movies? This isn't me going into the latest MER discussion and talking shit like "Well since I've seen the bulk of Akira Kurosawa's work, I know exactly why Spirit broke down, you clods!"

This is a topic I know something about. I like to think I know a lot about it. And my point is that instead of getting deeper interest akin to populous's interest of topics on Vi/Emacs, C++/Ada/Python/Perl I get replies that I'm fucking on the wrong site. That being a Film Nerd isn't a part of the /. Nerd culture.

And so heated conversation about the nuances of Linux 2.6 multiprocessing is kosher but talking about cinema (in a post about movies no less) is bullshit.

You know what? You are in fact right. My friend sebi started this discussion and I have had two of my posts modded up. So there must be other geeks here who must agree with me.

Shit, I'm sorry if I offended you. If I could fucking reedit my post I'd replace "standard" with "commonly experienced by me". But this isn't a technical paper. I wasn't submitting that post to the IEEE for a conference. If I thought that its value was based solely on its techical accuracy I'd have someone proof it. But I'm paying for /., not the other way around. So I guess shitty 30% truthful opinions are what we are going to have to live with.

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:I'm very happy about this by DaytonCIM · 2004-01-26 11:59 · Score: 1

Preach on brother man. Preach on.
Re:I'm very happy about this by Wraithlyn · 2004-01-26 12:59 · Score: 1

"And so you talk about popularity but then deny a sample the size of the IMDB? Where about 80,000 people have voted for each of the top 250 movies? The statistical error of such a ranking not reflecting common opinion is probably pretty low."

You are wrong. To be truly representative, the sample must be selected randomly from a broad cross-section. First rule of polling. Doesn't matter if there's 80 or 80,000 or 8 million, IMDB votes are no more representative of overall opinion than are Slashdot polls. They're probably a good sampling of tech-saavy movie lovers, and that's it.

Saying LotR is better than Star Wars is a simple reflection of the popular opinion I have encountered, not an unquestionable declaration of Absolute Truth(tm). But then that's the crux of our little debate, isn't it? I take popular opinion as a decent metric and you seem to rally against it.

You're absolutely right (oh wait. no absolutes. you're probably right) that most people haven't seen most films. Do you expect that to ever change? Do you expect everyone to see every movie of a year in order to express an opinion?

Of course not. There's idealism and then there's reality. So we have to rely on popularity (read: demand) to spread the "best" movies around. Is it perfect? Good lord, of course not. Some films will be overhyped, others will be criminally underappreciated (like your City of God). But what else do we have? Seriously? It's up to the filmmakers to get their film noticed. Everyone can't watch everything. So we're left with popular films as the real contenders. Just the way it is.

But then we get people who resent this system because it doesn't reward THEIR favourites, and so they start to rail against popularity itself, like it's to blame or something.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:I'm very happy about this by mooredav · 2004-01-26 13:39 · Score: 1

"I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation."

LotR is a mixed bag of good and bad.

I think LotR is wonderful if you see it as a series of still images: Hobbits in the Shire. The Ents gathering in the forest. Armies of orcs marching. Shelob's lair. That's great fantasy.

The battle scenes had a powerful setup, but when they actually got rolling, it was boring. It was well rendered, but the fights were blunt and obvious. Any decent martial arts film has more entertaining fights, with crazy footwork, interesting character interaction, etc.

LotR didn't develop relationships between characters properly. Where is the romance between Aragorn and his elf bride? Where is the friendship between Sam and Frodo? Jackson needed some better dialog to establish that friendship, and he did not deliver. Consequently, you hear about those two hobbits being "gay" all of the time. Jackson needed to give people a reason to believe that they were friends. Without that reason, they are just "gay".

What Jackson did is standard movie fare: the characters give dramatic looks, but all they say is: "Sam!" or "Gandalf!"

Contrast that to Lost in Translation or In America, two very emotional movies with moving dialog and human interaction. In my opinion, those were the two most unique movies that I saw last year.

So don't riot when Return of the King loses to a better movie at the Oscars.
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-26 13:52 · Score: 1

Yes, the filmmakers and the studio are out there to do the Academy push. And there's a big corellary between the marketing by a studio and the eventual winners.

I think most people would agree that we'd hope the folks in the Academy would be pretty well versed in the year's movies. Not that have to see everything (I think it would be cruel and unusual to force everyone to sit through Gigli or House of the Dead) but you'd think they could watch like the top 30 regarded movies of the year, with or without studio hype.

And, no, I don't expect everyone to shell out the hundreds of bucks I spend a year on movies. I'm adult enough to know that such an idea is stupid.

I do however think people would really get a kick out of a lot of these movies they're missing out on. It's a shame when there's something good out there but its so low on the radar that it goes unnoticed. Also its compounded by the theaters demanding high first and second week returns on movies now. So the local AMC might have a screen set aside for art movies but whatever's showing might get cut to make up for additional screens for the next Big Blockbuster.

And that's the problem: popular opinion is cursed by the fact that it is directly catered to. The studio and theater systems don't/cant' waste time on films building word of mouth over months. So instead most movies drift through distribution unseen by the mainstream. It might be the Best Picture of the year, but who would know when three guys and the director saw the only screening in some Porno Theater in Queens?

In fact that's why I post crap like this whole thread. So people would be modivated to maybe seeing something that missed their district. Shit, Netflix is a revolution! Folks no longer are hampered by what the local chain or Blockbuster decides to show them. Folks reading this thread can queue up City of God and get it shipped to their house when it's finally released on DVD. They could be in BFN, Idaho and be exposed to a whole world of expression. I think that's pretty fucking sweet.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with them if they are completely uninterested in doing so. But it breaks my heart when folks aren't given the chance to experience all of this cool shit (or, even worse, assume that people like myself are just indicitive of indie and foreign movie fans, and the whole lot are a bunch of... what did that guy say? That I think I'm better than 99% of the people here with my condesending attitude).

Maybe I'm not the best advocate for art film. By the responses to this post I can see that I probably have come off as the same sort of Debian Linux uberzealot that gives /. a bad name (too bad since I'm one of those too). It sucks since there's some really cool stuff out there that I think people would be blown away by.

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:I'm very happy about this by nathanh · 2004-01-26 15:35 · Score: 1

In that I have been modded down as a "troll" and responded to as "Not staying on the fucking topic" because I decided to talk about other movies in a LotR post.

It is off-topic to talk about other movies in a LotR post. In the same way it'd be off-topic to talk about VMS in a MacOSX post. If you're comparing other movies to LotR, or if you're setting historical perspective (eg, Peter Jackson's earlier movies like Meet The Feebles), then that's OK. But if you're just interjecting to show-off your broader knowledge of films then damn right you deserved to be moderated off-topic.
And you notice that this is a discussion about Movies? This isn't me going into the latest MER discussion and talking shit like "Well since I've seen the bulk of Akira Kurosawa's work, I know exactly why Spirit broke down, you clods!"

If you had just discussed the movies then that would have been a valuable contribution and I wouldn't have said a word. But you instead chose to vent your spleen about Slashdot being populated by (in your opinion) movie-cretins. I didn't have a problem with you talking about movies, or even talking about other Globe winners than Return of the King (you know, the topic of this article), I just had a beef with you turning your knowledge of movies into a "/. people are all dumber than me" rant. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but read what you wrote in a dispassionate light and it's difficult to avoid that impression.
That being a Film Nerd isn't a part of the /. Nerd culture.
....
And so heated conversation about the nuances of Linux 2.6 multiprocessing is kosher but talking about cinema (in a post about movies no less) is bullshit.

I disagree. Slashdot articles about movies always get a huge number of responses. I think movies are very much part of the geek/nerd culture. I think there are many film-nerds on Slashdot.
That's why I responded as I did when you said the /. readers are ignorant of movies outside the niches of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. I don't have that perception at all. My perception is that /. is populated by film-nerds, photography-nerds, lego-nerds, starwars-nerds, startrek-nerds, d&d-nerds... and guess what, I don't have an interest in any of those things. But I wouldn't have the nerve to tell people off for not caring about my hobbies.
Shit, I'm sorry if I offended you.

You didn't offend me. If you had offended me I wouldn't have bothered replying.
Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · 2004-01-27 01:35 · Score: 1

Well I guess this all comes down to what each of us see as "on the discussion". Truth be told the post that got you so heated was a fifth level response to another poster who had responded to a previous post. So it wasn't that I was bringing up a tangent, but responding to someone who said not knowing Kurosawa nullifies someone's opinion. Because that was the topic he brought up, I responded to it. I agreed because I saw an earlier post where someone had said that RotK was going to influence generations of filmmakers. That was their opinion. I didn't agree with it, so I shared mine.

Someone gave it a +1 Insightful and I guess that's how this all got started. It was a specific response and got modded up to the general topic. I can't control that.

I guess I could've said "hey, how I write up a journal entry and we go talk in that?" But that's a ridiculous amount of work for a dicussion that has already started.

I'm sorry but I gotta say we are just going to disagree on when/if to cut short a thread because it has strayed off topic. I guess that's what moderation is for. If a mod agreed with you, they could've just hit me with a few -1 Offtopics/Trolls and be done with it. They didn't (or haven't yet). So folks either agree with me, ran out of mod points, or are going to mod it down later. Or they can respond like you did.

--
What is music when you despise all sound?

I was watching it by debilo · 2004-01-26 00:57 · Score: 3, Funny

And I'm really glad for Peter Jackson and the crew, they really deserved it. Peter was pretty funny too, he said something like "I didn't realize that working 7 years on this film would turn me into a hobbit". And it really did. He was not much taller than Dustin Hoffman, who gave him the award.

I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.

Re:I was watching it by Kombat · 2004-01-26 02:04 · Score: 1

I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.

Haha, it never fails. Every time there's a /. story about LotR, the fanboys inevitably and predictably bash the Matrix in a total non-sequitur. It surprises me that for all the anti-mainstream rhetoric that goes on around here, such a large crowd would embrace a series with such a classic, predictable Hollywood ending (LotR), and reject a movie with a completely outside-the-box ending such as Revolutions.

Would it make you feel better if Hollywood promised to stop making movies that try to make you think, and instead churned out more word-for-word direct adapations of straighforward, single-level books?

For the record, I loved both the Matrix trilogy (OK, Reloaded was a little thin, but only in comparison to the other 2) and the LotR trilogy. But the latter was very predictable and had the stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting, even for those of us who have never read the books or heard the story. The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.

Perhaps that's why you guys claim to hate it so much? Maybe it showed you that you don't always know what to expect from Hollywood? Perhaps you'd spent the preceding year telling all your friends, "It's simple, there are 2 levels of the Matrix, Duh! The blue Matrix, their 'Real World', is just another Matrix. You watch. In the third one, you'll see the REAL real world. It's so transparent. Hollywood sucks."

Then, of course, you were proven wrong. Am I close?

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:I was watching it by jstrain · 2004-01-26 02:18 · Score: 1

One of the great things about the books, is that the ending is NOT happy. Contrary to what was portrayed on the screen, the books present a very bittersweet ending. Yes, Frodo sails for the West and all of its rewards, but that is tainted by the loss of the Shire and the inability to save it for himself. This was only touched upon in the movies, not given the treatment it deserved.

One other point that I always found terribly sad was the story of the elves throughout the books. The thought of them leaving all of their beautiful works forever because they cannot hold off the effects of time forever was always very poingnant for me.

That being said, I really enjoyed the movies, however please do not tell me that the real story (especially if you have not read the books) has a "very predictable" and "stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting".
Re:I was watching it by Kombat · 2004-01-26 02:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

however please do not tell me that the real story has a "very predictable" and "stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting".

I'm sorry, but it did. The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring.

In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.

Another example: Kurt Russell's new movie, "Miracle." In the final showdown for Olympic gold, between Kurt's Americans and those nasty Russians, who do you think will win? Do you even need to see the movie? What's the point? You know America wins. America always wins in its movies. There'll be flags waving all over the place, moving patriotic speeches, uplifting music, it happens every time. "Armageddon" (yay, the US saved the world), "Independance Day" (yay, the US saved the world again), ... Hollywood is incapable of producing a movie in which America doesn't win. That's why "Revolutions" was so refreshing. It put a little (much-needed) doubt into my mind, with respect to what to expect from a Hollywood ending.

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:I was watching it by antistuff · 2004-01-26 02:37 · Score: 1

I couldn't wait for ROTK to come out because I wanted to see every get all in an uproar about the unhappy ending it would have. I imagined sitting a movie theater seeing girls crying and boys making clicking sounds with thier teeth because they cant look sad in front of thier girls.

Then I saw the movie and I still saw the sadness in it, but I knew all the subtle points of the story from having read the books a few times. I spent an hour explaining to someone why the elves were leaving and they said "So, I dont get it, where did the wizzard guy get the eagles from, they just flew in from nowhere, what was up with that?"

The whole story was sad, and as it goes on you begin to realize that even if they win its going to be at a price, but the movies didn't capture that very well. I dont think they would have done as well if they would have.

--
Mess Stuff Up
Re:I was watching it by jstrain · 2004-01-26 02:39 · Score: 1

I can certainly agree with you on the destruction of the ring point, however the books continue through a few other chapters which play down the typical everyone lives happily ever after ending. Unfortunately (or maybe for the better by the reviews), I have not seen final Matrix installment. The second film wasen't all that interesting for me, and I haven't worked myself up to see the third one. I do agree with your third paragraph. It seems mainstream movies don't have the balls to leave you with an ending that leaves you thinking. It is much easier to rehash the same old heroic endings. This movie would seem to be a grown up version of The Mighty Ducks 2 (substituting Russia for Iceland). I have no nits to pick with your general argument about the state of films today, especially the manner in which they are wrapped up. It is just that in the LOTR books, the predictable happens (the ring is destroyed), however that does not mean that all the characters can go on happily with their lives. All of the experiences that they went through (most notably Frodo) have changed them. Rather than triumph over evil, and go home to live the good life, they return to find their homeland taken over and plundered. Even after it is reclaimed, there are still scars which never heal. Hope all that makes sense...
Re:I was watching it by Steve+B · 2004-01-26 02:41 · Score: 1

movies that try to make you think
I'm sorry, but making you try to figure out why the ground rules for the universe change without notice does not count as "trying to make you think".

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:I was watching it by A+Bugg · 2004-01-26 02:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course America win's you are familiar with the fact that the this movie is based on the time preceeding the 1980 winter olymipics and is about THE ACTUAL UNITED STATES HOCKEY TEAM'S victory over the unbeatable russians. So I know American wins because I am familiar with history, and if America didn't win they would be altering history. However, I do agree you have a point with "Hollywood is incapable of producing a movie in which America doesn't win. " However there is a reason the US saves the world in all those movies, wait for it, wait for it, that's because they are produced and filmed in the US for primarily US audiences. If you don't like it don't watch it, it is that simple, vote with your money.
Re:I was watching it by dillon_rinker · 2004-01-26 03:16 · Score: 1

LOTR had a predictable ending...yeah. Perhaps because it was written 50 years ago?

Classics are imitated. A jaded reader (or viewer), ignorant of a particular classic's role, will consider a classic a poorly done example of the category CREATED by the classic. LOTR is archetypal in this.
Re:I was watching it by erroneous · 2004-01-26 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

> And he did destroy the ring.

Did you watch the movie?

Frodo didn't destroy the ring. He couldn't bring himself to do it. Gollum destroys the ring by accident.

The ring is destroyed, yes. Evil is defeated, good triumphs, etc. But it was not so simple as "Frodo goes to the mountain, throws the ring in the lava, the end."

--
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Re:I was watching it by revscat · 2004-01-26 03:20 · Score: 1

For the record, I loved both the Matrix trilogy (OK, Reloaded was a little thin, but only in comparison to the other 2) and the LotR trilogy. But the latter was very predictable and had the stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting, even for those of us who have never read the books or heard the story. The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.

I agree with you completely about the Matrix. That trilogy ended in a way that made sense, was ultimately satisfying, and meaningful in regards to the overall story. I felt that the entire Matrix trilogy was far and away better than it is generally given credit for, although I do think that LotR was better overall.

I think the main difference between the two is that the Matrix is more existential and therefore religious, while LotR is more of an archetypal heroic quest. And I do agree that the ending for Revolutions was more satisfying. There were deep sacrifices that had to be made in order for the conclusion to be reached, sacrifices that were more painful than what Tolkien was comfortable subjecting his characters (and audience) to.
Re:I was watching it by Mordaximus · 2004-01-26 03:20 · Score: 1

"I'm sorry, but it did. The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring."
I believe by real story he is referring to the novels. Destroying the ring was not the end of the story, neither in the movie, nor in the books. The ending in the real story is NOT predictable and is not a happy ending. The ending of the movie however is typical Hollywood fluff.

One of the main plot points of the story was these four Hobbits, out of their element, doing what hobbits generally don't do, adventure... and looking forward to getting back to the Shire that they are so used to. When you read the book, you feel such a sense of relief when the ring is destroyed that these hobbits finally get to go home, to the shire they know and love. I won't spoil the real ending for you, but they, and the reader, are VERY surprised by what they find.
Re:I was watching it by Tiroth · 2004-01-26 03:27 · Score: 1

I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that Reloaded/Revolutions didn't have a "classic, predictable Hollywood ending." The only elements short of standard sappy ending were:

1. tragic death of hero(s) [ed. note: very original!]
2. vague, poorly developed notion that machines are people too
3. humans win the war but fail to totally annihilate enemy

These are only superficial deviations from a standard linear plotline. I don't see how they "make you think" about anything other than extended fight scenes.

The first movie was brilliant, not because it forged new ideas about epistemology or had a nonlinear storyline, but because it did a masterful job of introducing an interesting, different, and believable version of reality. It reminded me of the sense of wonder I had exploring a new world when I read "Otherland."

The latter two were a bunch of fight scenes connected by laughable dialog, with standard Hollywood action movie accessories (sexy people, dance scenes, eye candy, etc) It's hard to believe the same Hollywood outsiders that made The Matrix could create these movies. I think they made a shrewd calculation though--they knew they could turn out crap and still make money, so they did so.
Re:I was watching it by PurdueGraphicsMan · 2004-01-26 03:28 · Score: 1

"It's simple, there are 2 levels of the Matrix, Duh! The blue Matrix, their 'Real World', is just another Matrix. You watch. In the third one, you'll see the REAL real world. It's so transparent. Hollywood sucks."
Okay, now I'm mad. I haven't yet seen this movie because I'm waiting for it to go into the cheaper theaters that I can afford. It would be NICE if you people would somehow notate that you're going to give SPOILERS!!!!!

--

The guitars sound good, now give me about 10db more on the cow bell.
Re:I was watching it by KirkH · 2004-01-26 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's ultimately even worse than that. Frodo fails his quest is no uncertain terms. It is only through Gollum's fate or greed that the ring is destroyed.

And that wasn't even the end of the movie or book. The more important story is the personal one, in which Frodo can no longer be at rest after his ordeal and must sail to the Undying Lands with the elves. This is a happy ending? I don't think so.
Re:I was watching it by dancingmad · 2004-01-26 03:57 · Score: 1

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Peter Jackson looks like a critter out of Mirkwood.

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Re:I was watching it by Artifakt · 2004-01-26 04:02 · Score: 1

There's history, and there's fiction. In a film that's entirely fiction, such as Red Dawn, it might make sense to pan it for not having real suspense, because we all know there's gonna be a "happy" ending.
But what happens if we apply this rule to historically accurate films? (Or even approximations). Ooops, can't make a film about Pearl Harbor, everyone knows how that came out, so there won't be any suspense. Ted Turner better drop those plans for the Civil war epics.
Now you've both got a point if Pearl Harbor is given a spin or two to make it more palatable to US audences, but do you want to take that point far enough to make it impossible to enjoy any film with historical roots?

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:I was watching it by mcmonkey · 2004-01-26 04:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

1. In the first movie, Rocky looses.

2. In the first movie, Jason wasn't the killer.

3. You can't complain about the ending of RotK being predictable because, duh, it was predicted 50 years ago by the book.

4. The main plot point of LotR was not for Frodo to destroy the ring. You missed the point. (And Moby Dick is not about a whale.)

5. It's been pointed out already, but bares repeating--in 1980 the USA Olympic hockey team beat the Soviet Olympic hockey team. Let the Soviets make movies about all the years the Soviets won, and the Americans will make the movie about the years they won.

6. You mention a couple movies to prove your point, but there are obvious counter-examples. Yes, there was "Armageddon", but there was also "Deep Impact" in which the world was not destroyed, but disaster was not completely averted either.

7. What about the multiple movies about Steve Prefontaine? He didn't win in the end. There goes your theory.
Re:I was watching it by Artifakt · 2004-01-26 04:30 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more that the "machines are people too" element would have been a real improvement if it had been developed well, but isn't much food for thought as watered down as it was.
On the tragic death element, a real non-Hollywood ending isn't a tragic death, it would be a non-heroic death, one that makes the hero a buffoon, an anti-hero, or just another joe. I think there's actually a nod to this. From one set of camera angles, Neo dies a "Life's a bitch - and then you die - face down in the rain - Burmashave" type death (literally). After that, we see the flashy Cruci-fiction stuff, but at least there's that touch.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:I was watching it by TwistedGreen · 2004-01-26 04:39 · Score: 1

I just wanted to say that you're not alone: I too enjoyed the Matrix trilogy, despite its few (but greatly exaggerated) shortcomings. As others have said before, it's important to see them all consecutively. It adds much to the enjoyment. But it seems a lot of people were disappointed (what were they expecting?) and are subsequently bitter about the whole ideal. It's a pity.

But then again, it's just a bloody movie.
Re:I was watching it by enjo13 · 2004-01-26 04:45 · Score: 1

Ever seen 'Platoon'?

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:I was watching it by red+floyd · 2004-01-26 04:50 · Score: 1

In the final showdown for Olympic gold, between Kurt's Americans and those nasty Russians,

Except the final showdown for Olympic gold was between the Americans and the Finns!

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:I was watching it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:00 · Score: 0

Are you seriously saying that a film which follows the actual history of an event must necessarily be impossible to enjoy? Or did you misunderstand the post that you're replying to?
Re:I was watching it by Casshan-Robot+Hunter · 2004-01-26 05:32 · Score: 1

The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.

That nobody predicted? Several minutes into the movie, we were able to predict the end... heck, we even started quoting their lines for them, they were so predictable.

Sure, Revolutions was fun and had a lot of eye candy, but both Revo and Reloaded were weak in the face of the Matrix (which really was unpredictable).

--
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
Re:I was watching it by ImprovOmega · 2004-01-26 06:19 · Score: 1

This is one of the reasons I was moderately impressed with Terminator 3. I reckon it took some guts on the part of the filmmakers to actually blow up the world on screen. They didn't cop out and go with the feel good ending that they could have.
Re:I was watching it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 07:11 · Score: 0

Q: What do you call a nasty Russian?
A: A Finn!

In Soviet Russia, nasty Russian calls YOU a Finn!

Thank you, I'm here 'til Thursday. Try the veal!
Re:I was watching it by vTalon · 2004-01-26 08:18 · Score: 1

Nitpicky (and spoiler-full), but...

I'm sorry, but it did. The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring.

Frodo didn't destroy the ring. His will gave out at the last, and it was Gollum's lust for his precious that finally lead (accidently) to the destruction of the ring.

In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.

The Matrix's ending -- that man and machines would have to work together to defeat Agent Smith -- was made horribly predictable as soon as it became clear that Smith was out to destroy man and machine alike. It's a very standard plot. The villains from the first movie/book/chapters become allies once a worse villain arises. The motivations for each set of villains were even predictable. The first set of villains is always out to control the world, while the second set is out to actually destroy the world. *That* plot has played out a hundred times (see the second X-men movie, for example, or, IIRC the second Amber series).

Honestly, to be satisfying, an ending has to be somewhat predictable, because it has to make sense, given the rest of the story (even a "twist-ending" like the Sixth Sense's has to make perfect sense once you re-watch the movie). The point where Hollywood screws up is when they take an ending that should be sad, because that's how the story goes, and make it artificially happy. See, for example, Pretty Woman, or the part in Return of the Jedi where Lando and the Millenium Falcon don't blow up.

~ PeteVG
Re:I was watching it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 08:48 · Score: 0

The OP has a point about predictable endings, though. I mean, sometimes you just know based on who the actors are or just because you know which side are the "good guys" ...

Personally, I liked the last Matrix movie, but then again, ironically, I didn't expect to get all the answers, even though I didn't quite see that ending coming. Neo collides with anti-Neo, explosion, everything goes back to normal... weird. But somehow it figures.
Re:I was watching it by Laplace · 2004-01-26 11:23 · Score: 1

That's what I ask everyone who complains about how the Matrix trilogy ended. "What did you want to happen?"

Really, ask yourself where the story could have gone. In the world of the Matrix, humans have very little power. The machines could easily crush them. To fix that problem, a menace to the machines that only the humans could fix had to be created. Thus viral Agent Smith is introduced. The humans in Zion were toast, and Neo saved them in the only way they could be saved: through a truce. A truce also makes sense in the Matrix mythology. Originally the machines wanted peaceful coexistence with humans. Humans regularly showed themselves to lack any sense of humanity, and in the end the machines preserved their creators even though they didn't need to.

Flame me for being a fanboy, or for trying to prop up a series of lackluster movies (and they were lackluster), but the trilogy told the only story it could reasonably tell.

--
The middle mind speaks!
Re:I was watching it by Laplace · 2004-01-26 11:26 · Score: 1

Oh, you just have to rent these movies:

Dr. Strangelove
Being John Malkovich
Koyansquatti

Yeah, you'll like those.

--
The middle mind speaks!
Re:I was watching it by Laplace · 2004-01-26 11:28 · Score: 1

Gandalf telling Frodo to spare Gollum's life was very important. If Frodo, Sam, or anyone else had killed Gollum (as they wanted to do) Sauron would have won.

--
The middle mind speaks!
Re:I was watching it by RedWizzard · 2004-01-26 12:27 · Score: 1

In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.
In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to stop the war and save Zion. That's exactly what they did. The ultimate goal of the free people was to overthrow the machines but that is not what they were doing in the movies.
Re:I was watching it by Blackhalo · 2004-01-26 16:15 · Score: 1

Frodo did not destroy the ring. At the peripice, he claims the ring as his own and choosed to NOT destroy the ring. Golum destroys it. So you thought wrong.

--
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Re:I was watching it by Artifakt · 2004-01-26 16:15 · Score: 1

Interesting set of alternatives there. Have I stopped beating my wife yet?
I'm seriously saying that person who holds a film is only enjoyable if there's some suspense about whether the hero ultimately wins won't be able to enjoy a film based on real history (unless just possibly, they don't know anything at all about that area of history). Suspense in general can be a good thing for films. A real feel that the hero could be in real danger can be too. Those two are not the exact same thing, but they are related. Making either of those things too important can make lots of good films unenjoyable.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Oscar ? by Lightman_73 · 2004-01-26 00:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nah. I don't really think so.

Let's face it, LotR won't probably get more than 2 or 3 Oscars.

The problem here is that LotR isn't the average movie, and moreover it's a fantasy one. Fantasy and SciFi movies never did well at the Oscars. Sure, they can get best special effect, or best music, but they'll prolly never get a best movie, or best actor, or best photography.

I hope things will prove me wrong, but...

Re:Oscar ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

not that Oscars really matter in the ways of life, nor are they very logical, but:
ROTK will win best movie and it will win for three reasons, it's a good flick, the Miramax flick of the year aint that good, and it's a compensation win. However ROTK is NOT the best movie of the year, really. (personal choice, Lost In Translation) The trilogy in its completion is the best movie of 2001-2003 combined but each of the parts is not the best of the year. But it will win none the less. It SHOULD win. ROTK will also win best director, but that's a given.
As for actors and photography ROTK should NOT win any of it, it just aint that good. The acting of the ring trilogy consists mainly of yelling at props, speaking in tongues and beards and staring plainly into the camera subverting you into thinking there is something going on inside. The only acting presence of the trilogy has been the Gollum charachter, an astounding achievement in itself. But compare Gollum to Andy Serkis technique in the flesh as the real-life version of Gollum, it's apallingly BAD acting in real-life. Once again the synergy of the production has created something extraordinary out of average or better than average sub-parts. Given, most actors prices are given for a big Cry part (think Sean Penn in Mystic River) or transformation act (think Charlize Theron in Monster), and that's sad as there are many other excellent works outside those frames. Especially the ensemble act problem. But look at Bill Murrays acting in Lost In Translation which is a very fine piece of tragedy and comedy combined. Gollums schiophrenic scene in TTT is on Murray's level, but all other acting sequences and parts in ring trilogy are not. I hope Murray wins this one, he deserves it. This year in Big Hollywood Popcorn movies had one (1) fine performance and that was Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. Viggo Mortensen is nice and the right man for his part in the ring trilogy but he is a stiff Dubya Bush compared to Depps rip-off of Keith Richard.
As for cinematography, well thats a bit trickier. Personally I don't think ROTK looks pretty enough. It's very good, but not outstanding, and if it is something that has moved forward the last decade in terms of moviemaking it is cinematography. Look at Christopher Doyle's work in Hero (shelved in US -only by Miramax, for all time. Buy the DVD.)and In The Mood For Love, or Conrad S Hall's work in Road To Perdition or even an average flick from the factory and compare it to a flick from fifteen years ago, how good they look now. ROTKs cinematography is technically brilliant at keeping the long production even in terms of the look, but it doesnt make you go "wow what a pictureframe" like excellent cinematography should. It has some nice fly-bys and mass-scenes but the lighting in many scenes are just off whack. ROTK looks flat as a picture, IMO. Kill Bill looks better (and also uses several different types of cinematographic styles, which is very interesting) and Lost In Translation and Elephant blows it out of the water.
The achievement of the Ring films lies in the production entire and that it actually has worked as a film version of a book, something quite uncommon. I don't think Peter Jackson bothered that much to get the best acting or the best cinematography of the year into each film, but primarily tried to fit the story itself onto film while not making it look outright cheesy. It doesnt, so he's succeeded. You maximize some efforts and give up others, cut him some slack.
Given Jacksons next project is King Kong, an all out emotionally based film, I think he'll go for good acting (by actors and creatures alike) for that one. And as it's a single picture more time can be spent on makin it look good too. So perhaps, next time alas.
-pahpabut
Re:Oscar ? by Palshife · 2004-01-26 05:14 · Score: 1

Andrew Lesnie already won Best Cinematography at the Oscars for Fellowship.

They also won three others; Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, and Best Original Score.

--
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Re:Oscar ? by Wraithlyn · 2004-01-26 11:10 · Score: 1

"I hope Murray wins this one, he deserves it."

LOL, I just read in the paper at lunch that Murray has been going around trying to convince people not to nominate or vote for him, since he says he's just "playing himself" in LiT. :)

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Oscar ? by Khomar · 2004-01-26 13:14 · Score: 1

That was a very good analysis, but I do have one possible correction. I thought that Sean Astin's acting stood out as well. He played a character that showed a lot of emotion while not becoming cheesy or overdone. He matched the tone of Samwise Gamgee perfectly, and if any one actor could possibly garner a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, it would be him (and quite fitting for the role of Sam).

Also, I think ROTK (really, at this point, any awards will be given in honor of the trilogy) also deserves credit for costumes. I know that this is a generally ignored category, but the work in LOTR has been phenominal. I can think of no other film that has gone to such levels to make their costumes perfect -- down to the insignia on the inside of King Theoden's armor. They also, of course, have a very good chance at Visual Effects, Sound, Art Direction, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Makeup, and possibly Best Adaptation (Two Towers won for Visual Effects and Sound Editing). Given the fact that the movies have not garnered a terribly high number of awards in the past, the Academy may decided to give appreciation for the trilogy by rewarding ROTK. In this case, there are a lot of awards that they could rack up before the night is through.

--
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Re:Oscar ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-27 10:45 · Score: 0

Sometimes a role doesn't call for a flamboyant performance. A flashy, self-mocking performance, ala Captain Jack Sparrow would have looked ridiculous as Aragorn and all by itself would have made the LOTR movies suck bad. However, in a light drama, Depp's melodramatic delivery of Capt. Jack Sparrow works.

Sometimes a subtle approach is called for and understated performances are not bad performances in that situation. In fact comparing the less engeretic performance by Viggo with Sean Bean's more animated performance helps underscore the difference between Aragorn and Boromir. Aragorn is much older than Boromir and has more responsibilities too, hence Aragorn has a more restrained and thoughtful outlook on life than Boromir.

I have no idea who has been nominated for what so my suggestions for acting Oscars may be impossible to implement. Nevertheless, I think Bernard Lee's performance as Theoden was awesome and deserves a best supporting actor oscar.

Other strong performances were Sean Bean as Boromir in FOTR, Brad Dorouf's Wormy in TTT and of course Ian McKellen performance defined Gandalf.

Sean Astin was pretty solid as Sam, although I thought Sam shouldn't have been quite so whiny. Also Elijah Wood nailed Frodo, except for his tendency to stare at the camara at times. I really liked Miranda Otto's Eowyn too, with the exception of her stilted singing at the burial of Theodred scene.

Christopher Lee was solid, but the writing for Saruman left a bit to be desired. Similarly, John Rhys-Davies was good, but the Gimli as comic relief writing blows.

About the only performances I didn't like were Mr. Smith as Elrond and the wooden actor who played Celeborn.

Two Towers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 00:58 · Score: 0

Take the Elves out of Helm's Deep, and the trilogy would have been almost perfect. I would have even over-looked screwing up Faramir's character then...

Well, at least we didn't have to suffer through, "Arwen: Warrior Princess."

Re:Two Towers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:04 · Score: 0

I'm with you on Faramir's character, but it was turning the Ents into hasty creatures, whose minds could be changed at the sight of a few tree stumps, that was most out of keeping to me.
Re:Two Towers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:15 · Score: 0
Yeah, but at least the special edition put the Huron's back in....
Every LOTR fan I knew who saw Two Towers had the following comments:
1. What's with the Elves at Helms Deep?
2. What is up with Faramir?
3. Ummm, where are the Hurons? (added back in, thank goodnesss)
4. Why didn't the Ent's agree to attack Sauroman at the Ent-Moot?
The only real complaint that I've heard about ROTK is:
- What's with sponge-headed orc?
Re:Two Towers... by hey! · 2004-01-26 02:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

What's with the Elves at Helms Deep?

I'm not too sure. Various changes are made in the movies to punch up the drama; one is the Theoden/Eomer split, which didn't happen in the book. Consequently the Rohirrim weren't as prepared as they were in the book. The arrival of the elves underscore this. Of couse it could have been glossed over several other ways. I don't really understand why people object to this. This is precisely the kind of change Tolkien himself made from draft to draft in his various works. Had he rewritten LotR decade after decade like he did the Silmarillion, this version would have made a highly plausible draft.

What is up with Faramir?

Same thing. It's part of the translation of an epic medium into a dramatic one. In an epic, character is demonstrated by contrast, in drama it is demonstrated by change. This plot change give Faramir a chance to change his mind. I have no objection to this per se, but I think the reason that fans don't like this change (apart from the ones who don't like any change), is that it was poorly conceived. First it actually overestimates the power of the Ring. Tolkien didn't intend for the readers to take the Ring as being irresistable. Of course it could be resisted otherwise there is no point in the book. It just can't be resisted by people who yield to the temptation to use it. It is consistent with Jackson's desire to make the Ring and overpowering presence in the movie, almost a character in its own right.

Second, the way Faramir is won back has no credibility. Jackson having established the awesome corrupting power of the ring, Faramir simply overhears Sam's speech and suddenly his resolve is flipped 180 degrees. This could only be pulled off if they spent a huge amount of screen time showing agonizing over the decision. Since he is a minor character, it was't going to happen. All in all I think they would have been better of leaving this anamolous piece of epic logic in, rather than admit a mediocre piece of dramatic logic.

Ummm, where are the Hurons?

Until their defeat by the Iroquois, they would have been in central Ontario. ;) The Huorns were lucky to make it into the extended edition DVD.

Why didn't the Ent's agree to attack Sauroman at the Ent-Moot?

Same as above. It is more dramatic (in the sense of more fitting to drama) to show characters changing their minds than simply making their minds up and carrying through.

Although I don't agree with them all, I actually like the fact that Peter Jackson took so many liberties with the text. It's interesting for the same reason it is interesting to have had Tolkien rewrite the same story with different viewpoints and events. It gives the story more of the flavor of a true, organically grown cultural artifact, which is what Tolkien was after anyway. With a real fairy tale and legend, there are always different local versions, and every storyteller makes it his own with his own details and embroidering.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Two Towers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:07 · Score: 0

Thanks, you brought very interesting points in your post. The opposition between epic and drama seems particulary pertinent.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with these (epic and dramatic constructions) to fully understand it, could you give us mere spectators some hints or pointers to chew on ?
Re:Two Towers... by DG · 2004-01-26 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm actually even more impressed with how FEW liberties he took.

The Lord of the Rings is a monsterous book, and (as one learns when one reads the Simarillion, Unfinished Tales et al) there are precious few throwaway scenes, or even LINES. Almost everything has a fully realized backstory out there somewhere.

The notable exception is Bombadil... but almost everything else is fully fleshed out somewhere.

You can indulge in this luxury in print, because you are working with the imagination and because you're not limited in time.

But with a film, you're working with a visual medium and a fixed run time. Dialogue, especially, is resistant to time compression. So too is the exposition of backstory - otherwise you are faced with somebody delivering a history lecture in the midst of your movie.

(Amazingly, Jackson pulled this part off in the prologue to FotR - but in the DVD commentaries, we learn just how contraversial that was amongst the filmmakers. They know the dangers of characters lecturing the screen)

Given this, I'm amazed at just how much of the book they were able to work in (more or less) untouched - and certainly, they stayed very true to the spirit of the original work.

There were a couple of decisions made that I would have done differently had I been in charge, but nothing there is egrariously WRONG.

Incidently, after watching LotR/TTT back to back with the Bashki animated version, I was struck by the enormous influence Bashki had on Jackson. In fact, I think that with no Bashki version, there is no Jackson version - Ralph's movie, flawed as it was, shows how the book _could_ be successfully adopted to film.

DG

--
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Re:Two Towers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 04:29 · Score: 0

Thanks for the spelling correction. And I wasn't complaining; while I don't agree with all the changes that Jackson made, I understand the reasons that he did them. I was just describing the observations that people who are fans of the book made. Your response is dead-on, though...
Re:Two Towers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:04 · Score: 0

I think Faramir changes his mind because he watches Frodo offer the Ring to the Nazgul. He then realizes that he might do the same, and remembers that Nazgul were once Mighty Men too...
Re:Two Towers... by danila · 2004-01-26 05:40 · Score: 1

You don't like Elves in Helm's Deep? Check the Purist Edit out, you might like it.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

The Office wins Two! by beders · 2004-01-26 00:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

BBC News

Best TV comedy and best comedy actor for Ricky Gervais. Considering they were up against Will and Grace and Matt le Blanc in these categories this was a major surprise and makes me happy that such a fantastic series has been honoured.

Hopefully this will increase the awareness of the show in the USA. Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much.

On the topic of Golden Globes, off the LOTR topic.

--
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club

Re:The Office wins Two! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:16 · Score: 0

Yep - the Office is very funny. Everyone's worked for a David Brent (Ricky Gervais's character) at some time or another. The first episode I saw had me ROTFL as I remembered an old boss I had who acted in exactly the same immature, insecure manner.
Re:The Office wins Two! by pubjames · 2004-01-26 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hopefully this will increase the awareness of the show in the USA. Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much.

The thing about the humour in The Office is that a lot of it is quite subtle and cultural - I am not sure it will "translate" very well to the US. Even some people in the UK don't "get it", and people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US. Also, a lot of the humour in Ricky Gervais's character is based around his crassness and political incorrectness - if the show is "sanitised" at all for mainstream US audiences I think it will loose a lot of its punch. Personally I don't think it is going to make the translation well - it might still be a good show in the US but I expect it will be very different.
Re:The Office wins Two! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Foreign? Not seen the UK version of the Office? Want to? Have BitTorrent installed?

Click here http://www.suprnova.org/, click TV shows, then Other, and click on "The Office".
Re:The Office wins Two! by Mr+Reaney · 2004-01-26 02:01 · Score: 0, Funny

I heard a rumour that Brad Pitt was going to be cast as the David Brent character.

Can that be right?
Re:The Office wins Two! by Oddly_Drac · 2004-01-26 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much."

Remake? They're remaking 'The Office'? What's the point?

For one thing, the US has nothing like Slough, and petty office politics have been done to death in numerous sitcoms

Come to think of it, I can't think of a TV series that has ever made it across the Atlantic intact.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:The Office wins Two! by mo^ · 2004-01-26 03:04 · Score: 1

Wow.... Chef... great show, sadly not repeated in the UK often enough.. Instead we have to put up with endless Friends reruns.....

Thanks for reminiding me that show existed.

PS.. For anyone who deosnt believe me, one of our 5 free stations shows no less that 4 episodes of friends every sunday.......

--
bah!*@%!
Re:The Office wins Two! by Sirch · 2004-01-26 03:23 · Score: 1

For one thing, the US has nothing like Slough
Have you never been to New Jersey?

--
We Build Beautiful Websites
Re:The Office wins Two! by Oddly_Drac · 2004-01-26 03:34 · Score: 1

"Have you never been to New Jersey?"

Very quickly, and I'll never lose the memory of those laughing, happy immigration staff, especially when I told them the purpose of my visit was to steal their jobs and women.*

However Slough is much smaller than 'Noo Joisey' and Pittsburgh might have been closer, but it's the fundamental 'greyness' of Slough (and Swindon) that provide much of the comedy.

* Score so far: Women 1, Jobs 0

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:The Office wins Two! by Dr_LHA · 2004-01-26 03:59 · Score: 2

people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US.

I'm always surprised that the Americans on Slashdot are happy to let this kind of stereotyping pass. This is simply not true - and I speak as a Brit who's lived in the US for 5 years. I mean - have you actually seen shows like Larry Sanders or Arrested Development - these are very definitions of shows relying on subtle humour, rather than big punchline slapstick.

The fact is that the only difference in levels of humour or irony is in the minds of TV network execs, who's dogged chase of Neilson ratings will make sure every TV show is as bland as possible. That and anything that isn't an instant hit in 2 episodes is cancelled here on any of the big 4 networks, so nothing ever gets a chance to build a following.
Re:The Office wins Two! by dr3vil · 2004-01-26 04:08 · Score: 1

> "Come to think of it, I can't think of a TV series that has ever made it across the Atlantic intact."
I can think of a few off the top of my head:
Three's Company (Man About the House)
Sanford and Son (Steptoe and Son)
All In The Family (Till Death Us Do Part)
Re:The Office wins Two! by joss · 2004-01-26 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

> people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle
> humour and irony than many people in the US.

I don't think so. I'm a Brit who lived in US for 5 years, and its true that many Americans don't get subtle humour, but then again neither do many Brits. We're not all fans of the Office or the Royale Family [which is funnier than the Office IMHO, although Gervais is a fricking genius]. There are huge numbers of fans for Jim Davidson for the love of God.

Also, there are subtle American comedy shows, eg Larry Sanders, and my personal favorite Beavis and Butthead. I'm not kidding either, the Office was in your face subtle, but Beavis and Butthead was so subtle most people didn't even realise it was subtle. They couldnt see past the sophomoric/moronic exterior to the zen perfection of minimalist humour that ran underneath.

--
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Re:The Office wins Two! by rmohr02 · 2004-01-26 04:57 · Score: 1

Along with these:

Whose Line is it Anyway?

Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (it did last two years in its prime (more than most shows) and is still running)
Re:The Office wins Two! by ImprovOmega · 2004-01-26 06:09 · Score: 1

Come to think of it, I can't think of a TV series that has ever made it across the Atlantic intact.
I understand Big Brother pretty well sucked on both sides of the Atlantic.
Re:The Office wins Two! by Azghoul · 2004-01-26 06:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Ahhhh, Beavis and Butthead. My favorite show, to the unending embarrassment of my wife...
Re:The Office wins Two! by Motor · 2004-01-26 06:56 · Score: 1

The thing about the humour in The Office is that a lot of it is quite subtle and cultural - I am not sure it will "translate" very well to the US.
What about "Phoenix Nights"? Funniest show in the last twenty years, but there are people in the south of England who don't get it, let alone in the U.S.

--
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
Re:The Office wins Two! by pete_townshend · 2004-01-26 07:06 · Score: 1

Looks like the new David Brent is Steve Carell from The Daily Show.

Carell is a very funny guy. We'll see if he can pull of Brent's character.

I think the major challenge in bringing series like Coupling and The Office to the US is the fact that they have to crank out 22 episodes in the US. You won't find a bigger fan of The Office that I, but doing 6 episodes a year is just a different animal and the quality would be bound to suffer if they had to do a full US season. I wish the networks in the US would try more short run series. I think they would find they would be very successful. HBO and Showtime have sure had success with 12-14 episode seasons.
Re:The Office wins Two! by FyRE666 · 2004-01-26 07:39 · Score: 1

Weakest Link, Pop idol (though as a Brit I feel pretty damned ashamed of that one ;-)

--
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Re:The Office wins Two! by nameer · 2004-01-26 08:56 · Score: 1

I would wager that it will go the fate of Coupling. My wife and I very much enjoy the BBC show Coupling. When NBC ran it, it just wasn't the same. I dunno, maybe Jeff just wasn't quite right. Maybe we just got used to the British actors and actresses. The script and story were virtually unchanged, but somehow it just sucked over here. I look forward to the new series of Coupling when it hits BBC America, but I'm guessing Office in the States will just lack in that same un-definable way.

--
"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
Re:The Office wins Two! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 09:02 · Score: 0

Before US /.'ers start idolising Ricky Gervais, I think they should be made aware of this

David Brent still working...at Microsoft!
Brent fever hits Microsoft UK
David Brent gives his office tips to Microsoft
Re:The Office wins Two! by brucmack · 2004-01-26 09:59 · Score: 1

Survivor's done OK, though it isn't as good as the original IMHO.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-01-26 00:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It deserves the awards, and then some by radionotme · 2004-01-26 00:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

The LOTR movies have all earned their respective awards easily. Peter Jackson managed to do the impossible and consistently improve over each 'instalment', despite the fact that each instalment was acclaimed by audiences and critics alike. I wouldn't normally be interested in King Kong, but Jackson has earned enough of my respect for me to go see it no matter what any critics say about it.

Re:It deserves the awards, and then some by beowulfcluster · 2004-01-26 01:16 · Score: 1

I wouldn't normally be interested in King Kong, but Jackson has earned enough of my respect for me to go see it no matter what any critics say about it.

In other words he's the anti George Lucas (for now). I thought he did a good job with the movies but he had some help with the story from the books. As a fan of the books I'd have gone and seen these movies no matter what the critics said but why someone would go and see a remake of a movie he isn't interested in just because of the director (fanboy mentality?) is something I don't quite get.
Re:It deserves the awards, and then some by radionotme · 2004-01-26 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

You misunderstand - I wouldn't normally be interested in a remake of King Kong, because I wouldn't have thought anyone could do it without turning it into a comedy or effects-laden waste of time.
The fact that Jackson has said he'll do it means that he thinks he can make something of it, and given what he managed to do with LOTR I'm happy to take him at his word.
Fanboy is a term I use to describe people who are oblivious to the obvious faults of their 'fandom', and if King Kong turns out to be awful then I may well reconsider my opinion.
Jackson has earned himself a chance in my eyes, not my undying devotion!

sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by voss · 2004-01-26 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

You write the movie...and the plot should not suck.

The first three star wars movies were episodes
IV-V-VI and these were each made over a 6 year span.

The difference between lord of the rings and SW/ESB/ROTJ versus the matrix sequels is that the first two there was a story that needed to be told. In the Matrix, they didnt have such a story.

Of course you can still have a story that needs to be told...and it still suck because of lousy execution.

Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by dbirchall · 2004-01-26 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

ya need to know the plot BEFORE you write the movie... and the plot should not suck.
Indeed. Case in point: Highlander 2: The Quickening, with its "everything you know about the origins of the Highlanders is wrong" plot. Scotland? Bah, laddie, they're from another planet, and one named for an optics company, at that!
Second case in point: Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, with its "everything you know about the origins of the force is wrong" plot. Magic or religion? Ah, young Jedi, it's just some little thingies floating around in your blood.
Revisionism sucks, even in the movies.
Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by jafuser · 2004-01-26 06:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course it doesn't hurt to have created such a detailed world that an entire 569 page book can be written *just* to reference all the words and names that were created to describe it. =)

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by BayAreaRefugee · 2004-01-26 14:29 · Score: 1

One thing I found curious and concerning of the Golden Globe Awards was that ROTK wasn't even nominated for any screenplay award. That's one thing that I hope the Academy gets right and finally gives the screenwriting crew of this trilogy some credit for a job well done on adapting this great piece of literature the way they did to make a great trilogy of films, which was no simple job. It upset me when "A Beautiful Mind" won Adapted Screenplay over FOTR, when the real substantive complaint of that film was how the film distorted what was supposed to be a book that was derived from a true story with overly exaggerated creative license. For it to win over FOTR was an insult in my book, even though I liked the acting performances and other parts of "A Beautiful Mind" very much.

I wonder if ROTK had been nominated for screenplay award by the Globes if it would have had a shot at winning it too. A lot of people say that Mystic River should be the favorite in this category, but I think you have to give the LOTR folks credit at some point.
Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by CaptainAvatar · 2004-01-26 15:18 · Score: 1

Case in point: Highlander 2: The Quickening, with its "everything you know about the origins of the Highlanders is wrong" plot. Scotland? Bah, laddie, they're from another planet, and one named for an optics company, at that!
Nooooo, it's the planet Zeist , not Zeiss ... that would just be silly.
ObParodyTagline: "There should have been only one!"

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:01 · Score: 0

Alternate Endings? The ending is straight out of the book! The only think different is the Battle of Bywater, and they didn't film that.

LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by sebi · 2004-01-26 01:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was really surprised that the British series "The Office" won both categories it was nominated for (best comedy TV and best actor in same) edging out American productions like "Sex and the City" and "Will and Grace".

I also thought that the ceremony would have been a good one had they simply given everything to Scarlett Johansson. The Oscar nominations will be published tomorrow and I am curious to see how closely they follow the lead from this awards-show. I would like to see Ang Lee to get at least a nomination as best director for "The Hulk", but am aware that the chances are slim. LOTR must be the big winner this year, but don't hold your breath for Gollum's nomination as best actor.

--
Hank! White!

Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:07 · Score: 0

This was probably because both "Sex in the City" and "Will and Grace" are about as funny as cancer.
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by sebi · 2004-01-26 01:27 · Score: 1

This was probably because both "Sex in the City" and "Will and Grace" are about as funny as cancer.

I am not going to deny that, especially not in case of the latter, but both series have been nominated time and again. Sex and the City has also won the best TV Series award twice. I guess it takes a bunch of foreigners to award a show that is as odd as The Office. I wonder how many Brits are on that jury.

--
Hank! White!
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by Savage-Rabbit · 2004-01-26 01:33 · Score: 1, Funny

If I had the choice between spending eternity either in "The Office" or "Sex and the City's" New York I think I would abscond and run screaming for the safety of Helms deep (straight through Fangorn forest AND the Uruk'hai army). Busting the heads of evil scum with the Rohirrim must be better than spending eternity with a bunch of neurotic yuppies...

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by mo^ · 2004-01-26 03:22 · Score: 1

Them tumours make me crack up everytime!

well, by crack up i mean cough all the time and speak through a voicebox.. but the sound of my fake voice provides a lot of humour.. so, a ringing endoresment for the old hags on the pull and the queer and his fag hag

--
bah!*@%!
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by BigBadBri · 2004-01-26 05:10 · Score: 1

So's The Office, for that matter.
Try Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights or the BBC's The League of Gentlemen if you prefer laughing to cringing.
Maybe it's just me, but The Office is uncomfortably close to real life - too close to provide the sort of humour that I recognise as funny.

--
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by gfxguy · 2004-01-26 05:43 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but sarcasm is easily lost on the internet, so please tell me that "I would like to see Ang Lee to get at least a nomination as best director for 'The Hulk'," is joke.

My wife and I rented it and simply couldn't stay awake, even when we finally got to the first transformation. So we stopped it and got a good nights sleep to watch it the next night. We still fell asleep. By the end I was fast forwarding through the non-dialog parts. I asked my wife if it bothered her and she said she didn't notice.

After watching the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, our conclusion was "at least it's better than the Hulk."

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by sebi · 2004-01-26 22:56 · Score: 1

No, I was not joking. I think The Hulk was amazing. That is just the way it is with opinions--they are like arseholes and all that. The films you cannot stay awake watching might mean a lot to others.

--
Hank! White!
Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-27 10:59 · Score: 0

I would like to see Ang Lee to get at least a nomination as best director for "The Hulk"
You can't be serious. Ang Lee ruined the Hulk. The multiple panels on screen at the same time sucked ass and totally violated suspension of disbelief -- it's supposed to be a movie, not a comic book! The ethereal, moody music totally sucked; they should have used the frantic strings and horns from the trailer instead! There was far too much Jekyll & Hyde pathos and not enough Hulk Smash! The opening dragged and dragged. The story broke down into a bunch of subplots with no overall connection except the lead character -- it's as if Lee filmed a few issues of the comic where each issue is a complete story in and of itself with weak transisions between stories.

The Hulk was a horrible written and filmed movie. The only redeaming quailities were the actors didn't mail in their performances, despite the lame storeline and the CGI effects rocked.

RoTK for Best Picture! by Xpilot · 2004-01-26 01:02 · Score: 5, Funny

OR ELSE!

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:04 · Score: 0

Maybe in this alternate ending, Sam and Frodo die, Saurumon comes back and kills Gandalf, and perhaps both acts were masterminded by the betrayer Aragorn, who is now the prince of Mordor?

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by spakka · 2004-01-26 01:04 · Score: 3, Funny

The battle of Helm's Deep in TTT was gayer. Recall the bit where Gimli calls to Aragorn "Toss me! Toss me!", and then asks him not to tell anyone about it.

Howard Shore - my precious! by tuxette · 2004-01-26 01:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Brilliant score - kudos to Howard Shore! Such powerful music is rare in these times when "music" is more about shaking your ass and tits on MTV than creating something that sends that chill up your spine, that takes your breath away, that fills you with emotions...

Congrats to the rest of the ROTK gang as well! Good going!

--
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...

Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by Lord+of+Ironhand · 2004-01-26 01:41 · Score: 1

I personally found the score rather disappointing. It's not bad at all but, I found nothing "Tolkienish" in it.
If "music" is defined by what's on MTV, then it might be considered brilliant; but with bands like Summoning and Blind Guardian ( LotR-related interview ) around to convert Tolkien's stories into music, I consider the LotR soundtrack somewhat of a missed chance.
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by Lord+of+Ironhand · 2004-01-26 01:45 · Score: 0

And if that link didn't work because I stupidly forgot the ".com" part, try this one...
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by CaptainAlbert · 2004-01-26 01:57 · Score: 1

> Brilliant score - kudos to Howard Shore!

To be honest, that's the part that surprised me the most. When I saw the first film, I absolutely loved the music. But when I left the cinema after ROTK, I couldn't help thinking that if anything, the score had been a bit lacking. It seemed almost like all the themes from the first two installments had been stirred up, re-heated and served up without much thought. There wasn't very much that was new; as a scene appeared on the screen I could already guess what the orchestra would be doing in a few seconds' time, and I was invariably right.

Normally, that wouldn't spoil a film for me. But I think all the imperfections of ROTK were magnified (for me, at least) by the knowledge that there was no Part Four. Some of the stuff in TTT was much worse in terms of Tolkien-sacrilege, but I could ignore it (just) because I knew there was another helping left to come which might just make up for it. Ho hum.

Having said all that, I'm still driving people up the wall by whistling the major themes incessantly... :)

--
These sigs are more interesting tha
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by lp-habu · 2004-01-26 02:05 · Score: 2, Informative

leitmotif n : a melodic phrase that accompanies the reappearance of a person or situation (as in Wagner's operas) [syn: leitmotiv]
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by petermcanulty · 2004-01-26 03:20 · Score: 1

Having heard a few "behind the scenes" stories, Mr. Shore, apparently, needed a fair ammount of babysitting/coaxing to finish the ROTK score. A Newline Exec apparently spent a number of months in London up into November making sure that Mr. Shore showed up when he was needed.

I, too, found the ROTK score a bit of a rehash of the first two scores, so the rumors seem to be borne out by the final product.

peter
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by Admiral1973 · 2004-01-26 03:56 · Score: 1

I completely disagree. The scores for all three LOTR movies have been spectacular and sublime. The role of a movie soundtrack is to underscore the action and help convey emotions to the audience. And it should never distract you from the on-screen action. In this regard, Howard Shore's music does an amazing job. For the battle scenes, there are sweeping orchestral fanfares, for the quieter scenes there are moving undercurrents that help tell the story. Every major group gets an appropriate theme and you always know subconsciously which character the emphasis is on. The theme for the Rohirrim is one of my favorites, and I always get chills when I think of it.
My only complaint about the music is in one scene out of three movies. When the Ents march on Isengard, Tolkien writes of the sounds of horns and trumpets as the Ents move. Shore's music for that scene didn't have any brass, which disappointed me. But that's it, out of 10 hours of movie and music. I can live with that.

--
Lousy minor setbacks! This world sucks! -- Homer Simpson
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by chocolatetrumpet · 2004-01-26 05:06 · Score: 1

To be honest, that's the part that surprised me the most. When I saw the first film, I absolutely loved the music. But when I left the cinema after ROTK, I couldn't help thinking that if anything, the score had been a bit lacking. It seemed almost like all the themes from the first two installments had been stirred up, re-heated and served up without much thought. There wasn't very much that was new; as a scene appeared on the screen I could already guess what the orchestra would be doing in a few seconds' time, and I was invariably right.

To be honest, that's the part that surprised me the most. When I heard the first soundtrack, I absolutely loved the music. But when I left the cinema after ROTK, I couldn't help thinking that if anything, the scenes had been a bit lacking. It seemed almost like all the characters from the first two installments had been stirred up, re-heated and served up without much thought. There wasn't very much that was new; as music was heard on the speakers I could already guess what the actors would be doing in a few seconds' time, and I was invariably right.

The music was well written, and it is precisely the reorchestrating of the same themes to each of the new situations that makes the music so masterful.

--
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by chocolatetrumpet · 2004-01-26 05:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

My only complaint about the music is in one scene out of three movies. When the Ents march on Isengard, Tolkien writes of the sounds of horns and trumpets as the Ents move. Shore's music for that scene didn't have any brass, which disappointed me.

That's because all the instruments were made out of - you guessed it - wood. Wooden instruments accompanying wooden creatures. It's good stuff!

--
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by danila · 2004-01-26 05:37 · Score: 1

I don't think there was any score in ROTK worth talking about, even less giving an award. Shore reused FOTR and TTT themes and wrote some of the crappiest original music for the third film. Yes, his work for the first two parts was amazing, but with ROTK he did no better than the rest of the team (i.e. just plain horribly).

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by darkwhite · 2004-01-26 07:31 · Score: 1

Personally, I believe Howard Shore didn't do that well on the third soundtrack. The first one was good, the Two Towers one was great, but ROTK was far from an all-out finale. Few new themes were introduced, and old ones were not revisited as well as they could have been. I agree that perhaps the great battles of ROTK deserved undivided attention, but the music for both Pelennor and Black Gate was a disappointment compared to Helm's Deep. The only track that was as stunning as most of the Two Towers tracks, to me, was The Return of the King.

In my opinion, and unfortunately for Howard Shore, he has a great competitor this year. Hans Zimmer's Last Samurai soundtrack is his best and most monolithic work to date, and though it doesn't possess Shore's clout, I think it by far deserves the music Oscar over its competitors this year.

--

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th by Denver_G · 2004-01-26 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't normally respond to flamebait like this, but HOW IGNORANT CAN SOMEONE BE?????

LOTR was written about 50 years ago and draws upon a plethora of historical and mythical references which have existed for centuries (maybe even millenia). The dwarves, etc with their beards were quite well described in the books and the fims merely remained true to the descriptions in the books.

Book 2 (the Two Towers) was published in 1954 - way before the twin towers were even built.

I am also offended as an Englishman. As a nation we were appalled with the attacks on the Twin Towers (Note, not the Two Towers) and we have suffered enough terrorist attacks ourselves (although admittedly, not on this scale) over the years to be extremely sensitive to the victims of ANY terrorist attack (bali, etc).

Hope this sets the record straight (although I know that the majority of /. readers will not need the correction).

Sorry for a slight rant.

Denver

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Now I can go see it. I always wait to see how well a movie does in the Golden Globes before I am willing to shell out my hard earned dollars. ;-)

Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:29 · Score: 0

It's a great validation of the existance of devoted fans. See? We haven't been wasting our pathetic lives at SCA gatherings! The Golden Globes are recognizing the object of our devotion!

Other things the GGs did right by chad_r · 2004-01-26 01:17 · Score: 1

ROTR was definitely deserving of awards. But I was also glad to see Lost in Translation also a big winner. It's odd they called it a comedy, but it did allow both movies to win. It wasn't a movie for everyone, but I appreciated the quiet subtleties of it, and was amazed by the quality of it. Even more impressive is that she both wrote and directed, at the age of 32.

Also, of interest to Slashdot readers, The Office won for Best Comedy series and Ricky Gervais for Best Comedy actor. At least it wasn't that god-awful Will and Grace.

Tolkien profiteering by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:17 · Score: 1, Funny

This Tolkien guy is just getting rich writing novels adapting Jackson's film creations, that's all.

Meningful? by AmoebafromSweden · 2004-01-26 01:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well Does these awards really matter anymore?

I lost total faith in the system that time when shakespeare in love nabbed a lot of oscars, not becuase of quality but because of marketing tricks from the creators.

I dont think Golden Globe is any less vulnerable.

Re:Meningful? by DG · 2004-01-26 04:10 · Score: 1

I actually think SIL totally deserved that Oscar.

The writing, especially, was absolutely brilliant, and the performances were outstanding. Dame Dench as Queen Lizzie is heartstopping.

"I know something of a woman in a man's profession. Oh yes by God I do."

Wow.

I don't know much about the studio lobbying shenannigans behind the scenes, but the movie was certainly Oscar worthy on it's own merits. If you haven't seen it - do.

It's not like somebody managed to wrangle an Oscar for Gigli or something. :)

DG

(btw, is anybody else worried about the chilling effect Gigli might have on Jersey Girl?)

--
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Re:Meningful? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 07:32 · Score: 0

I lost faith when Gladiator won Best Picture. What the fuck?? It was just a rehash of Braveheart, and not nearly as good. A decent rental flick and nothing more.

Re:Why does this matter? by will_die · 2004-01-26 01:26 · Score: 1

It matters for money.
For the oscars if a movie wins it can almost guarenteed to make at least 50% more money if it or an actor(ess) wins. Then for movies such as Monsters Ball or Cold mountain which hardly anyone would see it can mean more then double the amount they would normally get.

A word from Howard Dean by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-26 01:27 · Score: 5, Funny

"Not only are we going to Rivendell. We're going to Caradhras, and Moria and Rohan and the Paths of the Dead, and we're going to Fangorn and West Emnet and Ithilien and Morannon. And then we're going to Minas Tirith, to take back the White Tree! YEEAAARGGHHHHHH!!!!"

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:A word from Howard Dean by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 04:01 · Score: 0

ROTFL. Wish I had mod points.
Re:A word from Howard Dean by Azghoul · 2004-01-26 06:52 · Score: 1

Thank you Atari, that's the best laugh I've had since Dean's self-immolation itself.

Golden globes are a joke by smallpaul · 2004-01-26 01:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Globes are a joke that Hollywood and the TV networks play on the rest of us. The people who vote are neither industry experts (fewer than 40% work full-time in journalism or the film industry) nor representative Joe Averages. Rather they are fanboys (car dealers, accountants, appliance salesmen) who work the system to get an opportunity to hang out with stars. The Hollywood system uses these fanboys for more publicity and because they are more malleable than the Oscar jury (which is much larger and thus harder to buy off).

Hollywood is full of fake shit. But let's force them to be explicit about what is fiction and what is real. The Golden Globes are awarded by an in-bred group of random no-nothing foreigners based in large part on who has given them the best perks that year. I think that the world's movie fans deserve better.

Why should we geeks care what 90 people, self-selected for a lack of integrity, think of the Lord of the Rings or anything else?

Re:Golden globes are a joke by Hexact · 2004-01-26 02:47 · Score: 1

Please +5 the parent post!

The CBC ran a documentary about the Hollywood Foreign Press and the Golden Globes lately. The conclusion: they are a farce, a joke.

Nobody should take them seriously.

Clem.
Re:Golden globes are a joke by Brown+Eggs · 2004-01-26 02:48 · Score: 1

While I don't feel as strongly as you do about what a "joke" the globes are, I did find it quite funny that they KEPT saying it was the "greatest party/awards show in hollywood". They must think that if they say it enough, it will be true :P
Re:Golden globes are a joke by Sargerion · 2004-01-26 03:06 · Score: 1

You're absolutly right. I saw a documentary on PBS not too long ago (sorry, i don't remember what it was called) and the guy went all around Los Angels trying to find out exactly who these Hollywood Forgein Press people are. He couldn't find anything but a small office where he was refused information. It's all just a fabrication because NBC didn't have their own awards show.
Re:Golden globes are a joke by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:34 · Score: 0

More to the point, why should you care about any movie awards? What do you care if a movie you liked wins awards? Do you find it some sort of validation of yourself?
Re:Golden globes are a joke by TwistedGreen · 2004-01-26 04:33 · Score: 1

Why should we geeks care what 90 people, self-selected for a lack of integrity, think of the Lord of the Rings or anything else?

Well said. \m/

I'm tired of people talking about these little dog-and-pony "awards shows" like they're at all relevant. I'd rather not be spoon-fed my movies or music or art, especially from these self-inflated know-nothings. But I suppose the masses thrive on this, being told what to enjoy. A well-developed sense of taste seems to be a rare thing, it seems.
Re:Golden globes are a joke by binary+paladin · 2004-01-26 07:08 · Score: 1

Exactly, and I'd mod you up if I had any points today. As far as I'm concerned award ceremonies in general are a joke. Who cares about an industry getting together to kiss its own ass and drive up ratings? I know I don't.
Re:Golden globes are a joke by Wesley+Willis,+RIP · 2004-01-26 16:08 · Score: 1

...compared to the paragon of artistic integrity that is the Oscars. Titanic for Best Picture, anybody?

The appropriate quote from another movie by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-26 01:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Ents into hasty creatures, whose minds could be changed at the sight of a few tree stumps, that was most out of keeping to me.

"Run Forest, Run!!!!"

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by waitigetit · 2004-01-26 01:34 · Score: 1, Funny

What struck me was that from the moment is Sam pulled in through the window by Gandalf ("Don't turn me into something unnatural!"), he has his googly eyes all over Frodo. Then, the minute the ring is destroyed, he says something like "Hey, I would have liked to marry that Rosie chick."

I think Gandalf used the ring to turn Sam gay, to ensure his loyalty to Frodo.

--
I could care less, but not without a lobotomy

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th by joonasl · 2004-01-26 01:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I think that the original poster was trying (unsuccessfully) to be sarcastic. Calm down :)

--
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by houghi · 2004-01-26 01:44 · Score: 1

Actually I wanna see the alternate endings that come on the DVD.

I am waiting for the sequal made by Paul Verhoeven. It will start in Middle Earth in the year 3266. The ring was not molten and found by a robot who then becomes very powerfull. It will cause a war between Middle Earth and the rest of the universe. We will only see the ring in the firt 3 minutes and after that it is just a lot of exploding spaceships and planets.

The name of the movie is. Lord of the ring: The saga continues. It will be better, faster and more explosive then anything before. It will also contain less talking and more nudity.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 01:46 · Score: 0

So that's what happens in Star Wars Episode 3. Makes complete sense.

Bruckheimer LOTR adaptation by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-26 01:53 · Score: 2, Funny

How about the Jerry Bruckheimer version?

Merry and Pippin get into the fireworks. Instead of a premature dragon-launch, all of Hobbiton goes up in a 15-minute long orgy of pyrotechnic destruction.

When Gandalf defeats the Balrog, it blows up real good.

The orcs must be filled with gas at Helms Deep, because each time one of them is hit, it explodes like a Pinto.

The kill competition between Gimli and Legolas is made more exciting because each of them has a rocket-launcher instead of a bow or axe. Boom! Boom! Boom!

Those heads lobbed over the Minas Tirith walls? Those are EXPLODING heads now.

Just to make things more exciting, each time an Oliphaunt is killed and falls, it blows up in a fireball the size of Brooklyn.

Ring explodes when it hits the lava.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Best Original Score by Stultsinator · 2004-01-26 01:56 · Score: 1, Funny

Adam.

Oooo... Feel that Karma burn...

Re:Best Original Score by CaptainAvatar · 2004-01-26 15:21 · Score: 1

My kingdom, my kingdom for a mod point!

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by Lord+of+Ironhand · 2004-01-26 01:57 · Score: 2, Informative

If you had read the book, you would have known that the "closeness" of Frodo and Sam (which you are presumably referring to) was not added by Peter Jackson, but already present in the original books.
Interesting discussion on the subject here.

harsh by real_smiff · 2004-01-26 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's your opinion (obviously), I thought Sean Astin was good as Sam, and Viggo Mortensen made a good Aragorn. Miranda Otto was capable too. And Andy Serkis, jesus! Sir (;)) Ian McKellen, as you say. The ones I really disliked were Liv Tyler, John Rhys-Davies and that stupid looking man-elf, can't remember his name. Could have done without Agent Smith in there too. Really the acting wasn't bad considering what they were asked to do, this was a fun movie to act but not an actor's win awards movie, if you know what I mean. They struck an OK balance between epic and cheesiness IMHO. Most of the time. Orlando Bloom was pushing it. Shame Sean Bean had to die in the first episode eh. Most of the older men were great :)

It was a huge cast, don't write them all off like that eh.

--

This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

... but more importantly... by alecbrown · 2004-01-26 02:06 · Score: 1

The Office won 2! Ok, ok, most of you probably haven't heard of it, but it is a work of sheer genius, and anyone who has worked in a office environment would connect with it at some level.

Re:No acting nods for this one at least by Lord+of+Ironhand · 2004-01-26 02:10 · Score: 0

Clearly you weren't paying attention when Christopher Lee, Ian Holm and Brad Dourif appeared on screen.

I might have agreed with you if you had just mentioned Elijah Wood ("Gandalf, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo [...] oooooooooo !!!!!") and Cate Blanchett.

Best Director? by Arathrael · 2004-01-26 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just to buck the trend a bit - I actually thought Return of the King was by far the weakest of the three. It felt rushed - too many scenes had a 'we have to get this plot information across as quickly as possible and move on' quality to them, while other scenes seemed unnecessarily drawn out, complete with OTT slow-motion effects. Sure, he's trying to cram a lot of material in, but moving Shelob from the Two Towers to Return of the King didn't help, even after chopping out Saruman (and a very large part of the book at the same time). Dragging Arwen into the third film with slow, drawn-out scenes that don't really make sense didn't help either.

They got the general look right, and impressively so (perhaps with the exception of the very cheesy glowing green dead), however, in terms of script and direction, they could have done better. I was actually quite disappointed when I came out after seeing it. So for me, Peter Jackson didn't deserve a best director award for it. But that's just my opinion.

Oh, and the pipes in the score were bloody annoying sometimes. ;-)

Re:Best Director? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 02:53 · Score: 0

You didn't mentioned Gandalf turned from his advisor role into an army general one, and even hitting and _killing_ Denethor (which suicided himself in the book).

This wasn't the Gandalf of the book.
Re:Best Director? by SABME · 2004-01-26 03:18 · Score: 1

I wasn't disappointed, but I agree that there were many scenes I could have lived without in favor of including parts of the original plot. For example, I could have lived without endless footage of the beacons of Gondor, or without Legolas shooting an elephant.
Why not instead tell us why Denethor went mad? Or spend a few words expounding on Gandalf's achieivement as the Enemy of Sauron, or the West's general reverence for Frodo's accomplishment? Or show us Eowyn and Faramir meeting each other in the Houses of Healing?
My real criticism is that the movie was too short :-). Just have to wait a year for the extended edition I suppose ...
Re:Best Director? by TwistedGreen · 2004-01-26 04:44 · Score: 1

Nah, you're wrong.
Re:Best Director? by Edgewize · 2004-01-26 05:59 · Score: 1

Why not instead tell us why Denethor went mad? Or spend a few words expounding on Gandalf's achieivement as the Enemy of Sauron, or the West's general reverence for Frodo's accomplishment? Or show us Eowyn and Faramir meeting each other in the Houses of Healing?

Probably because nobody need to know these things to understand the film, which is about Frodo's journey to destroy the ring and that journey's effects on him.

Denethor is a tragic figure in the book, and a villian in the movie. But the only difference between those two characterizations is that the book gives us more background. Frodo knows very little of that. From the hobbits' point of view, Denethor is a villian.

The same for Gandalf. He is a Maiar spirit, but in the movie he is just a kindly old man who might be a bit impotent in the ways of magic. And that's what he is in the book too, if you don't know his story and history and his motivations. From the hobbits' points of view, Gandalf is very old and very wise and not much more than that.

Again, Eowyn and Faramir are important to the book (which is about the world of Middle-Earth) but they are irrelevant to Frodo's quest; their story does not interact with his journey.

Likewise, the world's reverence is not something that Frodo has in mind during the journey, and it is not something that ultimately changes his character.

Having read the books, these simplifications and omissions seem like a very big deal to us. But the average moviegoer really won't know, and if he does know, he won't care. The movies are almost too long for the general public as it is.

That's why we have the extended editions, I guess. It's where PJ can add material that is integral to the world but not part of Frodo's journey. And that's exactly what we want to see as fans of the trilogy, but it's not important to the telling of the original movies.
Re:Best Director? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:57 · Score: 0

ROTK was the worst of the bunch. Shouldn't win Picture or Director compared to Mystic River.
Re:Best Director? by Wraithlyn · 2004-01-26 11:22 · Score: 1

Just to defend one point:

Chronologically speaking, Shelob belongs in RotK. In the book, Frodo and Sam look back while ascending the stair, and see Minas Tirith beseiged.

This follows Jackson's pattern of showing us things as they happen, for example Gandalf's confrontation with Saruman, which is told entirely in flashback in the book.

I for one applaud this approach.. the movie has enough threads without screwing around with time.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Best Director? by Wraithlyn · 2004-01-26 11:31 · Score: 1

"The same for Gandalf. He is a Maiar spirit, but in the movie he is just a kindly old man who might be a bit impotent in the ways of magic."

I think he is depicted as far more powerful than that in The Two Towers.. not only from his fight with the Balrog, but his reappearance later. I think "Three hundred lives of men have I walked this earth and now, I have no time." nicely establishes him as an immortal.

Woulda been cool though to have him call the Balrog and Sauron his 'kin' or something.. since they're all Maiar.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Best Director? by mdarksbane · 2004-01-26 15:46 · Score: 1

I went to see the movie with a few friends; one who had seen it, three who had not. All those who had not seen it were VERY confused about Denethor and agreed that his condition made much more sense after I explained the entirety of his story.
I mean, seriously, which is better: a randomly crazy king, or a proud, great man driven mad by a power he could not control? Jackson kept (in fact, extended) the Palantir scene at the beginning of the movie and then proceeded to drop it entirely. It was wasted screen time without showing Denethor's palantir as well. It completes both the minor story arc and gives his character motivation and purpose instead of random malice.
Even more, it reinforces Tolkien's major theme, indeed the theme of most Fantasy novels; the draw of a power so terrible, so seductive that it cannot be controlled by anyone. The ring, the palantir, all these ancient artifacts, used by Sauron, tempted the greatest minds and led them to their doom. It's a strong message about the absolute corruptability of power, and moreso than any little adventure of hobbits dropping a ring in a mountain, the purpose of the book.

Re:Get out more. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 02:28 · Score: 1, Funny

Dude, you need to learn this word.

Re:Real moral by LDoggg_ · 2004-01-26 02:28 · Score: 1

I really liked the "Let's hunt some Orc" line. Its not a cool taken completely out of context, but it was said after Aragorn said "We will not abandon Merry and Pippin to torment and death. Not while we have strength left." Gave me goose bumps.

I do however agree the "What does your heart tell you?" line was absolute garbage. It was almost as bad as when the same exact line was used in star wars episode one
Little(oprhan) Annie to his mom : "Will I ever see you again?"
Darth Mommie: "What does your heart tell you?"

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle

LOTR DVD SUPER MEGA EXTENDED VERSION by QEDog · 2004-01-26 02:37 · Score: 1

What everyone is waiting for is: LotR DVD: Super Mega Geologically Long Extended Version ... translated to... Ent!

--
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham

Hollywood? by eadz · 2004-01-26 02:37 · Score: 1

The film was made predominantly in New Zealand..
.. credit where credit is due and all...

Re:Hollywood? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 04:34 · Score: 0

Dear God I hope you are making a joke.
Re:Hollywood? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 17:51 · Score: 0

The film was made predominantly in New Zealand..

So the moral for Hollywood execs is actually to make big budget movies in countries which have a relatively weaker currency and where wages are not as high as in the US!

NOT a "trilogy" by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · 2004-01-26 02:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

The work is not a trilogy (technically, any part of a trilogy can be comprehended without having had to read/see the other two) ... it's just a really long movie that was broken into three parts.

If you had not seen the first two, the last one would not have made any sense at all.

Re:NOT a "trilogy" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 04:12 · Score: 0

Well, since Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy either, that makes sense, don't you think? The book(singular) was broken up artificially in order to sell, not because it was written that way.
Re:NOT a "trilogy" by asobala · 2004-01-26 05:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, since Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy either, that makes sense, don't you think? The book(singular) was broken up artificially in order to sell, not because it was written that way.
Nope. It was originally written by Tolkien as 6 books, which were joined up into 3 in order to sell. The books were The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes South, The Treason at Isengard, The Ring Goes East, The War of the Ring, and The End of the Third Age
Re:NOT a "trilogy" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:38 · Score: 1, Informative

Nope. It was originally written as six parts of one book, which was divided into 3 volumes due to publisher concerns.

Tolkien envisioned the parts being published in one volume as he wrote. The parts are not all of equal length and they would not be individually satisfying.
Re:NOT a "trilogy" by CaptainAvatar · 2004-01-26 12:45 · Score: 1

As a moderate Tolkien geek who has read the LOTR about 8 times, The Hobbit about the the same, and The Silmarilion once, I have to say those are some pretty stupid titles. :)

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Re:NOT a "trilogy" by UserGoogol · 2004-01-26 14:56 · Score: 1

Not that kind of book. Like in the bible.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:NOT a "trilogy" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 18:00 · Score: 0

The book(singular) was broken up artificially in order to sell, not because it was written that way.

In case you hadn't noticed we are talking about the movie here, which was always meant to be a trilogy. The cost of paper in post-war Britain is just a tad off-topic, but thanks for that gratiuitous display of errudition.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 02:39 · Score: 0

Well, the ending was great, but PJ killed it when he added that last scene with Sam walking into his house.

Before that scene, there's five minutes of heartfelt goodbyes, incredible music, and memorable quotes. It even ends with the ship sailing off into the ocean, giving a feel that the film has come full circle and the journey has just begun again.

Unfortunately, Jackson then adds the Sam scene and it significantly weakens the ending. Instead of magnificent music and an uplifting feeling of the elves leaving middle earth, we're left Sam and his kids closing a door. That's why I could say that ROTK was the best movie of all time, becuase I know of many movies that have better conclusions.

And to think that it was so close!

Re:No acting nods for this one at least by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 02:39 · Score: 0

Since acting time are too distributed on multiple performances I think no one has enought screen time to be considered as full valuable acting except, maybe, Astin or Wood.

Re:Why does this matter? by nelsonal · 2004-01-26 02:40 · Score: 1

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference for big blockbusters with ad budgets in the tens of millions (everyone already knows about them), but for a low budget independant film the few mentions on an awards show might well get them 10 or 20 times the exposure that their ad budget could have ever delivered. Last year's big winners on the the money side were The Pianist and Y tu Mama, Tambien. Both grossed significantly more after the awards wer handed out(the Pianist was only in release a few weeks before the oscars). I would assume that some of the more independant film houses will probably have oscar night where they (re)show smaller award winners for those who missed them.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.

Why ROTK will probably not win... by The+Closet+Optimist · 2004-01-26 02:47 · Score: 3, Troll

50% of the Oscar voting body is women, who have historically voted for whatever the most romance-based movie is of the bunch (Cold Mountain in this case.) Put another way, 50% of the voting body is interested in movies about relationships as opposed to epic cinema - unless of course it's about romance; think "Titanic."

Remember when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan"; "Forrest Gump" beat "Pulp Fiction", etc.?

While there certainly can be exceptions to this rule, and hopefully this year will be one, past history suggests that the Oscar will go to something like Cold Mountain or Big Fish.

--
"It isn't necessary to completely suppress the news; it is sufficient to delay the news until it no longer matters." - N

Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Remember when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan";

When shit beats crap I find it hard to care. They were both horrible but at least Shakespeare had Gwyneth Paltrow's breasts.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by flogger · 2004-01-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Remember when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan"; "Forrest Gump" beat "Pulp Fiction", etc.?

Forest Gump was in 1994 as was Pulp Fiction. (not a bad movie.) I agree; Pulp Fiction was better than Forrest. But also that year was Shawshank Redemption. In my opinion, this was the best movie of 1994.

But my thinking a different movie is better than another person just illustrates the fact that all of these awards are subjective and really don't mean that much execpt for "Bragging Rights."

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Admiral1973 · 2004-01-26 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

How is this comment insightful?
First of all, it's blatantly sexist. Oscar balloting is secret, so how does this poster know that all the women vote for the romances? Does this mean that the male voters always pick the most violent movie nominated?
Second, just because romances are nominated doesn't mean that they will win. How does this sexism theory explain Best Picture winners like Gladiator (2000), Braveheart (1995), Schindler's List (1993), Unforgiven (1992), and Platoon (1986)? Gladiator beat Chocolat and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, both of which could be considered romances (or at least had prominent love stories). Yes, sometimes the romance beats the epic war movie, but there are other factors. I have read that one of the reasons that Shakespeare in Love beat Private Ryan was due to the Academy's heavy use of screener tapes. SPR's epic scope was lost when it was taken out of the movie theater, while SiL looked great at home on the small screen.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether ROTK wins Best Picture or not. Yes, I'll be happy if the movie wins, but if it doesn't, does that take anything away from the greatness of the movie or the trilogy as a whole? The movie isn't changed by the award, and I'll enjoy it just as much in future years whether or not it has the words "Academy Award Winner: Best Picture of 2003" on the DVD cover. Besides, it's not like *I* get an Oscar if the movie wins. It's like if your favorite team wins a championship. Sure, you feel great about it, but it's not like you were a part of the victory.

--
Lousy minor setbacks! This world sucks! -- Homer Simpson
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:21 · Score: 0

Also, in 1942, "How Green Was My Valley" beat "Citizen Kane." Both movies are very good, but nevertheless...
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:29 · Score: 0

True, but they do appreciate a dildo like Orlando Bloom. So I think it's a toss.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by joonasl · 2004-01-26 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why do you think Peter Jackson/New Line Cinema put more emphasis on the Aragorn/Arwen love story than Tolkien (in the book, story was only added as an appendix in the end of the ROTK)?

--
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Mandomania · 2004-01-26 05:41 · Score: 2, Funny

It's like if your favorite team wins a championship. Sure, you feel great about it, but it's not like you were a part of the victory.

Now that's just a flat out lie. Everyone knows that the Yankees won the AL pennant last year because I ate 10 hot dogs/inning during the Championship series.

They would have won the World Series if I hadn't gone to the hospital because of the aforementioned hot dogs.

--
Mando
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by The+Closet+Optimist · 2004-01-26 06:27 · Score: 1

First of all, it's blatantly sexist.
Identifying differences between what men and women prefer is not sexist. Men are not from Mars, Women are not from Venus, but there are preferential differences, and they are especially obvious in what movies each gender prefers. We're not a homogenous creature, and there's nothing wrong with recognizing the fact that there are some differences between men and women and what types of movies they prefer.
Oscar balloting is secret, so how does this poster know that all the women vote for the romances?
The voters aren't tossed into a pit at the end of the voting, never to be heard from again. They are people who talk to other people. That being the case, the movie "industry" is certainly interested conducting demographic studies to allow them to predict what the voters will like. Do you really think there is that much secrecy surrounding oscar voting? Consider the politics of the Oscars, and how movies are pressed towards the academy as proof positive that the industry knows the voters' demographics quite well: at an individual level, an age level, a political preference level, and a gender level.
Does this mean that the male voters always pick the most violent movie nominated?
No, but on average males tend towards movies like SPR (and LOTR for that matter) more than movies like SiL.
As another poster noted, even the romance parts of LOTR were "enhanced" beyond their presentation in the book. The "romance factor" is part of the politics of the Oscars. It's not an absolute requirement for winning the big award, but it's part of the equation. I was never trying to lay down an edict with my post. I was simply introducing an interesting reality about Oscar voting and the ravenous politics that have grown around the academy.

--
"It isn't necessary to completely suppress the news; it is sufficient to delay the news until it no longer matters." - N
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by mclem · 2004-01-26 08:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

I doubt it was because PJ was trolling for Oscar votes, if that's what you're implying. If anything, I see the emphasis on the love story giving Arwen *something* to do. Tolkein didn't write very many women into the trilogy at all -- Eowyn gets to slay the witch king and all, but what does Arwen do... get married in the end? Ho hum.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 09:51 · Score: 0

When shit beats crap I find it hard to care. They were both horrible but at least Shakespeare had Gwyneth Paltrow's breasts.
huh? not even Gwyneth Paltrow has Gwyneth Paltrow's breasts. What movie did you see? If not for a few hundred metres of fabric she would have no shape at all.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by tuxathon · 2004-01-26 10:24 · Score: 1

Frankly, the Yankees suck, and the Red Sox would have won, if only I had thrown my 75 year old grandpa to the family room floor by his head.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 10:53 · Score: 0

If the Acadamy is filled with women, your forgetting something.

Orlando Bloom.

You have the women vote tied up right away.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Anthony · 2004-01-26 11:20 · Score: 1

There's plenty of romatic bits there. There was a lot of nose blowing and tear-wiping in the cinema when my wife and I watched RoTK. The long-distance agony of Arwen-Aragorn, the unrequited agony of Eowyn-Aragorn, the implied Eowyn-Faramir match.

--
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by mooredav · 2004-01-26 12:28 · Score: 1

"50% of the Oscar voting body is women, who have historically voted for whatever the most romance-based movie is of the bunch (Cold Mountain in this case.)"

Cold Mountain wasn't a good romance. I expect many women to notice that.

In Cold Mountain, the main guy is shy and never says much to the girl. Then he leaves for war. Just before he leaves, he gives her a first kiss -- a bad kiss. It looks too forceful and ugly. During the war, they write boring letters to each other, but most of the letters are lost and are never replied to. There wasn't enough romantic material to make me believe in it.

However, relief comes from the supporting cast and the sub plots. In particular, a perky Renee Zellweger character. She really lights it up. Cold Mountain was the only movie that I ever left wondering "who was that actress?" She won a Golden Globe for her role.

I enjoyed Cold Mountain, but not because of its romance. It has drama, historical flavor, and a colorful supporting cast.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Brandybuck · 2004-01-26 12:49 · Score: 1

Put another way, 50% of the voting body is interested in movies about relationships as opposed to epic cinema

Then what about Frodo's relationship with Sam?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Nilmat · 2004-01-26 13:34 · Score: 1

Um. . . you might want to check some facts there. It is well known that far less than 50% of the oscar voting body is female. In fact, the typical oscar voter is a 50ish white male. Hence, it is movies that appeal to this demographic that tend to do best. Thus fanboy films like Pulp Fiction don't always do so well.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by joonasl · 2004-01-26 19:18 · Score: 1

Ok, it was not PJ trolling for oscars..
..but I do belive that either PJ or New Line though that it was impossible to make a movie that would have mass appeal without an romantic storyline in it.. In the books Arwen basically *does* nothing (e.g. the elf who rode Frodo to Rivendell was not Arwen in the book) :) And I'm not complaining, the Arwen/Aragorn storyline was tastefully done and the solution of keeping it alive through TT was pretty successful. Atleast it was better than one of the considered options, in where Arwen and Aragorn met when Arwen came to Helms Deep along with the elf troops to fight Sarumans army.
Besides Eowyn, the only female character who has a "major" role in the movie is Galandriel

--
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"

*sigh* by jafac · 2004-01-26 02:51 · Score: 1

As much as I think ROTK sucked ass, and proved to be a bitter disappointment after 30 years of expectations, for the life of me, I can't recall a better movie coming out in 03.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Interpretting the music... by tjwhaynes · 2004-01-26 02:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I personally found the score rather disappointing. It's not bad at all but, I found nothing "Tolkienish" in it.

If "music" is defined by what's on MTV, then it might be considered brilliant; but with bands like Summoning and Blind Guardian ( LotR-related interview ) around to convert Tolkien's stories into music, I consider the LotR soundtrack somewhat of a missed chance.

I was actually fairly impressed by the music for LotR when I first went to the showings. I'm even more impressed now that I have had the opportunity to watch the DVDs at home and actually give the music some serious attention.

Interpretting a book and putting music to it is inevitably a big problem - very few books go as far as actually adding a score (!) or even an indicator of the music associated with each group of people so what one person expects is a very personal response. Having watched the appendecies to FotR and TTT about the scoring of the LotRs, Howard Shore has been very attentive to the vision that Peter Jackson bought to the film in terms of the histories associated with each of the various groups in the film without falling into the trap of going completely native and only using original instruments. For example, the Eoras are derived/inspired from the Anglo-Saxon peoples (think Beowulf on horses) and the key instrument for the Eoras themes is the Norweigen fiddle - an instrument which has a wilder timbre than a normal violin. The use of various vocalists to provide different textures to various important scenes in the films is another example of the care found in augmenting the vision.

Someone else mentioned predictability. For an effectively 10 hour score, each major character and each major group has their own theme. This theme is then moulded into the scenes where they appear, so during the battle of Helm's Deep you have a mixture of the music associated with the Uruk-Hai and the Eoras with some of the Elven themes woven in. It is both unrealistic and more importantly unworkable to not have this sort of thematic approach to the scoring - the viewer is often guided through a movie on the wings of the musical score, often at a subliminal level. The thematic approach actually helps the viewer following the (often rapid) switches in the film between the story lines - to keep throwing brand new ideas in all the time would actually disorientate many audiences in what is already a complex film (in TTT there are 5 simultaneous story threads at some points).

I think Howard Shore is a deserving recipient of this Golden Globe.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

--
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.

Somebody give him the goddamn oscar already.... by Cyno01 · 2004-01-26 02:58 · Score: 1

Jackson really deserves it. LotR is one of the most amazing movie series of our time, and although it was my least favorite of the 3 books, somehow RotK ended up, IMHO, being the best of the three movies. After being snubbed the last two years he should be awarded one for the entire trilogy.

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."

Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by Larry+David · 2004-01-26 02:58 · Score: 1

I always thought the Slashdot 'nerd' was someone who was good with computers, a hacker, a programmer, a sysadmin, someone with computer science chops.

Not the typical definition of 'nerd' which is a fat Dungeons and Dragons player who drools over LOTR swilling coke all day and who can't stop eating at McDonald's.

I clearly must have the wrong definition of nerd. Do both types exist in one body?

Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by erroneous · 2004-01-26 03:27 · Score: 1

Please go and read "The Man on Platform 5" by Robert Llewelyn.

It has an excellent passage running through it on how all the different sub-genres of nerds look down on all the others.

I'm sure you'd appreciate it.

--
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by drinkypoo · 2004-01-26 03:31 · Score: 1

Where I'm from, which is to say Santa Cruz, the thing you thought was the /. nerd is called a geek. This usage is also common in other cities with tech schools, like Berkeley; MIT also reportedly uses this same terminology.
I think what it comes down to is that a geek has style. Nerds are intelligent but got no game :) (At least, only nerds feel their style.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by dtdns · 2004-01-26 03:42 · Score: 1

I always thought the Slashdot 'nerd' was someone who was good with computers, a hacker, a programmer, a sysadmin, someone with computer science chops.

In my vocabulary, that would be a geek. I find 'geek' to be a compliment and 'nerd' an insult. If you look these up on dictionary.com they both share the same basic meaning, but I think our culture has made a distinction between them.
Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by eclectric · 2004-01-26 04:57 · Score: 1

Indeed, I never understood why slashdot was called "news for nerds" when it is clearly "news for geeks".

And yes, it is possible to have both in the same body. There are plenty of tubby sysadmins!
Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 05:31 · Score: 1, Funny

http://www.brunching.com/geekhierarchy.html
Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 11:04 · Score: 0

"The nerds on the Internet are not geeks."

-- List of Corrections on Rock Bottom, The Simpsons

Re:Why was Lord of the Rings so appalling bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 02:59 · Score: 0

Well done, sir. Well done.

BTW, your zebra sucks.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-01-26 03:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why was Lord of the Rings so appalling bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:08 · Score: 0

Hell, even Arwen was probably a rug muncher in the extended edition.

Aw, YEAH!!! When's the Extended Edition come out ;-)

Re:Real moral by Popageorgio · 2004-01-26 03:09 · Score: 0

What bugs me is that I got "trolled" for posting an opinion, with quotes to back it up, that happened to strongly disagree. I honestly believe what I said, and I cannot understand why everyone loves the movie. I entered the movie expecting it to be good. I had adored the first, and I enjoyed the second (less, but still liked it). So I expected that other ROTK fans would agree that this was disappointing. I just don't see the beauty.

not flamebait really by real_smiff · 2004-01-26 03:11 · Score: 1

ok i'll risk some karma here: parent has a point, though it could have been worded more delicately. I don't think the movie is racist (and the parent probably doesn't either; i think he's saying it's not funny) but is overrated. anyway, this is off topic so i'm not going to review LiT here. mods, if you disagree with someone's valid opinion, at least mod it funny or leave it alone, please.. my beef is with the grandparent who says "hey btw this other movie i saw is amazing!", with no more justification, is OT and promptly gets modded +5 insightful.

--

This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

star wars stories? by Savatte · 2004-01-26 03:13 · Score: 1

You know, there really wasn't a story that needed to be told in ESB and ROTJ. ANH ended well and wrapped up the loose ends.

Nerd body by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 03:16 · Score: 0

"I clearly must have the wrong definition of nerd. Do both types exist in one body?"

The bodies are clearly big enough for a few types to exist simultaneously inside. Not just two.

Marketing budgets by urbazewski · 2004-01-26 03:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here's something I've been wondering about with movie budgets:

I can't find the source right now (probably boxofficemojo) but I recall that the cost of making RotK was listed at around 95 million $, with advertsing costs of 50 million $. I'm amazed by the amount spent on advertising---it's hard to believe that it's cost effective, ie, that box office receipts or even total revenue would have fallen by 10 million if they had only spent 40 million on advertising.

Or is movie attendance so ruled by herding and cascade effects that the effects of advertising are nonlinear?

--
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th by TachyonAT · 2004-01-26 03:22 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Do not meddle in the affairs of Tolkein-loving moderators for they are subtle and quick to anger

journalistic integrity??? let me show you around.. by vt0asta · 2004-01-26 03:32 · Score: 3, Funny

But I thought that Slashdot was above that. This site has a reputation of journalistic integrity that should be upheld.

You must be new here. Let me show you around a bit.

What you are looking at now, is a crispy critter(you) being flamed for good measure for the following things: appearing pro-american (slashdot is Euro centric), bringing up that whole terrorist 9/11 twin towers thing, and mixing LoTR in with the previous two.

Down the hall you'll see the SCO section filled with people who are not lawyers, but play one on slashdot. Across from there is a broom closet, which is also labeled the Journalistic Integrity Vault, there you'll find boxes of repeat stories, mis-spelings, and summaries written by people who never read the article.

Your ignorance is welcome here, but please adjust it according to slashdot standards. 9/11, Osama, et. al are not a national security concern, but more of a vast right-wing conspiracy, LoTR 0wnes j00 and you will recognize it, also LoTR is considered by some more in-line with Christian ideals vs the Muslim ones you suggest.

--
No.

Re:Whatever, it still sucks. by KirkH · 2004-01-26 03:57 · Score: 1

Maybe that's because it was nothing like a RPG. Let me guess: you liked the Dungeons & Dragons movie, didn't you?

Two words by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-26 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny

people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US.

Two words: Benny Hill.

You just can't get more subtle than that!

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 09:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I hate to break it to you, but Annie Hall is a far better movie than Star Wars.
Re:Two words by b0neman · 2004-01-26 11:29 · Score: 1

Other two words...

Art Wussies... the Art Wussies(Academy) will not let a picture that is accessible to the "normal" Joe win. Not unless the Academy feels that Jackson was slighted in some way in past awards and then he'll get something out of simpathy.

"It's all politics man."

Godzilla by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-26 04:14 · Score: 1

1 - The average height of a Japanese male is about 5'4" in contrast to the average western male at 5'10". This is largely due to the still conspicuous absence of dairy in the Japanese diet.

I thought it was because Godzilla tend to eat the taller ones.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

I dunno... by CatOne · 2004-01-26 04:15 · Score: 1

I just found ROTK boring. Not sure exactly what of it was worthy, but the cinematography.

I read the books, and I just felt it was... tiring and long. Shoulda kept it under 3 hours.

Win at the Oscars? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 04:34 · Score: 0

Come on, seriously. Everybody knows that the oscars haven't been a serious indicator of good movies for at least 30-40 years, maybe longer. They are just a chance for whoever can sleep with the most members of the academy to stand on a stage and let people look at them (which isn't very nice because most of them have terrible personalities)

They piss me off anyway, because the winners are always movies about gay cowboys eating pudding.

Supernatural by sethx9 · 2004-01-26 04:37 · Score: 1

"Hopefully LotR: RotK will fare just as well, or better, at the Oscars."

Because being in the exalted company of such artistic masterpieces as Forrest Gump and Titanic will finally bring legitimacy to homoerotic fairytales.

I thougth LotR was wonderfully realized; don't get me wrong. I just think it all smells like Santana's 2000 Grammy blowout. Santana's awards were given more for what had been shamefully ignored than for the single object d'art for which the should have been given (made all the more obvious by the fact that he did not win an award in the Latin category!). And there too the winds of a marketing firestorm overwhelmed and consumed a wealth of far more deserving entries.

--
Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the tongue-in-cheek emoticon to the bottom of my posts...

No "The Hobbit"? by DroopyStonx · 2004-01-26 04:46 · Score: 1

What I don't get is why there aren't any plans for The Hobbit.. well, as of now, anyway. IMDB isn't showing it as a future release.

That'd be a pretty sweet movie. Why NOT make it? The Hobbit is equally as part of LOTR. Don't people want to see how the ring came into Bilbo's possession or the story surrounding it?!

--
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!

Re:No "The Hobbit"? by raytracer · 2004-01-26 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

That'd be a pretty sweet movie. Why NOT make it?

One very simple reason. Jackson doesn't have the rights to make the Hobbit (at least yet).

--
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Re:No "The Hobbit"? by DroopyStonx · 2004-01-26 05:17 · Score: 1

That's crazy.

His heirs should be honored that his books have been made into some of the finest movies of ALL TIME and have generated an entire new generation of fans and followers.

Those movies are right up there with other classics like The Godfather and Star Wars and will be highly regarded for decades to come...

While a prequel might mean big bucks for the studio, it's really about another good film for the fans of the story.

--
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Re:No "The Hobbit"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-27 11:15 · Score: 0

You could always check out the Rankin Bass cartoon of the Hobbit. It's pretty good.

Re:Iris watching it by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-01-26 04:53 · Score: 0

SO much better than Apocalypse Now. "Platoon" was amazing (especially considering it came out only a year or two after Predator). The scene where the main character wakes up and sees the Vietcong slowly moving around in the dark was so incredibly well done that I'm going to go watch the movie again right now... after class.

--
True story.

Who Gives a Shit? by red+floyd · 2004-01-26 04:56 · Score: 0, Troll

All the film awards are the (evil) industry stroking themselves.

To them, you're still just a pair of eyeballs with a wallet. You do what they want or they'll sue you.

My wife watches Extra! and Access Hollywood, and all those shows, and my reactions is, "who gives a fuck about what some overpaid actor does?"

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

Re:Who Gives a Shit? by sfjoe · 2004-01-26 07:25 · Score: 1

... and my reactions is, "who gives a fuck about what some overpaid actor does?"

When the overpaid actor is the tasty Mary Louise Parker and when what she does is wear a low-cut dress, I, for one, "give a fuck".

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

The core of the US by Iowaguy · 2004-01-26 05:02 · Score: 1

The stark truth is, the United States has the world's greatest military, greatest eccononmy, greastest inventions, etc. This is also coupled with general freedom and great generosity. The United states went to the moon. They cured polio. They brough sound and light to the entire world. Truly, a remarkable nation.

Some may feel their hackles rising at the above statement. The real question is why? At its core, those feelings stem from petty jealousy and envy. Ugly emotions that serve no constructive use, but are common. When faced with greatness, people have one of two responses. To tear it apart and drag it into the mud so you can feel better. Or, to try to get better. I think too often in the world the second case is chosen. Sadly, it is not even seen that way.

So, why write the first paragraph? Not to instill anger, but to remind that the US is a great nation. It would be the height of illogic to say otherwise, even if you do not agree with the country in all things. So, the question becomes, WHY is the US such a great nation? In a large part, I believe it is the character and culture much of which is summed up in the Hollywood ending. America does well because it believes in the good ending. That the calvery will come to save the day. That in the end, the good side wins. Sure, it is easy to deride this as simple. And I am sure the world is full of people knowingly nodding in coffee shops saying this idea is silly. Yet, at the end of the day, the US history is full of Hollywood endings. So, are they really that trite?

My two cents,
-Iowa

--
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap

Re:The core of the US by Kombat · 2004-01-26 05:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some may feel their hackles rising at the above statement. The real question is why? At its core, those feelings stem from petty jealousy and envy.

How about plain-old "factual accuracy?"

the United States has the world's greatest military

You think? I'm morbidly curious to see the US and China duke it out. If nothing else, they outnumber you by about 3 to 1. If the US is so much stronger than China, why are they so afraid of them? When China captured the US's spyplane, by didn't the US just go in and take it back? They've bullied other nations for less, firing missiles into Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, so why did they pussyfoot around China, letting the world see them begging for their plane back? Why did the US pull some strings to give Beijing the 2008 Olympics, instead of just going in, asserting their dominance, and taking back their plane?

greatest eccononmy

This is just plain dumb, given the current state of world affairs. The US economy WAS the strongest in the world, until shortly after Dubya took the helm. Now it's in a shambles. Heck, just look at Canada. They have less unemployment and a more stable economy than the US, with a comparable GDP when compared on a per-capita basis. Granted, it wasn't always that way, but as I said, I'm looking at the state currently.

This is also coupled with general freedom and great generosity.

Freedom? FREEDOM??? Uh, do any of these TLA's ring a bell? DMCA, CDA, CDA-II, PATRIOT-ACT, BATF? How about the War on Freedom^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDrugs?

You think just because you're allowed to have guns, you're "free?" Newsflash: you're not the only nation where citizens are allowed to own firearms. If you're so free, why are drugs, prostitution, nudity, and gambling all prohibited or extremely tightly controlled, compared to other freer nations?

The United states went to the moon.

So? Russia went to Mars. Long before the US. Actually, Russia was the first in space, and has many other milestones in space travel. IIRC, that's the whole reason why the US went to the moon - they were getting their asses kicked by the Russkies. First man in orbit, first probe to Mars, first space station, etc. etc. - all Russian.

Truly, a remarkable nation.

This is true, but the US is by no means the only "remarkable" nation, nor even the MOST "remarkable." It's far too young to really be that remarkable. China, Egypt, and the UK are far more interesting and remarkable, with their rich histories and fascinating pasts.

Note: I'm not US-bashing. I like the US. I agree that they are remarkable. I simply object to your assertion that anyone disagreeing with your statements is jealous or envious. The truth is, your statements were simply provably, factually incorrect.

Now, for the larger point about "movies always depict the US winning because the US has a long history of winning." This is easy to disprove. Somalia. Korea. Vietnam. Cuba (how's that embargo going? Is Castro out yet?). Russia.
9/11. Waco. Heck, even Canada defeated your armies and burned your capital to the ground.

The US's list of defeats is easily as long as their list of victories. And if you forget that, then you risk the terrible carnage that is borne out of such arrogance that can collapse entire empires.

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:The core of the US by binary+paladin · 2004-01-26 06:58 · Score: 1

I'm an American and I was going to reply to Mr. Teary Eyed red, white and blue but thank you, now I don't have to.

If anything I think America deserves one of the greatest places in infamy that ever could be. In the end it'll have the same status as Rome. A nation founded in freedom, personal responsibility and the creation of a new way of governing only to let prosperity turn it into an imperialist waste.

Blah. Yeah... I know I'm proud.
Re:The core of the US by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 07:02 · Score: 0

only to let prosperity turn it into an imperialist waste

That would be true, except that, since WW2, the U.S. has been staunchly anti-imperialist. If you want to see imperialism, look at the Manifest Destiny era, and before and after.

Are you serious? by bonch · 2004-01-26 05:09 · Score: 1

I would have figured the LOTR movies will be the ones influencing kids to become filmmakers, just like Star Wars did in the 70s.

Don't be foolosh by essreenim · 2004-01-26 05:11 · Score: 1

None of the actors have fake noses, and the film hasn't been released close enough to the oscars.. !

A personal failure... by Simonetta · 2004-01-26 05:14 · Score: 1

I must admit to a personal failure.

I would be less than truthful if I didn't admit that I care less about Hollywood celebrities individually than they do about me as a person.

I know that this must be so because of the magazines that placed prominently in every single supermarket check-out line in the country tell me so!

R and L by xswl0931 · 2004-01-26 05:20 · Score: 1

The reason it's difficult for the Japanese to distinguish between R and L is because there isn't a L type sound in their alphabet and the closest is (you guessed it) R (as in Ra, Ri, Ru, Re, Ro).

Re:R and L by Abcd1234 · 2004-01-26 05:50 · Score: 1

Yup. And not only can they not pronounce the L sound, but they aren't necessarily able to audibly distinguish between L's and R's either. This effect has been investigated in various early childhood studies which indicate that, early on, children can distinguish between these sounds, but as they learn the native language, they in fact *lose* this ability. And, of course, this effect isn't limited to the L/R problem. For example, in the case of Spanish, there is no distinction between the B/V phonemes. It's really quite fascinating, actually... the native language actually serves to mold the speech and hearing centres of the brain.
Re:R and L by Simonetta · 2004-01-26 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I'm not mistaken, linguists call this the difference between phonetics and phonemics.

Phonetics are what everybody believes that they are saying and phonemics are the sounds that are actually spoken as determined by lab audio analysis.

I've heard that the Arabic language considers the 'k' sounds at the beginning of the English words 'cat' and 'kitten' to be different letters, which makes it very difficult for English speakers to learn the language.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by pauls2272 · 2004-01-26 05:23 · Score: 1

This is how the book ended.

However, for the film, he should have just ended the movie at Minas Tirith when everyone bowed down to the hobbits. He would have cut 30 min from the film and had all that for the extended version.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by pauls2272 · 2004-01-26 05:29 · Score: 1

The robot is actually constructed from the Ring Metal material that can shapeshift called T2000... Oh wait.

Yeah, lets look at his film bio...and others too. by ScottGant · 2004-01-26 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just look at his film bio

Yeah, he didn't really have many "good" movies under his belt other than Heavenly Creatures. But this is an argument for a good director? All good to great directors had excellent, epic, quality movies before their "big break"? Hmm...let's have a look:

Francis Ford Coppola: Had a handfull of movies before The Godfather put him on the map. Remember movies like The Terror or Playgirls and the Bellboy? Maybe The Rain People was his Heavenly Creatures?

Robert Zemeckis: Again, a few handfull of films before a breakthrough movie like Back to the Future. Though I was a big fan of Used Cars. But if we judged him on only his first few films, he would be considered a hack.

I could go on...but I'm tired of typing. But hopefully you get my point. A prior film bio is not a good judge of a persons directing skills before the "big break". Yes, I know there are directors that make a masterpiece right out of the box, but not all can be Orson Welles.

Also, these were his movies. He produced them, produced the fx with his company Weta, he directed them, co-wrote them. These were his babies. And frankly, the statement you made: The only thing he should get credit for is for letting the camera crew and art department do their thing shows your ingorance to movie making, or else you wouldn't have said such a thing.

For a look at "bad directing" look no further than Lucas with the Star Wars pictures that he directed personally. Star Wars is the only one that stands up to "good direction". "Empire" was a much better movie because he didn't direct it. "Jedi" wasn't that good, but it was basically the story itself and not the direction...which was good. Look how stiff and un-natural everyone looks and acts in "Menace" and "Clones".

Finally, if the direction is bad as you stated, it would have spoiled the movies no matter what. The Star Wars movies show that the amount of money and effects and art direction that you throw at a movie doesn't equal a good movie alone.

But hey, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Two words by Rupert · 2004-01-26 06:01 · Score: 1

Why RotK will not win Best Picture:

Annie Hall.

That's right folks. In the opinion of the Academy, Annie Hall was a better picture than Star Wars. That's one reason I ignore the whole pageant these days.

--

--
E_NOSIG

Golden Slash would be better by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:03 · Score: 1, Informative

Golden Globe awards are worthless. They're assigned by a group of allegedly foreign journalists, many of whom are neither foreign nor journalists. They number less than 100.

Golden Slash Awards, selected via a series of slashdot poles, would be far more meaningful. However, that wouldn't even fly, because it's precisely because there are less than 100 highly bribable, easily accessible, award choosers that makes the Golden Globes so attractive to studios and pubilicists. It's a major exercise in 69ing.

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th by hawkfish · 2004-01-26 06:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I am also offended as an Englishman. As a nation we were appalled with the attacks on the Twin Towers (Note, not the Two Towers) and we have suffered enough terrorist attacks ourselves (although admittedly, not on this scale) over the years to be extremely sensitive to the victims of ANY terrorist attack (bali, etc).

I'd like to point out that the total body count from the IRA is actually about the same as from the 9/11 bombings (c. 3000), although they took about 40 years to get to the same level.

Considering that the IRA got most of their funding from the US (specifically from the greater Boston area, where I used to live), I think that the PP is being quite compassionate. And to the credit of the US people, IRA funding from the US dried up within days of the attacks.

--
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates

Re:Real moral by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:24 · Score: 0

The problem is that the movie, overall, was pretty good. Most people are willing to overlook small "mistakes", and perhaps may not even remember them. Instead, they generally consider the movie as a whole rather than it's individual parts. I think the movies were good overall, but there was some really bad dialogue, etc. Of course, the Golden Globes mean nothing to me (nor do the Oscars), so I don't care who wins what.

SO TRUE by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:30 · Score: 0

I admit it. The ending lasted longer than some entire movies. I kept getting up to leave, and then a new scene popped up on screen. WTF? Also, I wonder if Frodo and Gandalf enjoyed their homosexual experiences during their trip across the ocean. What exactly happens when a Hobbit anally rips a Wizard? It must be exciting, I guess.

Re:journalistic integrity??? let me show you aroun by bonch · 2004-01-26 06:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You must be new here. Let me show you around a bit.

You must be the new one.

Why do people take obviously sarcastic posts seriously?

Agree partially by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:47 · Score: 0

Too bad he didn't release them all at one. IMHO, the more time Jackson had to tinker,the worse they got. 1,2,3 in terms of quality, as well as release date. 3 had so much stuffing,I wished I was sitting ON it, and not through it, by the end.

For what? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 06:49 · Score: 0

Certainly not best picture or diector (compared to Mystic River). LOTR3 was the worst of the bunch.

Re:my precioussss by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 07:12 · Score: 0

because Film Critics are tricksy and sly, yesss, not trusstworthy like Smeagol! Tell lies, they do. And overpriced popcorn, with nasssty fake butter, they do!

YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 07:32 · Score: 0

you fell for an obvious troll

Peter Jackson should do Imajica by Bigbrother84 · 2004-01-26 07:44 · Score: 1

Congrats to Peter Jackson I can't think of another director who is more deserving. Now if he can only bring Clive Barker's Imajica to life on the big screen!

Looks like you didn't watch the movie either. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 07:47 · Score: 0

"The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring."

This is patently wrong. And I'm giving you a spoiler warning now since it appears you haven't given this movie a chance and seen it. Frodo didn't destroy the ring. At the very end, the ring's corruptive power even took hold over of Frodo. Frodo, in the movie as in the book, kept the ring only to have Gollum bit the ring and finger off. The ring is only destroy in the ensuing struggle between Gollum and Frodo to take control of the ring. Frodo doesn't even get to stick around to enjoy a normal life with his friends because of the wound he received from from one of the Nazgul. So to answer your question as to why watch a movie when the heroes (in many cases the USA) almost alway win - because sometimes they win in unexpected and interesting ways. And there are plenty of movies that make the US, US culture and/or the US government out to be bad guys. (Dr. Strangelove, Enemy of the State, Fog of War, etc...)

I wonder if they saw the version without subtitles by devphil · 2004-01-26 07:57 · Score: 1

because that version was a little less golden.

In the (invented, grrr) scene where Elrond drops in at Dunharrow (htf did he cross the Misty Mountains so fast?) and gives Anduril to Aragorn (who should have been carrying it the whole time), they conclude by speaking two lines in Sindarin.

Some versions of that reel have English subtitles for that scene. Some don't.

(Full disclosure: the first time I saw it, they weren't there... and that was okay, because I didn't need them. :-) Yes, I have been reading Tolkien my whole life, why do you ask? The lines aren't in LOTR, they're backplot from either the Appendices or one of the other books-of-notes. And when I saw the version with subtitles, I happened to notice that the English version is subtly wrong. Odd.)

I've verified this with some friends of mine. Some of us even went to separate theatres on a return viewing and compared notes afterwards.

Anyhow, my point: anybody know of other "variant" versions?

--
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)

Re:journalistic integrity??? let me show you aroun by vt0asta · 2004-01-26 07:57 · Score: 1

Good question. What's your reasoning? :-p

--
No.

The Silmarillion by LocoBurger · 2004-01-26 08:23 · Score: 1

I think the Silmarillion could be done as a movie or a couple movies if you focused mostly on the tale of Beren and Luthien. You could do a 20-minute intro with the waking of the elves and Feanor creating the Silmarils, followed by the exile of the Noldor. That should be quick and get us to Beren. There's plenty of material for what happened to him before he wandered through the girdle of Melian. Then of course Beren and Luthian making their way into Angband. We never really got to see Sauron in Jackson's LOTR, but we could see Morgoth!

Anyway, I still think it'd be quite a challenge to make it palatable and understandable to a mainstream audience, but I think the only way to get the Silmarillion on screen would be to focus on Beren and Luthien, arguably Tolkein's favorite story.

For a bit on Beren, go here. For a better outline and more info on Luthien go here.

The issues here is not whether the Silmarillion is as good as LOTR, (I think the stories are fantastic.) but of getting a good deal of the Silmarillion into the mainstream. I think Beren and Luthien could be the vehicle for that.

Re:The Silmarillion by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 15:11 · Score: 1

I think the Silmarillion could be done as a movie or a couple movies if you focused mostly on the tale of Beren and Luthien.
I agree, and it could probably be done very well with Jackson at the helm. But, it wouldn't be the Silmarillion to me. It would be the tale of Beren and Luthien with the Silmarillion as backdrop. The mythology of the Silmarillion would lose so much that I would have to ask why bother? Remember, the Silmarillion is the epic struggle of the elves in Middle-Earth, and the whole of it revolves around the tragedies of their losses.
Anyway, I still think it'd be quite a challenge to make it palatable and understandable to a mainstream audience
Yes, but that was also one of the reasons I didn't think that LoTR could be done. Jackson proved me wrong.
Let's face it, as prominent as the Beren and Luthien are in the Silmarillion, the book is a patchwork of interconnected storylines (some not much more than outlines or summaries that are expanded in other books) that weave a history that really is worth telling in its entirety. To simply summarize Earendil's part in saving the world would be too abrupt. Why shorten such a magnificent work, when a whole telling would just bring in more money and please more people?
However, if forced to reduce the history down to a single tale, I agree with your version. It would be a sample that maybe other film-makers would be be tempted to expand into the other parts of the Silmarillion.
= 9J =
Re:The Silmarillion by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 15:21 · Score: 1

We never really got to see Sauron in Jackson's LOTR, but we could see Morgoth!
We could see Sauron, Morgoth, and Shelob's mama, Ungoliant. Remember, Sauron was a busy bee in the Silmarillion. However, that all depends on if the producers were intent to film the book as a series, and not only a handful of the stories into a single movie.
= 9J =

You are smoking CRACK by revscat · 2004-01-26 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

As for the Middle-Earth storyline, I think that The Silmarillion, not The Hobbit, should be made next.

Ok, I love you man, but thinking that you can make *a* movie out of the Silmarillion is just, well, I mean, I'm at a loss for words. The Silmarillion is over 3,000 years of history, with TONS of different stories. It's not a single, continuous work. It's a collection of different stories with different characters covering two separate ages. There is NO WAY you could take that and make it into a single movie and have it worth two shits. Each individual story would be so short as to eliminate the possilibty for meaningful plot or character development.

Re:You are smoking CRACK by the+gnat · 2004-01-26 10:03 · Score: 1

You could focus on a few of the key stories, although I think this would still require two movies. One of the central plot points from the Silmarillion that is important in LOTR is the heritage of Aragorn and Elrond, who have the same ancestors (Elrond's parents, Aragorn's very distant ancestors). Sticking to the tales of the human/elf unions would reduce the size and complexity immensely, without losing too much of what makes it important to LOTR as a whole.

A bigger problem, in my opinion, is that the gods digging Morgoth out of Thangorodrim and sinking Beleriand in the process, or Earendil and his flying ship taking out an immense dragon, just doesn't seem like something that translates well to a movie screen.
Re:You are smoking CRACK by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2004-01-26 10:26 · Score: 1

I think the mini-series idea would work well. It would be great to see adaptions from the Silmarillion and Lost Tales like the Fall of Numenor, Battle of Gondolin, Turin & the Great Worm, etc.

However, I can see it becoming an awful joke if the series wasn't treated with the proper respect. "Nazgul on Ice", anyone?
Re:You are smoking CRACK by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 14:07 · Score: 1

I think the mini-series idea would work well. It would be great to see adaptions from the Silmarillion and Lost Tales like the Fall of Numenor, Battle of Gondolin, Turin & the Great Worm, etc.
Too true. There's such a rich field to mine, that this could last several years. All the stories that you mentioned are worth telling in full, and to take any of them out would diminish the whole.
However, I can see it becoming an awful joke if the series wasn't treated with the proper respect. "Nazgul on Ice", anyone?
That's my biggest fear. I think Hallmark has done an admirable job in the past (winning an Emmy for their effort), and they may be the best suited to bring it to the small screen with help from Jackson's crew of course.
= 9J =
Re:You are smoking CRACK by ninejaguar · 2004-01-26 15:14 · Score: 1

Ok, I love you man, but thinking that you can make *a* movie out of the Silmarillion is just, well, I mean, I'm at a loss for words. The Silmarillion is over 3,000 years of history, with TONS of different stories. It's not a single, continuous work. It's a collection of different stories with different characters covering two separate ages. There is NO WAY you could take that and make it into a single movie and have it worth two shits. Each individual story would be so short as to eliminate the possilibty for meaningful plot or character development.
That's why I recommended a series that would take several years of your life to watch and enjoy! I, personally, would look forward to it.
= 9J =

Star Wars is better by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 10:52 · Score: 0

Star Wars is a much better movie, actually. It was groundbreaking, ushering in a new era. "Annie Hall" is a waste of celluloid: it would have been better as a play.

Re:Why does this matter? by hankaholic · 2004-01-26 13:29 · Score: 1

It's funny how an honest question gets modded flamebait. I'm wondering how this actually affects anybody, and rather than answering or explaining what they think, I get accused of flaming.

Blah.

--
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!

R's, L's, and other things in Japanese by achurch · 2004-01-26 15:55 · Score: 1

Japanese really don't distinguish between "r" and "l". I'm not sure why this is

It's mainly because the Japanese language doesn't have either sound. The closest it has is a consonant that's usually represented in Roman letters by "r", but is actually closer to the sound of the "tt" in "butter". Nor does it help that the English they teach in school is very, very heavily biased toward writing. A friend from work once asked me to proofread a letter she had written to an American friend, and it was nearly indistinguishable from native writing--yet her pronunciation was terrible. As another poster commented, the lack of distinct R and L sounds also makes it difficult to distinguish them when heard; a neurologist friend told me about a study showing that the brain is only capable of learning things like that until around age 30.

Japanese natives' difficulty with English isn't limited to R and L, either. Vowels are a major sticking point; Japanese uses only the five Latin vowels, compared to 20-some(?) vowels and diphthongs in English. (The Japanese can't pronounce "eye" as a native English speaker would, for example; it comes out as two separate sounds, "ah-ee".) In Japanese, syllables are constrained to end with either a vowel or N, turning "my name is" into "mah-ee nay-mu izu". The Japanese have an S sound, but when followed by "ee", it turns into SH--so a Japanese native reciting the alphabet will typically say "eh-ee, bee, shee" and so on. I spent some time with a 6-year-old child once, and even at that age it was remarkably difficult to overcome the "s + ee = shee" problem.

I've also heard a story (though possibly just an urban legend) about a poor Japanese middle-school girl asked by an American-born English teacher to read out loud "the boy is sitting on the table" . . .

Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 16:07 · Score: 0

Dude, get a clue. You expect maturity on this site?

well well well by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-26 17:01 · Score: 0

anyway back to the movie itself, love the book but LOTR:TTT bored the shit out of me....
another no brainer i'd say.... i don't think they deserve anything other than technical awards... i mean considering the amount of money they had, surely they could've spent less on special effects and a bit more on the writers so the plot and the dialogue are not so idiotic....

ps. and how sad it is to see respectable actors/directors (being pressured into??) taking part in the farce that is the golden globes...

what other metrics should we be using? by jotaeleemeese · 2004-01-26 21:04 · Score: 1

Time my dear slashbot.

Time puts everything in place and perspective.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Are you crazy? by jotaeleemeese · 2004-01-26 21:13 · Score: 1

Are you demanding, *grasp*, good acting?

In a movie?

And good dialogues? Grasp again, in a movie?

And also good, consistent historylines that don't jump around like a rabbit with schizophrenia?

You heathen, this is /. were electronic puppets deserve Oscars to the best actor and form reigns supreme over substance when it comes to movies (interesting that you noticed that movies with rich human interaction are not favoured by the /. crowd).

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Finally somebody with a clue. by jotaeleemeese · 2004-01-26 21:20 · Score: 1

People do not get it, cinema is about acting and cinematography.

Somebody (most of pople) like Lord of the Rings? (that funnily enough is a re-hash of Richard Wagner's work) Fine. That does not make it the best movie, specially if judged by people that have half a clue about technical and historical aspects of cinema making.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Slashdot Mirror

Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

397 comments