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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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

He deserves it!

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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...

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: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

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.

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: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!

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.

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: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: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: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: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 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: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: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 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"

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.

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: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.

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: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.

Slashdot Mirror

Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

44 of 397 comments (clear)