Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

stubear writes "According to MSNBC, 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King' won 4 Golden Globes, for Best Picture - Drama, Best Director (Peter Jackson), Best Original Score (Howard Shore), and Best Original Song ("Into the West" by Howard Shore, Fran Walsh and Annie Lennox). LotR: RotK was the big winner for the night, at least for movies. Hopefully LotR: RotK will fare just as well, or better, at the Oscars."

Comments

There's a moral to this story

[heironymouscoward]

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.

Re:There's a moral to this story

[Wanderer2]

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.

Re:There's a moral to this story

[hanssprudel]

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

[Performer Guy]

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

[bluethundr]

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".

Re:There's a moral to this story

[Unregistered]

Remember The Matrix wasn't supposed to be a trilogy. LotR was.

I'm very happy about this

[kentrel]

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

[sebi]

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".

Re:I'm very happy about this

[afidel]

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.

Re:I'm very happy about this

[sielwolf]

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.

Oscar ?

[Lightman_73]

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...

[voss]

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...

[dbirchall]

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:The Office wins Two!

[pubjames]

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?

[AmoebafromSweden]

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.

harsh

[real_smiff]

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.

Best Director?

[Arathrael]

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!

[Oddly_Drac]

"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.

Re:I was watching it

[A Bugg]

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:The Office wins Two!

[joss]

> 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.

Re:Why ROTK will probably not win...

[Admiral1973]

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.

Yeah, lets look at his film bio...and others too.

[ScottGant]

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.