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".

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.

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: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.