Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

Posted by timothy on from the thank-all-the-little-people dept.

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."

40 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. There's a moral to this story by heironymouscoward · · 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
    1. Re:There's a moral to this story by Wanderer2 · · 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
    2. Re:There's a moral to this story by hanssprudel · · 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.

    3. Re:There's a moral to this story by Performer+Guy · · 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.

    4. Re:There's a moral to this story by bluethundr · · 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.
    5. Re:There's a moral to this story by Unregistered · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  2. I'm very happy about this by kentrel · · 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.

    1. Re:I'm very happy about this by sebi · · 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!
    2. Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · · 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?
    3. Re:I'm very happy about this by TGK · · 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.
    4. Re:I'm very happy about this by afidel · · 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.
    5. Re:I'm very happy about this by sielwolf · · 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?
  3. I was watching it by debilo · · 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.

    1. Re:I was watching it by Kombat · · 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.
    2. Re:I was watching it by A+Bugg · · 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.

  4. Oscar ? by Lightman_73 · · 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...

    1. Re:Oscar ? by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  5. The Office wins Two! by beders · · 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
    1. Re:The Office wins Two! by pubjames · · 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.

    2. Re:The Office wins Two! by Oddly_Drac · · 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.
    3. Re:The Office wins Two! by joss · · 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/
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by voss · · 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.

    1. Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... by dbirchall · · 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.

  8. RoTK for Best Picture! by Xpilot · · 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
  9. Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever by spakka · · 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.

  10. Howard Shore - my precious! by tuxette · · 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...
    1. Re:Howard Shore - my precious! by chocolatetrumpet · · 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.
  11. Meningful? by AmoebafromSweden · · 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.

  12. A word from Howard Dean by AtariAmarok · · 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.
  13. Golden globes are a joke by smallpaul · · 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?

  14. The appropriate quote from another movie by AtariAmarok · · 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.
  15. harsh by real_smiff · · 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.

  16. Best Director? by Arathrael · · 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. ;-)

  17. Re:Two Towers... by hey! · · 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.
  18. Why ROTK will probably not win... by The+Closet+Optimist · · 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
    1. Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... by Admiral1973 · · 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
  19. Interpretting the music... by tjwhaynes · · 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.
  20. journalistic integrity??? let me show you around.. by vt0asta · · 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.
  21. Yeah, lets look at his film bio...and others too. by ScottGant · · 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.