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

[sielwolf]

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!

Re:I'm very happy about this

[TGK]

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.

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...

Re:Oscar ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The Office wins Two!

[beders]

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.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

RoTK for Best Picture!

[Xpilot]

OR ELSE!

Howard Shore - my precious!

[tuxette]

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!

A word from Howard Dean

[AtariAmarok]

"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!!!!"

Golden globes are a joke

[smallpaul]

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?

The appropriate quote from another movie

[AtariAmarok]

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!!!!"

Re:Two Towers...

[hey!]

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.

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.