Slashdot Mirror
Return of the King Leads Oscar Nominations
PurdueGraphicsMan writes "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, the final chapter in Peter Jackson's directoral masterpeice is leading the 76 Annual Academy Awards with 11 nominations including Best Picture and Best Director. Next in line with 10 nominations including Best Picture and Best director is Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Here is a full list of the nominees in all categories."
Could Return of the King be the first fantacy movie to win an Oscar?
You can compare the actual nominations to Roger Ebert's predictions. He was pretty on point for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actress. Its surprising to see the well liked but little seen roles getting nods. Alec Baldwin in The Cooler for one. Likewise it's interesting to see Keisha Castle-Hughes for her work in Whale Rider. Many were predicitng Charlize Theron would run away with her work in Monster but Castle-Hughes could pull an Anna Panquin upset. That role was powerful AND beloved. Something that might worka gainst Theron.
Jude Law's nod is interesting since I don't remember anyone really talking about his performance (as compared to what Sean Penn, Bill Murray and Johnny Depp did this year). Ebert picked Russell Crowe's in Master and Commander which, likewise, didn't seem to have a big impact.
Strangest one is that City of God got three nominations... although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003 (Ebert made specific mention of it in his Top of 2004 to explain its absence). But here its getting nods for Cinematography, Direction and Writing. It probably only has a chance in Cinematography where RotK is (strangely) absent.
RotK will probably run away with Makeup, Music(Song), Sound, Writing (Adapted), and Costume Design. Of course those are the second tier ones that end up as consolation prizes for a lot of folks. The interesting thing will see how it does in the big categories (which I guess Adapted Screenplay is one).
What is music when you despise all sound?
There is no suprise that this movie gets this kind of attention. I know I dreaded seeing it, just because I didn't find the other two movies very facinating. But in the end, I walked out of that theater with a smile on my face, happy with the fact, I didnt feel ripped off.
I know I am not the only person that got caught up in the same kind of situation. It was just good.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Is it's about DAMN time.
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
... or did "Big Fish" just get screwed?
most wooden delivery of lines.
kind of sad when the best actors in the movie are a cgi and the asthma kid from goonies.
*insert Krusty the clown quote about the academy being out of touch here.
feel free to mod me as a troll or a big meaney or whatever -- I still love you unconditionally
I think it's very interesting to see that (IMHO) the two best movies to be nominated for best director are ROTK and Lost in Translation. One is a huge epic with a billion setpieces, thousands of extras, and a weaving storyline; this is an extreme challenge to direct. On the other hand, Lost in Translation features very few actors, very few locations, and some of the best low-key directing I've ever seen.
I'm glad that the Oscars are nominating directors who are working from such completely different directions, but both achieving such brilliant results.
What about nominations from the cast? ZERO.
Granted it's probably because the characters are actually co-dependant and everyone was fantastic but still...
I saw Lost in Translation at a pre-screening and while I thought it was "entertaining" I certainly don't believe Bill Murray was any better in that one than any other movie he has been in.
Depp's character was fantastic and he really led the movie and he probably deserves the award out of the list IMHO.
But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?
The NYT website front page, arbiter of all that is good and important, is touting the splendor and Oscar success of "Lost in Translation," so I can't imagine that any film could have done better than that one. You'd better check your facts.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
That's why Titanic must be the greatest movie of all time. *cough*
Go see "City of God" and see if you still think Peter Jackson should get best director. I definitely think TRotK deserves an oscar for Adaptation and Art Direction, but City of God was really powerful, and it was mostly kid actors.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Master and Commander is a sleeper of a movie. My son and I went to see it on a lark and were blown away by it... I have always loved sailing ship books and movies -- and have not seen one done as well as this one. RotK is definately number one on my list, but Master and Commander is a close number two.
[Of Note: There was NO love interest at all! Doesn't that break some unwritten rule of Hollywood?]
For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
hi all (george here)
i have NO idea what the academy is SMOKING here!! god!! return of the king was about the WORST movie i saw all year!! for starters we got to the movie about ten minutes LATE because it took my god damn wife so LONG to shovel the snow out of the driveway and then when we FINALLY got there the idiot at the ticket booth did not accept the tickets i printed out from fan dango because he said that the effing NUMBER was INVALID!! god!!
so then we get to the concession stand and this MORON puts too much butter on my popcorn which gives me gas, but that didn't matter because then my wife spilled the WHOLE god damn BAG as she was carrying it into the theater, also she spilled our sodas, god!! how can i sit for THREE HOURS without soda!! and then during the whole movie this slut in front of us was talking on her CELL PHONE about how her next door neighbor's shit zoo had just given birth to puppies, now what in the hell, PUPPIES, who effing cares!! turn off your god damn phone you hippy
then there was this baby next to us that kept CRYING, now if you have a loud baby take some advice from me (george) and leave the god damn thing at HOME now do you got that!! have a little bit of courtesy for your fellow man now do you got that, all in all it was the worst moviegoing experience of the year and i cannot understand these nominations
your buddy
-gbd
While most here will likely be commenting on Return of the King I would liek to say I am extremely pleased to see that Master and COmmander is getting praise.
I loved the effects and story line. I actually haven't seen Return of the King but just by the prevews I have seen it looks like it deserves all the praise it has received.
shurely the matrix reloaded wins that one hands down?
Anyone else surprised that Master and Commander got so many nominations? I mean, the costumes and effects were great, and even the acting was decent, but all the characters felt like stereotypes. By the midpoint of the movie I was bored stiff and just waiting for more stuff to blow up (thank god he made us guys easily amused).
Who would have thought a Jerry Bruckheimer produced Film based on a Disney Ride would have produced a nomination for best actor - but it was a brilliant Keith Richards-esque performance by Depp - well deserved - However I think Bill Murray will win the Oscar he sould have got for Rushmore
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, never mind the reasons for them..
Has someone made a film of the Tolkien book? Amazing! I must try and get hold of a copy. What a challenge to have taken on. Just the mere thought of how to represent a character such as Tom Bombadil on screen would scare me off.
While I gave high marks to Master and Commander for their coverage of the tiniest technical details of period naval warfare, and while I thought the foley work of the battle scenes was truly visceral, and while I enjoyed the basic setting and premise in which the characters found themselves, I was really let down by the movie.
It's a thirty minute plot, at most. It can be summed up as "whups, I guess we fucked THAT up, but let's not let that happen again..." about five times in a row. That's it. We blundered, let's move on. Oops, again. Ouch, let's try to avoid that. And oops, we didn't think of that.
It's like the premise behind Moby Dick. Have you read it? Incredible details, no plot. But a movie can't capture these details to a tenth of the degree that print can. You need story. You need arc. You need something to advance and change.
[
I really don't think any of the two Matrix movies deserved anything, but someone had to say it.
Let the 5,000 posts comparing trilogies begin!
I'm a bit upset that Sean Astin didn't get nominated for best supporting role (I didn't care if he won or not, but he should have been at least nominated).
On the bright side, RoTK got the Golden Globe for best picture, so maybe the oscars will take not and follow suit?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Irony is Disney getting nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Finding Nemo...
And truthfully, while it was another exceptional movie for Pixar, I didn't find it all that entertaining. Give me Monsters Inc. or a Miyazaki movie any day.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Honestly, I'm not trolling, but I thought LOTR:RoTK was by far the worst of the three. My feelings were that they would get the nominations and have the best chance of getting awards this year because the awards organizations knew they could put off throwing Jackson et al a bone due to the way they made/released the three films.
although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003
That should be 2002 as taken from this: "So true that City of God was No. 2 on my list for last year. The film played in every major festival in 2002 and was a candidate for year-end awards, and although it did not open in Chicago until January, I didn't see the point in waiting 12 months to put it on a best 10 list when putting it on the timelier list might do it some good."
What is music when you despise all sound?
I hope Jackson gets an award for creative writing for the changes he made to the story line. All the movies were entertaining, but they should have a tag: loosly based on "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy." When did Legolos ever kill an elephant in the books?
Will Tolkein get any credit or award from the Academy?
Of all categories, I expected to seem them nominated (and win) in this one. The cinematography was easily the best I've seen in years. Without that ROTK wouldn't be nearly as good -- it added to the tone tremendously.
I wholeheartedly agree that Serkis should get an award of some type. But the problem is what category would he belong too? Best Supporting Actor? The problem is that the Gollum character isn't just him but a team of artists, animators, etc. Then it becomes more of a Best Visual Effects award which LOTR is nominated for.
Actually the only other movie I saw on the list was Lost in Translation. The closer you look at the film itself the more flaws you see. The script is full of cliches (particularly when you think who the director is) but thankfully spends most of the time observing the characters being themselves - and Bill Murray put in what is without a doubt the finest and most honest performance in his career. He totally deserves best actor.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I propose: The Eddies!
Which editor is most in need of a spell checker? Which one obviously doesn't read the front page? Whom would you most like sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?
Post your nominations here!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
That was one area where I was sure ROtK (or in fact the whole trilogy) was going to win.
I can't believe Andy Serkis wasn't nominated for best actor as Gollum... after seeing the TTT extended edition it amazes me just how much work he put into that character... i think he deserves some credit for that. Oh well, once again the Academy doesnt agree with me
10. Biggest scifi/fantasy genre movie WITHOUT a character that looks like the Oscar statue (Bye, C-3PO!)
9. Best performance by mountain beacons
8. Biggest elephants
7. Best Evil Lighthouse in any movie in all of 2003.
6. The National Cherry Tomato Board would like to make sure that John Noble is nominated for best actor for his work as Denethor.
5. "Most Costumed Geeks in Theatre since Star Trek 6"
4. Best use of recycled pointed ears left over from collapsed "Star Trek" franchise.
3 rings for the elven kings
2. Best title ripped off from that of 3rd "Star Wars" film.
1. Those cheesy green ghosts didn't get nominated for "Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion". Let's nominate them for their ROTK cameo instead.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Totally agree. The 1998 Best Picture category was definitely a tough one. IMHO, LA Confidential is probably one of the best movies of all time. How Titanic beat it is still beyond me.
Free XBox, PS2
master & commander was overrated
the cinematography was gorgeous, the cat and mouse game had potential, but the plot was flaccid... in the theatre i was in, people were sleeping through it on the opening weekend
that's not good
no matter what you thought of the rest of the movie, they really could have spruced up the plot, a lot
hollywood should pay screenwriters tens of millions of dollars and spend hundreds of thousands on special effects
unfortunately it is the reverse, and it shows in so many movies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Very disappointed that Sean Astin (sp?) didn't get a nomination for best support. I haven't seen anyone play a role as well as that for a long time - certainly better than some of the lead actor nominations!
Let's run down them, shall we:
;)
Neo: "Whoa!"
Neo: "I love you too damned much!"
Neo: "I need you..."
Trinity: "I need you too..."
The Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
Truly a masterpiece of unparalleled proportions!
At least it was a fun "beat 'em up!" movie
...is that Sean Astin was passed over for Best Supporting Actor. After his turn in RotK--particularly the scenes on the slope of Mt. Doom--he really deserved at least the nomination. I can't believe they left him out.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Is there no performance of any kind, male, female, supporting or main in ROTK that is worthy even a nomination? Once you accept that it is fantasy, I think the actors did fine jobs. Hard to pick any single outstanding "oscar moment" though. The best "acting" scenes are in the other movies IMHO.
Can't really think of anyone in LOTR that would deserve a nod before Depp though, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Even stranger is the lack of a nomination for Cinematography. I must have misunderstood something, how can ROTK not get one for that?
Undeniably the success of Jackson's epic has left Hollywood with a slight case of egg-on-face. This was a trilogy shot right outside the establishment orbit; filmed in Jackson's native New Zealand and funded by the independent New Line Cinema after original backers Miramax demanded that the entire story be condensed into a single two-hour movie.
In the view of many experts, The Lord of the Rings was shaping up to be the biggest disaster in cinema history. Now it has gone down as one of its greatest triumphs. Evidence suggests that February 29 will be the date of Hollywood's official mea culpa. Assuming that Return of the King wins best picture (and you'd be a fool to bet against it), it will in effect be an award for all three films. The same goes for Jackson's probable nod as best director.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
No anime in the best animated picture category. Nemo will win, allowing Disney another "me too" moment at the Oscars.
Meanwhile, anime yawns and breaks the $4 billion mark.
Disney's response? Brother Bear.
That about wraps it up.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Johnny Depp!! A Keith Richards-inspired glam rocking pirate, going purposefully over the top for every line reading. And he gets the nomination. This is much more monumental than the 13 noms for ROTK.
And where is the love for Peter Sarsgaard for Shattered Glass? Easily the best performance (lead or supporting) of the year.
How could ROTK get 11 nominations and then be passed over for cinematography? You're telling me City of God had better cinematography then ROTK? Maybe I'm just biased, caused I loved the movie, but that seems a little odd?
It's possible that RotK could win Best Film and Best Director. Best Director seem almost obvious, until you consider that no woman has ever won the Best Director award before. In fact, only two women have previously been nominated, Lina Wertmuller and Jane Campion.
This raise the question of whether women in the Academy will vote for Coppola, to see a woman get the award for once and set a precedent. It's not as if Coppola doesn't deserve it either, she made a delightful and semi-profiund film on a 3 million dollar budget.
Of course, Jackson's achievement with The Lord Of The Rings is amazing and probably the largest single project a director has ever taken on, so he deserves it too.
All I'm saying is don't be too surprised if there's an surprise upset, for Coppola, in these two categories. Coppola has a strong chance, especially since RotK may be considered a "boy" film by female members of the Academy.
Could somebody tell me why the Oscars need to be the benchmark of what's "best" in movies the past year?
-C
Hmmm....I thought it was really well made, and Bill Murray's performance was great, just pipped by Sean Penn.
But I noticed Lost in Translation got nominated for screenplay as well, and so I expect it to win it. Every year a movie I respect for craft, but who's screenplay I think is manipulative cheap toys (yes yes, all movies are manipulative, but I'm not supposed to see the strings DURING the movie...) wins.
But if you liked Lost in Translation, I suggest you all go out and rent a Wong Kar-Wai movie, start with Chungking Express. Very similar, with a greater sense of fun- a different kind of cool though. More leather jackets and sunglasses, than NY east village a la Lost in translation.
...for Sean Astin? :-(
oh well, the Oscars are full of sh*t anyway.
... Annie Hall will win best picture. Get over it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
It is just him doing the acting. It's not like he did the voice and that's it. That's him jumping around, wrestling, lurking. If he were wearing a costume then you wouldn't say it's not just him, it's the costumers and make up men. The animators are just putting a digital costume over top him instead of one made of foam rubber. He could easily be up for best actor.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
I was disappointed that this movie had nothing to do with Gary Larson.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
It's interesting that they basically ignored Cold Mountain... when it came out everyone was crying "Oscar bait!" I mean, if a decent Civil War epic love story, featuring a host of Academy Award winners and nominees, directed by the same man as a previous Best Picture, and released by Miramax can't even get nominated, what does that say about the Academy? Maybe they aren't so shallow after all...
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
After watching the Gollum Special on the Two Towers special edition DVD, I would have no problem with Serkis getting the Best Supporting Actor nomination. What's more, I don't think anyone on the LotR cast or production crew would dispute it either.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
I hope this is the year, but you could be right. Especially since it is going against the 21st century Oscar lovechild Russel Crowe. Not saying he is not a good actor, but I think he could play Shaggy in Scooby Doo and they would give him an Oscar. As Tom Hanks was in the 90's, although it is hard to dispute how good his performances were.
"With Bill Murray, this is the first time he's actually gotten arround to playing somebody other than Bill Murray."
You obviously didn't see Rushmore. It was a great film, and Murray was wonderul in a supporting actor role.
They should really rename that sucker the "Until Miyazaki makes another film, let's just hand it to Pixar" award.
For the first 20 years of Oscar's history it was traditional for the Best Director and Best Picture Oscars to be awarded to the same film.
Then in 1948, they split for the first time with the Best Director Oscar going to John Huston for "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and Best Picture going to "Hamlet".
Since 1948 the two Oscars have split only 11 more times in the 75 years of Oscar's history. The past 20 years have seen only 4 splits.
This year I suspect there will again be a split with Peter Jackson being awarded the Best Director Oscar and "Lost in Translation" getting Best Picture. There's no way they will allow Jackson's achievement on his 3 fabulous LOTR movies to go unrecognized, but I think it's generally thought that "Lost in Translation" is the better film. So it would seem reasonable they'll split the awards in an effort to recognize both films.
Only time will tell.
Imho, the WORSE best picture winner and the crappiest movie i've seen.I'd give credit to Winslet for that nudie scene though. :P
"I find I can save a lot of money if I have the wife bring drinks and snacks into the theater under her skirt or dress."
Maybe I don't want to know, or maybe it's a personal question, given that we're talking about your wife, but, if this stuff is under her skirt, umm, what's holding it up?
is making me dizzy.
Com'on mods, give this post some nods.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
usually I could care less about award shows like this, but I am sincerely outraged that a masterpiece of a documentary like Spellbound doesn't even get NOMINATED for an award. I found that movie to be the most dramatic, suspenseful, and real movie I saw in ALL of 2003 - and it didn't get a nod for best documentary.
absolutely ridiculous.
Hey, you have to be nominated to win. No Matrix nominations at all. Not even for effects.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Actually, I thought the best performance in RotK was Bernard What's-His-Name, the guy who played Theoden. That scene where the Rohirrim line up pat the edge of the battlefield, and you just know it's gonna be brutal and deadly, and he gives his pre-battle speech...
Damn, I'm getting teary-eyed just thinking about it.
Why are there no nominations for Kill Bill Pt1? Are they waiting for this year's Pt2? It was my fav of 2003 and its cinematography, music, and even acting are top notch.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
I thought that that beefcake Rohan guy - you know, Miranda Otto's cousin - deserves some nod. He floored me with his "furrowed eyebrows" method of acting (much like Anna Paquin.)
Bah, Sean Astin? Please. Performance not powerful enough to merit a glance from Oscar.
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
I wholeheartedly agree that Serkis should get an award of some type.
There is precedence for the Academy to give special one time awards for extraordinary achievement, sort of like the special Oscar that Disney got for Snow White (One big Oscar, and 12 small Oscars on the same base, presented by Shirley Temple iirc) The Academy probably should have done this last year, and given it to the team that created Gollum (PJ, AS and the sxf team) but we can always hope they will do it this year.
if i recall, songs nominated for best song have to be created specifically for a film.
'triplets of belleville' is stretching that. i love the song, but it's a really heavy rip of an old Django Reinhardt song. it's plainly obvious.
so in other words, if you're making a song for a film, we'll reward you if you 'borrow' a tune cleverly. (and i would think his song was still under copyright, too.) but if you want to paint disney figures on a nursery wall, forget it.
i realize i'm comparing apples and oranges, but hopefully, you see the point. hypocrisy lives, here as elsewhere...
stored on computers from birth to the grave
What blatant screwage - the biggest flaw of this film was that it opened so close to when ROTK opened.
ROTK has perhaps no more than two or three memorable scenes while Big Fish is a beautifully shot, extremely imaginative piece of art.
Perhaps it will indeed take the route of Fight Club and become a cult classic in the years to come.
...And that's because you've been watching nothing but DVDs of Star Trek and of Episodes 1-2?
Points for being Loyal Friend on Long Journey, and for being kinda cute, sure. Points for acting? Andy Serkis beats Patty Duke's son, hands down.
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
I almost submitted this the other day, when the preview trailer showed up at Pixar.
Obviously, it's showed up on screen sometime in LA before the end of last year- but does anybody have any information on where/when it's going to be used next?
Hopefully, we don't have to wait until the Incredibles to see it.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
What I want to know, is how can Sean Astin (Sam) NOT be up for Best Supporting Actor!? He did a phenomenal job in that film. Heck... Sean's also a member of the Academy... figured he might be able to pull some strings...
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
OK, I speak for every red-blooded male when i say she's f***ing amazing. Everyone seen Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation? No? Go see them :) Seriously though, she was by far my actress of the year... this one will go far.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
it lost out to 'bowling for columbine'
stored on computers from birth to the grave
No, he's probably one of those people, such as myself, who don't like Burton movies.
Even if you love everything else he's ever done, surely you must agree that he ought to be publicly spanked for Planet of the Apes
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
These are always a sure bet regarding best of the year films.
City of God is the greatest movie of the recent fiction-as-documentary brazilian productions. Other good title are Central do Brasil (Brazilian Central) and Bicho de Sete Cabecas.
It tries to show the life in the favelas in the 70's and 80's. Although it is a fiction story, historical facts are mixed with the narrative, and, well, it could be true. Everyone who knows about the brazilian reality up the favelas, would ever doubt about its veracity (if it was true).
It is amazing to know that all actors (except for one) were amateurs, and most lived in the favelas. The tape has a lot of action and pleases the action-inclined types and also the deep-thinking ones.
You can get out of the cinema excited at the first moment, but soon will get sad because you know that is the reality for many people. And that was 20 years ago. And problems are still here (and maybe worse). About 3 months ago one of the actors of the movies (the one that is shot in foot by Dadinho) was arrested stealing a purse in a bus, to buy food.
City of God is only a movie. A really good one. The real world is not so cool.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but I fully expect oscars for Best Director and/or Best Film for ROTK. Between the lines, I expect that it will receive this recognition for all three films combined, not merely for the third film.
If Fellowship or the Two Towers had won, it would have set a precedent that the films following would have been hard to live up to and I think that a lot of academy members had a "wait and see" attitude.
Note that I don't feel that the films were perfect or that they were the best movies ever made (although I probably enjoyed them the most of what I've seen for the last three years -- I'm a geek), but when you look at the level of attention to detail, dedication of cast and crew, wise spending of money, popularity, money earned, and groundbreaking technical achievements, they deserve the recognition.
If you think about it, these were the most successful and the most expensive low-budget independent films ever made. Comparing dollars to screen time, many films spend more money on star salaries and huge physical sets and stunts.
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
I mean come on! Where are the Matrix movies? I mean...Trinity...dying...that performance alone deserves a nomination. Or what about the costumes...dirty torn good will shirts in a cave! AMAZING! I mean I could keep going on this, but I am just to mad at the academy...those fools!
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
- Hackneyed "good vs evil" plot
- overlong, sappy, soap-opera of middle earth
- paint-by-numbers acting
- every cliche in the book (they actually "sailed into the sunset" people! and don't get my started on "'no man can kill me' -- 'i'm no man.. i'm a woman!'")
- but great special effects!
=- Best picture?
I sure as heck hope not. It was a fine movie if you like that sort of pap, but hardly best picture material.There are good comparisons to be made to "Gladiator", arguably the last questionable best picture - but gladiator benefitted immensely from a strong performance by the lead wheras LOTR just had typecasting. Oh yes, and Gladiator had a plot.
That said, finding a substitute is not easy. Lost In Translation won't win though just to shut the fanboys up I'd be thrilled if it did :)
I agree ROTK is a better movie, i was just saying Fish should have been nominated in some of the categories i mentioned.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
...I guess Tuesday isn't the official MPAA Hate Day any more. Anyone know what day of the week it moved to?
I thought it was:
Monday: SCO
Tuesday: MPAA
Wednesday: HP
Thursday: Microsoft
Friday: ATi/nVidia (pick one)
Saturday: DirecTV
Sunday: big business in general
Of course, on Slashdot, it's always a good day to hate RIAA.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Enough said.
Gollum was the first CG character I've ever been convinced of. RotK would deserve the best FX award even if the whole movie was of him.
And I really think Andy Serkis should get nominated for something. I saw a split-screen of him acting as the body model of Gollum, and the performance just about exactly matched the final CG shot; it almost would've been believable if they'd just used that!
c-hack.com |
Thanks for that, that's a cool review. But the bit that really got me thinking: the last line. It's absolutely spot-on! Peter Jackson making an A-Team movie, how cool would that be?
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Where's the Filthy Critic when you need him?
Mod parent up! I don't think I've EVER seen a Wong Kar-Wai recommendation on this site and you deserve Karma until your dying day for that! Everyone should have the honor to experince such fine filmmaking and you deserve to go up to a +5 underrated just for your last paragraph.
...and now I want to go buy another WKW movie! Thanks!
Alright, enough asskissing. I have work to do
fs
The movie was so crappy and drawn out, I'd fucking flush the film down the toilet if it were up to me. Forty minutes of looking at each other, hugging, kissing and smiling in the end - that was just a disaster. I thought my head would fucking explode - that's how drawn out the ending was.
I don't get it. Really, I don't. I don't understand all the hubub around this movie. It was good. That's it. The acting wasn't all that great folks. Take off your fanboi glasses and look at it for what it really was.
I have never read the books, nor should I to fully appreciate a movie - after all, movies are never as good as books. That being said, here are a few observations about ROTK that you probably haven't heard...
The outcome was pre-determined. I knew what was going to happen, I could tell how it was going to end. It was predictable. Remember, I didn't know the story.
The whole thing where you think that Gollum was killed, then he comes back right at the climax - cheesy.
I found the Hobbits to be very annoying, especially Sam. They were just too corny for me.
Battle scenes - ugh. Sure, they were fantastic, but bordered on cheesy. Oh no, we are about to be defeated AGAIN. Whee, here come some eagles to save us. It just got a little tired.
I know a lot of people hold this story very dear and may take offense at my comments (I am sure I'll be modded appropriately), but I am looking at the MOVIE with no pre-conceptions. If anything, I watched the trilogy to see what all the hype was about. I still really don't know.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Personally I thought that Sean Astin, Sir Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill and Andy Serkis all did excellent jobs. One problem is that a studio can only put one person from a film forward in each category for consideration.
Serkis got to really act in this one (so no arguments about it being only CGI). I guess McKellen wouldn't be bothered about more awards, and that Sean Astin and Andy Serkis are too early in their careers. Bernard Hill (Theoden) would have been a good nominee, he essentially played a Lear, but did so extremely well, however he is British and that is always a small minus.
Others have recognised the cast and recognised them as an esemble, which is probably the best. I don't think the time that any of the cast spent on the LOTR would be wasted career-wise.
Boy, was that the shocker of Oscar season! Technically, it should have been party to last years Oscars having debuted in LA and NY in 2002, but since it was 'forgotten' last year, I was very happy to see it pick up the Director nod. I was horribly dissapointed it didn't get the actors a couple of nods and am now torn for Cinematography and Directing.
I'd like to see LiT win the Big Four, but City of God and Fernando Meirelles deserves a LOT of recognition for the Visual Vibratio (a phrase I coined explicitly for this movie). After just 15 minutes of this movie, you'll understand exactly what I mean. For those interested in a take on the drug world 'Gangland' movie, go get this film!
fs
Only three animated feature nominations this year- a modest Brother Bear, a cute French cartoon, and of course, Finding Nemo, pretty much a shoe-in. No Anime.
The 2005 feature animation Oscar should be more competitive with Pixar and Dreamworks contenders.
The fact that Titanic remains the highest grossing film in history would seem to corroborate that.
Just because YOU don't like a movie (and hell, I don't like it either) doesn't mean it's not a great movie.. There are a LOT of people that rank Titanic as the best movie they've ever seen after all.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Admit it. If Neo had rip-foo'ed the Architect's liver out through his nostrils right after the word "assiduous" you would have forgiven the rest of the film. If he'd followed with 50,000 monitors flying off the walls and imploding the archetect's dead, mangled body, you might have even voted Keanu a special Oscar for best "Woah!"
Who is John Cabal?
I can sum the whole Trilogy in less time:
...that's not to say I didn't enjoy myself.
9 hour story about a MacGuffin to showcase grand battle sequences, vast landscapes and pretty clothes.
fs
The special effects were decent but the CGI was horribly obvious in parts, and often over-sensationalized most of the time. The directing was typical James Cameron, i.e. all action and special effects, no emotion. The man's an overbearing ****, and it shows in his direction.
My opinion of Titanic has nothing to do with it being a love story. I really like love stories in movies. I found myself laughing at all the supposedly "romantic" parts of Titanic though. Just pitiful.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Filthy? Is that you?
Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
Found this review which presents an interesting counterpoint in perspective to those enjoined by most of the press. Read it and... weep?
"Everything else will only be appreciated by tolkien-lovers who already know the background for all the characters and can inject their own knowledge into the movie, making the movie seem better than it is in aspects in which it fails."
I agree with this particular remark, even though your post got flagged as -1 Troll.
Lord of the Rings sometimes falters as a stand-alone movie for those of us without the book knowledge.
Remember in The Two Towers, there is a pointless battle with some furry hogs, after which Aragorn gets thrown off a cliff? Aragorn is resurrected moments later, and he carries on like nothing ever happened. It's not dramatic when you "kill" the star whom you know will come back to finish the movie. Instead, it's annoying when the other characters pretend to be stunned at his return.
In Return of the King, there is an evil warlord who cannot be killed by any man. Later, Eowyn sticks him with her sword: "but I am a woman!". Was this supposed to be comedy? I saw the punchline coming, and it didn't work.
How do these dead ends make the movie a better adaptation of the book?
You forgot the most important element of directing...STORYTELLING! Amount of time filming be damned! (Traffic: 53 Days vs Gangs of New York: Technically 23 years to make yet both are INCREDIBLE works of art)
...whatever award goes to cars over a Porsche?! Hell, maybe that's not even a valid analogy. Anyone less disgusted by the parent care to come up with something more clever?
Doing them all at the same time?! THIS is your judgement for Oscarworthy?! Jesus Christ, I'm glad you're not voting. By your jugement, the Trois Colour trilogy deserve SHIT because they were filmed at seperate times!
Relying on CGI who wasn't there? This is qualification for a Best Director? Well, it may not have been CGI, technically, but Rober Zemeckis got robbed! HAH!
Logistics? Elaborate. Please!
Overall Grand Scale?! So Lawrence of Arabia is an Oscar worthy film and Casablanca isn't?! Your logic seems to dictate that. Ye Gods, man, I cannot BELIEVE you got modded up!
No, he's not less of a coach, but we're talking SPORTS vs ART! Hardly a valid analogy. If I spend 20 years turning a trashcan into a very beautiful piece of machinery that can haul 10 people around, do I deserve to win
fs
If Russell Crowe is the Oscar's love child, then where's his nomination this year. Would have also had M&C match ROTK in number of nominations too had he got one.
It's been pretty much an unspoken suggestion that they were waiting till the last movie to come out to give them the awards.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
If the Academy'd had any balls or vision, they'd have nominated Andy Serkis and the Weta Digital Animation Department for Best Supporting Actor. (What?!? A performance is by a single heroic actor, not a team!)
Some day we'll see that, but it won't be until many great performances have been passed over.
Look again at what ROTK got nominated for:
Art Direction - THROWAWAY #1
Costume Design - THROWAWAY #2
Directing
Film Editing
Makeup - THROWAWAY #3
Music (Score) >
Music (Song) > Between them, ONE counts as THROWAWAY #4
Best Picture
Sound - THROWAWAY #5
Visual Effects - THROWAWAY #7
Writing (Adapted Screenplay) - THROWAWAY #8
Of the list of 11 nominations, only THREE are not in throwaway categories - that is to say, the crap categories the Academy came up with after the Star Wars debacle so that in the future, much-beloved films could be pointed to with a "but it won an Oscar for visual effects, we're being nice by letting you have that".
COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORING THAT WITHOUT THE ACTORS, ROTK AND LOTR IN GENERAL WOULD HAVE SUCKED.
Come on. Sean Astin's Samwise Gamgee was BRILLIANT. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf, an incredibly difficult role to hold up to the scrutiny of those who have read the books inside and out and KNOW Gandalf, and yet he pulled it off.
Andy Serkis's Smeagol/Gollum. Three times now they have dissed him.
I would like to FUCK the ACADEMY, for being COMPLETELY FUCKING WORTHLESS AND IRRELEVANT.
Congratulations to the "winners" in the actor categories. Your "award" is only worth the chocolate that's wrapped up inside that gold foil.
but was more fiction than fact.
Only if you are an idiot.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Its high time they saw the bigger picture(haw haw) and nominated something that really deserves an Oscar.And not some weeping tom movie that people will only see after its won an oscar.WTG Oscar team and now do us proud by making ROTK win!
Lord of the Binges.
.. a lot of people in the tolkien newsgroups seem to think that Return of the King was lost in translation..
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Reconsidered; in this context, BOTH musics are throwaways. that's why the lack of a #6; I forgot to fix the numbering above.
....of British rights' case - Winnie the Poo. I wonder if the British ever....
I must have missed this episode of South Park. Is he supposed to be the sister of Mr. Hankey?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This is what's wrong with the academy awards. All of the focus on people's past work rather than just judging the movies that came out this year. Who cares how bad Planet of the Apes was? It didn't come out this year. Big Fish was a good movie and deserved at least some nominations, regardless of what movies he's made in the past.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
It's not so cut and dried with the Eagles.
Let's say they flew Frodo to the Mountain. They would have faced attack by those fell-beast things, not to mention the full unpleasant stare of the Eye. There's too high of a chance they would have failed, leaving the Ring to Sauron.
Also, the eagles, as servants of one of the old Middle Earth gods, were not given to major intervention in matters. This would have been a major intervention.
Rescuing Frodo and Sam AFTER the mission was over, as they did, had no impact on the affairs of Middle-Earth.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
What the parent desired would have failed anyway in the context of the story.
If the eagles had flown Frodo, and only Frodo, to the Cracks of Doom, there is no reason to believe that he would have not still "pulled an Isildur" and taken full control of the Ring while on the brink.
The eagles would have had to have flown Gollum there (and maybe even Sam) along with Frodo for the destruction events to occur. And just imagine them at Rivendell saying "OK, Frodo, Gandalf's pet taxibirds are going to take you to Mordor. Guess what, Gollum's going too!"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I love all the LOTR movies, and they all look great, but if ROTK wins an Oscar for Best Editing the Academy needs to be lined up and shot. My one and only reason for saying this is the HORRENDOUS editing during some of the fight sequences. The Action sequences overall in all the movies look great, HOWEVER, whenever someone pulls out a sword and starts fighting in close the movie changes to Attack ofthe Shaky-Cam. Quick cuts, shaking cameras, and allowing the viewers to absolutely not be able to see anything that's actually happening. This annoyed me in FOTR, didn't seem as bad in TTT but it came back with a vengence in ROTK. If this 'technique' was used sparingly, I'd concede that the shaky-cam crap was done intentionally to 'simulate the confusion of battle' or something. But since it happens so often in these movies, I can only conclude that the close-in sword fights were all shot by the fifth-unit 2nd assistant director, or something, and when it came time to put the movie together Jackson and the editors just did the best they could with what they had, I think the movie should have at least received a nom for Cinematography, but Best Editing? No Way.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Have you seen "Heavenly Creatures"? Peter Jackson directing, Kate Winslet starring? Very good film, and a real departure from the shlock horror he'd started with. :)
deus does not exist but if he does
I love fantasy and sci-fi movies, but even as a huge fan I have to admit that they are generally lacking a certain type of humanity that makes them relevenant.
Contrast LoTR with Monster. One is epic with magic and elves and dark lords. The other is all cheap hotels and prostitutes.
LoTR gives little insight into its characters and their motivations. The characters play flat cartoon characters who suffer from faux anxiety they always overcome for no apparent reason to go onto victory.
Monster's characters on the other hand are real. Like people you really know. Then movie provides insights into the mind of a serial murderer and leave you with a deep understanding not of a monster, but of a human being.
Leaving monster gave me a deeper feeling of having done something worthwhile than all 3 rings combined. I think mainly because the characters are so well done you feel like you really go to know someone, rather than just watch them on stage waving swords about.
11: Best documentary
I'm pissed off that RoTK didn't get nominated for Best Documentary.
I mean, some of the scenes are re-enacted, but warning the audience about it would sort destroy the flow of it, wouldn't it?
Maybe some of the stuff didn't really happen exactly like they portray it, but that's how documentaries are supposed to be. What, don't you think some of what they say on Faux News is made up too?
The most important thing to realize about media is IT IS ALWAYS A FABRICATION OF REALITY. Everything short of actually witnessing an event in person is the act of viewing someone's interpretation of it.
Consider the fishing scene. You're arguing that Deagol cannot simply dive in and pick up the Ring. But does that change the fact that getting a ring is possible? Who cares if it's not the specific ring or whether he had to wait 4 weeks? The truth is that the ring is enticing people to serve by providing powers. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here!
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
"A young girl kills a woman, then kills her sister" -- The Wizard of Oz
Its a shame that Evan Rachel Wood wasnt nominated for her role in Thirteen. Her acting was truely superb as was the movie. I highly recommend it to everyone, especialy those of us with teenage (or soon to be teenage) daughters. It could be educational for both you and your daughter.
>>
In Return of the King, there is an evil warlord who cannot be killed by any man. Later, Eowyn sticks him with her sword: "but I am a woman!". Was this supposed to be comedy? I saw the punchline coming, and it didn't work.
Did I understand your post correctly to mean that you have not read the book? I would suggest you develop some familiarity with it. IIRC, that particular bit was not intended solely as an element of "adaptation."
Makes a case for knowing your sources, n'est-ce pas?
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
I've just finished slogging through this battery of responses, and I can't help but feel a little bit disturbed by some of the remarks made in vague attempts to pass oneself off as knowledgeable, or to demonstrate that [insert name of movie here] was better than RotK 'just because.'
Folks, I realize that I may be offensive to some of you when I say this, but it looks like an astounding number of you are forgetting that RotK was, first and foremost, a book. Much (admittedly not all) of that book was conserved in the transition to film, within the context of one person's vision rooted in the text. How's abouts cracking open that illustrious tome every now and again to see if that which you disparage as horrible screenwriting or acting did or did not, in fact, originate in Tolkien's text -- itself the famous source much of the audience hopes the film will respect in its adaptation? Just how is it that so many people feel adequately prepared to comment on the validity of the construction of the film (itself an adaptation) without demonstrating a proper familiarity with the source? There's more here to consider than only what's in the textbooks to "Introduction to Film" and its ilk.
A woeful demonstration of this would be the people who have problems with the adaptation, yet have not read the book. Listen, people, I have some bad news for you -- Lord of the Rings, in general, is not meant to be a Cliff's Notes film or book. You do have to set up more than a few postsynaptic potentials to catch all that is going on. There are details in the films, true, that people who have read the books will pick up, while a general viewer who hasn't read the books will not. The solution to this seemingly widespread dilemma is either to view the films as someone putting together a puzzle and trying to discern what might be justifying what's happening on screen within the context of the story, or to haul thy carcass to the nearest library or bookstore, get the book, and read it. Contrary to popular belief, PJ and company didn't make this film simply to pander to the James Cameron/I-can't-believe-the-ship-sank generation -- take a look at the structure of Two Towers (particularly its opening) if you need evidence. Silly as it might seem to any stuffed shirts in the crowd, much of the intention behind a lot of this film was to get the audience to think, or short of that, to read. Can't stand the idea of being sent after a book by some movie at the multiplex? Aww. Poor baby. Perhaps Return of the King wasn't meant for you in the first place -- might I suggest a riveting Will Farrell tale instead?
I saw one post concerning a comparison between RotK and Monster that left me wondering. Point one this author made in his argument that Monster consisted of "what RotK lacked" was something to the order of the difference between one movie centering about elves and magic (not quoting directly, admittedly) vs. another revolving around prostitution -- ostensibly itself a film centered on 'reality,' at least in the modern history sense.
Uh, OK.
Let's, for one moment, forget the whole "apples and oranges" thing. Maybe I misunderstood, but is that 'modern angst' element of Monster supposed to be an essential component that RotK "lacks" to its loss? Listen, if poor souls dealing with prostitution in whatever context is important in your preferred kinds of films, fine. Have at it. Enjoy. Please, however, don't point to the absence of a gritty prostitution/drug/crime/name-yer-poison element in Lord of the Rings as some manner of general shortcoming. We are, after all, talking fantasy here -- even in the germane sense of Wizards'n'Elves fantasy. If I wanted a story that looked like something out of City Confidential or Cops, I'd be watching that. Lord of the Rings, either on the bookshelf or at the theater, was not meant to be anything of the sort. Nature of content alone,
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
...but when do we get the nomination screener?... not that i would want it... ha ha
I didn't sincerely believe that the "I am woman" thing was meant to be a joke, but what was it? Are women magical? Or was it just a play on words? From the movie, it looks like they won the fight by playing word games. It was really jarring and unbelievable.
You suggested that I read the book. But you missed my point. Let me restate it: "Lord of the Rings sometimes falters as a stand-alone movie for those of us without the book knowledge."
I think Jackson could have adapted the movie to suit both audiences: those who have read the trilogy and those who haven't. In the preceding example, the movie didn't work on its own.
It's easy for you to recommend reading the trilogy. However, I also saw Seabiscuit and Master and Commander. Both of those movies are based on books. When they are considered for the Best Picture award, I bet only a handful of voters will have read them. Those movies had to stand by themselves. So should the Lord of the Rings movies.
I didn't sincerely believe that the "I am woman" thing was meant to be a joke, but what was it? Are women magical? Or was it just a play on words? From the movie, it looks like they won the fight by playing word games. It was really jarring and unbelievable.
Honestly, given the nature of the film, I'm not 100% sure what you would have considered believable. My point, and apparently I needed to sledgehammer it a bit, is that this is a gripe you would have to take up with Tolkien -- he originally wrote the scene. It was, I'm given to understand, a fairly popular sequence among those who read the book (including the adapting team) -- hence its inclusion.
I expect that Tolkien meant something of a play on words on the surface, but note that the deed is eventually done by both woman and hobbit. Eowyn's problem, as illustrated in both book and film, is that she is relegated to the background while she would rather be demonstrating her mettle. Merry suffers from the same frustration. Ultimately, woman and hobbit forge ahead for themselves into battle despite urgings to the contrary from those above them (who, incidentally, just happen to be Men -- both by sex and race), and in so doing they end up bringing down what was (by that point, at least) the most feared agent of Mordor on the battlefield.
This subplot does, I imagine, make some modicum of sense.
I would indicate to you that the synopsis I detail above could have been gleaned simply by watching the films and paying attention. There is nothing to suggest "a joke" or that "women are magical." Each of those items appears somewhere in Return of the King or Two Towers as it showed in the theater -- there is, of course, more, but the Academy people who are concerned with how well movies "stand by themselves" would not be watching Extended Editions to make their determinations. In terms of dry exposition with regards to Eowyn and the WitchKing, RotK did indeed work on its own. (Sorry.)
This is not necessarily a spoon-feeding movie. Something like X-Men might only need a surface interpretation, but something like Lord of the Rings is much more complex -- as much so on film as in text. You do yourself a great disservice if you feel that your opinions on the film are eminently valid -- apparently above and beyond others' -- primarily because it did not pass your initial gloss analysis. As far as the film is concerned, you apparently "missed the point" -- which is lamentable, considering that the point, in this case, was in plain view. There is only so much watering-down that can be done for an audience member with something of this scale.
If, however, you expected this film to fit the status quo -- with a plot presented in blinking neon lights for one and all to follow without having to think too much about it, much less remember information from an hour previous (let alone another film) -- well then, I'm sorry. Genuinely. I can tell you that I, for one, would have resented LotR as some sort of "mainstream" rendering that saps it of its innate intelligence. The source deserves more respect.
I think Jackson could have adapted the movie to suit both audiences: those who have read the trilogy and those who haven't.
This is an incredibly easy suggestion to make -- moreso, perhaps, than mine that you read the book. Anyone with a vague dissatisfaction with the movie could have said that. Still, please elaborate. What do you have in mind? Just how would you plan on adapting this as you describe? (Know that, among the people who have read the book, much is said of it being overly adapted for those who had not read the text. Not clear cut in the slightest, is it?)
Consider that, at least in the case of the edition I have handy, the whole book, from "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits," to "'Well, I'm back,' he said," runs about 1008 pages, and the type is small. With the inclusion of the Appendices, which make various appear
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
"In terms of dry exposition with regards to Eowyn and the WitchKing, RotK did indeed work on its own."
Well, I could see that Eowyn and the hobbit made a vital contribution to winning the battle. That significance was not lost on me.
What I didn't understand was: how did it physically happen? At Helm's Deep, we hear that the WitchKing "cannot be killed by any man". Later, the WitchKing himself reminds us of that again. Traditionally, the word "man" has been used to refer to all of mankind, women included. For example: "There will be no dawn for man." (a quote from the movie, if I remember correctly). So the movie deliberately stresses the fact that "men" (mankind) cannot slay the WitchKing, but then it happens. The movie breaks its own physics in a way that is hard for casual moviegoers to figure.
You could say that the WitchKing's invulnerability was just a legend. It could be beaten once a warrior is not afraid of it, even if that warrior is a woman or a hobbit.
However, there are many rules about the LotR world that appear to be literally true. For example, the ring can only be destroyed in Mount Doom. Except for the narrative at the beginning of The Fellowship, we count on the characters' own dialog to let us know about their world. Even for a sophisticated viewer, it's hard to know what the rules are in this fantasy -- especially in the WitchKing battle.
The movie could have been made to work independently of the novel (much like Master and Commander did). There are many moments that us uninitiated heathens can appreciate. For example, the chain of signal fires across the mountain range. That was beautiful both visually and in spirit. There is a another moment in which the steward of the throne sends his son into a suicidal battle, then entertains himself with songs and fruit. Brilliant.
However, some of the other sub plots in the movie are just dead end diversions when taken out of the context of the book. I'm sure that the adaptation could've been improved, at least for us unwashed peons. One approach is to simply cut the bastard scenes from the movie, then glue in something that makes the rest of it more consistent. I bet that there are lots of possibilities.
Let's return to the WitchKing example. After Eowyn slays it, she emphasizes that she is a "woman" (and therefore not a "man"?). I think that's goofy. Instead, her victory speech should've been something to the effect of: "I am not intimidated by your legend" -- a statement that is believable, and not just an apparent play on words. We've already seen that she had to sneak into the battle, hidden in armor, because men believed that she couldn't contribute. The significance of her accomplishment won't be lost simply because it wasn't explicitly pointed out.
The revised dialog may be different than the book, but who gives a damn? Adapt. The movie should be an adaptation, not a blunt recreation of the book.
"Jackson's answer ... was to present
an act of love to the fans"
Okay, you could say that Jackson's top priority was to recreate the books faithfully for the benefit of the Tolkien heads. The rest of the moviegoing public is second priority. That's fine. But that doesn't help his case for Best Picture or Best Director at the academy awards. Why should the rest of the world give special consideration to a movie that wasn't optimized for them? Because everyone has a duty to spend 30 hours reading the books? I don't think so, despite your fanboy rave. I think it's very reasonable to judge the movie independently of the book, because that's how many people will see it. They're not ignorant and stupid. They just have other plans besides memorizing the entire Tolkien universe.
What I didn't understand was: how did it physically happen? At Helm's Deep, we hear that the WitchKing "cannot be killed by any man". Later, the WitchKing himself reminds us of that again. Traditionally, the word "man" has been used to refer to all of mankind, women included. For example: "There will be no dawn for man." (a quote from the movie, if I remember correctly). So the movie deliberately stresses the fact that "men" (mankind) cannot slay the WitchKing, but then it happens. The movie breaks its own physics in a way that is hard for casual moviegoers to figure.
Its own physics...? There was some mention of a clear-cut overarching who-can-kill-whom physics in this to begin with? Okay, let's go with this example.
I don't remember the WitchKing being mentioned at Helm's Deep. He is mentioned at Minas Tirith, and I do think Gandalf says it to Pippin. OK. The word 'man' is used.
You mention that traditionally, "man" is used to refer to men and women. That works with Saruman's dictum before Helm's Deep -- but step back and look at the other statements. "No man may kill me," and "He can be killed by no man," aren't necessarily statements referring to race. Nothing precludes either statement from referring to the dominant sex in warfare at that time -- the fact that the term used in reference to each shouldn't be all that jarring, considering that we use "man" to refer to an adult male human or to the human race in general. This is a judgment call made in communication on a daily basis. What abstracts it so when it's onscreen?
I would be wondering what the statement meant, if it weren't for the clarification from a certain duo ramming swords into the WitchKing's carcass. Ah, so that's what he meant...
My main problem with those kinds of analyses of "physics" is that they put a filter on what's happening that need not necessarily be there. I remember hearing PJ say somewhere along the line that the approach was to produce the film as a history -- not a historical documentary but a demonstration of culture within Middle-Earth and an illustration of one period in its history as it occurred. That said, it never fails to get my hackles up when someone responds to the film as though it were something happening down the street, within the boundaries of their mores. Quite obviously, the world on that screen isn't playing by our rules.
Interpretation based on experience is valuable, true, but it doesn't always prove fruitful when that which to be interpreted does not fit into its own niche within modern human experience. Adapting the story based upon modern human mores might work to a point, but it would not do so kindly to a source that is as imbued with its own mores as this one is. That's part of the problem with working up a generally accepted adaptation of this story.
However, there are many rules about the LotR world that appear to be literally true. For example, the ring can only be destroyed in Mount Doom. Except for the narrative at the beginning of The Fellowship, we count on the characters' own dialog to let us know about their world. Even for a sophisticated viewer, it's hard to know what the rules are in this fantasy -- especially in the WitchKing battle.
The movie could have been made to work independently of the novel (much like Master and Commander did).
It's hard to know what the rules are in fantasy in general. Much of it entails watching what happens and analyzing it as specifically as possible -- not much unlike being dumped into that world as if by magic and having to make a living within it. Fantasy having its own "physics," as you say, is not a failing or a handicap, but rather a difference best dealt with by the viewer and the filmmaker. This genre simply comes with another nuance.
This is where the analogy to Master and Commander fails. True, there are probably a number of historians that would be quick to say that a ship during that era was its own world, and that it would h
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
Let me recreate part of Return of the King.
Men are preparing for battle. One of them says that the WitchKing cannot be killed any mortal man.
At this point, I'm thinking: "man"? Is that a poetic synonym for "human", like in Star Trek ("to boldy go where no man has gone before")? So perhaps the WitchKing won't go away until the ring is destroyed. Or... maybe he'll be beaten by one of the various undead things in the movie. That seems reasonable.
Alternatively, "man" might just mean someone who isn't a woman. But why could a woman cut down the WitchKing whereas a man could not? Women are special? The WitchKing's magic is conditional? That would be a wierd rule; how could that possibly be the case? So the first interpretation ("man" == "human") must be the correct one, right?
... unless RotK intends to suprise us if we made the wrong assumption.
Back to the movie. We see Eowyn suiting up and sneaking off to battle.
Now I'm thinking: "Is she the answer to the WitchKing? If that's it, then I will be disappointed!"
The movie continues and we finally meet the WitchKing. He reminds us again that he cannot be killed by any mortal man.
But Eowyn is there. I see her and I'm going: "oh no, here it comes. RotK is going to teach a lesson that we shouldn't assume that work can only be done by men."
She slays it. Me: "ARRRRRRRRRGH!" I didn't need this lesson. I needed to believe in the legend, for drama's sake.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.