Slashdot Mirror
Lord Of The Rings - Oscars, We Loves Them
Suhas writes "The New Zealand Herald and many others such as Yahoo/AP are reporting that Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King has swept the Oscars by winning in all the 11 categories it was nominated in. Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award! The official Oscar site has a full list of the winners."
This is the first time a Fantasy movie wins the Best Picture award ... yeha!!!!!
...
Of course, we may see now a lot of crappy fantasy movies just riding the wave
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Peter Jackson got what he deserved. I was literally waiting with bated breath to see him get the best director award. LOTR is not just a movie, it is an epic.
No doubt many of these awards are symbolic awards for the efforts in creating the entire trilogy, not just RotK. I have my doubts if the third LotR movie was that good, especially given some of the films it was up against, but the trilogy as a whole merits siginificant recognition and I think that was given tonight.
Ian McKellen deserved an Oscar for his performance, not only because he was consistently great in all three movies, but his acting didn't overshadow and it easily could have. It's a pity he was nominated this year.
I for one cannot wait to hear that Peter Jackson has untangled the legal web surrounding the rights to The Hobbit. As a child I enjoyed it much more than the trilogy. It's the perfect 3 hour film. Massive battle at the end. The dwarves! The eagles! Smaug! Mirkwood, the elves en masse - PJ, please get King Kong out of the way and give us The Hobbit in 2007 or 2008!
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
I thought the whole idea of including Andy Serkis in the live-action flashback scene to Smeagol vs. Deagol was to make him eligible for the Best Supporting Actor oscar. I thought he would have at least deserved consideration for his work in LotR: The Two Towers, but apparently actors cannot receive that oscar if their character is computer animated.
Shoot, he was the best actor in the lot of them, with the possible exception of Ian McKellan.
Uhh, this was the third year in a row that a LoTR movie won for best visual effects!!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
A victory for geeky fantasy culture, some might say. But I think if it really is that, it can only be because high fantasy of this sort just isn't specifically geek anymore at all. Some people still persist in categorising fantasy mythoi and this kind of thing as nerdy, geeky stuff, but I think the term is losing its usefulness. Geek seems to imply something freakish or countercultural, and this just isn't. This is as maintstream as culture gets. It's popular with everyone. Certainly, there's greater attention to it among self-identifying geeks, but the fact is that News For Nerds is in cases like this now really just News For Everyone. There's no meaningful distinction. Being very seriously interested in high fantasy really no longer means anything regarding one's status in society. The pen and paper D&D generation grew up and now are urban professionals. And furthermore, high fantasy is on the screen as possibly the most famously beloved movie of our generation.
Whither geek?
Let's be honest here, the voters didn't award 11 Oscars for Return Of The King, they awarded 11 Oscars for the trilogy.
All the good karma generated by the first two movies helped ROTK enormously. If it had been a stand-alone film then it's highly doubtful that it would have been so successful at gaining the votes of the Academy's members.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
In terms of cinematography, the footage of the fires calling Rohan to Gondor's aid was fantastic, but overall the cinematography wasn't that impressive. You've got to remember that a great many scenes used mainly CGI backdrops, and I'm not sure this category was designed to cover footage of non-live scenery and action.
The winner of that category, Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World was absolutely in a different class to the rest of the field, ROTK included. I don't think Peter Jackson would argue that he was slighted in that department, especially after his 11 out of 11 haul.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Too much CGI - especially in the backdrops. This does not go down too well with the powers that be in this categroy - the cinematographers.
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com
Anyone else here not give a crap about self-congratulatory multi-hour commercials? Lord of the Rings was a great movie ... as were a number of others that came out this year. I've just got no interest in what a select group of voters thinks about a film.
It's a bit circular, the logic. The Oscars are a valued commodity, whether or not we personally think they mean anything. Because they're valued, we want to see the folks we're interested in receive them. Because we care that the folks we're interested in receive them, they're a valued commodity.
Having said that, I didn't watch the Oscars. But, again, I did wish to see Peter Jackson and LoTR receive them, as Peter Jackson lives in a world where they are valued.
Are you so sure that Hollywood sees fantasy as anything but? Sure - Jackson was able to fight the good fight and create this epic (in both film and production). But it's important to note that he had to fight to keep his vision intact. Jackson did a good job (critics aside). But will anybody else do as well?
Or will the previous poster's prediction hold true and we'll be inundated by more crappy fantasy?
The important thing here isn't that the LotR trilogy was fantasy. It's that it was an epic work, a good story, and a good series of films. That just happened to be a fantasy.
Ok, I just erased the page long rant about how those something something Canadians and New Zealanders are stealing jobs from such great people as, oh MYSELF, my FRIENDS, and the rest of us who are dedicated to the film industry here in lovely Hollywood.
How can the Canadians and New Zealanders be *stealing* jobs, when it's Hollywood itself that's paying the star actors and actresses upwards of 20 percent of the budget of the film?
Besides, shipping entertainment jobs overseas isn't new - we lost pretty much all the local TV animator jobs back in the 80's. You think you were the first ones to have to train your replacements?
Rant aside, I think it's a good thing for the WHOLE INDUSTRY when movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy are made. Success means more money for similar films, and more money in this category mean more work for everybody, both overseas and locally. Besides, there were Americans working on that production as well - you going to piss all over their efforts just because they went to NZ to work?
I say, congrats to Peter Jackson, and may he and his crew make bigger successes!
Interesting, and I'm somewhat sympathetic, but -- in regards to the last sentence -- keep in mind that he wrote this before effects and costuming could do what they can today. The orcs in these movies didn't come across as men dressed up as animals, or as buffoons or mimics.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
They should not have won eleven awards.
No one will see this seeing as I'm not registered, but RotK should not have even been nominated for editing. While I'm sure the extended edition of the film will flow better, there were some very bad glitches in the editing.
Take, for example, the moment in front of the Gates of Mordor. The group rides out, then back. The speech is missing, as is the Mouth of Sauron. These will be included (or so I have heard) in the extended edition, but it came off foolishly in the film itself.
During the battle at Minas Tirith, there were a few moments that were somewhat skittish with Eowyn and Eomer, and comments about Corsairs that made no sense to those who hadn't read the books simply because of omissions from the film.
Further, I don't know whether the Palantir of Denethor will be included in the final film, but I was very surprised to not see it given how many comments along the lines of "I have seen" and the sort were made. Denethor has no REASON to go mad the way the films were edited with no Palantir, and to those who didn't know he had it, that was very poor editing.
For my own thoughts, I would have given Director to Clint Eastwood simply because Mystic River was a very solid package in and of itself, but if they wanted RotK to sweep and give it the other 10, so be it. But the video editing was, while admirable considering the scope of what all they had to cut, not glossy enough to recieve an Oscar.
If it had been a stand-alone film then it's highly doubtful that it would have been so successful at gaining the votes of the Academy's members.
That's a meaningless statement. It wasn't a standalone film. If it was it would have been made entirely differently. Return of the King in its current form simply would never exist without FOTR & TTT, so what's the point in creating such hypotheticals? Its not meant to be a standalone film, why would you treat it line one?
I guess Sam and Frodo holding each other at the "end of all things" wasn't enough interaction. Nor was Gandalf's soothing speech about the afterlife (literally...after all the suspense, suddenly he calms things with a few lines, go Ian) to Pip. Nor Merry and Pippin's interactions with Treebeard and the Ents, leading them to battle. Nor the dynamics between Eowyn and Aragorn, or Denethor's horrible disdain for Faramir...ah, who am I kidding? You'll never like the films. Aragorn's quest for kingship was about shedding self-doubt and accepting fate. I don't get people who don't like these movies. So many universal themes touched on.
Actually, geek movies have certainly ruled the box office for quite a while (Check the top grossing films here).
Top 10 grossing films:
1. Titanic (okay... not so geeky... well, maybe a little geekish)
2.Star Wars, Episode 4 (geek enough?)
3. E.T. ('nuff said)
4.Star Wars, Episode 1 (see #2)
5. Spider-Man (See #3)
6. LOTR, RoTK (Classic geekdom)
7.Jurassic Park (geek-o-saurs)
8.LOTR, TT (Classic geekdom, redux)
9.Finding Nemo (Geek fish?)
10. Forrest Gump (Geek is as geek does)
The top 10 certainly is dominated by the science fiction/fantasy/comic book genres which are, natch, close to any geek's heart (including this one's).
keep in mind that he wrote this before effects and costuming could do what they can today. The orcs in these movies didn't come across as men dressed up as animals, or as buffoons or mimics.
Yes, the idea that Tolkien could probably not have anticipated the realism of modern computer graphics is the most common argument I see raised in defence of the film's existence. However, I think Tolkien answered this point early on in the excerpt I quoted:
"In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it."
He means this for those who see the painting, not just those who paint it. I think the same applies to a graphically-rendered film production.
Much the same as the hand of the painter 'outruns' both his mind and, presumably, the minds of those viewing the painting, I think Tolkien would argue that the graphics of a film adaption 'outrun' the minds of its viewers. That is, the film imposes a calculated and predetermined vision of the narrative on the eyes, which is expressly intended to be faster than the thought and imagination of the viewer.
I'm a pretty diehard Tolkien fan, and I seriously considered not seeing any of the movies for fear I wouldn't be able to read any of the books properly again. I went anyway, and I'm glad I did, but I do hope that most of the kids encountering Tolkien now through the movies will be able to read Lord of the Rings without having visual scenes from the movies constantly in mind.
BTW, Peter Jackson just said on live TV (E! Network) that New Line has the rights to film The Hobbit, but MGM/UA has the rights to distribute it. Lots of lawyers have lots of negotiating ahead of them to clear the way for a film adaptation of the book. He also said he'd want Ian McKellen back as Gandalf and to make it feel like it was part of the same story as LOTR.
Lousy minor setbacks! This world sucks! -- Homer Simpson
ROTK winning best adapted screenplay is a joke! But then I can say the same for most of the Oscars. I'll cede best direction, best score, best fireworks, etc, to ROTK, but do any of you realize how many people are writing how many screenplays? Just because people go "Oooooooooo" and "Aaaaaaaahhhhhh" at the pretty ROTK doesn't mean it HAPPENS to have the best writing in the world too. It was mediocre writing at best, with decent acting and very good presentation. American Splendor or even City of God were MUCH more deserving for the best adapted screenplay award.
Just to put things into perspective, don't you think it's quite the coincidence that Francis Coppola's (director of Godfather) precious little daughter happens to have written the best original screenplay? Oh, what that little monarchial actors' clique does to make little Sofia happy.
I mean.. Jeez! I understand that people like things that are bad. Like candy bars, for instance. You may also like the music for LOTR, but it was still bad. Boring themes, tired arrangements, incredibly monotonous, embarrassing use of wood flute. Film scoring 101, basically. The Triplets of Belleville, among others, had much much better scores.
Doesn't anybody realize this? I found this particular award insulting to all musicians who actually have an original voice.
To be fair, it's a hard job to score three 3.5 hour movies. Still, that doesn't make the music better. Just adequate at best.
Oh, well. You can't win them all.
- Lebofsky
I'm no fanboy of the series, but I did see one of the documentaries that said that Jackson had something like 9 different film crews shooting scenes at the same time, around 15000 extras, and 3 separate movies being filmed concurrently... If doing that for over 3 years straight and coming up with the eye candy and enthralling films that make the LOTR doesn't earn the right to "Best Director", then I guess I'm not clear on what does...
I don't see where Lucas even enters in that line of thinking.
In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
It's actually not that surprising that this took so long, really.
well... let me clarify that--it is unfortunate that it took so long to have fantasy considered serious, but it shouldn't be surprising once you consider the evolution of other quasi-similar genre's.
The first basic pulp fiction magazine (the Argosy) appeared in the late 1800's. (1896 actually)... Some of the first SF pieces people tend to offer up are Atlantis (1628), Utopia (1516) and even Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1817) though the latter has since fallen moreso into the horror genre.
Jules verne took over the room in the 1850's and started pumping out all kinds of things. Later (1894), H. G. Wells was considered the man. And even though almost all of these titles faired well with the public--none of them were considered "serious" literature for decades --some for hundreds of years.
The Oscar voters are not the only critics to dispute the validity of fantasy and SF--this has been going on for hundred(s) of years. Back in the day, critics didn't even take tragedy and comedy drama as serious "art"... they used whatever would sell. Macbeth was rewritten numerous times with comical subplots (the witches songs) inserted so the public would keep dishing out their money. The Jew of Malta (generally considered the first comic-book-style evil villain ever written) wasn't at all taken seriously for hundreds of years after ben jonson wrote it.
All genre's take time to be accepted and considered serious. Tragedy and Comedy were written back with Sophocles and Aristophenes... critics respect this "age" and likewise respect them more. Every piece of pottery you look at in art 101 isn't the greatest example in the world--most of them were piles of crap back when they were made--but they're considered fabulous examples now just because of their age (this obviously doesn't apply to every example).
Western literature is another perfect example. Owen Wister's "the virginian" , zane gray's "riders of the purple sage", and jack schaefer's "shane" are all fabulous pieces of art... but only very recently have they even been considered literature at all.
It's not the content that's holding them back... it's the age and the way critics interpret this--and this really shouldn't be all too surprising... even if it is wrong.
You've got to remember that a great many scenes used mainly CGI backdrops, and I'm not sure this category was designed to cover footage of non-live scenery and action.
That would be a good point, but I wonder if you realize how much of the scenery in th LotR trilogy was *not* CGI? In fact, I would say most of the backgrounds were not, they were either real locations or "bigatures". Edoras was actually built full-scale on that windswept hill. Helm's deep was a colossol bigature built in a quarry. Even the Black Gate and both Towers were physical models, not CGI.
Besides, most of the naval warfare shots in M&C:FSotW were actually digital, so I don't see that it is all that different from RotK in terms of cinematographic technique.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
My point, which you totally missed, was that if you basically had an identical movie, with pretty much exactly the same story, special effects, etc, that was told as a stand-alone movie, then it wouldn't have been so likely to sweep the board dramatically.
A fair amount of the voters who voted for ROTK weren't just voting for ROTK they were voting for the trilogy as a whole. In essence, it's likely that ROTK won Oscars in several categories that it wouldn't have won solely on it's own merits.
Being the final film in a trilogy (and a trilogy that was played out to audiences over a relatively short period of time), ROTK greatly benefited from earlier parts of the story when it came to the Oscars and other awards.
Similarly, the first two films will, to some extent, have been hurt by the fact that they were the opening and middle acts of a trilogy, and some people who were blown away by The Fellowship Of The Ring or The Two Towers or both won't have voted for them because "it wasn't the right time" to recognise Peter Jackson's achievements, for fear of having the trilogy monopolise the awards for three years running, etc.
Oscar voters don't always recognise the best performances. Often people will win awards "because it was their turn". Martin Landau winning Best Supporting Actor for his performance in Ed Wood over Samuel L. Jackson for his turn in Pulp Fiction is the best example. Michael Caine's recent Oscar for Cider House Rules is another.
Whether you want to admit it or not, it's a simple fact that, sometimes, voters ignore the rules and reward people for their careers rather than for any single effort. In a way, the voters were doing that to some degree when they feted ROTK this year.
If you still think I'm talking rubbish ask yourself this question: why did ROTK win so many Oscars, every single one which it was up for, when both FOTR and TTT came away relatively empty-handed? Was ROTK that much better than it's predecessors? Was it that groundbreaking compared to what had come before?
To answer your question directly, the point isn't to create a hypothetical and ask "What if there hadn't been two other movies?" the point is to recognise that all three movies were being voted for this time around, not just one.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Yeah, so why did you yell again? It wasn't you getting the award...
Because it's human nature to enjoy being validated, even if it's just a validation of your tastes. Just as children enjoy being told that their drawings are good, adults enjoy having some aspect of their personality praised, whether it's their sense of humor or their taste in movies.
Just to be clear, I haven't even seen ROTK (not out on DVD where I live); I'm speaking generally.
(* Spoiler for those that have not read the book or seen ROTK *)
The LOTR trilogy was far too complex to stay true to in the movie. There are somethings that I disagreed with that were change. After watching the cometary of FOTR, I now know why he stressed the Uruk Hai, and that was because an Evil Eye far away is hard to show visually. But I accept most of his changes, even with Frodo fighting with Golum at the end, and falling over the cliff. He paid homage to Golum in his glee, but if he would have just fallen over the edge, then that would have been visually anticlimactic. The fight with Frodo is much more exciting to watch.
I'm not a die hard LOTR fan so I can accept the changes made without being too upset, even if I disagree with him. I don't believe that PJ was trying to be better than Tolkien, he was just trying to make it better visually. It's hard to compete with someones imagination, and I thing PJ did a good job.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
I too find it amazing that the third RotK did not get nominated for cinematography.
As for the actor nominations, that does not surprise me all that much. You have a sweeping epic story with a humongous cast. Just, exactly, which character carries the story? None. They're really almost all supporting actors, and each one has a smaller part of the whole. (with the exception of Frodo, who it could be argued resembles a lead character, at least in relation to Sam...). Or, I suppose, you could argue there are something like 12 lead actors/actresses. Either way, I don't see how you could select just one when all were so good.
The only thing that bugs me is that it didn't beat out Titanic in total wins or noms. While I liked Titanic (I'll admit it, I thought it very well done) I believe that movie pales significantly compared to the incredible trilogy Peter Jackson produced. (Actually, most do). And something should be said about Ben-Hur's achievement here as well, it won at a time when there were significantly fewer categories, which is something that should not be forgotten.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Sure, but yelling at a TV set, or applauding (which seems to happen a bit in theaters) seems self-congratulatory.
Just to be clear, I haven't even seen ROTK (not out on DVD where I live); I'm speaking generally.
I don't watch the "Oscars" as with the Grammys and a few other award shows, I feel they're pretty phoney. It's Hollywood's big chance to toot its horn, but I see enough movies to realize some of the best don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the much promoted favorites. It's rather like going to the track where half the horses are ballyhooed no end, while the other horses gates are locked just to be sure there's no surprises.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Am I the only one sick of every single year listening to cynics like you announce how worthless the Oscars are because THEIR personal favourites don't win?
"Why does LOTR deserve best picture over Master and Commander, Lost in Translation, or dare I say (even though it wasn't nominated) The Last Samurai? Because it had a bigger budget and was hyped more?"
Jackson and co. deserves their accolades. The entire trilogy is one of the most breathtaking and painstakingly crafted achievements in cinematic history, and deserves some recognition for the monumental scope, art, dedication, blood sweat and tears and LOVE that went into making these films. Quite frankly it infuriates me to listen to people like you suggest it's only because of the budget or hype that these movies won. Thousands of incredibly talented people from all over the world came together and poured their heart and souls into this thing for FIVE YEARS, the end result is awesome (4 years ago everyone said LotR COULD NOT be adapted to the screen, period), and it deserves some respect.
There, I answered your question. Now why don't you answer it yourself? (Instead of just saying "X was better") What exactly does Master & Commander, Lost in Translation, and Last Samurai have that proves superior "artistic merit"?
Mega-hyped massive-budget blockbusters do NOT win every year. Is that what you would call "A Beautiful Mind"? Or how about "American Beauty"? What about "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Rainman"?
In my opinion, Gladiator WAS a better movie than Chocolat. It wasn't better than Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but that was a foreign language film, and it won in its appropriate category.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson