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."

137 of 1,000 comments (clear)

  1. And one naked gold man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    to rule them all!

    1. Re:And one naked gold man by flewp · · Score: 5, Funny

      I yelled my butt off when I saw LotR win Best Picture.

      I'm so happy I'm not you.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    2. Re:And one naked gold man by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny
      And one naked gold man . . .

      Thank you for that image that I now have to burn out of my mind, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:And one naked gold man by Cecil · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's amazing is that no other film has won 11 oscars ever.

      Untrue. Both "Titanic" and "Ben-Hur" achieved this. Neither of them managed to win in all the categories they were nominated in, though. (Which actually suggests they may have been "better" since they were nominated in 12 or more categories)

      Anyway, nice try, but you lose.

    4. Re:And one naked gold man by Dead_Nazguhl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's...Lord of the Rings... -waves hands as if the answer is obvious- -pauses- Ok, I LOVE this movie, and I don't think the last two got enough credit. First off, now RotK is in the same hall of fame as the likes of Ben-Hur and it's the first Fantasy film to achieve the honor of best picture in the Academy Awards. I was really happy for Peter Jackson and the rest of the creative staff behind the project because I felt they sorely deserved it. And I chose to express this happiness by yelling. So? What's the big deal?

    5. Re:And one naked gold man by bugbread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:And one naked gold man by tom+taylor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you beat your fists against your chest?

    7. Re:And one naked gold man by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, he'll do that in a few years if Jackson wins for King Kong...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    8. Re:And one naked gold man by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think it's fairly telling that the movie won so big without any of the "best actor / actress / supporting actor / actress" nominations. To me, it says "an A-list lead actor is not required to make an entertaining film."

      I personally think it's great news for everyone (except the big name actors.) Star-appeal is not important to me -- story-appeal is. As long as the actors portraying the story are competent (and so many actors are these days,) it always takes a well-written story to successfully entertain us. Sure, a new breakthrough in special effects will draw us, but that's fleeting (witness "The Matrix" vs. "The Sequel").

      I'm obviously ignoring the obvious sex appeal that some actors and actresses bring to the screen here, but that, too, is fleeting. And again there is always a fresh crop of appealing 20-somethings poised to grab the brass ring if it ever swings their way.

      --
      John
    9. Re:And one naked gold man by FatalTourist · · Score: 4, Funny

      And you yelled at last years oscars too.

      Next year we're gonna take best picture. And we're gonna take best costumes, and we're gonna take best makeup, and we're gonna take best special effects, and best editing and-- YERRAAAAARRRRGGH!

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
    10. Re:And one naked gold man by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    11. Re:And one naked gold man by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      >Because it's human nature to enjoy being validated, even if it's just a validation of your tastes.

      Did you yell when you modded up?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    12. Re:And one naked gold man by darc · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the other hand... best line of the night, from the acceptance speech for the "FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
      THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS":

      "We're so glad that Lord of the Rings doesn't qualify for this category."

      Although if you think about it, there was elvish in it...

      --
      Tired of legitimate data sources? Try UNCYCLOPEDIA
    13. Re:And one naked gold man by Monkey+Angst · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's a shame that the third film didn't get a nomination for cinematography (neither did TTT, but FOTR won for it).

      My suspicion is that after FOTR's win, the cinematographers in the Academy got the Extended DVD of FOTR, which showed how digital grading was used on pretty much every scene. "That's not real cinematography!" they cried, and shut out the subsequent two films.

      Just a theory...

      --
      stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
    14. Re:And one naked gold man by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      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
    15. Re:And one naked gold man by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I yelled my butt off when I saw LotR win Best Picture.

      Am I the only one who is sick and tired of the standard "blockbuster" films getting Best Picture while more unique, original (and lower-budget) films get shafted year after year?

      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?

      I stopped watching or caring about the academy awards when Gladiator (the hyped big-budget movie of 2000) beat Crouching Tiger and Chocolat for best picture. Either of those movies deserved best picture ten times more then Gladiator.

      Let the big budget films have best actor/actress if they actually earned it (Crowe did in Gladiator). But it seems like they are automatically destined to get Best Picture -- which annoys the hell out of me. Though I realize I'm in the minority and probably begging to get modded flamebait by speaking out against LOTR on /.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:And one naked gold man by Wraithlyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  2. Great by blahbooboo2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is great to see a fantasy film get the recognition it deserves...a masterful film, even if I actually didn't care for it :)

    1. Re:Great by tankdilla · · Score: 5, Funny
      From the yahoo link, Return of the King swept all 11 categories in which it was nominated. It matched the record 11 wins of "Titanic" and "Ben-Hur" and became only the third movie to sweep every nominated category, following Gigi and The Last Emperor, which both went nine-for-nine.

      Quickly reading that, I thought it said Gigli, and that I had somehow ended up in Bizarro World.

      --

      -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quickly reading that, I thought it said Gigli

      Well technically, Gigli did win for all categories it was nominated.

    3. Re:Great by frenetic3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Liv Tyler was hot until one of my buddies pointed out the striking, eerie resemblance to Steven Tyler.

      And then the vomiting began.

      *sigh*

      -fren

      --
      "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    4. Re:Great by woohoodonuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Great by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Find a picture of her mother, Bebe Buell, and you'll start to feel a lot better. That would be the November, 1974 issue.

      KFG

    6. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I liked Liv Tyler's "i wish I were lisa loeb and actually intelligent" glasses.

    7. Re:Great by rmathew · · Score: 5, Funny
      Quickly reading that, I thought it said Gigli Well technically, Gigli did win for all categories it was nominated.

      It did win all the awards it was nominated for elswhere though.

      :-)

    8. Re:Great by Typhon100 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Harvard is offering a course this semester under Anthropology called "Humans, Aliens, and Future Home Worlds: An Anthropologist Looks at Science Fiction."

      Of course, I jumped on it, and so far it has been very interesting. We read Wells' War of the Worlds; Butler's Wild Seed; Clarke's Childhood's End; LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness; and Haldeman's The Forever War. There's also a bunch of books about scifi in general, for example why Star Trek is such a success.

      A lot of people were incredulous that this class was being offered, but I think it points to a growing respect for the sci-fi genre.

      In a related note, courses on mythology, including stuff about goblins, trolls, dragons, etc, have been offered for some time. But the focus is mythology, and not really modern fantasy.

    9. Re:Great by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Earliest science fiction I know of is Lucian's Vera Historia, which includes a moon travel tale, from AD 160 (there's no missing zero there, folks, that's 2nd century). For fantasy, there's the Odyssey (which is fantasy at least as much as it is mythology), 700 BC (yes, BC). Oh, and it's spelled Aristophanes. And Greek tragedy at least was taken very seriously in Athens: there were competitions for best lead actor (protagonist) and second actor (deuteragonist) and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best trilogy (and only three trilogies were presented: sometimes they were real trilogies, especially early on in Aeschylus' day, but usually they were only thematically related, if that), and there were reserved seats for the VIPs, including the priest of Dionysos, the god to whom the productions were dedicated. And by the way, a lot of stuff has survived from classical times that isn't "just respected because of its age" - ever hear of Lycophron? No? You know why? Because he sucks. Has survived at least 1900 years, probably 2100.

  3. A great day for fantasy by bigjocker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A great day for fantasy by Syncdata · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh yes, three quality, high grossing movies, followed by a torrent of sewage. By this time next year, we'll be watching Gauntlet: The Movie.
      But hey, Ender's Game is on the horizon.

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    2. Re:A great day for fantasy by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Audience needs entertainment...badly!

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    3. Re:A great day for fantasy by Ancient+Devices+King · · Score: 5, Funny

      My source is somewhat suspect, but I'd say Dungeon Siege: the Movie would fall under that category.

      --
      -"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
    4. Re:A great day for fantasy by zcat_NZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      The word down here is that New Zealand has been unofficially nominated "Best Supporting Country in a Motion Picture"

      Anyway, one thing I promise, you will NEVER see Peter Jackson produce anything even close to a 'crappy' movie. The guy is a true genius.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    5. Re:A great day for fantasy by slycer9 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>Anyway, one thing I promise, you will NEVER see Peter Jackson produce anything even close to a 'crappy' movie.

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001392/

      Take your pick. Meet the Feebles springs to mind first.

      (It's late, didn't feel like HTML'ing on this crap. Sue me or mod me down...just don't take my twinkies.)

      --
      Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
    6. Re:A great day for fantasy by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course a science fiction movie has already won a best picture Oscar:

      Around the World in 80 Days.

      KFG

    7. Re:A great day for fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NOTHING Peter Jackson has done is bad, at least not in a gigli sort of way. You make not like meet the feebles, or bad taste, or deal alive, or any of his other movies. My dad did not like lord of the rings, but does that make it a bad movie...

      If want bad movies look for Battlefield Earth, or Howard the duck.

    8. Re:A great day for fantasy by jesterzog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course, we may see now a lot of crappy fantasy movies just riding the wave ...

      Hopefully not all of them, though. I'm looking forward to seeing how the CS Lewis films turn out.

      For anyone who doesn't know, they're already in pre-production, starting with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. They're being produced in New Zealand again, although this time the production is centred in Auckland rather than Wellington.

    9. Re:A great day for fantasy by prockcore · · Score: 5, Funny

      By this time next year, we'll be watching Gauntlet: The Movie.

      Blue Wizard is Dying!
      Pale Nerd needs Popcorn!

    10. Re:A great day for fantasy by Are+We+Afraid · · Score: 5, Informative

      "...the majority of the physics of the spinning cylinder we're correct..."

      The word "we're" is an abbreviation of "we are." The word "were" is the past tense form of "be."

      I wouldn't have mentioned it, but you made the mistake not once, not twice, but THREE times. This denotes an actual misunderstanding, as opposed to a simple lapse of grammatical analitiy (if I may be allowed to coin a word).

      Grammar: it's your friend.

      --
      Rot-13 my address to e-mail me.
      "So I hurry back to little earth / For another life another birth"
    11. Re:A great day for fantasy by IainHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      Take your pick. Meet the Feebles springs to mind first.

      Actually, Meet the Feebles is my favourite of his films. I'm guessing you've never actually seen it, because anyone who has seen a puppet trying to save the show by singing about sodomy, which is rhymed with, "you might incur the wrath of god on me", would agree that it is genius.

  4. Finally!!! by 2674 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Finally!!! by 2674 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I will bite. Life is defined by your experiences on this planet, and getting involved in triumphs of people whose work you like is part of it. There are many things which are great and are an end in themselves, but tell me, how many such monumental achievements will people remember 100 years from now? Awards like this make sure that future generations will watch them again and again because they were recongnised the academy, If you don't agree with me, then Ask Peter jackson himself is it makes a difference to him or not. Having a holier than thou attitude does not help, but understanding how this world works does.

    2. Re:Finally!!! by El · · Score: 5, Funny

      LOTR is not just an epic, it is a... book!

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:Finally!!! by jvj24601 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but tell me, how many such monumental achievements will people remember 100 years from now?

      Well, I don't know. Think about to what you remember from studying history, and try to recall events from 1904. Anything spring to mind? Within that era, I guess I think of the invention of the airplane (I know, I know, not exactly in 1904). It was just before WWI. That's all that comes to mind, initially.

      Who do we really remember after 100 years? If you're really important, maybe you'll have a statue built of you, or a library or school or a museum exhibit named after you. After 200 years? Half a millenium?

      I loved the trilogy, I watched the Oscars, and I was extremely happy for all of the awards ROTK won, but it's difficult to think that 100 years from now that this will be anything more than a footnote in history.

    4. Re:Finally!!! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know about the Oscars, but the Grammies work by the collection of all individuals who have ever worked on a movie, album, etc. voting on the winners. The record and movie executives cough up the dough to send copies of the works they want to receive nominations and awards for to all those voters, and voila! You have a total sham for an awards show.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    5. Re:Finally!!! by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Awards like this make sure that future generations will watch them again and again because they were recongnised the academy

      Because they're falling all over themselves to rent "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) and "Going My Way" (1944).


      And "How Green Was My Valley" (1941) is much more famous than that year's "Citizen Kane".

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    6. Re:Finally!!! by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Informative
      LOTR is not just an epic, it is a... book!

      Which is why Jackson won best adapted screenplay. Also Ian McKellen gave a big shout out to Tolkien when introing a LOTR clip at the beginning of the award show.

    7. Re:Finally!!! by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      but it's difficult to think that 100 years from now that this will be anything more than a footnote in history.

      I've got a dozen Charlie Chaplin DVDs, not quite 100 years on but 60-80.

    8. Re:Finally!!! by kfg · · Score: 4, Informative

      However, as a counterpoint in support of the original point, I remember and have Watched "Wings" because it was the first best picture winner.

      And strictly off the top of my head, in 1904 the first Vanderbilt Cup auto race would be held under the auspices of the AAA, and the Japanese attacked Russia at Port Arthur, which event would have repurcussions throughout the first half of the 20th century.

      KFG

    9. Re:Finally!!! by isomeme · · Score: 4, Informative

      Off the top of my head? Einstein publishes his first paper on special relativity, James Joyce meets Nora Barnacle (setting the date later used for the events of Ulysses), and Aleister Crowley pens The Book of the Law . Quite a year, 1904.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    10. Re:Finally!!! by Belgand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Citizen Kane is largely considered to have lost due to political reasons rather than artistic ones. Hearst drove himself to the point of bankruptcy in trying to crush the film paying theaters not to show it and managed to pay off or otherwise influence enough voters to keep the film from winning.

      That said a lot of Oscars are political and judged more on the basis of fickle opinions of people with poor taste than anything. Box office gross also plays a disturbingly large role. When you get down to it the Academy Awards are prestigious in name only having long ago lost any actual indication of a film's merit. In Stanley Kubrick's entire career the only Oscar he ever won was for Special Effects on 2001 despite the quality of his films.

  5. 11 Wins by thenextpresident · · Score: 4, Informative

    With 11 Oscars, RotK ties with Ben Hur, and Titanic as the only movies to have won 11 Oscars. So it was a double victory for PJ and crew.

    --
    Jason Lotito
    1. Re:11 Wins by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 4, Funny

      OK, I have been at /. too long. At first, I thought the reference to PJ was PJ at groklaw.net =)

    2. Re:11 Wins by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:11 Wins by athorshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:11 Wins by haystor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Titanic had a slippery Kate Winslet. They also killed DiCaprio.

      So it wasn't all bad.

      --
      t
    5. Re:11 Wins by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
  6. Well deserved by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    LoTR tied for most Oscar's all time with Ben Hurr and Titanic. I guess the academy decided to wait for the finish of the series to give the props that they so deserved.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Well deserved by nevets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (* 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
  7. This was well deserved! by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!

    I don't always agree with the Oscars on who should receive it, but IMHO Return of the King deserved each and everyone of them! Kudos to the jury for finally giving Peter Jackson the recognition he rightfully earned after creating (again IMHO) one of the most memorable film projects ever!

    1. Re:This was well deserved! by hattig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dunno about that bland Annie Lennox song ... A Mighty Wind's At The End of the Rainbow was a much better song, IMO. However in all other respects the film deserved the awards.

      Note: Ben Hur was nominated for 12, and Titanic was nominated for 14 ... so LOTR:ROTK is the first (to win 11) to win all the awards it was nominated for.

  8. Retroactive Recognition by theRhinoceros · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Retroactive Recognition by r0xah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of the awards this may be true, but the best director at the very least is deserved even for just RoTK. Peter Jackson had to conduct an army of actors, extras and stage hands. He more than likely worked his ass off from before the first day of shooting till the final cut of RoTK was ready to be shipped out. He has done an amazing job of translating an amazing book into 3 amazing movies.

      --
      those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -isaac asimov
    2. Re:Retroactive Recognition by Erbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That was my thought, too...that the Academy was waiting until the whole story was complete before showering LotR with the honors it so richly deserved. The whole trilogy will stand forever as the first successful attempt to translate one of the greatest works of fantasy literature in history into film, one that caused so many of us (including me) to sit back and say, "Yes...that's what it's supposed to look like."

      And here are the two things I had to say when RotK completed its sweep:

      "GEEK MOVIES RULE THE UNIVERSE!"

      "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and with the Oscars bind them!"

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
  9. Why not cinematography by vinit79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bohoo ...... Why wasnt it nominated for best cinematography ??? I havnt seen better cinematography before.

    We loves our precious

    1. Re:Why not cinematography by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Why not cinematography by avkillick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Why not cinematography by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  10. Re:They didn't win in one category they were in by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, they won in all eleven. Even Steven Spielberg said "It's a clean sweep!", and they tied Titanic and Ben-Hur for movie with the most Oscars at 11.

  11. WETA by crumbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is interesting to see a movie that contains a leat one digital artifact in every shot or sequence simply overwhelm the awards. When will we see the effects groups have a category?

    Oh yes, Bill Murray should have one for best actor. No doubt.

    1. Re:WETA by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  12. Best quote of the night by newdamage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Peter Jackson: Hopefully fantasy is an f-word that won't get bleeped by the 5 second delay.

    That made me laugh, and it's sad but true, it literally took one of the greatest achievements in film making to get the movie industry to recognize the fantasy genre as a valid medium of film making, not just a bunch of movies for fanboys in costume.

    --
    ce n'est pas un Sig.
    1. Re:Best quote of the night by bonch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "fantasy genre" is only as good as its movies. If fantasy movies haven't won in the past, it's because they weren't actually all that good. What others have there been? Star Wars?

    2. Re:Best quote of the night by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful


      That made me laugh, and it's sad but true, it literally took one of the greatest achievements in film making to get the movie industry to recognize the fantasy genre as a valid medium of film making, not just a bunch of movies for fanboys in costume.


      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.
  13. Loved 'em all, but... by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 4, Informative

    not everyone did... Check out this list of deviations.

  14. Ian McKellen Robbed by destine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I feel a great disturbance in the force...as if thousands of fantasy geeks suddenly cried out...

    Great job, PJ & Crew!

    Ryan

  16. We loves it, oh yes. by aardvarko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sam: What we need is a little bit of recognition.
    Gollum: What's recognishin, precious? What's recognishin, eh?
    Sam: Rec-og-ni-tion. Honors, awards, critics in a stew. Lovely big golden awards with a nice nameplate on the bottom.
    Sam: Even you couldn't say no to that.
    Gollum: Oh yes, we could. Spoilin' nice shinies. Give it to us raw and unfinished. You keep nasty awards.
    Sam: You're hopeless.

  17. Enough About RotK, Bring on The Hobbit! by Scot+Seese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  18. It would have been nice... by youknowmewell · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have been nominated for best foreign film. I mean, there were at least 3 different languages besides English that they spoke in it! I'm sure there is a country out their who's population speaks Elvish or whatever it is people from Mordor speak!

  19. Re:They didn't win in one category they were in by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Informative

    He sure wasn't nominated this year:

    Alec Baldwin, The Cooler
    Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams
    Djimon Hounsou, In America
    Tim Robbins, Mystic River
    Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai.

  20. Best Director by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 5, Funny
    Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!

    Yes! I know he was mad at the Academy for overlooking Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive!

  21. "This one goes to 11!" by Black+Art · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone had to say it.

    --
    "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
  22. Re:ROTK was robbed!! by Derkec · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's best Foriegn Language Film. The Canadian film was in French. That said, there was enough non-english spoken for me :).

  23. Andy Serkis snubbed? by blockhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  24. Dear Mr. Lucas: by eidechse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't bother.

    Thanks,

    The Mgmt.

    1. Re:Dear Mr. Lucas: by Admiral1973 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The sad part is that he WILL bother, and Episode III will invariably disappoint us, even with the lowered expectations we have following Phantom Menace and AOTC. I'll still go see it, but I'm not sorry to say that my childhood dreams of being a Jedi have been replaced by thoughts of leading the armies of Men and Elves against Orcs and Balrogs. Watching each LOTR movie on opening day is an experience I will treasure, and I can't say the same about any of the recent Star Wars movies.

      --
      Lousy minor setbacks! This world sucks! -- Homer Simpson
  25. The Hobbit by evanbro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe Peter Jackson will have some encouragement (not to mention financial backing) to do the Hobbit now. Given what they pulled off with Gollum, I'd like to see what Smaug would look like...that would be awesome.

    1. Re:The Hobbit by bckrispi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Peter Jackson has the encouragement and the studio backing to do the Hobbit. What he does not have is the legal right to film an adaptation of the book. Those strings, I believe are still held by the Tolkein Estate. And judging from the fact that Christopher Tolkien disowned his own son for supporting Peter Jackson's efforts w/ LOTR, I don't see him giving a green light to do the Hobbit any time soon.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    2. Re:The Hobbit by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What he does not have is the legal right to film an adaptation of the book.
      My understanding is that NewLine does indeed have the rights to film an adaptation of the Hobbit. What they don't have is the rights to distribute that movie. Those rights are owned by MGM/United Artists. I think that there is a very good chance that it will happen in the next five years. The Tolkein estate is not involved at all.
    3. Re:The Hobbit by dzym · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, that's not quite true. While Chris Tolkien has a certain antipathy to the LOTR movies, the Tolkien Estate as a whole has released statements to the effect that they are not standing in the way of a Hobbit adaptation.

      The blame for this one can be laid squarely at the feet of MGM/UA.

  26. Whew by Derkec · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess we won't have to witness the Nerd Riots after all. And I had my D20 prepared and everything.

    Never had more fun watching the Oscars. That said, by the end, I almost felt sad that so many other films weren't winning. Oh well, I'm sure it was an honor just to be nominated.

  27. The stuff of records... by Howard+Beale · · Score: 4, Informative

    The previous record for a film winning all its nominations was nine, set by "Gigi" (1958) and "The Last Emperor" (1988).

    "Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King" tied both "Ben-Hur" (1959) and "Titanic" (1997) with its 11 awards, the record for most Oscars in a single year.

    "Rings" is also the first fantasy film to win the top award.

    Aside from best picture, the awards "Return of the King" won were: director (Peter Jackson), adapted screenplay (Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens), song ("Into the West"), score (Howard Shore), visual effects, art direction, costume design, makeup, sound mixing and film editing.

  28. Geek isn't geek by screwballicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  29. What would J.R.R. think? by saforrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As happy as I am that this year's Oscar sweep didn't go to a movie that sucked, I still don't think Tolkien would be happy with the state of things, were he around to see it. In his famous essay On Fairy Stories, he explains why he believes Fantasy is best left to words, and that Fantasy and Drama are inherently different and incompatible:

    "In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. 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. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or "imagination" that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy."

    1. Re:What would J.R.R. think? by chazwurth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:What would J.R.R. think? by saforrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  30. Didn't like the LOTR movies. by colmore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading the series has forever been on my "to do" list but I never have. I enthusiastically sat through the first two movies, but half way through the third I thought to myself "something just isn't clicking here." Upon rewatching the first two movies, I have to say, now that the "oh wow" factor of big monsters fighting on beautiful scenery has worn off, I really didn't like these films.

    And I think the reason is this: the characters do not interact with each other, and are for the most part not interesting. There's a tedious romance encountered entirely via flashback and voiceover. There's an INCREADIBLY obvious and overstated (again and again and again) little rivalry with Sam and Gollum for Frodo's attention. Aside from that the characters really have no relation to one another, they just wander together, and by the end we learn (but never really see) that they've all become the best of pals. Even more eggregious, the bad guys have no direct connection to the good guys. No character has a personal stake in what he's working toward. They're just bad, and the fellowship is working against them because they're the heroes. No further explanation is really provided.

    Upon watching the third movie I realized that maybe Aragorn was reclaiming some sort of birthright or something, but why this is a really big deal (aside from the movie's vauge assertion that kings are better than other forms of leadership) is beyond me. The rest of the characters either literally wandered onto the screen with no real explanation (in the case of 3 out of 4 hobbits) and stuck with the quest just because they were nice guys, or showed up already billed as heroes around a table. I never knew who Legolas was and I never really cared.

    Boromeir was pretty interesting, and the rivalry/respect he had going with Frodo and Aragorn was the only conflict between individuals that was the least bit interesting in the whole trilogy. Every other time individuals clashed with each other it was the result of an evil mage or something, and there was no ambiguity whatsoever to what was going to happen.

    I voiced all of this to a friend of mine and he said that if I read the books, people's motivations would be a little more fleshed out. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. I'm watching these movies as movies, and they're too long and don't really make much sense.

    They're certainly better than most sci fi blockbusters, I just don't think ROTK was Oscar worthy. They beat the entire Alien series hands- down. They're more consistently entertaining than the old Star Wars and way better than the new one. The first Matrix was a better movie, but the sequels were a mess of "cool" with no logic. Perhaps the fantasy / sci-fi action genre isn't for me, but the movies seem universally poorly written. I don't see why it's so hard to have interesting, believable people interacting with each other inside a fantastic environment.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  31. It's been a fun ride. by Daikiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This post is from August 25th of 1998, more than five years ago. It's the first mention of the movies being made that I could find on Slashdot. No comments, but it's interesting to realize that tonight's awards ceremony has been the the culmination of a story we've all been following here for more than half a decade.

    --
    I want the fire back.
  32. Fanboy much by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!

    Why? Did you see the other nominated films? By what metric do you determine the 'best director'? If you feel he has been snubbed in the past, that's too bad. The nomination was for this film. (Yes, the voters have frequently righted past wrongs or close calls). A body of work award is typically rewarded specially, and much later in the career.

    It's not as if Jackson is particularly old, either. So what is the reasoning behind the 'finally' comment? I just don't see it. There were plenty of good contenders. Nope, it boils down to plain old nerdish fanboyism.

    And while I'm burning karma, perhaps the voters were actually thinking of G. Lucas when voting for Jackson. Sure, Jackson pumped out a couple of great movies, did wonders for product management, but Lucas helped define a genre and a generation, both in the insular world of Hollywood and in US culture in general. Yet he's never been 'blessed' by AMPAS, as space opera was too kiddyish. Here's the chance to correct that mistake.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  33. Re:Yawn.... by screwballicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Worst. Oscars. Ever. by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  35. Re:Yay! by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets go for something a little less kiddie than Eddings. If a director could get the main character right, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever by Donaldson would be good. Although I'll be happy with damn near anything that doesn't go the Xena/Hercules route.

    Hmmm. Hard to think of too many. Many fantasy series are so long its not doable in a single movie, and I don't see too many more multi-parts in the near future.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  36. Re:Posting anonymously by bonch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Doesn't the author's son's opinion count in your minds?

    No, especially since Christopher Tolkien has explicitly stated he holds no ill-will toward the filmmakers or the films.

    He didn't disown his son, he removed him from any control over the Tolkien Estate over the fact that his son wanted official involvement with the movies.

    Next time you regurgitate rumor memes, research them a little. Hell, J.R.R. Tolkien himself is the one who signed over the movie rights and even suggested in one of his letters cutting Helm's Deep. He said it was "unnecessary."

    As things like that illustrate, the amusing thing about Tolkien purists is that their beloved god Tolkien was more liberal about changes then they are.

  37. While one could argue they should have swept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:While one could argue they should have swept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of your "problems" arise from the fact that you've read the book and you know about scenes that will appear in the Extended Edition.

      Well, considering the "knowing scenes that will appear in the extended edition," is that not what video editing is? Removing portions of the film before it goes to theatre. Proper editing results in a seamless feeling, improper editing results in a few oversights. Those that I mentioned arise from the movie itself, not just from the books.

      A complaint from book to movie would be the fact that Glorfindel was replaced by Arwen at the ford. I didn't like that, but realize that wouldn't make one whit of difference to someone who hasn't read the books.

      Taking it further, it would be a glitch to someone who is more familiar with Tolkien's work that Denethor bit into a cherry tomato. This is what Tolkien originally had and purposely changed to pickle when someone pointed out that medieval times, which he was trying to emulate, did not have cherry tomatoes. So one could argue (if they were rediculous) that this is going willfully against Tolkien's design. I personally could care less.

      While I haven't seen the movie in some weeks so I can't quote the middle portion, the other two relatively stand. When they arrive at the Gates of Mordor, they arrange themselves on the hill, then a group rides forward. Then back. While it may cut to scenes on Mount Doom in between, there is absolutely no purpose, nor reason for that ride forward given. The fact that I know what should have happened actually makes the err MORE forgivable rather than less, seeing as I realize what should fill in the gap. Therefore, it was not poor scene writing, but poor editing. Which is what the award in question pertained to.

      Similarly, Denethor constantly talks about something he's "seen." How they would fall, how it would all end, how he knew that Aragorn was coming. To those who had read the books, it made sense....they knew he had a palantir, which gave him the opportunity to do so. Those who had not read the books were left questioning how he had "seen" these things, and why he dispaired so early. It felt...inconsistant. As if they had missed something.

      Now whether that is editing or an oversight on the part of the writers, I can't say. But from what we've seen, I would assume that there was some short scene concerning the palantir which was dubbed "expendible."

  38. No interaction? by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  39. Re:Posting anonymously by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're right about Tolkien signing over the movie rights.

    You're wrong about how C.Tolkien feels about the movies: I was quoting a story on CNN's "Paul Zahn" show 3 days ago with a Bio on Michael Tolkien. They said there was bad blood and C.Tolkien did not like the movies.

    But Tolkien did sell the rights, in the late 60s. He thought it was impossible to make them.

    I'm not that much a purist: I would like to see in 20 years an all photorealistic CGI version made in 6 movies, one for each "Book" (each volume is two books), and a more faithful one.

    Part of the joy of Tolkien's work is knowing that this river is 20 miles from that hill. Those who have read the books hundreds of times know it that well. (And it has been emboddied in the Tolkien MUCK.) They missed the boat on the magic.

  40. Geek movies rule the universe! by boobox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Geek movies rule the universe! by Gmalloy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take it to the next step:

      Rank Title Total Box Office
      1 Titanic (1997) $600,743,440
      2 Star Wars (1977) $460,935,655 10
      3 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459 242
      4 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444 -
      5 Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375 -
      6 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003) $361,118,934 4
      7 Jurassic Park (1993) $356,763,175 -
      8 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) $340,478,898 5

      9 Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367 88
      10 Forrest Gump (1994) $329,452,287 120
      11 Lion King, The (1994) $328,423,001 -
      12 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891 -
      13 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) $313,837,577 7
      14 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583 -
      15 Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,064,373 130
      16 Independence Day (1996) $306,200,000 -

      17 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,411,224 224
      18 Sixth Sense, The (1999) $293,501,675 87
      19 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $290,158,751 15

      20 Home Alone (1990) $285,761,243 -
      21 Matrix Reloaded, The (2003) $281,492,479 -

      22 Shrek (2001) $267,652,016 128
      23 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $261,970,615 -

      24 How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) $260,031,035 -
      25 Jaws (1975) $260,000,000 79

      Using my own judgement, the geeks have 15 of the Top 25. This is just US box office. International box office is more slanted towards sci fi / fantasy, with 18 of the top 25 spots...

      US Box Office
      World Wide Box Office

    2. Re:Geek movies rule the universe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      lets make it more interesting

      Top 50, adjusted for inflation

      LOTR is doing real well there, infact nothing in the top 10, from the last decade except titanic.

      #1 is still Gone With the Wind, which grossed 198 million in 1939 dollars.

      1 Gone With the Wind MGM $1,218,328,752 $198,655,278 1939
      ...
      49 The Return of the King NL $361,940,947 $361,940,947 2003

  41. Thank Goodness! by t1nman33 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And so the great Nerd Riots of 2004 were prevented, and Peter Jackson took the Oscar into the West.

    --
    --- Where's my car, and why are these grass stains on my pants?
  42. And yet by bonch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And yet Tolkien was the one who signed away the movie rights, and even suggested editing changes, such as removing Helm's Deep because it was "unnecessary" to the story. Read his letters sometime.

    If Peter Jackson had suggested cutting Helm's Deep, how many of the purists would be saying things like "Tokien would be turning in his grave!" Meanwhile, Tolkien suggested it!

    Amusingly, Tolkien was much more liberal about Lord of the Rings than his own fans--he was editing and changing his mythologies up until the very end of his life. He stated several times he would have done things differently had he the chance to write the book over again.

    People who quibble because someone said something that someone else said in the books, or the Ents didn't decide to go to war and instead had to be convinced, etc., are UPTIGHT.

  43. Re:Yay! by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... hopefully we'll see a lot more good fantasy/odyssey movies.

    There's a new Mel Gibson movie everyone's talking about (does mythology count?).

  44. Screw The Hobbit...what about The Silmarillion? by Admiral1973 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, it's at least as large as the entire LOTR trilogy, if not in page length then in scope, but why not take part of the story, like Beren and Luthien, and adapt it into a two- or three-hour movie? Or the Fall of Gondolin, the destruction of Numenor, the assault on Thangorodrim? There's plenty of material to go around. It might be easier to make a screenplay from that book, since there isn't as much dialogue to constrain a screenwriter. They'd have free rein to tell the story in a film-friendly fashion.

    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
  45. What next? by El · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any chance we can talk Peter Jackson's team into making the Star Wars Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, so that they don't suck?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  46. Best Adapted Screenplay? by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Best Adapted Screenplay? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's the best _adapted_ screenplay, yeah, I agree with that. It took an -amazing- amount of work to convert that from book to screen. No other project took even a tenth amount of work as LOTR did.

      Best movie? No, to me, that was Lost in Translation, hands down. I'd put ROTK as maybe 4th, _maybe_ 3rd best movie of 2003. Nah, probably 4th. Maybe even 5th, depending on my mood. Freaking whiny Frodo, Sam & Gollum annoyed me no end. Fortunately, in ROTK all the other characters had great big important things to do. By far the best of the three LOTR films for me. Would love to see a Peter Jackson version of the Hobbit - let's hope all the legal wrangling gets sorted out. Definitely interested in seeing his version of King Kong.

      Anyway, best original screenplay? LIT won, and it _absolutely_ deserved to. What a subtle & sublime joy that film was. If they'd been kowtowing to Sofia, I guarantee you LIT would've won more than just what it did. _11_ for ROTK? Gimme a break - that's excessive, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, they were kind of stuck. Having ignored the LOTR movies more than they should've previously, they kind of had to give it a lot this time around. That's okay - Sofia & LIT have won so many awards in so many other awards shows recently, I think everyone knows how fantastic it was. It must suck not to be able to enjoy LIT, but some movies aren't for everyone. Strange that something so many geeks have loved for so long is the more mainstream option, but there ya go. If you look at the all-time box office champ list, you'll note that the vast majority of the top films are sci-fi or fantasy. Strange how the sci-fi/fantasy literature world doesn't get much respect, even though sci-fi/fantasy novels are generally FAR superior to what gets made into movies. I don't consider LOTR to be the height of fantasy literature, though I know many do.

      As for best movie? No _way_ did it deserve that. Even Finding Nemo was better than ROTK, but it got shunted off into another category.

  47. Well, okay, but the music still didn't deserve it. by Lebofsky · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I mentioned this last time people were celebrating the accumulation of LOTR Oscars, including an Oscar for music. Giving an award to the music once a couple years ago was a big mistake, twice is a horrific joke.

    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

  48. Re:Posting anonymously by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You guys are idiots: you are +5 informativing a liar. Here is Simon Tolkien's own website:

    http://www.simontolkien.com/final%20review/profi le .html

    "I haven't spoken to my father, except in an annual business-meeting context, for the past four years," he says, as matter-of-factly as possible. "My father is very angry with me - angry to the point that he never wishes to have anything to do with me again.

    "He communicates with me now through his lawyer, so I have to live on the basis that he will never speak to me again as long as he lives. He will never see my children. He will never have anything to do with me." He pauses. "And I grew up thinking this was such a wonderful person."

  49. Fanboy, not so much by mooman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  50. Re:The bit at the beginning by LauraW · · Score: 4, Informative
    I thought to myself, oh great, another preachy antipiracy message. Unfortunately I was on the phone at the time, so I didn't really catch what message (if any) he was presenting

    It was a joke, not a message. After checking his camera, he found the One Ring in his Crackerjack box, put it on, and was teleported into a bunch of movies. The highlight was probably seeing Michael Moore squashed by one of the Mumakil. Later he cracked a joke about Johnny Depp's "slightly gay pirate" in Pirates of the Caribbean being Jack Valenti's worst nightmare.

  51. Speaking of Outsorcing by Poligraf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is kind of OT, but I can't help noticing that even Hollywood outsorces A LOT of production.

    LOTR was made in NZ; most of movies and shows that depict Seattle are actually made in Vancouver, BC (for example, Highlander the series). Some others are made in the other parts of Canada.

    I do also know from a struggling animator friend about outsorcing of the cartoon making to South Korea etc.

    American creative workers look more and more like the elves whose power (technological edge ;-) diminishes, and who can't protect their turf against invaders (not that they are orks and goblins or evil).

    --
    Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
  52. Re:Well, okay, but the music still didn't deserve by bonch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, right. You're one of those pretentious "movie soundtrack" guys.

    I heard people humming the Fellowship theme as we came out of the theaters. Same thing happened with the Rohan theme coming out of Two Towers, and the Gondor theme from Return of the King. You're smoking crack. From the Charge of the Rohirrim to the rising crescendo of the lighting of Gondor's beacons to the creeping thing of Gollum, the soundtracks were genius.

    Tell us what exactly was wrong about the "embarrassing use of wood flute?" How pretentious.

  53. Funny thing is by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 4, Funny


    As things like that illustrate, the amusing thing about Tolkien purists is that their beloved god Tolkien was more liberal about changes then they are.


    The original creator of a story is not always the best one to edit it. I mean, have you never seen anyone create a revised edition of a story that was worse that their original?

    (Lucas?)

  54. Re:Yay! by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Lets go for something a little less kiddie than Eddings. If a director could get the main character right, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever by Donaldson would be good. Although I'll be happy with damn near anything that doesn't go the Xena/Hercules route.

    Well i'd be happy with anything that wasn't The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I managed to drag myself all the way through the first trilogy and definitely wasn't impressed, but i gave up half-way through the first book of the second trilogy when it became aparent that it was going to be as lackluster as the first trilogy. Covenant was too whiney and annoying to be a good hero, and too pathetic to be a good anti-hero. Of course the fact that the first thing he does is rape a girl because he can't restrain his "manly urges" didn't really endear him to me.

    Mirror of Her Dreams on the other hand was very good, wouldn't mind seeing a movie of that one, although there are other books i would nominate first.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  55. What I can't figgure out by quantaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    is how it wasn't even nominated for the category of Documentary Feature I mean just look at the amazing footage they got of all the major figures and major events in the quest to destroy the ring. And how they convinced a camera crew to go along with Sam and Frodo on the trek to Mount Doom incredible. How they can ignore this stunning documentary of one of the most crutial events in the history of Middle Earth and...

    why is everyone looking at me?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  56. Not deserving of a sweep by brocktune · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen all the nominated films.

    Mystic River and American Splendor were clearly better adaptations than Return. And the Annie Lennox song was crap, and worse, not relevant to the film. The Mighty Wind song, sung on the show in character, was cute, but the Triplets of Belleville theme was the best.

    Master and Commander, Lost in Translation, and Mystic River were all better films than Return. Only Seabiscuit was inferior. Of course the wins for Return were for the whole trilogy. Rings as a whole deserves high praise. Master and Commander is a better action/adventure film than Return. It's also far better than Gladiator, the other Crowe genre film that won Best Picture.

    As an emsemble film, Return neither received nor deserved any acting nominations.

    I'm in complete agreement with the technical awards. Return probably would have won Cinematography if it had been nominated, over the more deserving M&C.

  57. I loves it/hates it by stormcoder · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thomas Covenant was the worst. I hated the character but I couldn't stop reading the books. I kept buying these books centered around a character that I loathed. I was so glad when he died. I could finally stop reading those books. Everytime you thought Thomas could go no lower, he would find a way. I felt like a spouse being beaten and always winding up going back for more. I am starting to feel sad for myself again. Gotta stop. Maybe read some more Thomas Covenant to take my mind off of it.

    --
    Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
  58. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    What is it about that article that suggests that quantum entanglement can be used for FTL communication? All it is really saying is that the experiment has provided more evidence that entanglement is maintained over longer distances.

    The way I read it is thus: Photon A has a known engergy level. It is then split into photons B and C, each with an unknown energy level. But, due to the law of conservation of energy, we know that B's energy plus C's energy equals A's original energy. Therefore, B and C are entangled -- if you measure one's energy level and subtract it from A's, then you have determined the other's energy. The trick is, you have determined it instantaneously over a significant distance. That is "spooky action at a distance".

    In order for this to be usable for communication, you would have to be able to somehow force B's measurement to a desired result and have that result thereby influence C's result at a distance. And that (as a certain South Park attorney might say) does not make sense.

  59. Gauntlet: The Movie by AvantLegion · · Score: 5, Funny
    In a world... where dungeons are broken up into numbered levels...

    ... some unnamed fiend has created an abominable horror known as the Monster Generator!

    (quick cut to an army of ghosts flying out of a brown cube)

    Only the select few heroes dare to tread in such dangerous grounds.

    They are..... The Four Playable Characters!!

    (Demi Moore, as the Valkyrie, holds a dying elven Richard Gere on the cold stone floor of Level 17...)

    Gere: "green... elf... needs fo-od bad..ly....."

    (random fast-cut action scenes, with a horn crescendo buildup....... duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUU --

    COMING SUMMER 2005 -- DUN!!

  60. ROTK Experience by QuantumFTL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know it's a bit late into the thread to be posting, but I'll share for those interested an interesting experience I had when watching ROTK in theatres (which I just watched again today, wow!) I feel that this experience is interesting enough to be worth sharing, so read on if you have a moment :)

    Last semester at Cornell University, i was the lead of the Computer Science subgroup of a small team of engineers attempting to design and build a snakelike robotic arm. The C.S. team had gotten everything we needed for our demonstration done (it was the end of the semester) so I decided to take the team out to see ROTK. The head of the team didn't care for this, as the other two subgroups (EE and MechE) were not nearly done getting the prototype ready to be demonstrated, and had expected us to help pick up slack.

    Before the movie I spent a lot of time on the phone explaining to them why their feedback control system would never work (they had 2 DOF for feedback and acceptable operation, but 3 degrees that had to be independently controlled, lest the robot break). I was very pessimistic and was just happy to be done with my part of the project (perhaps not the best attitude to have).

    So we went in and watched the movie. I was simply blown away by the movie and its underlying themes. I laughed, cried, and even sat in shock as the Riders of Rohan swept down the field of battle, as Eyowin killed the Witch-King, and as Gandolf and Frodo left the fellowship. I even didn't mind sitting an extra hour to watch all the loose ends tied up, to see the new stories that had just begun.

    After the movie it was past midnight, however the film had given me such a deep sense of hope and courage... it was as if seeing what epic struggles ordinary people went through on the screen made me realize that I too didn't have to give up, even if the problem seemed to be impossible.

    Filled with an intense sense of strength and optimism, our group took my car down to the lab where the rest of the group had been working in our absence. When I got there, they were all just sitting there looking unhappy - the microcontroller board was fried. The movie, however, had changed how I felt about things so much that I went from thinking the task was impossible with a microcontroller, to thinking it just might work if we did a few things right. Using various tricks I'd learned in my electronics class, I quickly announced that we could do everything we wanted provided we could get a few parts. I drew up on the board a quick schematic of a parallel-port controlled robot, and got the team to work. I felt like Steve Jobs, promising the impossible and yet somehow managing to get people to go along with it... Objections of "that's impossible" became excited assertions of "we can do this!"

    It was an amazing feeling, driving a team all through the night on an impossible quest... We ended up getting a lot done that night but not quite enough to get it to work. We did make some kick-butt digital to analog converters from some resistors we'd managed to "borrow" from sources undisclosed, among other things.

    The point of this post isn't the project I worked on, but rather the tremendous power that stories have. I thank Tolkien and Jackson and all those who made this experience possible. This story sounds ridiculous, but none of it is exaggerated.

    After the film, my roommate who was on the team asked me "Do you think anyone will ever have adventures like that?" It's not the kind of thing he'd usually say, but it's hard to think anyone could come out of the theatre unimpressed with the epic nature of the stories. It is my sincere hope that the courage, honor, bravery that was shown in the film will be shown by real people in my lifetime. The movies are great at showing the weaknesses of mankind, but it is the strengths in spite of those weaknesses that give me hope even though times seem to be getting dimmer each day.

    People can and will debate which of

  61. Three for the elven kings under the sky... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Funny

    11 to the New Zealanders, who above all else, desire tourism.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  62. Animated on KDE by AnuradhaRatnaweera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some visual effects for The Two Toweres were done with Maya running on KDE (Linux?). Screehshots are here.

  63. Peter Jackson, Pixar Team Up for 'Finding Smeagol' by scottott · · Score: 5, Funny

    (2004-03-01) -- Oscar-sweeping director Peter Jackson this morning said he would team up with Pixar Studios, which last night won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Film, to produce a rollicking adventure tentatively titled "Finding Smeagol." Read the rest...

  64. Re:Crap. by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh come on, did you check out the way Frodo's sword glowed? A blatant light-sabre ripoff, to be sure.

    I'm just glad that Jackson cut out the fighting Ewok-Hai at the last minute, that would have been way too obvious...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  65. I loved The Lord Of The Rings trilogy... by Savatte · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone should make a book out of it.