LoTR coronation and other moments

[JohnT]

As a big Titanic fan, I feel oddly vindicated. Thanks, OB!

[Sava]

titanic sux

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And the music: yes, it sucks. It's nothing like true classical music.

Um, why should a movie that isn't about the classical period of music use "true classical" music? That would be an inappropriate anachronism.

The music was perfectly suited to the film, and better yet, unlike most films out there these days, it wasn't intrusive. The award for music should go for complementing the movie well, not standing out garishly. LotR wasn't overscored at all, the music created the appropriate atmosphere and helped heighten the tension in the right spots. I can't think of film score since Schindler's List that was as suited to the subject matter while not being overbearing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
LotR is new--nothing on that scale has ever been done before.

Not really. Some Chinese movies depicting battles in the civil war are of even bigger scale.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is no different from the sweep by "Titanic"

You'll note many of us hated that.

So all the whining about a "pity party" is really exaggerated. There wasn't any "pity" involved, it was recognition of the acheivement of the ENTIRE work.

Bull. They say that NOW! If FOTR had won, would you hear the same thing? It's a 'pity party' because the voters have been pelted by the fan boys and decided to cave in, giving LOTR everything under the sun and more. Definite pity party.

This 'we gave it for all three movies' is kinda BS, because they were released at different times. You didn't see a nomination for "Lord of the Rings: Trilogy", you saw it for "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King". It's a fiction to say it was for the entire trilogy. The academy only said it that way to save their hides from the fanboy hordes.

[Kontiki]

I'm not so sure LotR should have won. Yeah, it was the best adaptation of a geek-fest thing done in recent memory, and I thoroughly enjoyed the trilogy, but let's come back down to earth for a minute. It doesn't matter if it seemed like it would be hard to make some book (best work of fiction of the 20th century? Grab some perspective) into a movie, nor did Peter Jackson work on three movies simultaneously (it's just one really long movie spliced into three, very different from something like Star Wars or the Godfather). IMO, you need to consider how the movie was standing completely on its own merits, not outside factors.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Not really. Anything cathartic with a quest and good/evil conflict is Hollywood. Tolkien was not a particularly intelligent man, and not a great writer. It's just another popular novel, on the level of Paulo Coelho (OK, not as bad).

Oh... Fake Boris... the tenuous thread of your sanity is completely unravelling, isn't it? Why the hell does a quest and good/evil conflict mean that something is hollywood. These concepts have been around as long as the great sagas.

I guess movies should only be made without quests and or good/evil motifs, if they are to be valued?

Seriously... do you expect anyone to believe this tripe?

You have the right to your own taste, but if you think that LOTR is the true literary classic of the 20th century, then you should take some literature classes...

Listen, and read carefully. Opinion is opinion. Nothing can be proven in terms of opinion. Opinion between differing subjects is actually a fuzzy problem, and can't ever be solved in absolutes, even when offering statistical validation.

We could debate for all eternity, and never get anywhere.

The only method we have that approaches some kind of validation, are statistical polls of peoples opinions on a subject.

Many public polls have been done on the subject, at hand, of the greatest book of the 20th century (or millenia). The BBC, Amazon.com and the NY Times, notably... and they all agree. LOTR is undoubtedly the most popular choice.

Of course, you'll claim that popular opinion isn't worth much... but why is your opinion worth anything?

Popular support is seemingly the only concrete conclusion that can be drawn in advocacy discussion.

It's a very common music, nothing groundbreaking. It's here to manipulate the viewer, not to make an artistic breakthrough. True, it is EFFECTIVE- but it's nothing like "true" music.

Oh... so now you're the one true messiah when it comes to music. I guess we should all stop bothering choosing our own music and listen to Fake Boris?

I hate (well... not really) to bring up the opinion vs. popular opinion argument again.

Simply put, most people disagree with you. More people paid money for these three soundtracks, than any three classical albums you could name.

BTW, the Academy voters are not that great. Look at the awards they give, and then consider whether or not you should trust them. Venice, Berlin and Cannes are much better when it comes to trust an award.

I'll take their combined views over yours, particularly since they are in the industry that we're discussing advocacy of.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IMO, you need to consider how the movie was standing completely on its own merits, not outside factors.

I agree! I have no problem with either ROTK or FOTR winning Best Picture, but to give them everything, saying it was for the 'trilogy' and how hard it was, etc, is just bunk to me. I mean it couldn't have been easy to take two 400 page novels, combine them, and turn them into a 2.5 hour movie, such as what they did with 'Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World'.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


This 'we gave it for all three movies' is kinda BS, because they were released at different times. You didn't see a nomination for "Lord of the Rings: Trilogy", you saw it for "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King". It's a fiction to say it was for the entire trilogy. The academy only said it that way to save their hides from the fanboy hordes.

So what? They were filmed at the same time and always envisioned as one project-perhaps the reason LoTR Fellowship was not given an award was because they wanted to wait for the next two?

As for "fanboys", you must really be smoking something if you think LoTR fans have any power in Hollywood.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I agree! I have no problem with either ROTK or FOTR winning Best Picture, but to give them everything, saying it was for the 'trilogy' and how hard it was, etc, is just bunk to me. I mean it couldn't have been easy to take two 400 page novels, combine them, and turn them into a 2.5 hour movie, such as what they did with 'Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World'.

Actually, that is simpler. Not easy by any strech, but simpler.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They were filmed at the same time and always envisioned as one project-perhaps the reason LoTR Fellowship was not given an award was because they wanted to wait for the next two?

I don't believe that for a second. Did people wait to vote for Godfather II because they knew a third one would be out completing the triology? In most trilogies it is the FIRST one which goes the highest. Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.

It's a convenient excuse now.

As for "fanboys", you must really be smoking something if you think LoTR fans have any power in Hollywood.

Public pressure has NO influence? I doubt that.

[pchang]

Clearly, LOTR winning 11 out of 11 is all a conspiracy. New Line used its LOTR profits to bribe all the academy members.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

They were filmed at the same time and always envisioned as one project-perhaps the reason LoTR Fellowship was not given an award was because they wanted to wait for the next two?

I don't believe that for a second. Did people wait to vote for Godfather II because they knew a third one would be out completing the triology? In most trilogies it is the FIRST one which goes the highest. Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.

It's a convenient excuse now.

Had Godfather or Star Wars or Indiana Jones already their Sequels produced at the time when they got into the theatres?
I doubt so

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The prize for the Barbarian Invasions.

I agree with you. A fellow Québéquois, I suppose? And a fellow philosopher also! Arcand's speech was short and sweet, to say the least! And "Les triplettes de Belleville" should at least have won for the best song.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Had Godfather or Star Wars or Indiana Jones already their Sequels produced at the time when they got into the theatres?

Produced and made are different things. The Academy usually doesn't say, Oh, we'll wait and award it to the whole thing. They'll usually just say, oh, we passed this guy over last time, so we'll just give him the Oscar this year. Basically, an award out of pity. I think that's exactly what they did this year. That's why it won 11 out of 11.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't believe that for a second. Did people wait to vote for Godfather II because they knew a third one would be out completing the triology? In most trilogies it is the FIRST one which goes the highest. Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.

Bullcrap. This project was fundamentally different-before the firt one ever began filmig they had already budgeted for the second and third, and the three were filmed as one- that makes thi project fundamentally different from any other trilogies.

Public pressure has NO influence? I doubt that.

And why would public pressure be any more powerful fro LoTR than say seabicuit, which was rather popular?

finding Nemo was hugely popular, and we know from Beauty and the Beast that an animated film can make it-why no best pic nod?

NO, I don;t think a bunch of fanatsy geeks have any power-hence this being the first time EVER a fantasy film wins. If anything, the last few years have shown the power of studios to get their pick named- the great surprise form the Academy was that Cold Mountain got no nod's in directing or best film.

It bols down to you guys not thinking LoTR:TROTK was the best film this year- fine, happens every year. Get over it. It was a worthy winner, as the nearly universal rave reviews and previous awards show.

There were movies I like better than LoTR' but it deserved the award it got. (I agree not with best song thought)

[Guynemer]

I'm sort of stunned that people think ROTK was too "Hollywood".

If Hollywood had its druthers, Frodo would have overcome the power of the Ring and heroicly destroyed it, and Sam would've killed Gollum. Instead, the original scene took place--Frodo succumbed to the evil of the Ring, Gollum once again got the better of Sam and Frodo, and NO ONE could withstand the evil of the Ring--it destroyed itself through its own greed and treachery, and took Gollum along with it.

That ain't exactly a Hollywood story, people. That's pretty ****ing bleak, as a matter of fact.


I saw three of the best pic nominees--LOTR, MAC, and LIT--and I loved all three--very different--movies. (And I can't wait for Mystic River to come out on DVD.) I would've given them all four stars, and wouldn't have been disappointed if any of them had won.

That said, there aren't any parts of MAC or LIT that are seared into my memory the way certain bits of ROTK are: the lighting of the beacons, Pippin's song/Faramir's charge, Shelob stalking Frodo, the charge of the Rohirrim, to name a few. That is, quite simply, masterful filmmaking. In MAC, maybe the cutting loose of the mast, and the crewman along with it; in LIT, perhaps the final goodbye and the mysterious whisper. That's it. Nothing on the same scale as ROTK.

[Ming]

Yep... a "pity" award...

It's nice to see that "pity" is so profitable.

[Boris Godunov]

That's what ets me, Ming...what's there to "pity" about LotR? Gee, it's raked in over $1 billion worldwide, been the most successful fantasy film ever, smashed all sorts of records, catapulted numerous cast members into overnight stardom...

But someone was feeling sorry for it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bullcrap. This project was fundamentally different-before the firt one ever began filmig they had already budgeted for the second and third, and the three were filmed as one- that makes thi project fundamentally different from any other trilogies.

And? I'm sorry, but I really don't think any Academy members were like, let's not vote for FOTR because we'll just give it to ROTK, no matter how good or bad it is.

And why would public pressure be any more powerful fro LoTR than say seabicuit, which was rather popular?

Seabiscuit was nominated for Best Picture was it not? It probably did not deserve to be. Other, less popular movies, deserved it more (Cold Mountain, Finding Nemo)

finding Nemo was hugely popular, and we know from Beauty and the Beast that an animated film can make it-why no best pic nod?

Not as popular as Seabiscuit and not good enough to knock any of the others out (which had a 'buzz').

NO, I don;t think a bunch of fanatsy geeks have any power-hence this being the first time EVER a fantasy film wins.

This isn't about fantasy geeks! How many people read LOTR and are not fantasy geeks! How many people saw the first two movies and said how 'cool' they were. It was an outcry from those people. Saying that the uncool "A Beautiful Mind" and "Chicago" stole Best Picture from LOTR. After having it beat into the minds of the Academy, I'm sure they attempted to placate them. They STILL hear crap about Annie Hall beating Star Wars (even though Annie Hall was a superior movie in every way), and didn't want "Mystic River" or "Lost in Translation" to be their "Annie Hall".

There were movies I like better than LoTR' but it deserved the award it got. (I agree not with best song thought)

Like I said, I didn't mind the Best Picture nod. Fine. What I minded was they got every single award they were nominated for, deserved or not (like best song, who no one I've spoken to believes LOTR should have won for).

[GePap]

On comparing LoTR's trilogy to other trilogies:

Look at the first matrix, or the First ST, or the first Godfather, or Indiana Jones movies: they are all fundamentally stand alone films: only after their phenomenal succes were a sequal or sequals planned. By the time LoTR Fellowship came out filming was ongoing for both Two Towers and return of the King- that si a fundamental difference- Fellowship was never meant as a stand alone movie, ebcuase two more were planned from day one.

This fundamental difference also made the actual filming and technical issue very different, as scenes from Movie 3 could be filmed before scenes in Movie one and so forth, meaning that it is somewhat difficult to say "X period was spent shooting this movie, X period that one" and so forth- you can say that for the post-production, but people were making props for movie three and two and one at the same time.

From a producers view point (lets not forget that for most the the awards tme, it was the producer that came up to get the best film award, NOT director), shelling out 300 million for one project with NO guaranteed success (and, given the tract record of fantasy, seemingly little chance for academy attention) was a HUGE risk, unparralled in the last few decades of Hollywood.

[Imran Siddiqui]

See, the problem is that they didn't just win Best Picture, but things like Best Song, Best Editing, Best Director which really were not deserved. That indicates to me it was based on pity... we're sorry you didn't win the last few years; here, have the kitchen sink, on us.

If they were truely just voting on the Trilogy, you wouldn't have all these undeserved awards (I mean, really is there anyone on this planet aside from Annie Lennox and the LOTR crew who thought that was a better song than "The Mighty Wind" song?). They'd just give what the Triology should have gotten.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not as popular as Seabiscuit and not good enough to knock any of the others out (which had a 'buzz').

Nemo was a lot more popular than Seabiscuit-just look at box office receipts. I would have prefered American Splendor to be nominated myself.

Like I said, I didn't mind the Best Picture nod. Fine. What I minded was they got every single award they were nominated for, deserved or not (like best song, who no one I've spoken to believes LOTR should have won for).

Most of those awards are in technical fields, and while some art-house folks like Monolith may be able to argue that other films were better cinama than LoTR's, it is hard to argue that this movie did not deserve consideration for the technical aspects of moviemaking like costumes, makeup, and so forth. I agree with best song ebing a bad award (A mighty wind should have won IMHO) and I can accept its editing to be choppy. But for the other ones, it most certainly was a valid if not the best pic.

I fact, the movie got shafted in the acting categories, were for example Sean Austin could have been a valid choice for supporting actor.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
See, the problem is that they didn't just win Best Picture, but things like Best Song, Best Editing, Best Director which really were not deserved. That indicates to me it was based on pity... we're sorry you didn't win the last few years; here, have the kitchen sink, on us.

If they were truely just voting on the Trilogy, you wouldn't have all these undeserved awards (I mean, really is there anyone on this planet aside from Annie Lennox and the LOTR crew who thought that was a better song than "The Mighty Wind" song?). They'd just give what the Triology should have gotten.

Will I'll agree that the LOTR song wasn't the best. The Mighty Wind song sucked ***!!

ACK!

[East Street Trader]

The first two films were very good but it is not too surprising that they were not nominated.

Because it was known in advance that the story was to be told, following the book, in three instalments.

And the story is, in any event, extremely well known.

Which makes it hard to value the first part and even the second part. There is a sense in which everyone - Oscar voters among then - were left in a state of suspension until the third installment was complete.

It is only really possible now to look back on the first two films and to ask whether, in the light of the way the whole work brought us to the end, they did their part well or badly.

They did it well, and I greatly enjoyed both. But that public acclaim was held back and it was the third and final instalment which took the prizes is only fit and proper. It was bound to be so for the reason I give but also the third installment did, in the end, outdo what went before.

It would be a faintly silly thing to do, but anyone who thinks LotR was an easy novel to represent in film might try to find and view the earlier attempt. It ran out of money but it was, very briefly, released. It is pitiful. Seeing exactly how badly it is possible for the job to be done might persuade some that the recent production has good qualities.

Or listen to the excellent BBC radio adaptation. Before seeing the films I would have said that radio was a much more forgiving medium and that the films would do well to approach what the radio production achieved. In fact the films wholly eclipsed it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
See, the problem is that they didn't just win Best Picture, but things like Best Song, Best Editing, Best Director which really were not deserved. That indicates to me it was based on pity... we're sorry you didn't win the last few years; here, have the kitchen sink, on us.

Peter Jackson certainly deserved best director for this effort- no director previously has attempted something so ambitious and proven so successful.

Again we can agree perhaps on 2 of the 11 being undeserved, but the other 9 stand on solid ground.

[MrBaggins]

None of the LOTR films stand alone. They are all individual acts of one story, and the three films are ultimately one epic. They are individually magnificent... but greater as a collection.

The academy awards supposedly awards films individually, but I believe in this case, they broke that mold, in retrospect, to reward all three as one body of work.

[Tuberski]

I like how we are pretending that most of the oscars mean anything.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is hard to argue that this movie did not deserve consideration for the technical aspects of moviemaking like costumes, makeup, and so forth. I agree with best song ebing a bad award (A mighty wind should have won IMHO) and I can accept its editing to be choppy. But for the other ones, it most certainly was a valid if not the best pic.

How many of the other awards: Costumes, Makeup, even Special Effects were influenced by this we have to have LOTR win every damn award thinking? I mean some of those secondary catagories did win last year, while the other catagories didn't. Were those other catagories that much better in the last film? I don't think so.

The Mighty Wind song sucked ***!!

HEATHEN!

But that public acclaim was held back and it was the third and final instalment which took the prizes is only fit and proper.

Public acclaim held back? How many people said FOTR should have beat ABM a few days after the award was handed out?

Peter Jackson certainly deserved best director for this effort- no director previously has attempted something so ambitious and proven so successful.

Compared to the other directors nominated this year, I think he was below some of them and thus didn't deserve the award.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How many of the other awards: Costumes, Makeup, even Special Effects were influenced by this we have to have LOTR win every damn award thinking? I mean some of those secondary catagories did win last year, while the other catagories didn't. Were those other catagories that much better in the last film? I don't think so.

As I said earlier, the one placew ere you could separate the three films was in post production (since they would not be doing post-production for movie three when they had to concentrate on movie 1) and a lot of those awards, like sound mixing, and whatnot are done in the post production stage- so it is all very possible than the post-production of one installment may not have been as good as some of the others and the competition stiffer last year.

Compared to the other directors nominated this year, I think he was below some of them and thus didn't deserve the award.

Bah-the director of City of God should not have been there, and as much as I liked Mystic River and loved Lost in Translation, to me what stands out there is the acting in general- in LoTR the directing stand out more-and again, the monumentality of the achievement is hard to grasp.