LoTR coronation and other moments

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

My point was that a lot of these things were NOT better than TTT or FOTR (especially costumes, obviously). The post production was similar for all three, and I'd say this year was much more competitive. If TTT was released this year instead of last, we would have a nice, gripping Oscar battle where 4 films all had a chance to equally win (LOTR: TTT, M&C: TFSotW, LIT, and MR). Instead you have sentimentality, give it to Jackson and his boys for the trilogy! Bah!

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.

A good portion of the acting is also a function of direction. Sure you have your actors which will do wonderful in every role, but a good director will make his/her actors better by their direction. Coppola's direction in LIT was amazing. Weir did a wonderful job in M&C as well.

[MrBaggins]

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.

Visual effects has really been the only locked category, year on year, but truth be told, its been peerless in that realm. There have been a smattering of other technicals, especially in 01, for FOTR, but I believe that the main body of the Academy settled down for the long haul, in large part, saving their LOTR sweep vote for the final film of the trilogy. Every industry insider knew it was going to be a juggernaught when FOTR came out.

HEATHEN!

I thought it sucked too. Its not an unsupported view.

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

Public acclaim as in the largest publically recognised award... the Oscar. As I said, the main body of the academy have obviously been saving their vote for the final film, so that the Awards weren't seen as fanboy central. The Academy likes to spread the love around... but this was a debt to be paid... yes, in large part because of 2001.

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

The other directors did much less impressive jobs. You'll aways be able to debate it, but its hard to ignore the love that Jacksons got from every quater... the audience, the critics and the professional guilds. Taken as a whole, I don't think there's any other way you could look at this.

[GePap]

M&C: TFSotW

Sorry, but that's a terrible abbreviation.

You may quible that some others were better (a personal opinion), but you can not question that the techinical apsects of the film were excellent, and thus, worthy of an oscar period (whether in your opinion another film's aspects were also excellent and even better is again a matter of opinion).

Instead you have sentimentality,

You keep using this and pity party: wrong! It seems your whole mentaility is "they didn't give it to fellowship, which i liked best, so they give it now as conselation prize..", but you know what, this was no more sentimentality and pity than when Ben Hur and Titanic won it all as well: LoTR was an Epic, in fact, the biggest , riskiest Epic in moviemaking. If you can blame one thing for so many awards, it is not sentimentality or pity, but as Monolith and Oncle Boris do, on going out to honor the Juggernaughts and not the "little art crowd".

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

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.

Yeah, but so what? You don't (or shouldn't) win best picture Academy Awards for how hard it is to adapt a book to a movie - that would be best adaptation, or whatever that award is called. And it's not that they did a poor job. Not being a fantasy geek and having never read LotR, I can't say first hand how faithful the movie was to the book, but those in the know tell me that it was a close rendition. Fair enough. LotR was certainly one of the better trilogies (althoug I'd even hesitate to call it a trilogy in the classic sense) ever, but that doesn't make it the penultimate movie of all time like some people gush. It doesn't even make it the best movie of the year, IMO.

Originally posted by GePap
in LoTR the directing stand out more-and again, the monumentality of the achievement is hard to grasp.

How so? All that happened was that they made one really long movie and spliced it into three parts. Seeing as how each subsequent movie started where the last left off, with no recap or jump in time, they really could have arbitrarily sliced it anywhere. The risk was simply financial. I don't see how any of this parlays into great directing over and above any other movie.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Completely agree, especially with regard to Visual effects.

Each and every year WETA has progressed the field of visual effects further, developing new actor systems, new texture systems, etc. etc. etc... just for LOTR.

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.

Agreed. LOTR wasn't an actors film. It was an ensemble film. Jackson got the ensemble to truely work.

I thought Mystic River just *stunk* screaming Oscar Bait. It's based on a very fine play, but ultimately it works just as well as theatre as movie. There wasn't any majesty in direction to get this project to work.

LiT... eh... it was OK, but I don't think the film ever decided what it wanted to be. It didn't enrich my life, by its viewing. I could take it or leave it... although its obvious that Sophia has some talent. Maybe next time, huh?

[JohnT]

Imran's just pissed because he probably blew big chunks in re: to his oscar picks. And he's been more of a Harry Potter fanboy anyway... his long-running battle with LOTR is just reaching its climax.

[pchang]

Do....not....put..... the words....
fanboy









and













climax

too close together......please

[monolith94]

City of God's direction was ten times more interesting and adventurous than that in Return of the King. Jackson is a pinnacle of competency. No more, no less.

"The music was perfectly suited to the film, and better yet, unlike most films out there these days, it wasn't intrusive."

Ugh, I could not disagree more. Not only did it feel intrusive to me, but it was monotonous and utterly without grace. It was sooo overblown!

Big Fish had the best score of the year.

[hexagonian]

I didn't think ROTK would go 11-0, but I'll take it anyhow

'Best Director' was probably as much for all three films as it was for ROTK, but I'll take it...

Of the three movies of the trilogy, I felt FOTR was the strongest from the standpoint of character development and if only one could win a 'Best Pic', I'd give it to FOTR. ROTK had more a epic sweep (which is powerful moviemaking in it's own right) so I'll take it...

'Best Score' is a continuation of the themes that H. Shore started in FOTR, so the score in ROTK is not original anymore - the themes are subtle variations. At the same time, I cannot recall a score from any movie that made me so aware of the power of music to create a mood as what Shore has done for each of the LOTR movies. So I'll take it...

Most of the rest of the categories are justifiable, so I'll take them too...There will be no recount or recall of the awards.

The entire trilogy will hold up over time, and will be seen as a landmark in moviemaking. Whether it is the best is debatable, but I do not think I will ever enjoy any movie as much - and I have never said that before in 30 years of viewing.

And if you do not like my opinion, I won't lose any sleep about it.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by monolith94
City of God's direction was ten times more interesting and adventurous than that in Return of the King. Jackson is a pinnacle of competency. No more, no less.

City of God was stylistically "nice" from a direction point of view. You have to separate, however, direction from cinematography. I think you're mixing the two in your view here. I'd argue that Peter Jacksons handling of the ensemble cast, and marshalling the production elements was vastly superior to anything achieved in City of God.

"The music was perfectly suited to the film, and better yet, unlike most films out there these days, it wasn't intrusive."

Ugh, I could not disagree more. Not only did it feel intrusive to me, but it was monotonous and utterly without grace. It was sooo overblown!

Big Fish had the best score of the year.

There are obviously diverse opinions on the matter. LOTR has been consistently the best selling soundtrack, however... FWIW.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe that the main body of the Academy settled down for the long haul, in large part, saving their LOTR sweep vote for the final film of the trilogy. Every industry insider knew it was going to be a juggernaught when FOTR came out.

Only when the first two didn't win enough awards to satiate enough people.

this was a debt to be paid... yes, in large part because of 2001.

Which is EXACTLY what I'm saying!

You'll aways be able to debate it, but its hard to ignore the love that Jacksons got from every quater... the audience, the critics and the professional guilds. Taken as a whole, I don't think there's any other way you could look at this.

Look at all the acolades 'Titanic' got. Yes, there is another way I can look at it .

Sorry, but that's a terrible abbreviation.

That is the only way to pay homage to the fact that two books were used for the movie.

this was no more sentimentality and pity than when Ben Hur and Titanic won it all as well: LoTR was an Epic, in fact, the biggest , riskiest Epic in moviemaking. If you can blame one thing for so many awards, it is not sentimentality or pity

Of course I can, because it is true. Ben Hur and Titanic weren't award which were, to use Mr. Baggin's term 'due'. This movie was 'due' because it was 'shafted' the two previous times. Pity.

[pchang]

Beh Hur != Titanic
To imply otherwise is SACRILEGE!!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

Bah-the director of City of God should not have been there,.

No way. That was one of the best films I've ever seen. I recommend it to anyone who likes the cinema.

And still no Australians. Where are they hiding?

Probably out worrying sheep. But hell... they can have Russell Crowe now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki
How so? All that happened was that they made one really long movie and spliced it into three parts. Seeing as how each subsequent movie started where the last left off, with no recap or jump in time, they really could have arbitrarily sliced it anywhere. The risk was simply financial. I don't see how any of this parlays into great directing over and above any other movie.

That is like saying: no difference between building a 5 story and a 30 story building: it just more floors on top of each other...

Scale matters: it makes certaint hings monumentally more difficult; Trying to handle 500 extras into a coherent battle scene or 3 guys in one speakign scene-which is harder?

As for arbitrarily slicing it anywhere- as the extended editions show, the amount of stuff cut out is immense-when you film 12 hours for 3 hours, it takes some hard decsions to figure out what gets cut or not-all films have this happen, but LoTR shot an inordenate amount of film per movie, not only as one.It takes good directing to know what to leave- and yes, there were difficult decisons to be made about how to start each movie. The fatc is that you are wrong about the movies just startng and ending anyplace-look at the opening of TT: reffers back to the middle of the first film and set up things coming in the other film; Jackson might have left this out at all, put it in film one (though it would have been completely out of place there), or later in film 2, but he put it at the start of film two, and it was a good decision. Same for the Smeagol scene at the start of film 3.

[GePap]

Originally posted by monolith94
City of God's direction was ten times more interesting and adventurous than that in Return of the King. Jackson is a pinnacle of competency. No more, no less.

No way. That was one of the best films I've ever seen. I recommend it to anyone who likes the cinema.

I saw City of God, I thought it was a good film-but I noticed the length-there were points at which I lost interest and was detahced from the film.

Besides, City of God is a film from 2002, not 2003. It only got mentioned now becuase Miramax bought distribution and pushed it- a prime example of Hollywood rules.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Probably out worrying sheep. But hell... they can have Russell Crowe now.

Well, he probably should have been nominated. I guess he's already won his award, best give it to Sean Penn, who was 'due' (Oscars do that crap all the time).

Trying to handle 500 extras into a coherent battle scene or 3 guys in one speakign scene-which is harder?

Depends on what the 3 guys are speaking about. It can be greatly more difficult to do the 3 guys.

It takes good directing to know what to leave

That's editing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course I can, because it is true. Ben Hur and Titanic weren't award which were, to use Mr. Baggin's term 'due'. This movie was 'due' because it was 'shafted' the two previous times. Pity.

Damn it boy, get it straight- it is NOT PITY becuase this is not being done to pay back for not honoring the film in either 2001 and 2002- they did that by nominating it those years. This is the academy deciding it would be prudent NOT to give out awards individually- think if the Acedemy had given out best film award to this for 3 years in a row..would that be fair, to give what is essentialy one real extended project 3 best film Oscars? That is the point: this was what amount to a single effort released in installments due to the monumental scale (you know, like Tarantino making Kill Bill two movies, not one) and the fact you can't release a 12 hour film. So the Acedemy decided to giove it one Best Movie award instead of the possibility of having to have given it multiple best film awards to one MOvie, The Lord of the Rings.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Depends on what the 3 guys are speaking about. It can be greatly more difficult to do the 3 guys.

Pehraps it can be exasperating to do it with three guys (or dangerous, when it came to Klaus Kinski), but it is still a greater challenge to try to move large groups of people coherently.

Quote:

It takes good directing to know what to leave

That's editing.

And directors decide on the big editing choics, like what scene were.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by GePap


That is like saying: no difference between building a 5 story and a 30 story building: it just more floors on top of each other...

So the person who designs a 30 story building is automatically a better architect/engineer than one who designs a five story building? That's my point - scale alone doesn't make a difference in quality.

Scale matters: it makes certaint hings monumentally more difficult; Trying to handle 500 extras into a coherent battle scene or 3 guys in one speakign scene-which is harder?

Which has more room for error? I'd say mastering a scene with three people speaking is much harder because any flaw is immediately apparent.

As for the rest of it, I was unaware that special extended editions full of deleted scenes and other do-dads were now considerations for Academy Awards. If anything, if you need to leave a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor for theatrical release, doesn't that speak against quality of production?

Too many people are so caught up in the epic geek-fest nature of LotR (and other movies, like Star Wars or any Star Trek movie) that they can't look objectively at the movie. I mean, I love Star Wars - find it incredibly entertaining and tend to watch it whenever they show it on TV. But I also realize that it's an attrociously bad movie in terms of production - mind numbingly bad acting, directing and full of plot holes. Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If the yardstick to win 11 Oscars was Titanic, then ROTK should have won the entire plethora of Oscars including back dating Oscars for previous years.

That being said, this is not an endorsement per se of ROTK.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kontiki

Too many people are so caught up in the epic geek-fest nature of LotR (and other movies, like Star Wars or any Star Trek movie) that they can't look objectively at the movie. I mean, I love Star Wars - find it incredibly entertaining and tend to watch it whenever they show it on TV. But I also realize that it's an attrociously bad movie in terms of production - mind numbingly bad acting, directing and full of plot holes. Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

the mere fact u mention geek fest w/ being caught up in some enormous popular upsurge is utterly laffable.

thats what? 3 distinct ideas in 50 years? how many ****ing mystic river, I am Sam, "GIMME AN OSCAR NOW" movies get released?

please already.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kontiki
So the person who designs a 30 story building is automatically a better architect/engineer than one who designs a five story building? That's my point - scale alone doesn't make a difference in quality.

Small scale, also doesn't necessarily shout quality either. I'd also vehermently disagree that the Jackson production didn't contain material of the absolute highest order.

Which has more room for error? I'd say mastering a scene with three people speaking is much harder because any flaw is immediately apparent.

The larger the film, the greater the scope for error. The largeness of a production doesn't hide obvious direction flaws... like... say SW Epsiode 5, and the whole Anakin "Skin != Sand" fiasco.

[MrBaggins]

BTW As for the editing... LOTR won for one outstanding scene, if anything else... The Denethor eating/ Pippin singing/ Faramir dying scene. That was THE marquee scene which, if you asked the Academy voters, which scene had the best editing of any of any of the films, would be the most usual answer. Its well known around the town.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is NOT PITY becuase this is not being done to pay back for not honoring the film in either 2001 and 2002

YES IT IS! Get it straight!

think if the Acedemy had given out best film award to this for 3 years in a row..would that be fair, to give what is essentialy one real extended project 3 best film Oscars?

They almost did to FOTR. What would be the excuse then? Why would they care if they gave out Best Picture 3 years in a row to a movie which WAS the best picture? The fact is that it wasn't the Best Picture for them. FOTR may have been better, but they liked ABM. TTT was clearly inferior to Chicago. This kind of BS talk tries to make it seem that the other two would easily have won if they voted for that year by itself. BULL!

Pehraps it can be exasperating to do it with three guys (or dangerous, when it came to Klaus Kinski), but it is still a greater challenge to try to move large groups of people coherently.

So the director of Gladiator is better than the director of LA Confidential because Gladiator involved a large fight scene?

And directors decide on the big editing choics, like what scene were.

There is a seperate award for best editing, you are aware?

Too many people are so caught up in the epic geek-fest nature of LotR (and other movies, like Star Wars or any Star Trek movie) that they can't look objectively at the movie. I mean, I love Star Wars - find it incredibly entertaining and tend to watch it whenever they show it on TV. But I also realize that it's an attrociously bad movie in terms of production - mind numbingly bad acting, directing and full of plot holes. Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Small scale, also doesn't necessarily shout quality either. I'd also vehermently disagree that the Jackson production didn't contain material of the absolute highest order.



The larger the film, the greater the scope for error. The largeness of a production doesn't hide obvious direction flaws... like... say SW Epsiode 5, and the whole Anakin "Skin != Sand" fiasco.

Of course not. I'm just saying that scale doesn't automatically make something better quality or allow for more errors. My original point is that just because LotR was on an epic scale doesn't mean that it should be given special consideration over any other movie.

Look, I'm not saying LotR was bad in any sense - I do think that it was very well done and likely deserved to be nominated for best picture. I just don't necessarily think it should have won, nor for best director. My main beef is with the hard-core LotR people who think that it represents the pinnacle of film making simply because it was a well made version of their favorite fantasy novel. I just think that it needs to be evaluated on its own merits, independent of any financial risks, box-office popularity or "difficulty of turning the book into a movie" stuff - ie: I know nothing about the making of this movie or the story behind it, but was it the best made movie of the year based on seeing the theatrical release?

[-Jrabbit]

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.

"Pity"? You're anthropomorphizing a pretty large organization.

1. It was considered pretty shocking when, 2 years ago, Peter Jackson did not win for Best Director for FOTR (losing to Ron Howard, "A Beautiful Mind"). It was widely reported that the reasons were that (1) Jackson was not a "known quantity" as a feature director, and (2) the Academy wanted to see the sustained effort of this gigantic gamble by New Line.

I would suggest that this year's (Best Director) award was therefore justified in light of his overall accomplishment. The fact that there is no (3-film) category for it means that someone gets screwed. True, ROTK has more continuity issues than the previous 2, but also faced the daunting task of tying together a whole lot of threads. I trust much of this will be addressed in the extended DVD. (BTW, for my money, the guy who should otherwise have won would be Weir. Eastwood got great performances from great actors, but I'm still not convinced that comprises a great job of direction.)

2. Odd that we've settled on the Lennox song as a focal point for undeserved awards. Within the context of the movie, I thought it was outstanding. And that's the criterion. "Belleville Rendez-Vous" was a standout as a stage production, but that's not what the award is for. (BTW, I believe the T. Bone Burnett/Elvis Costello piece won the Golden Globe.)

But whatever...

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was considered pretty shocking when, 2 years ago, Peter Jackson did not win for Best Director for FOTR (losing to Ron Howard, "A Beautiful Mind"). It was widely reported that the reasons were that (1) Jackson was not a "known quantity" as a feature director, and (2) the Academy wanted to see the sustained effort of this gigantic gamble by New Line.

So he was 'due'. He was passed over for it when he should have gotten it because of other criteron. That's why I call it a pity pick. You can say he was 'due'. That's your perogative.

the guy who should otherwise have won would be Weir

That's my pick. Him or Coppola

Odd that we've settled on the Lennox song as a focal point for undeserved awards. Within the context of the movie, I thought it was outstanding.

I was less than impressed.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Of course not. I'm just saying that scale doesn't automatically make something better quality or allow for more errors. My original point is that just because LotR was on an epic scale doesn't mean that it should be given special consideration over any other movie.

The criteria aren't your criteria... they are the DGA's and Academies criteria. Scale absolutely does have a part in this... which is why Short Live Actions never get nods for Best Direction, even if their quality in that scope was top notch.

Look, I'm not saying LotR was bad in any sense - I do think that it was very well done and likely deserved to be nominated for best picture. I just don't necessarily think it should have won, nor for best director. My main beef is with the hard-core LotR people who think that it represents the pinnacle of film making simply because it was a well made version of their favorite fantasy novel.

Its a film adaptation of an astonishingly good epic novel. Other people are perfectly entitled to this opinion, just as some consider the Godfather trilogy to be the best trilogy ever, or Ben Hur, the best epic. Personally I'm of the opinion that LOTR beat both of those films in those categories. Best movie ever, in combination? Perhaps... certainly my favorite theatrical experiences ever, taken in combination.

I just think that it needs to be evaluated on its own merits, independent of any financial risks, box-office popularity or "difficulty of turning the book into a movie" stuff - ie: I know nothing about the making of this movie or the story behind it, but was it the best made movie of the year based on seeing the theatrical release?

Yes. By quite a long way. It was also viewed in this regard by critics (it won more critics awards and top 10-winning most, not just placing.) I'd say that the preponderence of opinion is that this film was the best of the year.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki


So the person who designs a 30 story building is automatically a better architect/engineer than one who designs a five story building? That's my point - scale alone doesn't make a difference in quality.

Not automatically, but it does take more effort to do the 30 story one, and someone who does a GREAT 30 story building deserves more applaud than someone who does a GREAT 5 story apartment, becuase it is more difficult to be great on a large scale.

As for the rest of it, I was unaware that special extended editions full of deleted scenes and other do-dads were now considerations for Academy Awards. If anything, if you need to leave a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor for theatrical release, doesn't that speak against quality of production?

How said they were up for consideration? I brought them up to make the point of just how much was filmed and the tough choices made to decide what to keep or cut to get the films in at under 3 hours.

Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

Same principles? What same principles? Each of the LoTR instalments were nominated, and each won critical praise as films, not just as event pics or action extravaganzas.

I could say there are commoin principles between Mystic River and Beaches, or any tragic drama, including the bad ones. Or between Seabicuit and Rudy (or other historical sport movies). All such comparisons would be equally faulty and invalid.

[monolith94]

"City of God was stylistically "nice" from a direction point of view. You have to separate, however, direction from cinematography. I think you're mixing the two in your view here. I'd argue that Peter Jacksons handling of the ensemble cast, and marshalling the production elements was vastly superior to anything achieved in City of God."

Cinematography mainly deals with lighting, and framing. Composition. It is not the entirety of what makes a film look good. The decision of whether to track or not to track is the director's. The final decision of where to put the camera is the director's. Besides, City of God had an even larger ensemble cast (or so it seemed to me), and even better acting.