2004 Oscars

[Evenstar1400]

Personally I'm a little worried about this years oscars. LOTR is up against plenty of really good looking movies. But hopefully LOTR is gonna end up with best picture, considering its the last film in the trilogy.

Your thoughts?

[zinnite]

I don't mean to sound crass, but what other really good films have come out this year? I've seen some previews for some impressive looking films that will come out in the next few months, but I can't remember anything truy stunning coming out this year.

I imagine 'Seabiscuit' will get nominated, but what else was there? (I honestly don't know--I saw very few films this year, and one of them was TTT which doesn't count)

[Black Breathalizer]

ROTK and Peter Jackson are the clear cut Oscar favorites for Best Picture and Best Director.

[Agalayth]

The movie "Under the Tuscan Sun" looks Oscar-worthy, but then again, I haven't seen the reviews in my newspaper yet. But I truly hope that ROTK gets more awards than TTT did.

[Cirdan]

The Matrix Reloaded and PotC were the best movies so far this year and neither were "Best Film" great. The second season is year to come. The Matrix Revolution will be a very strong contender, as far as "big" pictures. We've had the art film "The Piano" and the Hollywood insider "Chicago" the past two years, so it may be the year sof the "most popular".

If it is judged of the trilogy as a whole (denied as a possibility) it then competes with the Matrix. Both second efforts were more uneven than the first, with LotR more fluid in consistency. The Matrix has the advantage of not having the plot known and a more heavyweight cast.

I think RotK will take the box office over Revolution, for sure, despite those factors. Better source material will be the difference.:)

[Black Breathalizer]

IMHO, the Matrix Reloaded was another "Phantom Menace." The original was wonderful. Too bad the follow up films are going to ruin its legacy.

Considering Matrix Revolutions won't make as much as Matrix Reloaded, it's boxoffice won't even be in ROTK's air space.

[IronParrot]

I don't mean to sound crass, but what other really good films have come out this year? I've seen some previews for some impressive looking films that will come out in the next few months, but I can't remember anything truy stunning coming out this year.
Industry pundits will tell you that studios, out of strategic considerations, never release their Oscar racehorses until late November or December. This was why last year, every Best Picture nominee had a December release (unless you count The Pianist's earlier entry in Cannes, but that's not a wide general release).

The Oscar season is increasingly end-loaded, see. No point in releasing Oscar material in May or June if everybody forgets about it. Just look at what happened to Road to Perdition and Minority Report last year, despite box office dollars and tremendous critical acclaim. There's the odd exception (Gladiator comes to mind, as does Moulin Rouge!) - but this factor is something to take into account. Right now the frontrunner among films that have been released this year is Seabiscuit, which could very well suffer from having been released in July.

Breathalizer is right in that ROTK is clearly regarded by all as the frontrunner. Considering that TTT got nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture (usually unheard of for a sequel, the odd Godfather aside) - and New Line didn't even campaign in trade magazines like Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

Something that will work in ROTK's advantage is that the Academy now has much stricter rules about how much studios are supposed to advertise their films for Oscars, i.e. the "For Your Consideration" posters. Because ROTK will go into the race with the most built-in name recognition as well as the "it's finally Peter Jackson's turn" mentality, it is by far and wide the one to beat.

And on a side note: It's an extreme stretch, but I would really like to see Finding Nemo receive a nomination. This is highly unlikely because it has its own category nowadays, but if any film deserves to be the first animated pic since Beauty and the Beast to see a Best Film nomination, it's this one.

On another tangent: I found The Matrix Reloaded to be a much smarter movie than the first one. It was a necessary expansion of the Wachowski universe, and the themes in the saga mature considerably. It's a shame that so many people refuse to go into it with their brains turned on.

(Of course, this is also coming from someone in the minority who liked The Phantom Menace, and has written entire papers in its defense. But to each his own.)

The biggest foreseeable other Oscar contenders, at this point, are Cold Mountain (Jude Law Civil War epic based on a bestselling novel), Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola's film starring Bill Murray, this year's "critic's nominee" so to speak) and Seabiscuit. But the prediction landscape can and will change considerably between now and the December nomination deadline. Some pundits are tagging Master and Commander, others are naming The Last Samurai. We'll see.

[Evenstar1400]

yeah, all those movies were listed in Entertainment magazine. and they all had 1-2 pages for themselves. and i certainly hope that Breathalizer is right about RotK being the frontrunner for Best Picture. if it doesnt win, ill cry. i really will.

by the way the oscars are in february this year... the 28th (i think. )

[azalea]

I have a question, IP: Are all of the pictures you mentioned from different studios? Do studios ever intentionally compete against themselves? IOW, would New Line, for instance, put all of its Oscar eggs in the RotK basket, or would they "play up" another film in hopes of getting an Oscar no matter what? Just curious about how studios view the "Oscar game" they play, as you described (strategy-wise).

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by IronParrot
On another tangent: I found The Matrix Reloaded to be a much smarter movie than the first one. It was a necessary expansion of the Wachowski universe, and the themes in the saga mature considerably. It's a shame that so many people refuse to go into it with their brains turned on.It takes more than intriguing themes to make an entertaining movie. Matrix Reloaded suffered from poor pacing and overblown, "gee, look at this" computer graphics. Films like the Matrix follow-up or the Star Wars prequels help us all appreciate just how well Peter Jackson's movies work on all levels.

[Evenstar1400]

i completely and entirely agree. matrix is good, but not that good. star wars just sucked.

[hectorberlioz]

Personally, if rotk doesnt win, I am going to be very very mad. lotr has been through 2 best picture noms, the academy is letting suspense hang in the air. if they dissapoint...

[IronParrot]

I have a question, IP: Are all of the pictures you mentioned from different studios? Do studios ever intentionally compete against themselves? IOW, would New Line, for instance, put all of its Oscar eggs in the RotK basket, or would they "play up" another film in hopes of getting an Oscar no matter what? Just curious about how studios view the "Oscar game" they play, as you described (strategy-wise).
It's very common that a studio will under-market one of its potential Oscar contenders in favour of pushing another, yes. This is also because it's only in a few cases - maybe one a year - that a studio will have two entries in the Oscar field, and practically never three (I'm not sure I can even name an example). The most recent example is how Miramax put all its guns behind Chicago when it received huge critical acclaim, while it sort of left Gangs of New York by the wayside. The latter was still nominated, but notice how it was completely shut out at the awards ceremony.

Sometimes studios will campaign very early and make some huge mistakes, and pull a complete turnaround on what film is their "primary candidate". This happens if a film they hype up for critical attention ends up flopping, like The Shipping News did two years ago.

The role of advertising is going to be much less this year than in previous Oscar seasons, though. I see this as a good thing.

My personal belief from the beginning is that FOTR and TTT shouldn't have been nominated, much less considered eligible, for any Oscars at all - and that The Lord of the Rings should be recognized as a single film in 2003. In all aspects except release cycle, LOTR is ONE movie. I think a lot of votes were diverted away from FOTR because Academy voters knew it was a single project that should be recognized at the end.

[IronParrot]

It takes more than intriguing themes to make an entertaining movie. Matrix Reloaded suffered from poor pacing and overblown, "gee, look at this" computer graphics. Films like the Matrix follow-up or the Star Wars prequels help us all appreciate just how well Peter Jackson's movies work on all levels.
While it is true that of the Big Three franchises, LOTR is by a long shot the most artistically and cinematically conscious, I would have to respond briefly to your shortsighted claims.

There is nothing wrong with overblown computer graphics if they are at the service of story.

In the case of The Matrix Reloaded, while it does have end-loaded pacing issues (as did the first) it was far more mature in terms of how the story wrapped around the in-film universe. While the first Matrix film was merely a stylish and groundbreaking action movie that talked a lot about images and reality, it didn't have much going for it in terms of the actual plot once the heroes were established. Think about it: for all of the pizzazz in the last thirty minutes, the whole thing is a rescue mission. It's like if Star Wars ended with the Millennium Falcon's escape from the Death Star. Really, it demonstrated an issue that mars a lot of superhero movies, and it's that the "first mission" story pales in comparison to the tale of the hero's origin. (This kind of flaw was a dent in Spider-Man and just killed X-Men.)

I do admire the first Matrix film, but the second one had a story that actually understood how to deal with machine mentality in a machine world. Even the original Star Wars is admittedly flat if you don't think of it in the context of the developments in The Empire Strikes Back.

As for why the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy is a tour de force of plot construction (despite some cinematic problems in their realization in The Phantom Menace), if I broached that subject I'd be sitting at my keyboard until this time tomorrow morning, so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by IronParrot
My personal belief from the beginning is that FOTR and TTT shouldn't have been nominated, much less considered eligible, for any Oscars at all - and that The Lord of the Rings should be recognized as a single film in 2003. In all aspects except release cycle, LOTR is ONE movie. I think a lot of votes were diverted away from FOTR because Academy voters knew it was a single project that should be recognized at the end.

I thought this as well but I read recently with regards to the trilogies, namely "The Matrix" and LotR, that the academy rules require a single release to stand on it's owm merit. Of course, since none of the voting is truely objective and completely rules based, I'm sure the overall impression would come into play. It wouldn't be fair, IMO. to say that one part of a trilogy should compete against the other, so that when the last part comes out the crtique could be, "Well, it's been done before".

I do wonder if Tom Cruise's Samurai movie isn't likely to be the Hollywood insider favorite. It has the repeat winner magic and competes in the sword genre.

I still think LotR ought to get BP at least for one installment. There maybe "ring fatigue" by the time the awards are handed out.:(

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by IronParrot
There is nothing wrong with overblown computer graphics if they are at the service of story.
[edit]
I do admire the first Matrix film, but the second one had a story that actually understood how to deal with machine mentality in a machine world. Even the original Star Wars is admittedly flat if you don't think of it in the context of the developments in The Empire Strikes Back.

I'd have to agree. The worse critique of Reloaded was that it wasn't as "ground-breaking" as the first or that it was "too commercial". Both very weak arguements since it is a sequel and the familiar storylines must continue. I do think that, like TTT, it suffered as "the middle one". Revolution has all the potential that RotK has for a spectacular ending.

The Star Wars prequel trilogy has the unique problem of being a prequel trilogy to a trilogy. No real possible major surprises.

The idea that CG for the sake of CG is a stike against a film is nonsense. We go mostly for the eye candy these days. If you want a good story, read a book. All successful films showcase the CG and LotR is no exception.

Except for Morpheus' Knute Rockne speech, Reloaded was extremely cool and the pacing was as good as anything out there.:cool:

[IronParrot]

The idea that CG for the sake of CG is a stike against a film is nonsense. We go mostly for the eye candy these days. If you want a good story, read a book.
That I don't agree with at all.

I think it's an extremely negative trend that more and more people nowadays are turning their brains off at the cinema. It means a lot of dumb films out there are making money, which means studios greenlight a lot more of the same kinds of dumb films (the entire teen comedy genre, I'm staring at you).

I liked Reloaded and Attack of the Clones precisely because in addition to using CG (as well as a bevy of traditional techniques like models, puppetry and matte paintings that people completely ignore because they're harder to understand than CG) they were very smart about doing it.

Even with all the creature effects and the like, I think I would find it impossible to get very involved in The Lord of the Rings if it didn't appeal to my more intellectual sensibilities.

It's kind of funny, because everybody talks about Citizen Kane as the most groundbreaking film of all time, and the reasons actually have a lot to do with the special effects and how they were used to construct a completely original narrative.

[Cirdan]

I agree the CG can't stand alone. The difference between The Hulk and League of Extrodinary Gentlermen was beleivable human stories. I really meant showcasing the CG is what it's all about. I would say the CG in Reloaded was cleverly wrapped in a decently supported story. It is still a good (not great) storyline (including all media).

I like to differentiate between films and movies (too much free time). Citizen Kane and 8 1/2 are films. They depend on secondary analysis, unique technique, or extrodinary execution (acting and scene direction). LotR and the Matrix are movies. They seek to push the more base pleasure buttons (hence my "eye candy" term). It is evident from these movies that the script was important, but secondary, to the goal of presenting a marketable impact. There is a sliding scale between art and business.

The Matrix offers a fascinating split reality plot mechanism but it is sometimes abused for the sake of expediency. I need to see Reloaded again to give specific quotes, but there are points when it espouses totally contradictory philosophies as profound, not just pointing them out. This is what makes it a movie script and not a film.

I think we can slide over flaws and weak points in movies more easily because we seeek them out for a specific mix of intellectual complexity and sensory pleasure.

[Black Breathalizer]

How then do you explain the first two lord of the rings 'movies' being nominated for Best Picture Oscars?

Given your description, I would assume only films like A Perfect Mind are worthy of Academy consideration.

[IronParrot]

LotR and the Matrix are movies. They seek to push the more base pleasure buttons (hence my "eye candy" term). It is evident from these movies that the script was important, but secondary, to the goal of presenting a marketable impact.
Agree somewhat regarding The Matrix - strongly disagree regarding LOTR. If you're going to differentiate between "art" and "entertainment" (which is fair enough, as I often enough make that distinction myself) LOTR falls more into the first than it does into the second, simply by virtue of what it has achieved. Remember that Peter Jackson did not make this with commercial aspirations. New Line pumped in its entire fortune out of commercial aspirations. There's a huge difference. LOTR is actually on many levels a big-budget independent arthouse film, simply because of the level of control at the director's level.

On the other hand, I find that the best films I have ever seen are those who exemplify BOTH the values of art and entertainment, and LOTR is undoubtedly one of them.

[Cirdan]

I meant to include something about sliding scales since obviously while one can select a dividing line it is not a black and white but grey areas (no, not technicolor, just a bit subjective). LotR is still a big budget film but it does relie more heavily on content onviously displayed by the choice of source material, hardly pulp fiction or even (sorry IP) comic books. That doesn't preclude an inspired adaptation of less inspired material but the priciple is sound.

LotR is somewhat more film than The Matrix (although both employ strong thematic content, relatively more complex relationships, abstract concept, etc) yet both are quite saturated with special effects, a high percentage of action sequences, marginally developed character relationships (Legolas and Gimli are reduced to the sort of Lethal Weapon buddy movie interaction), physical humor, so I don't see them as being in a different category, just different quantitatively.

Gangs of New York could arguably (though pointlessly) be something near to being wedged between the two. I found the Star Wars prequel trilogy to be more toward the Spiderman/Gladiator end of the spectrum. Braveheart was (still just IMO) better in the areas of character development than any of the aforementioned, but this is likely due to a more focused approach on central characters.

This difference has no affect on Academy awards candidacy, so sorry for the way OT diatribe. I did want to point out that the academy is prone, on occasion, to be just a bit political and image conscious (just a bit:rolleyes: ), so they tend to compensate for the past year's criticisms of being to elitist, too populist, racist, provincial, too pandering, favoritist, and some other big words.

Pictures that are first at something, and not neccesarily best, get special consideration.

Pictures by people who are overdue get special consideration. (Opie)

Pictures with heavy themes (The Piano) get special consideration.

Pictures with box office reciepts too huge too ignore get more attention than they may deserve (Titanic).

Besides, it's a school assembly for grownups, with awards for best penmanship. The only thing that should really matter to you is do YOU think it's the best picture. The award is mostly for promotional use only.

[hectorberlioz]

sorry for the irellevency of this but...
my user cp will not show what threads i'm suscribed to anymore, it use to, but now...i dont know whats wrong..

[Evenstar1400]

As Cirdan said...

"Pictures that are first at something, and not neccesarily best, get special consideration.

Pictures by people who are overdue get special consideration. (Opie)

Pictures with heavy themes (The Piano) get special consideration.

Pictures with box office reciepts too huge too ignore get more attention than they may deserve (Titanic)."

Ahem... RotK should fit into all of those categories....

First time anyone attempted to make LOTR into a movie...

Didn't win best picture for FotR or TT...

Definitely has some heavy themes...

And it made TONS of $ in the box office...

So who should win???? :confused:

ROTK!!!!!!!!!:D

[Cirdan]

it (probably) will make a huge box office. Yes, I keep saying ought to win (even though I haven't seen it;)), but than doesn't mean it will. They (the academy) doesn't check in with me as often as it ought.;)

[Evenstar1400]

if rotk doesnt win....

would anyone join me in an angry mob (all lotr fans) to attack the academy until they make rotk best picture?

anyone at all???

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Should get Best Picture and Best director (overdue for PJ and boxoffice gross for the three films will exceed $3 billion worldwide).

But does it have any realistic chance for supporting actor or actress (and if so, who)?

Miranda Otto? [seems doubtful]
Perhaps the best chance is Samwise (can't remember his name).
He's impressed me more then the other Hobbits so far, excluding Bilbo's cameos.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Evenstar1400
would anyone join me in an angry mob (all lotr fans) to attack the academy until they make rotk best picture?

I'll be content to throw popcorn at the screen, as I do every year.

Re: Best Supporting....

Viggo is technically a supporting character, but will get the bulk of the screen time for the final installment, so...

It's far too early too predict.

I say we reconvene after we've actually seen it.:rolleyes:

[Elvengirl]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
[
Perhaps the best chance is Samwise (can't remember his name).


It's Sean Astin. :)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Sean Astin!!!

Thanks, Elvengirl. (I guess short term memory goes first).

Actually I thought Sean Astin and Ian Holme seemed more like hobbits, while the others were more like actors playing hobbits (if that makes any sense).

Interesting point about VM. Would he be considered/have a better chance as a nominee for actor or supporting actor? And who makes that decision, the studio or the academy?

[jerseydevil]

Well - I didn't think that FotR or TT deserved even to be nominated for Best Picture - let alone when. The FotR was nominated there were a lot of good movies - Godford Park and A Beautiful Mind. I thought A Beautiful Mind deserved to win.

Based on Jackson's track record with the overall quality of the films - I still don't think he deserves to win. But I will reserve my perdiction until I ACTUALLY see the film.

[Selwythe]

Making judgments on whether RotK will win before watching the film? For all we know (and all we pray not to happen), Jackson could have just lost his touch and utterly bombed up the last film. What I'd find ironic is if RotK turns out worse than FotR or TTT but wins an Oscar because of the inclination to give the trilogy its recognition.

For the record though, has any movie sequel won Best Picture before? (I think the Godfather did...?)

I think too that RotK will be shut out of the supporting actors nominations (even if they prove to be outstanding), or if one or two of the cast are nominated, they'd be lightweight contenders. The film just has too large and diverse a cast for each character to receive enough attention. These categories are usually dominated by films with a few central characters that drive the story. Which characters drive LotR? Frodo? Aragorn? Gandalf? Sam? Somebody else? You can't point to one definitively. LotR is more a team-driven vehicle to me, and from my impression, supporting actor/lead actor Oscars are usually won by a definitive character you can automatically associate to the film and whose absence would utterly change the film. The actors in the latter usually leave a deeper impression. Say the nod was up for grabs between an actor from Spiderman and an actor from X-Men. I'd say the Spiderman actor wins the supporting actor award hands down.

Are the Oscars really going to be held on Feb 28? That's my birthday! A RotK win for Best Picture would be the best birthday gift I could have :) In the meantime, I'll also be rooting for RotK to take home the MTV Movie Awards Best Picture, completing a 3-year sweep.

[FoolofaTook]

I hope RotK wins but it does have some competition. Mystic River, Lost in Translation, and Seabiscuit might make strong contenders.

[hectorberlioz]

Mystic River, Lost in Translation,
no way these two will even make noms. and Seabiscuit might make strong contenders.

THAT IStrue

[FoolofaTook]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
no way these two will even make noms

I don't know...I wouldn't be surprised if Clint Eastwood gets nominated for Best Director

[thranduil]

1. If rotk is as true to the book as I have heard, Sean Astin will come out with best supporting actor.

2. Visual effects will be stunning and give matrix r&r a run for there money.

3. Best picture will be awarded to rotk.

4. all the rest of the awards, who cares.

[hectorberlioz]

Well I cant say Clint Eastwood wont get nominated, maybe he will. But Mystic River is not the type the academy would choose.
Never the less-even though i am an oscar freak-I could be wrong...

[thranduil]

I just saw matrix revolution. And I must admit it was a lot better than I thought. Tonz better than the second one. I wouldn't be suprised if it might snatch a few awards from ROTK.:confused:

[b.banner]

yeah right matrix would never win a oscar

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I just saw Matrix 3, let's put it this way, Keanu Reaves acting may be the highlight of the film. The "action" scenes are repetitive and seem to go on forever and there seem to be too many stereotypes of the characters for any awards relating to screenplay. It's special effects are interesting, but mostly only of one kind "evil machines."
I did like Matrix 1, but ROTK should do much better in Oscar contention then Matrix 3.

[hectorberlioz]

If Matrix gets anything its a Special Effects nomination. But the Original and the second were equally well done in special effects, so I dont think M3 will get any.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A rather pessimistic Oscar assessment in Theonering.net Nov., 29, 2003:

Sean Smith writes: Historically speaking, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” doesn’t stand a hobbit’s chance in Mordor of winning this year’s best-picture Oscar. No fantasy film has ever won, nor has the third part of a trilogy. (Gosh. Not even “The Godfather: Part III”?) And only two films that grossed more than $300 million domestically (“Forrest Gump” and “Titanic”) have snagged the top prize.

[FoolofaTook]

Yes, but there's more to that article that's a little more positive:

"THE PARADOX is that Peter Jackson’s epic series is the underdog—a daring long shot taken years ago by New Line, which gave a $300 million-plus trilogy to a largely unproven director, putting the future of the indie studio in Jackson’s hands. “It was a truly gutsy, ballsy, old-Hollywood decision,” says one rival exec. “They took the biggest risk you could possibly take: financial ruin, shutting the f—-ing studio down.”
That backstory—as well as the quality of the films—has made “The Return of the King” the early front runner in the Oscar race, even before Academy members have seen it. “There’s an overwhelming affection for it in the industry,” the rival exec says. “So even though we tend not to root for one another, and we’re pushing our own movies, we’re actually rooting for it to win.” But it won’t be an easy race. With two months before the nominations are announced, the field is full of likely contenders. The Hollywood consensus is that Clint Eastwood’s “Mystic River” is the most certain second nominee. The third is Anthony Minghella’s “Cold Mountain.” Though Miramax hasn’t started screening the movie, it’s never a good idea to bet against Miramax heads Harvey and Bob Weinstein. “We’re all just followers in their little game,” says another rival studio source. “And I say that with a fond, and annoyed, tip of the hat.”That leaves two slots for seven other viable nominees. Three are big-studio pictures: Peter Weir’s “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World,” Gary Ross’s “Seabiscuit” and “The Last Samurai,” starring Tom Cruise. But it’s unlikely the Academy will nominate so many epics, regardless of merit. “It’s usually one,” says a studio exec. “And that’s going to be ‘Lord of the Rings’.” If he’s right, one or two more-intimate films could sneak in. Jim Sheridan’s heartfelt “In America,” about an Irish family in 1980s Manhattan, is playing well at Academy screenings, and early response to “Big Fish,” Tim Burton’s poignant father-son tale, has been very positive. Sofia Coppola’s poetic “Lost in Translation” generated early buzz, but now seems a better bet for acting and directing nominations. And while DreamWorks’ “House of Sand and Fog,” from first-time director Vadim Perelman, is one of the most impressive debuts since “American Beauty,” it may be just too bleak.
“Academy members vote for posterity,” says one Oscar voter. “It’s got to be something they’ll be proud to see on cable three years from now.” If that’s really the criterion, Jackson may go home on Oscar night a happy man."

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Rats! Now you've got everyone positive again:)

Actually, more then Best Picture or PJ Best Director, I'd like to see Sean Astin get Best Supporting Actor (although that's probably unlikely for an epic fantasy movie- not "artsy" enough for Hollywood).
Hmm. Here's a thought . What character would Meryl Streep play in LOTR? Galadriel? Lobelia?(If the Scouring of the Shire hadn't been cut out).

[hectorberlioz]

OMG! meryl streep?!:p i can just imagine her as lobelia! a hobbit....!
well, im getting kinda nervous now...
looks like 'mystic river' was more oscar favoured than i thought....
good thing "mists of translation" (or something like that.) is out of the nominee race....

[Agalayth]

Mystic River does seem to be very popular among the critics. Sean Penn will probably win best actor for that movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
OMG! meryl streep?!:p i can just imagine her as lobelia! a hobbit....!
well, im getting kinda nervous now...
looks like 'mystic river' was more oscar favoured than i thought....
good thing "mists of translation" (or something like that.) is out of the nominee race....
Don't tell me you're rooting for Jackson's hack film. if RotK is anything like the previous movies - it doesn't even deserve a nomenation -let alone winning.

[hectorberlioz]

heck i want it to win because a fantasy or science fic film has never won before.
all the academy chooses is a bunch of look-gooders.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
heck i want it to win because a fantasy or science fic film has never won before.
all the academy chooses is a bunch of look-gooders.
I would have liked it to win - if I actually felt it deserved to win. I however do no think that Jackson's movies deserve to win. I think A Beautiful Mind deserved to win however and I think that people who claim that it didn't - are just upset because their beloved LotR didn't win and had never actually seen the A Beautiful Mind.

[hectorberlioz]

i agree, a beautiful mind was really good, and deserved to win.
same thing with chicago(well....i thought "the pianist" deserved to win)
but its lotr's turn i think.

here's a list of oscar best pic nominee probablities...


the Missing
Return of the King
Seabiscuit
Mystic River
Cold Mountain


i think this is the definite best pic nominee list.

[BeardofPants]

I would be REALLY surprised if ROTK manages to blow Mystic River out of the water, because MR is just one of those mind-blowing movies that leaves your neck tingling. I just can't see ROTK doing that. ::shrug::

[hectorberlioz]

I wasnt listing them in order of win probabaility....
just in order of what came to mind first...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

For what it's worth, a favorable prediction for Sean Astin as Best Supporting Actor on:

http://members.cox.net/oscarsights/supportingactor.htm

[Shadowfax]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I would be REALLY surprised if ROTK manages to blow Mystic River out of the water, because MR is just one of those mind-blowing movies that leaves your neck tingling. I just can't see ROTK doing that. ::shrug:: MR may leave your neck tingling, but RotK left me sobbing my eyes out (the whole time) because it was so good!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
but its lotr's turn i think. This is the essence of the Oscar's. Who's time is it? Who's turn is it to win?

I think RotK actually does deserve to win, and it was also the best of the three, but its quality will not be the basis for a win IMO.

[Finrod Felagund]

I think that the Best Picture and Best director are very likely.

Also, some special FX and sound awards and quite possbily another Best Score and maybe best song for "Into The West"

As for the actors, I can't see them winning, as much as Sean Astin may deserve at least a nomination.

[Thorin II]

Sean Astin may get a nomination, but I'd be very surprised if he won the award. Best Picture is certainly possible. Frankly, I think Best Director is the most likely one (apart from some FX awards). Peter Jackson deserves a lot of credit for everything he's accomplished over the trilogy. Beyond the fact that he adapted a very popular piece of literature, he also handled one of the largest productions in film history. I think PJ will win.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Does anyone know if there is any relationship, a harbinger, whatever, to the Oscars to Return of the King getting some of these awards?
_______________________________________
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1073412695

"NEW YORK -- Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" scored a triple crown Monday, taking picture and director awards in each of three annual film honors lists from the Online Film Critics Society, the Kansas City Film Critics Circle and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society.

The concluding chapter in New Line's phenomenally successful Tolkien trilogy in December was named best picture of 2003 by the New York Film Critics Circle.

In addition to those laurels, Jackson's battle epic earned the Las Vegas critics' supporting actor nod for Sean Astin. Both the Vegas and online groups also lauded the "LOTR" finale for cinematography (Andrew Lesnie), original score (Howard Shore), costume design (Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor), art direction and visual effects.

The online critics also honored the pic for adapted screenplay (Philippa Boyens, Jackson and Fran Walsh) and sound."

_____________________________________
I believe FOTR got some Best Picture awards, including in the U. K., but only technical awards Oscars. So do the above awards signify anything? I don't usually follow these yearly awards, so I have no idea of any possible omens.:):confused:

[Cirdan]

Let me check the goat entrails.

[Thorin II]

I'm not sure the Online Film Critics Society, the Kansas City Film Critics Circle or the Las Vegas Film Critics Society have enough pull to impact the Oscars. I understand the Golden Globes are usually good indicators of who WON'T win Academy Awards...

[dawningoftime]

I am fairly confident that LoTR will do well at the Oscars this year because from the sounds of things they are eligable for more categories including best score and best song.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Thorin II
I understand the Golden Globes are usually good indicators of who WON'T win Academy Awards...

Which is why Cold Mountain has so many Golden Glode nominations. By the way, don't waste your time seeing Cold Mountain, what a boring movie, I hated it! :D

[Elvengirl]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
By the way, don't waste your time seeing Cold Mountain, what a boring movie, I hated it! :D

That's good to hear. :D In case your wondering, I'm rooting for ROTK!!

[gimli7410]

Originally posted by dawningoftime
I am fairly confident that LoTR will do well at the Oscars this year because from the sounds of things they are eligable for more categories including best score and best song.


im not so sure it will win many, i mean ithink it shouldbut usually some movie comes out and screws us over:rolleyes:

[The Gaffer]

The BAFTAs were announced today:

LOTR/ROTK gets 13 nominations (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1126404,00.html)

[azalea]

Never before have I actually recognized the names of the people nominated for the production type awards (costume, sound, etc.) until the LotR movies -- I guess I've watched way too much about the "making of.":p

BTW, what does it mean by "orange film?":confused:

[The Gaffer]

It's a new category this year: Best Film Made Entirely in Different Shades of Orange.

Actually, Orange are a phone company who sponsor the event; I think that it's decided by some sort of public vote (probably by Orange customers or something)

[azalea]

Okay, thanks! That makes sense. :)

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The BAFTAs were announced today:

LOTR/ROTK gets 13 nominations (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1126404,00.html)
Glad to see Ian getting the nod for supporting actor, although to be honest he was better in FotR - he was just too un-Gandalf like in RotK for my liking (not to mention they cut his important Nazgul confrontation scene to force us all to buy the bloody EE when it comes out).

BTW, much as I liked MR, I have to say the ending was utter crap IMO. They'd have done better to cut at the scene when the guy is walking away down the road - the whole carnival scene bit annoying and pointless. Apart from that, great film though :)

Don't want RotK to win 'best adapted screenplay' on principle. Oh, and because it's craply adapted of course!

I found Kill Bill to be awful, and I'm the most 'action flick' guy I know. The anime stuff was cool, but the actual film was rubbish - Uma Thurman just can't act. It's a measure of how bored I was with the film is that my enduring memory of it is the close up of Uma's foot when she's trying to wriggle her toe. Damn that woman has ugly feet!

BTW anyone else find it amusing that it's Matrix Reloaded and NOT revolutions in the Orange award? Must say, part 2 was better than 3, although part 1 was still the best (and should never have spawned any sequels).

[hectorberlioz]

you're absolutely right on the matrix movies.
sequels usually suck.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Don't want RotK to win 'best adapted screenplay' on principle. Oh, and because it's craply adapted of course!

he he. there's two good reasons right there.

[Cirdan]

So RotK won BP in the Golden Globes so I guess that is supposed to nix the chances for a BP Oscar.

[Gerbil]

What's the track record for 'globe win means no oscar'? Anyone done any research? :)

Oh, and a win for Ricky and The Office, I used to live in Slough for a bit and it really is as depressing as it looks in the show!

[BeardofPants]

Ugh, The Office is traumatising!

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Ugh, The Office is traumatising! 'I'll get my guitar'

If those words alone don't make you want to curl into a ball and die, then you need to watch the Office :D

[BeardofPants]

http://www.bbcamerica.com/images/genre/comedy_games/the_office/photo_id_episode4_watch.jpg

:eek:

[azalea]

I had always heard (or thought I'd heard) that the GGs ARE good predictors of who will win an Oscar.:confused: (Esp. the drama catagory, because we all know comedies rarely win.) I'm not sure what the logic would be regarding it not being a good predictor (unless I'm thinking of nominations rather than wins:confused: )

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by azalea
I had always heard (or thought I'd heard) that the GGs ARE good predictors of who will win an Oscar.

I had never followed the GGs, so I checked the recent history and it seems that they correlate ~60% of the time. Last year was a deviation year so the probability is high that RotK will win.

My previous estimation was based solely on the opinions of a self-proclaimed expert. My mistake.:)

[crickhollow]

the oscar noms are out! RotK took in 11 nominations:

MSN movie news (http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=147815)

edit: the complete list can be found at http://www.oscar.com/

[FoolofaTook]

Best Actor: Jonny Depp: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl!

Wow! I didn't see that coming. I mean he was great in the movie, but I never thought that the academy would nominate him for it.

[Kalimac]

Return of the King

Academy Awards (11 nominations) TBA 2/29/04
-Best Director
-Best Picture
-Art direction
-Costume design
-Film editing
-Makeup
-Original score
-Original song
-Sound mixing
-Visual effects
-Adapted screenplay

American Cinema Editors (Won)
-Best Edited Feature Film (Dramatic)*

American Society Of Cinematographers (1 nomination, 0 win)
-Andrew Lesnie

Art Directors Guild (ADG) (Won)
-Excellence in Production Design for a Period or Fantasy Film*

British Academy Film Awards (12 nominations, 5 Wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Adapted Screenplay*
-Best Cinematography*
-Best Special Effects*
-Orange Film of the Year (public)*
-Best Director
-Best Actor in Supporting Role (Sir Ian McKellen)
-Best Score
-Best Editing
-Best Production Design
-Best Costume Design
-Best Sound
-Best Make up and Hair


Cinema Audio Society (CAS) (1 nomination, 0 win)
-For Outstanding Sound Mixing for Motion Pictures

Costume Designers Guild (CDG) (1 win)
-Excellence in Film, Period/Fantasy*

Directors Guild Of America (DGA) (1 win)
-Best Director: Peter Jackson*

Directors Guild of Great Britain Awards (1 win)
- Best Director - International Film: Peter Jackson

Golden Globe Awards (4 nominations, 4 wins)
-Best Picture (DRAMA)*
-Best Director*
-Best Score*
-Best Song*

Golden Satellite Awards (8 nominations, 1 win)
-Best Art Direction*
-Best Picture
-Best Original Score
-Best Cinematography
-Best Visual Effects
-Best Film Editing
-Best Sound
-Best Costume Design

Makeup/Hairstyling Guild (3 Nominations, 2 wins)
-Best Character Makeup*
-Best Special Makeup Effects*
-Best Character Hairstyling

Motion Picture Sound Editors (MPSE) (2 nominations, 0 Win)
-Best Sound Editing - Domestic or Foreign Feature Film - Music
-Best Sound Editing - Foreign Feature Film

Producers Guild Of America (PGA) (won)
-Best Production*

Screen Actors Guild (SAG) (1 big WIN)
-Outstanding Performance By A Cast In A Theatrical Motion Picture*

USC Scripter Award (Nominated, 0 win)
-Best Realization Of A Book Adapted To Film

Visual Effects Society (VES) (8 nominations, 4 wins)
- Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects Driven Motion Picture*
- Outstanding Character Animation - Live Action Motion Picture*
- Outstanding Performance in an Effects Film: Sean Astin*
- Outstanding Models and Miniatures - Motion Picture*
- Best Single Visual Effect of the Year - Any Medium
- Outstanding Special Effects in Service to Visual Effects - Motion Picture
- Outstanding Visual Effects Photography - Motion Picture
- Outstanding Compositing - Motion Picture


Writers Guild Of America (WGA) (1 nomination, 0 win)
-Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published


CRITICS

African-American Film Critics (1 win)
-Best Picture*

Broadcast Film Critic Association (4 Nominations, 4 Wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Ensemble*
-Best Composer*

Boston Society Of Film Critics (1 nomination, 0 win)
Best Director: Peter Jackson (Runner-Up)

Central Ohio Film Critics Awards (6 nominations, 1 win)
-Best Director: Peter Jackson*
-Best Picture (Runner-up)
-Best Supporting Actor: Sean Astin (Runner-up)
-Best Adapted Screenplay (Runner-up)
-Best Cinematography (Runner-up)
-Best Score

Chicago Film Critics (6 nominations, 3 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Score*
-Best Supporting Actor (Sean Astin, Andy Serkis)
-Best Screenplay
-Best Cinematography

Dallas Fort Worth Critics (3 nominations, 3 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Cinematography*

Florida Film Critics Awards (3 nominations, 3 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Cinematography*

Iowa Film Critics (1 win)
-Best Director*

Kansas City Film Critics (2 nominations, 2 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*

Las Vegas Film Critics Society (10 nominations, 8 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Supporting Actor (SEAN ASTIN)*
-Best Cinematography*
-Best Art Direction*
-Best Costume Design*
-Best Original Score*
-Best Visual Effects*
-Best Screenplay
-Best Film Editing

Los Angeles Film Critics (2 wins)
-Best Director*
-Best Production Design*

London Critics Circle Film Awards (2 nominations, 0 wins)
-Best Picture
-Best Director
-Critic's Circle Award: Ian McKellen*

National Board Of Review (1 nomination, 1 win)
-Best Acting by Ensemble*

National Society of Film Critics (1 nomination, 0 win)
-Best Director: Peter Jackson (Runner-Up 2nd)

New York Film Critics Circle (2 nominations, 1 win)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director (runner-up)

New York Online Film Critics (0 nominations, 0 wins)

Online Film Critics (11 nominations, 9 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Adapted Screenplay*
-Best Cinematography*
-Best Original Score*
-Best Visual Effects*
-Best Art Direction*
-Best Costume Design*
-Best Sound*
-Best Supporting Actor: Sean Astin
-Best Supporting Actor: Andy Serkis

Phoenix Film Critics Nom (13 Nominations, 9 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Screenplay Adapted*
-Best Original Score*
-Best Cinematography*
-Best Film Editing*
-Best Production Design*
-Best Visual Effects*
-Best Makeup*
-Best Actor in Supporting Role (Sean Astin)
-Best Ensemble Acting
-Best Original Song
-Best Costume Design


San Diego Film Critics (2 wins)
-Best Director*
-Best Production Design (Art Direction)*

San Francisco Film Critics (1 win)
-Best Director*

Seattle Film Critics (5 nominations, 2 wins)
-Best Supporting Actor (SEAN ASTIN)*
-Best Cinematography*
-Best Picture (runner-up)
-Best Director (runner-up)
-Best Adapted Screenplay (runner-up)

Southeastern Film Critics Association (3 nominations, 2 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Adapted Screenplay (runner-up)

Toronto Film Critics (1 nomination, 1 win)
-Best Director*

Utah Film Critics (3 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Supporting Actor (SEAN ASTIN)*

Vancouver Film Critics Circle (2 nominations, 1 win)
-Best Director*
-Best Picture (runner-up)

Washington DC Area Film Critics Association (4 nominations, 2 wins)
-Best Picture*
-Best Director*
-Best Ensemble
-Best Adapted Screenplay

OTHER AWARDS

MTV Movie Awards (TBA)

Empire Awards (8 nominations, 3 wins)
- Best Film*
- Best British Actor: Andy Serkis*
- Sony Ericsson Scene of the Year: Ride of the Rohirrim*
- Best Director: Peter Jackson
- Best Actor: Viggo Mortensen
- Best Actor: Sean Astin
- Best British Actor: Sir Ian Mckellen
- Best British Actor: Orlando Bloom

Hugo Award (TBA)

Saturn Awards (13 nominations) TBA 5/5/04
-Best Fanatasy Film
-Best Actor (Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen)
-Best Sup Actor (Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis)
-Best Sup Actress (Miranda Otto )
-Best Director
-Best Writing
-Best Music
-Best Costume
-Best Makeup
-Best FX

[Kalimac]

Considering that the 76th Academy Awards will be presented tonight and that Return of the King is up for 11 of those awards . . I've posted the tally on the other page a list of nominations and awards for the film this past year. ROTK has won nearly every possible award from every critics group as well as garnered nominations and wins from the film industry (the guilds).

The significant wins for the film include: Peter Jackson taking Best Director from the Directors Guild (DGA); Return of the King winning Best Picture from the Producer's Guild (PGA); and the ROTK cast winning Best Ensemble from the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). These are all, in general, academy predictors.

Here's a link to Oscar Central predictions for the nights event:

Oscar Central Predictions 2004 (http://www.oscarcentral.com/2004/pre_others.html)

They're predicting that ROTK will take 9 out of the 11 awards. But, with the Oscars . . anything can happen . . ROTK could sweep, or split with other films for the awards. Whatever happens . . it will be fun to watch!

The Academy Awards begin at 8pm EST/ 5pm PT.

Good luck to Peter Jackson and Return of the King!! :D :D :D :D :D

[Twista]

Anyone know when it airs in the UK?

[Kalimac]

Not sure but I think there is a 6 hour difference between UK time and EST . . so if the show starts at 8 EST . . that would mean it would be about 1 AM overseas. Not sure though.

Time and Date (http://www.timeanddate.com/)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

There's an 8:00 P.M. EST preshow. Awards start at 8:30, 1:30 A.M. in U.K., but it's scheduled to end (of course, often runs late) at 2 A.M. (7 A.M.) in U. K., and it will probably be 5 A. M. or later before major awards are reached. Why not just sleep and get up early? (and tape for minor awards).:)

Of course, West Coast of North America people have it easy. Then again, the awards are held in Southern California.

[azalea]

Or you could just come on Entmoot to find out who won, since we'll probably be talking about it here, regardless.:)

[jerseydevil]

I'm here. :devil:

But I'm not going to watch it - I might catch the last bit.

[Christiana]

Woohoo!it just won for best Art Direction!

[crickhollow]

bah! out of 150 channels on my parents' satellite, we don't get the Academy Awards.

Thanks for the updates, though :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by crickhollow
bah! out of 150 channels on my parents' satellite, we don't get the Academy Awards.

Thanks for the updates, though :)
You don't get ABC? It's on ABC. It is time delayed for you though.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

You don't get ABC? It's on ABC. It is time delayed for you though.
_________________________
Right. How could it not be on in Washington? Especially since so far ROTK seems to be cleaning up on the Oscars.

[Gerbil]

/So far won everything it's up for:

art direction
costume design
sound mixing (or just sound as it's down on the oscars site)
visual effects
makeup

just one question - what the hell is the difference in the categories sound mixing and sound editing???

[Gerbil]

best score - well played to Howard shore, especially since it is a homage to FotR in a lot of places which already won this award :)

Just in - best editing.
A shame, city of god looked rather original, but can't really complain.

If it carries on like this (it winning everything it's nominated for) RotK will join Titanic and Ben Hur as most oscars won.

[jerseydevil]

Did they already give the "best bathroom fixture to be installed in an actor's trailer award" yet? :p

[Christiana]

no, still waiting for that one :rolleyes: :D
LOTR has one 7 so far

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Did they already give the "best bathroom fixture to be installed in an actor's trailer award" yet? :p
What about Best Sandwich Made by Movie Catering, Grippiest Key Grip... etc.

[Gerbil]

Best song so 8 now - this one at least was deserved :)

[Gerbil]

So 3 left, the big 2 (it's bound to win, I'd stake my life on it right now).

Best adapted screenplay still to go though...... oooooooh.
I'd like it to win 'em all and become joint most oscars won, but at the same time it so blatantly doesn't deserve this award I'll rather come down on it winning 10 and missing this one.

Having said that, seems like it will win it given current trend, so 11 it'll probably be ;)

I am waiting for 'best, most obscure award reason' film I must admit, it's just bizarre this year. Why is City of God up for best film but not in best foreign film catagory? That makes no sense :/

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Best adapted screenplay still to go though...... oooooooh.
Is that really an Oscar? If they win it... :mad:
Given the competition, and the Oscars, they probably will. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Is that really an Oscar? If they win it... :mad:
Given the competition, and the Oscars, they probably will. :rolleyes:
I was just going to post that - but I think everyone knows my opinions.

[Nurvingiel]

Heh heh. Actually, I think everyone knows my opinions too. :D Since I just came in here to poke fun at the Oscars anyway, I think I'll leave and go watch Band of Brothers. :D

Cheerio!

[jerseydevil]

Tolkien is hearby spinning out of his grave and can now be seen flying over Oxford England. :mad:

[Gerbil]

*sigh* It won best adapted :/

Not really any suprise, since at least people KNOW it came from a book, and a great one at that.
I haven't seen City of God, but the clips they keep showing makes it the film I most want to see next, looks really different and amazing.
But, as we all know, the oscars don't particularly reflect actual film achievements.

Har! My girlfriend just described Philipa Boyens as looking like an ugly beggar!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Har! My girlfriend just described Philipa Boyens as looking like an ugly beggar!
Hey - I think Jackson came up in the world - he's actually wearing shoes tonight I think.

[jerseydevil]

Tolkien is now spinning at sub-sonic speed. I can't believe a hack like Jackson has won. It figures though - who in Hollywood even read the books, we know most of the actors didn't. :rolleyes:

And Jackson never even mentioned Tolkien in his acceptance speech. Figures. :rolleyes:

Funny how Billy Crystal mentioned Jackson wearing shoes though. :p

[thranduil]

yelp they got it

[gollum9630]

11/11.


billy crystals song about LOTR was funny

[jerseydevil]

Tolkien is now spinning at light speed and heading off out into the galaxy and beyond.

Best picture - what a crock and he doesn't even acknowledge Tolkien. Like he even cared about the books. :rolleyes: A TRUE fan would have had Tolkien at the top of the list of people to thank. At least Fran Walsh had thanked Tolkien in her previous speech.

[Gerbil]

Clean sweep 11 it is, so RotK is now officially the joint top oscar winning film of all time.
Ironic considering FotR was the best of the lot ;)

Still, an epic achievement, even if it shares little with the source - well played to them all really.

Regarding reading the books - my biggest faves of the film where christopher lee (avid tolkien fan), ian mckellan (read the book) and viggo (not read it, but spent vast amount of efforts getting into character even if it was the PJ coward Aragorn).

I think it's no coincidence I like the actors who made the most efforts in the film.

BTW someone else thanked Tolkien, but yeah PJ forgot to mention him :(

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
BTW someone else thanked Tolkien, but yeah PJ forgot to mention him :(
Fran Walsh did previously - but jackson won two awards and NEVER mentioned Tolkien. So much for him being a fan. :rolleyes: :mad:

[thranduil]

ya barrie osbourne thanked tolkein as well. PJ is a jerk for not mentioning tolkein.

[Christiana]

OH YEA!!!!!! clean sweep! and its tied for most ever! if ONLY it had been nominated for Cinamatography!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by thranduil
ya barrie osbourne thanked tolkein as well. PJ is a jerk for not mentioning tolkein.
I always said jackson's constant mention of Tolkien before was just for PR purposes. That is quite obvious now that when he doesn't need to ride on the coat tails of Tolkien's name - he doesn't even mention Tolkien. :mad:

[Ben]

:D :D :D :D

I remember when FotR was edged out by ABM, and everyone said they were waiting for the final installment to give out their love. Very true!!

The trilogy already won for cinematography and sound effects editing previously, but it would've been cool to get all that this year for an official record-breaker, not tie :p. And the poor actors who got no individual recognition.

But those are quibbles. LotR wins!!

[azalea]

WOOHOOO!!! Finally, a true fantasy film has won for the very first time! Now, give us some more good fantasy films, please, Hollywood!:D

[jerseydevil]

The actors deserved the academy awards more than the pseudo-fan Jackson. At least the actors never claimed to be a fan of the books and they actually did a good job with what they were given to work with. Jackson was given a great book and reduced it down to action and comic relief.

[azalea]

Hi, everybody!:)
Hey, don't forget Ian McKellan's mention of Tolkien, and I know a couple of other people thanked him, I guess some of the tech award people.

[Khamûl]

If only Sean Astin had gotten a best supporting actor nomination and win...

It's still a great night. :D

[HOBBIT]

Cool :cool:

[azalea]

But I was happy to see all the noms and wins he's (Sean Astin, I mean)gotten from other groups (see previous page). I bet he's been busy, since surely he went to at least a few of those ceremonies!

[dawningoftime]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The actors deserved the academy awards more than the pseudo-fan Jackson. At least the actors never claimed to be a fan of the books and they actually did a good job with what they were given to work with. Jackson was given a great book and reduced it down to action and comic relief.


Actually Elijah Wood wanted the role so bad that he dressed up as a hobbit and sent in an audition tape too Jackson. Besides I don't think that unless anyone on these boards know Peter Jackson personally, then we are in no position to judge whether or not he is a true fan of the book. It has been clear from the beginning that each of us have our own opnion of how the movie should have looked and what should have been included. I personally think he did an excellent translating the books into a movie. They aren't perfect, but they are by far the best anybody has done thus far. And yes I have read the books.

[Entlover]

Hooray for LotR: it should be considered one movie and will go down in history as such, so the Oscars go to the whole shebang.

Well deserved, in my opinion. Fantasy rules!

So PJ didn't mention Tolkien -- perhaps he felt that since several other people had, and since the professor's gone on to higher pursuits, it wasn't necessary. Also he looked tired. Give the guy a break.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by dawningoftime
Actually Elijah Wood wanted the role so bad that he dressed up as a hobbit and sent in an audition tape too Jackson. Besides I don't think that unless anyone on these boards know Peter Jackson personally, then we are in no position to judge whether or not he is a true fan of the book.
I can based on his OWN statements as well as others concerning him.


It has been clear from the beginning that each of us have our own opnion of how the movie should have looked and what should have been included. I personally think he did an excellent translating the books into a movie. They aren't perfect, but they are by far the best anybody has done thus far. And yes I have read the books.

Completely changing the books was not anythign anyone has suggested though - unlike what Jackson did.

Done thus far? There have only been two attempts. Bakshi and Jackson. Bakshi's could have been very good if he had the money.

[MasterMothra]

Now that PJ has won his oscar could he do us the courtesy of never being part of another Tolkien adaptation. Please go work on that film, King Kong, that nobody cares about and leave Tolkien material in the hands of someone who actually understands the material.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
Now that PJ has won his oscar could he do us the courtesy of never being part of another Tolkien adaptation. Please go work on that film, King Kong, that nobody cares about and leave Tolkien material in the hands of someone who actually understands the material.
I agree, but he now wants to get his grubby hands on the hobbit. Going so far to even possibly include ARWEN in it. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Entlover
So PJ didn't mention Tolkien -- perhaps he felt that since several other people had, and since the professor's gone on to higher pursuits, it wasn't necessary. Also he looked tired. Give the guy a break.
Why do I have to give him a break? The only reason for his supposed love of the books before was to sell the movie. After he had that done - he didn't care about Tolkien - as is demonstrated in his speech. :rolleyes:

[gimli7410]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
Now that PJ has won his oscar could he do us the courtesy of never being part of another Tolkien adaptation. Please go work on that film, King Kong, that nobody cares about and leave Tolkien material in the hands of someone who actually understands the material.


honestly u people have to give this man credit. he put 5 or 6 years of his life into this movie. he cannot satisfy each and every persons idea of what the movie should look like, he has to make it appeal to all audiences not just the people who read the book. i bet that if people here directed the lord of the rings movies (with actual experience) in their own vision you wouldnt imagine the **** you would be getting right now. so at least give him the respect that he put effort into this movies

[MasterMothra]

Thats terrible news.
On the bright side, maybe he can fit Sauruman's death and the Scouring of the Shire somewhere in his King Kong movie.

[MasterMothra]

Originally posted by gimli7410
honestly u people have to give this man credit. he put 5 or 6 years of his life into this movie. he cannot satisfy each and every persons idea of what the movie should look like, he has to make it appeal to all audiences not just the people who read the book. i bet that if people here directed the lord of the rings movies (with actual experience) in their own vision you wouldnt imagine the **** you would be getting right now. so at least give him the respect that he put effort into this movies

I give him respect for making a good movie, terrible adaptation. Now, if he will just go away quietly into the sunset and leave Tolkien's material alone I would be happy.

[gimli7410]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
I give him respect for making a good movie, terrible adaptation. Now, if he will just go away quietly into the sunset and leave Tolkien's material alone I would be happy.

well that is all i ask:D it is a bit bad that he didnt thank tolkiien but hey sometimes we all forget the most important things

waiting for jerseydevil to respond;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
I give him respect for making a good movie, terrible adaptation. Now, if he will just go away quietly into the sunset and leave Tolkien's material alone I would be happy.
Agreed. If he didn't give the propaganda speeches and lies before the movies came out as to what we could expect from the movies - I would be giving him a break. People have chosen to forget all the stuff he said BEFORE the movies came out and how his story changed. Now he gives an acceptance speech and doesn't even mention Tolkien. As I said - so much for him being a fan.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by gimli7410
well that is all i ask:D it is a bit bad that he didnt thank tolkiien but hey sometimes we all forget the most important things

waiting for jerseydevil to respond;)
Here's your response. He didn't thank Tolkien because there was only ONE reasopn why he made the films - that was for the money - most of which went to build up Weta, which he owns. :rolleyes:

[Entlover]

Yah -- I agree with gimli7410.

When your own movies come out, be sure to give me a call.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Entlover
Yah -- I agree with gimli7410.

When your own movies come out, be sure to give me a call.
Why is it the only way you can dislike the movies is when you have a movie version of LotR coming out - but anyone can like the movies? :rolleyes:

[gimli7410]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Here's your response. He didn't thank Tolkien because there was only ONE reasopn why he made the films - that was for the money - most of which went to build up Weta, which he owns. :rolleyes:

i agree it was a bit ungrateful of not thanking tolkien but still you can have all the evidence saying he was in it for the money but he could of made these movies out of love of tolkien works.you have not directly talked to him or people assosciated with him and neither have i so i cant say anything either. im not gonna say i disagree with you or agree. each to his own opinion.

edit:i know the wording in that post was a bit screwed up and i didnt really know how to word it but im tired so forgive me.

[MasterMothra]

Originally posted by Entlover
Yah -- I agree with gimli7410.

When your own movies come out, be sure to give me a call.

LOL.
Well, whenever you get you head surgically removed from Peter Jackson's arse, be sure to call someone else.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by gimli7410
i agree it was a bit ungrateful of not thanking tolkien but still you can have all the evidence saying he was in it for the money but he could of made these movies out of love of tolkien works.you have not directly talked to him or people assosciated with him and neither have i so i cant say anything either. im not gonna say i disagree with you or agree. each to his own opinion.
Why? So he can tell me the same lies he tells everyone? His actions speak louder than words - and him ignoring Tolkien speaks the loudest of anything.

[azalea]

MasterMothra, that was an inappropriate remark. Please refrain from making remarks like that in the future, as it only leads to flame wars.

[Gerbil]

honestly u people have to give this man credit. he put 5 or 6 years of his life into this movie. It's comments like this I really fail to understand. Why should we give him credit for being lucky enough to spend X number of years being paid an enormous amount of money to do exactly what he wants, and go down in history for it too?

I am sure pretty much every director out there was envious.
He certainly wasn't doing anything exceptionally difficult - ask any director and they'll tell you the long hours and the emotional wrangling that goes on in a film production is par for the course.

In other words, PJ is one of the luckiest people alive, not someone to be respected automatically for what he was doing.

Anyway, 11 oscars, well done - I just wish the oscars had been won by the films and the people who actually made LotR a success. My idea of deserving awards would be:

Picture (FotR)
Cinematography (FotR)
Visual effects (all 3)
Score (all 3)
Song (RotK - god I love Annie Lennox!)
Costumes (all 3)
Make up (all 3)
Art Direction (all 3)
Best Original screenplay (all 3) ;)
Supporting actors (Ian Mkcellan FotR, Viggo all 3, Christopher Lee (should have been all 3 but PJ made it 2 :/, Bernard Hill, Sean Bean, Sean Astin, erm Faramir (Rotk))

plus a few honarary ones for the cast as a whole, since obviously it's far too large to actually gfive out individuals as above.

I don't think Gollum was particularly acted well, just competantly.
I'd like to have given Eomer more recognition, but since he was pretty much invisible in the films...

Poooooooossibly PJ best director for either FotR or TTT.

Dunno about some of the techy ones like best editing, not really in a position to comment since I don't know the actual stuff behind it.

[Fat middle]

Just read this at the end of Harry Knowles review on the Oscars:
11 tied with the most in history with BEN HUR and TITANIC!!! [...] - See officially - it's one of the greatest films of all time, no matter how stubborn you may be.


Okay. I agree and I'm very happy for it.

But the greatness of the movie come from what remained of Tolkien work in it. Not for the work of Phillipa, Fran and... PJ.:mad:

Anyway, I'm happy it won so many.

[Gerbil]

11 tied with the most in history with BEN HUR and TITANIC!!! [...] - See officially - it's one of the greatest films of all time, no matter how stubborn you may be. That of course depends on how you rate the oscars, on whether it's to do with actual film quality or not.

I don't think there's anyone here who could honestly say they believe the oscars are won on pure merit ;)

Especially when you consider it's now 'officially' joint top with Titannic, one of the most over-hyped (great film, but not THAT great) films ever released. Oh but wait, on those grounds it DOES deserve to be level with Titanic!

Don't get me wrong, I thing LotR overall does deserve lots of awards and rightly so. It just wouldn't annoy me so much if I'd felt they'd gone where they were actually deserved.

I'm still smarting from Christopher Lee's cutting out of RotK personally...

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by azalea
WOOHOOO!!! Finally, a true fantasy film has won for the very first time! Now, give us some more good fantasy films, please, Hollywood!:D

fan of the film or not... i think this is the film's greatest achievement... the oldest form of storytelling has finally hit the mainstream

not a perfect adaptation in my mind, but highly commendable

i also still think it's terribly unfair to judge another person's love for something... anything... just because you disagree with the way they express it

[Finrod Felagund]

Man, Liv Tyler looked like she stepped out of the eighties, and Annie Lennox is scary when she sings. I could've sworn PJ thanked Tolkien in his best adapted screenplay speech, oh well...

I am impressed, I did not expect it to get all 11, but was pleasantly suprised. Congrats to the rings cast and crew!

Side Note: 11 Oscars
RotK deserved it
Ben-Hur deserved it
Titanic did NOT

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Agreed. If he didn't give the propaganda speeches and lies before the movies came out as to what we could expect from the movies - I would be giving him a break. People have chosen to forget all the stuff he said BEFORE the movies came out and how his story changed. Now he gives an acceptance speech and doesn't even mention Tolkien. As I said - so much for him being a fan.

I don't think we should place that much emphasis on whom somebody 'thanks' when they receive an award. For one, it's THEIR business... and I don't think it's fair for the rest of us to pass judgement on such a thing. Two, Professor Tolkien is deceased... if he couldn't hear, it doesn't matter - if he could, he probably doesn't much care... rewards of Heaven being what they are promised to be. Third, the Tolkien family has pretty well dis-associated themselves from these movie efforts. For all we know, they may have preferred it this way - maybe even requested that he not mention Professor Tolkien.

[Spock]

The opening with Billy Crystal as Legolas was great and it tied in with the fantastic sweep by LOTR ROTK, a long overdue tribute to Peter Jacksons vision and efforts.

BEST PICTURE
• The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

DIRECTOR
• Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
• Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

ORIGINAL SCORE
• Howard Shore, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

ORIGINAL SONG
• "Into the West" from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Fran Walsh, Howard Shore and Annie Lennox

ART DIRECTION
• Grant Major, Dan Hennah and Alan Lee, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

COSTUME DESIGN
• Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

MAKEUP
• Richard Taylor and Peter King, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

SOUND
• Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peck, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
VISUAL EFFECTS
• Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook and Alex Funke, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

FILM EDITING
• Jamie Selkirk, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

[Tessar]

I actually didn't feel that LOTR should've gotten ALL of the awards.

Most of them, yes, but one that I really didn't think was right was the one for Annie's song. It really wasn't THAT good. ;)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Tessar
Most of them, yes, but one that I really didn't think was right was the one for Annie's song. It really wasn't THAT good. ;)

i'm with you on that... i liked the song from a mighty wind... which is a hilarious movie btw, as are all of christopher guest's movies

[Insidious Rex]

wow 11 for 11. Im quite impressed. 78 years of oscar history and it ties the highest records. Spin this all you like you haters but this is a fantastic victory for Jackson and his crew. And Ill personally feel smug for him in his unparalleled success for the next few weeks. I see this as a triumph for both Jackson and Tolkien despite any differences. Its the fact that there is brilliance in both works. And Ive never been silly enough to compare literature to film. They are about as different as you get. Way to go guys. Well deserved. *tips glass*

[Elvellon]

Haven’t seen RotK yet, wasn’t particularly keen to see it after the disappointment of the other two; hope that this means RotK really improved a lot in relation to the others, but I’m not holding my breath about it. I’ll probably see it when it comes in DVD, probably.


As for PJ not mentioning Tolkien, that was rather rude of him.

[The Gaffer]

An interesting line from Ian McKellen on his (admittedly tired and emotional) way into one of those Oscar parties: it is the most popular film of all time, and the Academy has chosen to go along with that.

Whatever we think of the adaptation (and I for one would not think it merited anything but the technical awards) it's a major production gamble that has paid off big style (think of how much extra they spent on designing all those cultures). I think PJ and his team deserve it for that. It's also re-popularised the books, so I reckon that JRRT's rpm might be slowed somewhat by the added weight of some extra dosh.

OK, so he's just "doing what he loves", but so does Ronaldo, and we don't complain when he wins awards and trophies. If it had been a disaster it could've been the end of his career.

And we all know that Oscars aren't really just about craft and artistic ability.

[Pailan]

Imho, the 11 for 11 clean sweep is justified, especially when considering the sweep of all three films together. The Academy tends to reward great efforts later than earlier.

But what fun it was to see that crew jump up every time they won another. To bad the Academy doesn't give out Oscars for ensemble acting...

(Nice to be back)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fat middle
Just read this at the end of Harry Knowles review on the Oscars:


Okay. I agree and I'm very happy for it.

But the greatness of the movie come from what remained of Tolkien work in it. Not for the work of Phillipa, Fran and... PJ.:mad:

Anyway, I'm happy it won so many.
OH and how many people ACTUALLY agree that Titanic was one of the BEST movies of ALL time? :rolleyes: So in other words - Lord of the Rings matches up with Tititanic. Well Titanic was a pure box office success - that is all. Other than that - it is a very forgettable film. How many people actually watch Titanic anymore?

[Nurvingiel]

Welcome back Pailan. :)

I've been lurking around here for a while. Titanic was a dreadful movie, and it is the hair on the zit on the bum of Ben Hur, one of the greatest movies ever.

Originally posted by Pailan
The Academy tends to reward great efforts later than earlier.
Sadly, they go by who's "due", not my who's movies are any good. It just so happens that many people who win actually do deserve it, but this is partly based on chance.

LotR deserved the following awards in my opinion:

ORIGINAL SCORE
ORIGINAL SONG
COSTUME DESIGN
MAKEUP

I'm not sure what these awards entail, but they were probably well deserved also:
SOUND
ART DIRECTION

They especially deserved original score and song, what beautiful music! :)

[brownjenkins]

ben hur was very good... but i've always been partial to sparticus

[azalea]

I have to say PJ deserved the director Oscar, because of what he achieved. I personally think it deseved best picture, but that one is so subjective. The one that was a joke was Best Adapted Screenplay, for obvious reasons. (I think American Splendor should have gotten it.:)). But then again, I was glad that it tied the record. There's no getting around the fact that it was because of the great story behind it that the movies became so successful. I see the popularity and awards as the public's way of saying how much they love the story.

[dawningoftime]

The difference between Titanic and LoTR is that Titanic was a movie based on a historical event where people who lived through it are still alive and will take issue with it. LoTR is a fantasy. If you want to talk about bad adaptations (and bad movie making) go out and buy one of the Left Behind movies and then read the book. Now THAT was BAD.

[Spock]

OK, here I go. You really don't think that putting those books on film took genius? The effort required in detail, patience etc., doesn't deserve recognition. And that it all can't qualify as superior to a movie about a horse or love or anything else that is an ordinary story in terms of reality? Gadz they should change the name of this board to "the unrealistic board".:rolleyes:

[MasterMothra]

Give a starving dog some "Ole Roy" and he'll think its "Pedigree".

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Spock
OK, here I go. You really don't think that putting those books on film took genius? The effort required in detail, patience etc., doesn't deserve recognition. And that it all can't qualify as superior to a movie about a horse or love or anything else that is an ordinary story in terms of reality? Gadz they should change the name of this board to "the unrealistic board".:rolleyes:

Eminently logical, Spock... as we have come to expect! Not ALL around here carry quite such unrealistic expectations though. And sure... there were changes I wasn't crazy about, but the movies could only be done ONE way... so for me to apply a rigid standard of my own about WHICH changes are acceptable and which are not totally crushes artistic expression.

If some really didn't like it, and really can't abide with the changes made from book to movie, that's unfortunate. I wish everyone could relax and enjoy them for what they are. AND be glad that we at least have them... and that Tolkien's work is getting so much more attention than if the movies would not have been made. As far as adaptations, as was stated, check out some others of recent past. It's pretty well understood by most folks that a movie WILL NOT stick to the book (with fiction) or the facts (with history)... so society at large will not think the movies are an exact representation of the books.

Meanwhile, YET ANOTHER friend has taken my offer of loaned books: he read 'The Hobbit' in late January and in February almost finished 'Fellowship of the Ring'... I have no doubt that he would not be reading them had the movies not captured his imagination or piqued his interest.

[Insidious Rex]

well said sir.

[Nurvingiel]

I did enjoy the movies, I was just disappointed. I really thought that Peter Jackson had the skill to do a good adaptation, not just an (highly) entertaining movie. Wait... isn't there another thread about this? :D

[brownjenkins]

spoken like a true king Val ;)

[BeardofPants]

<---- see location for thoughts on this TRAVESTY. :mad:

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund
Side Note: 11 Oscars
RotK deserved it
Ben-Hur deserved it
Titanic did NOT


NO.
NO.
YES.


By the way, I actually liked her hair. Not the glasses. But I liked the hair. It was unusual.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Pailan
Imho, the 11 for 11 clean sweep is justified...

Wha-? Frell no! :mad: Mystic River should have gotten best picture and director. Gnrrrrr. :mad:

btw: welcome back. :D

[Valandil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
<---- see location for thoughts on this TRAVESTY. :mad:


Still trying to get a look at Jackson's nipples? ;) :p

[luinilwen]

Aha just saw on the news that PJ is planning on doing a follow up to LOTR:

"The presequel, I'm told it is - The Hobbit" - Reporter

haha... I wish Johnny Depp had one Best Actor, although that's probably my own personal bias. He did do a great job in PoC, so I'm glad he received recognition from those other awards last week - SAGS, was it? lol

[Nurvingiel]

Johnny Depp was excellent in PoC! I wanted him to win that too. That wonderful walk he did, and the shifty eyes, he was so consistent. Great characterisation. I think he didn't win because PoC was a summer comedy. But it was a great summer comedy!

[Thorin II]

11 was probably more than ROTK deserved, but the rest of the Trilogy didn't get enough recognition, so I guess it balances out. If nothing else, I'm glad PJ got credit for all he accomplished. Despite the PASSIONATE disagreement of many Mooters, PJ impressed me quite a bit with LOTR. He handled the largest production of all time, made three movies with no break in production, and successfully adapted one of the most beloved pieces of literature of the 20th Century. I'm glad he had a chance to take a bow.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by luinilwen haha... I wish Johnny Depp had one Best Actor, although that's probably my own personal bias. He did do a great job in PoC, so I'm glad he received recognition from those other awards last week - SAGS, was it? lol [/B]

I'm a big Johnny Depp fan as well, and he was fantastic in PoC. At the same time, I don't think it's his finest role. Besides that, Sean Penn was incredible. Depp winning for PoC would be a bit like Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman. A great performance, but not his most memorable. I think Depp has an Oscar (or more than one) in his future. Now, if he'd won for Donnie Brasco, that'd be a different story...

[Mrs Maggot]

Wow! What a relief that LotR got as many awards as it deserves!! I couldn't have been a happier little chickie. Oh and yeah, i would've liked to see Johnny depp win Best Actor… but lets face it, sean Penn is pretty good too… and neither of them are that fond of Hollywood so not getting it probably wouldn't have bothered either of them too much! But YAY! And congrats again to peter Jackson and the whole team. :D :D

[Pailan]

I am a bit confused, though. How does one win the Oscar for best film editing and several other technical awards and not even get nominated for cinematography?

And how about an award for the landscape of New Zealand?

[Finrod Felagund]

Originally posted by Gerbil
I don't think there's anyone here who could honestly say they believe the oscars are won on pure merit ;)

Especially when you consider it's now 'officially' joint top with Titannic, one of the most over-hyped (great film, but not THAT great) films ever released. Oh but wait, on those grounds it DOES deserve to be level with Titanic!


However, the other 11 oscar winner, Ben-Hur is definitly one of the great films of History, and deserved all 11!

Originally posted by jerseydevil
OH and how many people ACTUALLY agree that Titanic was one of the BEST movies of ALL time? :rolleyes: So in other words - Lord of the Rings matches up with Tititanic. Well Titanic was a pure box office success - that is all. Other than that - it is a very forgettable film. How many people actually watch Titanic anymore?

Again, Ben-Hur Is one of the best movies of all time...In fact both the 1925 silent version and the oscar winning one with Charlton Heston were landmarks.

[Spock]

Titanic was not fantasy but reality. Titanic sank to the depths to plum emotional votes.
I hate that film.

[azalea]

Not to mention the gratuitous appeal to modern teen girls with handsome Lil' Leo and the fiesty heroine who is surprisingly liberal for the early 1900s.:rolleyes: Forbidden love always sells, I guess.
I didn't want to see it because the thought of watching so many people drown wasn't appealing, but after it won best pic, I borrowed the video from my sister in law who loved it, thinking, well it must be pretty good at least to have won best pic over the others that year. I was wrong in that assumption.:rolleyes: Maybe we should make a thread -- "criticisms of Titanic.";)

I find it interesting that although it was extremely popular, there seems to be a high percentage of mooters who disliked it (or even hated it).

[Starr Polish]

A very good geek boy friend of mine and I joked about this recently.

"Oh, that stupid boat movie. We don't care about actual historical events, it's time something that isn't true was recognized!"

Or something like that. BUT, the best thing is, we said it in complete sincerity.

Hoo-ah to geekdom.

[azalea]

Oh, back on topic, I forgot to ask if anyone had heard this: New line had an Oscar party the day of the Oscars in honor of RotK. Paris Hilton CRASHED the party (IOW she came but hadn't been invited -- what nerve!:rolleyes: ), and as she got out of her limo she stepped knee deep into a Japanse style pond. HA-ha!:D Some people actually went to help her out, while others, including Andy Serkis, simply looked on bemusedly.:D I normally don't follow that kind of "what the stars are doing" kind of thing, but when the blurb on my IPs home page said New Line Oscar party, I was curious. Also, three viewers from Oprah got to attend the New Line party -- if I had known I might have entered! They got to hold PJs Oscars. Wouldn't some of us have liked the chance to talk to PJ?;)

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by azalea
Wouldn't some of us have liked the chance to talk to PJ?;) I wonder if they checked those people for weapons before letting them near PJ? ;)

[Rosie Gamgee]

lol!
Well, I'm thrilled that RotK won all it was nominated for!!! Totally rock on, dude (such occasions call for some modern lingo)! I was surprised that it didn't get any Best Actor nominees (at the very least Ian McKellen), but I suppose that one of the beauties of the movie is that EVERYBODY played their parts equally flawless, so no one actor can be really singled out. Besides- it's better to think that they ARE their characters, than that they ACTED their characters.
GO RotK!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by azalea

I didn't want to see it because the thought of watching so many people drown wasn't appealing, but after it won best pic, I borrowed the video from my sister in law who loved it, thinking, well it must be pretty good at least to have won best pic over the others that year. I was wrong in that assumption.:rolleyes: Maybe we should make a thread -- "criticisms of Titanic.";)

I find it interesting that although it was extremely popular, there seems to be a high percentage of mooters who disliked it (or even hated it).

Really! I still have an unopened video...somewhere in one of my downstairs closets. My mom-in-law gave it to us when it first came out. She got it from QVC..."Today's Special Value" or something like that. I never took the shrinkwrap off. I always seemed to have something better to do than watch Titanic! :D May as well give it to Goodwill after reading this! ;)

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by Spock
OK, here I go. You really don't think that putting those books on film took genius? The effort required in detail, patience etc., doesn't deserve recognition. And that it all can't qualify as superior to a movie about a horse or love or anything else that is an ordinary story in terms of reality? Gadz they should change the name of this board to "the unrealistic board".:rolleyes:

Genius? Define genius. In what was it genial?
The vision it took to do it?
You could accurately say it was a risky gambit, one that no one else was willing to take. In itself it demonstrates boldness and initiative to undertake it, not geniality.
The work done in the settings and costumes?
Yes, it was a great work, as it was the one with special effects.
The music?
Considering the entire movie ‘trilogy’, it was good, some of the themes were excellent, other were simply reasonable, but overall, they were good.
The directing?
Reasonable, but it was not excellent.
The adaptation?
Definitely not. If the movies were good, as light entertainment, they are a very mediocre adaptation. Just considering the scenes he did film, more than one could easily be better by simply staying close to the original, and I doubt that, for the most part, it would really need further extension of the lengthy movie duration. Plus, not all the scenes that PJ added were truly needed, were they?

So let’s be logical, Mr. Spock:
If we assume all PJ wanted to do was movies loosely based in the LotR, then he did well, but then, not truly genial, however, if the plan was to make a serious adaptation, than it was a failure at that level.

It was not a genial work. It was a bold undertaking, well accomplished in certain levels, reasonable in another, and a failure in a crucial one.

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Pailan
(Nice to be back) Pailan! The Oscars wouldn't ever be the same without you.

[Gerbil]

Love your signature Nazgul King Squirrel, says pretty much all that's needed about the films ;)

[Spock]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
[B]Genius? Define genius. In what was it genial?

OK, because I'm resting up so that I can make it to my appointed tests at hospital.

Genius: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity

Genial:marked by or diffusing sympathy or friendlines

As for the rest of your nit picking, if you think directing is so easy and easier when doing three films at once (something no one has ever even attempted, much less done) then you're beyond hope in understanding any further explanation.
__________________________________________________
"If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you."

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by Spock
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
[B]Genius? Define genius. In what was it genial?

OK, because I'm resting up so that I can make it to my appointed tests at hospital.

Genius: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity

Genial:marked by or diffusing sympathy or friendlines




Ah yes, talking of nit picking, do not forget: ‘Genial’
1. [Obsolete] Pertaining to generation or marriage.
2. Mild, pleasant; comfortable; favourable to life or growth.

There, now it is complete, I believe.


As for the rest of your nit picking, if you think directing is so easy and easier when doing three films at once (something no one has ever even attempted, much less done) then you're beyond hope in understanding any further explanation


Especially because it would imply an answer to an analysis, instead of making a, oh so witty, observation about the other’s intellect, isn’t it? Who knows, you may had find yourself forced to provide logical arguments to back your position… ;)

Yours is a rather faulty logic, Mr. Spock, you see, the level of difficulty of the work does not imply the superior quality of the result. In this case, it is good, entertaining, but where’s the genius? What defines it, the movies not the process, as the mark of genius? I can’t see it, and you provide rigorously no fact to support it either.
But I guess that anyone that is not capable to see the, oh so obvious, genius of PJ must be a moron, even those who actually considerer it “just” a good, entertaining, movie, if a lousy adaptation. That, or you were having a tantrum. :rolleyes:

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
The adaptation?
Definitely not. If the movies were good, as light entertainment, they are a very mediocre adaptation. Just considering the scenes he did film, more than one could easily be better by simply staying close to the original, and I doubt that, for the most part, it would really need further extension of the lengthy movie duration. Plus, not all the scenes that PJ added were truly needed, were they?

So let’s be logical, Mr. Spock:
If we assume all PJ wanted to do was movies loosely based in the LotR, then he did well, but then, not truly genial, however, if the plan was to make a serious adaptation, than it was a failure at that level.

It was not a genial work. It was a bold undertaking, well accomplished in certain levels, reasonable in another, and a failure in a crucial one.

i can see some of your point... though not quite so black and white... i see it more as a matter of degree... the film certainly could have been adapted better in many ways (and this does not necessarily mean "more true to the book")... it also could have been a lot worse

calling it a absolute faithful adaptation would be wrong... by the same degree, saying it was just "loosely based in the LoTR" is a bit too far to the other extreme

and it is a serious movie in a way that a lot of adventure movies are not... i have a 5 and 9 year old who were obviously harry potter fans... yet both of them were much more excited about watching (and rewatching) LoTR movies... and for kids who had never read the books, i was surprised at how well they grasped some of the more important themes surrounding the ring and the quest

on the genius thing... few films and even fewer directors rise to that level... kubrick is the only one that comes to mind as having more than a few works of genius

[Spock]

Logic cannot overide denial.

This is not logic it is my opinion.

Apparently no one is allowed to have an opinion save yourself.

Re-read your own PJ statement for support of intent.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i can see some of your point... though not quite so black and white... i see it more as a matter of degree... the film certainly could have been adapted better in many ways (and this does not necessarily mean "more true to the book")... it also could have been a lot worse

calling it a absolute faithful adaptation would be wrong... by the same degree, saying it was just "loosely based in the LoTR" is a bit too far to the other extreme



True, making a good movie does not imply following the book in all details, or even the need of remaining true to it. One thing has nothing to do with the other, I believe. And yes, I do believe it was a mediocre adaptation, but not the worst possible, far from it.

On the matter of the “loose adaptation” I would point out that I was defending that, if it had been his intention to do a loose adaptation, then the result was quite reasonable, meaning that the issue of the faithfulness of the adaptation would be irrelevant, and only the quality of the resulting movie would have any importance.


and it is a serious movie in a way that a lot of adventure movies are not... i have a 5 and 9 year old who were obviously harry potter fans... yet both of them were much more excited about watching (and rewatching) LoTR movies... and for kids who had never read the books, i was surprised at how well they grasped some of the more important themes surrounding the ring and the quest


Glad they did :); still, I believe that what transpires is a dim reflection of the original, and what it could have been if there was intention of making it more ‘serious.’ As it is, it is rather ‘lighter’ and action oriented than it could have been, if that was the intention.

And, btw, I do enjoy a good action or adventure movie ;)



on the genius thing... few films and even fewer directors rise to that level... kubrick is the only one that comes to mind as having more than a few works of genius


Precisely, Kubrick was a genius, we agree there, again. And, as I said, I recognise PJ boldness and initiative. But I fail to see the end result of his work as being truly a masterpiece, as say, 2001, but then, not everyone is a Kubrick after all.
]

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by Spock
Logic cannot overide denial.

This is not logic it is my opinion.



Not that you will listen, but

You will notice that:

You failed to give any evidence supporting the genius of PJ.
You refused to explain why my arguments are wrong in your opinion
You used insult as argument

Logic? Denial?
Can’t deny what you didn’t argue in the first place.
Cannot see the ‘logic’ of insult.


Apparently no one is allowed to have an opinion save yourself.

Re-read your own PJ statement for support of intent.


Truly?
Who called the board as “the unrealistic board," because not all chare your opinion?

Who chose insult as an argument against the one with a different opinion?

How tolerant are those attitudes?

I presented my opinion and why I have it, you reacted with intolerance, not arguments. If you want to point intolerance, I suggest you look at yourself.

[Earniel]

Please stay on topic.

[Christiana]

man, its been weeks and im still in a happy daze about it! It deserved to win! Contrary to most people's opinion, IMHO i think that PJ did a fantastic job. so, he didnt stay true to everything, bbut i think that he stayed very true to the spirit of the book, and imo, thats all that counts.

[Pailan]

Originally posted by crickhollow
Pailan! The Oscars wouldn't ever be the same without you.

Thank you, crickhollow. Ever since I closed the toy store and became a stay at home dad for my twins (now 18 months) I don't get out or online as much as I used to....

Still I find myself smiling to see that LotR did so awesome at the awards. These films have raised the bar for future flicks in this genre. And as adapation of Tolkien's work - of course it's not word for word - but much of the spirit and heart remained to more than satisfy this long time Tolkien reader. Here's to PJ et al, and the $2.5 billion in world wide gross reciepts (for all 3 movies).... kudos!

[Kalimac]

**Contrary to most people's opinion, IMHO i think that PJ did a fantastic job. **

Actually, the majority of people agree with you. It's just a minor contingent that find fault (which is fine, they make discussion more interesting). :D