LoTR Takes 4 Oscars 636
E1ven writes "The Lord of The Rings: The fellowship of the ring won four awards, including Cinematography, Makeup, Music (Score), and Visual Effects. "
At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director. They
definitely deserved the ones they got.
Get your facts right (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong on two counts:
1. It was George III, not Richard III
2. Americans traditionally refer to George III as "King George" because Georges I and II didn't fsck up relationships with the colonies. (IMHO, the Declaration of Independence reads as a "Dear John" letter; they point out exactly what George kept on doing wrong despite all attempts to accommodate him. It's a masterpiece of restraint; and I speak as a Brit here.)
Re:LOTR will never get best picture (Score:2, Informative)
AMPAS =/= MPAA (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike the Grammy's where we got rewarded for watching the music industries love-fest with a harangue about piracy, the only appearance by MPAA President Jack Valenti was him talking about his favourite film during one of the documentary clips at the beginning of the show.
AMPAS is made up not just of studio executives but also of the artists (actors directors cinematographers, makeup, etc.) themselves. If you think that the rantings on SlashDot against the RIAA and MPAA are meant to imply that artists don't deserve recognition or compensation for their work, then you haven't been paying attention. The MPAA and RIAA like to imply that they are standing up for the rights of artists by crushing fair-use rights, when in actuallity they have traditionally fought against artists rights since payments to artists are just another drain on their profits.
Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? (Score:1, Informative)
texts again, because the situation with the
blonde and her brunette friends was not a Nash
equilibrium point. In fact it was completely
unstable.
Here was the premise used in the movie: If
more than one of the guys goes after the blonde,
they will get in each others' way and will all
be rejected. Also, any guy who gets rejected
by the blonde will also get rejected by her
friends because they don't want to be seen as
accepting hand-me-downs.
Nash suggests that they should all go after the
brunettes and then they won't get rejected. Now,
Nash's theory says that a system is in
equilibrium if no single actor can benefit by
changing his strategy when the strategies of all
other parties remain the same. That is clearly
not the case here for either of the possible
scenarios.
If they follow Nash's advice and each go after a
brunette then any single one of them who changes
his strategy and goes after the blonde will
improve his own situation. On the other hand,
if they all go after the blonde they will all
get rejected. If any one of them changes his
strategy, he will benefit by getting one of the
brunettes.
This system is unstable with no equilibria
because there is a conflict between the hope of
being the only one to pursue the blonde and thus
winning the big prize, and the risk of someone
else going after her also and ending up with
nothing.
So, yes, they explained an important mathematical
theory in layman's terms, but they got the
whole thing wrong. Not exactly a reason for
geeks to be praising this movie.
The situation with the blonde and the brunettes
is actually closely related to the 'Ultimatum
Game' from a game theory perspective, but that
has nothing to do with John Nash.
And speaking of economics, the movie completely
misrepresented Adam Smith's views on competition.
I don't know whether it was due to incompetence
or an attempt to make Nash's theory seem more
significant than it really is, but either way
it doesn't reflect well on the movie in terms of
educating the layman.