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.
Amelie gets zilch nada (Score:3, Interesting)
4 out of 13 (Score:3, Interesting)
A complete list of winners and nominees is here [cnn.com].
LOTR won Best Film & Best Director... (Score:5, Interesting)
State of the World (Score:2, Interesting)
When I look at the newpaper I want had happened in the world over the past day or so that I didn't catch on the radio.
We as a society need to get our priorities start on what is important in the world. Yes is good to know that LOTR:FOTR won 4 awards which they desevered but that information should be in the entertantment section where it belongs, not the front page where important news should be.
LOTR should have won. (Score:2, Interesting)
The general public should read The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell just to see what is being saved.
Re:LOTR will never get best picture (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, Tom Cruise's nauseatingly self-congratulatory "we need Hollywood more than ever" intro took the edge off this.
But Nora Ephron's tribute to New York movies was brilliant. In fact, the short specially-produced films were the highlight of the entire show.
Best Director (Score:5, Interesting)
He shot three films at the same time. Never Been Done Before.
He directed scenes in remote locations. Remote meaning remote from him. While he was directing local scenes. Never Been Done Before.
He created a beautiful work on screen of a masterpiece of fiction that most directors wouldn't even have the gonads to try. I don't agree with all his choices, but I respect them (well, not the Arwen character.)
While Ron Howard is a good director, and A Beautiful Mind was a nice film. Peter did so MUCH MORE and did it well that he deserves Best Director.
Now, as for Best Film. That is still a matter of taste. My movie choice wasn't even nominated.
In other words (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, it won all the meaningless ones. Sure, they're nice but does anyone actually remember who won any of those awards last year? 5 years ago? And it isn't like they are going to put that on any of the DVD boxes. FOTR was just a good fantasy movie and there is no way they could get around that.
Of course it wasn't like they came even close to choosing the best nominees. Denzel, in Training Day? Penn in I am Sam? WTF! They aren't even pretending to nominate favorite sons for good movies anymore (although their acting was suspect at least when Sean Connery and Burt Reynolds won they were for two good films). And don't get me started on the sham of a remake that was A Beautiful Mind (let's just say I know there is a special place in Hell for Opie now).
The Oscars are a sham. Does anyone remember Forrest Gump anymore? And what lost to it: Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, and Hoop Dreams.
What didn't get nominated this year for best picture or directing? Memento, Bully, Chopper, Ghost World, Monster's Ball, Mulholland Drive, Sexy Beast, Faithless... on and on. Any of which are deeper, more stylistic, more satisfying, and infinitely more memorable than any of the crappola that won or was nominated.
In truth they never meant anything. On the Waterfront lost and from that point on the Academy has been living a lie ever since.
Ok, that's it. I'm done.
"Academy"==MPAA (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's awful to look out on the front pages of many of the world's papers to see articles about who won. Why should this particular demographic deserve so much power? I take them to be only slightly more credible than Manhattan lawyers, and less credible than just about any other demographic. We have to stop thinking of them as anything more than one voice among many, and in this case, a voice of people whose explicit aim is to bring the world's entertainment under the dicratorship of the MPAA.
I for one would like to see an "I boycott Academy Best Pictures" campaign. Well, if one were to start now, it would not be very restrictive, as the Academy is sure to not even nominate the best films of any given year.
Re:LOTR Upset (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, personally: I enjoyed LOTR: FOTR, but there were much better films this past year, some of which weren't even nominated. FOTR is a good flick, but it isn't high art and it isn't Best Picture.
For that matter, I wouldn't have voted for ABM, either: I would have voted for In the Bedroom, though I think Black Hawk Down and Monster's Ball should have been nominated.
As much as /.ers think that the Academy wouldn't recognize an F&SF flick for Best Picture, it would be my argument that FOTR was the most commericial and the most Hollywood of the choices in the Best Picture category. FOTR ranks right up there with Forest Gump in terms of marketing, and would have won for the same reason if Opie hadn't made a decent movie this year.
So, no, no upset here. Oh, and it's Gandalf, dammit!
Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club (Score:3, Interesting)
i'm not necessarily saying Opie shouldn't have won the award...just presenting the opposite side to your point...
ratings of foreign films (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems a lot like the US are trying to save their children from dangerous foreign thoughts. Or is this just the usual free trade^W^WAmerican protectionism?
IMO... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Plus, I doubted Jackson had a chance against Howard, that was nearly a shoe-in for him. And I suspect that because they 'had' to give ABM the top nod given that they were unable to give the Best Actor nod to Russell Crowe (with Denzel in the competition), and that might have made up for it).
Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How many do you think Two Towers is going to wi (Score:3, Interesting)
Or do you think that for the sake of the movie they will mix it up a bit, so we see both concurrently?
Re:How LOTR can win more Oscars (Score:1, Interesting)
Have the marines invade the Mines
Have Bush crowned although he lost the vote to Boromir
Re:OSCAR NIGHT (Score:1, Interesting)
To me, it wasn't a barrier of any kind - she was just the first black actress deserving of the award, (and even that is under contention by some people.) I am glad she got it because I believe she was the best this year. I don't believe they should give an award like that to someone who truly wasn't the best just because of their race. Unfortunately, the Oscars are more political than we wish they would be. Luckily, she was the best this year.
It's kind of like my company - we have no black employees here, and it's not because we don't want any, it's just because the black people that have applied were really poor compared to the other people applying for the same position. We aren't gonna hire someone who can't do the job just to be PC. (The majority of my coworkers are of Indian descent, so it's not like we're all white males here.)
I also disagree with the moderation of Flamebait to the parent poster. It's a great achivement for the winner, and my hats off go to her.
Re:Screenplay adaptation?! (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/tombomb
" it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists);
But I think leaving something like that out of the movie was entirely reasonable.
Re:Screenplay adaptation?! & imagination (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Let me count the ways... (Score:2, Interesting)
Uma should have gotten the most eye-catching breast award last night.
Thank Goodness the damned thing didn't win BP! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I am in the extreme minority here, but, for goodness sake!
While FOTR was cleverly made in certain places, the overall product was middling at best.
I would have liked to see 6 or 10 episodes, perhaps done on television, WITH the light parts included with the dark, (so much beauty cut out, so much sorrow left in!), WITH Tom B included, WITH Elves that didn't fail to score in multiple ways, ("Welcome to Rivendale Mr. Anderson. You have now been knocked out of the story teller's embrace.") --WITH the proper pacing restored!
LOTR is a story about a Journey. --One where you live and grow with the characters to the point where you genuinely love them by the end. In this film, even Sam felt like a stranger to me. What bullshit! This was not a Journey. --I did not get the idea at all in the film that any significant time had passed from beginning to end. This was a massive problem for me! Tolkien understood the importance of pacing in this respect; he understood the importance of the Journey to the point where he was moved to write that wonderful little line, which I will misquote here: "The road begins at your front door.")
The movie felt like a high-speed, over-slick, Cole's-Notes version of the real thing which was trying like mad to adhere to some sort of Advertiser's guidebook about winning the viewer with hypnotically fast images. It felt afterwards as though I'd just eaten a piece of greasy McMeat stuffed in an over-sugared bun. Maybe Jackson was earnest in his attempt, and maybe he made a passable film. But LOTR it was not.
--And I have heard every apologist's excuse for why it 'Had To Be This Way' for reasons of funding, film pacing, blah, fucking blah.
Sorry, but Tolkien would have hated it. This is NOT what he intended. And the worst thing is knowing that it could have been done right with a proper captain at the helm.
Jackson is an uppity kid with a handful of childish horror flicks under his belt. Of COURSE he was going to fall short of the mark in capturing a Master Work which took Tolkien a lifetime to create; Jackson is a grasshopper with a budget. And that's alright. We all must learn, but damn if it isn't a crying shame that he had to cut his teeth on such a culturally significant work.
Best Picture, my ass. The Oscars are basically the embodiment of pure evil, but at least they made the right call, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
-Fantastic Lad
Re:Screenplay adaptation?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Such as, some time is made to point out that Frodo's sword glows, yet they never made Gandalf's Glamdring glow also. Didn't have to explain Gandalf's sword, but could have only "added" to the background mystery.
When Strider showed himself to Frodo and the gang at Bree, he declared himself as Aragorn of a royal heritage. Only a few more extra seconds and would've added much to the drama, and later "feeling" for this ranger during all the battles.
Showing a ring on Galadriel's finger at the mirror pool. Zero time and would've have hinted she's ALSO a ring lord.
In the book, nobody knew that Frodo was alive and wearing mithril until after they got out of the Moria during the last battle in there. It was revealed immediately in the movie. Deflated the suspense and drama quite a bit. I guess they didn't want to spend time showing Frodo getting carried around.
Talking about bits that should have been cut out,
the Gandalf/Saruman battle. Does not really exist in the book, and is entirely unnecessary to the whole plot screentime wise when dialogue to explain it would do, IMO. Time better spend would have been more background about Hobbits and water, even a short Tom Bombadil episode, more bits of Galadriel's gifts.. not altering Arwen's/Glorfindel's role at the river at Rivendell, etc...
So summary, fairly good adaption of the books much in the style of the Dune movie to the books, but it lost quite a bit of the deep layering of the story, and intensity of the scenes.
Layering that would not have added much more time (if any!) considering the unnecessary made-up scenes that could have been left out instead.
Re:As expected (Score:2, Interesting)
Riiiight, I'm pretty sure I won't be watching "A Beautiful Mind" 10 years from now.
I find it funny you label LOTR a minor work in the history of literature when LOTR was voted in several polls as the most important literature of the past century.
Absolutely revolting (Score:3, Interesting)
She starts out all blubbery, in a "Me? Really?!" sort of way and ends up thanking her lawyer with an almost "Black Power Rulz!" attitude. Sorry, baby, you can't play the race card both ways. About the only redeeming part of her speech was recognition of some greater (and lesser) actresses that have come before her, who, perhaps, were cheated of recognition because of their race.
Generally, "door-opening" by victims of systemic social discrimination has happened because individuals overcame the obstacles they faced, and were so much better than any contemporary competitors, that to deny their achievements would be clear evidence of that very discrimination, otherwise subtle, hidden, and plausibly deniable. It isn't fair to have to work harder to be just as good, certainly, but if you manage it, there can be no doubt as to your achievement. Said undeniable achievement, then, serves to destroy any bogus arguments of inability, or inadquacy. That's "door opening".
By comparison, Berry's win suggests, if anything, that there is no racial discrimination anymore, or worse, that there is grudging "accomodation" given to produce an equity of outcome in spite of an inequity of ability that is "unfair". "See, racism is dead... Berry won an Oscar." Sadly, Berry's win shows only that racism is an embarrasment, not openly admitted, but hardly dead.
LOTR a great MOVIE (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, the scene right after Gandalf dies. This scene was perfect. In the book, Tolkien describes the characters weeping and lamenting. And you know how bad it is, because the book does a good job of developing the relationship between Gandalf and the others. The movie might not have shown us all of that development, but when you see the characters' reaction to his death, you definitely feel what he meant to them. And it isn't just the character's reactions--Jackson slows down the pace, he shows us the fellowship sundered, scattering all over the mountain, falling down on the hard desolate rocks. Even the landscape conveys sorrow. If you look carefully, I'm sure you would recognize the use of a particular kind of filter, or a soft focus. Jackson (and his cinematographer) used the tricks and abilities of the medium to convey an incredible amount of the story through the picture. You must realize that movies are not stories driven by dialogue, but by imagery.
Another example: the very end. You can feel just how hopeless Frodo is about his journey. Why? Because the path he and Sam face is obviously such a hard, unforgiving path (all those miles of sharp volcanic rock). The viewer doesn't need to be told the task is hard, the viewer can simply see it.
The problem with the critics of this film is that they fail to understand that when characters say "This is hard," it is less believable than when the characters say nothing and the director simply shows the audience how hard it is. The best acting in movies is understated, because the camera itself magnifies everything. Movies are visual and the best movies tell us a story with more imagery and less explanation. To quote an oft-quoted maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Movies laden with dialogue often drag and end up unfulfilling. Movies that take advantage of the medium to tell a story with pictures are generally superior. That's why I think LOTR should have won Best Picture over A Beautiful Mind. (However, A Beautiful Mind also took advantage of the medium--the audience sees Nash's hallucinations, we don't just hear Nash talk about them.) At the very least, though, LOTR won and deserved the cinematography Oscar.