Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

LoTR Takes 4 Oscars 636

Posted by CmdrTaco from the maybe-next-year dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LoTR Takes 4 Oscars More

LoTR Takes 4 Oscars

Comments Filter:
  • A little OT, but...

    Next year's Oscars may not have as many other good films. Do you think that the Two Towers is the likely canidate for next years?
    • Next year's Oscars may not have as many other good films. Do you think that the Two Towers is the likely canidate for next years?

      Well, my guess is that Two Towers won't be as impressive as Fellowship, because the ground has already been broken. Everyone now knows what Peter Jackson's Middle Earth looks and feels like. The rest of the trilogy, while I'm sure it will be great and I can't wait to see it, just won't have the same power to overawe the viewer.

      Unless the sequels strike off into new territory - better special effects, for example - they will be "just sequels". Which is fine by me ... the source material is one huge book, and I want to eventually watch a 9-hour LOTR marathon and see it as one huge movie ... but not so fine for continued Academy Awards.

    • Next year's Oscars may not have as many other good films. Do you think that the Two Towers is the likely canidate for next years?
      But it will have the next Star Wars installment to battle for the technical visual effects/art design/make up/costume. On top of that, the make up will be less novel (excluding new characters: Ents) plus the desire for a consistent visual will mean they'll still be using (essentially) last years tech.
  • The two remaining movies? Or is Taco talking about the Blockbuster Awards... *chuckle*
    • The two remaining movies? Or is Taco talking about the Blockbuster Awards... *chuckle*

      I figured Taco meant the next two movies in the LOTR series would have a chance as well.

      mark

  • It had to be said. (Score:3, Funny)

    by zapfie ( 560589 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:18AM (#3221107)
    One Ring to [win] them all..

  • Amelie gets zilch nada (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:18AM (#3221109) Homepage Journal
    Which goes a long way to explain why I don't watch the academy award shows. It's more political and business than what really should be done, but, hey they have to sell advertising time while they pat themselves on their backs, right?
    • Like spoken from my heart!
      And best original script?!? Gosford Park? A Agatha Christie wannabe! Memento and Amélie were in different league than that drivel. TFOTR never had a chance; A fantasy directed by the guy who made Bad Taste? Sureley people didn't really believe that he would get an oscar?
      I just hope that Hollywood producers strain their self padding themself on the back! Bah!
    • ok, let me ask you something. did you see all of the nominees in the best foreign film category? if not then I hardly think you have the right to say that Amelie deserved it more than the others. If so, well sorry to tell you, the academy awards aren't all about the "best" movie, because obviously no one can say what's best, it's a matter of opinion.
    • Speaking of which, I'm continually being surprised by the ratings foreign films are "awarded" in the US. I'd be very grateful if anybody could explain why e.g. Amelie [imdb.com] or Lola Rennt [imdb.com] were rated "R".


      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?

  • Perhaps it's in the Plan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gandalf_grey ( 93942 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:18AM (#3221110) Homepage
    Knowing that Little Ronnie hadn't gotten one yet, and that Mr. Jackson will be back for 2 years in a row, they decided to hold off?

  • 4 out of 13 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dead Penis Bird ( 524912 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:19AM (#3221113) Homepage
    It did better than E.T. [slashdot.org] but it was disappointing that the film didn't win one of the 4 "major" awards (Best Picture/Actor/Actress/Director

    A complete list of winners and nominees is here [cnn.com].

  • Screenplay adaptation?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MadAhab ( 40080 ) <slasher@aha[ ]om ['b.c' in gap]> on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:22AM (#3221141) Homepage Journal
    My only comment is that I can't believe they didn't win for best screenplay adaptation. I've reread the books since seeing FotR and it's amazing how many changes they made without subverting the original story, and how many smart decisions they made about compacting the story for the screen, and yet how much original dialogue made it into the film word for word. It's not easy satisfying rabid fans while also meeting the needs of the film. There was even a bit of commentary during the awards that the film almost wasn't made because it was deemed to difficult to bring it to the screen. No one said that about Beautiful Mind.

    Well, I'll bet they've got two more chances at this one.

    • Re:Screenplay adaptation?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:08AM (#3221445) Homepage Journal
      I reread the books and I have to say that I'm disappointed in a number of places with the adaptation.

      Tom Bombadil is important to set the atmosphere and background of Middle Earth. I feel that the point is that some things are older and more mysterious than can be explained, even though they seem so warm and familiar.

      Events that would shed light into the relationship between Frodo and Sam were edited badly. Why was the Hobbit's (and especially Sam's) natural fear of water not mentioned? (Did I miss it?) It would have added great dramatic weight to Sam's almost drowning at the end. Why was Sam not present at the viewing of the mirror? His vision was important in the book, but deleted completely from the movie.

      To my mind, Sam is the everyman hero of the books, yet his role seems to be being played down. This nobility of the common man (or Hobbit) is an important message of the books and is being glossed over.

      I would have liked to have seen the Dinner scene at Rivendell where Frodo meets Gloin. The discussions at that Dinner sets the background for Rivendell, what's going on in the rest of Middle Earth, etc.

      I understand why they rewrote the scene at the River when the riders were closing in, but it's unfortunate that Frodo's challenge to the riders and the breaking of his sword are missing. Like I say, I understand that they wanted to setup the love story between Arwen and Aragorn so they decided to give Arwen a big role there. Actually, if I were to criticize the books, I would have to say that women were not given important enough roles, so this all may be to the good.

      I also liked the scene in the book where Gandalf realizes that he's facing a Balrog...

      "A Balrog," muttered Gandalf. "Now I understand." He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. "What an evil fortune! And I am already weary."

      Don't know why that was changed (do I not remember the movie correctly?).

      Now, admittedly, they had to edit for length. I'm not sure what else I would have left out instead. I guess I would have liked to have seen 6 movies on all 6 books, but perhaps that wouldn't have sold well.

      Taking into account the necessity to edit for length, I guess I would only really criticize the deemphasis on Sam's role.

      Sorry if I've misrepresented the movie above. I've only seen it once. I don't like to watch movies more than once a year or so. I've just never seen a movie that didn't seem flat if I tried to watch it again too soon and I hate having that experience with movies that I otherwise enjoy.

      • Those kinds of things bothered me too, but what hurt the most was the way Elves were portrayed. Agent Elrond aside ("What good is a Ring of Power, Mr. Baggins, if you are unable to speak!"), they all seemed kind of surly. Call me crazy, but that isn't the "Merry and sad at the same time" concept Tolkien had in mind. That, and why twist Sauruman's role in the whole affair? Instead of Sauron's dupe he becomes a fanboy hatchet man, and all of the sudden you have wizard fights that look like bad episodes of Xena, Warrior Princess. Things like this bother me because they're not done in the interest of time, but more out of extravagance and sensationalism. Maybe Jackson was true to the fans, but he wasn't true to the spirit of the novels.

        That's why I don't think this movie deserves best adaptation or whatever. Great makeup, terrific cinematography, and outstanding setting--give it Best Picture, I don't care--but please, don't parade this as the profoundly perfect adaptation everyone seems to think it is.

      • Re:Screenplay adaptation?! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by armb ( 5151 )
        > Tom Bombadil is important to set the atmosphere and background of Middle Earth. I feel that the point is that some things are older and more mysterious than can be explained, even though they seem so warm and familiar.

        http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/tombomba di l.html
        " it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letters, p. 174)

        But I think leaving something like that out of the movie was entirely reasonable.

      • My biggest disappointment (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bilbo ( 7015 )
        To my mind, Sam is the everyman hero of the books, yet his role seems to be being played down. This nobility of the common man (or Hobbit) is an important message of the books and is being glossed over.
        In my mind, looking back at the movie, this is my one biggest disappointment. Not so much the fact that they downplayed Sam's role, but that they made the story a Clash of Titans. I think a great deal of what Tolkien was trying to say (to the extent that he was trying to say anything) was the triumph of the "little people" against the Great Evil. Where the Mighty had failed, in no small part due to their own arrogance, the unasuming Hobbits were the ones to save the day.

        Once the Fellowship started out, the movie spent most of its time on Aragorn and Gandalf. Sure, they were great Heroes, but when it came down to it, it was the Hobbits who got the work done.

      • It's an adaptation, that's why... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Squirrel Killer ( 23450 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @01:15PM (#3222460)
        Don't know why that was changed (do I not remember the movie correctly?)....Now, admittedly, they had to edit for length. I'm not sure what else I would have left out instead.
        They're called "adaptations" for a reason. It's impossible to condense 300+ page into 2 hours. There's a reason that Stephen King's short stories make for better movies than his books. Movies, for all their splendor, are about small events, short snippets of time. It's those reasons that I'm about as mad at Jackson for his LOTR changes as I am at Howard for his Beautiful Mind changes - that is, not at all. Their changes capture the essence of the book while keeping it viewable in one sitting.

        A movie has a host of criteria to be concerned about, as does a book. But those criteria have very little overlap between movies and books. A book can spend a chapter on Nash's bi-sexuality without losing focus, but for a movie to properly handle it would require too much time and distract from the focus of the movie (Nash's illness and recovery through force of will and the love of his wife.) Even such an integral fact such as Nash's divorce and re-marrage districts from the focus. Picking any one facet, scene, or even sub-plot of a book to judge a movie to set yourself up for disappointment.

        Books can ponder the nuances of their story, but movies must have tunnel-vision like focus. That's to be expected, they are different media. If you want long winding passages that have questionable relevance to the final plot, read the book. If you want amazing visual to help with your questionable imagination, watch the movie. And if you want bad graphics and questionable interface, play the game.

        -sk

    • My only comment is that I can't believe they didn't win for best screenplay adaptation. I've reread the books since seeing FotR and it's amazing how many changes they made...

      Now go read Nasar's book and the screenplay that came from it, actually have some basis with to judge which is better.

      Personally I didn't like [slashdot.org] Nasar's book at all and claims of "whispering campaign" aside thought that the film really did ignore the some relevant but uncomfortable bits about Nash's life. However honesty aside given what the book offered the screenplay did a marvelous job of bringing the characters to life in a 2 hour visual medium.

      Better the LOTR/FOTR? For a screenplay adaption: Yes. Tolkien's source material is much richer, more visual, already plotted. Then it's more a case of condensing then actually rewriting and creating anew.

    • Re:Screenplay adaptation?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by singularity ( 2031 ) <nowalmartNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:20AM (#3221551) Homepage Journal
      In the past year I have read both A Beautiful Mind and Lord of the Rings.

      Giving the award to A Beautiful Mind endorses a mockery of the man's life.

      I write a few of the major changes in the screen play in this post. [slashdot.org]

      Basically, *every* major scene in A Beautiful Mind was completely made up.

      The movie is loosely inspired from the actual book, and I do not think that anyone who has read the book can say that it is "based" on the book at all.

      FotR deserved that award. Yes, there were a few problems with the adaptation, but there always are going to be them. Even Shawshank, which I consider to be the best adaptation ever, has a major problem with the amount of time that Red spend wandering around, looking for the tree.

      I gave up on the Academy Awards when Forrest Gump won over both Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption.

  • LOTR won Best Film & Best Director... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by myraid ( 551033 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:23AM (#3221152) Homepage
    In the UK our favourite film won 5 baftas (UK version of the Oscars) including Best Film and Best Director. See the BBC [bbc.co.uk] [news.bbc.co.uk] website for more info. My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives? Post-Sept-11 nationalism? Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?
    • no, just the fact that Fantacy films comedies and cartoons (eccept beuity and the beast only becasue Disney lobbied hard) never get best film.

      they want people to play retards and crazy people or psudo-true historical crap. they need a film that shows a personal obsticle that can be over come.

      they are sort of like puritins, if it feels good to watch, it must be a bad movie :-)
    • It's all politics. Ron Howard is why LOTR didn't win. I honestly believe it has nothing to do with the film itself. Everything now a days is run by politics, and this is just more of the same. What's interesting is that people were shocked, as if they didn't see it coming.
    • My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives?

      Why not ask the people that voted, instead of slashdot, for starters.

      Post-Sept-11 nationalism?

      Nationalism? Huh? I don't think anyone in the states really thinks of LOTR as a "british" or "new zealand" movie. I seriously doubt that played into it at all.

      Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?

      Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?

  • Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmplague ( 412185 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:24AM (#3221164) Homepage
    Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? Sure, it was certainly the most popular on /., but it would have been nice if you had said something like "A Beautiful Mind got the awards for best picture and best director." I dare say that A Beautiful Mind is also a film that alot of nerds found good. I mean, the movie is about a mathemetician who wins the nobel prize for pete's sake. And there were loads of other movies that the /. crowd really seemed to like as well.

    This will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
    • Well - it's not like it was an interesting Nobel prize anyway. I mean - a Nobel prize in Economic Sciences? Damn that's so exciting I can't help but fall asleep ... hehe :-)

      Yeah, so it's for developing some game theory:
      "for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non- cooperative games"

      But it's still boring.

      "Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?"

      Probably because more slashdotters have read The Lord of the Rings than have heard of John Nash or even care about game theory.
      1. A Beautiful Mind is a whitewash of a draft-dodging deadbeat dad who is occasionally of the alternate persuasion and gifted with only marginal scholastic ability when compared to his peers of the same time period. Yes, I found its exposition of schizophrenia to be extremely informative, but the events of his life were so thoroughly edited (i.e. his divorce and remarriage) that the movie has very little to do with the truth.
      2. The Fellowship of the Ring was a tremendous gamble for the studio, and they won big. Their efforts at remaining truthful to the novels deserve preference to the pack of lies that was A Beautiful Mind.

      The Academy Awards have very little to do with the quality of the motion pictures this year, or the esteem in which they are held by the movie-going public. In the depths of their political pandering they have become entirely irrelevant.

    • Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? (Score:4, Funny)

      by tswinzig ( 210999 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:20AM (#3221550) Journal
      This will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.

      I need to turn this into my signature, because you fucking no that any time someone writes this, they get +5.

      Coincidence? I think not!!

      Oh well, this will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
    • At least LoTR was up front about the subject matter and focus of the film being Fantasy. On the other hand, what we got from A Beautiful Mind was a Fantasy in the guise of a realistic depiction of John Nash's life. Major problems with ABM:

      (1) ZERO attempt to actual explain in even layman's terms the theories that Nash was working on.

      (2) ZERO attempt to show more of the actual and historic strife in the relationship that Nash had with his wife.

      (3) ZERO attempt to even hint at the fact that Nash was bi-sexual.

      Ron Howard so candy coated the life of John Nash that this film deserves nothing but disrepect.

    • Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @12:36PM (#3222086) Homepage Journal
      • Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?

      Because CmdrTaco likes the books and the movie, a lot.

      That's what I like about this place. The editors aren't afraid to show their own tastes in their story selection. They aren't constantly second guessing themselves saying things like "I wonder if this story will have the right geekiness to have wide geek appeal?"

      They just publish what they like. This place has character. Unlike most media.

  • State of the World (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pez69 ( 244209 )
    You have to love the state that this world is when the biggest news of the day is which movie got an award. There has to be more important things that happen then an award show which for me personly has one maybe two movies that I have seen or have enev thought about seeing. Here in Ontario, Canada the premier of our province is retiring and his party just elected a new leader over the weekend. And just looking at the front page of todays paper, grant not a indepth look but all I saw was a big head line about some record at for the award show.

    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.

    • Re:State of the World (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Blackwulf ( 34848 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:35AM (#3221237) Homepage
      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.

      I completely agree.

      When I look in the newspaper, I want to only read about the horrible atrocities that get me depressed about the state of our nation. There should be absolutely nothing pleasing at all on my front page, because I don't care if someone's happy. I only care about the sad things, and that's all I want to read about.
    • Agreed. The attitude you bemoan is what allows Hollywood to buy and sell Senators (Fritz Holling and Dianne Feinstein come to mind), and to push such drivel as the CBDTPA.

      On a side note, has anyone yet pointed out the irony that when someone tries to regulate the movie industry they cry "First Amendment"?

  • I doubt it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by teslatug ( 543527 )

    At least they have 2 more chances for Best Picture or Best Director.

    As far as the Academy is concerned the two other movies are just sequels and should not deserve more credit. Face it, unless they consider Sam a retard or re-shoot the scenes to let Russel Crow play someone they're not getting best picture.
    • You forgot the Tom Hanks factor.

      Oh wait - Cast Away didn't win - the fickelness has moved on.

    • On the Contrary (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LightForce3 ( 450105 )
      As far as precedent dictates, The Two Towers and The Return of the King are just as eligible for Oscars as The Fellowship of the Ring.

      Take Star Wars for example. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both sequels to A New Hope, but both ESB and RotJ won awards, even after ANH won 6 Oscars.

      I'm sure there are other examples as well, but this was the first one that came to mind.

      Furthermore, IMHO, "Towers" and "Return" have a greater potential of being recognized, simply because the story was just getting started with "Fellowship". The next two will hopefully be even better than the first.

      Don't give up hope!

  • LOTR should have won. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Parsa ( 525963 )
    I truly believe LOTR should have won best picture. If you look at the history of the Oscars the film that got the most nominations always won best picture if it was nominated for that category. Yet no science fiction/fantasy movie has ever won either. I agree with one of the postings earlier that it's political. People can't seem to think of this genre of having any seriousness. I don't think they realize it's this type of movie/writing that keeps alive the myths, traditions, and legends.

    The general public should read The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell just to see what is being saved.

  • The oscars aren't about the best films... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ari{Dal} ( 68669 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:31AM (#3221203)
    The oscars have never been about the best films. From day 1 (back in 1927), they were all about hollywood patting itself on the back.
    It was started by film and production executives, is chaired today by the same types of people. The only way to even get involved in the voting for the oscars is to be invited to join the Academy by the Board of Governers and is limited to 'those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures'. A link with the brief history is here [digitalhit.com].
    You'll never see a movie like LotR take top honours, now or ever, for a very good reason. It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.
    To sum up: the Oscars are of the hollywood crowd, for the hollywood crowd, by the hollywood crowd. This is why I never watch awards shows.
    • exactly. it's all about whoring yourself out to the academy. the best whores normally come out on top. it's how it works in business, how it works in gov't why would we expect the movie industry to work any better? don't we loathe the MPAA here on the site?
    • It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.

      Your theory doesn't make much sense given that comedies like Annie Hall, fluff pieces like Shakespeare in Love, and fantasy like Gladiator and Titanic and Forrest Gump have all won Best Picture Awards. Do you really think The Sound of Music and Oliver! weren't "silly" films?

      Maybe we didn't see The Fellowship of the Ring take top honors for best film because it didn't deserve it?
    • For instance: I love Denzel Washington--amazing actor. Although for this year, I thought Russell Crow and Will Smith had better performances.

      Now if you're the Academy you're saying: Russell won last year; Denzel deserves one for his life's work, let's give it to him. It really destroys the legitimacy of an award show.

      On the other hand, I'm glad Halle Berry won for best actress. The water works on stage were a little much, but it's hard to dispute the quality of her performance.

      There's my 2 cents.
    • It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.

      1973: The Sting
      1984: Amadeus
      1994: Forrest Gump

      2004: LOTR: ROTK?
  • My entire apartment (not to mention most of the folks I know) is in an uproar over the academy's choices last night. LOTR rightfully deserved Best Picture, as well as best editing and best supporting actor (Gandolf). Perhaps this upset, more than anything else, will further support the "other" award events. I know it has for me, I have lost faith in the academy and their ability to spotlight the best of the best.

    • Re:LOTR Upset (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gamgee5273 ( 410326 )
      It wasn't an upset - everybody expected ABM to win (look at the Vegas line if you don't believe me).

      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!

  • Best Director (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Erore ( 8382 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:48AM (#3221297)
    When you take into account the scope and work that Peter Jackson did, I don't see how he could not be voted best director.

    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.

  • Newsflash: LOTR was not the best picture of 2001! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by isaac ( 2852 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:49AM (#3221305)
    Sorry, guys, but no way in hell was LOTR:FOTR the best picture of 2001. I saw 5 films in 2001: Shrek, Amelie, LOTR, Waking Life, and The Royal Tenenbaums. LOTR wasn't even the third best film out of that limited selection.

    I like Peter Jackson, too (Meet the Feebles is something else) but he wasn't the best director of the year, either.

    And now, even though it has nothing to do with LOTR, I would like to once again razz the Oscars for not even nominating Waking Life for best animated film, instead picking 2 blockbusters (Shrek, Monsters Inc.) and a glorified Nickelodeon pilot (Jimmy Neutron).

    Of course, this is to be expected - the Oscars are a crock of shit anyhow. Figure skating is a more objective contest with less corrupt judging. Basically, the winner in each category is decided by bloc voting and horse-trading by the studios who control the bulk of academy members - so says a former professor of mine who's a member of the academy and actually has an Oscar under his belt, whom I'm inclined to believe. Most Oscar voters haven't even seen all the films in the categories for which they're voting - there's just too damn many films up for consideration for anyone to watch and still have time to do anything else.

    -Isaac

  • Oscars are a "Good Ole Boys" Club (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rizzo ( 21697 ) <donNO@SPAMseiler.us> on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:50AM (#3221308) Homepage Journal
    The Oscars have worse judging than NBA referees, in terms of "make-up calls". The only reason Russel Crowe won last year was because people felt he should have won for LA Confidential. His acting was nothing phenominal.

    This year's prime example is Randy Neuman (sp?) winning for best song for that Monsters Inc tune. That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs. But the dear old Oscars club wasn't going to let him go 0 for 16. The LOTR Enya song was by far the best, even my wife agreed!

    It's all a sham and show put on for the drooling masses who get to see their movie star idols act like their not assholes. I'm surprised Russel Crowe didn't bite a chunk out of Whoopi's neck when she cracked on him.

    Pay no attention to these awards. George C. Scott was the only smart one in the bunch. He wasn't even there when he won best actor for Patton. He was home watching hockey. He believed that these "competitions" spoiled the quality of films, making them pander to the masses instead of trying to raise intellectual and artistic bars.
    • if this were true, shouldn't they have given the "Best Director" award to Altman??? he's been around for ever, and is getting up there in years...meanwhile, Opie Howard will be making movies for years to come...

      i'm not necessarily saying Opie shouldn't have won the award...just presenting the opposite side to your point...
    • This year's prime example is Randy Neuman (sp?) winning for best song for that Monsters Inc tune. That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs. But the dear old Oscars club wasn't going to let him go 0 for 16.

      This argument is so incredibly lame. So by your thought process, the 'good old boys' decided it was OK for him to go 0 for 10, 0 for 11, 0 for 12, 0 for 13, 0 for 14, and 0 for 15. But absolutely NOT 0 for 16!!

      Yeah...

      And this quote: "That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs."

      This shows how much you know. Randy Newman has scored way more movies than he's written songs for. (I imagine you don't know the difference.) His best ever, IMO, was The Natural... a great soundtrack for a great movie.

  • Sure, mod me down (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fobbman ( 131816 )
    It's only karma, so no biggie.

    Why would a site that is so anti-MPAA give a hairy orcs ass what the MPAA thinks of a movie? The whole Oscars/Grammys/Emmys/Tonys thing is nothing more than a studio circle-jerk, and the People's Choice voting is simply the public regurgetating what they're told to like.

    Excellent movies come out every year that kick major ASS on whatever winner is given the Oscar ("Gladiator"/"CTHD" comes to mind), and many of them aren't even nominated.

    • Why would a site that is so anti-MPAA give a hairy orcs ass what the MPAA thinks of a movie?

      Well, perhaps partially because the Oscars are awarded by AMPAS (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), not the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).

      The former represent the actual artists and creative individuals, while the latter represent the investors who fund the pictures and take the majority of the profits. While the former may be petty and superficial at times, they're not solely motivated by greed and lust for every fraction of a percent of profit margin.

      So that may have something to do with it.

    • Why would a site that is so anti-MPAA give a hairy orcs ass what the MPAA thinks of a movie?

      First, the site isn't anti-MPAA. Many of it's users are. The site is a news and discussion forum.

      Second, not all Slashdot readers are Anti-MPAA. Some don't give your hairy orc's ass about the issue. Some, like me, realize the issues and have come to an internal compromise. Some users haven't bought a movie ticket or DVD in years. You have to realize that there are many thousands of posters, and not all have the same opinions about issues.

      Sure, industry awards are a circle jerk. So? Don't watch. Go to your local independant movie house and Fight The Power.

      Just remember, /. is a community, but few communities hold a single viewpont on any given issue.

    • AMPAS =/= MPAA (Score:4, Informative)

      by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:32AM (#3221639) Homepage Journal
      The Oscars [amazon.com] are awarded by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) [ampas.org] NOT the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) [mpaa.org].

      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.

  • In other words (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:52AM (#3221324) Homepage Journal
    "The Lord of The Rings: The fellowship of the ring won four awards, including Cinematography, Makeup, Music (Score), and Visual Effects. "

    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.
    • Meaningless until the guys who won the awards are looking for new jobs to work on. Remember, the "meaningless" awards help some folks keep working if they are independent, like most designers are.

      And Memento was from 2000, not 2001.

    • Yup...Forrest Gump is a great movie. However, I watch Shawshank more often - probably cause it's shorter. Never saw Hoop Dreams and Pulp Fiction was entertaining tripe.

      Ghost World was a movie I would have loved to have seen nominated for something more than best adapted screenplay.

      Then again, I guess I'm shallow too - I only watch the awards to see who's wearing what see-thru stuff. I wonder who'll be the first chic just to say hell with it and show up nude.
    • On the Waterfront lost and from that point on the Academy has been living a lie ever since.
      Thats a really nice thesis that is let down in only one respect. On The Waterfront [imdb.com] won the Best Picture [oscar.com] oscar for 1954.

  • "Academy"==MPAA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:52AM (#3221326)
    Aaah, please stop encouraging these so-called "Academy" people. If you are going to pay attention to movie reviews, these seem like the least credible group to take advice from. The Academy voters are a bunch of ordinary shitheads living in the LA neighborhood with jobs related to the MPAA (like duct-taping microphone wires to the floor and doing on-set makeup). Yet, every year, we think that their judgement is the word of God, just because people cry when they find out they're popular with that demographic.

    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.

  • How LOTR can win more Oscars (Score:5, Funny)

    by vjmurphy ( 190266 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @10:53AM (#3221330) Homepage
    * Give Frodo a incurable disease;
    * Have Gandalf take a shot to the head and be mentally impaired for the next two movies;
    * Arwen's role in Two Towers should be to sleep with some Orc played by Billy Bob Thorton;
    * Sam gets Rain Man autism;
    * Strider overcomes his disabilities and is able to kill Orcs using only his left foot;
  • IMO, Moulin Rouge should have gotten the Oscar for "Best Cinematography". There was some good work in LOTR, but I thought the cinematography in MR was simply stunning. Of course, I also think that Ewan Mcgregor should have gotten the nod for Best Actor, but he wasn't even nominated.

    And yes, LOTR *did* deserve to win for Best Picture. However, the Academy is generally biased towards adult dramas, so it's not terribly surprising that they shafted LOTR.

    ---
    It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time! [attbi.com]

  • Slashdot Poll (Score:3, Funny)

    by DeadBugs ( 546475 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:07AM (#3221439) Homepage
    For those who watched. Did anyone else want to reach inside their TV and smack Halle Berry, not just for completely losing it, but for thanking her lawyer.
    • Halle Berry is either the world's best actress for that Oscar acceptance speech performance, or the world's slimiest person, for the same reason. Somehow I think she falls short on the first count.

      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.


  • I humbly suggest that you check out keepersoflists.org for some funny on the subject of the oscars.

    I am simply a servant of this humble order.

  • IMO... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:18AM (#3221539)
    The Academy will wait until 2004 to bestow Picture and Director; Jackson was able to pull off one of the books, but the Academy may be wanting to see if he can do all 3, particularly the second book which is probably the one with the most dramatics in it. The first is mostly setup that needed a good handling of both the initial chase and the caves of Moria, and the Elven council that is all plot set up. The last is mostly the flight of Frodo to destroy the ring and the otherwise huge battles. The second is where you deal with the consequences of the breaking up of the Fellowship, Frodo going mad with the power of the ring, and Samwise trying to stay close to his friend. Thus, I would expect a possible actor nod next year if it's pulled out well. But overall, the honor of Best Picture/Director should only go to LotR if no part of the trilogy disappoints, and that means waiting until 2004 Oscars to find out if Jackson is able to keep the vision up. I don't doubt he could, but I'd suspect that a similar feeling by the Academy is shared.

    (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).

  • My Precioussssss ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ProfMoriarty ( 518631 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:51AM (#3221812) Journal
    my precioussss is lost, it is.
    Nasty Opie takeses it.
    Gollum will have his sweet revenge, yes preciousssss, next year preciousss will be mine again ...

  • Thank Goodness the damned thing didn't win BP! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @01:37PM (#3222642)
    Maybe one of the next LOTR films will win a 'Best Picture' award if it bloody well deserves one. The first certainly did not.

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.

Close