Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Lord of the Rings

Yoda, Gollum Take MTV Awards 271

Posted by michael from the my-precious dept.
zoobaby writes "MTV has given the LoTR franchise credit for spectactular work with Gollum. After being snubbed by the Academy Awards, it is nice to see recognition given to one of the most expressive and best acted roles in recent films."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yoda, Gollum Take MTV Awards More

Yoda, Gollum Take MTV Awards

Comments Filter:

  • Oscar... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:34PM (#6092065) Homepage Journal
    It's myy precioussss, it is... Nasty Yoda can't haves it, Noooo....

  • Uhm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eyston ( 462981 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:36PM (#6092077)
    This is obviously keeping up with the 'shiny things' network.

    Giving Gollum some recognition is great and all, but when he wins it jointly with the little guy who jumped around like sonic the hedge hog wielding a light saber, it is lacking credibility. It is obviously the 'digital characters are cool' award.

    -Eyston

    • Re:Uhm.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:20PM (#6092232)
      it is lacking credibility.

      >>> mtv.credibility

      AttributeError: class mtv has no attribute 'credibilty'

      (no class either, but Python fails to recognize that)

    • Re:Uhm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Achoi77 ( 669484 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:27PM (#6092263)
      Giving Gollum some recognition is great and all, but when he wins it jointly with the little guy who jumped around like sonic the hedge hog wielding a light saber, it is lacking credibility.

      Yoda didn't win for virtual peformance, he won an award for 'best fight scene.' So him spinning around with a lightsabre was what got him that award in the first place.

      Personally I didn't think that lightsabre scene was as sacreligious as people claim it to be. If you take a real close look, you'll see that Yoda doesn't do as many blender-style-720-degree spins as his lightsabre movements imply. While he is spinning, he's also moving the lightsabre in the same direction, giving him more speed and force. I've seen enough Kali/Eskrima classes and demonstrations to be convinced that sometimes even the most simple movements can look overwhelming.

      On a side note, I've also heard stories about an 80 year old Kali master who was able to hold his own against 3 young men in their 20's.

      Basically Yoda's movements aren't necessarily impossible - difficult yes, but not impossible. If you wanna see impossible, wait for that scene where you see Neo spinning around like a top with that pole when he fights those Smiths. And flies away at the same time. And accelerates his spinning.

      • Re:Uhm.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by csguy314 ( 559705 )
        he won an award for 'best fight scene.' So him spinning around with a lightsabre was what got him that award in the first place. Personally I didn't think that lightsabre scene was as sacreligious as people claim it to be.

        Well I don't know about anyone else, but I always thought it would have been much more interesting if Yoda fought Tyranus by just kinda standing there and controlling his lightsabre with the force.
        Watching Tyranus fight a phantom lightsabre would have been pretty cool, and you'd reall

      • Re:Uhm.... (Score:5, Funny)

        by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation&gmail,com> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @10:27PM (#6092955) Journal
        If you wanna see impossible, wait for that scene where you see Neo spinning around like a top with that pole when he fights those Smiths. And flies away at the same time. And accelerates his spinning.
        But if he jumped really hard while spinning and holding the pole out at arm's length, he could bring the pole in close to his chest, thereby in order to preserve the angular momentum the rate of rotation would need to increase. Or, uh... I guess it could be done on computers. Ahem.

      • Re:Uhm.... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nazmun ( 590998 )
        Mostly good points but does neo really count? I mean it's not in the 'real' world but rather a simulation of earth now. The guy even flies :)

        Also about yoda... what if he wasn't using just his muscles for all that movement? what if he was using the force... the war could be over tomorrow... (slaps self out of matrix)

        I meant he's THE jedi master and he can move objects many times his wait by manipulating the force. I'm not a huge star wars buff but can't he manipulate the force around him to move his

      • Re:Uhm.... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by petsounds ( 593538 )
        Lucas based his Jedis on Japanese samurai, especially as he was greatly influenced by Kurosawa's samurai films such as The Hidden Fortress. The fighting style of the samurai was based on efficient, effortless and movements designed to fit the task at hand. So it was completely ridiculous, and against the samurai way that Lucas stol..er..integrated into Star Wars to have Yoda, the Jedi master (aka the big kahuna samurai), spinning around like a top. All that wasted energy. And did he even hit his opponent wi

  • No SPOILER WARNING!?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phosphor3k ( 542747 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:37PM (#6092080)
    Some of us might have actually enjoyed watching the goddamn awards without knowing who wins beforehand. The show isnt even aired til June 5th. Once again Slashdot Editors, thank you for spoiling another (Circle one: TV Show, Movie, Game Ending).

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:38PM (#6092082)
    ...it is nice to see recognition given to one of the most expressive and best acted roles in recent films.

    Its probably a lot easier to be yourself when you know its never going to hit film (your face).

    Perhaps acting could become even better in the future, still done by humans, but mapped over with different faces?

    With acting you have to let yourself go. I think actors still hold something back though and aren't 100% of what they could be.
    • With acting you have to let yourself go. I think actors still hold something back though and aren't 100% of what they could be.

      This would explain Natalie Portman's nosedive in acting ability in both Star Wars films. Not that it matters much, she's still a hot babe....

      Max

  • besides.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TCM ( 130219 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:39PM (#6092084)
    Eminem got awarded for best male role and said: "I can't believe I beat Mariah for 'Glitter'".

    While I can't believe it either it still puzzles me.

  • WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by JiMbOb_ka ( 232846 ) * on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:39PM (#6092085) Homepage
    First the Aimee Deep Story [slashdot.org] and now this MTV story...if this turns into a Teeny Bopper website, I am so out of here...

  • fuck cgi gollum (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:39PM (#6092088)
    they should just have cast Christopher Walken as gollum.

  • I'm afraid if Yoda is passed over. . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:39PM (#6092090) Homepage Journal
    . . .then the emereror has already won.

  • Sarcasm? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:41PM (#6092094)
    I don't see how recognition by a network known for not knowing the difference between art and a hole in the wall is in any way complimentary...

    • Close... (Score:2)

      by ZxCv ( 6138 ) *
      Quoteth the article:

      The event at the Shrine Auditorium is more satire than ceremony, honoring show-business types for such categories as best kiss and villain.

      The only redeeming part about the MTV movie awards: the fact that, underneath it all, they're just poking fun at self-important movie stars.

      • Re:Close... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @09:32PM (#6092763)
        The only redeeming part about the MTV movie awards: the fact that, underneath it all, they're just poking fun at self-important movie stars.

        Inanity is not to be confused with satire, and calling the MTV movie awards such is giving the network way too much credit. If you've ever watched one of these things, they're taken about as seriously as anything can be in their teeny-bopper mentality. Obviously it's not on the same level of seriousness (and pretentiousness) as the Academy Awards, but that in no way implies some sort of smart social commentary.

        MTV has always tried to present these awards as an alternative to the Academy Awards. That's not the way you do satire - nobody reads The Onion as an alternative to the Washington Post, for example; you don't go there trying to get actual news. These awards aren't satire at all. They may be irreverent, but they're totally straight underneath it all.

        And as such, they carry even less weight than if they were satire. The Academy Awards may be overblown but they're at least decided upon by people who know a little something about the subject - those both inside the industry itself as well as those who make a living commenting on it. What the hell does MTV know about movies? About enough to make and market Jackass, I guess. Next you'll tell me that's satire too.

  • I beg the submitter's pardon! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kappelmeister ( 464986 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:42PM (#6092098)
    The LOTR makers' work on Gollum was not snubbed by the academy. They did not make Serkis eligible for an Oscar, but they gave the Oscar for visual effects [oscars.com] to the WETA team, and (IIRC) showed a Gollum clip as they were walking to the stage.

    • Serkis was Eligible (Score:2, Informative)

      by TPIRman ( 142895 ) *
      The Academy announced that Serkis was eligible to be nominated for an Oscar [csmonitor.com] (scroll down in link, third paragraph from the bottom). He just did not receive enough votes from Academy members to receive a nomination.

      • Re:Serkis was Eligible (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Kappelmeister ( 464986 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:13PM (#6092215)
        True; I meant that Serkis was not eligible because he was not nominated, but used the wrong language.

        One thing to keep in mind is that nominations are made only by the respective Academy members. In other words, only actors cast votes for Best Actor (speaking gender-neutrally), only directors cast votes for Best Director, etc. Later, everyone votes on which nominee gets each award. (It doesn't make sense to look too deeply into nomination counts, since there are parallel intenions, but everyone does it anyway.)

        So it's really not shock or mystery why Serkis wasn't nominated. The very segment of the Academy population that was the most resistant to recognizing the work of digital characters -- the actors whose jobs may someday be threatened by them -- was the only one that had any say in the matter!

        • Re:Serkis was Eligible (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Savatte ( 111615 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @08:43PM (#6092541) Homepage Journal
          Did you ever consider that maybe Andy Serkis/Gollum wasn't nominated because he really didn't deserve the nomination? Here are 5 far superior supporting performances from eligible 2002 movies.

          Chris Cooper from Adaptation
          Nicky Katt from Full Frontal
          Brian Cox from 25th Hour
          Ian McKellan from TTT
          Dennis Quad from Far From Heaven
        • ... because if he would be considered as an actor he was clearly overacting, if the character would be consdiered animation (in my book he was just a high tech puppeteer) then he would not be elegible.

  • Gollum sucked (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GoatPigSheep ( 525460 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:42PM (#6092099) Homepage Journal
    I don't know about you guys, but I still don't think CGI is ready for the big time. In every movie it looks so obvious that there was CGI used that it almost ruins the movie for me.

    Even movies from the 80's that used blue screens for everything looked more realistic than today's CGI aided movies, CGI just isn't advanced enough yet to be convincing. You also can't reproduce the human touch of make-up and hand produced costumes you get with using real actors.

    • Re:Gollum sucked (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Goldfinger7400 ( 630228 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:03PM (#6092180)
      I don't know about you guys, but I still don't think CGI is ready for the big time. In every movie it looks so obvious that there was CGI used that it almost ruins the movie for me.

      It's not that you can't tell that it's CG, it's that it's done in a way that you don't care that it's CG. It's obvious from the looks of him that Gollum doesn't really exist, but then again, hobbits don't exist but we're willing to accept them as characters. It was the natural nature of Gollum's movement that allowed someone to accept him as a character, to the point that (some) people cared about him. You can put people in costumes in front of a bluescreen, but if they can't convey a sense of their characters (through acting) then they're no better than Jar-Jar.

    • Re:Gollum sucked (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:46PM (#6092331) Homepage
      Sorry, but a bunch of guys in rubber suits in front of a blue screen is even less realistic than CGI work. Take Matrix Reloaded. You could definitely tell it was not Keanu in some of those scenes. But he still blended into the environment very well, and even a few shots he looked photo realistic. More importantly, there are millions of things added to scenes in recent movies that you would never have known were CG. You've just been trained over the years to accept the rubber suited monster in front of the screen, where as the new generation is being trained to accept the CGI. And as a CG artist myself, I can tell you that great strides have been made to this date.
      • Well said. For instance, I find the CG Yodas of the Star Wars prequels much more believable than the puppets of the original trilogy (and most of the Phantom Menace). Sure, in still shots the puppet looks better, but it's nice to be able to watch and not wish that Yoda's mouth was lipsynched (which is not the case with the puppet).

    • Re:Gollum sucked (Score:4, Insightful)

      by donglekey ( 124433 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @08:12PM (#6092419) Homepage
      I don't know about you guys, but I still don't think CGI is ready for the big time.

      Fair enough, but just about everyone else does.

      In every movie it looks so obvious that there was CGI used that it almost ruins the movie for me

      Could you pick out all the CG in every one of the over 1000 VFX shots in Matrix Reloaded or Lord of the Rings? The answer is no, because most instances are seamless, and others are hidden very well if they aren't. You are probably talking about some instances of 3D that looks fake. Many times when visual effects do not look real it is due to budget and time contstraints like everything else.

      Even movies from the 80's that used blue screens for everything looked more realistic than today's CGI aided movies,

      It is definitly a different look, and I can understand why someone would like one over the other, but saying that 80's blue screen and optical printing is more convincing than film quality compositing and visual effects is pretty rediculous.

      CGI just isn't advanced enough yet to be convincing.

      It depends on what is being done. Trying to reproduce humans is incredibly difficult. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't. Just it because it can be done doesn't mean it is practical and not just a novelty. To say that CGI in general is not convincing is, quite frankly, bullshit. In just about every movie you go to, you may know where the visual effects lie in one shot, but there are 20 more that you didn't notice, I guarantee it. The movies you watch today are made possible by CGI. Deal with it.

      • Human facial animation (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mochi ( 636066 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @09:31PM (#6092757)
        It depends on what is being done. Trying to reproduce humans is incredibly difficult. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't.

        This point is very important. Disregarding static issues like skin and hair modeling and rendering. Human perception has evolved and is tuned for communication, primarily with other humans. Therefore we are very sensitive to minute incongruencies with our expectation of how a face shoud move, both by itself, and in the context of the surrounding environment. This is why completely hand animated human faces are almost always very poor...they strive to be real, but cannot account for the complexity. In contrast, cartooned faces are far enough from reality, that "unrealistic" facial action is accepted...as we are not expecting reality.

        It is (I'll be bold and say impossible) for an animator to get the motions perfect for anything more than relatively simple facial actuation. There are just too many, often subconscious factors that go into facial action...but all of these are important to achieve a realistic result.

        Motion capture has been used to solve this problem, taking the burden away from the animator, but the mapping problem is still difficult, we have a sparse sampling of skin motion from a human that has different facial characteristics from the model being animated. How do you handle the skin in between the motion capture points? Some sort of interpolation scheme is usually used, but this is a gross oversimplification of skin physics...not to mention, that it doesn't account for secondary motion of the skin such as wrinkling.

        Anyway, in short, its a hard problem. BUT, I have no doubt that the problem will be solved...

        rant over

        • I agree with you on most points, but I think that good, realistic facial animation, while difficult is very obtainable. Gollum's face was completely hand animated, and all the shapes were modeled. It was not motion capture for the facial animation, and there was no skin simulation. Final Fantasy's facial animation was not as good as the look of the film dictated, but I have seen realistic facial animation done very well, just not very often in a realistic setting. I think this will gradually change as mor

    • Re:Gollum sucked (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Catnapster ( 531547 )
      The problem with CGI isn't how it looks - the WarCraft III Human box art [blizzard.com] is as close to photorealistic as anything I've seen. No, the problem with CGI is when it starts moving. CGI in motion has issues with lights and shadows, reflection, and lifelike movement, among other things.

      Another issue is the use of "texture" images - a flat image looks photorealistic until you get close up. That's because it's a flat image, not a texture. The most obvious indicatior of CGI is clothing, because real clothes are ex

    • CGI will never look human... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @09:37PM (#6092786) Journal
      CGI will never look human, because typically the CGI isn't human, not supposed to be human, would be wrong if it were human.

      In the clips of the Incredible Hulk, does it look wrong? Yes? Good! The Incredible Hulk is not human. He bounces better, moves differently, is just plain built differently.

      Did Spiderman look unusual? Good! A man swinging through a city shouldn't be normal for you.

      In fact, your claims that the old effects "looked better" are a backhanded slam against the realism of those effects. Everything moved like a human or a puppet, because everything was a human or a puppet. Both of those motions looked "natural" to you, because you're used to them, but unless they were supposed to be a human or a puppet, that actually means the effect was a poor imitation of what "the real thing" should be.

      Do you really think ET's race could have survived long enough to build those spaceships they have if they moved like an eighty-year-old arthritic grandmother? The equivalent of wolves on their planet would have torn them to pieces long before they developed civilization.

      This is not to say all CGI is perfect. But you're going to have to either cut them some slack, or watch "Finding Nemo"*-style cartoons for the rest of cinematic history.

      In conclusion, I disagree completely. Compared to modern effects the 80s effects are, well, 20 years out of date. They only look better because you're used to them. I've tried to adjust to the modern style, and while it could still use some improvement, compared to the 80s its stellar. If the (non-humanoid) aliens of the 80s are any indication, what the universe needs most from our planet is enormous quantities of Ben-Gay, Aspercreme, and Gold Bond medicated powder, 'cause there sure is an awful lot of joint pain out there.

      *: Not meant as a slam against Finding Nemo; I haven't seen it yet but I expect to enjoy it. The point is that it quite deliberately moves like a cartoon, which is another style of movement we're "used to", even though it's totally 100% fake.
      • Do you really think ET's race could have survived long enough to build those spaceships they have if they moved like an eighty-year-old arthritic grandmother? The equivalent of wolves on their planet would have torn them to pieces long before they developed civilization.

        The natural implication is that they were faster and sturdier before inventing their high-technology. After that, a few millenia of robot-assisted laziness takes over and evolution pushes in a different direction.

        It's a scifi standard: t
      • would be wrong if it were human.

        There's no reason why this wouldn't be attainable in the next ten years, and if so, I find no reason to think such an achievement would be 'wrong'.

        Max

      • ET (Score:2)

        by Rxke ( 644923 )
        O.T., i know, but might ET not've been so technically advanced, that he evolved less 'wild nature capable to survive?' Like hell, we would be torn to pieces by a big cat, nowadays, our B.C. ancestors were a bit more rugged, albeit not so smart. We evolve toward less physical fitnes for the wilderness, because we don't need to cope with that wilderness anymore, we just grow bigger heads, and a beerbelly, gues eventually human race would evolve towards an ET creature in the long run, ET couldn't cope on eart
    • Even thought the CGI is pretty obvious in most cases, the alternative tends to be even worse. Although there are times when the CGI is pretty darned good: Stargate SG-1, for instance, despite the low budget, manages to do an incredible job with special effects, so much so that it really does look like enemy fighters are flying overhead, etc.

      And this doesn't take into account entirely computer-animated movies, which I happen to like. An example being Final Fantasy, where the animation was never *supposed

  • Hmmm? (Score:3, Funny)

    by xanadu-xtroot.com ( 450073 ) <(moc.tibroni) (ta) (udanax)> on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:42PM (#6092104) Homepage Journal
    My presssssshious ssssslashdot thwarted my tv watching ssssssschedule, they did.

    (ok, was that a good merging of the two?)

  • award given? (Score:3, Funny)

    by FryGuy1013 ( 664126 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:43PM (#6092109) Homepage
    i wonder how protective gollum would be of his new precious.

  • Give credit where its due (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goalie_Ca ( 584234 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:43PM (#6092110)
    The guy who played gollum, yes there actually was a guy in a suit and his name was Andy Serkis, deserves all kinds of credit. He did a marvelous job bringing the character to life. If you look Neo for example, he was basically cg the whole movie anyways. They had other fighters/actors in suits with the little balls at every joint and they pasted his face on the body.

    SCI-FI movies esp need more cg characters to bring the world to life. Why is every species in star trek is just like a human. Wouldn't it be neater to see a different variety?

    Any one seen simone lately?

    • Re:Give credit where its due (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Malfourmed ( 633699 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:48PM (#6092128) Homepage
      The guy who played gollum, yes there actually was a guy in a suit and his name was Andy Serkis, deserves all kinds of credit. He did a marvelous job bringing the character to life. If you look Neo for example, he was basically cg the whole movie anyways.
      And nobody's going to nominate Keanu Reeves for an acting Oscar either.

      (One exception: He was very good in The Gift.)

    • >>SCI-FI movies esp need more cg characters to bring the world to life. Why is every species in star trek is just like a human. Wouldn't it be neater to see a different variety?

      Which is exactly why I found Voyager's Speciaes 8472 to be so refreshing. That Preying-Mantis meets ET look was pheonominal (IMHO). It's the one thing Voyager got right.

    • Um... It's exactly the same process used. Or do you think Serkis really looks like Gollum? :P

      The difference of course is that the digital Neo just fights at high speed while the digital Gollum has many close-up/dramatic scenes, but it's still the same motion-capture technology.

    • Re:Give credit where its due (Score:4, Funny)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @08:23PM (#6092458)
      If you look Neo for example, he was basically cg the whole movie anyways.

      Well duh, Keanu Reeves is a CG actor. I mean it's pretty obvious, the lack of facial expressions and the fact that it looks like there's something fundamentaly wrong any time he's on the screen. He was basically a very early attempt at a fully CG character, I mean even Toy Story has more human seeming characters. Also if you conside...
      huh...
      WTF do you mean he's real?!? ...

      Ahhh he a robot like R2D2 and C3P0!!
      Ohh a human being I see...

      Yeah! And wrestling is a real sport and and Linux copied SCO's code, riiight
      *snicker*

  • Strange thing it is! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:45PM (#6092114) Journal
    Yoda appeared on a giant screen to accept the honor and spoke in his signature circuitous manner.

    "Hmmm ... grateful am I to this award receive. To win, I did not expect," he said. "Promise myself cry I would not."

    He went on to thank supporters ranging from "Star Wars" creator George Lucas to Wookie Chewbacca, Vin Diesel, space monster Greedo and actor Steve Guttenberg.

    He didn't expect it? Boy, that rendering farm and the voice actors sure must work in a hurry to produce a rendered imagine complete with voice acting in such a hurry! You'd almost think this is a huge show, a spectacle aimed at enriching those with the largest marketing/SFX budget! Almost like the gollum thing further on in the article:

    Then, the emaciated Gollum clamored over to snatch the trophy from Serkis' hands.

    "You're a liar and a thief," Gollum hissed. "It's mine!"

    Gollum went on to deliver an expletive-filled tirade against the filmmakers, actors, MTV and audience, while Serkis stood by looking embarrassed.

    Come on people, we're talking about the MTV awards here, brought to us by MTV; the epitomy of modern pop and hype culture. We're talking about something hosted by a TV station aimed at 14 year old girls who faint at the sight of $current_hip_boyband and wish to be like $cheap_spicegirls_knock_off while flooding the rest of the market with artists like $random_teen_chick and $overhyped_guy_who_looks_gay ...

    • Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mr_tenor ( 310787 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:17PM (#6092224)
      I cannot _stand_ people who think Yoda speaks in a fashion that just randomly rearranges words. The times I've watched Star Wars (tm) movies, it's always seemed to me that he speaks in a classical Latin word order

      eg.

      "Strong you are" (Yoda) or whatever, as compared to
      "mangus es" (Romans)

      • Re:Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:4, Funny)

        by Pres. Ronald Reagan ( 659566 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:39PM (#6092304)
        Shut up.

      • Re:Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:46PM (#6092330)
        To clarify, he speaks in "periodic syntax", which is the same as the context of classical latin. Several other languages (including the earliest post-latin forms of Spanish/Italian/French).

        Modern english, interestingly, maintains this in a form: a "periodic sentence" is one with its main clause at the end, following all subordinate clauses and other elements. This is an echo of the older periodic sentence, revised to technically fit into the syntax rules of modern english (which inverts the verb order).
      • I've always thought that he chooses to speak english imperfectly with his grammar reflecting his native language, rather than speaking in his native language and relying on whatever translation technology allows star wars characters to understand wookies. Much in the same way as he chooses to hobble along with a walking stick most of the time, rather than using the force to get around.
    • Come on people, we're talking about the MTV awards here, brought to us by MTV; the epitomy of modern pop and hype culture. We're talking about something hosted by a TV station aimed at 14 year old girls who faint at the sight of $current_hip_boyband and wish to be like $cheap_spicegirls_knock_off while flooding the rest of the market with artists like $random_teen_chick and $overhyped_guy_who_looks_gay.

      Bring back Aeon Flux!

  • Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomakaan ( 673394 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:45PM (#6092115)
    Gollum was a great character. Yeah, the camera work back and forth may have been a little too much, but I think that's a great way for Gollum to be depicted. His split personality was shown greatly and that is the one thing I am actually looking forward to in the third movie since they already messed with the storyline so much!
  • Look at all the pointless first posts, this submission must have attracted the MTV crowd. I played right into it. Shit.

  • Bored of the Rings.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LamerX ( 164968 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:51PM (#6092140) Journal
    Is anyone sick of hearing of Lord of the Rings... Does anyone care that CGI is taking over film, and that nobody is putting effort into special effects anymore? Why I remember back in the day, when it used to be really cool to see stuff, even if it looked a little fake, that was done. Now it's like, "That's too much effort, lets toss some CGI in there for this scene." Same with the Matrix Reloaded, the fight scene with Neo and the Agent Smiths. Obviously they thought that the first movie was cool with the spinny effects (which it was) so they'd better put more spinny effects in there. Only we want to do it really cool without spending a lot of money, so lets just replace the entire scene, actors, backgrounds, etc with computer animation and solve the ingeneuity problem. Yes ingeneuity, figuring out how to make a scene come to life with real people. Something that movies these days are starting to seriously lack.

    • Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sylvester ( 98418 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:20PM (#6092233) Homepage
      Yeah, right. Reloaded was sure stingy on the effect. Like, geez. Only $100 mill. [imdb.com] wtf.

      Choice snippets:

      o A 17-minute battle sequence alone cost over $40 million.

      o The 1.4-mile, three-lane loop highway was built specifically for the chase scene on the decommissioned Alameda Point Navy Base at a cost of around $30 million. It was destroyed when filming was complete.

      o It was reported that Keanu Reeves volunteered to give up a claim to a share of ticket sales amounting to around $38 million when producers feared that the film would never recoup the cost of the special effects.

      o The special effects cost $100 million U.S.
      • I find imdb's phrasing with the passive voice incredible. "It was reported that Keanu Reeves volunteered to give up a claim to a share of ticket sales amounting to around $38 million when producers feared that the film would never recoup the cost of the special effects." It was report by whom? Someone who thinks Reeves is a moron, apparently. The film made almost that the first weekend [azcentral.com]:

        The Warner Bros. sequel to 1999's "The Matrix" took in an estimated $93.3 million from Friday through Sunday, capturi

    • ingenuity schmingenuity! It takes ingenuity to figure out how to do computer animation as well, and most of the time it just looks better than stupid optical tricks. The special effects "industry" is around 35 - 40 years old now... there is no ingenuity, only shortcuts and gimmicks that have been used for years... the real progress is coming in the form of technical advancements with computer effects.

      But as much as you like to think that all special fx companies do these days is plug film into a computer a

  • Huh? What about Jar Jar!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:53PM (#6092147)
    *runs*

  • Gollum as one Actor. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lostchicken ( 226656 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:55PM (#6092158)
    Some people have said that having Serkis as the actor on scene, the face actor, the expression actor and the voice actor is just a gimmic.

    This is complete rubbish. The reason that Gollum seems as real as he does is because of the connection between voice and motion that you get with every human. It is for this reason that it is always easy to tell when a voice for animation was cast before or after the animation itself was complete.

    If I walked around with somebody else's voice all day, I would seem strange. Hats off to Serkis and the LotR crew for knowing this. Now we can begin to cast by acting talent, not physical attractiveness.

  • Is it really any surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thegrommit ( 13025 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @06:59PM (#6092166)
    While there will always be acting jobs in theatre, TV and non-Hollywood productions, is it any suprise that no acting Oscars went to a film that demonstrates actors worst nightmare - i.e. that the demand for them is about to drop?

    • I hope you get modded up, because I think you are right - when Hollywood realizes that they can put more in the bank by not paying the actors - just creating their own via CGI, you will see a paradigm shift. And not a small one - what will People magazine do? Interview the creators?

      This is *so* _Little Heroes_, it's not funny, but I look forward to it.

      (but will the first open source star be stallman?)
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • If Lara Croft is your role model, then we live in a sad world indeed.

        If that's your definition of a 'sad world', I pity you. A strong female role model is a role model, regardless of whether it's an actual person or a creative fantasy. People who read fiction often admire, and even identify with, certain characters in the books, even though they know for a fact that these characters do not actually exist - and no one sees the harm in that. It's the exact same thing as what you're talking about here; a

  • Gah! Spoilers (Score:5, Funny)

    by jtkooch ( 553641 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:03PM (#6092176)
    Well take this!

    Vader is Lukes father
    Soilent Green is people
    XXX Sucks
    And the third LOTR and the third Matrix are actually the same movie!
    • o The butler did it.

      oo Everybody dies at the end.

      oo He leaves her/she leaves him (but they get back together)

      o He's/she's NOT REALLY DEAD and will come back to life.

      oo There will be a chase scene. Perhaps more than one.

      oo There WILL BE a fight of some kind.

      oo There's a built-in sequel - they even do it just for the money sometimes, and to Hell with the plot. :(

      o TLG are DEAD. Get over it.

      o SW Episode III will probably suck too. So will Hulk.

      o Gollum dies.

      o Your popcorn has been pissed in, and y
      • o Nobody important dies.
        o It was all a delusion in John Nash's mind.
        o Bruce Willis is already dead
        o Colonel Fitts kills Lester
        o Lara Croft saves the world.
        o Catherine Tramell is the killer.
        o The apes take over the city.
        o Charlton Heston's character blows up the world.
        o 'Rosebud' is a sled.
        o Dil is a man
        o Bomb #20 kills everyone.
        o The butler, a surviving Nazi, did it.
        o Eddie is still alive.
        o Ash is the only survivor.
        o Ash is the only survivor, again.
        o Everyone dies, except for Mr Pink.
        o The Director committe
    • XXX Sucks


      My mpeg-filled hard drive would disgree.
      • XXX Sucks

        My mpeg-filled hard drive would disgree.

        Isn't that redundant after all? XXX and sucks. I think one of the reasons it's XXX is because of all the sucking going on! I mean, it's about the same as saying XXX anal fisting, or XXX DP Sluts... or was he talking about that other movie, with that one guy and that every so funky coat... *shrugs* who knows.

  • "In recent films" being the key... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:04PM (#6092184) Homepage
    it is nice to see recognition given to one of the most expressive and best acted roles in recent films.

    Perhaps, but the definitive Gollum is that voiced by Peter Woodthorpe [imdb.com] in the still definitive BBC radio version [amazon.co.uk]. Anyone who is interested in The Lord of the Rings, but hasn't heard this version, should really do themselves a favour and check it out.

    Semi-interestingly, Ian Holm [imdb.com], who plays Bilbo in the films, is cast as Frodo here. Co-incidence? I doubt it. I rather suspect that t'old Mr Jackson has heard this version too.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • Um.. spoilers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CaptainSuperBoy ( 17170 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @07:27PM (#6092262) Homepage Journal
    It's not on the level of the lone gunmen spoiler or anything, but still - nobody has actually seen the awards show, so maybe you should assume that SOME of us want to be surprised? Yeah I know it's been taped already, but it doesn't air until Thursday. Being as not a single Slashdot reader has actually seen the show, this should be posted with a spoiler warning.

  • No MTV.COM Link? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Come on guys, MTV.COM could use a good slashdotting.

  • Bleh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Its an MTV award.

    That means its recognition that LOTR has been assimilated into popular culture.. nothing more.

    I often wonder how "serious" artists and filmmakers manage to hide their indifference about MTV awards.

  • It's nice to finally see Weeta's acomplishments awarded. They've certainly deserved whatever price MTV have given them.

    It's very symptomatic that this award comes from the underground rather than from the academy. The academy might have been in the award business a tad longer, but lately their judgements have been out of synch with the US population.

    Many people are complaining about the horrors of pop culture and MTV in particular, but were not Mozart, Beathoven and Bach pop artists of their time? In due

    • In due time, the real talents of people like REM and Eminem will be aknowledged.

      When they give up the music business and the manager at the local McDogballs aknowledges that they have a great deal of talent for working the drive thru?

      There are MAYBE a dozen artists in the last 20 years that were orignal, talented and popular. REM and M&M are NOT on that list.

  • Easy Acting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SpamJunkie ( 557825 ) on Sunday June 01, 2003 @09:45PM (#6092816)
    Acting crazy, or angry, or any single emotion very strongly is easy. Watch any high school production: the less experienced actors stand out by the intensity with which they feel each emotion. Talent in acting is revealed in the conflict of two emotions felt at once.

    You may say that Gollum's conversation with himself is just that, but it isn't. He gets to switch between two single emotions like a madman which any semi-experienced actor can tell you is pretty damn easy, even fun. Keep in mind that Gollum's conversation with himself was also shot in pieces, once from each angle. In that respect the actor didn't even have to switch emotions as quickly as it appears he did on screen.

    Gollum didn't win an Oscar because he didn't deserve it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close