Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Lord of the Rings Media Movies

Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes 397

stubear writes "According to MSNBC, 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King' won 4 Golden Globes, for Best Picture - Drama, Best Director (Peter Jackson), Best Original Score (Howard Shore), and Best Original Song ("Into the West" by Howard Shore, Fran Walsh and Annie Lennox). LotR: RotK was the big winner for the night, at least for movies. Hopefully LotR: RotK will fare just as well, or better, at the Oscars."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

Comments Filter:
  • When making ambitious trilogies, shoot the whole set in one go. Do not try to make a Version 2 years after the first one made it big, or you will end up looking like a fool. And yes, I'm still regretting having seen the second Matrix movie.
    • How likely does everyone think this is to carry over to the Oscars? Or will that awful wallow *Cold Mountain* win everything? (Yes, I just had to watch almost 2 and 1/2 hours of Jude Law covered in mud, blood, and fake beards, which kind of makes it pointless to have him onscreen, and Nicole Kidman getting her hair mysteriously re-highlighted during the middle of the Civil War.)
    • by Wanderer2 ( 690578 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @08:57AM (#8086919) Homepage

      Indeed. It also means you won't have many cases of different actors playing the same characters in different movies because the original actor died/wanted too much money/fell out with the rest of the cast and crew etc.

      But there aren't many studios that would let you do such a thing, in case the first movie is a flop and the whole trilogy makes an enormous loss as a result.

    • by hanssprudel ( 323035 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:37AM (#8087128)
      If I were a Hollywood exec, I would draw the opposite conclusion from The Matrix. Look at the numbers [boxofficemojo.com] for Revolutions. It didn't even make it's production budget back, with a total that is HALF of what Reloaded made. Given that Revolutions was no better than Reloaded, what could WB be expecting if they had another $150 million matrix movie coming up?

      The LOTR movies are remarkable in Hollywood history. Two Towers was the first sequel EVER to a blockbuster ($200 million +) to make more then it's prequel, and Return of the King was the second. They managed this because they were excellent movies: fan liked them, wide audiences liked them, critics liked them. But Revolutions gives you some idea of what would have happened if Fellowship had been a disappointment. It isn't pretty...

      So, my lesson from the Matrix would be: WB should never have footed the bill for a second sequel until they knew if the first sequel worked (*). The lesson from LOTRs is really just: sometimes gutsy, risky calls pay off in a big way. Most of the time they don't...

      (*) Of course, Hollywood would have looked at the numbers for Revolutions and decided that it did, instead of realizing that it made that money on the back of the first movie, and had no legs to stand on it's own.
      • by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:33AM (#8087486)
        Flawed analysis. Movies often don't make the budget back at the domestic box office, international markets, rentals, DVD sales, TV rights, merchandising etc make up the margin and then some.

        Just look at the "+ Overseas Gross" in on that page it's over a quarter billion, add to that merchandising, DVDs, Computer Games, etc and you're seriously in the black.

        Yup the movies were ass but given your attitude LOTR would never have been made.

        A second Matrix sequel while the other was in production may have been a safer bet that a new movie from thin air (which often bomb). In addition ofcourse the parallel production reduced costs on a number of levels giving you (at least in theory) more movie for your buck.
      • by Unregistered ( 584479 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @12:49PM (#8088797)
        Remember The Matrix wasn't supposed to be a trilogy. LotR was.
      • Assuming that the numbers on BoxOfficeMojo are not just fantasy, it doesn't look like Matrix:Revolutions lost money. It made @140 million in boxoffice USA and @$240 million outside the USA. Assuming that half of the box office went to the distributors and exhibitors, and the video/DVD rental receipts will be 40% of box office, Matrix:Revolutions made enough money to pay for itself and make a small profit.

        Idiot movies like this will continue to be made indefinitely because the cost of maintaining the l
    • Unless the characters are meant to grow older during the stories (eg Harry Potter - although that's bigger than a trilogy).

      Or if you were making a Dr Who trilogy and the Doctor was meant to regenerate...
    • ALIENS and TERMINATOR 2 were both years-later "version 2"s, and not only didn't suck, but likely benefited from the lengthy hiatus.

      (Maybe the moral is: get James Cameron. ...TITANIC: THE REVENGE?)

    • NOT a "trilogy" (Score:3, Interesting)

      The work is not a trilogy (technically, any part of a trilogy can be comprehended without having had to read/see the other two) ... it's just a really long movie that was broken into three parts.

      If you had not seen the first two, the last one would not have made any sense at all.

    • by bluethundr ( 562578 ) * on Monday January 26, 2004 @12:24PM (#8088507) Homepage Journal
      When making ambitious trilogies, shoot the whole set in one go. Do not try to make a Version 2 years after the first one made it big, or you will end up looking like a fool. And yes, I'm still regretting having seen the second Matrix movie.

      While I agree that on the whole LoTR works a helluva lot better than Matrix did as a trilogy, I believe it's worth noting that Matrix was so experimental at the time it was made that the Wachowskis most likely had no clue that there would ever be more than one Matrix. They may have hoped there would be a sql. But its probably more the case that they felt fortunate to have made the movie they did, with the cast they had and would have had a great deal more trouble getting a trilogy based on a franchise as untried (nae, nonexistent) as Matrix was at the time "greenlighted".
    • I agree, Jackson has proven that's the best way to go. If there are any Hollywood producers/directors out there, you should take note of this success. Now you know how he did it, all you need is material to work with. The following is just musings of what I'd like to see happen.

      I can't decide which book series should be brought to movies first. A recent contender is George R.R. Martin's [amazon.com] sleep-depriving, emotional rollercoaster. Another possibility is Jack Vance's Lyonesse [amazon.com] trilogy, a wonderous high-fa

      • A recent contender is George R.R. Martin's sleep-depriving, emotional rollercoaster

        You can't be serious. LoTR was hard to adapt to the big screen because of its scope and complexity, and the only reason PJ had a prayer of doing it justice was because the studios knew that they had a base of hardcore Tolkien fans to count on -- there's no other way anyone would have dreamed of doing a story that required 11 hours in the theater for an *abridged* telling.

        But Martin's masterwork (and it is, indeed, a fan

      • by revscat ( 35618 )

        As for the Middle-Earth storyline, I think that The Silmarillion, not The Hobbit, should be made next.

        Ok, I love you man, but thinking that you can make *a* movie out of the Silmarillion is just, well, I mean, I'm at a loss for words. The Silmarillion is over 3,000 years of history, with TONS of different stories. It's not a single, continuous work. It's a collection of different stories with different characters covering two separate ages. There is NO WAY you could take that and make it into a single mo

  • by kentrel ( 526003 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @08:56AM (#8086914) Journal
    I was delighted when I saw the news this morning. As a huge movie fan (sometimes snob) I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation. I'm glad they recognised it, and I hope the Academy recognises it. Movies like Cold Mountain come out every year, are usually nicely made, well acted but ultimately lifeless and only represent the generic Hollywood drama rather than push the boundaries of filmmaking, which movies are supposed to.

    Well done to PJ who takes home another well deserved award. LOTR will be remembered fondly twenty years from now, and as the influence for a whole new generation of filmmakers. Cold Mountain will be remembered as that forgettable film way back in Jude Law's filmography.

    • by sebi ( 152185 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:05AM (#8086972)
      Just a thought: Of all the films awarded last night the one that is probably going to influence most young filmmakers must be "Lost in Translation".
      • by sielwolf ( 246764 ) * on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:37AM (#8087129) Homepage Journal
        Or Monster with its ambitious turn by Ms Theron playing a serial killer... or Owning Mahoney with its excellent performances by P.S. Hoffman and James Caan. The documentary/pseudo-documentary/cartoon American Splendor... the Morris documentary/deconstruction of Robert McNammara Fog of War. All have cinematic elements that are being lauded even now (who can't love "interrocam"?).

        Of course our opinions don't seem to mesh with the standard /. line of "If I haven't seen/heard of it, it must not be good." One could point them to Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress which lead the way for a little movie called Star Wars (which then helped finance two more Kurosawa movies: Ran and Kagemusha)...

        but, eh, who wants to complicate things? RotK was a good movie, so it must have been the only good movie of the year. I mean, just look at the box office receipts!
        • Umm any geek who hasn't seen Kurosawa's film's is hardly a geek at all (at least of the film variety). Kurosawa has made some of the best made films in history and while the general American public might not know them anyone who is serious about good movies has.
          • by sielwolf ( 246764 ) * on Monday January 26, 2004 @01:25PM (#8089336) Homepage Journal
            True, knowing Kurosawa is probably mandatory if one wants to be considered seriously for their cinema opinion. But I think that the 'film geek' ratio on /. is low. Where spending a lot of money on movies is somehow equivalent to seeing a lot of movies and thus being informed.

            Granted, 90% of the folks on this site have probably heard of Kurosawa (that's actually why I brought him up. To point out how the roots of popular cinema is drawn from groundbreaking earlier works that one may have only heard of in passing). Of those you could say that maybe 9% then know of someone such as Beat Takeshi (even though more may watch Most Extreme Elimination Challenge and not realize who the main guy is). And that's before we get into the other masters such as Ozu or Mizoguchi. Or modern artisans such as Miike.

            Popularity becomes the single measure of importance and therefore we end up with /. threads like this where earning the Oscar will just prove X is the best movie of the year. I know its the case since I've made the mistake of mentioning last year that City of God might be the best film of 2003... to which I was modded down as a troll.

            I find it all funny since many of these same folks would battle endlessly if someone suggested that XP was the best desktop OS since it exists everywhere. In fact one could take these movie discussions, s/RotK/Windows/g and s/SomeLesserKnownMovie/YourFavoriteBSD*nixDistro/g
            and get an interesting duality. Not that there is anything inherently bad about RotK or Windows (or good about Linux or some other indie release). Just that the vehemence and interest attached to OS's seems to disappear when talking about something just as "geeky" as movies.
            • But "best" means different things to different people.

              Maybe you loved "City of God", but Joe Somebody would hate it. "Best" (or "good") is about as subjective a term as they come. I just read some reviews of it, most say it's a very shocking and disturbing film. I'm sure it's very effective. Does that make it "best?" Maybe to some.

              So in light of that, why exactly do you denounce popularity as a good measure of a film's value? And I'm not talking about sales figures here. Pearl Harbour made tons, but
              • No where did I say that popularity wasn't a good metric. Just that to use it as the only one is foolish.

                Take a look at IMDB's top 250 movies [imdb.com]. This is the composed average of user ratings of all films in the database.

                Now, by your logic, we should just be able to search down the list to find the top movie of 2003. According to the list it would be #4 RotK.

                First, how does that seem. That this movie, less than two months in the theaters is now the 4th best movie of All-Time? Above Schindler's List, One
                • "No where did I say that popularity wasn't a good metric. Just that to use it as the only one is foolish."

                  OK, so what other metrics should we be using? Professional reviewers? Sure, why not. RottenTomatoes has City of God with a 92% approval, RotK with 96%.

                  "Now, by your logic, we should just be able to search down the list to find the top movie of 2003. According to the list it would be #4 RotK."

                  No, that'd be the top movie of 2003 as currently identified by IMDB users. Which it is.

                  "Now although
    • Thought I think you have a good point, I take issue with one statement: rather than push the boundaries of filmmaking, which movies are supposed to.

      I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Movies are supposed to tell stories. Those that "push the boundaries" are great films. It's like saying every scientific discovery is supposed to be a paradigm shift.

      Writers and artists must find their voice in the process. It isn't their job to push boundaries, unless they have to to get the message across the mes
      • Cold Mountain is actually not nearly bad enough to deserve the treatment, but there have been plenty of past Oscar winners where adding a thousand or so rampaging trolls in mucky loincloths would have been a distinct, if stinky improvement.
    • I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation.

      Have you seen the catalogue of Akira Kurosawa? He made dozens of great movies in his lifetime.
  • by debilo ( 612116 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @08:57AM (#8086920)
    And I'm really glad for Peter Jackson and the crew, they really deserved it. Peter was pretty funny too, he said something like "I didn't realize that working 7 years on this film would turn me into a hobbit". And it really did. He was not much taller than Dustin Hoffman, who gave him the award.

    I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.
    • I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.

      Haha, it never fails. Every time there's a /. story about LotR, the fanboys inevitably and predictably bash the Matrix in a total non-sequitur. It surprises me that for all the anti-mainstream rhetoric that goes on around here, such a large crowd would embrace a series with such a classic, predictable Hollywood ending (LotR), and reject a movie with a completely outside-the-box ending such as Revolu
      • movies that try to make you think

        I'm sorry, but making you try to figure out why the ground rules for the universe change without notice does not count as "trying to make you think".

      • LOTR had a predictable ending...yeah. Perhaps because it was written 50 years ago?

        Classics are imitated. A jaded reader (or viewer), ignorant of a particular classic's role, will consider a classic a poorly done example of the category CREATED by the classic. LOTR is archetypal in this.
      • For the record, I loved both the Matrix trilogy (OK, Reloaded was a little thin, but only in comparison to the other 2) and the LotR trilogy. But the latter was very predictable and had the stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting, even for those of us who have never read the books or heard the story. The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.

        I agree with you completely about the Matrix. That trilogy ended in a way that made sense, was ultimately satisfying, and m

      • I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that Reloaded/Revolutions didn't have a "classic, predictable Hollywood ending." The only elements short of standard sappy ending were:

        1. tragic death of hero(s) [ed. note: very original!]
        2. vague, poorly developed notion that machines are people too
        3. humans win the war but fail to totally annihilate enemy

        These are only superficial deviations from a standard linear plotline. I don't see how they "make you think" about anything other than extended fight scenes
  • Oscar ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lightman_73 ( 183090 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @08:57AM (#8086922)
    Nah. I don't really think so.

    Let's face it, LotR won't probably get more than 2 or 3 Oscars.

    The problem here is that LotR isn't the average movie, and moreover it's a fantasy one. Fantasy and SciFi movies never did well at the Oscars. Sure, they can get best special effect, or best music, but they'll prolly never get a best movie, or best actor, or best photography.

    I hope things will prove me wrong, but...

    • Re:Oscar ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:13AM (#8087796)
      not that Oscars really matter in the ways of life, nor are they very logical, but:
      ROTK will win best movie and it will win for three reasons, it's a good flick, the Miramax flick of the year aint that good, and it's a compensation win. However ROTK is NOT the best movie of the year, really. (personal choice, Lost In Translation) The trilogy in its completion is the best movie of 2001-2003 combined but each of the parts is not the best of the year. But it will win none the less. It SHOULD win. ROTK will also win best director, but that's a given.

      As for actors and photography ROTK should NOT win any of it, it just aint that good. The acting of the ring trilogy consists mainly of yelling at props, speaking in tongues and beards and staring plainly into the camera subverting you into thinking there is something going on inside. The only acting presence of the trilogy has been the Gollum charachter, an astounding achievement in itself. But compare Gollum to Andy Serkis technique in the flesh as the real-life version of Gollum, it's apallingly BAD acting in real-life. Once again the synergy of the production has created something extraordinary out of average or better than average sub-parts. Given, most actors prices are given for a big Cry part (think Sean Penn in Mystic River) or transformation act (think Charlize Theron in Monster), and that's sad as there are many other excellent works outside those frames. Especially the ensemble act problem. But look at Bill Murrays acting in Lost In Translation which is a very fine piece of tragedy and comedy combined. Gollums schiophrenic scene in TTT is on Murray's level, but all other acting sequences and parts in ring trilogy are not. I hope Murray wins this one, he deserves it. This year in Big Hollywood Popcorn movies had one (1) fine performance and that was Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. Viggo Mortensen is nice and the right man for his part in the ring trilogy but he is a stiff Dubya Bush compared to Depps rip-off of Keith Richard.

      As for cinematography, well thats a bit trickier. Personally I don't think ROTK looks pretty enough. It's very good, but not outstanding, and if it is something that has moved forward the last decade in terms of moviemaking it is cinematography. Look at Christopher Doyle's work in Hero (shelved in US -only by Miramax, for all time. Buy the DVD.)and In The Mood For Love, or Conrad S Hall's work in Road To Perdition or even an average flick from the factory and compare it to a flick from fifteen years ago, how good they look now. ROTKs cinematography is technically brilliant at keeping the long production even in terms of the look, but it doesnt make you go "wow what a pictureframe" like excellent cinematography should. It has some nice fly-bys and mass-scenes but the lighting in many scenes are just off whack. ROTK looks flat as a picture, IMO. Kill Bill looks better (and also uses several different types of cinematographic styles, which is very interesting) and Lost In Translation and Elephant blows it out of the water.

      The achievement of the Ring films lies in the production entire and that it actually has worked as a film version of a book, something quite uncommon. I don't think Peter Jackson bothered that much to get the best acting or the best cinematography of the year into each film, but primarily tried to fit the story itself onto film while not making it look outright cheesy. It doesnt, so he's succeeded. You maximize some efforts and give up others, cut him some slack.

      Given Jacksons next project is King Kong, an all out emotionally based film, I think he'll go for good acting (by actors and creatures alike) for that one. And as it's a single picture more time can be spent on makin it look good too. So perhaps, next time alas.


  • The Office wins Two! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beders ( 245558 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @08:58AM (#8086929) Homepage
    BBC News [bbc.co.uk]

    Best TV comedy and best comedy actor for Ricky Gervais. Considering they were up against Will and Grace and Matt le Blanc in these categories this was a major surprise and makes me happy that such a fantastic series has been honoured.

    Hopefully this will increase the awareness of the show in the USA. Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much.

    On the topic of Golden Globes, off the LOTR topic.
    • by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:16AM (#8087036)
      Hopefully this will increase the awareness of the show in the USA. Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much.

      The thing about the humour in The Office is that a lot of it is quite subtle and cultural - I am not sure it will "translate" very well to the US. Even some people in the UK don't "get it", and people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US. Also, a lot of the humour in Ricky Gervais's character is based around his crassness and political incorrectness - if the show is "sanitised" at all for mainstream US audiences I think it will loose a lot of its punch. Personally I don't think it is going to make the translation well - it might still be a good show in the US but I expect it will be very different.
      • people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US.

        I'm always surprised that the Americans on Slashdot are happy to let this kind of stereotyping pass. This is simply not true - and I speak as a Brit who's lived in the US for 5 years. I mean - have you actually seen shows like Larry Sanders or Arrested Development - these are very definitions of shows relying on subtle humour, rather than big punchline slapstick.

        The fact is that the only difference in levels of humo
        • Two words (Score:3, Funny)

          by AtariAmarok ( 451306 )
          people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US.

          Two words: Benny Hill.

          You just can't get more subtle than that!
      • by joss ( 1346 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @12:22PM (#8088486) Homepage
        > people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle
        > humour and irony than many people in the US.

        I don't think so. I'm a Brit who lived in US for 5 years, and its true that many Americans don't get subtle humour, but then again neither do many Brits. We're not all fans of the Office or the Royale Family [which is funnier than the Office IMHO, although Gervais is a fricking genius]. There are huge numbers of fans for Jim Davidson for the love of God.

        Also, there are subtle American comedy shows, eg Larry Sanders, and my personal favorite Beavis and Butthead. I'm not kidding either, the Office was in your face subtle, but Beavis and Butthead was so subtle most people didn't even realise it was subtle. They couldnt see past the sophomoric/moronic exterior to the zen perfection of minimalist humour that ran underneath.
    • by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:13AM (#8087360)
      "Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much."

      Remake? They're remaking 'The Office'? What's the point?

      For one thing, the US has nothing like Slough, and petty office politics have been done to death in numerous sitcoms

      Come to think of it, I can't think of a TV series that has ever made it across the Atlantic intact.

      • For one thing, the US has nothing like Slough
        Have you never been to New Jersey?
        • "Have you never been to New Jersey?"

          Very quickly, and I'll never lose the memory of those laughing, happy immigration staff, especially when I told them the purpose of my visit was to steal their jobs and women.*

          However Slough is much smaller than 'Noo Joisey' and Pittsburgh might have been closer, but it's the fundamental 'greyness' of Slough (and Swindon) that provide much of the comedy.

          * Score so far: Women 1, Jobs 0

  • by ed8150 ( 554077 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @08:58AM (#8086930)
    they are golden my my precioussss, yeeess. those nasty kill bills want our precious, but we wont lets them have it.
  • The LOTR movies have all earned their respective awards easily. Peter Jackson managed to do the impossible and consistently improve over each 'instalment', despite the fact that each instalment was acclaimed by audiences and critics alike. I wouldn't normally be interested in King Kong, but Jackson has earned enough of my respect for me to go see it no matter what any critics say about it.
  • by voss ( 52565 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:00AM (#8086938)
    You write the movie...and the plot should not suck.

    The first three star wars movies were episodes
    IV-V-VI and these were each made over a 6 year span.

    The difference between lord of the rings and SW/ESB/ROTJ versus the matrix sequels is that the first two there was a story that needed to be told. In the Matrix, they didnt have such a story.

    Of course you can still have a story that needs to be told...and it still suck because of lousy execution.
  • I was really surprised that the British series "The Office" won both categories it was nominated for (best comedy TV and best actor in same) edging out American productions like "Sex and the City" and "Will and Grace".

    I also thought that the ceremony would have been a good one had they simply given everything to Scarlett Johansson. The Oscar nominations will be published tomorrow and I am curious to see how closely they follow the lead from this awards-show. I would like to see Ang Lee to get at least a no

  • by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:02AM (#8086948) Homepage
    OR ELSE! [pvponline.com]

  • by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:06AM (#8086978) Homepage Journal
    Brilliant score - kudos to Howard Shore! Such powerful music is rare in these times when "music" is more about shaking your ass and tits on MTV than creating something that sends that chill up your spine, that takes your breath away, that fills you with emotions...

    Congrats to the rest of the ROTK gang as well! Good going!

    • > Brilliant score - kudos to Howard Shore!

      To be honest, that's the part that surprised me the most. When I saw the first film, I absolutely loved the music. But when I left the cinema after ROTK, I couldn't help thinking that if anything, the score had been a bit lacking. It seemed almost like all the themes from the first two installments had been stirred up, re-heated and served up without much thought. There wasn't very much that was new; as a scene appeared on the screen I could already guess what t
  • Great! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now I can go see it. I always wait to see how well a movie does in the Golden Globes before I am willing to shell out my hard earned dollars. ;-)
  • Meningful? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AmoebafromSweden ( 112178 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:22AM (#8087062) Homepage
    Well Does these awards really matter anymore?

    I lost total faith in the system that time when shakespeare in love nabbed a lot of oscars, not becuase of quality but because of marketing tricks from the creators.

    I dont think Golden Globe is any less vulnerable.
  • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:27AM (#8087080)
    "Not only are we going to Rivendell. We're going to Caradhras, and Moria and Rohan and the Paths of the Dead, and we're going to Fangorn and West Emnet and Ithilien and Morannon. And then we're going to Minas Tirith, to take back the White Tree! YEEAAARGGHHHHHH!!!!"

  • by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul.prescod@net> on Monday January 26, 2004 @09:29AM (#8087087)
    The Globes are a joke [kiefersutherland24.net] that Hollywood and the TV networks play on the rest of us. The people who vote are neither industry experts (fewer than 40% work full-time in journalism or the film industry) nor representative Joe Averages. Rather they are fanboys (car dealers, accountants, appliance salesmen [eonline.com]) who work the system to get an opportunity to hang out with stars. The Hollywood system uses these fanboys for more publicity and because they are more malleable than the Oscar jury (which is much larger and thus harder to buy off [eonline.com]).

    Hollywood is full of fake shit. But let's force them to be explicit about what is fiction and what is real [ninemsn.com.au]. The Golden Globes are awarded by an in-bred group of random no-nothing foreigners based in large part on who has given them the best perks [suntimes.com] that year. I think that the world's movie fans deserve better.

    Why should we geeks care what 90 people, self-selected for a lack of integrity, think of the Lord of the Rings or anything else?

  • Adam.

    Oooo... Feel that Karma burn...
  • Best Director? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arathrael ( 742381 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:12AM (#8087356)

    Just to buck the trend a bit - I actually thought Return of the King was by far the weakest of the three. It felt rushed - too many scenes had a 'we have to get this plot information across as quickly as possible and move on' quality to them, while other scenes seemed unnecessarily drawn out, complete with OTT slow-motion effects. Sure, he's trying to cram a lot of material in, but moving Shelob from the Two Towers to Return of the King didn't help, even after chopping out Saruman (and a very large part of the book at the same time). Dragging Arwen into the third film with slow, drawn-out scenes that don't really make sense didn't help either.

    They got the general look right, and impressively so (perhaps with the exception of the very cheesy glowing green dead), however, in terms of script and direction, they could have done better. I was actually quite disappointed when I came out after seeing it. So for me, Peter Jackson didn't deserve a best director award for it. But that's just my opinion.

    Oh, and the pipes in the score were bloody annoying sometimes. ;-)

  • by The Closet Optimist ( 93079 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:47AM (#8087589)
    50% of the Oscar voting body is women, who have historically voted for whatever the most romance-based movie is of the bunch (Cold Mountain in this case.) Put another way, 50% of the voting body is interested in movies about relationships as opposed to epic cinema - unless of course it's about romance; think "Titanic."

    Remember when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan"; "Forrest Gump" beat "Pulp Fiction", etc.?

    While there certainly can be exceptions to this rule, and hopefully this year will be one, past history suggests that the Oscar will go to something like Cold Mountain or Big Fish.

    • Remember when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan"; "Forrest Gump" beat "Pulp Fiction", etc.?

      Forest Gump [imdb.com] was in 1994 as was Pulp Fiction. (not a bad movie.) I agree; Pulp Fiction [imdb.com] was better than Forrest. But also that year was Shawshank Redemption [imdb.com]. In my opinion, this was the best movie of 1994.

      But my thinking a different movie is better than another person just illustrates the fact that all of these awards are subjective and really don't mean that much execpt for "Bragging Rights."
    • by Admiral1973 ( 623214 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @12:28PM (#8088542) Homepage
      How is this comment insightful?

      First of all, it's blatantly sexist. Oscar balloting is secret, so how does this poster know that all the women vote for the romances? Does this mean that the male voters always pick the most violent movie nominated?

      Second, just because romances are nominated doesn't mean that they will win. How does this sexism theory explain Best Picture winners like Gladiator (2000), Braveheart (1995), Schindler's List (1993), Unforgiven (1992), and Platoon (1986)? Gladiator beat Chocolat and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, both of which could be considered romances (or at least had prominent love stories). Yes, sometimes the romance beats the epic war movie, but there are other factors. I have read that one of the reasons that Shakespeare in Love beat Private Ryan was due to the Academy's heavy use of screener tapes. SPR's epic scope was lost when it was taken out of the movie theater, while SiL looked great at home on the small screen.

      In the end, it doesn't matter whether ROTK wins Best Picture or not. Yes, I'll be happy if the movie wins, but if it doesn't, does that take anything away from the greatness of the movie or the trilogy as a whole? The movie isn't changed by the award, and I'll enjoy it just as much in future years whether or not it has the words "Academy Award Winner: Best Picture of 2003" on the DVD cover. Besides, it's not like *I* get an Oscar if the movie wins. It's like if your favorite team wins a championship. Sure, you feel great about it, but it's not like you were a part of the victory.

      • It's like if your favorite team wins a championship. Sure, you feel great about it, but it's not like you were a part of the victory.

        Now that's just a flat out lie. Everyone knows that the Yankees won the AL pennant last year because I ate 10 hot dogs/inning during the Championship series.

        They would have won the World Series if I hadn't gone to the hospital because of the aforementioned hot dogs.

    • Why do you think Peter Jackson/New Line Cinema put more emphasis on the Aragorn/Arwen love story than Tolkien (in the book, story was only added as an appendix in the end of the ROTK)?
      • I doubt it was because PJ was trolling for Oscar votes, if that's what you're implying. If anything, I see the emphasis on the love story giving Arwen *something* to do. Tolkein didn't write very many women into the trilogy at all -- Eowyn gets to slay the witch king and all, but what does Arwen do... get married in the end? Ho hum.
  • by jafac ( 1449 )
    As much as I think ROTK sucked ass, and proved to be a bitter disappointment after 30 years of expectations, for the life of me, I can't recall a better movie coming out in 03.
  • Jackson really deserves it. LotR is one of the most amazing movie series of our time, and although it was my least favorite of the 3 books, somehow RotK ended up, IMHO, being the best of the three movies. After being snubbed the last two years he should be awarded one for the entire trilogy.

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern