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."
There's a moral to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3, Interesting)
Idiot movies like this will continue to be made indefinitely because the cost of maintaining the l
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't to say they won't make the money back, today films make as much or more again on video and DVD sales and rentals (for the Matrix and LOTR films possibly much more) so it certainly
Marketing budgets (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't find the source right now (probably boxofficemojo) but I recall that the cost of making RotK was listed at around 95 million $, with advertsing costs of 50 million $. I'm amazed by the amount spent on advertising---it's hard to believe that it's cost effective, ie, that box office receipts or even total revenue would have fallen by 10 million if they had only spent 40 million on advertising.
Or is movie attendance so ruled by herding an
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I can't understand why people liked Titanic so much, just not my tastes. I don't understand how a movie like ROTK isn't going to gain first place in receipts, it's the first movie in almost 10 years that I've seen in the theater more than once.
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3)
If you want to make big money make a movie that appeals to women. That goes for computer games too, The Sims anyone?
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:2)
Or if you were making a Dr Who trilogy and the Doctor was meant to regenerate...
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:2, Interesting)
(Maybe the moral is: get James Cameron. ...TITANIC: THE REVENGE?)
NOT a "trilogy" (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had not seen the first two, the last one would not have made any sense at all.
Re:NOT a "trilogy" (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. It was originally written by Tolkien as 6 books, which were joined up into 3 in order to sell. The books were The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes South, The Treason at Isengard, The Ring Goes East, The War of the Ring, and The End of the Third Age
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
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
You are smoking CRACK (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:There's a moral to this story (Score:3, Funny)
Funny you should mention this. I was drunk when I saw AOTC in theaters, and thought it was the greatest thing ever. In fact, I remembered liking it so much that I bought the DVD when it came out.
I don't combine movies and alcohol any more.
I'm very happy about this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course our opinions don't seem to mesh with the standard
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!
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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/
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.
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:3, Insightful)
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
not flamebait really (Score:2)
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:5, Informative)
1 - The average height of a Japanese male is about 5'4" in contrast to the average western male at 5'10". This is largely due to the still conspicuous absence of dairy in the Japanese diet.
2 - Japanese really don't distinguish between "r" and "l". I'm not sure why this is, but they pronounce English as "Engrish" and Groceries as "Glocelies." It's not really a sterotype if its true.
3 - Japanese food looks like toes. To the average westerner Japanese food is frightening. Raw fish, strange vegetables in stews, unususal sea dwelling creatures prepared in such a way as to show off their oddities. Westerners are used to their food coming shrink wrapped and packaged in such a way as to be un-identifiable. We then cook it until it's burnt and let it wallow in sauces. The Japanese prefer foods to be easily identifiable as to where they came from. Hence it is common practice to serve, say, calamari (squid) whole and steamed. The Japanese also utilize more raw foods in their diet, ranging from fish to eggs.
4 - Five star hotels in tokyo w/ shower heads below 7 feet? More than you'd expect. Hotels in Tokyo are divided into two categories "western" hotels (typicaly themed), and Japanese hotels. Western hotels will genrealy conform to a theme park atmosphere ("wild west" or "hollywood" are both popular themes) and have a resort feel to them. Some more buisnesslike hotels may maintain western facilities without these gimics. In these hotels you will genrealy find showerheads above 7 feet. Japanese hotels don't do this. They will maintain traditional japanese facilities (beds 6 feet in length, traditional restrooms, etc). In such a place you're lucky if the shower head breaks 5 feet (I had to shower on my knees).
The film is designed to highlight the experiance of culture shock.
Re:R and L (Score:3, Insightful)
Phonetics are what everybody believes that they are saying and phonemics are the sounds that are actually spoken as determined by lab audio analysis.
I've heard that the Arabic language considers the 'k' sounds at the beginning of the English words 'cat' and 'kitten' to be different letters, which makes it very difficult for English speakers to learn the language.
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:2)
Re:I'm very happy about this (Score:2)
Have you seen the catalogue of Akira Kurosawa? He made dozens of great movies in his lifetime.
I was watching it (Score:3, Funny)
I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.
Re:I was watching it (Score:2)
Haha, it never fails. Every time there's a
Re:I was watching it (Score:2)
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".
Re:I was watching it (Score:2)
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.
Re:I was watching it (Score:2)
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
Re:I was watching it (Score:2)
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
Re:I was watching it (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but it did. The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring.
In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.
Another example: Kurt Russell's new movie, "Miracle." In the final showdown for Olympic gold, between Kurt's Americans and those nasty Russians, who do you think will win? Do you even need to see the movie? What's the point? You know America wins. America always wins in its movies. There'll be flags waving all over the place, moving patriotic speeches, uplifting music, it happens every time. "Armageddon" (yay, the US saved the world), "Independance Day" (yay, the US saved the world again),
Re:I was watching it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The core of the US (Score:3, Insightful)
How about plain-old "factual accuracy?"
the United States has the world's greatest military
You think? I'm morbidly curious to see the US and China duke it out. If nothing else, they outnumber you by about 3 to 1. If the US is so much stronger than China, why are they so afraid of them? When China captured the US's spyplane, by didn't the US just go in an
Re:I was watching it (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you watch the movie?
Frodo didn't destroy the ring. He couldn't bring himself to do it. Gollum destroys the ring by accident.
The ring is destroyed, yes. Evil is defeated, good triumphs, etc. But it was not so simple as "Frodo goes to the mountain, throws the ring in the lava, the end."
Re:I was watching it (Score:3, Insightful)
And that wasn't even the end of the movie or book. The more important story is the personal one, in which Frodo can no longer be at rest after his ordeal and must sail to the Undying Lands with the elves. This is a happy ending? I don't think so.
Re:I was watching it (Score:3, Interesting)
2. In the first movie, Jason wasn't the killer.
3. You can't complain about the ending of RotK being predictable because, duh, it was predicted 50 years ago by the book.
4. The main plot point of LotR was not for Frodo to destroy the ring. You missed the point. (And Moby Dick is not about a whale.)
5. It's been pointed out already, but bares repeating--in 1980 the USA Olympic hockey team beat the Soviet Olympic hockey team. Let the Soviets make movies about all the y
Re:I was watching it (Score:2)
Then I saw the movie and I still saw the sadness in it, but I knew all the subtle points of the story from having read the books a few times. I spent an hour explaining to someone why the elves were leaving and they said "So,
Oscar ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
-pahpabut
The Office wins Two! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Office wins Two! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Office wins Two! (Score:3)
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)
Two words: Benny Hill.
You just can't get more subtle than that!
Re:The Office wins Two! (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:The Office wins Two! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Office wins Two! (Score:2)
Re:The Office wins Two! (Score:2)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
It deserves the awards, and then some (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It deserves the awards, and then some (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that Jackson has said he'll do it means that he thinks he can make something of it, and given what he managed to do with LOTR I'm happy to take him at his word.
Fanboy is a term I use to describe people who are oblivious to the obvious faults of their 'fandom', and if King Kong turns out to be awful then
sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second case in point: Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace [rottentomatoes.com], with its "everything you know about the origins of the force is wrong" plot. Magic or religion? Ah, young Jedi, it's just some little thingies floating around in your blood.
Revisionism sucks, even in the movies.
Re:sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... (Score:3, Interesting)
LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
RoTK for Best Picture! (Score:5, Funny)
Howard Shore - my precious! (Score:5, Interesting)
Congrats to the rest of the ROTK gang as well! Good going!
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! (Score:2)
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
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! (Score:2, Informative)
Interpretting the music... (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally found the score rather disappointing. It's not bad at all but, I found nothing "Tolkienish" in it.
If "music" is defined by what's on MTV, then it might be considered brilliant; but with bands like Summoning and Blind Guardian ( LotR-related interview ) around to convert Tolkien's stories into music, I consider the LotR soundtrack somewhat of a missed chance.
I was actually fairly impressed by the music for LotR when I first went to the showings. I'm even more impressed now that I have had the opportunity to watch the DVDs at home and actually give the music some serious attention.
Interpretting a book and putting music to it is inevitably a big problem - very few books go as far as actually adding a score (!) or even an indicator of the music associated with each group of people so what one person expects is a very personal response. Having watched the appendecies to FotR and TTT about the scoring of the LotRs, Howard Shore has been very attentive to the vision that Peter Jackson bought to the film in terms of the histories associated with each of the various groups in the film without falling into the trap of going completely native and only using original instruments. For example, the Eoras are derived/inspired from the Anglo-Saxon peoples (think Beowulf on horses) and the key instrument for the Eoras themes is the Norweigen fiddle - an instrument which has a wilder timbre than a normal violin. The use of various vocalists to provide different textures to various important scenes in the films is another example of the care found in augmenting the vision.
Someone else mentioned predictability. For an effectively 10 hour score, each major character and each major group has their own theme. This theme is then moulded into the scenes where they appear, so during the battle of Helm's Deep you have a mixture of the music associated with the Uruk-Hai and the Eoras with some of the Elven themes woven in. It is both unrealistic and more importantly unworkable to not have this sort of thematic approach to the scoring - the viewer is often guided through a movie on the wings of the musical score, often at a subliminal level. The thematic approach actually helps the viewer following the (often rapid) switches in the film between the story lines - to keep throwing brand new ideas in all the time would actually disorientate many audiences in what is already a complex film (in TTT there are 5 simultaneous story threads at some points).
I think Howard Shore is a deserving recipient of this Golden Globe.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:Howard Shore - my precious! (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because all the instruments were made out of - you guessed it - wood. Wooden instruments accompanying wooden creatures. It's good stuff!
Great! (Score:2, Funny)
Meningful? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
A word from Howard Dean (Score:5, Funny)
Golden globes are a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Best Original Score (Score:2, Funny)
Oooo... Feel that Karma burn...
Best Director? (Score:3, Insightful)
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. ;-)
Why ROTK will probably not win... (Score:3, Troll)
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.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... (Score:2)
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."
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
--
Mando
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why ROTK will probably not win... (Score:3, Interesting)
*sigh* (Score:2)
Somebody give him the goddamn oscar already.... (Score:2)
Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (Score:3, Funny)
Bruckheimer LOTR adaptation (Score:2, Funny)
Merry and Pippin get into the fireworks. Instead of a premature dragon-launch, all of Hobbiton goes up in a 15-minute long orgy of pyrotechnic destruction.
When Gandalf defeats the Balrog, it blows up real good.
The orcs must be filled with gas at Helms Deep, because each time one of them is hit, it explodes like a Pinto.
The kill competition between Gimli and Legolas is made more exciting because each of them has a rocket-launcher instead of a bow or axe. Boom! Boom
LOTR DVD SUPER MEGA EXTENDED VERSION (Score:2)
Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (Score:2, Informative)
Interesting discussion on the subject here [southernvoice.com].
Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th (Score:2, Insightful)
LOTR was written about 50 years ago and draws upon a plethora of historical and mythical references which have existed for centuries (maybe even millenia). The dwarves, etc with their beards were quite well described in the books and the fims merely remained true to the descriptions in the books.
Book 2 (the Two Towers) was published in 1954 - way before the twin towers were even built.
I am also offended as an Englishman
journalistic integrity??? let me show you around.. (Score:4, Funny)
You must be new here. Let me show you around a bit.
What you are looking at now, is a crispy critter(you) being flamed for good measure for the following things: appearing pro-american (slashdot is Euro centric), bringing up that whole terrorist 9/11 twin towers thing, and mixing LoTR in with the previous two.
Down the hall you'll see the SCO section filled with people who are not lawyers, but play one on slashdot. Across from there is a broom closet, which is also labeled the Journalistic Integrity Vault, there you'll find boxes of repeat stories, mis-spelings, and summaries written by people who never read the article.
Your ignorance is welcome here, but please adjust it according to slashdot standards. 9/11, Osama, et. al are not a national security concern, but more of a vast right-wing conspiracy, LoTR 0wnes j00 and you will recognize it, also LoTR is considered by some more in-line with Christian ideals vs the Muslim ones you suggest.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:2)
For the oscars if a movie wins it can almost guarenteed to make at least 50% more money if it or an actor(ess) wins. Then for movies such as Monsters Ball or Cold mountain which hardly anyone would see it can mean more then double the amount they would normally get.
The appropriate quote from another movie (Score:5, Funny)
"Run Forest, Run!!!!"
Re:Two Towers... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not too sure. Various changes are made in the movies to punch up the drama; one is the Theoden/Eomer split, which didn't happen in the book. Consequently the Rohirrim weren't as prepared as they were in the book. The arrival of the elves underscore this. Of couse it could have been glossed over several other ways. I don't really understand why people object to this. This is precisely the kind of change Tolkien himself made from draft to draft in his various works. Had he rewritten LotR decade after decade like he did the Silmarillion, this version would have made a highly plausible draft.
What is up with Faramir?
Same thing. It's part of the translation of an epic medium into a dramatic one. In an epic, character is demonstrated by contrast, in drama it is demonstrated by change. This plot change give Faramir a chance to change his mind. I have no objection to this per se, but I think the reason that fans don't like this change (apart from the ones who don't like any change), is that it was poorly conceived. First it actually overestimates the power of the Ring. Tolkien didn't intend for the readers to take the Ring as being irresistable. Of course it could be resisted otherwise there is no point in the book. It just can't be resisted by people who yield to the temptation to use it. It is consistent with Jackson's desire to make the Ring and overpowering presence in the movie, almost a character in its own right.
Second, the way Faramir is won back has no credibility. Jackson having established the awesome corrupting power of the ring, Faramir simply overhears Sam's speech and suddenly his resolve is flipped 180 degrees. This could only be pulled off if they spent a huge amount of screen time showing agonizing over the decision. Since he is a minor character, it was't going to happen. All in all I think they would have been better of leaving this anamolous piece of epic logic in, rather than admit a mediocre piece of dramatic logic.
Ummm, where are the Hurons?
Until their defeat by the Iroquois, they would have been in central Ontario.
Why didn't the Ent's agree to attack Sauroman at the Ent-Moot?
Same as above. It is more dramatic (in the sense of more fitting to drama) to show characters changing their minds than simply making their minds up and carrying through.
Although I don't agree with them all, I actually like the fact that Peter Jackson took so many liberties with the text. It's interesting for the same reason it is interesting to have had Tolkien rewrite the same story with different viewpoints and events. It gives the story more of the flavor of a true, organically grown cultural artifact, which is what Tolkien was after anyway. With a real fairy tale and legend, there are always different local versions, and every storyteller makes it his own with his own details and embroidering.
Re:Two Towers... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Lord of the Rings is a monsterous book, and (as one learns when one reads the Simarillion, Unfinished Tales et al) there are precious few throwaway scenes, or even LINES. Almost everything has a fully realized backstory out there somewhere.
The notable exception is Bombadil... but almost everything else is fully fleshed out somewhere.
You can indulge in this luxury in print, because you are working with the imagination and because you're n
harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
It was a huge cast, don't write them all off like that eh.
Re:Real moral (Score:2)
I do however agree the "What does your heart tell you?" line was absolute garbage. It was almost as bad as when the same exact line was used in star wars episode one
Little(oprhan) Annie to his mom : "Will I ever see you again?"
Darth Mommie: "What does your heart tel
Re:Did I confuse the definition of 'nerd'? (Score:2)
I think what it comes down to is that a geek has style. Nerds are intelligent but got no game :) (At least, only nerds feel their style.)
Re:I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... (Score:2)
Although I really enjoyed "The Frighteners"
Yeah, lets look at his film bio...and others too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, he didn't really have many "good" movies under his belt other than Heavenly Creatures. But this is an argument for a good director? All good to great directors had excellent, epic, quality movies before their "big break"? Hmm...let's have a look:
Francis Ford Coppola: Had a handfull of movies before The Godfather put him on the map. Remember movies like The Terror or Playgirls and the Bellboy? Maybe The Rain People was his Heavenly Creatures?
Robert Zemeckis: Again, a few handfull of films before a breakthrough movie like Back to the Future. Though I was a big fan of Used Cars. But if we judged him on only his first few films, he would be considered a hack.
I could go on...but I'm tired of typing. But hopefully you get my point. A prior film bio is not a good judge of a persons directing skills before the "big break". Yes, I know there are directors that make a masterpiece right out of the box, but not all can be Orson Welles.
Also, these were his movies. He produced them, produced the fx with his company Weta, he directed them, co-wrote them. These were his babies. And frankly, the statement you made: The only thing he should get credit for is for letting the camera crew and art department do their thing shows your ingorance to movie making, or else you wouldn't have said such a thing.
For a look at "bad directing" look no further than Lucas with the Star Wars pictures that he directed personally. Star Wars is the only one that stands up to "good direction". "Empire" was a much better movie because he didn't direct it. "Jedi" wasn't that good, but it was basically the story itself and not the direction...which was good. Look how stiff and un-natural everyone looks and acts in "Menace" and "Clones".
Finally, if the direction is bad as you stated, it would have spoiled the movies no matter what. The Star Wars movies show that the amount of money and effects and art direction that you throw at a movie doesn't equal a good movie alone.
But hey, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
Re:No "The Hobbit"? (Score:3, Informative)
One very simple reason. Jackson doesn't have the rights to make the Hobbit [ign.com] (at least yet).