 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Why?
Which was the "better" film in 03 then, CT?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
False. Making all three movies at once is a huge departure from all previous attempts, and ficnancial horribly risky and nonsensical- once they committed to three films and beguin paying for it all, if the firt movie sank, there would have been huge pressure to tank the whole project and the producers would have lost the budget of three films in one failure.
|
quote:
Part of the point of the simultaneous production being such a massive feat is that you have to devote hundreds of millions to production, before seeing a dime from any theatre. |
How is that desserving of an Oscar? Spending money? BTW they could have shut down the production anytime.
quote:
False also. Making one hour of entertainment is hard, and it gets harder the more time you add on, period. Think of it this way-this was a 7 year process: that should give you a sense of the scale.
|
Bah, they were following the story of the book. They already had their scenario, the only thing left was to hire peons for the animation, the music, and the acting.
quote:
It's called the lifetime achievement Oscar. Blake won it this year. |
Yes. That's why an Oscar shouldn't be given to a movie because the trilogy was (allegedly) good.
Mr Baggins--
quote:
As for whether filming three films 6 years apart is the same... what are you smoking? Some actors would be 12 years older in the last episode... some might even die in the meantime. |
So what? Replace the actors, find the newest hot chick, the most handsome Di Caprio, take the coolest old man. That would have resulted in the same crap movie.
So, your point is we should give an Oscar because the whole trilogy had the same actors?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Essayo
|
|
New Zealand
Jan 2004
time: 17:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
How is that desserving of an Oscar? Spending money? BTW they could have shut down the production anytime.
|
The point with mentioning the 3 simultaneous movies is that Peter Jackson directed all three at the same time. THAT is what no one had ever done before, THAT is what made it so ground breaking, and THAT is part of the reason Peter Jackson got Best Director.
quote:
Bah, they were following the story of the book. They already had their scenario, the only thing left was to hire peons for the animation, the music, and the acting.
|
I could also argue that for Mystic River
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
How is that desserving of an Oscar? Spending money? BTW they could have shut down the production anytime.
|
A) Its a huge (possibly studio bankrupting) risk... and B) because its the only way to get a truly consistent look to a trilogy. You simply can't play any other trilogy back to back and have it be a seemless story... with a seemless feel and cast, just as a trilogy should be. Did SW? Nope. Godfather? Nope. Indiana Jones? Nope. Matrix? Nope. Hannibal? Nope. etc... etc... etc...
quote:
Bah, they were following the story of the book. They already had their scenario, the only thing left was to hire peons for the animation, the music, and the acting.
|
Hardly. The story was massively different from the book. It took a massive amount of adaption to have it work on the silver screen. Other attempts were made (and failed.)
quote:
Mr Baggins--
So what? Replace the actors, find the newest hot chick, the most handsome Di Caprio, take the coolest old man. That would have resulted in the same crap movie.
So, your point is we should give an Oscar because the whole trilogy had the same actors? |
First... its a problem when your main protagonists change in a film. Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford? How the hell would that work?
Second... should you award the Oscar just because a film can maintain the same cast in a trilogy? No... but having the same excellent ensemble is practically the only way you can maintain the quality throughout a trilogy. The Academy was holding back its rewards and had the last film critically failed, then I'm not sure that it would have been rewarded... however, it succeeded, and it was rewarded.
LOTR wouldn't have worked so well, had the actors changed each time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The work of a director is always hard. Some of them keep moving from movie to movie without vacation. How hard or how long you work doesn't count. And that you worked on three movies of a trilogy instead of three different movies shouldn't give you an edge.
Well, maybe you guys will realize it someday, but American cinema sucks because of Hollywood's poisoning. |
Peter Jackson is about as un "Hollywood" as you can get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yes you can. As long as you prepare the cast, the script, the Bible and the layout beforehand, there should be no problem in making a coherent trilogy. |
How come its never happened before then?
Saying you *could* do it, and doing it as LOTR HAS DONE, are two entirely different things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah, I know he wasn't. Now, look at what HE'S DONE in the last few years. |
In NZ, you mean? Thats SOOO Hollywood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Essayo
|
|
New Zealand
Jan 2004
time: 17:34
|
|
The only thing that Peter Jackson has done that is 'Hollywood' in recent years, is have a buget thats bigger that a few (hundred?) thousand dollars
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I mean with LOTR. That's sufficient to lose all the respect he used to desserve. |
Duh?? He produced LOTR in NZ... without the usual suspects of Hollywood production... using WETA for instance, instead of ILM or Pixar.
The only "Hollywood" thing about LOTR was the cash used to pay for things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yes, and the idiotic story, the ridiculously grandiose atmosphere, the crap music, etc. |
Now you're reaching.
The idiotic story? You mean the story from the greatest book of 20th century fiction?
The ridiculously grandiose atmosphere, taken from... the greatest story of 20th century fiction?
The crap music? From the best selling film soundtrack?
Try again, Fake Boris.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
Just watched 21 grams last night. A brilliant movie. It should have been nominated for best picture and best director.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monolith94
|
 |
New England
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
"Sure it is. Far more astonishing than any of its competitors. Mystic River was good, but hardly ground-breaking. Great performances (I think Penn deserved the Oscar), but overall nothing new there. LotR is new--nothing on that scale has ever been done before."
No it's not! There is nothing cinematically NEW about the lord of the rings films. Sure, the special effects are splendid, and the creative teams worked their asses off, but the core, the basis of what makes a film great, such as camerawork, placement of characters, pacing... all of it was mediocre. The academy has mistaken bombast and quantity for quality. Peter Jackson is not a mature director yet. Some scenes had me clutching my fists in frustration, due to the amount of missed opportunity for emotion and humanity.
It's like a technical demo. The objects inside it are class, but the whole thing is pretty soulless.
Out of the five best picture nominees, only one even made my top twenty, and it came in pretty low at that. Clint Eastwood's Mystic River contains some pretty intense scenes that, the way they were filmed, just floored me. Tim Robbins character's escape, as a youth, for example. And then there was his "werewolves" speech. It was full of great moments, tension and dramatic weight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
LOTR isn't Hollywood. Tolkein was anti-hollywood. Tolkein is a very british author...
When you think Hollywood... you think Tom Clancy or Stephen King. Those are natural Hollywood books.
|
Not really. Anything cathartic with a quest and good/evil conflict is Hollywood. Tolkien was not a particularly intelligent man, and not a great writer. It's just another popular novel, on the level of Paulo Coelho (OK, not as bad).
quote:
As for making lesser well-known novels? Maybe... but they wouldn't be as compelling, perhaps, as the true classic of the 20th century.
|
You have the right to your own taste, but if you think that LOTR is the true literary classic of the 20th century, then you should take some literature classes...
quote:
As for the music sucking... thats your utterly subjective opinion. More people bought that sound track, than any other movie soundtrack, over the period of its sale... and the composers of the Academy disagree with you also... and I feel that they're much better placed to decide than you are. |
It's a very common music, nothing groundbreaking. It's here to manipulate the viewer, not to make an artistic breakthrough. True, it is EFFECTIVE- but it's nothing like "true" music.
BTW, the Academy voters are not that great. Look at the awards they give, and then consider whether or not you should trust them. Venice, Berlin and Cannes are much better when it comes to trust an award.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2004 11:18
Griffith was already doing it in 1920.
|