 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
I'm not so sure LotR should have won. Yeah, it was the best adaptation of a geek-fest thing done in recent memory, and I thoroughly enjoyed the trilogy, but let's come back down to earth for a minute. It doesn't matter if it seemed like it would be hard to make some book (best work of fiction of the 20th century? Grab some perspective) into a movie, nor did Peter Jackson work on three movies simultaneously (it's just one really long movie spliced into three, very different from something like Star Wars or the Godfather). IMO, you need to consider how the movie was standing completely on its own merits, not outside factors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
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).
|
Oh... Fake Boris... the tenuous thread of your sanity is completely unravelling, isn't it? Why the hell does a quest and good/evil conflict mean that something is hollywood. These concepts have been around as long as the great sagas.
I guess movies should only be made without quests and or good/evil motifs, if they are to be valued?
Seriously... do you expect anyone to believe this tripe?
quote:
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...
|
Listen, and read carefully. Opinion is opinion. Nothing can be proven in terms of opinion. Opinion between differing subjects is actually a fuzzy problem, and can't ever be solved in absolutes, even when offering statistical validation.
We could debate for all eternity, and never get anywhere.
The only method we have that approaches some kind of validation, are statistical polls of peoples opinions on a subject.
Many public polls have been done on the subject, at hand, of the greatest book of the 20th century (or millenia). The BBC, Amazon.com and the NY Times, notably... and they all agree. LOTR is undoubtedly the most popular choice.
Of course, you'll claim that popular opinion isn't worth much... but why is your opinion worth anything?
Popular support is seemingly the only concrete conclusion that can be drawn in advocacy discussion.
quote:
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.
|
Oh... so now you're the one true messiah when it comes to music. I guess we should all stop bothering choosing our own music and listen to Fake Boris?
I hate (well... not really) to bring up the opinion vs. popular opinion argument again.
Simply put, most people disagree with you. More people paid money for these three soundtracks, than any three classical albums you could name.
quote:
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. |
I'll take their combined views over yours, particularly since they are in the industry that we're discussing advocacy of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I'm sort of stunned that people think ROTK was too "Hollywood".
If Hollywood had its druthers, Frodo would have overcome the power of the Ring and heroicly destroyed it, and Sam would've killed Gollum. Instead, the original scene took place--Frodo succumbed to the evil of the Ring, Gollum once again got the better of Sam and Frodo, and NO ONE could withstand the evil of the Ring--it destroyed itself through its own greed and treachery, and took Gollum along with it.
That ain't exactly a Hollywood story, people. That's pretty ****ing bleak, as a matter of fact.
I saw three of the best pic nominees--LOTR, MAC, and LIT--and I loved all three--very different--movies. (And I can't wait for Mystic River to come out on DVD.) I would've given them all four stars, and wouldn't have been disappointed if any of them had won.
That said, there aren't any parts of MAC or LIT that are seared into my memory the way certain bits of ROTK are: the lighting of the beacons, Pippin's song/Faramir's charge, Shelob stalking Frodo, the charge of the Rohirrim, to name a few. That is, quite simply, masterful filmmaking. In MAC, maybe the cutting loose of the mast, and the crewman along with it; in LIT, perhaps the final goodbye and the mysterious whisper. That's it. Nothing on the same scale as ROTK.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Bullcrap. This project was fundamentally different-before the firt one ever began filmig they had already budgeted for the second and third, and the three were filmed as one- that makes thi project fundamentally different from any other trilogies. |
And? I'm sorry, but I really don't think any Academy members were like, let's not vote for FOTR because we'll just give it to ROTK, no matter how good or bad it is.
quote:
And why would public pressure be any more powerful fro LoTR than say seabicuit, which was rather popular? |
Seabiscuit was nominated for Best Picture was it not? It probably did not deserve to be. Other, less popular movies, deserved it more (Cold Mountain, Finding Nemo)
quote:
finding Nemo was hugely popular, and we know from Beauty and the Beast that an animated film can make it-why no best pic nod? |
Not as popular as Seabiscuit and not good enough to knock any of the others out (which had a 'buzz').
quote:
NO, I don;t think a bunch of fanatsy geeks have any power-hence this being the first time EVER a fantasy film wins. |
This isn't about fantasy geeks! How many people read LOTR and are not fantasy geeks! How many people saw the first two movies and said how 'cool' they were. It was an outcry from those people. Saying that the uncool "A Beautiful Mind" and "Chicago" stole Best Picture from LOTR. After having it beat into the minds of the Academy, I'm sure they attempted to placate them. They STILL hear crap about Annie Hall beating Star Wars (even though Annie Hall was a superior movie in every way), and didn't want "Mystic River" or "Lost in Translation" to be their "Annie Hall".
quote:
There were movies I like better than LoTR' but it deserved the award it got. (I agree not with best song thought) |
Like I said, I didn't mind the Best Picture nod. Fine. What I minded was they got every single award they were nominated for, deserved or not (like best song, who no one I've spoken to believes LOTR should have won for).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
On comparing LoTR's trilogy to other trilogies:
Look at the first matrix, or the First ST, or the first Godfather, or Indiana Jones movies: they are all fundamentally stand alone films: only after their phenomenal succes were a sequal or sequals planned. By the time LoTR Fellowship came out filming was ongoing for both Two Towers and return of the King- that si a fundamental difference- Fellowship was never meant as a stand alone movie, ebcuase two more were planned from day one.
This fundamental difference also made the actual filming and technical issue very different, as scenes from Movie 3 could be filmed before scenes in Movie one and so forth, meaning that it is somewhat difficult to say "X period was spent shooting this movie, X period that one" and so forth- you can say that for the post-production, but people were making props for movie three and two and one at the same time.
From a producers view point (lets not forget that for most the the awards tme, it was the producer that came up to get the best film award, NOT director), shelling out 300 million for one project with NO guaranteed success (and, given the tract record of fantasy, seemingly little chance for academy attention) was a HUGE risk, unparralled in the last few decades of Hollywood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Not as popular as Seabiscuit and not good enough to knock any of the others out (which had a 'buzz'). |
Nemo was a lot more popular than Seabiscuit-just look at box office receipts. I would have prefered American Splendor to be nominated myself.
[QUOTE]
Like I said, I didn't mind the Best Picture nod. Fine. What I minded was they got every single award they were nominated for, deserved or not (like best song, who no one I've spoken to believes LOTR should have won for). |
Most of those awards are in technical fields, and while some art-house folks like Monolith may be able to argue that other films were better cinama than LoTR's, it is hard to argue that this movie did not deserve consideration for the technical aspects of moviemaking like costumes, makeup, and so forth. I agree with best song ebing a bad award (A mighty wind should have won IMHO) and I can accept its editing to be choppy. But for the other ones, it most certainly was a valid if not the best pic.
I fact, the movie got shafted in the acting categories, were for example Sean Austin could have been a valid choice for supporting actor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
The first two films were very good but it is not too surprising that they were not nominated.
Because it was known in advance that the story was to be told, following the book, in three instalments.
And the story is, in any event, extremely well known.
Which makes it hard to value the first part and even the second part. There is a sense in which everyone - Oscar voters among then - were left in a state of suspension until the third installment was complete.
It is only really possible now to look back on the first two films and to ask whether, in the light of the way the whole work brought us to the end, they did their part well or badly.
They did it well, and I greatly enjoyed both. But that public acclaim was held back and it was the third and final instalment which took the prizes is only fit and proper. It was bound to be so for the reason I give but also the third installment did, in the end, outdo what went before.
It would be a faintly silly thing to do, but anyone who thinks LotR was an easy novel to represent in film might try to find and view the earlier attempt. It ran out of money but it was, very briefly, released. It is pitiful. Seeing exactly how badly it is possible for the job to be done might persuade some that the recent production has good qualities.
Or listen to the excellent BBC radio adaptation. Before seeing the films I would have said that radio was a much more forgiving medium and that the films would do well to approach what the radio production achieved. In fact the films wholly eclipsed it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
None of the LOTR films stand alone. They are all individual acts of one story, and the three films are ultimately one epic. They are individually magnificent... but greater as a collection.
The academy awards supposedly awards films individually, but I believe in this case, they broke that mold, in retrospect, to reward all three as one body of work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How many of the other awards: Costumes, Makeup, even Special Effects were influenced by this we have to have LOTR win every damn award thinking? I mean some of those secondary catagories did win last year, while the other catagories didn't. Were those other catagories that much better in the last film? I don't think so. |
As I said earlier, the one placew ere you could separate the three films was in post production (since they would not be doing post-production for movie three when they had to concentrate on movie 1) and a lot of those awards, like sound mixing, and whatnot are done in the post production stage- so it is all very possible than the post-production of one installment may not have been as good as some of the others and the competition stiffer last year.
quote:
Compared to the other directors nominated this year, I think he was below some of them and thus didn't deserve the award. |
Bah-the director of City of God should not have been there, and as much as I liked Mystic River and loved Lost in Translation, to me what stands out there is the acting in general- in LoTR the directing stand out more-and again, the monumentality of the achievement is hard to grasp.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 21:58
As a big Titanic fan, I feel oddly vindicated. Thanks, OB! 
ACK!
|