LoTR coronation and other moments

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

My point was that a lot of these things were NOT better than TTT or FOTR (especially costumes, obviously). The post production was similar for all three, and I'd say this year was much more competitive. If TTT was released this year instead of last, we would have a nice, gripping Oscar battle where 4 films all had a chance to equally win (LOTR: TTT, M&C: TFSotW, LIT, and MR). Instead you have sentimentality, give it to Jackson and his boys for the trilogy! Bah!

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.

A good portion of the acting is also a function of direction. Sure you have your actors which will do wonderful in every role, but a good director will make his/her actors better by their direction. Coppola's direction in LIT was amazing. Weir did a wonderful job in M&C as well.

[MrBaggins]

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.

Visual effects has really been the only locked category, year on year, but truth be told, its been peerless in that realm. There have been a smattering of other technicals, especially in 01, for FOTR, but I believe that the main body of the Academy settled down for the long haul, in large part, saving their LOTR sweep vote for the final film of the trilogy. Every industry insider knew it was going to be a juggernaught when FOTR came out.

HEATHEN!

I thought it sucked too. Its not an unsupported view.

Public acclaim held back? How many people said FOTR should have beat ABM a few days after the award was handed out?

Public acclaim as in the largest publically recognised award... the Oscar. As I said, the main body of the academy have obviously been saving their vote for the final film, so that the Awards weren't seen as fanboy central. The Academy likes to spread the love around... but this was a debt to be paid... yes, in large part because of 2001.

Compared to the other directors nominated this year, I think he was below some of them and thus didn't deserve the award.

The other directors did much less impressive jobs. You'll aways be able to debate it, but its hard to ignore the love that Jacksons got from every quater... the audience, the critics and the professional guilds. Taken as a whole, I don't think there's any other way you could look at this.

[GePap]

M&C: TFSotW

Sorry, but that's a terrible abbreviation.

You may quible that some others were better (a personal opinion), but you can not question that the techinical apsects of the film were excellent, and thus, worthy of an oscar period (whether in your opinion another film's aspects were also excellent and even better is again a matter of opinion).

Instead you have sentimentality,

You keep using this and pity party: wrong! It seems your whole mentaility is "they didn't give it to fellowship, which i liked best, so they give it now as conselation prize..", but you know what, this was no more sentimentality and pity than when Ben Hur and Titanic won it all as well: LoTR was an Epic, in fact, the biggest , riskiest Epic in moviemaking. If you can blame one thing for so many awards, it is not sentimentality or pity, but as Monolith and Oncle Boris do, on going out to honor the Juggernaughts and not the "little art crowd".

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

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.

Yeah, but so what? You don't (or shouldn't) win best picture Academy Awards for how hard it is to adapt a book to a movie - that would be best adaptation, or whatever that award is called. And it's not that they did a poor job. Not being a fantasy geek and having never read LotR, I can't say first hand how faithful the movie was to the book, but those in the know tell me that it was a close rendition. Fair enough. LotR was certainly one of the better trilogies (althoug I'd even hesitate to call it a trilogy in the classic sense) ever, but that doesn't make it the penultimate movie of all time like some people gush. It doesn't even make it the best movie of the year, IMO.

Originally posted by GePap
in LoTR the directing stand out more-and again, the monumentality of the achievement is hard to grasp.

How so? All that happened was that they made one really long movie and spliced it into three parts. Seeing as how each subsequent movie started where the last left off, with no recap or jump in time, they really could have arbitrarily sliced it anywhere. The risk was simply financial. I don't see how any of this parlays into great directing over and above any other movie.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Completely agree, especially with regard to Visual effects.

Each and every year WETA has progressed the field of visual effects further, developing new actor systems, new texture systems, etc. etc. etc... just for LOTR.

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.

Agreed. LOTR wasn't an actors film. It was an ensemble film. Jackson got the ensemble to truely work.

I thought Mystic River just *stunk* screaming Oscar Bait. It's based on a very fine play, but ultimately it works just as well as theatre as movie. There wasn't any majesty in direction to get this project to work.

LiT... eh... it was OK, but I don't think the film ever decided what it wanted to be. It didn't enrich my life, by its viewing. I could take it or leave it... although its obvious that Sophia has some talent. Maybe next time, huh?

[JohnT]

Imran's just pissed because he probably blew big chunks in re: to his oscar picks. And he's been more of a Harry Potter fanboy anyway... his long-running battle with LOTR is just reaching its climax.

[pchang]

Do....not....put..... the words....
fanboy









and













climax

too close together......please

[monolith94]

City of God's direction was ten times more interesting and adventurous than that in Return of the King. Jackson is a pinnacle of competency. No more, no less.

"The music was perfectly suited to the film, and better yet, unlike most films out there these days, it wasn't intrusive."

Ugh, I could not disagree more. Not only did it feel intrusive to me, but it was monotonous and utterly without grace. It was sooo overblown!

Big Fish had the best score of the year.

[hexagonian]

I didn't think ROTK would go 11-0, but I'll take it anyhow

'Best Director' was probably as much for all three films as it was for ROTK, but I'll take it...

Of the three movies of the trilogy, I felt FOTR was the strongest from the standpoint of character development and if only one could win a 'Best Pic', I'd give it to FOTR. ROTK had more a epic sweep (which is powerful moviemaking in it's own right) so I'll take it...

'Best Score' is a continuation of the themes that H. Shore started in FOTR, so the score in ROTK is not original anymore - the themes are subtle variations. At the same time, I cannot recall a score from any movie that made me so aware of the power of music to create a mood as what Shore has done for each of the LOTR movies. So I'll take it...

Most of the rest of the categories are justifiable, so I'll take them too...There will be no recount or recall of the awards.

The entire trilogy will hold up over time, and will be seen as a landmark in moviemaking. Whether it is the best is debatable, but I do not think I will ever enjoy any movie as much - and I have never said that before in 30 years of viewing.

And if you do not like my opinion, I won't lose any sleep about it.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by monolith94
City of God's direction was ten times more interesting and adventurous than that in Return of the King. Jackson is a pinnacle of competency. No more, no less.

City of God was stylistically "nice" from a direction point of view. You have to separate, however, direction from cinematography. I think you're mixing the two in your view here. I'd argue that Peter Jacksons handling of the ensemble cast, and marshalling the production elements was vastly superior to anything achieved in City of God.

"The music was perfectly suited to the film, and better yet, unlike most films out there these days, it wasn't intrusive."

Ugh, I could not disagree more. Not only did it feel intrusive to me, but it was monotonous and utterly without grace. It was sooo overblown!

Big Fish had the best score of the year.

There are obviously diverse opinions on the matter. LOTR has been consistently the best selling soundtrack, however... FWIW.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe that the main body of the Academy settled down for the long haul, in large part, saving their LOTR sweep vote for the final film of the trilogy. Every industry insider knew it was going to be a juggernaught when FOTR came out.

Only when the first two didn't win enough awards to satiate enough people.

this was a debt to be paid... yes, in large part because of 2001.

Which is EXACTLY what I'm saying!

You'll aways be able to debate it, but its hard to ignore the love that Jacksons got from every quater... the audience, the critics and the professional guilds. Taken as a whole, I don't think there's any other way you could look at this.

Look at all the acolades 'Titanic' got. Yes, there is another way I can look at it .

Sorry, but that's a terrible abbreviation.

That is the only way to pay homage to the fact that two books were used for the movie.

this was no more sentimentality and pity than when Ben Hur and Titanic won it all as well: LoTR was an Epic, in fact, the biggest , riskiest Epic in moviemaking. If you can blame one thing for so many awards, it is not sentimentality or pity

Of course I can, because it is true. Ben Hur and Titanic weren't award which were, to use Mr. Baggin's term 'due'. This movie was 'due' because it was 'shafted' the two previous times. Pity.

[pchang]

Beh Hur != Titanic
To imply otherwise is SACRILEGE!!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

Bah-the director of City of God should not have been there,.

No way. That was one of the best films I've ever seen. I recommend it to anyone who likes the cinema.

And still no Australians. Where are they hiding?

Probably out worrying sheep. But hell... they can have Russell Crowe now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki
How so? All that happened was that they made one really long movie and spliced it into three parts. Seeing as how each subsequent movie started where the last left off, with no recap or jump in time, they really could have arbitrarily sliced it anywhere. The risk was simply financial. I don't see how any of this parlays into great directing over and above any other movie.

That is like saying: no difference between building a 5 story and a 30 story building: it just more floors on top of each other...

Scale matters: it makes certaint hings monumentally more difficult; Trying to handle 500 extras into a coherent battle scene or 3 guys in one speakign scene-which is harder?

As for arbitrarily slicing it anywhere- as the extended editions show, the amount of stuff cut out is immense-when you film 12 hours for 3 hours, it takes some hard decsions to figure out what gets cut or not-all films have this happen, but LoTR shot an inordenate amount of film per movie, not only as one.It takes good directing to know what to leave- and yes, there were difficult decisons to be made about how to start each movie. The fatc is that you are wrong about the movies just startng and ending anyplace-look at the opening of TT: reffers back to the middle of the first film and set up things coming in the other film; Jackson might have left this out at all, put it in film one (though it would have been completely out of place there), or later in film 2, but he put it at the start of film two, and it was a good decision. Same for the Smeagol scene at the start of film 3.

[GePap]

Originally posted by monolith94
City of God's direction was ten times more interesting and adventurous than that in Return of the King. Jackson is a pinnacle of competency. No more, no less.

No way. That was one of the best films I've ever seen. I recommend it to anyone who likes the cinema.

I saw City of God, I thought it was a good film-but I noticed the length-there were points at which I lost interest and was detahced from the film.

Besides, City of God is a film from 2002, not 2003. It only got mentioned now becuase Miramax bought distribution and pushed it- a prime example of Hollywood rules.