LoTR coronation and other moments

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Well, he probably should have been nominated. I guess he's already won his award, best give it to Sean Penn, who was 'due' (Oscars do that crap all the time).

Trying to handle 500 extras into a coherent battle scene or 3 guys in one speakign scene-which is harder?

Depends on what the 3 guys are speaking about. It can be greatly more difficult to do the 3 guys.

It takes good directing to know what to leave

That's editing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

Damn it boy, get it straight- it is NOT PITY becuase this is not being done to pay back for not honoring the film in either 2001 and 2002- they did that by nominating it those years. This is the academy deciding it would be prudent NOT to give out awards individually- think if the Acedemy had given out best film award to this for 3 years in a row..would that be fair, to give what is essentialy one real extended project 3 best film Oscars? That is the point: this was what amount to a single effort released in installments due to the monumental scale (you know, like Tarantino making Kill Bill two movies, not one) and the fact you can't release a 12 hour film. So the Acedemy decided to giove it one Best Movie award instead of the possibility of having to have given it multiple best film awards to one MOvie, The Lord of the Rings.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Depends on what the 3 guys are speaking about. It can be greatly more difficult to do the 3 guys.

Pehraps it can be exasperating to do it with three guys (or dangerous, when it came to Klaus Kinski), but it is still a greater challenge to try to move large groups of people coherently.

It takes good directing to know what to leave

That's editing.

And directors decide on the big editing choics, like what scene were.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by GePap


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...

So the person who designs a 30 story building is automatically a better architect/engineer than one who designs a five story building? That's my point - scale alone doesn't make a difference in quality.

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?

Which has more room for error? I'd say mastering a scene with three people speaking is much harder because any flaw is immediately apparent.

As for the rest of it, I was unaware that special extended editions full of deleted scenes and other do-dads were now considerations for Academy Awards. If anything, if you need to leave a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor for theatrical release, doesn't that speak against quality of production?

Too many people are so caught up in the epic geek-fest nature of LotR (and other movies, like Star Wars or any Star Trek movie) that they can't look objectively at the movie. I mean, I love Star Wars - find it incredibly entertaining and tend to watch it whenever they show it on TV. But I also realize that it's an attrociously bad movie in terms of production - mind numbingly bad acting, directing and full of plot holes. Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If the yardstick to win 11 Oscars was Titanic, then ROTK should have won the entire plethora of Oscars including back dating Oscars for previous years.

That being said, this is not an endorsement per se of ROTK.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kontiki

Too many people are so caught up in the epic geek-fest nature of LotR (and other movies, like Star Wars or any Star Trek movie) that they can't look objectively at the movie. I mean, I love Star Wars - find it incredibly entertaining and tend to watch it whenever they show it on TV. But I also realize that it's an attrociously bad movie in terms of production - mind numbingly bad acting, directing and full of plot holes. Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

the mere fact u mention geek fest w/ being caught up in some enormous popular upsurge is utterly laffable.

thats what? 3 distinct ideas in 50 years? how many ****ing mystic river, I am Sam, "GIMME AN OSCAR NOW" movies get released?

please already.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kontiki
So the person who designs a 30 story building is automatically a better architect/engineer than one who designs a five story building? That's my point - scale alone doesn't make a difference in quality.

Small scale, also doesn't necessarily shout quality either. I'd also vehermently disagree that the Jackson production didn't contain material of the absolute highest order.

Which has more room for error? I'd say mastering a scene with three people speaking is much harder because any flaw is immediately apparent.

The larger the film, the greater the scope for error. The largeness of a production doesn't hide obvious direction flaws... like... say SW Epsiode 5, and the whole Anakin "Skin != Sand" fiasco.

[MrBaggins]

BTW As for the editing... LOTR won for one outstanding scene, if anything else... The Denethor eating/ Pippin singing/ Faramir dying scene. That was THE marquee scene which, if you asked the Academy voters, which scene had the best editing of any of any of the films, would be the most usual answer. Its well known around the town.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is NOT PITY becuase this is not being done to pay back for not honoring the film in either 2001 and 2002

YES IT IS! Get it straight!

think if the Acedemy had given out best film award to this for 3 years in a row..would that be fair, to give what is essentialy one real extended project 3 best film Oscars?

They almost did to FOTR. What would be the excuse then? Why would they care if they gave out Best Picture 3 years in a row to a movie which WAS the best picture? The fact is that it wasn't the Best Picture for them. FOTR may have been better, but they liked ABM. TTT was clearly inferior to Chicago. This kind of BS talk tries to make it seem that the other two would easily have won if they voted for that year by itself. BULL!

Pehraps it can be exasperating to do it with three guys (or dangerous, when it came to Klaus Kinski), but it is still a greater challenge to try to move large groups of people coherently.

So the director of Gladiator is better than the director of LA Confidential because Gladiator involved a large fight scene?

And directors decide on the big editing choics, like what scene were.

There is a seperate award for best editing, you are aware?

Too many people are so caught up in the epic geek-fest nature of LotR (and other movies, like Star Wars or any Star Trek movie) that they can't look objectively at the movie. I mean, I love Star Wars - find it incredibly entertaining and tend to watch it whenever they show it on TV. But I also realize that it's an attrociously bad movie in terms of production - mind numbingly bad acting, directing and full of plot holes. Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Small scale, also doesn't necessarily shout quality either. I'd also vehermently disagree that the Jackson production didn't contain material of the absolute highest order.



The larger the film, the greater the scope for error. The largeness of a production doesn't hide obvious direction flaws... like... say SW Epsiode 5, and the whole Anakin "Skin != Sand" fiasco.

Of course not. I'm just saying that scale doesn't automatically make something better quality or allow for more errors. My original point is that just because LotR was on an epic scale doesn't mean that it should be given special consideration over any other movie.

Look, I'm not saying LotR was bad in any sense - I do think that it was very well done and likely deserved to be nominated for best picture. I just don't necessarily think it should have won, nor for best director. My main beef is with the hard-core LotR people who think that it represents the pinnacle of film making simply because it was a well made version of their favorite fantasy novel. I just think that it needs to be evaluated on its own merits, independent of any financial risks, box-office popularity or "difficulty of turning the book into a movie" stuff - ie: I know nothing about the making of this movie or the story behind it, but was it the best made movie of the year based on seeing the theatrical release?

[-Jrabbit]

They'll usually just say, oh, we passed this guy over last time, so we'll just give him the Oscar this year. Basically, an award out of pity. I think that's exactly What they did this year.

"Pity"? You're anthropomorphizing a pretty large organization.

1. It was considered pretty shocking when, 2 years ago, Peter Jackson did not win for Best Director for FOTR (losing to Ron Howard, "A Beautiful Mind"). It was widely reported that the reasons were that (1) Jackson was not a "known quantity" as a feature director, and (2) the Academy wanted to see the sustained effort of this gigantic gamble by New Line.

I would suggest that this year's (Best Director) award was therefore justified in light of his overall accomplishment. The fact that there is no (3-film) category for it means that someone gets screwed. True, ROTK has more continuity issues than the previous 2, but also faced the daunting task of tying together a whole lot of threads. I trust much of this will be addressed in the extended DVD. (BTW, for my money, the guy who should otherwise have won would be Weir. Eastwood got great performances from great actors, but I'm still not convinced that comprises a great job of direction.)

2. Odd that we've settled on the Lennox song as a focal point for undeserved awards. Within the context of the movie, I thought it was outstanding. And that's the criterion. "Belleville Rendez-Vous" was a standout as a stage production, but that's not what the award is for. (BTW, I believe the T. Bone Burnett/Elvis Costello piece won the Golden Globe.)

But whatever...

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was considered pretty shocking when, 2 years ago, Peter Jackson did not win for Best Director for FOTR (losing to Ron Howard, "A Beautiful Mind"). It was widely reported that the reasons were that (1) Jackson was not a "known quantity" as a feature director, and (2) the Academy wanted to see the sustained effort of this gigantic gamble by New Line.

So he was 'due'. He was passed over for it when he should have gotten it because of other criteron. That's why I call it a pity pick. You can say he was 'due'. That's your perogative.

the guy who should otherwise have won would be Weir

That's my pick. Him or Coppola

Odd that we've settled on the Lennox song as a focal point for undeserved awards. Within the context of the movie, I thought it was outstanding.

I was less than impressed.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Of course not. I'm just saying that scale doesn't automatically make something better quality or allow for more errors. My original point is that just because LotR was on an epic scale doesn't mean that it should be given special consideration over any other movie.

The criteria aren't your criteria... they are the DGA's and Academies criteria. Scale absolutely does have a part in this... which is why Short Live Actions never get nods for Best Direction, even if their quality in that scope was top notch.

Look, I'm not saying LotR was bad in any sense - I do think that it was very well done and likely deserved to be nominated for best picture. I just don't necessarily think it should have won, nor for best director. My main beef is with the hard-core LotR people who think that it represents the pinnacle of film making simply because it was a well made version of their favorite fantasy novel.

Its a film adaptation of an astonishingly good epic novel. Other people are perfectly entitled to this opinion, just as some consider the Godfather trilogy to be the best trilogy ever, or Ben Hur, the best epic. Personally I'm of the opinion that LOTR beat both of those films in those categories. Best movie ever, in combination? Perhaps... certainly my favorite theatrical experiences ever, taken in combination.

I just think that it needs to be evaluated on its own merits, independent of any financial risks, box-office popularity or "difficulty of turning the book into a movie" stuff - ie: I know nothing about the making of this movie or the story behind it, but was it the best made movie of the year based on seeing the theatrical release?

Yes. By quite a long way. It was also viewed in this regard by critics (it won more critics awards and top 10-winning most, not just placing.) I'd say that the preponderence of opinion is that this film was the best of the year.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki


So the person who designs a 30 story building is automatically a better architect/engineer than one who designs a five story building? That's my point - scale alone doesn't make a difference in quality.

Not automatically, but it does take more effort to do the 30 story one, and someone who does a GREAT 30 story building deserves more applaud than someone who does a GREAT 5 story apartment, becuase it is more difficult to be great on a large scale.

As for the rest of it, I was unaware that special extended editions full of deleted scenes and other do-dads were now considerations for Academy Awards. If anything, if you need to leave a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor for theatrical release, doesn't that speak against quality of production?

How said they were up for consideration? I brought them up to make the point of just how much was filmed and the tough choices made to decide what to keep or cut to get the films in at under 3 hours.

Now, LotR is certainly better than that, but it's the same principle at work.

Same principles? What same principles? Each of the LoTR instalments were nominated, and each won critical praise as films, not just as event pics or action extravaganzas.

I could say there are commoin principles between Mystic River and Beaches, or any tragic drama, including the bad ones. Or between Seabicuit and Rudy (or other historical sport movies). All such comparisons would be equally faulty and invalid.

[monolith94]

"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."

Cinematography mainly deals with lighting, and framing. Composition. It is not the entirety of what makes a film look good. The decision of whether to track or not to track is the director's. The final decision of where to put the camera is the director's. Besides, City of God had an even larger ensemble cast (or so it seemed to me), and even better acting.