LoTR coronation and other moments

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

You seem to miss the point he was making...

"the Academy wanted to see the sustained effort of this gigantic gamble by New Line."

And he proved to them that he could sustain it... and that a victory was indeed justified. You say pity like he didn't deserve it. I think the Academy disagrees with you

[GePap]

Originally posted by monolith94
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.

From whom? I like the movie, but I did not find acting to be it's strong suit at all, while Sean Austin's performance stood out for me.

[-Jrabbit]

Historical Perspective on LOTR and the Oscars -- For those interested, here is the actual nomination history of the first 2 films of the trilogy (asterisk * indicates Oscar).

2001 -- Fellowship of the Ring, 12 nominations, 4 Oscars
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Supporting Actor (McKellan)
Adapted Screenplay
Film Editing
* Cinematography
Art Direction/Set Decoration
Original Song
* Original Score
* Makeup
Sound
* Visual Effects

2002, the Two Towers -- 6 nominations, 2 Oscars
Best Picture
Film Editing
Art Direction/Set Decoration
Sound
* Sound Effects Editing
* Visual Effects

[Imran Siddiqui]

And he proved to them that he could sustain it... and that a victory was indeed justified. You say pity like he didn't deserve it. I think the Academy disagrees with you

That's nice. But the Academy also disagreed with me in saying Titanic was a better film that Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential. Doesn't mean they weren't absolutely 100% wrong!

Yes, I say pity like he doesn't deserve it. It would have been different if they lost in one or two catagories, but winning for every single one smacks of "We're sorry, our bad... hope this makes it up to you guys".

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by monolith94
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.

Err... no? Its not untypical for the cinematographer to place the camera, particularly with more experienced cinematographers (and incidentally, the cine. for City of God was one César Charlone, a far more experienced cine than Fernando Meirelles was a director or cine.)

The majority of shot choices are a collaboration effort between the director and cinematographer... except in Kubrick-like cases... but those are more the exception than the rule. Micromanagement is typically counterproductive.

Edit- and no... City of God didn't have 26 major ensemble roles. You'd have to look at a film like Gosford Park (Altman) to see anything comparible.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, I say pity like he doesn't deserve it. It would have been different if they lost in one or two catagories, but winning for every single one smacks of "We're sorry, our bad... hope this makes it up to you guys".

AARRGH! You are being such a DF right now!

They gave him this award for the whole opus that is Lord of the Rings, the whole 7 year megaepic that has grossed about 2 billion dollars overall over the last three years- each installement of which was nominated for best film- a total of 29 nominations and 16 Oscars- at the most you argue is that it should have been 29 nominations and 15 or 14 Oscars....sheesh.

[JohnT]

Frankly, even though it wasn't my favorite movie of the year (that would be Kill Bill, notable for not being nominated last night), I think that ROTK was a richly-deserving film that actually earned the many accolades thrown on it. Peter Jackson has revitalized the serial form (as B5 and the X-Files (first 4 seasons) did for TV) and for that achievement alone he deserves the B. Picture.

And it's irrelevant if the award should mean "best picture of the year" (Amadeus) or "thanks for the memories" (Al Pacino, Paul Newman) or "You made a lot of us wealthy and employed the rest at one time or another during the production of this (and other) film(s)" (Titanic, LOTR, Julia Roberts) or "damn, you're a brilliant in-fighter" (Shakespeare in Love, Gladiator) or "we waited until we saw you had staying power" (LOTR, Denzel Washington). The awards mean what they need to mean to the people voting for them at that time. That's why they're so damned predictably unpredictable. Yes, of course we all knew LOTR was going to be a big winner... but all of them?? Wow.

[-Jrabbit]

Come to Smeagol!

Originally posted by GePap
Sean Austin's performance stood out for me.

I thought Astin's performance was very strong, and he showed a lot of growth as an actor from the first to the third film.

But what I was hoping to see was some recognition for Andy Sirkus' performance as Smeagol/Gollum. He provided both the voice and the body motion for (arguably) the most complex character in the trilogy, and IMO set the standard for how to create a believable CGI character.

I think it's a shame that this outstanding effort is lumped in with the rest of the "Visual Effects."

[monolith94]

"Edit- and no... City of God didn't have 26 major ensemble roles."

Lord of the Rings did not have 26 major roles either. There are significant cases to be made for some of them as minor roles. Hell, I don't even remember Gimli speaking. All I can remember Legolas doing is some crazy stunt with an elephant.

You make accurate points, concerning cinematography/direction, but what I say to that is, whoever was in charge of the camerawork was utterly uninspired. Plus, Jackson's vision is what shaped these films, and frankly I don't like his vision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They gave him this award for the whole opus that is Lord of the Rings

And I'm arguing that is WRONG! What is so hard here?

at the most you argue is that it should have been 29 nominations and 15 or 14 Oscars

No, at the 'most', I'm arguing it should have been much less than that. 5 Oscars perhaps this year.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And I'm arguing that is WRONG! What is so hard here?

The problem is you are saying they did it out of pity.NO, they did NOT do it out of pity. It is fine to argue that they should have considered each piece independently, and I would argue agianst that, but still, stpo saying it was pity!

No, at the 'most', I'm arguing it should have been much less than that. 5 Oscars perhaps this year.

Well, good for you. I think it desereved all but about 2 of it's awards.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by monolith94
Jackson's vision is what shaped these films, and frankly I don't like his vision.

Finally, a valid criticism!

[QUOTE]

They gave him this award for the whole opus that is Lord of the Rings[\quote]
(from Imram Siddiqui)
And I'm arguing that is WRONG! What is so hard here?

Actually, it's quite clear to me, Imram. Just as I felt Carlos Santana's Grammy sweep a few years back was a goofy, largely undeserved payback for 3 decades of snubs, you believe that (assuming it was in fact for the 3-film arc) these Oscars represent a similarly torqued view of how the award process should work.

I think if the naysayers would stop trolling with loaded phrases like "pity party" -- and if the Defenders of All That Is Ringlike would stop rising to the bait -- we might actually find some common ground.

But what fun would that be?

[Wernazuma III]

I can't understand why the worst of the 3 LotR movies won so many oscars. Just take those guys living on mountain tops for aeons waiting for Gondor calling for Rohan and after lightening the fire moving with their arms to catch the attention of other stupid guys living on other mountain tops for aeons in 100km distance by waving their arms.
Or that crap scene with Legolas killing one of the over-dimensioned Olifants in exchange for a poor Gimli joke.
I could go on for an hour.
I'm not making the points a Tolkien purist would make by being pissed about the alterations of the story (although I am a purist), the movie simply has several inconsistencies which make it bad as an overall movie.

BTW. Anyone else can't stand that "Please don't hurt me" face expression of Renée Zellweger. That mimic is almost as versatile as Sly's distorted open mouth...

[JohnT]

And here I thought it was her "come love me" look.

She is definitely the most featured person in all the pictorial roundups at the various newsites, and imho she looked damned fine.

[monolith94]

"Finally, a valid criticism!"

There are plenty of other valid criticisms. The never ending endings of RotK, the Dwarf jokes of TTT, the descent into action movie schlock of FOTR...

But that is the one overarching criticism that touches all aspects of the film.

Sean Astin was good. Still, his best performance to date was in Dish Dogs.