LoTR coronation and other moments

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by JohnT
And here I thought it was her "come love me" look.

That could well be it. But I'd change it into "come love me, but please don't hurt me, I'm so innocent and never did that before".

[Imran Siddiqui]

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!

Why should I? It gets you riled up . It's simply a more inflammatory way to say it was 'due'. They felt other movies were better than its predecessors, so decided they had to make it up to them. Kind of like how Russell Crowe won from 'Gladiator', even though he didn't deserve it, because he didn't win for 'The Insider'. I just saw he/she/it was due more crudely .

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 agree with the Santana remark. I just think award shows should give awards based on the current work and not whether the person or film/album was 'due'. The past works of the artist shouldn't matter.

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.

Not my fault it works so well .

[monolith94]

Wernazuma, your avatar is absolutely grotesque. I love it.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

A) I think most architects and engineers would disagree with you, but whatever.

B) Only when all things are equal. Your original point was that you thought it was more difficult to direct 500 people in a coherent battle scene than three people in a conversation. Apples and oranges. If it were a 500 person conversation, then I agree that scale might become a factor.

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.

But that's my point. If Jackson felt he needed to film a billion hours of footage to make 3 three hour long movies, that's his perogative. It doesn't make the achievement any greater. If I need to produce a five page report, do you think I'll get more credit for it if I draft up 70 page report and trim it down to five? It's the end product that matters.

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.

The same principles that because someone gets a hard-on for the LotR genre and fantasizes about being Aragon doesn't mean that a movie put together from their favorite fantasy novel that doesn't suck automatically vaults it into the "best movie ever made" category. My point was that you can like Star Wars and still recognize its faults, just like you can like LotR and recognize its faults. Just as you point out, you can be be a fan of historical sports movies but that doesn't mean that Rudy warrants any special consideration for movie of the year from any technical standpoint.

Anyway, as much fun as it is drawing the ire of hard-core LotR crowd, maybe I'll just concede the point. The three LotR movies are the best ever made and that ever will be made, using any category you could possibly judge by.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Anyway, as much fun as it is drawing the ire of hard-core LotR crowd, maybe I'll just concede the point. The three LotR movies are the best ever made and that ever will be made, using any category you could possibly judge by.

Give me a break. I never said that any LoTR is the greast movie evr made- I prefered Lost in translation and American Splendor, and Nemo this year. BUt LoTR is the biggest epic ever made, a daring production and a worthy winner.

[-Jrabbit]

Am I the only one who thinks that Lost In Translation was a small, narrative-free coversation piece? Nothing really happens, nothing makes me care about either character, there's absolutely no conflict or catharsis. Even as a character study, I think it's flawed -- albeit in a very pretty way.

I've also heard that large sections were based on improvisation, so WTF is up with the Original Screenplay award?

I couldn't shake the feeling that this was a "Hollywood Royalty" award, perhaps due in part to the on-cue voiceover about "this is only the 2nd time that 3 generations of the same family have won" blah blah.

I really liked the movie and nothing against the obviously talented Sofia Coppola -- but it was a trifle.

(Can't say who should have won, didn't see most of the other nominees.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, a lot of people hated LIT. I absolutely loved it and would love to see the Oscars give it the big prize.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Am I the only one who thinks that Lost In Translation was a small, narrative-free coversation piece? Nothing really happens, nothing makes me care about either character, there's absolutely no conflict or catharsis. Even as a character study, I think it's flawed -- albeit in a very pretty way.

Surely not the only one, as I mentioned in a thread a while back. I just didn't connect with the film. It wouldn't even rate a top 10 finish on the year from me... but then I watch a *lot* of movies... roughly about a movie a day, so your millage may vary.

I agree about the improvisation bit. The reason Murray got so close to the award for Best Actor was that he was putting in most of the heavy lifting in LiT. He did indeed make Sophia look good, where the film might have been truly dire with a lesser actor.

[MrBaggins]

You know I'm having difficulty finding oscar statistics for StarWars... how many Best Picture wins, etc...

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

P.S. that shade of envy just doesn't go with your avatar.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason Murray got so close to the award for Best Actor was that he was putting in most of the heavy lifting in LiT. He did indeed make Sophia look good, where the film might have been truly dire with a lesser actor.

Seeing as how Sophia wrote the part FOR HIM SPECIFICALLY, I don't see how him doing the 'heavy lifting' takes away from Sophia's great work.

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

https://www.imdb.com

[DinoDoc]

I have to agree with Imran here. The runaway LOTR had at the Oscars screams pity because of how the series had been overlooked in its 2 previous offerings.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
You know I'm having difficulty finding oscar statistics for StarWars... how many Best Picture wins, etc...

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

P.S. that shade of envy just doesn't go with your avatar.

http://www.oscars.org/index.html

They have a nice Oscar database which you can search for Titles, Names and the like

[Guynemer]

I hope I'm not being lumped in with the "hard-core LOTR crowd".

I'm only a very casual fantasy fan, and LOTR isn't even my favorite fantasy book. I wasn't entirely sold on the first film (theatrical version), either. In fact, I thought it a sad commentary on Hollywood that the theatrical version of the first film was considered one of the five best films of the year. The extended cut was 100% better, and each film and extended cut since has steadily improved. I'm a latecomer to the whole LOTR thing, but I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about stating my opinion:

absolutely, positively, in nearly every way imaginable, ****ing brilliant.

(My biggest beef--is there a red-blooded heterosexual male here who, if given the choice, would take Arwen over Eowyn, especially how they were portrayed in the films? Aragorn is an ass-kicker extraordinaire, but I question his taste in the ladies.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think what is overlooked in this Oscars is you had an amazing year for movies. Kind of like a 1994 Oscar's (Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption).

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The reason Murray got so close to the award for Best Actor was that he was putting in most of the heavy lifting in LiT. He did indeed make Sophia look good, where the film might have been truly dire with a lesser actor.

Seeing as how Sophia wrote the part FOR HIM SPECIFICALLY, I don't see how him doing the 'heavy lifting' takes away from Sophia's great work.

Well... Murray didn't particularly need direction considering he's seen and been involved in more productions than Sophia's been alive for.

Plus he did enough improv, that its somewhat surprising that he wasn't up for the Original Screenplay, for co-writer.

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

www.imdb.com

I found a couple of interesting links here and here.

As for the link you gave me,
that just HAS to be incorrect... I mean... Starwars got no Best Picture wins (in 5 attempts)??? That must really sting with your being a StarWars fan and all, especially with the sweep by ROTK this year.