LoTR coronation and other moments

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And you might have a point if that were correct... but its not... he was in Coffee and Cigarettes by
Jim Jarmusch, for example.

An arty film no one has ever heard of?

It showed at the Toronto International Film Festival in 93, produced before LiT, and eventually got funding, after a while, for a US release... should be out in the middle of the year

The point is that he certainly helped Sophia, more than Sophia helped him

And I'm sure Ian McKellan helped Peter Jackson more than Jackson helped him. What is your point again?

Based on what evidence? There's certainly no evidence of Ian McKellan doing any improv, in ROTK.

You're kidding right? Titanic was just about the same forgone conclusion as ROTK was. It was racking up awards and taking names.

Titanic didn't sweep the number of precursors, that ROTK did, and the critical reception from the top reviewers was less than glowing.

So you must be envious to critisize something for 'so long'. I guess we are ALL envious of Titanic here? Are the liberals envious of George Bush?

You're the one that brought up Titanic in a feeble attempt to cast aspersions as to its legacy, or legitimacy. You've been talking it down, for a while, when any and every professional reviewer, guild and association has done nothing but heap praise on it.

Now... that smells like envy to me. If you've got some other reason for advocating against it, I'd love to know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Based on what evidence? There's certainly no evidence of Ian McKellan doing any improv, in ROTK.

How much improve did Bill Murrey do? You make it seem like 90% was improv, which is utterly silly. Just because you are a LOTR fanboy doesn't mean you gotta bring down the other movies .

Titanic didn't sweep the number of precursors, that ROTK did, and the critical reception from the top reviewers was less than glowing.

Yes, the top reviews didn't love it... wait they DID! And yes, it didn't sweep. It won 11 out of 14 (losing for Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Makeup) Since it was nominated for more, does that mean it was better?

You've been talking it down, for a while, when any and every professional reviewer, guild and association has done nothing but heap praise on it.

Now... that smells like envy to me. If you've got some other reason for advocating against it, I'd love to know.

:rolleyes;

Yes, if anyone criticizes your darling baby, they are all jealous. You sound like the Americans who yell at the French critics of the country of being just jealous!

So no one can say an injustice was done without being accused of jealousy? Jealous of what? I'm not a director or actor. What should I care? Because one of my favorite films didn't win a Oscar? Lemme tell you, boyo, many of my favorite films did not win an Oscar. Seeing the history of the Oscars, that may be a good thing!

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Based on what evidence? There's certainly no evidence of Ian McKellan doing any improv, in ROTK.

How much improve did Bill Murrey do? You make it seem like 90% was improv, which is utterly silly. Just because you are a LOTR fanboy doesn't mean you gotta bring down the other movies .

Significant enough amounts that it was common knowledge through the industry.

Titanic didn't sweep the number of precursors, that ROTK did, and the critical reception from the top reviewers was less than glowing.

Yes, the top reviews didn't love it... wait they DID! And yes, it didn't sweep. It won 11 out of 14 (losing for Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Makeup) Since it was nominated for more, does that mean it was better?
[/URL]

Again.. that would be nice, if it wasn't actually incorrect... Titanics "Cream of the Crop" (I.E. the top film critics) rated Titanic pretty badly comparitively... 68% fresh, and 7.4 average... almost rotten, and a decidedly mediocre average.

Compare that to the 97% fresh, and 9.4 average of ROTK. Now THAT'S love.

Also, do you even know what a precursor is? In terms of the Oscars, its one of the numerous press organization or professional guild awards, presented prior to the Oscars. It has nothing to do with the actual Oscars, themselves.

:rolleyes;

Yes, if anyone criticizes your darling baby, they are all jealous. You sound like the Americans who yell at the French critics of the country of being just jealous!

So no one can say an injustice was done without being accused of jealousy? Jealous of what? I'm not a director or actor. What should I care? Because one of my favorite films didn't win a Oscar? Lemme tell you, boyo, many of my favorite films did not win an Oscar. Seeing the history of the Oscars, that may be a good thing!

I can still smell the bitterness from a mile off

Why *should* you care... indeed? If you've got nothing invested, why are you still arguing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Significant enough amounts that it was common knowledge through the industry.

And how much is 'significant enough amounts'? 10% That takes away from Sophia Coppola's great script?

Titanics "Cream of the Crop" (I.E. the top film critics) rated Titanic pretty badly comparitively... 68% fresh, and 7.4 average... almost rotten, and a decidedly mediocre average.

Compare that to the 97% fresh, and 9.4 average of ROTK. Now THAT'S love.

Ah, the Rotten Tomatoes measurement. So Richard Corless is a 'Top Reviewer'? How about Kenneth Turan? Just because they write for the big papers doesn't mean they are top reviewers. How do we know the top reviewers loved it? But how obvious it was that it was going to win the Oscar. If the reviewers didn't like it, it wouldn't have been considered a shoe-in at all.

I can still smell the bitterness from a mile off

Why *should* you care... indeed? If you've got nothing invested, why are you still arguing?

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is jealous or bitter, I get it. I bet that viewpoint wins you a lot of friends. We just have to accept your opinion and if we continue then we are bitter or jealous. Wonderful .

Of course if I stop talking about the pity party, you'll say you've won the debate because I've stopped posting.

Sorry, people can disagree without being jealous or bitter .

I bet you were bitter the last two years, seeing as you username and avatar shows your utter bias on the matter .

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Significant enough amounts that it was common knowledge through the industry.

And how much is 'significant enough amounts'? 10% That takes away from Sophia Coppola's great script?

Who knows? Regardless, its enough to prove that he was helping Sophia rather than the other way around... and she should get credit for directing him, who was effectively... the film... why?

Titanics "Cream of the Crop" (I.E. the top film critics) rated Titanic pretty badly comparitively... 68% fresh, and 7.4 average... almost rotten, and a decidedly mediocre average.

Compare that to the 97% fresh, and 9.4 average of ROTK. Now THAT'S love.

Ah, the Rotten Tomatoes measurement. So Richard Corless is a 'Top Reviewer'? How about Kenneth Turan? Just because they write for the big papers doesn't mean they are top reviewers. How do we know the top reviewers loved it? But how obvious it was that it was going to win the Oscar. If the reviewers didn't like it, it wouldn't have been considered a shoe-in at all.

Its the closest measurement we have to a critical consensus, and the only viable method of measuring the general critical love for a film, excluding press association awards... which incidentally ROTK swept, big time, and Titanic, unsurprisingly, didn't.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is jealous or bitter, I get it. I bet that viewpoint wins you a lot of friends. We just have to accept your opinion and if we continue then we are bitter or jealous. Wonderful .

Of course if I stop talking about the pity party, you'll say you've won the debate because I've stopped posting.

Sorry, people can disagree without being jealous or bitter .

I bet you were bitter the last two years, seeing as you username and avatar shows your utter bias on the matter .

No... anyone who disagrees with me is either (a)confused (b)bitter or (c) insane

Seriously, I can live with your different opinion, but I'm on pretty solid ground in the argument... Titanic didn't get the mass kudos that ROTK did.

Such a preponderance of the audience, critics and professionals have such high regard for this film in particular, no matter what your feelings are, you have to concede its a (seriously) minority opinion.

Incidentally I'd like to point out that my registration date is pre-LOTR film fever, back in 99... no bandwagon hopping here...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who knows? Regardless, its enough to prove that he was helping Sophia rather than the other way around... and she should get credit for directing him, who was effectively... the film... why?

No it isn't. How do we know that he was helping Sophia more than she was directing him?

Its the closest measurement we have to a critical consensus, and the only viable method of measuring the general critical love for a film, excluding press association awards... which incidentally ROTK swept, big time, and Titanic, unsurprisingly, didn't.

Titanic won its share of press association awards (including the Golden Globes) and didn't have the symphathy vote on its side for 'passing over the rest'.

Such a preponderance of the audience, critics and professionals have such high regard for this film in particular, no matter what your feelings are, you have to concede its a (seriously) minority opininon.

It's a minor opinion that academy voters thought ROTK was 'due'? I think not!

Incidentally I'd like to point out that my registration date is pre-LOTR film fever, back in 99... no bandwagon hopping here...

I said you were biased, not bandwagon hopping. The fact that it was before the films shows a greater bias.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Who knows? Regardless, its enough to prove that he was helping Sophia rather than the other way around... and she should get credit for directing him, who was effectively... the film... why?

No it isn't. How do we know that he was helping Sophia more than she was directing him?

Well... based on empirical evidence? Murray's been in dozens upon dozens of films... knows his way around sets, forwards and backwards, is known for his improvisation. Sophia is known for? Her role in GF. She's never directed before, certainly written less comedy than Murray.

What would she be teaching him... or telling him to do, that he's not already done a gazillion times before, groundhog-day-like?

Titanic won its share of press association awards (including the Golden Globes) and didn't have the symphathy vote on its side for 'passing over the rest'.

Titanic's Golden Globes win was utterly predictable. The HFPA is "the" commercial award... more biased to box office than any other.

Apart from that, it got some, but missed others, indicating some disagreement to its ultimate greatness... and casting doubt as to its quality...

There's been no such indication with ROTK. It creamed the competition, period.

It's a minor opinion that academy voters thought ROTK was 'due'? I think not!

Your opinion that LOTR isn't movie greatness is a minority opinion. Particularly, if you're sitting in a room of film critics, or, apparently, MPAA members.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What would she be teaching him... or telling him to do, that he's not already done a gazillion times before, groundhog-day-like?

Where to look, where to sit, stand in the picture. She'd be directing.

There's been no such indication with ROTK. It creamed the competition, period.

Because it was 'due' to win.

Your opinion that LOTR isn't movie greatness is a minority opinion.

And can you point to me anywhere in this thread where I've said the LOTR triology is not good moviemaking?

[Verto]

And can you point to me anywhere in this thread where I've said the LOTR triology is not good moviemaking?

Just answer the question, Tolkien Hater!

[monolith94]

"She's never directed before"

The Virgin Suicides. A very good film. I like it even more than Lost In Translation.

SHAZAM BîTCH!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just answer the question, Tolkien Hater!

[Fake Boris]

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.

No. The monologue is the hardest thing to do in Art.

[monolith94]

Movies are not buildings. The analogy is ludicrous and entirely without merit.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lung
God, what a pack of sore losers

Yup, that about sums it up!

And Imran, Guynemer is right about Titanic's critical reviews. From the top critics it received 68% on rotten tomatoes, and RotK got 92% from the top critics. Pretty big gulf. It narrows when you factor in all the lame web critics, but RotK still wins out by about 10%.

Still a dismal indictment of critics that Titanic did as well as that with them.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What would she be teaching him... or telling him to do, that he's not already done a gazillion times before, groundhog-day-like?

Where to look, where to sit, stand in the picture. She'd be directing.

Typically direction has to do with more than just telling him where to look, where to sit or stand... its to do with getting to compelling performance out of actors, and martialing complex productions... and thats what they award directors for.

Not frame placement, and character cues.

There's been no such indication with ROTK. It creamed the competition, period.

Because it was 'due' to win.

It was due to win precursors from press associations? In what way? Why would it be due to win those? Oh... right... because the press thought that the movie was utterly majestic.

Your opinion that LOTR isn't movie greatness is a minority opinion.

And can you point to me anywhere in this thread where I've said the LOTR triology is not good moviemaking?

I didn't use the word "good"... I used the word "great".

If you take a scan through the reviews of ROTK, you'll notice reviews that glow. The reviewers were more than just saying this is a good film. They were saying it was a masterful film.

The Academy thinks that the trilogy and this film is a masterpiece too, and richly rewarded it.

You think its "good".

So... If you're sitting in a room with film critics or the Academy, you'd have a minority opinion.