LoTR coronation and other moments

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by monolith94
"She's never directed before"

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

Uh... I'd forgotten about that film. Fortunately. But now I've remembered it. Damn you! I'll have to go through the whole therapy thing again.

(The film was pretty devoid of meaning, and frankly looked amateurish.)

SHAZAM BîTCH!!!

Now... now... no need to get bratty... I'll give you some pointers for Oscar picks next year, to make nice

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

So should we not give directors who work with good actors that award? I'm sure Peter Jackson didn't have to do anything to get a compelling performance out of Ian McKellan!

It was due to win precursors from press associations?

Please try to follow the argument which has been made for pages. It was due because the previous films did NOT win.

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.

OH. MY. LORD. I didn't know I had to worship the film in to have the 'majority' opinion. I will go ahead and give my kidney's to Peter Jackson because he is my lord. I must call it the greatest movie of all time. Citizen Kane is nothing compared to this .

If you think 'good' is a put down you are a bigger fanboy than I thought possible.

[monolith94]

"(The film was pretty devoid of meaning, and frankly looked amateurish.)"

I thought it looked brilliant. It was done by cinematographer Edward Lachman, who also did the cinematography for Far From Heaven, which was AMAZING. He's certainly not the best, but the movie was far from amateurish.

It perfectly captures the idea and feeling of teenage infatuation... the idea of putting gorgeous girls on pedastals. To call it devoid of meaning seems pretty blind to me.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

So should we not give directors who work with good actors that award? I'm sure Peter Jackson didn't have to do anything to get a compelling performance out of Ian McKellan!

Ian McKellan isn't going to tell an Peter Jackson... an experienced director how to direct... you're quite correct. If he was working with an inexperienced director, then his performance on the screen would be more due to his skill and experience than the director.

It was due to win precursors from press associations?

Please try to follow the argument which has been made for pages. It was due because the previous films did NOT win.

First, as an independent film, this episode easily wins Best Picture, in a walk... based on critical, public and professional opinion. Its not even close. So I don't agree with your premise.

Did the film get the benefit of the doubt in a couple of categories, since the entirety of the work is so beloved by the Academy? Not necessarily.

The first you might consider is Editing. Jackson et al, had enough masterful work in this piece to justify this position... the Denethor/Pippin/Faramir scene was the editing that got the most buzz.

The second is screenplay. The field was wide open. Mystic River was rumored to be a favorite as a consolation prize. The Academy didn't feel like awarding consolation prizes, apparently... and why should they? There was certainly a tremendous LOTR screenplay, based on a tremendous source.

There were also a few artistic awards in doubt (costume, makeup, soundtrack and original song,) entirely subjective so you can't make a solid argument as to their validity. The Academies choices in this realm are therefore personal. Why should they spread out these Oscars, if they thought the artistry in ROTK was superior?

So... why is this necessarily about ROTK winning everything because it was due? Its a possible influence... but you could also make an argument that ROTK won entirely on its own merit.

OH. MY. LORD. I didn't know I had to worship the film in to have the 'majority' opinion. I will go ahead and give my kidney's to Peter Jackson because he is my lord. I must call it the greatest movie of all time. Citizen Kane is nothing compared to this .

If you think 'good' is a put down you are a bigger fanboy than I thought possible.

I don't know what your definition of good is, but in mine, good is a lot less of a compliment than great.

I never said greatest movie of all time... or worship. I just said great. As in "in the top rank of movie making" which is the message thats clear from reviews, and guild associations.

You say its "good", and I say thats not the majority opinion. I'm not saying that you can't hold that opinion. Just that generally speaking most critics and pro's wouldn't agree with that assessment.

I'd also say that those are better positioned to judge the value of these films, in a comparitive sense.

You're comparing it to Titanic... and theres just no evidence to suggest that its as shallow a piece of film making as that...

Do you have any actual evidence to support any position that this film will be generally viewed in "Titanic" terms in years to come, rather than "Ben Hur" terms?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ian McKellan isn't going to tell an Peter Jackson... an experienced director how to direct... you're quite correct. If he was working with an inexperienced director, then his performance on the screen would be more due to his skill and experience than the director.

You are assuming that Bill Murray told Coppela how to direct. You still haven't proven it. All you've said is that he improvised a bunch. That's nice.

Did the film get the benefit of the doubt in a couple of categories, since the entirety of the work is so beloved by the Academy? Not necessarily.

Of course it did. As DD said, sweeping the Oscars shows people voting it because they felt they had to (or else be mocked by fans of the series). It seems too simple that you had at least four artistic awards 'in doubt' as you said and 'entirely subjective' and ROTK sweeps all of them. It seems that if decisions was made simply on merits at least one of them would have gone to another film. Otherwise, it would take a high probability for ROTK to win all four 'in doubt' awards.

The first you might consider is Editing. Jackson et al, had enough masterful work in this piece to justify this position... the Denethor/Pippin/Faramir scene was the editing that got the most buzz.

The ending... Baaad editing.

I don't know what your definition of good is, but in mine, good is a lot less of a compliment than great.

So in school when you got a B, you considered it a LOT less than an A?

Do you have any actual evidence to support any position that this film will be generally viewed in "Titanic" terms in years to come, rather than "Ben Hur" terms?

Mainly because of Lost in Translation, which I feel will be viewed as the Citizen Kane of our generation: getting better over the years. And like Citizen Kane, it wouldn't have won the Oscar, leading to the winner of that award being denegrated for it.

If you want to use the Rotten Tomatoes test, you'll find that LIT compares VERY favorably to ROTK.

[Agathon]

Imran is just pissed because his love, Harry Potter, didn't win any awards.

Imagine that, a grown man reading children's books.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon
Imran is just pissed because his love, Harry Potter, didn't win any awards.

Imagine that, a grown man reading children's books.

*cough*

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Ian McKellan isn't going to tell an Peter Jackson... an experienced director how to direct... you're quite correct. If he was working with an inexperienced director, then his performance on the screen would be more due to his skill and experience than the director.

Bill Murray does not seem like one of those egotistical actors who try to tell a director what to do. I think that he would have treated Coppola with respect.

The fact that she has only done one other movie doesn't mean she is inexperienced. She clearly had a vision of what she wanted to create. She also would have naturally picked up directoring tips from being around her father. So she may well know a lot more about directing than other "experienced" directors.

Also, directing is a lot more than just knowing what should be said on film. It's about managing the process, bringing the best out of everyone and getting everyone moving towards the same goal (something that is easier said than done).

[Agathon]

You're missing the point of Tolkien, OB. The Silmarillion could in no way be described as a children's book.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Kontiki
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.

You make a good point.

My own response to the film was unquestionably coloured by my love of the story.

But you can put the point the other way round. Because an afficionado is very easily put off by someone else's realisation of his pet subject. The BBC dramatises Jane Austen very well but I sometimes have to see one of their productions three times before I am willing to let go of my irritation that their Emma or Elizabeth or whatever is not the Emma or the Elizabeth who lives so vibrantly within my imagination.

It is a measure of the LotR films that they won virtually everyone over immediately. I have seen the odd criticism directed at what was left out but no-one has said that the core of Tolkien's work was not caught - by actors, set designers, casting people etc as well as in the overall direction.

I suppose the only way to eliminate the advantage the film had from the enormous popularity of the novel might be to try to imagine that the films were based on an original screenplay, that no LotR novel existed.

Of course that is a wholly artificial thing to do but attempting it nevertheless I think in that case the films would still rate, for me, right up at the top of the canon. And I have felt almost as much of a warm and sentimental glow down the years about Casablanca and Gone With the Wind and Duck Soup and Dr Zhivago and a couple more as ever I have for the LotR novel. So acknowledging this newcomer as probably displacing those wonderful films as the best ever is not wholly based on sentiment.

I saw RotK in the Odeon in Leicester Square - a big cinema. I sat enthralled as did every other member of the audience. Zhivago gripped me as much I think, the first time I saw it. But it is a mark of what this film achieved that the only thatrical event to have transported me deper still is Olivier/Maggie Smith's Othelo at the Old Vic seen when I was a very young man.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it did. As DD said, sweeping the Oscars shows people voting it because they felt they had to (or else be mocked by fans of the series). It seems too simple that you had at least four artistic awards 'in doubt' as you said and 'entirely subjective' and ROTK sweeps all of them. It seems that if decisions was made simply on merits at least one of them would have gone to another film. Otherwise, it would take a high probability for ROTK to win all four 'in doubt' awards.

So this is your whole argument...

Just because they won, it proves your point...

It couldn't have been based on merit, because they won them all...

In an anonymous voting system, people were afraid of being mocked

Next time, come up with some proof better than "they won, so that means they didn't deserve it"

The higher probablity is that the academy actually thought they deserved the awards that they were given

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are assuming that Bill Murray told Coppela how to direct. You still haven't proven it. All you've said is that he improvised a bunch. That's nice.

It's a defacto method of him telling her how to direct. He knows whats funny and what works, since he's done thousands upon thousands of scenes. He just freeforms till they get something that they're happy with.

Of course it did. As DD said, sweeping the Oscars shows people voting it because they felt they had to

DD isn't any more the purveyor of the Academy's intent behind something than you are.

The precursors have been really clear. The press associations gave this show love in ways not seen in the ten years I've been watching the precursors. They had no compelling "need" to reward this film because they hadn't rewarded it before: they had.

The overwhelming great opinion of ROTK was transparently shared by the Academy.

The Guilds echoed this sentiment... and they don't favor the same form of rewarding artists for past work, in quite the same way that the Academy as a whole does.

(or else be mocked by fans of the series). It seems too simple that you had at least four artistic awards 'in doubt' as you said and 'entirely subjective' and ROTK sweeps all of them. It seems that if decisions was made simply on merits at least one of them would have gone to another film. Otherwise, it would take a high probability for ROTK to win all four 'in doubt' awards.

Subjective... but then you can seperate out at least a couple... the music elements, since we know that the sound track was the most compelling, as sofar as being the best selling soundtrack. With the two remaining subjective elements, but those elements were of the highest qualitive factor, so even that is an uneven comparison.

Statistically unlikely for one film with great artistic elements to win those? No.

The ending... Baaad editing.

Given the context of an 11 or 12 hour movie... simply put, no, I disagree.

So in school when you got a B, you considered it a LOT less than an A?

20 percent or so less. Significant.

Mainly because of Lost in Translation, which I feel will be viewed as the Citizen Kane of our generation: getting better over the years. And like Citizen Kane, it wouldn't have won the Oscar, leading to the winner of that award being denegrated for it.

If you want to use the Rotten Tomatoes test, you'll find that LIT compares VERY favorably to ROTK.

"I feel" being the critical term here, based on what precident?

Citizen Kane had masterful direction, and a powerful narrative (abeit in parts)... both elements lacking in Lost in Translation.

LiT is viewed in the press as an also ran... certainly not loved the same way that ROTK and the other films have been.

A number of films...some subtle... through the years have gotten only one Oscar, and have been generally admired by the press. They haven't garnered the attention that Citizen Kane has, and mostly forgotten . Why wouldn't Lost In Translation follow that pattern. Its certainly the more statistically certain.

[GePap]

OOh, a Ming post I can agree with.

It boild down to the fact Imran like M&C and LIT better than Return of the King, he can see why it would win best picture, but is angry it won 11 Oscars because it denied his pets some awards..

well, get over it-I liked LIT better than LoTR's- I found Mystic River very good, I would have liked to have seen American Splendor nominated for best film even though it had no chance-but I can see why LoTR won every single award it got save best song-though some people here have argued about the quality of the song...

As for being compared to Titanic-no way. Return of the King is the final installment of the greatest movie Epic ever made.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
OOh, a Ming post I can agree with.

Yes... a rare event

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
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.

Sci-fi and comedy are traditional Oscar Poison genres.

IMHO the first Star Wars is the only one in the series that broke new ground. Reliance on special effects and mediocre (at best) acting pretty much doomed the franchise to be ghettoized into the technical categories.