LoTR coronation and other moments

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Um, but it does mean it should beat them out for Best Picture...

No it doesn't.

[MrBaggins]

Why?

Which was the "better" film in 03 then, CT?

[Essayo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous

PS: Did anyone else get tired of hearing all the New Zealand/Australian accents?

OI! I take offense to that! I get tired of hearing American accents day in and out on New Zealand television, because we're not big enough to produce enough of our own shows yet - you have to listen to them intermittently for 3 hours and you have a cry?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
False. Making all three movies at once is a huge departure from all previous attempts, and ficnancial horribly risky and nonsensical- once they committed to three films and beguin paying for it all, if the firt movie sank, there would have been huge pressure to tank the whole project and the producers would have lost the budget of three films in one failure.

Part of the point of the simultaneous production being such a massive feat is that you have to devote hundreds of millions to production, before seeing a dime from any theatre.

How is that desserving of an Oscar? Spending money? BTW they could have shut down the production anytime.

False also. Making one hour of entertainment is hard, and it gets harder the more time you add on, period. Think of it this way-this was a 7 year process: that should give you a sense of the scale.

Bah, they were following the story of the book. They already had their scenario, the only thing left was to hire peons for the animation, the music, and the acting.

It's called the lifetime achievement Oscar. Blake won it this year.

Yes. That's why an Oscar shouldn't be given to a movie because the trilogy was (allegedly) good.


Mr Baggins--

As for whether filming three films 6 years apart is the same... what are you smoking? Some actors would be 12 years older in the last episode... some might even die in the meantime.

So what? Replace the actors, find the newest hot chick, the most handsome Di Caprio, take the coolest old man. That would have resulted in the same crap movie.
So, your point is we should give an Oscar because the whole trilogy had the same actors?

[Essayo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

How is that desserving of an Oscar? Spending money? BTW they could have shut down the production anytime.

The point with mentioning the 3 simultaneous movies is that Peter Jackson directed all three at the same time. THAT is what no one had ever done before, THAT is what made it so ground breaking, and THAT is part of the reason Peter Jackson got Best Director.

Bah, they were following the story of the book. They already had their scenario, the only thing left was to hire peons for the animation, the music, and the acting.

I could also argue that for Mystic River

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
How is that desserving of an Oscar? Spending money? BTW they could have shut down the production anytime.

A) Its a huge (possibly studio bankrupting) risk... and B) because its the only way to get a truly consistent look to a trilogy. You simply can't play any other trilogy back to back and have it be a seemless story... with a seemless feel and cast, just as a trilogy should be. Did SW? Nope. Godfather? Nope. Indiana Jones? Nope. Matrix? Nope. Hannibal? Nope. etc... etc... etc...

Bah, they were following the story of the book. They already had their scenario, the only thing left was to hire peons for the animation, the music, and the acting.

Hardly. The story was massively different from the book. It took a massive amount of adaption to have it work on the silver screen. Other attempts were made (and failed.)

Mr Baggins--



So what? Replace the actors, find the newest hot chick, the most handsome Di Caprio, take the coolest old man. That would have resulted in the same crap movie.
So, your point is we should give an Oscar because the whole trilogy had the same actors?

First... its a problem when your main protagonists change in a film. Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford? How the hell would that work?

Second... should you award the Oscar just because a film can maintain the same cast in a trilogy? No... but having the same excellent ensemble is practically the only way you can maintain the quality throughout a trilogy. The Academy was holding back its rewards and had the last film critically failed, then I'm not sure that it would have been rewarded... however, it succeeded, and it was rewarded.

LOTR wouldn't have worked so well, had the actors changed each time.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Essayo
The point with mentioning the 3 simultaneous movies is that Peter Jackson directed all three at the same time. THAT is what no one had ever done before, THAT is what made it so ground breaking, and THAT is part of the reason Peter Jackson got Best Director.

The work of a director is always hard. Some of them keep moving from movie to movie without vacation. How hard or how long you work doesn't count. And that you worked on three movies of a trilogy instead of three different movies shouldn't give you an edge.

Well, maybe you guys will realize it someday, but American cinema sucks because of Hollywood's poisoning.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
A) Its a huge (possibly studio bankrupting) risk... and B) because its the only way to get a truly consistent look to a trilogy. You simply can't play any other trilogy back to back and have it be a seemless story... with a seemless feel and cast, just as a trilogy should be. Did SW? Nope. Godfather? Nope. Indiana Jones? Nope. Matrix? Nope. Hannibal? Nope. etc... etc... etc...

Yes you can. As long as you prepare the cast, the script, the Bible and the layout beforehand, there should be no problem in making a coherent trilogy.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The work of a director is always hard. Some of them keep moving from movie to movie without vacation. How hard or how long you work doesn't count. And that you worked on three movies of a trilogy instead of three different movies shouldn't give you an edge.

Well, maybe you guys will realize it someday, but American cinema sucks because of Hollywood's poisoning.

Peter Jackson is about as un "Hollywood" as you can get.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Peter Jackson is about as un "Hollywood" as you can get.

Yeah, I know he wasn't. Now, look at what HE'S DONE in the last few years.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yes you can. As long as you prepare the cast, the script, the Bible and the layout beforehand, there should be no problem in making a coherent trilogy.

How come its never happened before then?

Saying you *could* do it, and doing it as LOTR HAS DONE, are two entirely different things.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, I know he wasn't. Now, look at what HE'S DONE in the last few years.

In NZ, you mean? Thats SOOO Hollywood.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


In NZ, you mean? Thats SOOO Hollywood.

I mean with LOTR. That's sufficient to lose all the respect he used to desserve.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


How come its never happened before then?

Saying you *could* do it, and doing it as LOTR HAS DONE, are two entirely different things.

You mean super-long superproductions? Griffith was already doing it in 1920.

[Essayo]

The only thing that Peter Jackson has done that is 'Hollywood' in recent years, is have a buget thats bigger that a few (hundred?) thousand dollars