LoTR coronation and other moments

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
Salma's unibrow in Frita or Frida or whatever didn't really do it for me.

Eyebrows aren't that important, unless there is something trully inhuman going on.

[Ming]

Congratulations to RoTK... It was fitting that it received as many awards as it did... considering the awards were really in tribute to all three movies.

While some may not have like it, or thought it was boring, no movie can make EVERYBODY HAPPY. The Lord of the Rings was a fantastic effort, and very well done. It's success at the Box Office proves that MANY people were thrilled with it.

I was happy to see a Fantasy Movie win Best Picture... usually, SF and Fantasy movies get the sharp stick

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Salma's unibrow in Frita or Frida or whatever didn't really do it for me.

That's what god made bags for, Sava.

ROFL

Ming... I liked Peter Jackson's comment about "fantasy" being the "F word" that makes it past the 5 second delay.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I found the LOTR pity party to be utterly drole. I mean, ok, you passed it over the last two years, but do you have to give EVERY ****ING THING?! I knew it was going to be a looooong night when the crappiest of the 'Best Song' nominees won simply because it was attacked to LOTR.

And to those saying it was for the last 3 years, I HATE awards given to people because they are 'due'. It is supposed to be Best ____ for that year! If the prize was for the trilogy then change the award given.

And Best Editing?! What?! Fine, give it Best Picture (though I'd say Lost in Translation and Master & Commander were both better), but lets not go overboard.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So, copying styles out of books is more of a creative acheivement than having to create the costumes and sets and such completely from imagination?

That's a bizarre point of view.

I'm glad you said that.

I tlod my wife that RotK would win because they had to create from scratch, and not copy from books.



ACK!

[yavoon]

is it me or do all the commies hate lotr?

this is good stuff

[Guynemer]

Diane Lane was, indeed, quite ****alicious.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Agathon
The best thing is that this put the Australians firmly in their place. 11 awards - equalling the record - take that you sheep shaggers.

That's rich - a NZlander calling Aussies sheep shaggers.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by yavoon
is it me or do all the commies hate lotr?

this is good stuff

Mordor is Mother Russia.

ACK!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I knew it was going to be a looooong night when the crappiest of the 'Best Song' nominees won simply because it was attacked to LOTR.
And Best Editing?! What?! Fine, give it Best Picture (though I'd say Lost in Translation and Master & Commander were both better), but lets not go overboard.

I would have to agree... best song... no way. best editing... no way... but the rest were well deserved.

[pchang]

Best Editing?

Only insiders could fairly judge this award. Best editing would be turning crap footage into a passable film. Who of us knows what footage the editors had to work with?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The 'insiders' aren't privy to the footage either. It is simply seeing if the pacing of the film was good.

I would have to agree... best song... no way. best editing... no way... but the rest were well deserved.

I think the rest suffered from the same thing. 'LOTR pity party' - which gave them a boost in every catagory. If FOTR won two years back, I'm not sure ROTK wins for best costume design or best makeup.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think the rest suffered from the same thing. 'LOTR pity party' - which gave them a boost in every catagory. If FOTR won two years back, I'm not sure ROTK wins for best costume design or best makeup.

They very well could have won those two categories three straight years, and I think the Academy figures that into their thinking. That is the problem with three part epics spaced so closely. Give it to the first film... second... last... a hard position to be in. While they do like to ignore fantasy and SF films, and that's why the first film was totally ignored, they had little choice by the third film.

[-Jrabbit]

Thread commentary...

Yeah, I'm a Tolkein fan.
Yeah, I'm a fan of the LOTR movies.
There's some pretty broad-brush criticism in this thread, and some similarly virulent reaction.

Summarizing some of that, here's my view...

1. Re: criticism of LOTR:ROTK because it's too Hollywood...

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

Excuse me, but this is the Oscars. It's about Hollywood.
The Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Cannes, Sundance, British Film, and the Foreign Press (Golden Globes) all have their awards. So get real, and deal with the Oscars for what they are.

2. Comrade Tassadar talks about how undeserved these awards were, but then states:

I tried watching the first.
But I cringed.

If you haven't seen the movie, you have no say in this.

3. Oncle Boris is quite vehement that this was an unexceptional acievement. According to his standards,

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... (later) 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... (later) What about we take 100 millions and make a movie out of Finnegan's Wake, Waiting for Godot, Voyage au bout de la nuit, etc?

...there should be great films based on classical literature and excellent trilogies everywhere.
Dude, they're just not there. Good source material is just that, and nothing more. Turning it into a decent script, and turning that into worthwhile theatrical experience -- is actually quite difficult.

4. Re: the ROTK soundtrack...

And the music: yes, it sucks. It's nothing like true classical music... (later) It's a very common music, nothing groundbreaking. It's here to manipulate the viewer, not to make an artistic breakthrough. True, it is EFFECTIVE- but it's nothing like "true" music.

So if it's not classical, it's not true music? Puh-lease! While I'm not a huge fan of Howard Shore, at least the soundtrack is orchestral -- unlike so much of the synthetic techno-drool we get in many movies. Nice of you to admit it's effective.
Oh, and btw, "to manipulate the viewer" is THE FREAKING POINT OF ALL MOVIE SOUNDTRACKS!
Original music scores done for film are, by definition, not classical music. Get a clue.

5. The sweep by LOTR:ROTK means the Oscars have gone downhill?
Nahhh. C'mon. Nothing has changed. This is no different from the sweep by "Titanic" -- just a better film, with a track record of success, that beat better competition. Nothing succeeds like success, and the Academy has always liked big-scale, grandiose productions, especially when they make a ton of money. Remember, voting is by Academy members, so films that employ a lot of people will always earn more votes.

OK, done now. Back to work...

[Boris Godunov]

I don't think there's any doubt in the academy or without that the awards bestowed on LotR were for all three films, which really do make up one complete movie. So all the whining about a "pity party" is really exaggerated. There wasn't any "pity" involved, it was recognition of the acheivement of the ENTIRE work.