LoTR coronation and other moments

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Actually, the LotR Trilogy was an amazing feat

However, RotK was NOT a good movie

The Oscars tonight were given for the whole trilogy, not just RotK. Notice how it won nothing the last 2 years. The academy was essentially viewing them as a single feat.

And I say, kudos. I think it was the most deserving acheivement up there, warts and all. An astonishing acheivement, actually. And Jackson earned his Oscar.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I guess I'm just bitter...Mystic River losing to RotK was like Boston vs. Yankees...you can hope, but the Evil Empire will always take it

[monolith94]

The lord of the rings is an astonishing achievement. Too bad it isn't an astonishing film.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I guess I'm just bitter...Mystic River losing to RotK was like Boston vs. Yankees

Then it deserved to lose, so what's the problem?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The Oscars tonight were given for the whole trilogy, not just RotK. Notice how it won nothing the last 2 years. The academy was essentially viewing them as a single feat.

And I say, kudos. I think it was the most deserving acheivement up there, warts and all. An astonishing acheivement, actually. And Jackson earned his Oscar.

Yep, that was it.
Maybe that Rise of the King isn´t the best Film at all,
but the Trilogy as a whole has more than earned all the Oscars given tonight.

Especially if you take into account that the Books of Lord of the Ring were considered to be impossible to bring onto the Screen.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

DIE CLOWN!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monolith94
The lord of the rings is an astonishing achievement. Too bad it isn't an astonishing film.

Sure it is. Far more astonishing than any of its competitors. Mystic River was good, but hardly ground-breaking. Great performances (I think Penn deserved the Oscar), but overall nothing new there. LotR is new--nothing on that scale has ever been done before.

What else was there? Master and Commander?! Puke. Lost in Translation? Dull.

I find this is like whining that Verdi's Otello is more of an acheivement than The Ring of the Neibelung. Sure, Otello may be better than Gotterdamerung, but it can't compete with the whole of Wagner's tetrology.

[Nubclear]

Just because it might be better than the other films doesn't mean its good.
Just look at Deus Ex 2. Better than any other game released last year (IIRC), but still really really bad.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
LotR is new--nothing on that scale has ever been done before.

Yeah, never before a film was made with astonishing environments and huge budgets? The history of Hollywood is about ROTK being remade and remade every 5 years or so, with a new technological caveat thrown in. That is hardly an achievement.

[MrBaggins]

/me coughs

Return of the King

will be a film that the Academy won't mind having recognized in many years time.

Cold "Cold Reception" Mountain, Mystic "Oscar Bait" River, Lost "Lost sense of storytelling" in Translation and "Disney"Biscuit just weren't worthy winners.

There is no doubt that RotK was worthy to win the technicals it did, and the big awards too. Best Actor or Actress would have been a stretch... but it wasn't nommed for those categories.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, never before a film was made with astonishing environments and huge budgets? The history of Hollywood is about ROTK being remade and remade every 5 years or so, with a new technological caveat thrown in. That is hardly an achievement.

No one has ever attempted the simultaneous production of three massive films together, before. Its firstly astonishing, period, and secondly astonishing that it maintained qualitive consistency.

There were a *lot* of trilogies, that had very poor second and third, or just third parts... Godfather III, SW VI... the list goes on and on.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Just because it might be better than the other films doesn't mean its good.
.

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

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
No one has ever attempted the simultaneous production of three massive films together, before. Its firstly astonishing, and secondly astonishing that it maintained qualitive consistency.

What about Star Wars? BTW, the simultaneous production was merely a financial decision, they could have made each film with 6 years between each, and that wouldn't have changed much.

There were a *lot* of trilogies, that had very poor second and third, or just third parts... Godfather III, SW VI... the list goes on and on.

And there are plenty of good TV series. Making 6 hours of worthy entairtenment is not harder than making 2 or 24. Especially when you're following a recipe.

What about those directors who consistently made quality films thourghout their entire career? Why don't they automatically get an Oscar?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What about Star Wars? BTW, the simultaneous production was merely a financial decision, they could have made each film with 6 years between each, and that wouldn't have changed much.

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.

And there are plenty of good TV series. Making 6 hours of worthy entairtenment is not harder than making 2 or 24. Especially when you're following a recipe.

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.

What about those directors who consistently made quality films thourghout their entire career? Why don't they automatically get an Oscar?

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

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What about Star Wars? BTW, the simultaneous production was merely a financial decision, they could have made each film with 6 years between each, and that wouldn't have changed much.



And there are plenty of good TV series. Making 6 hours of worthy entairtenment is not harder than making 2 or 24. Especially when you're following a recipe.

What about those directors who consistently made quality films thourghout their entire career? Why don't they automatically get an Oscar?

They sure could have... maybe... but they DIDN'T.

Star Wars ep 4 was an independent production from 5 and 6. They included a complete story arc in 4, because Lucas didn't know if they'd even make any other films.

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.

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.

And TV productions are small potatoes comparitively to film. The only things that approach are the HBO mini-series... like Angels in America, or Band of Brothers. Unsurprisingly, these have professional producers, like Speilberg running them.

Lastly.. lifetime achievement awards reward... lifetime achievement. Duh...