LoTR coronation and other moments - Page 3

Nubclear · March 1, 2004, 02:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

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

No it doesn't.

MrBaggins · March 1, 2004, 02:19

Why?

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

Essayo · March 1, 2004, 02:20

Quote:

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?

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:27

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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--

Quote:

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 · March 1, 2004, 02:40

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · March 1, 2004, 02:43

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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.)

Quote:

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.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:43

Quote:

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.

MrBaggins · March 1, 2004, 02:46

Quote:

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.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:46

Quote:

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.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:46

Quote:

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 · March 1, 2004, 02:47

Quote:

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 · March 1, 2004, 02:48

Quote:

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.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:52

Quote:

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.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:53

Quote:

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 · March 1, 2004, 02:56

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

MrBaggins · March 1, 2004, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

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

Duh?? He produced LOTR in NZ... without the usual suspects of Hollywood production... using WETA for instance, instead of ILM or Pixar.

The only "Hollywood" thing about LOTR was the cash used to pay for things.

MrBaggins · March 1, 2004, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

You mean super-long superproductions?

Griffith was already doing it in 1920.

No... I was refering to the simultaneous consistent-trilogy production method... as you well know.

And yes, Jackson is the FIRST AND ONLY one to achieve that.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins

Duh?? He produced LOTR in NZ... without the usual suspects of Hollywood production... using WETA for instance, instead of ILM or Pixar.

The only "Hollywood" thing about LOTR was the cash used to pay for things.

Yes, and the idiotic story, the ridiculously grandiose atmosphere, the crap music, etc.

MrBaggins · March 1, 2004, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Yes, and the idiotic story, the ridiculously grandiose atmosphere, the crap music, etc.

Now you're reaching.

The idiotic story? You mean the story from the greatest book of 20th century fiction?

The ridiculously grandiose atmosphere, taken from... the greatest story of 20th century fiction?

The crap music? From the best selling film soundtrack?

Try again, Fake Boris.

Tingkai · March 1, 2004, 03:19

Just watched 21 grams last night. A brilliant movie. It should have been nominated for best picture and best director.

monolith94 · March 1, 2004, 03:27

"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."

No it's not! There is nothing cinematically NEW about the lord of the rings films. Sure, the special effects are splendid, and the creative teams worked their asses off, but the core, the basis of what makes a film great, such as camerawork, placement of characters, pacing... all of it was mediocre. The academy has mistaken bombast and quantity for quality. Peter Jackson is not a mature director yet. Some scenes had me clutching my fists in frustration, due to the amount of missed opportunity for emotion and humanity.

It's like a technical demo. The objects inside it are class, but the whole thing is pretty soulless.

Out of the five best picture nominees, only one even made my top twenty, and it came in pretty low at that. Clint Eastwood's Mystic River contains some pretty intense scenes that, the way they were filmed, just floored me. Tim Robbins character's escape, as a youth, for example. And then there was his "werewolves" speech. It was full of great moments, tension and dramatic weight.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 03:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins

Now you're reaching.

The idiotic story? You mean the story from the greatest book of 20th century fiction?

The ridiculously grandiose atmosphere, taken from... the greatest story of 20th century fiction?

The crap music? From the best selling film soundtrack?

Try again, Fake Boris.

Well, at least you agree it is Hollywoodian.

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?

And the music: yes, it sucks. It's nothing like true classical music.

MrBaggins · March 1, 2004, 03:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Well, at least you agree it is Hollywoodian.

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?

And the music: yes, it sucks. It's nothing like true classical music.

I utterly disagree

LOTR isn't Hollywood. Tolkein was anti-hollywood. Tolkein is a very british author...

When you think Hollywood... you think Tom Clancy or Stephen King. Those are natural Hollywood books.

As for making lesser well-known novels? Maybe... but they wouldn't be as compelling, perhaps, as the true classic of the 20th century.

As for the music sucking... thats your utterly subjective opinion. More people bought that sound track, than any other movie soundtrack, over the period of its sale... and the composers of the Academy disagree with you also... and I feel that they're much better placed to decide than you are.

bipolarbear · March 1, 2004, 04:19

the first movie was good, but the other two were just annoying crap that got worse as it went. Kinda like the Matrix. Hmm is hollywood developing a pattern?? Anways, I haven't seen Mystic River so I won't argue if it deserved best film or anything, but LOTR DID NOT deserve the awards for costume or set design at all. The designers were largely making crap up out of their heads! The people in Last Samurai and the other nominated movies had to do in depth researh to replicate the costumes from their movies. It is marvelous to be creative, but there is more work involved in recreating something down to an exact detail.

bipolarbear · March 1, 2004, 04:21

The music is kind of cool to listen to, but it is no great achievement. As a whole, the movies didn't really deserve all of what they got. They Academy is caput. Sundance is where the real sh** is at!

Ned · March 1, 2004, 04:22

I had such a good time watching Oscars this night that my voice is now completely horse with cheering for that simply great, great movie The Lord of the Rings, the Return of the King. As the Oscars kept rolling in for this film, my joy and pleasure that Hollywood had finally grown up and was willing to recognize something other than a "romantic" or "serious" movie began to overflow into sustained applause and cheers.

Bravo!! Jackson. A tremedous achievement and a tremendous movie.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 04:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
LOTR isn't Hollywood. Tolkein was anti-hollywood. Tolkein is a very british author...

When you think Hollywood... you think Tom Clancy or Stephen King. Those are natural Hollywood books.

Not really. Anything cathartic with a quest and good/evil conflict is Hollywood. Tolkien was not a particularly intelligent man, and not a great writer. It's just another popular novel, on the level of Paulo Coelho (OK, not as bad).

Quote:

As for making lesser well-known novels? Maybe... but they wouldn't be as compelling, perhaps, as the true classic of the 20th century.

You have the right to your own taste, but if you think that LOTR is the true literary classic of the 20th century, then you should take some literature classes...

Quote:

As for the music sucking... thats your utterly subjective opinion. More people bought that sound track, than any other movie soundtrack, over the period of its sale... and the composers of the Academy disagree with you also... and I feel that they're much better placed to decide than you are.

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.

BTW, the Academy voters are not that great. Look at the awards they give, and then consider whether or not you should trust them. Venice, Berlin and Cannes are much better when it comes to trust an award.

Oncle Boris · March 1, 2004, 04:26

Quote:

Originally posted by bipolarbear
The music is kind of cool to listen to, but it is no great achievement. As a whole, the movies didn't really deserve all of what they got. They Academy is caput. Sundance is where the real sh** is at!

My thoughts exactly.

East Street Trader · March 1, 2004, 05:23

Even the people in the Hollywood film industry could hardly fail to notice that The Return of the King is a magnificent film. Very possibly the best I have seen.

Theben · March 1, 2004, 06:06

The 1st was the best, and the RotK the weakest, but only because it was too short; they had to cut out a lot to keep the movie at a mere 3 1/2 hours (I agree they could've ended the bedroom scene a lot quicker). But overall it was a great film and deserved its awards, except costume design.