LoTR coronation and other moments

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So he was 'due'. He was passed over for it when he should have gotten it because of other criteron. That's why I call it a pity pick. You can say he was 'due'. That's your perogative.

You seem to miss the point he was making...

"the Academy wanted to see the sustained effort of this gigantic gamble by New Line."

And he proved to them that he could sustain it... and that a victory was indeed justified. You say pity like he didn't deserve it. I think the Academy disagrees with you

[GePap]

Originally posted by monolith94
Cinematography mainly deals with lighting, and framing. Composition. It is not the entirety of what makes a film look good. The decision of whether to track or not to track is the director's. The final decision of where to put the camera is the director's. Besides, City of God had an even larger ensemble cast (or so it seemed to me), and even better acting.

From whom? I like the movie, but I did not find acting to be it's strong suit at all, while Sean Austin's performance stood out for me.

[-Jrabbit]

Historical Perspective on LOTR and the Oscars -- For those interested, here is the actual nomination history of the first 2 films of the trilogy (asterisk * indicates Oscar).

2001 -- Fellowship of the Ring, 12 nominations, 4 Oscars
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Supporting Actor (McKellan)
Adapted Screenplay
Film Editing
* Cinematography
Art Direction/Set Decoration
Original Song
* Original Score
* Makeup
Sound
* Visual Effects

2002, the Two Towers -- 6 nominations, 2 Oscars
Best Picture
Film Editing
Art Direction/Set Decoration
Sound
* Sound Effects Editing
* Visual Effects

[Imran Siddiqui]

And he proved to them that he could sustain it... and that a victory was indeed justified. You say pity like he didn't deserve it. I think the Academy disagrees with you

That's nice. But the Academy also disagreed with me in saying Titanic was a better film that Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential. Doesn't mean they weren't absolutely 100% wrong!

Yes, I say pity like he doesn't deserve it. It would have been different if they lost in one or two catagories, but winning for every single one smacks of "We're sorry, our bad... hope this makes it up to you guys".

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by monolith94
Cinematography mainly deals with lighting, and framing. Composition. It is not the entirety of what makes a film look good. The decision of whether to track or not to track is the director's. The final decision of where to put the camera is the director's. Besides, City of God had an even larger ensemble cast (or so it seemed to me), and even better acting.

Err... no? Its not untypical for the cinematographer to place the camera, particularly with more experienced cinematographers (and incidentally, the cine. for City of God was one César Charlone, a far more experienced cine than Fernando Meirelles was a director or cine.)

The majority of shot choices are a collaboration effort between the director and cinematographer... except in Kubrick-like cases... but those are more the exception than the rule. Micromanagement is typically counterproductive.

Edit- and no... City of God didn't have 26 major ensemble roles. You'd have to look at a film like Gosford Park (Altman) to see anything comparible.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, I say pity like he doesn't deserve it. It would have been different if they lost in one or two catagories, but winning for every single one smacks of "We're sorry, our bad... hope this makes it up to you guys".

AARRGH! You are being such a DF right now!

They gave him this award for the whole opus that is Lord of the Rings, the whole 7 year megaepic that has grossed about 2 billion dollars overall over the last three years- each installement of which was nominated for best film- a total of 29 nominations and 16 Oscars- at the most you argue is that it should have been 29 nominations and 15 or 14 Oscars....sheesh.

[JohnT]

Frankly, even though it wasn't my favorite movie of the year (that would be Kill Bill, notable for not being nominated last night), I think that ROTK was a richly-deserving film that actually earned the many accolades thrown on it. Peter Jackson has revitalized the serial form (as B5 and the X-Files (first 4 seasons) did for TV) and for that achievement alone he deserves the B. Picture.

And it's irrelevant if the award should mean "best picture of the year" (Amadeus) or "thanks for the memories" (Al Pacino, Paul Newman) or "You made a lot of us wealthy and employed the rest at one time or another during the production of this (and other) film(s)" (Titanic, LOTR, Julia Roberts) or "damn, you're a brilliant in-fighter" (Shakespeare in Love, Gladiator) or "we waited until we saw you had staying power" (LOTR, Denzel Washington). The awards mean what they need to mean to the people voting for them at that time. That's why they're so damned predictably unpredictable. Yes, of course we all knew LOTR was going to be a big winner... but all of them?? Wow.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by GePap
Sean Austin's performance stood out for me.

I thought Astin's performance was very strong, and he showed a lot of growth as an actor from the first to the third film.

But what I was hoping to see was some recognition for Andy Sirkus' performance as Smeagol/Gollum. He provided both the voice and the body motion for (arguably) the most complex character in the trilogy, and IMO set the standard for how to create a believable CGI character.

I think it's a shame that this outstanding effort is lumped in with the rest of the "Visual Effects."

[monolith94]

"Edit- and no... City of God didn't have 26 major ensemble roles."

Lord of the Rings did not have 26 major roles either. There are significant cases to be made for some of them as minor roles. Hell, I don't even remember Gimli speaking. All I can remember Legolas doing is some crazy stunt with an elephant.

You make accurate points, concerning cinematography/direction, but what I say to that is, whoever was in charge of the camerawork was utterly uninspired. Plus, Jackson's vision is what shaped these films, and frankly I don't like his vision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They gave him this award for the whole opus that is Lord of the Rings

And I'm arguing that is WRONG! What is so hard here?

at the most you argue is that it should have been 29 nominations and 15 or 14 Oscars

No, at the 'most', I'm arguing it should have been much less than that. 5 Oscars perhaps this year.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And I'm arguing that is WRONG! What is so hard here?

The problem is you are saying they did it out of pity.NO, they did NOT do it out of pity. It is fine to argue that they should have considered each piece independently, and I would argue agianst that, but still, stpo saying it was pity!

No, at the 'most', I'm arguing it should have been much less than that. 5 Oscars perhaps this year.

Well, good for you. I think it desereved all but about 2 of it's awards.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by monolith94
Jackson's vision is what shaped these films, and frankly I don't like his vision.

Finally, a valid criticism!

[QUOTE]

They gave him this award for the whole opus that is Lord of the Rings[\quote]
(from Imram Siddiqui)
And I'm arguing that is WRONG! What is so hard here?

Actually, it's quite clear to me, Imram. Just as I felt Carlos Santana's Grammy sweep a few years back was a goofy, largely undeserved payback for 3 decades of snubs, you believe that (assuming it was in fact for the 3-film arc) these Oscars represent a similarly torqued view of how the award process should work.

I think if the naysayers would stop trolling with loaded phrases like "pity party" -- and if the Defenders of All That Is Ringlike would stop rising to the bait -- we might actually find some common ground.

But what fun would that be?

[Wernazuma III]

I can't understand why the worst of the 3 LotR movies won so many oscars. Just take those guys living on mountain tops for aeons waiting for Gondor calling for Rohan and after lightening the fire moving with their arms to catch the attention of other stupid guys living on other mountain tops for aeons in 100km distance by waving their arms.
Or that crap scene with Legolas killing one of the over-dimensioned Olifants in exchange for a poor Gimli joke.
I could go on for an hour.
I'm not making the points a Tolkien purist would make by being pissed about the alterations of the story (although I am a purist), the movie simply has several inconsistencies which make it bad as an overall movie.

BTW. Anyone else can't stand that "Please don't hurt me" face expression of Renée Zellweger. That mimic is almost as versatile as Sly's distorted open mouth...

[JohnT]

And here I thought it was her "come love me" look.

She is definitely the most featured person in all the pictorial roundups at the various newsites, and imho she looked damned fine.

[monolith94]

"Finally, a valid criticism!"

There are plenty of other valid criticisms. The never ending endings of RotK, the Dwarf jokes of TTT, the descent into action movie schlock of FOTR...

But that is the one overarching criticism that touches all aspects of the film.

Sean Astin was good. Still, his best performance to date was in Dish Dogs.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by JohnT
And here I thought it was her "come love me" look.

That could well be it. But I'd change it into "come love me, but please don't hurt me, I'm so innocent and never did that before".

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem is you are saying they did it out of pity.NO, they did NOT do it out of pity. It is fine to argue that they should have considered each piece independently, and I would argue agianst that, but still, stpo saying it was pity!

Why should I? It gets you riled up . It's simply a more inflammatory way to say it was 'due'. They felt other movies were better than its predecessors, so decided they had to make it up to them. Kind of like how Russell Crowe won from 'Gladiator', even though he didn't deserve it, because he didn't win for 'The Insider'. I just saw he/she/it was due more crudely .

Just as I felt Carlos Santana's Grammy sweep a few years back was a goofy, largely undeserved payback for 3 decades of snubs, you believe that (assuming it was in fact for the 3-film arc) these Oscars represent a similarly torqued view of how the award process should work.

I agree with the Santana remark. I just think award shows should give awards based on the current work and not whether the person or film/album was 'due'. The past works of the artist shouldn't matter.

I think if the naysayers would stop trolling with loaded phrases like "pity party" -- and if the Defenders of All That Is Ringlike would stop rising to the bait -- we might actually find some common ground.

Not my fault it works so well .

[monolith94]

Wernazuma, your avatar is absolutely grotesque. I love it.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by GePap


Not automatically, but it does take more effort to do the 30 story one, and someone who does a GREAT 30 story building deserves more applaud than someone who does a GREAT 5 story apartment, becuase it is more difficult to be great on a large scale.

A) I think most architects and engineers would disagree with you, but whatever.

B) Only when all things are equal. Your original point was that you thought it was more difficult to direct 500 people in a coherent battle scene than three people in a conversation. Apples and oranges. If it were a 500 person conversation, then I agree that scale might become a factor.

How said they were up for consideration? I brought them up to make the point of just how much was filmed and the tough choices made to decide what to keep or cut to get the films in at under 3 hours.

But that's my point. If Jackson felt he needed to film a billion hours of footage to make 3 three hour long movies, that's his perogative. It doesn't make the achievement any greater. If I need to produce a five page report, do you think I'll get more credit for it if I draft up 70 page report and trim it down to five? It's the end product that matters.

Same principles? What same principles? Each of the LoTR instalments were nominated, and each won critical praise as films, not just as event pics or action extravaganzas.

I could say there are commoin principles between Mystic River and Beaches, or any tragic drama, including the bad ones. Or between Seabicuit and Rudy (or other historical sport movies). All such comparisons would be equally faulty and invalid.

The same principles that because someone gets a hard-on for the LotR genre and fantasizes about being Aragon doesn't mean that a movie put together from their favorite fantasy novel that doesn't suck automatically vaults it into the "best movie ever made" category. My point was that you can like Star Wars and still recognize its faults, just like you can like LotR and recognize its faults. Just as you point out, you can be be a fan of historical sports movies but that doesn't mean that Rudy warrants any special consideration for movie of the year from any technical standpoint.

Anyway, as much fun as it is drawing the ire of hard-core LotR crowd, maybe I'll just concede the point. The three LotR movies are the best ever made and that ever will be made, using any category you could possibly judge by.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Anyway, as much fun as it is drawing the ire of hard-core LotR crowd, maybe I'll just concede the point. The three LotR movies are the best ever made and that ever will be made, using any category you could possibly judge by.

Give me a break. I never said that any LoTR is the greast movie evr made- I prefered Lost in translation and American Splendor, and Nemo this year. BUt LoTR is the biggest epic ever made, a daring production and a worthy winner.

[-Jrabbit]

Am I the only one who thinks that Lost In Translation was a small, narrative-free coversation piece? Nothing really happens, nothing makes me care about either character, there's absolutely no conflict or catharsis. Even as a character study, I think it's flawed -- albeit in a very pretty way.

I've also heard that large sections were based on improvisation, so WTF is up with the Original Screenplay award?

I couldn't shake the feeling that this was a "Hollywood Royalty" award, perhaps due in part to the on-cue voiceover about "this is only the 2nd time that 3 generations of the same family have won" blah blah.

I really liked the movie and nothing against the obviously talented Sofia Coppola -- but it was a trifle.

(Can't say who should have won, didn't see most of the other nominees.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, a lot of people hated LIT. I absolutely loved it and would love to see the Oscars give it the big prize.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Am I the only one who thinks that Lost In Translation was a small, narrative-free coversation piece? Nothing really happens, nothing makes me care about either character, there's absolutely no conflict or catharsis. Even as a character study, I think it's flawed -- albeit in a very pretty way.

Surely not the only one, as I mentioned in a thread a while back. I just didn't connect with the film. It wouldn't even rate a top 10 finish on the year from me... but then I watch a *lot* of movies... roughly about a movie a day, so your millage may vary.

I agree about the improvisation bit. The reason Murray got so close to the award for Best Actor was that he was putting in most of the heavy lifting in LiT. He did indeed make Sophia look good, where the film might have been truly dire with a lesser actor.

[MrBaggins]

You know I'm having difficulty finding oscar statistics for StarWars... how many Best Picture wins, etc...

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

P.S. that shade of envy just doesn't go with your avatar.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason Murray got so close to the award for Best Actor was that he was putting in most of the heavy lifting in LiT. He did indeed make Sophia look good, where the film might have been truly dire with a lesser actor.

Seeing as how Sophia wrote the part FOR HIM SPECIFICALLY, I don't see how him doing the 'heavy lifting' takes away from Sophia's great work.

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

www.imdb.com

[DinoDoc]

I have to agree with Imran here. The runaway LOTR had at the Oscars screams pity because of how the series had been overlooked in its 2 previous offerings.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
You know I'm having difficulty finding oscar statistics for StarWars... how many Best Picture wins, etc...

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

P.S. that shade of envy just doesn't go with your avatar.

http://www.oscars.org/index.html

They have a nice Oscar database which you can search for Titles, Names and the like

[Guynemer]

I hope I'm not being lumped in with the "hard-core LOTR crowd".

I'm only a very casual fantasy fan, and LOTR isn't even my favorite fantasy book. I wasn't entirely sold on the first film (theatrical version), either. In fact, I thought it a sad commentary on Hollywood that the theatrical version of the first film was considered one of the five best films of the year. The extended cut was 100% better, and each film and extended cut since has steadily improved. I'm a latecomer to the whole LOTR thing, but I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about stating my opinion:

absolutely, positively, in nearly every way imaginable, ****ing brilliant.

(My biggest beef--is there a red-blooded heterosexual male here who, if given the choice, would take Arwen over Eowyn, especially how they were portrayed in the films? Aragorn is an ass-kicker extraordinaire, but I question his taste in the ladies.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think what is overlooked in this Oscars is you had an amazing year for movies. Kind of like a 1994 Oscar's (Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption).

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The reason Murray got so close to the award for Best Actor was that he was putting in most of the heavy lifting in LiT. He did indeed make Sophia look good, where the film might have been truly dire with a lesser actor.

Seeing as how Sophia wrote the part FOR HIM SPECIFICALLY, I don't see how him doing the 'heavy lifting' takes away from Sophia's great work.

Well... Murray didn't particularly need direction considering he's seen and been involved in more productions than Sophia's been alive for.

Plus he did enough improv, that its somewhat surprising that he wasn't up for the Original Screenplay, for co-writer.

Quote:

Anyone know good sites where these would be listed? Anyone? Imran?

www.imdb.com

I found a couple of interesting links here and here.

As for the link you gave me,
that just HAS to be incorrect... 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.