Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Entertainment => Topic started by: mikeymike on March 01, 2004, 11:25:30 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/film/3429373.stm
Ben Hur and Titanic also got 11 oscars. Oooookay :-)
-
ahem, so 11 oscars - doesn't matter. the oscar thing seems to be a publicity act, so it won't touch me. even really bad films got oscars (or lets say films i don't like) :-)
btw : ben hur was (is) a great movie.
-
It's all a matter of taste
These oscars are totally bullocks. :whack:
-
And for anyone who thinks Titanic deserves 11 oscars has BAD[/i][/u] taste! :-)
(yes I pulled out all the formatting stops for the emphasis it deserves :-D)
-
How about "The Deer Hunter"? One of the greatest movies of all time, it should have gotten 11 oscars instead :-)
-
mikeymike wrote:
And for anyone who thinks Titanic deserves 11 oscars has BAD[/i][/u] taste! :-)
(yes I pulled out all the formatting stops for the emphasis it deserves :-D)
Damn! I was going to post that! :lol:
-
Titanic was definitly an utter piece of dreck!
:smack:
but sometimes great movies get recognized and Lord Of the Rings is sure one of them!
Damn fine piece of film-making there!!!!
-
Worth an oscar. Maybe two. Not eleven.
-
KennyR wrote:
Worth an oscar. Maybe two. Not eleven.
That's right.
Nowadays most people seem to go on the hype that a film has raised, rather than its technical merits.
For example, as Mikeymike has said Titanic is a good film, but not brilliant, anyone with a modicom of film experience will realise that it does not compare to the classics (a la Ben Hur).
But at the time the media hype meant it was virtually guaranteed the max number of Oscars. The same us true of Lord of the Rings, whilst it may be a good film (I have not seen it) it is not as good as Ben Hur or the other classic films, merely the media has carried the film.
Yet again, the Oscasrs/Brits/BAFTA's etc. etc. has merely turned into a backslapping event for the film industry rather than a constructive view of the previous 12 months of films, - but then again what are we to expect from this industry?
-
For example, as Mikeymike has said Titanic is a good film, but not brilliant, anyone with a modicom of film experience will realise that it does not compare to the classics (a la Ben Hur).
Hold on a second! I have never said Titanic is a good film. It is cack of the highest order!
...
I think it would be a far better to give films awards for their staying power. If people are still raving about a film say ten years after its release, it's worth giving an award to. It annoys the hell out of me, when there are the "top 100 of all time" for something like music, where they have a track by Robbie Williams in the top ten, and right next to it another track that is still considered brilliant thirty years after its release.
Personally I doubt the LotR trilogy will exhibit the sort of staying power I'm talking about. IMO it lacks real substance, and is basically a Hollywood, watered-down, cliched re-hashing of a quite decent plot from a book that will still be talked about for at least the next 50 years. The book may not be considered the best sample of literature but it has a decent plot and ideas.
-
mikeymike wrote:
I think it would be a far better to give films awards for their staying power. If people are still raving about a film say ten years after its release, it's worth giving an award to. It annoys the hell out of me, when there are the "top 100 of all time" for something like music, where they have a track by Robbie Williams in the top ten, and right next to it another track that is still considered brilliant thirty years after its release.
Yeah that irks me too, I think its because there are so many cretins out there.
I was really aggreived when an Oasis album finished higher than Pink Floyd's DSOTM...NO Oasis album can take you on an emotional journey like that album can, but then, like I said, people are cretins...
-
I have never said Titanic is a good film. It is cack of the highest order!
IMHO Titanic was a good film, but not a great one. Technically it was of the highest order, but the soap opera love story..oh pulleeze. Rather like an omlette made with spoiled ham..good in parts.
About LOTR
11 Oscars devided by three films = 3.67 Oscars per film (yeah, I know the other two films won a few oscars, but I can't be bothered to look them up)and none of the actors ever won any. (Okay,I looked it up. Two Towers nominated for six and won two; Fellowship of the Ring nominated for thirteen won four. Ian McKellen was the only actor ever nominated and did not win)
I think it would be a far better to give films awards for their staying power. If people are still raving about a film say ten years after its release, it's worth giving an award to.
I think it's safe to say that these movies will be talked about for years, as are Lawrence of Arabia, Cleopatra, Gone With the Wind.
basically a Hollywood, watered-down, cliched re-hashing of a quite decent plot
I think that if it had been done Hollywood style, we would have had _one_ three hour movie to cover the whole thing and would have made even less sense. Peter Jackson took very few liberties with the story and gave us extended versions on the DVDs. Tolkien would have been appalled at even a quality Disney animated version and surely must be turning over in his grave about the Ralph Bakshi version. I think he would have approved of Jackson's version although he might have quibbled over a few details. I only hope that they get to do a version of The Hobbit if film rights can be worked out. I'm not sure that The Silmarillion would be as suitable or any of the other books that his son Christopher Tolkien edited, but as always I keep hoping for more. :hat:
(just trying out the new smilies)
-
Peter Jackson took very few liberties with the story
Erm, perhaps you ought to read the book (again)?
Yes, only a certain amount of time can be used before the film becomes too long, but in places ol' PJ decided that the original plot wasn't good enough, and suddenly Aragorn goes from being a man who has walked the world, taken part in some of the major battles, and approximately 80 years old (and still looking "middle-aged", out of 250 odd years before he died), to being a wayward 20 year old who won't accept his responsibility/destiny. I don't know about you, but I've heard the latter plot idea before!
I have had a conversation with my brother a number of times about the LotR films. We're both major fans of the books, and I think the number of times I've read LotR is around the count of 20. One of us will start the conversation, talking about something or rather in the films, where my brother will say "oh, it wasn't that bad...", conversation goes on a bit... "oh, except that... oh and that, jesus christ! and what about the exorcism Gandalf is apparently performing on Theoden... do these guys have no idea what subtlety is?", and then we have torn the films to pieces on points, not nitpicking, but where perfectly good plot that could have stayed in is removed for dodgy cliche plot. In the books, the idea of Wormtongue being sent to talk Theoden into thinking that he's growing old to the point of losing his grip so that Saruman can do what he likes is a good one. The books go on about how Saruman and Wormtongue were extremely good at what they did with great subtlety. In the films we have an actor is is bound to be a bad guy to anyone who has seen a single film out of the nearly 200 where Christopher Lee has played a bad guy, and he does it in virtually exactly the same way he always does! There's no explanation why Saruman decided to turn to evil in the films, it's just "because it's Christopher Lee! you know, that bad guy!". And don't forget the line that nearly made me retch in the cinema "you have my sword! my bow! my axe!", Jesus Christ. Who wrote that garbage. Lines from the book are then thrown in randomly like they were quoting some book at random, then they get back to their totally unsubtle and uncreative plot, complete with over-acting and random plot "twists" that end up not being plot twists and just to "spice up the action a bit".
And to people that wonder whether it "could be done", converting LotR properly to the screen, I recommend watching the unfinished animated version, the Bakshi version IIRC it is referred to. That also cuts huge swathes out of the books, but it still lends respect by not screwing with what it leaves in! It has its faults, but it is a far more satisfying watch than the films are.
-
@Mikeymike
Yes, only a certain amount of time can be used before the film becomes too long, but in places ol' PJ decided that the original plot wasn't good enough, and suddenly Aragorn goes from being a man who has walked the world, taken part in some of the major battles, and approximately 80 years old (and still looking "middle-aged", out of 250 odd years before he died), to being a wayward 20 year old who won't accept his responsibility/destiny. I don't know about you, but I've heard the latter plot idea before!
Watch The Two Towers Extended Edition (which is the true cut of the film). There is a scene near the beginning of the second disc in which comment is made of Aragorn riding to war with Thengel, that states Aragorn's age as 87, and that he is a descendent of Numenor.
Also, Aragorn is played by Viggo Mortensen, who's 45... I don't think he's played a wayward 20 year old in a while!
-
It's a sad day on Amiga.org when we see moderators trolling! ;-) How did I know Mikeymike was gonna have something to say about Peter Jackson's coup at the Oscar's? :-D
Personally I doubt the LotR trilogy will exhibit the sort of staying power I'm talking about. IMO it lacks real substance, and is basically a Hollywood, watered-down, cliched re-hashing of a quite decent plot from a book that will still be talked about for at least the next 50 years. The book may not be considered the best sample of literature but it has a decent plot and ideas.
Yeah, well, let's not forget that there's plenty of people who think that the books are crap, while the movies are otherwise quite good. There's many people who think the books are too slow paced and Tolkien goes off the deep-end with minute details that no one really cares about (not to mention all that silly singing). The real question is, now with these excellent movies out, is it worth reading the books?!?
Now, was it good enough to win 11 awards? Not sure as I don't know what the catagories were or what movies it was up against. I'm not sure I'd give it best picture, but I'd be willing to give Jackson Best Director - if for no other reason then for having the balls to comit to such a massive and expensive project. I just hope the academy doesn't decide to reward Lucas in such a way for his Star Wars crap! Ugh!!!
- Mike
-
Well, they have to screw around with it to an extent, otherwise we'd have a 50 hour long set of movies. Personally I miss Tom Bombadil and Saruman's takeover of the Shire. Obviously a lot more will make sense if you've read the books. Oh and what about Merry and Pippin being taller after having drunk Entish refreshments or the sad tale of the Entwives. There's just no way they could have put it all in. It would have put people to sleep. :banana:
-
@Aardvark
Oh and what about Merry and Pippin being taller after having drunk Entish refreshments or the sad tale of the Entwives. There's just no way they could have put it all in. It would have put people to sleep.
There will be a lot of sleepy people when they watch the Extended Edition of The Two Towers then! :-D Both of those scenes are in there, modified a bit mind you... ooh, were you refering to the extended edition?? :inquisitive:
-
Glaucus wrote:
It's a sad day on Amiga.org when we see moderators trolling! ;-) How did I know Mikeymike was gonna have something to say about Peter Jackson's coup at the Oscar's? :-D
/me looks all innocent
moi? :-? :-)
Yeah, well, let's not forget that there's plenty of people who think that the books are crap
See my comment earlier about people who like Titanic ;-)
I just hope the academy doesn't decide to reward Lucas in such a way for his Star Wars crap! Ugh!!!
AFAIK the Star Wars series haven't been given any oscars. Considering their staying power, I think that's a mistake. I can't think of anything they particularly excel at technically, so maybe one or two of them should have been given best film once.
-
There's no way that Lord of The Rings deserves 11 oscars. IT IS A CRAP FILM! :ranting:
-
AFAIK the Star Wars series haven't been given any oscars. Considering their staying power, I think that's a mistake. I can't think of anything they particularly excel at technically, so maybe one or two of them should have been given best film once.
I'd give them awards for special effects, but that's about it. The acting is nothing special, the story is fairly simple and linear, the directing style is boring and the screen writing is terrible. If anything should have won any awards it should have been the first one (episode 4), or perhaps the Empire Strikes Back. Episode 1 & 2 were crap! If you gave Lucas awards for them, you might as well give Star Trek movies best picture as well.
- Mike
-
Glaucus wrote:
AFAIK the Star Wars series haven't been given any oscars. Considering their staying power, I think that's a mistake. I can't think of anything they particularly excel at technically, so maybe one or two of them should have been given best film once.
I'd give them awards for special effects, but that's about it. The acting is nothing special, the story is fairly simple and linear, the directing style is boring and the screen writing is terrible. If anything should have won any awards it should have been the first one (episode 4), or perhaps the Empire Strikes Back.
I wouldn't say the screen writing is terrible, and I've seen worse (but not worse as in 'terrible') directing that is still classed as 'ok'. They had to have got something right in order to be as popular now as the day they were released.
Episode 1 & 2 were crap! If you gave Lucas awards for them, you might as well give Star Trek movies best picture as well.
Agreed.
-
mikeymike wrote:
Glaucus wrote:
AFAIK the Star Wars series haven't been given any oscars. Considering their staying power, I think that's a mistake. I can't think of anything they particularly excel at technically, so maybe one or two of them should have been given best film once.
I'd give them awards for special effects, but that's about it. The acting is nothing special, the story is fairly simple and linear, the directing style is boring and the screen writing is terrible. If anything should have won any awards it should have been the first one (episode 4), or perhaps the Empire Strikes Back.
I wouldn't say the screen writing is terrible, and I've seen worse (but not worse as in 'terrible') directing that is still classed as 'ok'. They had to have got something right in order to be as popular now as the day they were released.
Episode 1 & 2 were crap! If you gave Lucas awards for them, you might as well give Star Trek movies best picture as well.
Agreed.
I agree too. Totally. :afro:
-
There will be a lot of sleepy people when they watch the Extended Edition of The Two Towers then! Both of those scenes are in there, modified a bit mind you... ooh, were you refering to the extended edition??
Actually no. I just got around to renting the extended edition yesterday. So far I'm up to chapiter nine, but I noticed the index referring to Entwives and Ent draughts, so I guess there is more of what I'd like to see in it. I can hardly wait for the extended edition of "Return of the King" :-o
-
aardvark wrote:
Actually no. I just got around to renting the extended edition yesterday. So far I'm up to chapiter nine, but I noticed the index referring to Entwives and Ent draughts, so I guess there is more of what I'd like to see in it. I can hardly wait for the extended edition of "Return of the King" :-o
Yeah, to truly judge the series you have to see the extended versions. The theatrical releases were just there for the masses, the extended versions are for the die-hard fans.
- Mike
-
Yeah, to truly judge the series you have to see the extended versions. The theatrical releases were just there for the masses, the extended versions are for the die-hard fans.
You mean you have to pay the film company twice to three times the normal amount you'd pay to go see a film.
*cough* RIPOFF *cough*
-
@Aardvark
I hope you enjoy The Two Towers Extended Edition!
The unofficial time for the Extended Edition of "Return of the King" is 5 hours. That should mean all those little bits that seem rushed or far too short should be filled in. I can already guess that one added scene will be about Faramir and Eowyn after they've been wounded and are hanging around in Minas Tirith. The reason I guess that is because of how close they were in the scene where Aragorn was crowned. I may be wrong, but I doubt Boyens and Walsh would have let that scene go! :-D
-
@Mikeymike
Yeah, to truly judge the series you have to see the extended versions. The theatrical releases were just there for the masses, the extended versions are for the die-hard fans.
You mean you have to pay the film company twice to three times the normal amount you'd pay to go see a film.
*cough* RIPOFF *cough*
Or you could go hire it out from your local video/dvd rental store, borrow them from a friend who's more of a diehard fan, or buy them second hand. I got my Extended Edition of Fellowship of the Ring second hand, and I hired out the Extended Edition of The Two Towers. The grand total for those two "purchases" was NZ$30, which is NZ$4 more than I paid to go see the first two movies at the cinemas.
Also, I should add that it's not just the movies that are extended. You also have 4 commentaries for the films: Jackson, Boyens and Walsh (the director and writers); The Design team, the production/post-production team; a dozen or so of the main actors. I recommend both the writers one and the actors one.
For each EE released so far there are also 2 more discs called "The Appendicies" that are full of documentaries about the making of the movies, the history of the books and Tolkien himself, the history of the movie, the locations in NZ where they filmed, a lot of artwork that was produced for the films by Alan Lee, John Howe and the rest of the design team, the creation of Gollum... well, you get the idea. Definitely good value for money compared to a 3 hour sitting once only of a cut down version of the movie. As far as I'm concerned we get ripped off more at the cinemas than with these EE dvds.
I would definitely recommend everyone watch the appendicies, it'll illustrate nicely why Return of the King won so many awards.
-
@KennyR
Worth an oscar. Maybe two. Not eleven.
- Best Motion Picture of the Year
- Best Achievement in Directing
- Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
- Best Achievement in Art Direction
- Best Achievement in Costume Design
- Best Achievement in Sound
- Best Achievement in Editing
- Best Achievement in Visual Effects
- Best Achievement in Makeup
- Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
- Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
(Source: IMDB.com: 2004 Academy Awards (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Academy_Awards_USA/2004))
Which 9 are you saying it didn't deserve?
-
sumner7 wrote:
I agree too. Totally. :afro:
Why do you keep replying to threads just to arbitrarily agree?
-
AccyD wrote:
KennyR wrote:
Worth an oscar. Maybe two. Not eleven.
That's right.
Nowadays most people seem to go on the hype that a film has raised, rather than its technical merits.
For example, as Mikeymike has said Titanic is a good film, but not brilliant, anyone with a modicom of film experience will realise that it does not compare to the classics (a la Ben Hur).
But at the time the media hype meant it was virtually guaranteed the max number of Oscars.
Most of the Oscars for Return of the King were based on its technical merits.
And who here thinks that Ben-Hur didn't get a comparable hype in 1959 as Titanic or any Lord of the Rings film has had in the present? Ben-Hur would have been pushed as hard as MGM could have pushed it. Just because the movie is hyped doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the Oscars it got (Titanic deserved most, but definitely not all, of them).
Also, Ben-Hur had it slightly easier in 3 Oscar categories (Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Costume Design) because they were actually split into two sub-categories: Colour and Black & White, thus removing some possible competition.
In the "Best Effects, Special Effects" category there was only one other nominee, "Journey to the Center of the Earth"! Ben-Hur had at least a 50/50 chance of getting an Oscar there, it was hardly a hardearned win.
The same us true of Lord of the Rings, whilst it may be a good film (I have not seen it) it is not as good as Ben Hur or the other classic films, merely the media has carried the film.
How do you know any of the Lord of the Rings films aren't as good as Ben-Hur when you haven't even seen the LotR films?
Yet again, the Oscasrs/Brits/BAFTA's etc. etc. has merely turned into a backslapping event for the film industry rather than a constructive view of the previous 12 months of films, - but then again what are we to expect from this industry?
I'm not sure how many parts of the industry would be happy with a set of films that were made with a crew that aren't members of their unions, filmed in a location that is outside of their country (and thus not putting any money into their economy through usage or exposure), hired thousands of foreigners to play the extras, and in the end could take some business away from their shores? The only non-New Zealanders that could be happy with this is New Line, the people making the merchandise and the publishers and royalty holders of the original books. I certainly can't see much for the American or British film industries to backslap for.
-
Oh joy. PJ is doing "The Hobbit" now.
The pun was initially unintended, but I see it's quite apt :-)
-
I thought he was going to do a King Kong remake first :-?.
-
mikeymike wrote:
Oh joy. PJ is doing "The Hobbit" now.
Hmm, I have that as an audio book somewhere. I think I'll put it on my MP3 player and "read" it at work one day.
-
odin wrote:
I thought he was going to do a King Kong remake first :-?.
Yup.
-
Star Wars 1 & 2 were good films (not up to the first trilogy's standard though.)
Lord of the Ring. :-o :elvis: :-D
-
But what about really beautiful movies, like:
"Amelie Poulain"
"Rabbit proof fence"
"Billy Elliot"
or a more sinister movie, like:
"Raise the red lantern"
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
But what about really beautiful movies, like:
"Amelie Poulain"
"Rabbit proof fence"
"Billy Elliot"
or a more sinister movie, like:
"Raise the red lantern"
Or perhaps the one movie that clearly captured the finiest moment of movie making in our life time:
(http://www.rifilm.com/film/dumber.jpg)
Dumb and Dumber
:-D
- Mike
-
You mean you have to pay the film company twice to three times the normal amount you'd pay to go see a film.
Actually, DVDs are a great deal. There's many people these days who have excellent home theater setups at home and don't even bother watching movies in real theaters any more. If you look at it that way, what would it cost for a family of 4 to see a movie in the theater + ridiculously over priced popcorn & drink, as opposed to buying the extended DVD box set (and I mean the 4 disc set, the 5 disc set just has extra gimmicks, but the movie edit is the same). And if you consider the fact of multiple views with the DVD set, you simply can't go wrong! Not only that, if you find that the movie sucks you can always sell your collectors edition of the movie on e-bay and recoup most of your losses - something tough to do at a theater. Ripoff is hardly what I would call it (unless of course they release the DVD set only in FULLSCREEN (4x3) rather then anamorphic/letterbox WIDESCREEN (16x9) ;-) )
- Mike
-
Ripoff is hardly what I would call it (unless of course they release the DVD set only in FULLSCREEN (4x3) rather then anamorphic/letterbox WIDESCREEN (16x9)
That would be a ripoff :-)
I refuse to buy any movie that only comes in a fullscreen version. For example Moonlighting (with Cher) or The Secret of N.I.M.H. Sometimes Blockbuster (spit) only orders in DVDs in Fullscreen (Kangaroo Jack (not that great a movie, but it's the principle of the thing)) I don't mind movies that have both, usually on two-sided disc, but widescreen is the only way to go.
I finally returned the 7 day rental of the extended Towers version three days late! And I still never got to look much at disk 3 or listen to the audio commentaries. It was enough to tide me over until I purchase the 5 disk version with the Gollum statue. Just waiting until it drops way below the sale price of around CDN$88.00 available many places. I got the bookends version of Fellowship for about $60 and now it's back up to the List price of over $100 8-)
-
Glaucus wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
But what about really beautiful movies, like:
"Amelie Poulain"
"Rabbit proof fence"
"Billy Elliot"
or a more sinister movie, like:
"Raise the red lantern"
Or perhaps the one movie that clearly captured the finiest moment of movie making in our life time:
(http://www.rifilm.com/film/dumber.jpg)
Dumb and Dumber
:-D
- Mike
Hm, explain.
Actually, have you ever seen these movies I mentioned :-)?