11 oscars = overrated

[Glaucus]

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

[aardvark]

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:

[Ross_Geller]

@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:

[mikeymike]

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.

[sumner7]

There's no way that Lord of The Rings deserves 11 oscars. IT IS A CRAP FILM! :ranting:

[Glaucus]

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

[mikeymike]

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.

[sumner7]

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:

[aardvark]

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

[Glaucus]

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

[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*

[Ross_Geller]

@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

[Ross_Geller]

@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.

[Ross_Geller]

@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)

Which 9 are you saying it didn't deserve?

[that_punk_guy]

sumner7 wrote:
I agree too. Totally.  :afro:

Why do you keep replying to threads just to arbitrarily agree?

[Ross_Geller]

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.