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

[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

[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

[Glaucus]

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:



Dumb and Dumber

:-D

  - Mike

[Glaucus]

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