laff... I thought Lost in Translation WAS truly excellent... because, as Nem said. it really did revive a lost genre... reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's in many ways... and I think Bill should have gotten best actor for it, but that's about all else I think the film deserves besides screenplay...
yeah, I think LOTR deserved several awards, but not almost ALL of them... not best original score, probably not best editing...
btw am I alone in wishing Led Zeppelin was in the soundtrack to LOTR? Robert Plant is a regular Tolkien-phile, and no fewer than 4 of his songs have LOTR references... Misty Mountain Hop, the Battle of Evermore, Ramble On, Over the Hills and Far Away... and all 4 songs would fit wonderfully into the mood of the films... at least instrumental versions of the songs...
oh well, too late now <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I didn't see the oscars, and I'm far too uninterested in movies to have any opinion on where the oscars went (didn't see half the movies you discuss). But I might suspect that the decisions are colored by "mob opinions" rather than being a purely objective decision.
Because I almost fell asleep in the first of the trilogy (I'm not kidding), I didn't watch any of the rest, so I really don't know much about them. However, I would contend that the best special effects award should have gone to The Matrix Revolutions, and not Lord of the Rings.
In most of the commercials I saw for the Return of the King, the closeups on actors had a very "green screen" look to them. They felt so outlandish that they didn't click to me. It's not that they were in strange areas, but that the colors and constrast levels were skewed to the point that they had a very two dimensional look to them. The parts that really stand out in my memory were scenes with sky replacements that were overly contrasted to look "different". I didn't like them.
I do find it funny how people are applauding the awarding of best director to the guy who made Lord of the Rings (I think his name is Peter Jackson). I remember posts in this forum that were scorning him for cutting scenes out and/or changing them, along with the length of the film. I think the bias for the movie is clouding judgement, because I remember there being some displeasure in the progression of the story, which was directly attributed to the director.
There were some worthy contenders to some awards*, but I think the fandom/bias toward the series was too heavy for judgement to be completely objective. Many people (for some reason, I don't know) actually enjoyed reading the trilogy, so I can see how getting to see it on film would make you go a little overboard.
However, looking back one can see there weren't that many <b>great</b> movies in 2003: just like for Finding Nemo, there wasn't much competition.
In the end, I really don't care who wins and who doesn't. I flaunted A Beatiful Mind winning an Oscar over Lord of the Rings because I dislike the trilogy so much (and because I really wanted to tease those who do). But I didn't need to see "A WINNAR IS US" stamped on the video to like it. It doesn't matter to me, really.
*Other movies that <b>could</b> have been considered (to make those who want examples happy) (NOTE: I did not watch the Oscars)
X-2: X-Men United Kill Bill: Vol. 1 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl The Matrix: Revolutions Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines Identity
Med, sorry to say so, but if you haven't watched a movie, you can't really comment on its special effects. Trailers are not a good basis for judgement. I never saw Revolutions, so I'll leave it at that.
As for Jacksons Best Director award, it's warranted. Look at these forums: They're filled to the brim with people complaining about details of NS - yet, they keep playing. Just because Jackson made some controversial decisions doesn't mean he didn't do a damn great job as director.
Someone on the PA forums put it best to me; In regards to Lost in translation being a wonderful movie; <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is great, I'm so happy for it. I truly am, and I wish Sofia Coppola infinite success in any endeavor she should choose to undertake.
HOWEVER, the statement that the Oscars are not given for overall achievement over a period of more than one year is pretty much rubbish. Jackson's movies weren't given awards at all in 2002 or 2003 simply because they wanted to give it to them this year. Whether or not you agree that this is right or wrong, I don't know if you can say that he didn't deserve a certain amount of respect and appreciation from the movie industry for his undertaking. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Jackson did something that for nearly fifty years was thought to be impossible, and whether or not you want to say they were "the best movies ever" or just "good" the fact that he even managed to do it deserves something. I feel sorry for Sofia Coppolla, her movie was a fine thing, but it doesn't even come freaking CLOSE to Return of the King or the three previous movies. It may be deep, it may be insightful, people may say it was better so that they can seem intelligent and erudite, but for overall movie awesomeness, Return of the King deserved best picture. You can say she was "robbed" but you're wrong. The film that won actually deserved it for once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Mar 1 2004, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 1 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Med, sorry to say so, but if you haven't watched a movie, you can't really comment on its special effects. Trailers are not a good basis for judgement. I never saw Revolutions, so I'll leave it at that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you're not <b>really</b> sorry... but besides that, I did see parts of it, just not all. What I saw was similar to what was shown in the trailers and the original film, so I drew a conclusion. I suppose you're right, but I'm certainly not going to sit through that film to make sure I'm right, hehe.
<!--QuoteBegin-DiscoZombie+Mar 1 2004, 05:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Mar 1 2004, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> btw am I alone in wishing Led Zeppelin was in the soundtrack to LOTR? Robert Plant is a regular Tolkien-phile, and no fewer than 4 of his songs have LOTR references... Misty Mountain Hop, the Battle of Evermore, Ramble On, Over the Hills and Far Away... and all 4 songs would fit wonderfully into the mood of the films... at least instrumental versions of the songs... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you are not alone. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and despite of that, their musics would have been awsome in the film. Imagine, Battle of Evermore being played before an actuall LOTR battle!
Think City of God should have won cinematography... It is biased this oppinon, but have you guys seen the movie?! That film could have owned any movie.
The LotR film trilogy was pretty strange for me, I've read the books a couple times and am, of course, a fan of the series. I was really looking forward to seeing it on the big screen, then when it came I just couldn't get into them for some reason. I don't know if it was because I knew what was going to happen next or what, but I was surprised at how little I enjoyed them. I was impressed by what they were accomplishing, but not entertained. I can see how others enjoyed the films, and I'm not saying that they didn't deserve any oscars, far from it, I was mostly commenting on the Academy's habit of choosing the movie of the year and giving it a couple minor awards that it doesn't deserve. In particular, the editing one kills me. I fully understand what they wanted to do with the final film, and it was pretty true to the novels if i remember correctly (its been a couple years), but that doesn't necessarily make for a good film. I know theres a lot to cover after the climax of RotK, but the pacing was pretty slow and I don't think it needed to be. Another thing thats bothered me is that nobody was even nominated for acting in the film (except 2 years ago Ian McKellen for Fellowship). I'm a sucker for great acting, and while I don't think the acting was actually bad in the series, if a film wins 11 Oscars, none for acting (only 1 nomination), then what did we watch? Yes the special effects were impressive, so was the makeup, the sound mixing, etc, but I'm a firm believer that great acting makes great movies.
Obviously this isn't the kind of thing where anyone can 'win' the discussion, if you liked LotR nothing I can say will change your mind, nor should it. I actually wished that I had enjoyed them more. Its great news that the fantasy genre was taken seriously. My favorite geek movie last year was X-Men 2. Can't wait to see where they take that one.
Don't suppose anyone else sees my point about the Academy kind've "tossing in" bonus awards for the big movie of the year?
<i><b>Edit:</b> Oh my god, yes Led Zepplin would've been amazing. Do ochestral versions of the songs a la String Tribute to Tool. Also, I was thinking City Of God for cinematography too, there's some really beautiful shots there.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another thing thats bothered me is that nobody was even nominated for acting in the film (except 2 years ago Ian McKellen for Fellowship). I'm a sucker for great acting, and while I don't think the acting was actually bad in the series, if a film wins 11 Oscars, none for acting (only 1 nomination), then what did we watch? Yes the special effects were impressive, so was the makeup, the sound mixing, etc, but I'm a firm believer that great acting makes great movies.
Obviously this isn't the kind of thing where anyone can 'win' the discussion, if you liked LotR nothing I can say will change your mind, nor should it. I actually wished that I had enjoyed them more. Its great news that the fantasy genre was taken seriously. My favorite geek movie last year was X-Men 2. Can't wait to see where they take that one.
Don't suppose anyone else sees my point about the Academy kind've "tossing in" bonus awards for the big movie of the year?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm right there with you, man.
Look at the Achievement in Sound and Achievement in Sound Editing awards. Master & Commander won the sound editing award, but it didn't win the sound award. I think that's as good an example of padding the big movie's pockets as you can get. I don't really know why LotR won so many awards, but didn't get any acting nods. I don't think that Viggo Mortensen is a particularly outstanding actor, but Ian McKellen is a great actor and Sean Astin should have probably gotten at least a nomination for supporting actor.
I also don't like how when I say things like "Sofia Coppola should have gotten best director," all of the LotR fanbois translate it to mean, "I'm going to rape Tolkien's corpse because I hate his books." I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit. But I really do think that Return of the King was carried, in no small part, by the Lord of the Rings brand name and the success of the previous two movies. The battle for Minas Tirith wasn't nearly so spectacular as the siege of Helm's Deep. It relied too much on special effects and not enough on acting and the personal story.
I'd like to further point out that LOTR won neither screen play nor acting awards, so even moreso what you were watching was special effects.
I'll go back to my statement of a few years ago when Titanic won 13 oscars and Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson won best actor and actress
"Titanic was watching 300 million dollars of special effects flood a boat for 3 hours, As Good as it Gets was watching priceless talent that won't lose it's novelty after 3 years."
Anyway Bill Murray deserved the oscar nod, if they were somehow obligated to give Peter Jackson best director.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also don't like how when I say things like "Sofia Coppola should have gotten best director," all of the LotR fanbois translate it to mean, "I'm going to rape Tolkien's corpse because I hate his books." I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit. But I really do think that Return of the King was carried, in no small part, by the Lord of the Rings brand name and the success of the previous two movies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah. I don't know about the success of the previous 2, I don't really separate the 3 in my head. I'm fine with them awarding RotK as a symbolic honor for the trilogy, I don't even prefer any of the movies. They were so consistent that I think of them all the same, unfortunately I wasn't all that entertained by any.
Another thing was that I didn't really like the cgi (although it was the most technically impressive of the nominees. How was Matrix not nominated?). I never really like cgi in a movie. I really hated when Lucas re-released the original star wars movies. Well not exactly, the space scenes were enhanced by the cgi, and filling in some of the backgrounds with more stuff was okay. I really hated the band playing in the Tatooine cantina (i have no idea if any of that is spelled properly or even the right place). I really liked the original puppets. Of course everyone hated Jar Jar, but I was amazed that people liked the scene where Yoda fights. That was awful. Cgi isn't at that place where its good enough to fool the eye with living characters. Case in point, Matrix Reloaded: burly brawl. I believe that was the most technically advanced scene ever rendered. Even though the LotR scenes were on a much larger scale, that doesn't mean anything to a film like that, except longer render times. For the Matrix I believe they were using Military grade light analyzers to take samples from the actors skin and costumes. After all that, the scene still undergoes an obvious switch-over to cg during the fight and I found it distracting. I much prefered the highway scene, I was a more interesting fight sequence (burly brawl was way to complex to actually take in) and I didn't think the cg was distracting from the scene.
Yeah im with Dr_Shaggy on the CGI front, its an amazing feat to have made it as realistic as it is, but its just not realistic enough, you can clearly see the parts which are CGI and which are using real actors, and the actors look a million times better. One time when this fact is clearly demonstrated is in the Alien films, the Alien in Alien3 looked far worse and far less scary than those in Aliens (well when they use CGI, not necessarily when suited and booted) even on the scenes when they have to show movement.
Anyway, even as a fan of fantasy (although i will admit to never having read the books completely) ive gotta say that I enjoyed fellowship hugely, but found Two Towers more of the same, but not quite as eye-openingly cool. While i actually disliked ROTK, the end sequence, while possibly necessary, was absolutely painfull to watch, and has disuaded me from watching that film again for the next couple of years, just because of that last half an hour or so (thats how long it seemed to me anyway). And ontop of this the whole film seemed to drag on for me, kinda the opposite of Episode two, which packed too much into two hours, it gave too much time to minor things and spread itself out over more time than needed.
Which kinda left me with a sour taste about it, i felt as if Peter Jackson felt like he had to make it longer than the previous two, even if it wasnt necessary, just to make sure people didnt write it off or anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jragon+Mar 1 2004, 05:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jragon @ Mar 1 2004, 05:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> oscars is so phony i bet they just give the prize to the girl witht he biggest......teeth..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hmmmmm.....no.
Comments
yeah, I think LOTR deserved several awards, but not almost ALL of them... not best original score, probably not best editing...
btw am I alone in wishing Led Zeppelin was in the soundtrack to LOTR? Robert Plant is a regular Tolkien-phile, and no fewer than 4 of his songs have LOTR references... Misty Mountain Hop, the Battle of Evermore, Ramble On, Over the Hills and Far Away... and all 4 songs would fit wonderfully into the mood of the films... at least instrumental versions of the songs...
oh well, too late now <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In most of the commercials I saw for the Return of the King, the closeups on actors had a very "green screen" look to them. They felt so outlandish that they didn't click to me. It's not that they were in strange areas, but that the colors and constrast levels were skewed to the point that they had a very two dimensional look to them. The parts that really stand out in my memory were scenes with sky replacements that were overly contrasted to look "different". I didn't like them.
I do find it funny how people are applauding the awarding of best director to the guy who made Lord of the Rings (I think his name is Peter Jackson). I remember posts in this forum that were scorning him for cutting scenes out and/or changing them, along with the length of the film. I think the bias for the movie is clouding judgement, because I remember there being some displeasure in the progression of the story, which was directly attributed to the director.
There were some worthy contenders to some awards*, but I think the fandom/bias toward the series was too heavy for judgement to be completely objective. Many people (for some reason, I don't know) actually enjoyed reading the trilogy, so I can see how getting to see it on film would make you go a little overboard.
However, looking back one can see there weren't that many <b>great</b> movies in 2003: just like for Finding Nemo, there wasn't much competition.
In the end, I really don't care who wins and who doesn't. I flaunted A Beatiful Mind winning an Oscar over Lord of the Rings because I dislike the trilogy so much (and because I really wanted to tease those who do). But I didn't need to see "A WINNAR IS US" stamped on the video to like it. It doesn't matter to me, really.
*Other movies that <b>could</b> have been considered (to make those who want examples happy)
(NOTE: I did not watch the Oscars)
X-2: X-Men United
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
The Matrix: Revolutions
Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines
Identity
<a href='http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/rtawards/index.php?type_intro=yes&type=c' target='_blank'>http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/rta...ntro=yes&type=c</a>
As for Jacksons Best Director award, it's warranted. Look at these forums: They're filled to the brim with people complaining about details of NS - yet, they keep playing. Just because Jackson made some controversial decisions doesn't mean he didn't do a damn great job as director.
In regards to Lost in translation being a wonderful movie;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
That is great, I'm so happy for it. I truly am, and I wish Sofia Coppola infinite success in any endeavor she should choose to undertake.
HOWEVER, the statement that the Oscars are not given for overall achievement over a period of more than one year is pretty much rubbish. Jackson's movies weren't given awards at all in 2002 or 2003 simply because they wanted to give it to them this year. Whether or not you agree that this is right or wrong, I don't know if you can say that he didn't deserve a certain amount of respect and appreciation from the movie industry for his undertaking. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Jackson did something that for nearly fifty years was thought to be impossible, and whether or not you want to say they were "the best movies ever" or just "good" the fact that he even managed to do it deserves something. I feel sorry for Sofia Coppolla, her movie was a fine thing, but it doesn't even come freaking CLOSE to Return of the King or the three previous movies. It may be deep, it may be insightful, people may say it was better so that they can seem intelligent and erudite, but for overall movie awesomeness, Return of the King deserved best picture. You can say she was "robbed" but you're wrong. The film that won actually deserved it for once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you're not <b>really</b> sorry... but besides that, I did see parts of it, just not all. What I saw was similar to what was shown in the trailers and the original film, so I drew a conclusion. I suppose you're right, but I'm certainly not going to sit through that film to make sure I'm right, hehe.
No, you are not alone. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and despite of that, their musics would have been awsome in the film. Imagine, Battle of Evermore being played before an actuall LOTR battle!
Think City of God should have won cinematography... It is biased this oppinon, but have you guys seen the movie?! That film could have owned any movie.
Another thing thats bothered me is that nobody was even nominated for acting in the film (except 2 years ago Ian McKellen for Fellowship). I'm a sucker for great acting, and while I don't think the acting was actually bad in the series, if a film wins 11 Oscars, none for acting (only 1 nomination), then what did we watch? Yes the special effects were impressive, so was the makeup, the sound mixing, etc, but I'm a firm believer that great acting makes great movies.
Obviously this isn't the kind of thing where anyone can 'win' the discussion, if you liked LotR nothing I can say will change your mind, nor should it. I actually wished that I had enjoyed them more. Its great news that the fantasy genre was taken seriously. My favorite geek movie last year was X-Men 2. Can't wait to see where they take that one.
Don't suppose anyone else sees my point about the Academy kind've "tossing in" bonus awards for the big movie of the year?
<i><b>Edit:</b> Oh my god, yes Led Zepplin would've been amazing. Do ochestral versions of the songs a la String Tribute to Tool. Also, I was thinking City Of God for cinematography too, there's some really beautiful shots there.</i>
Obviously this isn't the kind of thing where anyone can 'win' the discussion, if you liked LotR nothing I can say will change your mind, nor should it. I actually wished that I had enjoyed them more. Its great news that the fantasy genre was taken seriously. My favorite geek movie last year was X-Men 2. Can't wait to see where they take that one.
Don't suppose anyone else sees my point about the Academy kind've "tossing in" bonus awards for the big movie of the year?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm right there with you, man.
Look at the Achievement in Sound and Achievement in Sound Editing awards. Master & Commander won the sound editing award, but it didn't win the sound award. I think that's as good an example of padding the big movie's pockets as you can get. I don't really know why LotR won so many awards, but didn't get any acting nods. I don't think that Viggo Mortensen is a particularly outstanding actor, but Ian McKellen is a great actor and Sean Astin should have probably gotten at least a nomination for supporting actor.
I also don't like how when I say things like "Sofia Coppola should have gotten best director," all of the LotR fanbois translate it to mean, "I'm going to rape Tolkien's corpse because I hate his books." I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit. But I really do think that Return of the King was carried, in no small part, by the Lord of the Rings brand name and the success of the previous two movies. The battle for Minas Tirith wasn't nearly so spectacular as the siege of Helm's Deep. It relied too much on special effects and not enough on acting and the personal story.
I'll go back to my statement of a few years ago when Titanic won 13 oscars and Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson won best actor and actress
"Titanic was watching 300 million dollars of special effects flood a boat for 3 hours, As Good as it Gets was watching priceless talent that won't lose it's novelty after 3 years."
Anyway Bill Murray deserved the oscar nod, if they were somehow obligated to give Peter Jackson best director.
Oh yeah. I don't know about the success of the previous 2, I don't really separate the 3 in my head. I'm fine with them awarding RotK as a symbolic honor for the trilogy, I don't even prefer any of the movies. They were so consistent that I think of them all the same, unfortunately I wasn't all that entertained by any.
Another thing was that I didn't really like the cgi (although it was the most technically impressive of the nominees. How was Matrix not nominated?). I never really like cgi in a movie. I really hated when Lucas re-released the original star wars movies. Well not exactly, the space scenes were enhanced by the cgi, and filling in some of the backgrounds with more stuff was okay. I really hated the band playing in the Tatooine cantina (i have no idea if any of that is spelled properly or even the right place). I really liked the original puppets. Of course everyone hated Jar Jar, but I was amazed that people liked the scene where Yoda fights. That was awful. Cgi isn't at that place where its good enough to fool the eye with living characters. Case in point, Matrix Reloaded: burly brawl. I believe that was the most technically advanced scene ever rendered. Even though the LotR scenes were on a much larger scale, that doesn't mean anything to a film like that, except longer render times. For the Matrix I believe they were using Military grade light analyzers to take samples from the actors skin and costumes. After all that, the scene still undergoes an obvious switch-over to cg during the fight and I found it distracting. I much prefered the highway scene, I was a more interesting fight sequence (burly brawl was way to complex to actually take in) and I didn't think the cg was distracting from the scene.
One time when this fact is clearly demonstrated is in the Alien films, the Alien in Alien3 looked far worse and far less scary than those in Aliens (well when they use CGI, not necessarily when suited and booted) even on the scenes when they have to show movement.
Anyway, even as a fan of fantasy (although i will admit to never having read the books completely) ive gotta say that I enjoyed fellowship hugely, but found Two Towers more of the same, but not quite as eye-openingly cool.
While i actually disliked ROTK, the end sequence, while possibly necessary, was absolutely painfull to watch, and has disuaded me from watching that film again for the next couple of years, just because of that last half an hour or so (thats how long it seemed to me anyway). And ontop of this the whole film seemed to drag on for me, kinda the opposite of Episode two, which packed too much into two hours, it gave too much time to minor things and spread itself out over more time than needed.
Which kinda left me with a sour taste about it, i felt as if Peter Jackson felt like he had to make it longer than the previous two, even if it wasnt necessary, just to make sure people didnt write it off or anything.
hmmmmm.....no.