ROTK and the Oscars

[aleclee]

11 nominations, 11 awards. Wow!

IMHO, it's payback for snubbing the previous flicks.

[Phil Macino]

Domination. :dude:

[Donk70]

The awards "Return of the King" won were: best picture, director (Peter Jackson), adapted screenplay (Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens), song ("Into the West"), score (Howard Shore), visual effects, art direction, costume design, makeup, sound mixing and film editing.

A-Hem, Mr. Jackson? Can you say "The Hobbit"?

[Michael Nolan]

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!!!

:dude: :dude: :dude:

[Scott Peterson]

It came down to the fact that even the Oscars couldn't ignore it anymore. Kudos the Jackson and the crew. Wow.

[Ripcom]

About time!

:dude: :dude: :dude:

[MVG]

Did they make smaller trophies for the Hobbits? And did Peter Jackson grab his Oscar, rub it lovingly and start muttering "My precious...my precious"?

Way to go ROTK! :dude:

[Craig Walker]

Lol, Mvg. :)

[aleclee]

And did Peter Jackson grab his Oscar, rub it lovingly and start muttering "My precious...my precious"?Did you see Gollum's acceptance speech (http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856) when he won an EmpTV movie award? Hilarious

[darial]

Well, all three were pretty good films, but I think they went downhill in some ways as the series went on. Each film was progressivly longer and less focused, and the careful efforts from the first film to edit the dialog to make it less ponderous were dropped. It was also disapointing to see sauron's cheesy "searchlight" after the excelent job that was done with the nazgul and the orcs. That and the "shield surfing" scene can go on the "What the hell were they thinking" list.

Basically I think after the success of the first film, and expecially the success of the extended (ugh, the later films needed to be cut, not extended) DVD, Jackson figured he could get away with almost anything and ceased to critically examine his own work. It's a shame really.

[Lerxt]

Well, all three were pretty good films, but I think they went downhill in some ways as the series went on. Each film was progressivly longer and less focused, and the careful efforts from the first film to edit the dialog to make it less ponderous were dropped. It was also disapointing to see sauron's cheesy "searchlight" after the excelent job that was done with the nazgul and the orcs. That and the "shield surfing" scene can go on the "What the hell were they thinking" list.

Basically I think after the success of the first film, and expecially the success of the extended (ugh, the later films needed to be cut, not extended) DVD, Jackson figured he could get away with almost anything and ceased to critically examine his own work. It's a shame really.

Darial, that's a pretty harsh assessment for a film that has 1) ALREADY become the second-highest grossing fim of all time behind "Titanic", and 2) just tied with "Ben Hur" and "Titanic" for the most Oscar wins (11). It's easy to nitpick these films (or anything else in life, for that matter), but to state that the LOTR films "went downhill" flies in the face of their commerical and critical success.

Jim

[Dan Desy]

OK, let me start off by saying I'm a big fan of the Peter Jackson trilogy, so nothing I say here has any reflection on it.

However...

I think the awards the movie got last night is total bull$hit! It's like the academy saying "OK, we've ignored the trilogy for two years, and everybody's criticizing us for it, so let's sell out and give the third one all the awards we can think of so people think we're nice guys"...

In fact, this is more of a reflection on the academy, and the "big annual slap on the back" TM exercize that the Academy Awards are. Jackson made a ton of money with the trilogy, that should have been a good enough testimony of how great his films are.

Why filmakers in general need to be in the spotlight on TV to congratulate each other is beyond me, and this late LOTR recognition doesn't do anything to make it any better in my eyes.

[aleclee]

I think the awards the movie got last night is total bull$hit! It's like the academy saying "OK, we've ignored the trilogy for two years, and everybody's criticizing us for it, so let's sell out and give the third one all the awards we can think of so people think we're nice guys"...Word.

[Lerxt]

>It's like the academy saying "OK, we've ignored the trilogy for two years, and everybody's criticizing us for it, so let's sell out and give the third one all the awards we can think of so people think we're nice guys"...

That's just the Acadamy's usual way of doing things: seems like you have to pay your dues and get nominated a couple of times and lose before you get your prize. I don't remember what Ron Howard finally won for, but it surely wasn't THAT much better than his previously nominated films. Same deal with Sean Penn: he gets nominated a couple of times and loses, then finally shows up to get his prize and a five minute ovation/love fest (very nauseating!).

I agree that I don't give a rat's behind about the Oscars, except that it's cool to see an outsider like Jackson win and to see ROTK win, when these kinds of films almost always lose out (Star Wars, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Matrix, etc.).

Jim

[MVG]

To quote those philosopher kings Steely Dan:

Show biz kids making movies
Of themselves you know they
Don't give a $#@! about anybody else

Don't know that its all that relevant to the thread. Just came to me...

[Dan Desy]

I still think that the fact theat all three movies grossed a gajillion dollars should be good enough proof that he did it right. This whole academy stuff is what I find nauseating.

[Christopher Wade]

I think the Academy intentionally ignored the first two, if only to avoid setting a precedent.

Let's say the first one won Best Picture. And then #2 and #3 come out and are better? Do they give it 3 Best Picture Oscars? That'd be kind of stupid. They intentionally waited, so as to honor the trilogy without letting Peter Jackson become the Yankees or Lakers of the Academy Awards.

Personally, I wishthey'd give two Best Picture Oscars. A CGI and non-CGI category so we can recognize the ones that made it on good acting and not $100 million worth of computer time. (Not that I disliked LOTR, it's just overboard.)

[Bruce O'Donnell]

I think the Academy intentionally ignored the first two, if only to avoid setting a precedent.

Let's say the first one won Best Picture. And then #2 and #3 come out and are better? Do they give it 3 Best Picture Oscars? Yes, they absolutely should have done that. The Academy set the precedent when it awarded Best Picture to The Godfather in 1972 and The Godfather II in 1974. To snub the first two LOTR and 'make up' for it by letting ROTK sweep shows what a joke the entire AMPAS voting is. There is no way that A Beautiful Mind was a better picture than TFOTR.

[Brewer]

Did you see Gollum's acceptance speech (http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856) when he won an EmpTV movie award? Hilarious
That was good.

[Christopher Wade]

Yes, they absolutely should have done that. The Academy set the precedent when it awarded Best Picture to The Godfather in 1972 and The Godfather II in 1974. There's a huge difference.

When they awarded Godfather Best Pic, they had no idea that Scorsese was going to make another. Sequels were rare.

But Jackson made a point of letting everyone know that 2 more were coming. It's incredibly doubtful, if not impossible for Academy members in 1972 to know that Godfather II would happen.

There is no way that A Beautiful Mind was a better picture than TFOTR. That's just opinion. There's no way that ROTK was a better film than Old School, and yet, there it was on Sunday. :D

[Rusmurf]

IMO it was the best movie up for best picture. If you saw all of them which I did, I would have voted for Rings easily over the others. I liked Lost in Translation too, Mystic River also. The Best Director award was a no brainer also.


Reu