|
How the people at oscar choose best picture (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Mute point by the nah-sayers.
The fact of the matter is that it did win all those Oscars.
And while the Trilogy was based on the books a lot of decisions have to be made from making the movie 10hrs long.
Honestly, when's the last time you watched a movie that was exactly like the book? :rolleyes:
This is an arguement that goes back to the first time movie makers started doing it.
IMO, The book 99% of the time always wins...
The best thing to do it just step back, forget the critiquing, and just enjoy the movie for what it is; an epic masterpiece of our time. :toocool: |
|
|
| MarkT |
I hoped that Lost in Translation would win...and was even stunned to see Bill Murray lose out to Sean Penn (although both performances were Oscar-worthy)...but figured LOTR would get it.
I don't know why anyone is surprised. Although I think the movie was worthy on its own, keep in mind this is a reward for the trilogy. Quite often Oscars are awarded (rightly or wrongly) for reasons beyond just THAT performance or THAT particular film. Whoopi Goldberg won for the super lame Ghost role, yet was passed over for Color Purple. Denzel for Training Day, but not for Glory or Malcolm X. It happens ALL the time. Diane Keaton won the Golden Globe (or SAG?) for that RIDICULOUS "old people feel-good" film over Charlize Theron...CLEARLY a reward for her body of work over the years. Titanic swept and wasn't HALF the movie that ANY of the LOTR movies were...I could go on and on and on.
With LOTR smashing records all over the place, with an excellent cast, despite no individual nominations, and with LOTR being the undisputed greatest adapted Trilogy ever made...yeah, it was going to win!!!
Anyone who didn't like the film is likely either A) not a fan of the fantasy genre in the firstplace or B) part of the hardcore Tolkien faithful who were upset at the changes. Regardless, you can't say it's a "bad" film... |
|
|
| che |
| Oscars are hollywood movie awards....for real film awards refer to Canes |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Tiesto shouldn't be nominated for ANY sort of mixing. |
Prog shouldnt even be considered a musical genre, it belongs in the classification of noise |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
Dude, your such an idiot, insinuating tons of things not even posted here. No one has stated they haven't read the books, and as for it being the 'cool thing" to bash it, I wasn't aware it was neccessary to agree with you that it was deserving.. considering the $$$$ it pulled in, and the awards and acclaim, wouldn't the popular thing be to lay more conformity-esque praise upon the film?
As a representative of Tolkien I'd agree Two Towers was the worst, but it was the best FILM out of the three for cinematography, pace, and acting (Fellowship was a snails pace with lots of cheese, but I still loved it). The only reason it lacked the Tolkien feel is they rammed most of TTT in the bloated piece of hollywood junk that was ROTK... it was simply TOO MUCH MOVIE.
As for reading the books, I hadn't read them in HS, saw Fellowship, thought it was ok but slow, read the books, loved them, and started HATING the movies for the amount of change lol. the biggest sacrilege committed had to be omitting the ENTIRE ENDING FROM ROTK.
Honestly, who the erases the end of a book? |
no need to call names little johnny.:rolleyes:
Anyway...whatever...we just don't agree. I've been a fan of LOTR since I was 11 and have read it 7 times. The cuts in Fellowship (Bombadil, Barrow Downs) make filmic sense, as does cutting the Scouring of the Shire in ROTK, though it should have been filmed and put on the marathon extended edition. It bothers me they cut Saruman though. But they didn't cut the entire ending...only one chapter really...but they had to cut the scouring and all the ewoyn-faramir stuff, but that will be on the DVD probably.
The Two Towers is still the worst in my opinion. The editing was the poorest of the three (quick cuts back and forth to the ents, then to frodo, then to aragorn...too many quick scenes). Story choice ups aside, The Two Towers is a very rushed film...I prefer the pace to Fellowship which has a very nice buildup and better acting. Ian Mckellen was much better in Fellowship and in my opinion, the best actor of the whole trilogy who SHOULD have been Aragorn...Sean Bean, was only in Fellowship. He delivered the best performance of the whole trilogy. |
|
|
| mezzanine |
Ok, the bottom line is that it was a year of crappy movies! I agree with those who say that if you nominate the third lotr with 11 oscars, then might as well split the 11 between all 3 movies and give 3 2/3 each :)
I proudly admit that having seen all 3 lotr's I only paid for the first one $12, which makes is $4 per movie (what IMO they are actually worth)! :D
I found that 3 most enjoyable movies that I've seen over the past year were (1) The Last Samurai (2) Kill Bill (3) American Wedding
The first two were definetely robbed!!!!!!! :mad:
| quote: | | Anyone who didn't like the film is likely either A) not a fan of the fantasy genre in the firstplace |
I'm definetely in category (A)! Well, all those in category (B) are just lame geeks, who probably play Dungeons and Dragons on their free time. :rolleyes: :crazy: |
|
|
| LoCa |
heh
I'm gonna go against the majority and say that i thought LOTR trilogy was absolutely excellent. :D
Obviously not everyone is going to feel that way about the movie and that's fine. There were some movies this year which i found extremely boring too but no need to bash :) I believe LOTR justly got what it deserved at those awards being recognised for the epic it is, and giving respect where due to Peter Jackson and all of his crew for taking the time to make the movie what it was, a massive tribute to a master of fantasy!
And for the people disappointed, no worries, there'll be no Lord of the Rings next year :D ;) |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Prog shouldnt even be considered a musical genre, it belongs in the classification of noise |
http://www.watmm.com/
;)
P.S prog ownz j00!:p |
|
|
| LAYLA-KEKET |
| It was good for what it was, but not for what it was suppose to be. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAYLA-KEKET
It was good for what it was, but not for what it was suppose to be. |
By that, I take it you mean it was a good film, but a poor adaptation of Tolkien? I've heard that a lot and agree and disagree at the same time. I think in many ways, they absolutely nailed most elements...but failed miserably in some others (Faramir in TTT, reversing the Entmoot, too much Arwen, not enough Eomer, the whole Aragron dying thing, Denethor was botched, cutting Saruman and Scouring, etc.)
But I feel sorry for people who can't seem to realise the scope and majesty of the films. I've heard more bitching about ROTK winning than I ever heard for Titanic or Braveheart and any LOTR movie owns those two hands down. |
|
|
| AmbiguousBliss |
| To this very day, I still have not watched any of the Lord of The Rings movies, (and speaking of popular movies) nor have I even watched The Matrix, for that matter. I did, however, watch Amelie (again!) the other night. :) |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| After the two Matrix sequels came out last year, I think it's safe to say that people have already forgotten about that franchise. |
|
|
|
|
