Up for Oscars !!! [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

ReadWryt

01-01-2002, 11:57 PM

I don't believe that they have a special designation for Adaptation of Books to Screenplay. I doubt seriously that this film will get nominated for Best Screenplay, not for any of the reasons that I personally disliked it for, but because it had nothing that set it apart from the pack. With movies like "Memento", "In The Bedroom", "A Beautifull Mind", "I am Sam" and "Gosford Park" out there I think that someone would have to do some justificational back flips to explain why Fellowship of the Ring should be recognised above any of these.

It's going to take Effects for certain, and maybe a sentimental win for Director in that it WAS a most monumental task for him to get this done as he did it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I suspect Altman will win that for "Gosford Park" myself.

Best Film is another that I doubt it or Potter will even get nominated for. I fail to see how it was a better film then any I mention above just because it is based on a story I love or because it had huge special effects.

As for Cinematography, I would be hard pressed to be forced to choose between This movie and Moulin Rouge...

Greenwood

01-02-2002, 12:04 AM

I don't believe that they have a special designation for Adaptation of Books to Screenplay.

The Oscars do indeed have two screenplay categories:

Best Original Screenplay
Best Adaptation From Another Medium

Also we are talking here about nominations, not wins. I expect FOTR will pick up at least 3 - 5 nominations, maybe more.

chrome_rocknave

01-02-2002, 02:40 AM

I hope it wins some awards --not including best screen adaptation:eek: However, I'm sure that it will get cheated out of the awards that it does deserve by some other film..... There have been alot of "critically acclaimed" movies this year and no matter how good LOTR is....I dont think it will get as many as it deserves (I hope it does though :D )....

ReadWryt

01-02-2002, 01:53 PM

What, outside of Directing and Effects, do you suppose it might get "cheated out"of? I mean, we are talking about it going up against some heavy hitters...Moulin Rouge is going to get serious concideration for Score and Cinematography, "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" will get a nod for Score as well probably, but I'm not certain on that one. Memento will probably get a nomination for Cinematography and Directing, as will, in my opinion, "Gosford Park". In fact I think the latter is a strong contender for Best Film as well...Remember that the voting members of the Academy are not necessarily Tolkien Fans as we are, so the fact that it is Lord of the Rings will only take it so far...Bear in mind that for Effects it will be up against "Planet of the Apes", "Pearl Harbor" and possibly "Moulin Rouge". As for the rest of the awards, in an era of overt patriotism, I'm not ruling out the Flag Waving Factor where "Pearl Harbor" is concerned...

lilhobo

01-02-2002, 02:50 PM

man if Pearl Harbour wins anything but effects i aint watching another hollywood movie :D

patriotism is one thing but slosh is another

PS. the panoramic views will get PJ something or other

PRH

01-02-2002, 06:15 PM

Don't forget, the Academy is somewhat of a good 'ol boys club. FOTR may very well get some degree of snubbing due to the fact that the production had nothing to do with Hollywood but New Zealand rather. It's widely held that Lucas suffered from this brand of snubbing on the Phantom Menace.

lilhobo

01-02-2002, 06:18 PM

phantom menace was total slosh!!!! Virgin birth ohhhhhhhhhhhhh come on !!! lol :D

Curufinwe

01-02-2002, 11:39 PM

If FOTR get's snubbed then Moulin Rouge would have to be snubbed cause it was made in Australia.

Earnil

01-03-2002, 12:02 PM

I'm expecting very few Oscars/Academies for FOTR.
The only ones I think it has any chance of getting nominated for and winning are:

Best Adaption
Special Effects
Costuming and Makeup

While others may think that it will get nominated for awards such as Best Film and Best Director and Best Actor, I don't think there is any chance that FOTR will get even nominations for these awards. And it is mostly because FOTR is not a Hollywood movie, and I don't think the Academies nominate films that aren't Hollywood movies.

ReadWryt

01-03-2002, 12:43 PM

Oh HELL yeah, I completely forgot about the superb costuming! Sheesh, I feel stupid because that catagory never crossed my mind at all. As for Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published...well, remember...Vanilla Sky, Moulin Rouge and Planet of the Apes all fall into that catagory as well.

Another that I suspect this film is not only worthy of nomination for but also would like to see in contention is ACADEMY AWARD OF MERIT which as the Academy Web Site states is for "...basic achievements which have a definite influence upon the advancement of the industry.". (www.oscar.org)

Art Direction might well be a shoe in for nomination, as would be Sound Editing...

loser093

01-05-2002, 07:43 AM

yea! i heard they got a couple oscar nominations.
i reaaaally hope they get the BEST MOVIE award.
they really deserve it.
it was terrific.
(i really hope crowe's beautiful mind doesn't win more than it really deserves...crowe's had his slice of pie...no offense to crowe fans)

Arwen

01-05-2002, 11:08 AM

If it does win best picture then i think for the next 3 years at the Oscars it will keep winning it.....alot of movies are going to be challenge for awards with these films.
But i also hope Moulin Rouge and The Others gets awards too, becuase they were both fantastic films.

Curufinwe

01-05-2002, 11:15 AM

And also due to the fact that they have nicole kidman in them.

ReadWryt

01-05-2002, 01:14 PM

I'm actually starting to believe that with Gosford Park and A Beutifull Mind out there, this movie doesn't stand a snowball's chance on Orodruin of winning "Best Picture". It might be the best fantasy film of the year, but it's hardly the best movie screened in the past 12 months...

Foe-Hammer

01-05-2002, 06:27 PM

Since the producers have to campaign to get their movie nominated, it's nomination, or winning of an oscar, is not a true reflection of it's greatness. (IE American Beauty)
If the producers spend enough, it'll get nominated. If the movie fits the politics of the acadamy for that year, it'll win.

aragil

01-05-2002, 11:46 PM

I liked Gladiator, but there's no way that was the best movie to hit the screens last year. I thought Crouching Tiger and Cast Away were much better films, better messages, etc. I haven't seen Gosford Park, nor did it even visit my small Town. That being said, I don't recall a movie in the past ten years being nominated for Best Picture and not beeing shown here. I'm not saying that Gosford Park isn't a good movie, I'm saying that the politics in the Academy do not favor 'smaller' productions like Gosford Park, or foreign films like Crouching Tiger. The Academy likes epics (Gladiator, Braveheart, English Patient) and apparently love stories (English Patient again, Shakespeare in Love) so Moulin Rouge has a shot. I definitely think that Fellowship has a good shot at being nominated, but I tend to agree that Pearl Harbor has the best shot of winning because of the flag-waving going on right now (I haven't seen it but I heard it was abysmal on many levels). Personally I'd love to see Fellowship win, but I kind of doubt that the Academy would pick Gladiator and Fellowship in consecutive years.

Greenwood

01-06-2002, 06:00 AM

The movie picked up the American Film Institute's award for Best Picture of the Year tonight (1/5/2002). I hope the extreme purists have good dental plans. I can here the gnashing of teeth from here. :) :)

I think the film will be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, but I would give less than even money on a win.

Arwen

01-06-2002, 06:24 AM

I agree Gladiator didnt deserve the besy picture award...it was far from it.

ReadWryt

01-06-2002, 08:32 AM

My feelings about what Jackson did in the making of this film aside, you will never see me say that it is a BAD film. I just, in my opinion, fail to see what made it better then "A Beautifull Mind", "In the Bedroom", "Mulhollond Drive" or "Blackhawk Down"... Not to diminish it's winning any, not that I could...it IS quite the achievement to get that award, but I am left wondering...If it wasn't the Screenplay, Editing, Directing, Score or Acting, as it won no awards for these things, then how does the Digital Artistry and Production Design win a film such an honor? ...just a niggling question that struck me... I mean, conversely, how do so many films with so many other nominations NOT win? It just seemed odd, and actually stuck me when I noticed that the movie wasn't even nominated for Screenplay, Cinematography or Director...*Shrug*

ReadWryt

01-06-2002, 11:03 AM

Lets face it Harad, if you can't believe that I am being frank and honest when I say "My feelings about what Jackson did in the making of this film aside, you will never see me say that it is a BAD film." then you are perfectly welcome to ignore my posts, as you so obviously think me a liar.

If you think it impossible for YOU to separate the Content and Quality of a movie, then I feel sorry for you. You will never be able to see the many amazing features and the astounding craftsmanship in a movie simply because you have so much..."bagage". I for one can separate myself, and even when I really don't LIKE a movie like "Moulin Rouge" I can recognize the incredible achievement in Cinematography, Editing and Effects...I actually didn't care for "Mulholland Drive" much, but appreciate the Editing and Directing. Why I even have Fundimentalist Christian friends who, although aghast at the irreverent manner in the telling of the story, picked out the remarkable Sound Design, Cinematography, Directing and Acting in "The Last Temptation of Christ". I would hope that in the future you might think before presuming the thoughts that color my opinions where the Cinematic Arts are concerned...

Otherwise, I would urge you to go look at what I posted over a week ago in the "The Directing and Producing of the film" thread...

Gandalf T'Grey

01-06-2002, 02:24 PM

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1010293507

LOTR-FOTR:

Jim Rygel was the first to receive the award for Best Digital Effects of the year.

Grant Major then accepted the award for Production Design.

The biggest award of the night, Best Picture of the Year was taken by LOTR as well!

More and pics on the site.

belfong

01-07-2002, 05:24 AM

PJ will definitely get Best Director Oscar but not this year.
I figure he will get it after The Return of the King. The Academy will then recognize his 2 years 3 movies at one go stint, which, we must admit, no director has ever taken such a monumental task. Until then, he has to wait for 2 years!

JanitorofAngmar

01-07-2002, 04:31 PM

The oscars are quickly becoming a bit of a farce. It is well realized in tinseltown that the way to an oscar is by kissing generous amounts of a$$. I think 60 minutes did a peice on that subject.

It no longer comes down to (and maybe never did) the quality of a movie or acting. That just gets you in the door. It's how much stuff you send to the people who vote (and that's no secret anymore) in the name of your movie. It's how much advertising you do for your movie in the SAG newspaper.

I was told by a director about 6 or 7 years ago that the GG (or maybe people's choice?? I can't remember which) awards are a much better measure of the true "best of the best" as the oscars are tainted.

It used to be that the oscars were "the award" and the GG (or PCs?) were a joke. Slowly we are seeing signs that things are reversing this old trend... or so I was informed.

JoA

Greenwood

01-07-2002, 04:39 PM

JanitorofAngmar

The big studios have always mounted campaigns for their stars and their movies. In some cases they mounted campaigns for stars that they knew had no chance but did it just to keep their star happy and to massage their egos.

The Golden Globes and the People's Choice Awards each have their own taints and both are just as vulnerable to lobbying campaigns by the studios as the Oscars are.

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 06:48 PM

I don't think that they'll do too well. It's made in New Zealand, by a director from New Zealand and all the characters have English accents! Not good Oscars material from past years!
Heard that Sir Ian McKellen might be nominated for Best Actor, which is well deserved. But no news about the rest.

I'm really interested in how it all goes in the 2004 Oscars!

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 08:23 PM

Shakespeare in Love was an Anglo-American project, basically we provided the talent and they provided the money! Chariots of Fire was 20 years ago (times move on) and I can't really comment on the Enlish Patient. Hollywood doesn't favour foreighners -it's a fact! Four Weddings, The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Billy Elliot, all great movies, got peanuts at the Oscars. Baz Luhrman has never really been noted before, despite all his achievments and unless they provide the money in the first place most movies don't eben get made over here!
It is not fair and it is an issue!
Raaaaaaaa!

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 08:34 PM

Huh? If it wins, it won't be American, because it's not American! If it wins, it's because it deserved it!

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 09:04 PM

Ouch Harad!
I'm just saying that the Oscars isn't the most unbiased ceremony that takes place and the odds are, if you aren't based, from or financed by America you don't have a great deal of a chance. Yes, it is financed by America, but where else would the money have come from? If you want to make a film in Britain you'll have a hard job even making it in the first place and I know.
The whole New Zealand connection with Lord of the Rings may have an effect on it's awards, if it does reaaly well at the oscars then I will take it all back and claim that it's all hunky-dory and pure as the driven snow.
I apologise to you for been "inconsistent", though I'm not sure how I was. I don't like all these arguments that break out on this forum, it's only a book and a movie, however good they are, when all's said and done. So I'll stop now, and call pax.

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 09:14 PM

Thanks for that! What is your experiment by the way?

tookish-girl

01-07-2002, 09:31 PM

Ahhh, I see.
Will look forward to unraveling your mystery, I've been wondering for a bit now, well, going to go and get something to eat. What a useless post this is!

Deathknell

01-07-2002, 10:40 PM

In 1998 I boycotted the Oscars permanently. I wouldn't watch the Oscar ceremony even if my favorite film was up for every single award possible. This is because I believe the AMPAS board members are hopelessly biased and far too jaded to really put awards where they go when it really counts.

Steven Spielberg won Best Director for Saving Private Ryan that year. Saving Private Ryan won Best Sound, Best Cinematography, and a couple of other bests, I think maybe costumes and makeup or something. Saving Private Ryan was in my opinion the best picture of the year.

However, Shakespeare in Love - a work of complete fiction about Shakespeare's love life- about which precious little is known - wins Best Picture. It's touted as a triumph of a small film studio against the "big boys" and a classic piece of filmmaking. I thought the film was boring and stupid. That's my opinion. It was vacuous, stilted and filled with utter conjecture regarding Shakespeare.

Saving Private Ryan, on the other hand, was based on real historical events, delivered the audience into the profoundly awful pivotal battle of World War II, developed each character thoroughly and individually, brought us to a powerful self-examination and utterly vindicated an entire generation of Americans. And it didn't win Best Picture.

I will never again watch the Academy Awards. They meant little to me to begin with, and mean even less to me now. I side with George C. Scott on the Academy Awards - it's little more than a popularity contest.

Greenwood

01-07-2002, 11:10 PM

Hollywood doesn't favour foreighners -it's a fact!

Who was that Italian guy climbing over the seats a year or so back? :) :)

That aside. Yes, of course the Oscar's favor Hollywood and big studio films. Most of the voters are based there.

River'sDaughter

01-08-2002, 01:57 AM

I am newcomer to this forum but not to LOTR. I have read the books 20 times over the last 40 years and wondered how I would react to the movie. Well, I've seen it three times and each time it has been better than the last. It is one of the best movies I have seen. It deserves an Oscar and so does Sir Ian. His Gandalf was everything Gandalf should be. Just watching his eyes was an experience. Needless to say, I'll probably see it 3 more times before it comes out on DVD then I can watch it at my leisure.

Jamesy

01-08-2002, 04:03 AM

I certainly can't argue with you there Harad, you make an excellent point.

markrob

01-08-2002, 04:14 AM

Jamesy,

I have noticed you have agreed with a lot of FAD's point of views, which I of coarse think is great. However, and I do not wish to pick a fight or quarrel, but did u not start the thread about bashing PJ (you may look like a hobbit.....). If so , why the sudden change? Maybe you are doing it in jest or sarcasm, maybe not. But I am indeed puzzled. Please help. :confused:

Luna

01-08-2002, 05:15 AM

I was watching the American Film Institute's Awards show the other night, and FOTR won for best film, as well as other awards. I think the movie stands a good chance of winning an Oscar or two. Did anyone else watch the AFI Awards?

Luna

01-08-2002, 05:17 AM

By the way, welcome to the forum River's Daughter!:)

ReadWryt

01-08-2002, 11:12 PM

In thinking back, I'm comming to be of the opinion that the task that Jackson is performing is not any more daunting then many have succeeded in before, in so far as his claim of being the first at making three films at once is concerned. In fact, I think the task of making THIS book into a movie was harder then shooting 3 three hour movies. Had the makers of the Dune mini-series at USA Studios thought ahead and called each of the three installments "A Film", they could have made the claim themsleves. All 12 hours of "Roots" was filmed in a simillar manner to LotR, as were the 10 hour "Shogun" and "Band of Brothers".

Ron Howard and Tom Hanks made the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon" in about the same amount of time as LotR took to shoot, and granted they were not spread out all over an island while doing it, but the effects and the fact that they shot more then twice the number of hours of program makes me realize that, although he did an astounding job at overcoming daunting and incredible odds in bringing this film together, Jackson's claims about being the first to make 3 films at once are over blown and really shouldn't be considered by anyone when making descisions about awarding kudos and little gold statues.

As far as Harad's statement about the Academy and their bias, it's all too sadly true. Every so often they hand out an award that surprises the hell out of me, like the year that Coppola's "Heaven's Gate", a film that had the dubious distinction of not only opening and closing within the same week in New York, but also nearly destroyed the finances of the studio that made it, won the Oscar for best Production Design. Outside of that though, a Director usually has to beat the academy over the head to win the "Best Director" award. Remember that Steven Spielburg had directed three of the highest grossing movies, "Jaws", "Close Encounters" and "E.T.", and had made such delightfully crafted films as "The color purple" and the Indiana Jones movies before ever being recognized. We all thought that it was some anti-zionist thing for a while, until he won for "Schindler's List".

The Academy is RIFE with political bias, and the voting component is made up of people who make their living in the business, most of whom work in the U.S. and for U.S. studios. These are people who, for whatever reason, resent the fact that Jackson shot his film in, employed almost exclusively from and spent all his money in New Zealand. Sadly, this is the kind of thing that can cause many a great film to be overlooked by the stuffed shirts, blue OR white collared, in the Academy.

Luna

01-09-2002, 08:11 AM

I don't usually watch awards shows because like you both said, it all seems rigged somehow...I get tired of watching films win awards that didn't really deserve it, while worthy films get nothing more than a nomination. But I was curious to see if FOTR would win for anything. When it won for best film of the year there was actually a group of people who accepted, among them Elijah Wood and the guy who played Sam (sorry can't think of his name right offhand) but you know, I don't think PJ was among them. But then maybe I didn't notice in my excitement.
To tell the truth, I thought the movie would be overlooked, as all my favorite movies are. :rolleyes:
Since I don't pay much attention to awards I can't say as I noticed if this one was on last year, but I'm sure it was.

Luna

01-09-2002, 09:33 AM

I agree...a fine way to start things off. But like I said, I try not to pay attention to awards unless I am overcome by curiosity and feel like throwing things at the TV or just plain bored.

ReadWryt

01-09-2002, 01:45 PM

I'm sorry, I just don't see a whole heck of a lot of difference between turning chunks of New Zealand into Middle-earth and turning English Real Estate into England, France, Germany and Austria circa 1943-47 as was done with "Band of Brothers", or dealing with as many actors as were in "From the Earth to the Moon" as well as the Special Effects budget. Remember, they stood to be under as much fire, if not more, on the latter project because although none of us were living in Middle-earth in the Third Age, a good many folks, myself included, were indeed watching the show looking for incontinuity in the period work involved in depicting the late 60s.

Anyways, I'm just hoping that the politically inbred academy voters can get over thier personal beefs with Jackson and New Line long enough to give this movie credit where it is due. I'm allready hearing rumblings about Hollywood Unions gearing up to urge members to vote for anything BUT LotR. :mad:

ReadWryt

01-11-2002, 04:27 PM

I'm just not convinced that mounting a 12, 10 or 8 hour production with casts that huge and locations that have to actually match reality are any less daunting then shooting 9 hours of story based in a world nobody has actually seen. *Shrug*

Rupert Thorne

01-12-2002, 05:14 AM

I read the first book and I feel that the screenplay was written the best way possible being that so much could only be told in 3hrs.I know that in the book time does pass quite a bit in many situations and that is where I think the genius comes in for adapting those sections of the book for screen. i.e.,the time that Frodo holds the ring to the time that Gandolf comes back to send him off is a problem that clearly was solved by the adaptation to screen.We all know Frodo is older but hey,would it have made sense when it comes down to bringing it to the screen?And Sam?We know he is Frodos good friend for many years in the book,People may feel that the movie doesn't express that enough.I say that the same people that say this need to change the prescription on their bifocals.It's a trilogy and there is enough time room for more dev. as opposed to StarWars,which was originally made to be a one picture deal that eventually graced audiences with 2 sequals after the success of the first.:D

ReadWryt

01-12-2002, 07:13 AM

I'll tell you this, there is nothing in the running that I would think could beat it out for Production Design! It's really, hands down, gotta be the best looking and most completely believable as well as impressive production design job since "What Dreams may Come".

Rupert Thorne

01-14-2002, 12:30 AM

Thanks for the welcome Harad and yes I do believe this film will get Oscars. This movie is too impotant a film not to get rewards for its triumphs as an epic adventure story with strong performances. Ian must get the Oscar for his role as Gandolf. His role was the standout performace of the year so far! Just as the critics have said, "an example of what acting is supposed to be". I also think Fellowship should get Best Picture.:p

Hein

01-14-2002, 04:19 PM

I saw and liked it very much. I had my doubts about this movie but I really think PJ did a fantastic job. Name one guy who could have done it better then PJ.
Ofcourse he also used his own imagination in this movie but otherwise the movie would be ****. I was thinking about it a week ago and if you would tell / show the story as it is in the book then it would have been a really boring movie if you ask me. He took the good things (and the most important things) out of the book and created a kick ass movie without killing the actual story. He deservers an oscar (whatever the oscar is good for) for that if you ask me.
There are 2 things now, the BOOK and the MOVIE which are 2 seperate things but I like both of them (okay, the book is superiour but every book is superiour compared to the movie ;))
This is probably one (if not THE) of the best "Hollywood" movies I've ever seen.

As for shooting 3 movies at once compared to Band of Brothers, Dune, Shogun or Roots. Those are mini series and not huge "Hollywood" productions. Okay, BoB is a huge production and costs a lot but I think you are forgetting that this serie is based and created after the big succes of Saving Privat Ryan. If this movie would have been a disaster then BoB wouldn't excist anyway.
The other examples where shot as series and are totaly intended to be a serie and not movies and therefore have little or nothing in comen(sp?) with a production like this.

The problem with shooting all 3 parts of the LoTR trilogy at once is the costs and the costs only, not the locations, nor the people involved etc etc. That has been done earlier. This production is the most expensive one ever done. Therefore the risk is incredible high and that makes it special. They could throw away the other 2 movies if this one would have been a disaster and that means that PJ was gone, his production company was gone etc and it would have become the biggest mistake in the history of movies.

Like I said, BoB was created AFTER the proven succes of SPR(even the idea came after the release of this movie) and LoTR was a new thing which had to prove itself after spending the money. The biggest risk ever. That's why nobody shot three major movies at once before.

I don't mind if it wins all oscars or no oscar at all. I don't care about oscars because they don't say anything about MY feelings about a movie. Oscars are money, the biggest succes mostly gets the best oscars (take Titanic as an example, just a standard Hollywood production with a high budget). If a movie doesn't bring in money from the box-office then it will never have a nomination for an oscar. The oscar doesn't say anything about the quality anymore, it's politics and money if you ask me.

I liked FoTR a lot (as a movie) and I'm going to see it again. I will also buy the DVD even if it wins all the Raspberries.

Just my two cents :)

ReadWryt

01-15-2002, 09:44 AM

If one wishes to convince themselves into thinking that Roots, Dune, Shogun or any other "Mini-series" that was shot on FILM and edited and had color timing and makeup and costuming and production design and HUGE casts with big stars and special effects and budgets as big as these had (The year Roots was made there were not any TWO theatrical release films whose combined production budgets would equal the cost of mounting this project for ABC) and contained up to 12 hours of footage (In the final release edit, who KNOWS how much ABC cut before airing it...) is less significant an effort then shooting three movies at once then they are of course free to do so.

I for one don't see where there is that much difference. They were nearly equally huge challenges in my mind. As for the Monetary Risk, well...From what I hear about the Reel that P.J. was shopping around, he proved himself to be up to the task. Why else would New Line have suggested, even before he got out of the room after the first presentation, that they make 3 movies instead of the two they (Jackson and Co.) were pitching? Plus you can bet that there was some research that showed the built in audience in the massive volume of people who had allready read the books. Understand that the people who promote movies for New Line (Well known for Horror and Sci Fi) had seen the popularity of Tolkien's works at Science Fiction/Fantasy conventions for years, and the WB had been chomping at the bit to get their own "Star Wars" to compete against Lucas and Fox since the 70s...This though does not diminish the risks taken in the long run by throwing more and more money at the project as it blossomed and expanded into a $300 million dollar roll of the dice. Remember, it started life as a $130 Million Dollar deal...so to more then double that before it was done took serious balls on the part of all involved.

I dunno, I'm not discounting what Jackson did as a director out of hand, it was one of the toughest jobs any director has done since Darryl F. Zanuck mounted the filming of "The Longest Day" back in `62...sometimes flying by helicopter from England to France to Germany and back all in one day to oversee the shooting in the three locations...but even HE had the luxury of hiring a German, British and French director to shoot in each location while Zanuck oversaw the project. (This movie is a must see for anyone who is a student of film, and contains the single greatest Hellicopter aerial shot in the history of film before the 90s...over three minutes following the Allied assault on a German Command post in France as they head up through brutal street fighting, past a river warf and the camera ending up behind the German Soldiers on the roof of the outpost looking down at that Allies)

Speaking of which, LotR has some of the most impressive SkyCam footage yet to be shot!! They use it all over the place in ways that Lucas would have loved to have been able to, especially in the "Speeder Bike" sequence in "Jedi". I have to say that as much as I have spoken out about my feeling on the existence of the "Arwen's race to the Ford" scene, the camera work was astounding and the visual pace was heartpounding with little of the error that you usually tend to see in "Time Dialated" chase scenes like this.

Hein

01-15-2002, 10:56 PM

ReadWryt you are right about those series being huge productions. They could go through as movies but that wasn't the intention (I guess). The thing is (atleast how I see it and i think that's what they mean) that this trilogy was meant as 3 seperate movies like Star Wars or The Godfather or whatever trilogy and therefore it's the first time they shot 3 movies at once with a big risk.

Have a look at Apocalypse Now, one of the thoughest (maybe even harder then LoTR) shots ever and even a higher risk because Coppola spend his private money on shooting it.

I was thinking about one thing though. In my opinion I think it's harder to shoot this trilogy then any other production. Why? As you all know this book has been red by almost every over the last 50 years. Everybody has his imagination about this story and Middle Earth and the creatures walking it. People expect to see this imagination in the movie and are easy dissapointed.
A thing that makes it even harder is that PJ didn't have total freedom in creating this world because (as you should know) Tolkien was a master in describing the look and feel of Middle Earth and his inhabitents(sp?). A big part of the story covers how Middle Earth is and how it looks like. That's why this book is so clear in our imagination and that's why people like it so much (if you ask me). It's a huge task and a though one trying to realise this world which existed in the mind of millions of people.

While I was watching this movie I never really thought, hey this isn't Tolkiens world (especially with the buildings designed by Tolkiens drawing artists like Howe). That's why I loved this movie so much.

Actually it doesn't really care if this was the biggest challenge ever or if it was thougher then other productions or harder to realise. PJ did it and I respect him for that. Showing a world that existed in the imagination of the readers and described and created by Tolkien.

But still you've got some good points which are right and I can't really argue them (but it's nice to try though hehehe ;) ). One thing is for sure, I can't wait to see the other two movies (especially Gollum) because for me the story really starts in the second book :) :)

Bryheinnen

01-16-2002, 12:52 AM

I'm on record as saying that while I am very upset by the way the book was altered by the movie, it was inevitable....and quite probably the best that could be done considering the need for the films to make money. There were good things about it...I love the Moria scenes, other than the corpses laying all around (given that, why should Gimli be shocked to find Balin dead as well? Duh!) I actually even liked the addition of the tender love scene between Arwen and Aragorn at Rivendell.

But my question is this---I expect Hollywood to damn this movie with faint praise at the Oscars. Hollywood doesn't like movies that aren't either sexy, downbeat, or seen as a avante-garde/artsy and that focus on finding bad/disfunctional things about middle-class America and it's values---witness "American Beauty". TFOTR is none of these.

So I'm wondering---as "purist" I will STILL be super pissed if Hollywood dismisses Jackson's film with a couple of less prestigeous awards (cinematography, etc.) and give the major awards to "their" kind of film, like "A Beautiful Mind".

Will other "purists" be pissed as well, or will they welcome a chance to see this "perversion" (as some of them clearly see it) thoroughly trashed at the Academy Awards (that's what I guess will happen---some "serious" film will take all the biggies---count on it.)

Awaitng your replies. still

lilhobo

01-16-2002, 03:31 AM

as a semi-purist, i'd be sad to see it not get film of the year or best actor (Mckellen),

but the academy will give it the rubbish awards for good loser lol :D

lilhobo

01-16-2002, 06:20 AM

Harad, if you want me come claim me :D :D :D :D

TheJospeh

01-16-2002, 09:34 AM

I think it should probably win. Abysmal movie but a few sparks of the old world that Tolkien imbued in his novel are transferred to film sucessfully. And that old hopeful way artists used to think beats the post-modern rubbish that is called thought that we have today.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

WARDNINE

01-16-2002, 10:31 AM

I don't see a lot of movies, but after the Oscar Noms I do try to see at least those movies nominated for Best Pic.
Here's my thoughts.
Cinematography- Shoe-in.
Best Original Score- Shoe-in.
Best Supporting Actor- Well, it better win. The only question is, who?
Best Original song- Pretty much a shoe-in.
Best Director- If the Academy can overcome its disdain for Fantasy, PJ should win. The man did more work than anyone with a vast, varied cast and made it look cool. Showed he was a tough guy. I'll be surprised if he doesn't win. Half that cast had never read the books, and he made them be totally believable. Yup, he gets my vote.
Best Picture- Probably not. They hate fantasies as a rule. "Ali" may win due to P.C.... Americans do love M.A. for various reasons, not the least of which he was a voice of reason after 9/11. The picture is just the icing on the cake.
However.....
There is one saving grace, perhaps.
For the first time in years, people went to the movies with a real need to escape the awful real world. I am not discounting the horrors of the "rest of the world, year after sad year", but the Academy is historically USA-centric, right or wrong. "Life is Beautiful", indeed, but what else? (Oh, and by the way. If you haven't seen "Life is Beautiful", run, don't walk, to the nearest video store and buy it. One of the most touching films, ever...) Foreign films don't generally get the nod. I needed FOTR, and I needed all three hours. People needed fantasy this year, more than ever, and if the Academy represents the people, which it makes no secret it does not, they will realize the gift of a movie like that.
Not a two hour flick of blood and boxing, but a world where we could escape.
Docs are out, imaginations are in, in accordance with the wishes of the masses. Now, will the Academy bow? Ack. Most likely not.
Just my opinion....

Flame of Utumno

01-16-2002, 11:13 AM

I loved the film.

I hope it gets:

1. Best picture
2. Best sound track (musical score)
3. Best cinematography - if there is such an award. (New Zealand looked so good!)
4. Best costumes (or the award for make-up and clothing)

Greenwood

01-16-2002, 04:03 PM

I doubt the Academy will give the Oscar for best picture to "Ali". "Ali" has been a major financial disappointment and the Academy hates to reward failure. My guess is that "A Beautiful Mind" and "Black Hawk Down" will be the two leading contenders. "Black Hawk" for a "support the troops" motive and "Beautiful Mind" because the Academy traditionally loves films about people triumphing over physical or mental afflictions. As for LOTR, the Academy never takes fantasy, science fiction, or for that matter comedy films, seriously. I think this last works against LOTR even more than any consideration of it being a "foriegn" film.

Hein

01-16-2002, 04:57 PM

Maybe this movie will change the tradition of not rewarding a fantasy movie ;)

I think Mouline Rouge will also get a lot of nominations. A beautyfull movie and a real academy movie.

ReadWryt

01-16-2002, 07:54 PM

Unfortunately the Academy is pretty good at sweeping thier Political Bias under the rug, so we would never know why, if indeed this film is not recognised, it actually was not awarded. I know that there are those who would like to think that I will be sitting in front of my television cheering for every award that this film does NOT win, (Truth to be told, I can't sit through the Oscars...I have to tape it and scan through it to catch performances like Yoyo Ma doing the theme from the Patriot last year to avoid all the ego massaging ****) but in actuality I have come to the conclusion that these awards are more about generating DVD and Pay Per View sales then rewarding good work and achievement, so even if I did think that LotR was the best film and it didn't win I wouldn't be upset.

I really do think though that the petty politics of Hollywood will, as it often does, prevail and a good many artists who did fantastic work on this film will be overlooked because of a bunch of disgruntled American Union workers who resent Peter Jackson's wise decision to make every dollar stretch further and shoot in New Zealand, where the US Dollar has advantages from the exchange rate and he could, as I believe he actually did, use the extra money to make the film bigger and better then he could have with $300 million in the States.

PRH

01-21-2002, 04:57 AM

FOTR lost the Golden Globe (Best Drama) to A Beautiful Mind? I've seen ABM...I just don't get it...There should've been no comparasion on any level. This is disapointing. I could've accepted FOTR losing to one of the more arty movies, but not this one. ABM just wasn't that good.

Flame of Utumno

01-21-2002, 10:48 AM

At the end of the day, fans like us will ensure that the Lord of the Rings movies sustain a cult following such that it may not be the flavour of the year, but rather a more lasting one that will withstand the test of time. I'm sure we would forget the movies that are given awards this year, but we will definitely remember that it was the year the FOTR came out.

Anyway, who do we need to impress about the movie when we know it has such high quality inherent in it? An academy award neither adds nore removes this high quality from the movie. If they were silly enough not to give any recognition where it was definitely due then that is their loss and would make me question their integrity.

Bryheinnen

01-21-2002, 09:51 PM

Hollywood is not comfortable with traditional moral absolutes (with which LOTR is replete) and is the ultimate bastion of humanisitic narcissism. It is not surprising, then, that perhaps the ultimate narcissist in it's exclusive little club---Russell Crowe, the heir-apparent to the mantle of Richard Burton--- who pays little heed to traditional morality should win their highest honor. "A Beautiful Mind" is the kind of film that Hollywood adores; full of the "triumph of the human spirit" shown as self-sufficient and in need of no higher power. Hollywood is also myopically politically correct, and the fact that in the movie (though not in the books) female characters are secondary characters (despite PJ's Xena-ing of Arwen) would predictably not sit well with the many ardent feminists in the Hollywood crowd. Also, Tolkien's clearly Western and Caucasian characters would offend those who cannot conceive of an action film (which is how the less imaginative among them will see it, not the spiritual thing that LOTR is) wherein a black, hispanic, or gay character is not presented in a favorable or heroic light.

Don't expect any better at the Oscars.

Of the three classes with influence in this country, the Glitteratti (discussed above) the Literati and the political Liberal elite, none of them have any reason to celebrate either the books of the film(s). The Literati loathe it vehemently, because it is an affront and challenge to the empty, value-free postmodernist and deconstructionist trash that passes for "art", especially literature, today. The Liberal political elite will be suspicious of it because it clearly champions the supremacy of western culture and values and doesn't celebrate "diversity", the false god of our times, as well as it's championing of traditional values.

These are the folks who, in general, run our society and set its agenda. None of them is likely to find much admirable about LOTR.

If this film experiences any success, look for that to be at the People's Choice awards---it is perhaps less dominated by the above elites than the other major award organizations, though even there these destructive forces are strong

LOTR has become a beloved classic to tens of millions of people---common, good folks, the TRUE salt of the earth---despite the opposition, either overt or covert of the elites. If this movie---and through its powerful if flawed vision, the books---is to get any recognition, it will be at the People's Choice awards. REAL people---not the phony self-styled elites---are the ones who love LOTR and have made it immortal despite the continual opposition of these empty blowhards.

Luna

01-21-2002, 10:03 PM

Well said!
:)

markrob

01-24-2002, 09:09 PM

Just read an interesting piece on the Oscar race. Looks like, according to this guys formula, that LOTR is ranked 3rd. Probably doesnt mean much but is worth a look at. Check it out.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/oscar2002/crunching-oscar-chart.htm

Some flims mentioned as favorites on this forum are no where near the top but again this "chart" is nothing to bet the bank on.

Andquellewen

01-24-2002, 11:58 PM

I hope it gets SOMETHING at the Oscars or else it'll be a pretty big embarassement for PJ.

But WHEN are the Oscars?!?!?!?

Bill the Pony

01-25-2002, 12:02 AM

March 24th

andromeda

01-25-2002, 01:46 AM

it so had better win some oscars. those lousy golden globes cheated them out of the awards. i thought the music in it was great. the director did very well portraying the story onto screen, and it was indeed the best flm of the year IMO.

ReadWryt

01-25-2002, 06:49 PM

The more I dispassionately watch this movie the more I see that the Cinematography, especially in scenes like the Chase to the Ford, is really astounding. I think what happened was that, because Jackson had to think in terms of so many shots having characters inserted later, he became free of the constraint of thinking of the more pedestrian composition that one sees in say television cop shows and it manifests itself in subtle ways that I hope members of the Academy can recognise and not simply accept as serendipity or miss alltogether.

The Sky-cam work is incredible for generating the remarkable feel of speed in the chase, sweeping up from behind over the Nazgul...showing the vastness of Middle-earth using a free floating camera really went a long way to convey to the viewer the size of this world without using any of the traditional "Red line growing across a static map" type methods that have been employed in the past. Just that flight over Orthanc while Saruman was making the inclement conditions that brought on the decision of the party to go through Moria alone let the viewer see that Isengard itself was HUGE.

I certainly hope that it at least gets considered for Cinematography, even if not for the daunting task of shooting a movie for characters to be inserted later, although I think we saw much of that in "Who framed Rodger Rabbit" long ago, but beyond that it is a stunningly photographed film in Content, Composition and it's storytelling style.

kazren

01-26-2002, 03:02 AM

You can vote for LOTR:FOTR here:
http://www.moviefone.com/features/amaNomFilm.adp and vote Vote now, vote often!

ReadWryt

01-26-2002, 08:31 AM

Um, by the way...the voting that happens at the above post's link is for the American Moviegoer's Awards...and if you haven't ever heard of it then I can almost bet that the members of the Academy have barely heard more then you....But hey, it's a movie poll...knock yerselves out man!:) (It's actually a `product' of Moviephone, who has been running the contest since `95. Since they are a division of AOL/Time Warner, like New Line Cinema, it will actually be interesting if LotR does NOT win best picture!)

Andquellewen

01-27-2002, 03:10 AM

Um, by the way...the voting that happens at the above post's link is for the American Moviegoer's Awards...and if you haven't ever heard of it then I can almost bet that the members of the Academy have barely heard more then you....But hey, it's a movie poll...knock yerselves out man! (It's actually a `product' of Moviephone, who has been running the contest since `95. Since they are a division of AOL/Time Warner, like New Line Cinema, it will actually be interesting if LotR does NOT win best picture!)

If that's not for the oscars, then where can we vote for the oscars?

ReadWryt

01-27-2002, 08:08 AM

You can vote for the Oscars when you get a job in the Movie Industry, join one of the Unions and start paying dues...

Andquellewen

01-27-2002, 10:35 PM

I should of known that...

ReadWryt

01-29-2002, 08:33 AM

Ok, my super secret inside source informs me that the film is going to at least be up for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Scenery and Best Score...These are selected by the Judges and then voted on by people in the industry, so we shall see what happens on this.

Greenwood

01-29-2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Ok, my super secret inside source informs me that the film is going to at least be up for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Scenery and Best Score...These are selected by the Judges and then voted on by people in the industry, so we shall see what happens on this.

By Scenery do you mean Art Direction? There is no award for scenery.

ReadWryt

01-29-2002, 06:21 PM

Um...Art Direction...see, In my head I kept thinking Production Design...but I knew they didn't do that, that's an AFI and Golden Globe thing. Bah! Damn my brain!! Yesterday I wrote a letter to someone and ended up typing, "...I'll see about getting that 4or you as soon as I can...". I wonder if there isn't something Fruedian about typing "4or" instead of "for"?

Greenwood

01-30-2002, 05:20 AM

I've taken to mostly typing my posts in a simple word processor program and then cutting and pasting them into vBulletin. I still screw up and have to edit 4or typos. :)

Greenwood

01-31-2002, 05:49 PM

Just to add to the award nominations for LOTR, this week Ian Mckellan was nominated for best supporting actor by the Screen Actors Guild. In addition the entire cast of the movie was nominated for best ensemble performance in a movie, The SAG equivalent of best picture.

Harad

01-31-2002, 08:00 PM

I have been surprised at IM not getting recogntion up until now. This is a positive step for Oscar BSA nomination...

Harad

02-10-2002, 07:00 PM

Another blow to the Movie-bashers who seem to be ascendant again:

Peter Jacksn (LOTR:FOTR) was nominated by the Writer's Guild of America for best screenplay based upon previous material.

Once again an independent group of professionals finds reason to disagree with the Nit Picking Weenies, "experts" on movies in their own minds.

Also BTW the WGA is a typical precursor for Oscar nominations.

Thorin

02-11-2002, 03:47 PM

Harad,

It would only be a "blow", as you would call it, if they were giving him these awards based on such a true rendition of Tolkien's LoTR. They are not, LoTR is winning these awards based on it being a great movie...No one is denying that (except me of course, but that is personal and has nothing to do with how true it is to Tolkien). That doesn't change the reasons we have a problem with the movie. The Shining was also a good movie and Nicholson probably was up for best actor in that one (or should have been). The fact that it butchered Stephen King's book was not important to those judging it as a movie in itself.

So stop beating that dead horse....

ReadWryt

02-11-2002, 05:29 PM

I fail to see how some popularity contest amongst Professional writers who may or may not have EVER read The Lord of the Rings is a "blow" to anyone outside of the people who did not win...

Your post is disingenuous because it claims that they "disagree" with things said here in the forum. I have yet to see their refutation (at least the ones who nominated it) of anything that has been stated here in the Forum about the accuracy or quality of the screenplay...

Harad

02-11-2002, 06:13 PM

Thorin

02-11-2002, 06:22 PM

Harad, if you honestly think, as a Tolkien fan, that PJ's Lord of the Rings with all it's cuts, edits, changes and distortions is considered "the best screenplay from published book", you haven't seen many good movies based on books, and I question your judgement as a fan of JRR Tolkien's ME. Give the man an award for attempting such a huge venture and making a good movie, but as for Best Screenplay it is sorely lacking compared to other movies nevermind compared to the book.

I agree with ReadWryt....

Harad

02-11-2002, 07:29 PM

you haven't seen many good movies based on books, and I question your judgement as a fan of JRR Tolkien's ME.

Well, that IS the point, isnt it? I will match my viewing of movies, good and bad, based on books with anybody's, let alone yours. As far as my judgement of JRRT, so many of the so-called experts are in fact, "so-called" and not "experts." The sheer pile of nonsense encountered in the movie-bashing posts is astounding. Thanks for your contributions.

tookish-girl

02-11-2002, 07:35 PM

You know, what? I agree with Harad!

It is one of the best adaptations from a book I've ever seen, and before I get a load of people on my back about it -I've seen lots! You need a great deal of imagination to produce LotR on the big screen and I'm so glad that it was!
Thankyou, thankyou, and I would like to thank my parents.....

Harad

02-12-2002, 01:03 AM

Now dont get your hopes up...

Beverly Hills, CA - Nominations for the 74th Annual Academy Awards will be announced tomorrow (Tuesday, February 12) by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Frank Pierson and his fellow Academy member Marcia Gay Harden, recipient of 2000's Supporting Actress Oscar® for her role in "Pollock."

Pierson and Harden will announce ten of the 24 categories at a 5:30 a.m. press conference, which is expected to be attended by over 400 media from around the world. Numerous radio and television outlets have indicated that they will carry the announcement live. Nominations in all categories will be distributed simultaneously to press in attendance and via the Internet on <oscar.com>, the official website of the 74th Academy Awards.

Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2001 will be presented on Sunday, March 24, 2002, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland® and televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5:30 p.m. (PST). Ahalf-hour arrival segment will precede the presentation ceremony at 5 p.m.

Greenwood

02-12-2002, 03:08 PM

Well it is official. LOTR/FOTR was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, the most nominations for any film this year and I believe close to the record for any film ever. The categories are:

Best Picture
Best Director -- Peter Jackson
Best Supporting Actor -- Ian McKellen
Best Screenplay (adaptation)
Best Make-up
Best Musical Score
Best Song
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Sound
Best Visual Effects
Best Editing

bunnywhippit

02-12-2002, 03:16 PM

It missed equalling the record by one nomination! :(

But nevertheless, i'm so glad it's done so well. And i'm especially thrilled about Ian McKellen's nod for Best Supporting Actor! :D

ReadWryt

02-12-2002, 04:04 PM

Well I've never been so happy to be shown wrong about something. It looks like my fears about the amount of effect that the internal politics in the MPAA were ill-placed and they didn't snub LotR for reasons that other good films were ignored in the past. Thank goodness, though the Director and Screenplay nods are questionable in my mind...but they got in there for Art, Costume and Makeup as well as the Cinematography I was hoping for.

ReadWryt

02-12-2002, 04:19 PM

Hoohoohoo..who's dead equine and who's whip? I'm not the one that has to get second and third winds to find ever-more obscure and ever-more absurd "contradictions" between the movie and book, jump on any basher bandwagon, clutch any straws to downgrade PJ. That horse has been at the glue factory since shortly after Dec 19, 2001.

Sorry that you dont want to admit that "Best Screenplay Adapted from Previously Published Material" means exactly what it says. Sorry also that those voters may not be posting in this forum How dare they?

The only posts I've made that have had "find ever-more obscure and ever-more absurd "contradictions" between the movie and book" were to move on from sumbects that some posters constantly assailed as being "ok with me" for reasons that have nothing to do with the integrety of a man who time and time again claimed he was making no "major" changes in the characters. If there is any beating of a Dead Horse it's the constant stream of posts stating that the Film Maker HAD to make all the changes because it made it easier for the audience to understand, which in many cases is true, but this seems to have become a catch all phrase permitting any post to have a ring of truth while never having to take into consideration that any screenplay worth it's weight can do this without having to overtly shove things into the face of the audience, grossly change the story line to accomodate the lack of inginuity on the part of the film makers and randomly alter sections of such a great story.

I don't know what makes you say that I don't want to admit that "Best Screenplay Adapted from Previously Published Material" means exactly what it says when all I claimed was that, if voted on by any number of people who have not read the books, it is questionable if they actually can SAY that it is the BEST screenplay ADAPTATION from Previously Published Material".

I'm also impressed that your post so deftly sidestepped the fact that your previous post stated, "Once again an independent group of professionals finds reason to disagree with the Nit Picking Weenies, "experts" on movies in their own minds.", stating clearly that someone "disagreed" with anyone on the Forum by containing the snide and adolecent barb "Sorry also that those voters may not be posting in this forum How dare they?" and thus attempting to deflect the erroneousness of your original statement onto my post. Quite the debate tactic there....:rolleyes:

Harad

02-12-2002, 05:01 PM

Lord of the Rings leads Academy Awards list with 13 nominations

Canadian Press

Tuesday, February 12, 2002

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) - The fantasy epic The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring led the Oscar field Tuesday with 13 nominations, best picture, director and supporting actor among them.

Just a fluke. The real arbiters of good taste, the movie-bashers on this forum, know so much better. The fact that this is the first fantasy movie of ANY sort in this category and overwhelmingly so is just a blind spot in the eyes of the voters. "They dont know anything about LOTR," scream the NPWs in rage and bewilderment.

Andquellewen

02-12-2002, 05:05 PM

YAY!! 13 nominations is awsome:D!!
Now we just have to wait and hope we win most or all of those!!:)

Greenwood

02-12-2002, 05:16 PM

The nomination is for the best screenplay of the year that is based on previously produced or published material. It does not mean it is the "best possible adaptation" of previously published material. Nor does it mean that the voters have to have read the original material on which the screenplay is based. The category is there to distinguish completely original screenplays (and their writers) from screenplays (and their writers) that are drawing on the work of other sources (and writers). Remember it is very rare for the author of a book or even a play for that matter, to be the screenwriter of the movie adaptation of his/her work.

Snaga

02-12-2002, 05:34 PM

Well congratulations to PJ, Sir Ian McKellan et. al. I guess the real politicking starts in earnest now. Lets not get too upset or even too elated when March comes around and the winners are declared. We all know the quality of the film is only one element in a complex mix required to win!

One thing in LotR's favour is that it delivers a 'big cinematic experience' which is not the case with most of its rivals (e.g. A Beautiful Mind). That's not a guarantee of success, but it certainly helps.

Just my gut reaction on likelihood of wins:

Best Picture - medium
Best Director - low
Best Supporting Actor - low
Best Screenplay (adaptation) - high
Best Make-up - high
Best Musical Score - medium
Best Song - medium
Best Art Direction - medium
Best Cinematography - high
Best Costume Design - medium
Best Sound - medium
Best Visual Effects - high
Best Editing - low

Harad

02-12-2002, 05:39 PM

Right Greenwood. Its a measure, in the minds of the voters, of intrinsic merit. It does not say that they DO NOT know the source material, but that they wont be TESTED after voting for nit-picking details.

And VoK, I give IM a better chance...

Thorin

02-12-2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Greenwood
The nomination is for the best screenplay of the year that is based on previously produced or published material. It does not mean it is the "best possible adaptation" of previously published material. Nor does it mean that the voters have to have read the original material on which the screenplay is based.

Exactly....The only way it could have gotten nominated for "Best Screenplay" is if the nominators didn't read the book....Harad can defend all he wants because he seems to have some sort of contract with PJ that he can't say anything bad about the movie, but the fact is, is that even though you can argue that PJ did the best he could with such a scope of an epic like LoTR, and that he even did a great job of capturing the spirit of LoTR and it's characters (which I don't personally agree with), you can't tell me that, knowing the book as we all do, the screenplay from the book is Oscar calibre. Maybe if LoTR was an original screenplay.

And as far as I know, when I checked my homepage, LoTR wasn't up for Best Director, maybe they made a mistake.

The only awards I would not give it is Best Picture, Best Screenplay, Best Director. (I will give the nod to Ian for Best Supporting Actor). The rest of the categories I feel LoTR has earned. But as Harad will probably rudely point out after berating me for what I said above according to his contract with PJ, is that that is my own opinion...Which it is, and I don't expect others to agree with me.

PRH

02-12-2002, 07:19 PM

Thorin:
The only awards I would not give it is Best Picture, Best Screenplay, Best Director.

Which of the other nominees would you give these awards to?

Harad

02-12-2002, 07:28 PM

Rude? Moi? I am living quite well, thank you, on what PJ pays me.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Jim Broadbent
Ethan Hawke
Ben Kingsley
Ian McKellen
Jon Voight

The Brits have the inside track, but will the sentimental vote for Kingsley or Broadbent take it from McKellan. No! Because McKellan just recently lost.

ART DIRECTION
AMÉLIE
GOSFORD PARK
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Between LOTR and MR? This may depend on the steamroller effect, ie. if LOTR wins many others, it may also win this one.

CINEMATOGRAPHY
AMÉLIE
BLACK HAWK DOWN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE
MOULIN ROUGE

Got to be LOTR. It has the scope, the sweep that none of the others have.

COSTUME DESIGN
THE AFFAIR OF THE NECKLACE
GOSFORD PARK
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Will the Academy recognize the painstaking work that LOTR put into the "authenticity" of the costumes? Yes!

DIRECTING
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
BLACK HAWK DOWN
GOSFORD PARK
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MULHOLLAND DRIVE

Rudely pointing out that Thorin got it wrong. This is the toughest sell IMO. PJ may be too "new" to win this biggie (but he deserves it).

MAKEUP
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Steamroller?

MUSIC (SCORE)
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MONSTERS, INC.

Yes, since this is "epic" music compared with the rest.

MUSIC (SONG)
KATE & LEOPOLD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MONSTERS, INC.
PEARL HARBOR VANILLA SKY

A tough sell. Kate&Leopold already won the song award elsewhere and there may be an anti-Enya backlash.

BEST PICTURE
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
GOSFORD PARK
IN THE BEDROOM
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

My GUTSIEST call: YES! because it is the "biggest" of all these pictures: the Academy will go out on a limb for a fantasy because its "big."

SOUND AMÉLIE
BLACK HAWK DOWN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE
PEARL HARBOR

Either the steamroller or throw a bone to one of the "patriotic" movies.

VISUAL EFFECTS
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
PEARL HARBOR

Yes.

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
GHOST WORLD
IN THE BEDROOM
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
SHREK

Another tough one, because little films like "Mind" and "Bedroom" can win. No more than even money.

FILM EDITING
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
BLACK HAWK DOWN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MEMENTO
MOULIN ROUGE

I am going to go with Memento here.

SUMMARY:
8 possibles and 4 "certains."

Thorin

02-12-2002, 07:53 PM

Harad, I didn't say PJ wasn't up for nomination for Best Director, but that my homepage didn't list him...I counted the nominations and they came out to 12 though they listed that it had 13, so obviously they left it out...and for good reason. :D

If FoTR doesn't win best make-up, costume, musical score (seeing as ?Moulin Rouge? won it at Golden Globes and is not nominated it for it, it should win..and deserves to win!) Art and cinematography, I will be very suprised. Though Black Hawk Down did have wicked cinematography as well.

I feel that LoTR deserves to win in those 5 categories.

Best Picture? Nope. As I've said before (the Academy's diversion for giving awards to fantasy movies aside) I felt that the over all movie quality (flow, character development, editing) were not Oscar calibre. Black Hawk Down should have been nominated. I think given the current movies up for Best Picture, A Beautiful Mind will win it.

Best Director: Nope. I wouldn't give it to PJ. I think Ridley Scott should get it for Black Hawk Down, which should win for Sound as well. That was a very intense movie and directed very well. I think that Ron Howard will win it. (Though Robert Altmen did win at the Golden Globes)

Best Screenplay: BWAHAHAHAHA!!! 'Nuff said.
Film Editing: See previous comment

Harad

02-12-2002, 07:56 PM

Best Screenplay: BWAHAHAHAHA!!! 'Nuff said.

He who "BWAHAHAHAHA!!!s" last, "BWAHAHAHAHA!!!s" best.

PRH

02-13-2002, 12:25 AM

I'll tell ya', I'm glad it wasn't nominated for Sound Editing. I feel it had some glaring problems there - most notably Gandalf's often unintelligable lines and the sound it made when Sam was hitting orcs with his pan (way too quiet)(although probably realistic)(but still, way too quiet).

I'm not sure where 'Sound' drops off and 'Sound Editing' picks up but I assume one has to do with the sound design and the other has to do with the assembly of the entire audio.

Wide Boy

02-13-2002, 04:49 AM

I won't make any predictions for Oscar outcomes because I am always mystified and amazed by the capacity of the Academy to make incomprehensible choices. I have seen any number of lists of the great movies that didn't win Best Picture or the brilliant performances that didn't win Best Actor/Actress and that list gets added to every year. If LOTR does come away with a swag of little gold men then yippee. If not, I won't be heartbroken.

However, regardless of our movie allegiances, I feel we should all be bending whatever karmic or spiritual influence we each have towards getting Oscars in as many categories as possible.

This has nothing to do with what the movie does or does not deserve, and should transcend our differences over PJ the Divine vs PJ the Fiend of Hell. The more honours that are heaped upon the movie, the more people will pick up the book and read it. By all means mourn privately the loss of Glorfindel and seethe inwardly at PJ getting a Best Screenplay, but for the higher purpose we should speak with one voice and wish for 13/13. If something like that does happen, I for one will be gracious and not post "nyaa, nyaa, told you so".

And anyway, even the purest of the purists must concede that, at the very least, it is imperative that LOTR not win fewer Oscars than Titanic. That would be just too degrading for words.

ReadWryt

02-13-2002, 09:54 AM

PRH,

Actually the one thing that you do not take into account is the quality of the audio playback where you saw the film. I didn't encounter the things you mentioned in any of the viewings I have been to yet, but I did notice that the frighteningly bass heavy delivery of the first place I viewed it was due to the poor tuning of the sound system to the natural resonance of the venue.

Often when lines are spoken in the throws of an action scene, if the center channel is not well ballanced, the lines spoken can be lost in the sound around you. Another problem is that with DTS Digital 6 channel (5.1 channel actually) there is a tendency for theatres to fail to decode material recorded in Dolby A with the proper noise reduction scheme as it cannot auto detect Dolby A/SR. This would cause a Dolby A noice reduced recording to have the dynamic expansion of Dolby SR, which aside from an audible breathing underscoring badly recorded dialog can cause the loud passages to be too loud and the soft to be too quiet. (Gawd I'm a geek!)

I know that in the Dolby Digital Surround EX version there seemed to be (aside from the "ringing" bass) a tendancy in that particular theater for the higher frequency sounds to "fly away", or psychoacoustically seem too high physically in the sound field, but this may be because the third surround channel speakers were placed too high on the back wall.

The only line I repeatedly had a hard time making out was Glimi's statement when the Orcs were comming in Moria...

Overall I thought that the sound editing was standup, but the design of the sound was not astounding in my mind. More then adequate, and certianly better then most films I saw this year...I know *I* wouldn't have wanted to foley in the sounds for those battle scenes, especially the one at the beginning! And the sounds over Isengard are remarkable. I don't know if anyone else really payed attention to all the mechanical sounds mixed with the sort of crackling/gurgling that was in there but there was a lot of work that went into that. I'm not certain though what makes Pearl Harbor more worthy of a nomination, unless they HAD to pick something for Monsters Inc. to go up against.

PRH

02-13-2002, 05:30 PM

RW-

I've seen it in 3 different theaters so I was taking the individual theater variances into account (2 were DD and one was DTS)(both 5.1).

Are you sure the dialog was recorded in Dolby A or are you just posing the possibility? I would think that if the decoder was going to mix up Dolby A and SR it would go for A in the decode but you say it goes for SR huh? It's very possible that using the wrong expansion scheme was what was happening now that you mention it. Still, I'd blame that on the filmmakers not taking this factor into account when designing the dynamic compression.

I think there was a lot of great sound designing in the film but I just don't think some of the mixing in the end was up to snuff -- this was consistent across all 3 theaters.

Harad

02-13-2002, 05:44 PM

Hey...there's a sequel in the works!

THE 74TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS
Business as Usual for New Line Cinema
Studios* Excitement over 13 nominations for its 'Lord of the Rings' is tempered by work to be done.

By RICHARD NATALE, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

It's Oscar nomination morning at New LineCinema's Los Angeles headquarters on Robertson Boulevard. The dawn has brought the company 13 nominations for the fantasy blockbuster "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," including the company's first for best picture (although its art-house division Fine Line Features picked up a best picture nod for 1996's "Shine"). In the history of the Academy Awards, only two films, 1997's "Titanic" and 1950's "All About Eve," received more nominations (14).

Elation is tempered by the need to put finishing
touches on the post-nominations campaign, to capitalize on the box-office bump a movie with this many nominations usually receives. Employees,
who have been at work since before the nominations were announced at 5:38 a.m., gulp down lox and bagels while New Line marketing heads Russell Schwartz and Rolf Mittweg finalize two new TV spots, one emphasizing action and the other the film's epic scope.

In another part of the office, Gordon Paddison, who oversees Internet marketing, is preparing spots for the Hollywood Reporter and Variety online sites featuring interviews with nominees in all categories, including the technical(costume design, score) contributors to the film. "Rings" trilogy producer Mark Ordesky, who has been on the project for 31/2 years, checks in from New Zealand where he and nominated director Peter Jackson have been "up all night playing Risk," awaiting the nominations, which they saw on BBC World.

Jackson has been on the phone nonstop and is on his way to a live satellite feed before flying to the U.S. and points abroad for more personal appearances. At the same time, he's editing the second "Rings" installment, "The Two Towers."

Having already grossed more than $690 million worldwide, the first installment of the J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy will more than recoup the $300-million production budget for the series and set the stage for the two sequels, due this December and next. "There's no question that the Oscar nominations and the awards the film has already won have helped build momentum for the next two films," says Robert Shaye, New Line's founder and co-chairman.

While the best picture nomination validates the film's artistic integrity, it should also propel its domestic gross over the $300-million mark. The nominations give distribution head David Tuckerman leverage to retain theaters over the Presidents Day weekend, even with five new movies opening, including New Line's own "John Q," starring best actor nominee Denzel Washington (for
"Training Day").

With the second-largest foreign market yet to open--Japan, where the film debuts in early March--the film could add more than $100 million, Mittweg says. The "Rings" movies also have already been sold to AOL Time Warner's broadcast television division for about $160 million.

It's amazing what a difference a single movie can make, especially one that no other company wanted to attempt. Only New Line was willing, at Shaye's suggestion, to commit to three movies instead of the two Jackson originally had envisioned.

Prior to the film's December release, Shaye wondered aloud whether his 35-year-old company's days were numbered. For decades Shaye had struggled to elevate New Line from a provider of low-budget exploitation flicks to a major independent company through the success of such films as the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles." Then came "Austin Powers" and "Rush Hour," and their sequels, the most profitable movies the company had released until "Rings."

Based on his gamble on the "Rings" trilogy and some conspicuous flops like "Little Nicky" starring Adam Sandler" and "Town and Country" starring Warren Beatty, however, Shaye was no longer allowed to greenlight any film budgeted at more than $50 million. If the first "Rings" had failed, New Line would have been stuck with damaged goods, and AOL Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons had made it no secret he was considering consolidating the company with Warner Bros.

Success of "Rings" has reversed the company's fortunes. Among films released last year, "Rings" is second only to Warner Bros.' "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," which has grossed about $900 million worldwide (the second installment is due in November, a month before "The Two Towers").
New Line received another bonus by securing a best actor nomination for Sean Penn in "I Am Sam." With "John Q" tracking well in audience surveys for this weekend and another potentially lucrative summer release in the third "Austin Powers" movie, the 62-year-old Shaye, Hollywood's longest-enduring film company head, has no plans to depart on a high note and retire. "T paraphrase Stanley Kubrick," he says, "retire from what?"