On the Academy awards I thought that it was such a rippoff that the Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King won everything. It was nominated for 11 Oscars, and it won all of them. I really hate that. It was a total rippoff. It made me so mad that so many other great movie were nominated for the things as The Lord Of The Rings was, and loss. It sucks!!
shareI have to agree there. But the thing is that this year was consistensy pay for the whole three-year project where the two years before LOTR didn't win *beep*. But, since when were the oscars *beep* fair right? What I especially hated was that LOTR beat The Tripplettes of Bellville for "Best Song", and American Splendor for "Best Adapted Screenplay" that's just a damn shame.
"The only one thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."
--Oscar Wilde
[deleted]
[deleted]
lord of the rings winning all 11 is complete bull *beep*, it goes from 2 of 13 awards for ttt to 11 of 11 for rotk, the academy awards are a joke. so many good movies got snubbed for this mockery.
shareAlso all of you who are saying that the Titanic won all those 11 acdemy awards, well it deserved it. The Lord of the Rings did deserve some of those awards, but not all of them! After LOTR won their 6th Oscar I gave up!
shareOh, you guys. Have the folks who are angry about Lord of the Ring's winning read all of the books? Then you'll see how amazing it was to be taken to the screen. And a magnificent adaption.
Besides, what's done is done. Many of the films were just made in the wrong time.
With an N?
Proud member of JDC, est.2003
wow! u r the onl yperson i heard agree with me on this!!!
shareI love the LOTR. However in my opinion, MYSTIC RIVER should have won best picture. The only reason RotK won best pic was to acknowledge all three of the films that were snubbed. I thought that Two Towers should have won. As a whole, the LotR trilogy is one of the best films brought to screen. It should have gotten a special award instead of oscars for one part. Mystic River was better than the one part of Return of the King. Don't get me wrong, I will be buying both the Theatrical and Extended cuts of RotK. However, I will also be purchasing MYSTIC RIVER.
shareIf the Academy voters were smarter a few years ago, then they would have given the first installment ("The Fellowship of The Ring") of the trilogy "BEST PICTURE", because that one was the best of the series even though "The Return of The King" was pretty good even though Clint Eastwood should won the award for Best Director instead of Peter Jackson.
share[deleted]
It's a shame that other movies didn't get a chance of winning anything. Return of the King was no better than the previous parts of Lord of the Rings. I'm a fan of these movies, but I like the book more. You have to read the books too, if you want to understand the story. The book deserves 11 Oscars, the film doesn't.
Ow, and Puppylu-something... Answer me this:
Did you think it was fair that Ben Hur won 11 oscars too?? That wasn't such a great movie, but there just weren't any better movies at that time. Lord of the Rings had way more competition, so I think that 17 Oscars (total for LOTR) was a well-placed reward for all of the three movies combined.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh for crying out loud! You people complained when the first one didn't win, then you complained some more when the second one didn't win, and now after the final and best one wins you're complaining about that! Face it ROTK was a great movie and other than Best Original Song (Triplettes of Belleville was my choice), why shouldn't it have gotten all the awards it was nominated for? Lost in Translation won for Screenplay, Penn and Robbins won for Acting and M&C won for cinematography so it's not like films were robbed! You guys just aren't happy unless you have something to complain about, are you? For Chr*st's Sake it's just an awards ceremony! Get over it and stop moaning! And for the record the reason why everyone complained when Titanic won is because IT SUCKED!! *sigh* I feel better for that...
I knew she wanted a big hammer. Maybe a couple of nails and a good screw.
Here's my number one Oscar complaint. Peter Jackson for Best Director. Here's why. While Peter did a great job with the trilogy, no matter who directed this, it would have won best director just because of the accomplishment of such an undertaking. It could have been Ben Stiller directing, and just because he took the project, he would have gotten best director. Really think about it. My second complaint is, of course, Best Picture. I do think it deserved best picture, just not more than Mystic River. Had Mystic River not been nominated, I would have been pulling for ROTK. Mystic River was an incredible accomplishment in directing as well as acting. Sure, ROTK was great directing, I have no argument there, but the acting can't even touch what was in Mystic River. It is kind of funny that Peter Jackson will probably never top the fame that was given to him by Tolkien. I mean, next is King Kong.... Clint Eastwood has will now be owed by the academy, and I'll bet that the next time he's nominated, he'll win just because they gave that one to Peter Jackson. I think that's all.
Born a rebel
Died a hero
Remembered a legend
I'd like to start off by saying that LOTR: ROTK was not the only movie that received these awards, (I didn't read the whole board so I don't know if this has already been mentioned) the 11 awards it got were for the entire trilogy. Do you understand how much work and effort and dedication went into this work? All of you people who are complaining about Mystic River and other great movies getting snubbed. These three movies are all in the IMDB top ten list for a REASON people!! I don't deny the fact that Mystic River, House of Sand and Fog, and Master and Commander are great movies, but they are definitely not good enough to beat the LOTR trilogy. It's a massive cinematic undertaking, and was done beautifully
And to you up above me, it's cynical people like you who piss me off! Do you honestly think that anybody could have done the amazing job that Peter Jackson did could have been replicated by the likes of Ben Stiller, or dare I say it, James Dean. Jackson may have some weird choices like King Kong, yes, but he is totally and utterly passionate about LOTR and he wanted to perfectly replicated Tolkien's world in a cinematic masterpiece and he completely succeeded! I think that if Peter Jackson didn't direct it, it would have been hard for LOTR to receive any Oscar nominations whatsoever.
Sorry about my venting, but man you haters make me mad!
I don't usually do posts on a point/counter point basis, but there are exceptions to everything.
You said:
"I'd like to start off by saying that LOTR: ROTK was not the only movie that received these awards, (I didn't read the whole board so I don't know if this has already been mentioned) the 11 awards it got were for the entire trilogy. Do you understand how much work and effort and dedication went into this work? All of you people who are complaining about Mystic River and other great movies getting snubbed. These three movies are all in the IMDB top ten list for a REASON people!! I don't deny the fact that Mystic River, House of Sand and Fog, and Master and Commander are great movies, but they are definitely not good enough to beat the LOTR trilogy. It's a massive cinematic undertaking, and was done beautifully"
Now, I say:
OK, sure. But Apocalypse Now took just as long to film, even if it wasn't a trilogy. I did know that it was basically given to the trilogy instead of the last movie, but how ridiculous is that? How many huge trilogies have been made? I mean, if it were because he undertook a huge project, then let's give George Lucas 11 oscars for doing six Star Wars movies. Not three. Six. He did three movies back in the late 70's. And now he's finishing them up with another three. No one can deny that Star Wars is a huge project, I dare say bigger than LOTR. Not to mention that Lucas wrote all the movies. Or how about the Matrix? The Wachowski's did an entire trilogy, the animatrix, and a game, and all of them add to the storyline. The point is that there are many, many trilogies out there that were huge undertakings. Many of them done just as well as LOTR. Why should LOTR be special?
And if it's for the whole trilogy that it won so many for ROTK, then why not just name all three movies as best picture every year. I mean, it won best visual effects three years in a row, but only best picture once? But yet the entire trilogy is worth best picture? No, I'm sorry that makes no sense. By saying that it won best picture for basically being one big movie, then they should have nominated it once and only once. Now, if you're going to say that FOTR was worthy of best cinematography, but yet neither Two Towers or ROTK was, then you're considering them three different movies. But if you're going to say that the trilogy won best picture then you should say that the trilogy is worth best cinematography. But yet FOTR was the only one that got it and not ROTK. You wouldn't give ROTK the pulitzer prize for the series would you?
Then, you said:
"And to you up above me, it's cynical people like you who piss me off! Do you honestly think that anybody could have done the amazing job that Peter Jackson did could have been replicated by the likes of Ben Stiller, or dare I say it, James Dean. Jackson may have some weird choices like King Kong, yes, but he is totally and utterly passionate about LOTR and he wanted to perfectly replicated Tolkien's world in a cinematic masterpiece and he completely succeeded! I think that if Peter Jackson didn't direct it, it would have been hard for LOTR to receive any Oscar nominations whatsoever."
So, I say:
Spielberg could've done it, in my opinion. And I agree that Jackson did a great job. Near perfect, I might say. But, I think best director should be given to the director that best directed a film. While ROTK had some good acting, I don't think many will disagree that the best acting was done by Gollum/Smeagol(While some of the cast did do very well, ie. Sean Astin, Viggo Mortenson, and Billy Boyd). But Gollum/Smeagol wasn't directed. He was a CGI character that was created and illustrated by a computer. And to me, if over 30% of a movie is special effects, then only about 40% of the movie really shows a director's talent. Now, let's look at what I found to be the best director winner. And that's Clint Eastwood. He directed emotion and reality. And instead of doing special effects acting, he orchestrated an absolutely brilliant story carried by the acting of Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, and Tom Guiry. Clint directed some of the best acting of their careers. And a film powered by story and acting like that in Mystic River, is hard to find elsewhere.
Sure, ROTK, to me, deserved best picture. But not over Mystic River. I honestly mean that. ROTK was brilliant. But Mystic River was just so much more real and filled that the only way ROTK could have beat it, is if it was really actually up against, basically, three movies. Awarding a trilogy instead of just the one nominated movie is unfair and ridiculous.
And one last thing. To insult my hero, James Dean was a very low blow. I don't expect you to appologize, but that really wasn't needed. Besides, James Dean was a great actor, not a great director. No sh*t Peter Jackson would have done a better job. And I'm sure James Dean did a better job in East of Eden than, dare I say it, Peter Jackson would've done.
I'm done...For now.
Born a rebel
Died a hero
Remembered a legend
Ok here we go...
"OK, sure. But Apocalypse Now took just as long to film, even if it wasn't a trilogy. I did know that it was basically given to the trilogy instead of the last movie, but how ridiculous is that? How many huge trilogies have been made? I mean, if it were because he undertook a huge project, then let's give George Lucas 11 oscars for doing six Star Wars movies. Not three. Six. He did three movies back in the late 70's. And now he's finishing them up with another three. No one can deny that Star Wars is a huge project, I dare say bigger than LOTR. Not to mention that Lucas wrote all the movies. Or how about the Matrix? The Wachowski's did an entire trilogy, the animatrix, and a game, and all of them add to the storyline. The point is that there are many, many trilogies out there that were huge undertakings. Many of them done just as well as LOTR. Why should LOTR be special?"
This isn't about huge projects! There have been many huge cinematic undertakings, I agree with you completely, but it isn't about the sheer scope of the movies, but the quality. Star Wars are great movies, but, being Sci-Fi
ones, the Academy, as a rule, doesn't really pay attention to them all that much. The fact that a fantasy trilogy received this many Oscars is an indication that they must have done something right, am I wrong?
"And if it's for the whole trilogy that it won so many for ROTK, then why not just name all three movies as best picture every year. I mean, it won best visual effects three years in a row, but only best picture once? But yet the entire trilogy is worth best picture? No, I'm sorry that makes no sense. By saying that it won best picture for basically being one big movie, then they should have nominated it once and only once. Now, if you're going to say that FOTR was worthy of best cinematography, but yet neither Two Towers or ROTK was, then you're considering them three different movies. But if you're going to say that the trilogy won best picture then you should say that the trilogy is worth best cinematography. But yet FOTR was the only one that got it and not ROTK. You wouldn't give ROTK the pulitzer prize for the series would you?"
Good points, and I agree, maybe they should give it to the best picture of the year, rather than saving all the LOTR awards for the last year, which is exactly what they did. But the Academy would never do that. I can't change that. It's a shame.
By the way, I am going to apologize about James Dean, it was uncalled for.
Um, I don't think Spielberg could have done it. He does do some good stuff. But it's so inconsistent. He brings out brilliant things like Shrek and Schindler's List (not necesarily in that order), but then there's crap like Men in Black and Jurassic Park. So I think Spielberg would have brought up the special effects even higher than Peter Jackson did, so I disagree that he could have done just as good a job. Oh, and the fact that you say Gollum wasn't directed, I ask you then, who is Andy Serkis? He performed the voice and movements of Gollum, and if they were undirected, that would be hard to believe.
Anyway, to conclude, I'd like to say that it is a shame the way the Academy conducts their business, but they are a stubborn bunch and they are not going to change now.
No hard feelings, I hope...
Anyone remember that cartoon version of Lord of the Rings? Thats what happens when you don't have Peter Jackson.
And about Gollum not being directed. He most definatly was directed not just on set but also again on the motion caputre stage. I highly recomend you watch the segment "Gollum" on the EE of TT or read Andy's book.
[deleted]
[deleted]
yes, I have. Barry Lyndon is considered a classic. I'm sick an tired of all the publicity LOTR is getting. It's a good movie, BUT IT DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE IN THE TOP 250. it's special effects and that's about it.
"Cue the sun!"
Did someone catch the irony of the Oscar people ... They gave all 11 Oscars to LOTR and the 11th Oscar (the one for best picture) was given by Steven Spielberg ... and Spielberg's film The Color Purple was also nominated for 11 Oscars but won none.
LOTR deserved each and every single one of them!