LotR:FotR Academy Awards Part 2

[Holy Bovine]

Continued from previous thread;

All I can say is thank god LoTR didn't win.

And I love the film (seen it 6 times and am going to see it again).

To have the Academy morons actually acknowledge that it was the best film of 2001 (its only competition should have been Memento which, of course, wasn't even nominated ) would have cheapened the movie for me.

I like the fact that once again I am right and the Academy is wrong

I was actually hoping for a complete shut out so that in 20 years when LOTR is firmly established as a landmark in film making we could all have said 'remember how that crappy Academy Awards show that used to be on gave it nothing?'

Why, yes I do think the Academy Awards are the biggest farce on the planet (next to the Grammy's and Emmy's of course).

 

[olethros]

its only competition should have been Memento which, of course, wasn't even nominated

It did get a nomination for best orgiginal screenplay, although it lost to, well here's a quote from salon.com, "Gosford was a highbrow formulaic retread. Boo."

I'm just hoping to see TTT get nominated for next year...and RotK for the year after that...

 

[Razuur]

It majorly irked me that it didn't win for best film and director.

Heaven forbid a sci fi or fantasy film win best picture.....

Still grumbling,

Razuur

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Heaven forbid a sci fi or fantasy film win best picture.....

A sci-fi/fantasy film even getting nominated for Best Picture and Best Director is amazing.

I think the crappy Harry Potter film helped LotR:FotR a lot. It showed that you can be too faithful to a book. Everyone got to see a botched translation of a beloved book, and then one month later a successful translation of a beloved book. Though some don't think the LotR adaptation is very faithful, the box office numbers show that it was successful.

 

[WizarDru]

A sci-fi/fantasy film even getting nominated for Best Picture and Best Director is amazing.

I think the crappy Harry Potter film helped LotR:FotR a lot. It showed that you can be too faithful to a book. Everyone got to see a botched translation of a beloved book, and then one month later a successful translation of a beloved book. Though some don't think the LotR adaptation is very faithful, the box office numbers show that it was successful.

I whole-heartedly agree, but keep in mind that Harry Potter and The Sorceror's Stone made a fortune, too...it just didn't win critical acclaim. I agree that both films show how to adapt a book, but only one shows the difference between the letter of the book and it's spirit.


People should also keep in mind that the Academy is still a very small number of people. Several years ago, only 3000 members got to vote. This year, it was 6000, which is still not a giant selection of folks. The Oscars are hardly a logical selection process, and there really are only a few slots available, regardless of how many quality films are made. Factor in people's tastes, and subtract how many films the academy members DIDN'T see, and you can better understand their choices.

LotR:FotR got 12 nominations, and walked out with four. That's pretty damn good, in retrospect. It isn't really fair to some of the other films to intimate that FotR got robbed. Many of us would disagree as to the quality of many of the nominated films. I've seen plenty of film critics, and few of them agree on any of the categories and results...so why should the academy's voters necessarily agree with us? I'm more confused by absences than I am by inclusions, such as Final Fantasy:Spirits WIthin not being present in the animated category.

 

[Sodalis]

true to the book

Barendd Nobeard
I think the crappy Harry Potter film helped LotR:FotR a lot. It showed that you can be too faithful to a book. Everyone got to see a botched translation of a beloved book, and then one month later a successful translation of a beloved book

WizarDru
I whole-heartedly agree, but keep in mind that Harry Potter and The Sorceror's Stone made a fortune, too...it just didn't win critical acclaim. I agree that both films show how to adapt a book, but only one shows the difference between the letter of the book and it's spirit.

IIRC, Harry Potter had JK rowling as one of the executive producers. She had an intimate hand in casting, costume, effects, and the director. So if you think about it, it was as true as you can get- having the author be involved in every aspect of teh movie.

If anything, LOTR is a modern adaptation, or a production of popular opinion, where Jackson was only goign by what he saw and what other people thought of what happened when they were reading teh books. But since he did consult the specialists in all areas, it was as true as it can be.

Dont get me wrong- I loved LOTR (book and movie) but when you say that it was more true than HP, you are wrong. Rowling had a hand in every aspect of teh production, so in that sense- it was as ture as you can get.

 

[ShadowX]

Read your quotes for a second. They both said that Harry Potter was to close to the book, where as LotR carried the spirit.

 

[Bhadrak]

Sodalis,

I think you missed the point. They were saying that the Harry Potter movie was too slavishly devoted to being true to the book. So true that it lacked any sense of wonder or surprise.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I wasn't surprised it didn't win; it isn't really the kind of movie the Academy loves. But, the fact it was nominated at all for anything is remarkable - out of every movie released last year, only five get the nod. That's a distinction in itself. Another way to look at it is that the best movies of any given year never even come close to being nominated (think of all the independents and other films that get no notice) - it's both a popularity contest, and a political contest within the Academy itself. The fact that a fantasy film period makes it that far is almost unbelievable. So I'm very pleased at LotR's showing, despite the odds. By the way, I'm no great fan of the Oscars anyway; their track record is not that great - what film won Best Picture the year Casablanca was nominated? Don't look! I don't know either.

EDIT: Boy, am I stupid - Casablanca did win in the year it was nominated! Hmmmm. Maybe they aren't that bad...

Anyway, here is a list of winner from the 1940s. Besides Casablanca, have you seen any of these? (OK, so Best Years Of Our Lives and Lost Weekend are good, but still...)

1949 22nd Academy Awards
ALL THE KING'S MEN - Robert Rossen Productions

1948 21st Academy Awards
HAMLET (1948) - J. Arthur Rank-Two Cities Films

1947 20th Academy Awards
GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 20th Century-Fox

1946 19th Academy Awards
BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 20th Century-Fox

1945 18th Academy Awards
THE LOST WEEKEND - Paramount

1944 17th Academy Awards
GOING MY WAY - Paramount

1943 16th Academy Awards
CASABLANCA - Warner Bros.

1942 15th Academy Awards
MRS. MINIVER - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

1941 14th Academy Awards
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 20th Century-Fox

1940 13th Academy Awards
REBECCA - Selznick International Pictures

 

[Zappo]

I've never had much faith in the Oscars. Still, when I saw so many nominations for LotR, I hoped they would finally manage to change my mind. They didn't. I still have no faith in the Oscars.