Originally posted by yerssot
Best picture: deservedDirecting: didn't thought it was good enough to get one, nice pans and all, nothing extra-ordinary at all to give it an oscar
Art direction: it needed to follow the book, so why praise the art?
Costume design: what? you wanted aragorn to run around in jeans? if they wanted to make a movie of it, they should have done as in the book, with less it would look silly. give it an oscar cause it followed the guidelines? nonono!
Film editing: no, just "normal" done to me
Makeup: ie, those elvenears, it's a fantasy movie and they had to make it look like one, without those ears, or how they did that gimli guy (long name and forgot it), again it's it either works or fails miserably and it worked, so no oscar worth
Music (original score): sure; done well
Music (original song): damn, bad song
Sound mixing: like any sci-fi/fantasy movie, the music is important, and I think most think cause it has good music that the entire sound mixing therefor is good
Visual effects: normal, like said, want a stop-motion of the balrog? or Helms Deep done with stickies?
Adapted Screenplay: take Tolkiens book, skip some parts (Tom), change some stuff (replacing stuff like Boromirs death to the first one), add some stuff to let it appeal and done
it's cause it's a hugely successful book that they leach of it succes
--don't get me wrong, the lotr saga, I thought was good, just definitly not worth so many oscars
Honest to God, I don't know how you would ever arrive at the conclusions you have for their awards.
1)Directing isn't how you go about using a camera. It involves the characters movements, actions, emotions, body language, how they approach things, how they deliver their lines, etc. It's much deeper than camerawork, thats for damn sure.
2)Why praise the art? Maybe because they had almost absolutely NOTHING to go by except a bunch of black and white sketches from a few J.R.R. Tolkien books, from which they had to adapt an entire world?
The fact that it came out looking as immaculate as it did is why they get the praise, and rightfully so.
3)Costuming. They didn't get the Oscar because they "followed guidelines", they were awarded for the craftsmanship, the detail, the authenticity, the elaborate and convicing styles in which they were tailored. Again, you were way off base in your reasoning.
4)As for film editing, that's a picky detail, which takes way too much critiquing. A BAD example of editing is in Star Wars: Episode 2, where Jango Fett's rangefinder is seen on both sides of his head during the course of the movie, and sometimes they forgot it all together, but it was still kept in the movie.
5)Make Up? Once again, you're saying they shouldn't get credit because it had to be done? Which, of course, once again, isn't the case. It's HOW they did it, which is why they get the Oscar! It's not just some gelatin elven ears, it's the Hobbits, the Orcs, the Goblins, the legions of battle scarred Urk'hai, and on and on and on.
6) Music is strictly an opinion, but, the Academy felt as if it were the best original song of the 4 nominees. While it may not have been a good song to you, it apaprently was better than it's contention, and an even better song may have not even been considered.
7)Sound Editing. Just because the music is good, doesn't mean the sound is good. Good editing is rewarded in films such as this because the overlaying themes don't drown out the war cries, the mellow music doesn't overwhelm Aragorn's speech to the Hobbits at his ceremony. Good sound editing is rewarded when you can distinctly hear an Urk'hai bow plunge through someones chest over all the other war happenings + sounds, or just when the sound is optimal overall.
8) Visual Effects. Once AGAIN, you question as to why they shoud get praise, when making it sound like their work is average. Are you familiar with WETA, MAYA, or GROVE? Are you familiar with MASSIVE? MASSIVE is a revolutionary computer CGI program that allows you to create multiples of characters on screen, IN ADDITION to giving them their own seperate "brain". For example, the Urk'hai you see in the wide shots marching, tossing ladders against Helm's Deep, activing catapults, they are ALL CGI. SEAMLESS CGI at that. Do you think they really cast 1 Million extras to throw on Urk'hai suits? No. LOTR CGI top notch, unbeatable, unstoppable. Seamless, as I said.
Would you be as so ignorant to call Gollum's animation "normal"?
9) Adapted Screenplay. I am so sick of listening to your petty reasoning behind how you feel. It's not taking Tolkiens book and skipping parts, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's the adaptation. It's how the movie is translated to the big screen. It's judged on it's fairness, and how true it was to the book itself. To be perfectly honest, the actual EXTENDED VERSION will for sure show that the movie was worthy of this award. They aren't going to hire some Joe Schmoe to review this movie for it's screenplay, they will hire a Professor or someone who majors in literature, who has READ, DISSOLVED, and UNDERSTANDS the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien in depth. If those people feel as if it is as it was in the books, what's to argue? If anything, Peter Jackson made it MORE believable and applicable to a movie adaptation!
The movies are not successful hugely in part to the works of Tolkien, word get around that these are epic pieces of filmmaking, and people want to witness it for themselves. It's appealing in and of itself. It was one directors vision that made it what it was, and Tolkien would be proud of it's conversion.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Honest to God, I don't know how you would ever arrive at the conclusions you have for their awards.1)Directing isn't how you go about using a camera. It involves the characters movements, actions, emotions, body language, how they approach things, how they deliver their lines, etc. It's much deeper than camerawork, thats for damn sure.
2)Why praise the art? Maybe because they had almost absolutely NOTHING to go by except a bunch of black and white sketches from a few J.R.R. Tolkien books, from which they had to adapt an entire world?
The fact that it came out looking as immaculate as it did is why they get the praise, and rightfully so.
Oh please all the other nominees had that just as good.
3)Costuming. They didn't get the Oscar because they "followed guidelines", they were awarded for the craftsmanship, the detail, the authenticity, the elaborate and convicing styles in which they were tailored. Again, you were way off base in your reasoning.
I havent a clue what a reangefinder is but that sounds like a mistake made while filming. Cant work miracles in editing when you dont have rushes!
4)As for film editing, that's a picky detail, which takes way too much critiquing. A BAD example of editing is in Star Wars: Episode 2, where Jango Fett's rangefinder is seen on both sides of his head during the course of the movie, and sometimes they forgot it all together, but it was still kept in the movie.
This is were the lobby comes in 🙂
6) Music is strictly an opinion, but, the Academy felt as if it were the best original song of the 4 nominees. While it may not have been a good song to you, it apaprently was better than it's contention, and an even better song may have not even been considered.
That's a bit presumptuous!
The movies are not successful hugely in part to the works of Tolkien, word get around that these are epic pieces of filmmaking, and people want to witness it for themselves. It's appealing in and of itself. It was one directors vision that made it what it was, and Tolkien would be proud of it's conversion.
Originally posted by Fire
true, but honnestly I didnt like too many of the nominees, I liked The last samurai, M&C and LOTR that's about it
I also saw Mystic River, Lost in Translation and POTC
M&C is good but not Oscar good. The last samurai is a rip off of Dances with wolves but with some crappy acting from the leading role. The only think good is Watanabe (sp). Oh and nice Landscape.
Lost in translation is good it had the right nominations.
Basically I think The house of sand of fog was greatly forgotten.
It should have been up for directing, best film and best actress.
Originally posted by FireExactly, it's not our decision. Not that it matters, Lord of the Rings EVEN IF what they did was formulaic and 'had to be done,' what they did was fantastic and no one can rightfully dispute that.
you can debate this as long as you want, in the end it doesn't change a damn thing, the academy chooses whatever they see fit