PDA

View Full Version : ROTK Oscars, Episode III Possibilities???



Darth Kirk
03-01-2004, 08:11 PM
Well, with the Return of the King garnering 11 Academy Awards, what are your thoughts of Star Wars Episode III being able to capture any awards and accolades? Granted, awards do not a movie make, but it would be nice for George to be able to be applauded for his life's work with his last installment.

2-1B
03-01-2004, 09:22 PM
Nope, won't happen.

SW and GL are persona non grata in Hollywood. George might as well bunk with Mel Gibson, another successful independent filmmaker. :crazed:

jjreason
03-02-2004, 12:45 AM
Well, let's look at the facts:

Lord of the Rings was faithfully based on a masterful work of literature long loved by millions of fans the world over.
Star Wars was loosely based on one man's rememberances and of numerous works (some masterful, some not so much) that he enjoyed as a child.

Lord of the Rings is stunning visually.
Star Wars is stunning visually.

Lord of the Rings has broken a lot of interesting new ground in terms of using computer "enhanced" effects shots, specaillizing in hyper realistic and enormously huge battle sequences.
Star Wars (Lucasfilm and ILM anyway) paved the way for this to happen.

Lord of the Rings offers deep and interesting characters that deliver heartfelt, emotional and well-written dialogue.
Star Wars offers nice looking and well intentioned characters that deliver 2 dimesional dialogue that screams "help me!!!!!!" on behalf of George Lucas to the script doctors of the world.

I'm with Caesar - it ain't gonna happen. They'll win for effects or sound and that will be about it.

Pendo
03-02-2004, 04:11 AM
I hope it wins LOTS of awards, but only if it deserves it. Let's see if GWL can make this movie good enough to win awards :).

PENDO!

evenflow
03-02-2004, 08:47 AM
No way, as much as I love STar Wars, this modern trilogy can't even touch Lord of the RIngs. Maybe if this were the original trlogy we were talking about and Return of the JEdi was coming out, then I would say yes.

bobafrett
03-02-2004, 10:10 AM
But George Lucas will probably get one of those "Lifetime Achievment" awards that the academy gives to those old people, even if they are still active making films. I don't see EP III getting nominated for 11 awards, let alone 2 or 3. I have seen pictures, and I get very excited, but then I got that way for Episodes I & II only to feel let down by the sappy dialogue, and bad acting. As much as I hate to admit it, LOTR was a much better written movie, and I enjoyed watching almost everything in all 3 films. Star Wars Episodes I & II had some moments, but I found myself falling off to sleep during some of the other parts.

May the Force be with George on this last film though.

Jayspawn
03-02-2004, 10:40 AM
Another reason it wont happen is because George Lucas is against the Studio system. They explain George's dislike for it in his autobiography "Skywalking" George makes his own movies -produces and releases them himself. He's not dependant on anybody or anything else. The Academy of Motion Pictures & Sciences dislikes him for making his own rules and not playing by theirs. Therefore, its not likely at all that George or Episode III would win an Oscar.

It would be nice though.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-02-2004, 11:24 AM
yeah, i can only see SW getting nods for visual effects and whatnot. The acting is sometimes subpar and the dialogue leaves a lot to be desired AT TIMES. Then again, i don't know how you can make a line like, "travelling through space ain't like dusting crops, boy!" sound very elegant and whatnot.

I think George should get some sort of achievement award as the OT gave away to many great advancements in technology and whatnot. :D

2-1B
03-02-2004, 12:41 PM
If George licked the boots of Harvey Weinstein and allowed New Line to distribute Episode III, there would be a few more nominations next year. ;)

El Chuxter
03-02-2004, 01:18 PM
Here's an interesting Oscar-related question:

Under the new rules for sequel music, the score for a sequel must be either 60% or 80% new music and not re-used music to be eligible.

How did LOTR:ROTK qualify for this? I love the music, but it's the same old main theme and Rohirrim theme over and over, with a bit of new stuff.

Whereas AOTC used the main theme in the beginning and end, tossed in a tad of Yoda's Theme, The Imperial March, and Duel of the Fates, and was mostly new music--and arguably the best SW score yet--and yet wasn't nominated.

Same thing goes for Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets, while we're at it.

But, hey, don't mind me. I'm still stewing 'cause Danny Elfman and Mitch & Mickey both got screwed at the Oscars this year in the music categories.

JediTricks
03-03-2004, 09:41 PM
No way, as much as I love STar Wars, this modern trilogy can't even touch Lord of the RIngs. Maybe if this were the original trlogy we were talking about and Return of the JEdi was coming out, then I would say yes. AND only then if ROTJ were actually good... which it's not. :p Other than that, I agree with ya evenflow, even though I felt ROTK was not as good a movie as FOTR or TTT, it's still nowhere near the step-down in quality that ROTJ and the prequels have been for me.


Frett, I'd be surprised if the academy awarded Lucas with a lifetime achievement award. If you look at Lucas's body of work beyond just American Graffeti, ANH and producing/writing the Indy trilogy, it's not all that impressive (Howard the Duck, Radioland Murders, Tucker, heck, the most well-known film on there is probably Willow and it's far from a mega-popular or high-art film). And as for recognizing him for ILM and THX, that doesn't seem all that likely since he really didn't have all that much to do with them beyond trusting the right people to do the jobs that started the companies, people such as Tomlinson Holman.


Oh, and I merged this thread with the one in Other Collectibles since I can't imagine what it had to do with that section.

Darth Kirk
03-04-2004, 12:35 AM
AND only then if ROTJ were actually good... which it's not. :p Other than that, I agree with ya evenflow, even though I felt ROTK was not as good a movie as FOTR or TTT, it's still nowhere near the step-down in quality that ROTJ and the prequels have been for me.


Frett, I'd be surprised if the academy awarded Lucas with a lifetime achievement award. If you look at Lucas's body of work beyond just American Graffeti, ANH and producing/writing the Indy trilogy, it's not all that impressive (Howard the Duck, Radioland Murders, Tucker, heck, the most well-known film on there is probably Willow and it's far from a mega-popular or high-art film). And as for recognizing him for ILM and THX, that doesn't seem all that likely since he really didn't have all that much to do with them beyond trusting the right people to do the jobs that started the companies, people such as Tomlinson Holman.


Oh, and I merged this thread with the one in Other Collectibles since I can't imagine what it had to do with that section.


Thanx for the merging JediTricks, I made an error.. But I have to say that you are not really giving Lucas the credit he deserves though.. THX is used worldwide, and even if he physically did not create the advances in ILM and THX, he was still verbally and financially involved.. With your logic, then producers in the industry shouldn't be recognized for the work they do either.. And ultimately, and there is NO sidestepping this issue, after Star Wars in 1977, cinema was changed forever.. With the method in which films were marketed, the action figure collecting phenomena was born, culturally affecting a world with new terminologies and music, Jedi and Vader was synonymous with good and evil and the Imperial March will forever play at college football games as the song of choice for showing athletic prowess, and MOST importantly, how special- effects was used seamlessly to tell a good story; the big event blockbuster was born. Lucas, is a visionary that is not fully appreciated and that is truly unfortunate, but I do have hope people will eventually open up their eyes.. :confused:

JediTricks
03-04-2004, 08:38 PM
But I have to say that you are not really giving Lucas the credit he deserves though.. THX is used worldwide, and even if he physically did not create the advances in ILM and THX, he was still verbally and financially involved.. That's pretty much the ONLY way he was involved with the creation of those 2 though. THX, he basically wanted a means of having the cinema experience uniform, so he went to Holman and said "can we do this" and Holman spearheaded THX into existance. In fact, "THX" was rumored to be called that for the "Tomlinson Holman Crossover", a circuit that makes THX work (other rumors say "Tomlinson Holman eXperiment", but that's the less-believed one) and it happened to fit Lucas' first movie title. And when Holman and Lucas split ways, Lucas changed the THX corporate history to all but erase Holman from the effort.

As for ILM, Lucas and Kurtz put together this FX team for Star Wars and started shooting the film, when they got back and saw the cheap stand-in effects that half the effects budget had been spent on, he flipped (I'm still not sure if those were actual stand-ins or if they simply expected the cheap cardboard to pass muster) and they promised better results, which came in the form of many technical advances in the f/x industry and turned the Star Wars effects shop into ILM. So what did Lucas actually DO? He and producer Gary Kurtz said "do this, here's Fox's money" and then "do better with the rest of the money".

Bottom line, Lucas didn't oversee much of this, he came up with vague ideas, asked some people to do something, threw some money at it, and when it succeeded, he turned it into a company. Smart business sense, but is that the actual cinematic achievement worthy of a major lifetime award?



the big event blockbuster was born.Tell that to "Jaws". Yes, Star Wars had a major impact on the way movies would be made from then on, as well as ESB affecting the way that sequels were thought of. But consider also how negative that blockbuster phenomenon impacted Hollywood, those negative effects have perverted the studio system into demented "big money on screen, big money in advertising, story unimportant" machines. I'm not saying SW shouldn't have been made or is a bad bad thing, but it's not all smiles and roses either.



And ultimately, and there is NO sidestepping this issue, after Star Wars in 1977, cinema was changed forever.. With the method in which films were marketed, the action figure collecting phenomena was born, culturally affecting a world with new terminologies and music, Jedi and Vader was synonymous with good and evil and the Imperial March will forever play at college football games as the song of choice for showing athletic prowess, and MOST importantly, how special- effects was used seamlessly to tell a good storyThen Star Wars itself should be recognized, not just Lucas since George himself was not the only major piece of that film's puzzle (such as Gary Kurtz's producing, John Williams' score, the acting talent, Marcia Lucas & Paul Hirsch's editing, Ralph McQuarrie's incredible artwork, and John Dykstra's fantastic and innovative special effects, not to mention the ghostwriting, sound effects, set direction, and on and on).

And it's not as if the academy didn't recognize Star Wars either, it didwin 6 Oscars and was also nominated for Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, and Writing that year; not to mention Ben Burtt getting a special achievement award for his sound effects work on the film. (And if you'll notice, that's 11 Oscars total given or nominated, interesting coincidence that number, no?)

2-1B
03-05-2004, 12:27 AM
"Acting talent," there's an oxymoron. :p

Darth Kirk
03-05-2004, 02:05 AM
[QUOTE=JediTricks]That's pretty much the ONLY way he was involved with the creation of those 2 though.

Yes, to make a film, one needs a team of members that are equally talented and dedicated and that is what George put together.. A team that was willing to commit to something that wasn't done before and that is what makes him the visionary.. Its really hard for me to believe that he really had nothing to do with the advancement of the special effects and technology in film.. He had a vision, and he found teams of individuals that made his imagination come alive, and with his finances, he was able to break new ground with ILM.. Just because he physically wasn't doing these effects, that does not take away from the fact that it was his vision and persistence to visually realize his imagination on film..

bigbarada
03-07-2004, 04:24 PM
I think the Academy and Hollywood have been punishing Lucas for decades now. Hollywood doesn't like it when a director strikes out on his own and becomes enormously successful and wealthy.

The argument about the quality of the filmmaking and Lucas' involvment in the films is moot. No matter how good the prequels are, or could have been, Lucas will never win an Oscar because he is an outcast.

On a side note, Mel Gibson will probably "suffer" the same fate with The Passion and all of his future filmmaking endeavors.

JediTricks
03-07-2004, 06:39 PM
Yes, to make a film, one needs a team of members that are equally talented and dedicated and that is what George put together.. A team that was willing to commit to something that wasn't done before and that is what makes him the visionary.. Its really hard for me to believe that he really had nothing to do with the advancement of the special effects and technology in film.. He had a vision, and he found teams of individuals that made his imagination come alive, and with his finances, he was able to break new ground with ILM..If you're referring to Star Wars, then Lucas shared that workload with his then-partner and producer Gary Kurtz, who did a lot of what you're giving Lucas credit for there. Lucas came up with the rough idea, then worked with Kurtz to turn it into something better and eventually get it produced. As I understand it, it was as much Kurtz as Lucas who brought those original teams together for what became ILM, Kurtz brought a lot of that talent into the picture, and it was on the dime of 20th Century Fox that originally started what becaome ILM. Sure, ILM has become an industry-changing powerhouse, but how much of that is Lucas' direct hand vs work done under the Lucasfilm banner?


Just because he physically wasn't doing these effects, that does not take away from the fact that it was his vision and persistence to visually realize his imagination on film..Hmm, I dunno, the designs weren't chiefly Lucas's and the actual product was unseen by Lucas until very late in the game - granted, these are things that directly or indirectly spawned from Lucas's imagination, but how far does that really carry over? What do you actually recognize Lucas for there? It's not as if ILM has been spurned by the Academy, it's won several Oscars for outstanding work.



I think the Academy and Hollywood have been punishing Lucas for decades now. Hollywood doesn't like it when a director strikes out on his own and becomes enormously successful and wealthy.

The argument about the quality of the filmmaking and Lucas' involvment in the films is moot. No matter how good the prequels are, or could have been, Lucas will never win an Oscar because he is an outcast.I don't get this, you're certainly not the only one to say it, but how exactly is Lucas being punished? The film that most of us look to him and say "wow, look what he did" was highly recognized when it came out by the very industry and Academy you claim are punishing him, so my earlier question comes back into play here: what has Lucas done since Star Wars that deserves serious consideration for outstanding recognition by the AMPAS? What evidence do we all arrive at that suggests that George Lucas himself is being shunned by Oscar? When anybody reading this looks back at Lucas's filmmaking career right now, besides Star Wars, what do you see that he has done which doesn't get the Hollywood accolades it should have that leads to this conclusion that Lucas is Oscar-poison because of his industry politics?

2-1B
03-07-2004, 08:49 PM
Attack of the Clones deserved recognition for acting and effects. :)

bigbarada
03-08-2004, 10:02 PM
In Empire magazine's most recent 100 Greatest Movies of All Time listing, AOTC was ranked as #51. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think ROTJ was in the top 25 and ANH and ESB were in the top 5.

JediTricks, I guess my perception that GL is being punished by Oscar is based on my resentment of The Matrix being given the Best Visual Effects Oscar for 1999 over TPM. LOTR:T2T won out over AOTC, but I felt that T2T deserved if more. However, after reading your post, I think you might be right.

Well, with no more LOTR films coming out, I think EP3 might end up taking the Oscar for Visual Effects (and some other technical categories) for 2005. I don't expect any kind of recognition for Lucas, however. Not because he is being punished; but because he doesn't care anymore and his films show it in every scene.

2-1B
03-08-2004, 11:44 PM
bigB, you used to be a huge Lucas fan. Why didn't you notice earlier that he doesn't care ?

JediTricks
03-09-2004, 09:04 PM
BigB, I can see what you mean about TPM vs Matrix, but I think that could have been a judgement call on the part of the voters, a subconcious slam against the content of the film instead of the effects, or perhaps a poorly-assembled LFL effects reel provided to the academy (as I understand it, that's a large part of how the technical awards like this are judged) rather than a slight against Lucas. After all, the effects in The Matrix are brazen and fantastic, creating special effects within a world of pseudo-reality, while the effects in TPM are constant and very numerous, creating an entirely new world - they both seem worthy to me but from totally different directions (for example, to me, The Matrix used effects to look cool but also as tools to tell that action story, whereas TPM had much of the effects BE the story).



Attack of the Clones deserved recognition for acting and effects.Do you really that about the acting? And would a large percentage of Academy voters agree on the acting thing? I haven't met one other person besides you who felt that AOTC contained acting more outstanding than most other 2002 films, whether they liked AOTC or not - that's obviously a keystone criteria to expect a nomination in any acting category. And as BigB just pointed out, AOTC was recognized for its effects by the Academy with an Oscar nomination, it just didn't win.

2-1B
03-10-2004, 04:20 AM
JT, even though I liked him in About Schmidt, I thought Nicholson was way overrated. The same goes for Nic Cage in Adaptation. I can't comment on Michael Caine or Adrien Brody as I've not seen their films. Daniel Day-Lewis definitely deserved a nomination.

I approve of Paul Newman and Chris Cooper's nominations but I laugh out loud at Ed Harris getting nominated for one or two scenes. John C. Reilly was good in Chicago but not extraordinary. As much as I personally enjoy Christopher Walken, I don't think he was Oscar-worthy in Catch Me if You Can.

So I'll go on record as saying I liked Ewan McGregor's performance better than at least 5 of the 10 overall acting nominees. :)

As for the recognition it got for visual effects, well yes it did get nominated . . . but given my distaste for most things Gollum, I thought it got robbed. Still, at least AOTC didn't lose to Spider-Man. :D

If I can say one more thing about Ewan McGregor - he was completely shunned the previous year when he was not even nominated for Moulin Rouge even though I thought he should have won. Sean Penn's nomination was a joke (although well-deserved 2 years later :) ), Tom Wilkinson - I didn't see it, Russell Crowe - meh, Will Smith - meh, good as Ali but not better than Ewan, Denzel - same thing.

Nicole Kidman was nominated for the same film and she wasn't even as good as Ewan . . . sorry to get off topic even further. Obviously nobody in Hollywood cares what Ewan McGregor does in front of a green screen when they won't even recognize him in a solid Leading role in a very artistic film like Moulin.

And that's another thing. :mad: Okay, I was very "understanding" of the Academy in 2002 when I kept hearing "blah blah blah a musical can't do well with Oscar blah blah blah." Okay, fine. So Moulin Rouge can't win because of that handicap . . .

Fast forward one year and what wins best picture ? :rolleyes: CHICAGO. Granted, it was a very well done movie and I enjoyed it. But what about all that crap the year before about how a musical can't win? What a joke. Moulin Rouge was 3 times better than Chicago. :)

JediTricks
03-10-2004, 09:20 PM
Ok, on personal taste issues, you've clearly got an educated claims that helps form the basis of your opinion, and that's good. My personal taste on Ewan's performance was that half the time I enjoyed it and the other half I found it lacking, but no matter about MY opinion on the matter, you didn't really touch upon the other key element:

And would a large percentage of Academy voters agree on the acting thing? Please don't take that as a question of politics either, only of their actual personal tastes concerning the merit of the performance, otherwise you're sorta defeating the purpose of the question.

Also, even if you do feel they would, would that be evidence of Lucas being shunned by the Academy? After all, you do make a compelling argument for Ewan being the one there that's shunned.

2-1B
03-11-2004, 01:44 AM
JT, I'm not saying that is it political of the Academy to not see any quality acting here. I think you said it best and that has to do with their personal tastes. (Annie Hall vs. Star Wars ? :D ) Frankly I'm surprised that LOTR got the recognition it did in light of its sci-fi/fantasy label. Well, then again, Ian McKellan was the only acting nominee over a 3 year period IIRC so maybe that goes to show that the Academy still doesn't see this as a medium in which to really shine as an actor? I don't know for sure, just speculating. Hmmm, I've heard the argument that LOTR received no further acting consideration because of the "strength" of the ensemble cast. That's certainly possible . . . but is it a good thing or a bad thing? Good for obvious reasons but maybe it's BAD because they DON'T take these roles serious enough? Maybe they looked at the overall production and felt that everything came together to make a great film (well, trilogy in this case) and acting was only a part of it? I really don't know for sure.

Lucas being shunned ? Well, if I commented on that it's basically because of the criticisms I've read (cough stillakid cough :D ) toward Lucas for being so anti-Hollywood / anti-union. I think I threw Mel Gibson in there for comparison just because his newest film was self financed as well. lol

Did I answer thoroughly enough ? :)

Stemp Fester
03-11-2004, 06:07 AM
Here's an interesting Oscar-related question:

Under the new rules for sequel music, the score for a sequel must be either 60% or 80% new music and not re-used music to be eligible.

How did LOTR:ROTK qualify for this? I love the music, but it's the same old main theme and Rohirrim theme over and over, with a bit of new stuff.

LOTR:T2T/ROTK are NOT sequels! They are parts 2 and 3 in a larger story. Remember, the LOTR trilogy was filmed all in the one hit. LOTR in it's entirety is in fact a sequel to "The Hobbit", which, if it ever gets made will create a whole new bunch of confusion when people start referring to it as a prequel...

One of the reasons LOTR:ROTK gathered so many awards was that the Academy deliberately waited until the release of ROTK, in order to judge the film in its entirety.

Darth Grifter
03-11-2004, 08:38 PM
One of the reasons LOTR:ROTK gathered so many awards was that the Academy deliberately waited until the release of ROTK, in order to judge the film in its entirety.

I don't think they waited to judge the whole thing in one chunk, i think they waited because who wants to see the same movie win three years in a row for best picture...that's no fun, not marketable and the academy knew that, so they waited.

as far as eIII getting any awards...ha! george would have to relinquish control of the script, stop digitizing the entire set, give acting lessons to a few people and rethink the entire overly-cgi'd concept that he's got going.

try filming on location.......

JediTricks
03-11-2004, 09:05 PM
JT, I'm not saying that is it political of the Academy to not see any quality acting here. I think you said it best and that has to do with their personal tastes. (Annie Hall vs. Star Wars ? :D )OH!!! See, when you first responded to my question, I thought it was because my question had the following context:

The film that most of us look to him and say "wow, look what he did" was highly recognized when it came out by the very industry and Academy you claim are punishing him, so my earlier question comes back into play here: what has Lucas done since Star Wars that deserves serious consideration for outstanding recognition by the AMPAS? What evidence do we all arrive at that suggests that George Lucas himself is being shunned by Oscar? When anybody reading this looks back at Lucas's filmmaking career right now, besides Star Wars, what do you see that he has done which doesn't get the Hollywood accolades it should have that leads to this conclusion that Lucas is Oscar-poison because of his industry politics?See? That's why I was confused, and I didn't make that clear since the question you responded to was bold (it was made bold for that conversation, it didn't occur that someone wouldn't catch the larger context in which it was posed).

And "Annie Hall" is one of the only Woody Allen films I refuse to watch specifically for the reason you sited above. :D



Frankly I'm surprised that LOTR got the recognition it did in light of its sci-fi/fantasy label. Well, then again, Ian McKellan was the only acting nominee over a 3 year period IIRC so maybe that goes to show that the Academy still doesn't see this as a medium in which to really shine as an actor? I don't know for sure, just speculating. Hmmm, I've heard the argument that LOTR received no further acting consideration because of the "strength" of the ensemble cast. That's certainly possible . . . but is it a good thing or a bad thing?That's been my speculation there as well, the films are SUCH ensemble pieces that it's hard to even know who is a supporting actor and who is a leading one. On an individual achievement level, I supppose it is "bad", perhaps Viggo Mortensen did deserve a Best Actor nod for TTT and didn't get one because of the ensemble thing, but on the whole I think it's neither a good nor bad thing, their work as an ensemble is recognized when the film does well and is nominated for Best Picture.



Lucas being shunned ? Well, if I commented on that it's basically because of the criticisms I've read (cough stillakid cough :D ) toward Lucas for being so anti-Hollywood / anti-union. I think I threw Mel Gibson in there for comparison just because his newest film was self financed as well. lol

Did I answer thoroughly enough ? :)No. :D You mentioned the "why", but do you actually think Lucas is largely being spurned by the Academy and Hollywood? I was one of those who used to think he was, but recently (and especially since this discussion got me thinking about it), I don't think that's the case at all, Lucas's post-ANH work has not been Oscar-caliber and thus never deserving of nomination.

Darth Kirk
03-15-2004, 02:25 AM
Well this talk about the Academy not recognizing Lucas is not completely true though, back in 1991, Lucas was given the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award which "is voted by the Academy's Board of Governors and is presented to creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production." Notice this was given to him before the prequel releases, and it does go to show that he was honored already; puts him in with a distinguished group of recipients... The interesting thing is that its not an award that is awarded every year, and is not voted by all of the members of the academy.. Awards aren't everything, and there is a lot of politics behind voting, yet it would be interesting to see if Ol' George can actually pull off a critically acclaimed sci-fi film for Episode 3. Here is the link to the Academy page:
http://www.oscars.org/academyawards/awards/thalberg.html

Orn Free Taa
03-18-2004, 06:05 PM
You know, at 35 years old, I have been a Star Wars fan and collector for most of my life. But, I'll be honest, where Star Wars (the original trilogy) remained for over 20 years as my favorite trilogy of all time, LOTR far eclipsed any feelings of awe I had for Star Wars to become three of my all-time favorite films. Indianna Jones trilogy and Back to the Future trilogy are also among my favorites (and practically anything and everything else that came from Stephen Spielberg), but none of these, IMO, come close to giving the amazing feelings I had watching LOTR (and the subsequent extended editions). Of course, the only thing missing from the LOTR films was me having to stand in line for hours and hours. :)

Well deserved Oscars, that's for sure. If Lucas takes notes and makes EP III just as amazing, I will be amazed even myself.

Bosskman
03-23-2004, 06:59 PM
I'd like to reiterate previous posts here by saying LOTR by far eclipsed any movie I've ever seen. (except Mel Gibson's latest venture but I don't think we're allowed to talk about that, and, IMO, it's in a category all its own so it doesn't really count). I will always love the OT and begrudginly accept the PT as a whole (although I love certtain parts of both TPM and AOTC, they just aren't on par with the OT in my books) but LOTR is FAR BETTER IN EVERY WAY. Tolkien was one of the best writers ever imo, and, since PJ and co made a constant effort to stay as true as possible to Tolkien, the films can't have been anything less than amazing. That fat sluggard george couldn't hold a candle to Tolkien as far as story telling goes. He doesn't even know his own stories enough. I've seen countless interviews with Lucas that demonstrate this. The OT was it's own phenomenon, that can't be attributed to one man, unlike the PT is mostly all Lardass, I mean Lucas. I think that both TPM should have won for some stuff like effects and score, ditto for AOTC if TTT wasn't up against it, but as far as acting and directing go, don't make me laugh. I'm sure Episode III will make both prequels better (just like AOTC made TPM better), once we see how they fit together and how they morph with the OT, I'm sure they won't seem as bad. But they'll be just that - not as bad, not LOTR calibre. I don't think the academy knows anything anyway, it's all a bunch of self-perpetuating crap. ROTK HAD to win all it did because it undeniably deserved all it got, and the academy would have lost all their "credibility" if it didn't. E III won't win much, if anything, and the Passion won't win anything for obvious reasons.

Darth Kirk
03-24-2004, 03:33 AM
I just don't understand it myself...Certain people are no longer satisfied with the Star Wars franchise and now wish to proclaim 'Lord' as the better franchise.. Personally, I liked the 'Lord' trilogy, but it does not compare to the Star Wars series. Everyone is of course entitled to his/her own opinion, but we must all remember that for the last nearly 30 years, Star Wars has been in the American pop culture and its' presence does permeate how special effects in film was forever changed.. Plus, nothing can take away the summer of 1977, 1980 and 1983 when the world seemed enthralled with the films.. Years of discussion, of fan films, of conventions, of comics, of collecting instigate the simple fact that people DO enjoy this franchise.. No other film trilogy can take that away, no matter how mediocre the films are perceived today.. I am a staunch Star wars geek. Plus is it only me when I say that the 'Lord' trilogy editing just sucked.. You would have a scene and then cut to the next scene abruptly and quickly, seemed hurried.. Oh well, to each his own.

Bosskman
03-24-2004, 11:34 AM
Hey Darth Kirk, don't get me wrong, I like SW as much as I always did. That hasn't changed at all. I just like LOTR more. It doesn't take away anything from SW to me, it doesn't effect it at all. I NEVER liked TPM as much as I did the OT. I love aotc, but there were dissapointments in that (unlike the OT) but it made TPM better for it. I know I'm gonna love Ep III. I'm sure it will also make TPM and AOTC better too. Do I think SW is the "epic myth" that George Lucas says it is? No way in hell!!! I never did. To me, star wars has always been about cool ships/vehicles/aliens/beasts, adventure, excitemen (I know a jedi craves not these things), TONS of action figures, and all that stuff. It's cool but not "mythic". LOTR, for me, both the books and the films, are something completely different than SW. I know you can't compare apples and oranges, but I have always preferred oranges. That doesn't change the fact that I still like apples as much as I always did.

chewbacca71
04-14-2004, 08:21 PM
Man, everyone brings up some really great points from all different view points. kudos to you all, really. Reading your comments really get me thinking about this subject as well as the many others here.

As for this topic, I don't think he'll win any major awards. I think it would be a nice gesture, but I just don't think it's going to happen. In a way I think he is a "victim" of his own success. I think with me, if I know it's got Lucas' name on it, or for that matter, ILM also, my expectations are automatically set higher. The bar has been set by them years ago, and if the don't blow me away, like I remember when I was a kid, I am disappointed. Does that mean the work was terrible and not worthy? Not at all. Just not quite to the expectations that I placed upon the project, be it worthy or not.

bigbarada
05-24-2004, 03:37 PM
Personally, LOTR has taken over as my favorite film series. When I walked out of the theater after seeing Two Towers, I finally knew that feeling everyone talks about when describing their first impressions of Star Wars (the prequels are the only SW films I've seen on the big screen). Thus, I knew that T2T deserved the Best Visual Effects Oscar more than AOTC. When going to see ROTK, my basic thought was, "There's no way it can be better than Two Towers", only it was and much more visually stunning that I ever believed was possible.

In fact, I can remember my first reactions to both The Matrix and TPM when I saw them in theaters. For TPM I kept thinking, "yeah, that's some cool CG work there, that may be a little too CG there," but there was never that sense of astonishment when you just have to say, "how the heck did they do that?" For the Matrix and all of the LOTR films I can definitely remember that feeling. So I guess The Matrix did earn its Oscar for Best Visual Effects.

Jay86
05-24-2004, 04:10 PM
Heres my opinion and view of this whole thing:

I couldnt and cant stand the LOTR. I only saw the "Two Towers" one, and that movie was the most boring two-three hours of my life. It was also enough to make me not want to see the first one and completely not care about the third. I didnt care if I had seen the first movie or not, the whole story itself was boring and very uninteresting to me. A bunch of elves or whatever they were trying to throw a ring in a mountain....whoopdeedoo. I dont care for that Elijah Wood kid's acting, theres just something about him that I dont care for. The other kid he was with, well I didnt care for him either. The whole storyline was enough to make me want to fall asleep too, and I almost did and I really wish I had. I didnt like all the CGI either, thats the only thing I didnt like about the prequels, a bit too much CGI, but then again they're Star Wars movies and I found the storyline(s) to be more interesting than a movie about fairies and elves and a ring and some scrawny white thing running around with them screeching constantly about this and that.

And you can call this "praising" George Lucas all you want, I really could care less, but I personally dont give any credit to that Peter Jackson character, simply for the fact that all he did was direct some movies, he didnt write the books or create the characters, he just sat behind a camera. I cant think of any other movies he's been involved in. Lucas however not only did American Grafitti, a personal favorite of mine and a Hollywood classic, THX 1138, which was groundbreaking in its own rights, but he also did the Indiana Jones trilogy, classics and favorites of mine as well, and of course as well all know Star Wars, which are my favorite films of all time, and undoubtedly one of the greatest trilogies of all time, reguardless of prequels (which I happened to think were good, of course they werent 'to par' with the OT, if you thought they were going to be then I'm sorry but that was a foolish thing to expect). The Matrix takes second place on my list of "Most Boring and Completely Overrated Movies Of All Time", second of course to the LOTR movies.


I may be the only human being alive, beside my uncle, who disliked the LOTR.......well so be it. Give me Star Wars anyday, reguardless of the prequels and what anyone else thinks of them, YES I would gladly take The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones over ANY LOTR movie.....anyday of any week of any month of any year of any millenium and so on......LOTR and the Matrix would have been nothing without the computers that created them, Star Wars paved the way for those movies, reguardless of how many Oscars or Academy Awards any other movies might have or have won, awards dont mean a thing, I mean c'mon, look at the Grammies.......mainstream award shows no longer have any credibility if you ask me, no matter what category of entertainment they might be critiquing or awarding.

bigbarada
05-24-2004, 05:03 PM
LOTR and the Matrix would have been nothing without the computers that created them, Star Wars paved the way for those movies,

I do agree with you here, but that doesn't mean that the apprentice cannot surpass his master.

I think there is definitely a relationship between LOTR and SW. In 1954, the LOTR novels were published while George Lucas was still in grade school. During the 1960s they became a HUUUGE influence on the hippie counter-culture movement. (Ironic that novels about a justified war would be embraced so whole-heartedly by anti-war demonstrators) In fact, the books were so popular that they helped create the requisite pop-culture backlash, in which books with titles like "Bored of the Rings" were published to poke fun at the series.

In any case, the LOTR books were a huge influence on Lucas while he was writing the original draft for Star Wars in 1973. There were even accusations of Lucas "ripping off" Tolkien in the early, early days. (Obi-Wan = Gandalf; Darth Vader = Sauron; etc.)

So, my point is, everyone here will agree that without the Star Wars films there would be no LOTR films. But I believe that without the LOTR books there would probably be no Star Wars films.

Jay86
05-24-2004, 05:35 PM
I do agree with you here, but that doesn't mean that the apprentice cannot surpass his master.

I think there is definitely a relationship between LOTR and SW. In 1954, the LOTR novels were published while George Lucas was still in grade school. During the 1960s they became a HUUUGE influence on the hippie counter-culture movement. (Ironic that novels about a justified war would be embraced so whole-heartedly by anti-war demonstrators) In fact, the books were so popular that they helped create the requisite pop-culture backlash, in which books with titles like "Bored of the Rings" were published to poke fun at the series.

In any case, the LOTR books were a huge influence on Lucas while he was writing the original draft for Star Wars in 1973. There were even accusations of Lucas "ripping off" Tolkien in the early, early days. (Obi-Wan = Gandalf; Darth Vader = Sauron; etc.)

So, my point is, everyone here will agree that without the Star Wars films there would be no LOTR films. But I believe that without the LOTR books there would probably be no Star Wars films.
Maybe Lucas liked the LOTR books and they inspired him, but Lucas was more influenced by Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon to create Star Wars than he was LOTR, it was the space operas on TV of the time that inspired him to create and write his own, not a series of books. Even Lucas himself will tell you that. Heck the guy still has an old beat up Buck Rogers ray gun lying on his desk. And its easy to make connections between many things, like Gandalf and Obi-Wan. Its sort of like the face on Mars situation, the face was simply something many people wanted to see, not necessarily the truth. Many people accused Lucas of such a connection simply for wanting it to be the truth, though it might not necessarily have been. Either way I disagree with saying that without the LOTR books there would be no Star Wars. Maybe that would be true if Star Wars was set in a forest and Lucas had titled it Forest Wars or something.

bigbarada
05-26-2004, 01:06 PM
Actually Lucas is a huge LOTR fan, he's admitted that before and it's been mentioned that LOTR was one of the primary inspirations for Star Wars itself. Which is why the films have never been true sci-fi and have always had elements of fantasy in them. Maybe I exaggerated by stating that without LOTR there would be no Star Wars, but it did have a major impact on the films.

In any case, I'm not too worried about it, after watching ROTK on DVD twice yesterday, I'm more convinced than ever that LOTR is the superior film franchise. But just because I believe that the Star Wars films have been one-upped doesn't mean that I still can't enjoy SW films either. Being "the best" is really not that important.

There are many people on these forums who have always believed that the Star Wars "holy trilogy" is the greatest film franchise of all time and will never be replaced by anything. If you honestly believe that then great! More power to you. But don't thumb your noses at those of us who are looking for something a little more substantial in terms of characterization and storyline.

JediTricks
05-26-2004, 05:28 PM
I do agree with you here, but that doesn't mean that the apprentice cannot surpass his master. True, but the "apprentice" in general doesn't seem to get the large-scale recognition that the "master" continues to enjoy. Look at Tron and The Black Hole, Tron was a pioneer in the use of computers in cinematic effects, while The Black Hole had far and away the superior number of effects shots (not that they were better, just that there were more of 'em ;)) and vastly superior systems invented for its effects... yet Tron rarely gets the props it deserves and The Black Hole is nigh-forgotten (again, not that TBH shouldn't be somewhat forgotten as a movie :p).

bigbarada
05-27-2004, 05:32 PM
True, but the "apprentice" in general doesn't seem to get the large-scale recognition that the "master" continues to enjoy. Look at Tron and The Black Hole, Tron was a pioneer in the use of computers in cinematic effects, while The Black Hole had far and away the superior number of effects shots (not that they were better, just that there were more of 'em ;)) and vastly superior systems invented for its effects... yet Tron rarely gets the props it deserves and The Black Hole is nigh-forgotten (again, not that TBH shouldn't be somewhat forgotten as a movie :p).

Another film that was groundbreaking for it's time was Bladerunner. The city scenes in that film were as convincing, if not more convincing, than the stuff in TPM. And that movie was made in 1982! The same time that ILM artists were convincing Lucas that cityscapes were impossible with the current technology.

stillakid
05-28-2004, 01:34 AM
If you honestly believe that then great! More power to you. But don't thumb your noses at those of us who are looking for something a little more substantial in terms of characterization and storyline.


I wouldn't say that the films are "more substantial" by any means. Maybe the books are (they usually are), but the movies were pretty superficial as they stand. I'll repeat that I haven't read the books so I've got that advantage of being introduced to the story via the films and judging them in comparison to nothing else. I've heard countless times from LOTR fans an admission that much of the "substance" that is in the books was left off the screen.

With that said, I wouldn't necessarily put the Original Star Wars Trilogy at the top of the 'trilogy" heap either. It definitely beats out LOTR in terms of characters and imagination in my book, but without those countless crane up to ultra wide shots of the scenery it can appear to be less "epic" than LOTR. That's all window dressing in any case. LOTR is a simple chase movie when it comes down to it. If not for T3 f'ing it up, I'd suggest that Terminator did that genre better. Same goes for Alien. But unfortunately from what I saw on the screen, I'd easily equate the characterizations in LOTR with the weak superficial ones I saw in the Prequels thus far. Nobody seems to want to do "depth" anymore. Their just trying to wow! us with more "EPIC" shots and wacky creatures running around. In the end, I haven't seen anything in the sci-fi/fantasy genre that even remotely deserves an Oscar nod (save for FX work or music or something along those lines). And most certainly, none of the Prequels so far deserve a second viewing much less recognition just because they are supposedly "Star Wars" films. George got the Thalberg Award in 1991 (http://www.oscars.org/academyawards/awards/thalberg.html). That's enough.

JediTricks
05-28-2004, 02:38 AM
Another film that was groundbreaking for it's time was Bladerunner. The city scenes in that film were as convincing, if not more convincing, than the stuff in TPM. And that movie was made in 1982! The same time that ILM artists were convincing Lucas that cityscapes were impossible with the current technology.
Yeah, good point. Blade Runner generally doesn't get the respect it deserves in EVERY category though. What I think makes the cityscapes of that film really shine is that they use these incredible miniatures, fantastic composite work, and the live sets fit perfectly with those visual effects so it feels seamless, intricate, and "real".

bigbarada
05-28-2004, 11:57 AM
I wouldn't say that the films are "more substantial" by any means. Maybe the books are (they usually are), but the movies were pretty superficial as they stand. I'll repeat that I haven't read the books so I've got that advantage of being introduced to the story via the films and judging them in comparison to nothing else. I've heard countless times from LOTR fans an admission that much of the "substance" that is in the books was left off the screen.

With that said, I wouldn't necessarily put the Original Star Wars Trilogy at the top of the 'trilogy" heap either. It definitely beats out LOTR in terms of characters and imagination in my book, but without those countless crane up to ultra wide shots of the scenery it can appear to be less "epic" than LOTR. That's all window dressing in any case. LOTR is a simple chase movie when it comes down to it. If not for T3 f'ing it up, I'd suggest that Terminator did that genre better. Same goes for Alien. But unfortunately from what I saw on the screen, I'd easily equate the characterizations in LOTR with the weak superficial ones I saw in the Prequels thus far. Nobody seems to want to do "depth" anymore. Their just trying to wow! us with more "EPIC" shots and wacky creatures running around. In the end, I haven't seen anything in the sci-fi/fantasy genre that even remotely deserves an Oscar nod (save for FX work or music or something along those lines). And most certainly, none of the Prequels so far deserve a second viewing much less recognition just because they are supposedly "Star Wars" films. George got the Thalberg Award in 1991 (http://www.oscars.org/academyawards/awards/thalberg.html). That's enough.

I'm inclined to disagree with you about LOTR, I believe the characters in those films had incredible depth. By the end of ROTK, I was getting a little choked up that these characters, whom I had grown to care about over the last three years, were going away forever (not to suggest that I have lost touch with reality, just that there are no more LOTR films being made). In fact, if the films only had special effects going for them, I wouldn't be able to suffer through the 3 hour running times over and over again.

BTW, given your earlier argument about how all the critical bashing of TPM means that its overall crappiness is a proven fact. Then can't we also say that all the critical acclaim and major awards being poured onto LOTR makes its overall greatness an established fact? ;) :p :D

stillakid
05-28-2004, 04:30 PM
BTW, given your earlier argument about how all the critical bashing of TPM means that its overall crappiness is a proven fact. Then can't we also say that all the critical acclaim and major awards being poured onto LOTR makes its overall greatness an established fact? ;) :p :D


:) No, I'd have to disagree and say that you're drawing a conclusion that I never made. I don't recall ever saying that (A) people whining + (B) about something = (C) that thing sucks. Far from it. Fact and opinion are two different things. That's where we've always disagreed...where that line is. I've always asserted that there are some absolutes when it comes to creating some kinds of art. One can like or dislike that final result. That's got nothing to do with it. I think La Boheme is boring but that doesn't necessarily mean that it sucks. In the medium of Opera, I'm pretty sure that it's one of the best out there. It "followed the rules" of what opera is and apparently did it quite well.

In the same way, The Phantom Menace did not "follow the rules" of what "good cinema" is and therefore it falls short. The plot was all over the map, the characters were thin, much of the acting was rather weak, many of the fx were recognizable as fx (the best effect is the one you don't know is there). Etc etc etc.

As far as LOTR goes, again, from the people I've talked to, the ones that like it most are the same one's who read the books prior. Their own minds were able to fill in the gaps that I had questions about after I viewed the movies. In other words, just like the Star Wars apologists who repeatedly went "off the screen" to rationalize out all the questions, LOTR fans could easily crack open the established literature and say proudly that it was all right there. I've said it before and I'll say it again, for my money after leaving the first LOTR movie, I couldn't have cared less about any of the characters. Any one of them could have died and not only would I not have cared one way or the other, but the plot was designed so that it could and would have continued on without them anyway. The case was never made convincingly on why this was occurring and why these individuals had to be the ones to go. For that reason, as a film (trilogy), I feel that it failed to achieve the same level of depth that the books apparently offer.

But I'm not picking on LOTR just to do it. My favorite sci-fi epic book series, DUNE, has been thrashed twice now onscreen. I just think that trying to translate one medium to another doesn't always work very well and just because the literature is treated as if it were the second coming, that shouldn't give an instant nod to the screen version when award season arrives.

El Chuxter
05-28-2004, 05:36 PM
The LOTR/SW debate rages on. :)

I wouldn't say I liked LOTR better than SW, but overall the films stand up to re-watching better than the PT. However, they're not perfect by any means.

Case in point: my wife (who's read The Hobbit but not LOTR) asked me on the way out of the theater, "Man, that Eowyn's just a tramp who'll hook up with anyone, isn't she?"

Why? Because there was absolutely no build-up to her being with Faramir in the end, as there is in the novel. It may sound minor, but if you cut out the details surrounding a particular scene to the point where it makes no sense, cut the scene out. It's just bad storytelling. (A couple of other examples that come right to my geeky mind: in ANH:SE, where Biggs is shown on Yavin without the context of his meeting with Luke earlier, and comes across as a jackarse; and in Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets, where all the events leading up to Harry's discovering Tom Riddle in the diary were cut, making it look like he randomly decided to write in the book one night.)

There were a lot of other bits like this in the LOTR series, where the flow makes perfect sense to those of us who have read the books, but leave everyone else scratching their heads for a few minutes.

Don't get me wrong. The LOTR movies are great, some of the best films of the past decade. But there are enough spots that aren't 100% to keep them from perfection.

Did ROTK deserve Best Picture? Probably. Of the nominees, definitely.

Did it deserve every other non-acting Oscar? Not by a long shot. Score-wise, Big Fish trounced it. Visually (and I'm prepared for the flak I'll gather for this), the Hulk was better than this by miles.

And don't get me started on how bad "Into the West" sucks eggs. Of all the LOTR soundtracks, that's the only track I ever skip. Annie Lennox should've been shot into the sun the minute Eurythmics disbanded (which, by the way, was Dave Stewart all the way :beard: ).

bigbarada
06-01-2004, 01:55 PM
Wow, I'm not the only person who was impressed by The Hulk's special effects (I thought that movie rocked); but I'm not sure if I agree that it was better effects-wise than RoTK. Just the fact that there were so many organic CG characters onscreen at one time, seemlessly interacting with the live action, during the biggest moments of the Pellinor battle, rockets ROTK above the competition for technical achievement in my mind.

I haven't listened to the Big Fish soundtrack, but ROTk is definitely my favorite of the LOTR soundtracks (and Into the West doesn't suck at all, I've been a big fan of Annie Lennox for as long as I can remember - it's not the greatest song she has ever written, but it definitely doesn't suck IMO).

Okay, back to the film, my experiences seem to be pretty much opposite of yours, stillakid. Most of the people that I have talked to have never read the books (and most likely never will) but still absolutely love the films. Only my Philosophy teacher (whose favorite writer is Tolkein) is a die-hard LOTR fan and still likes the movies.

I'm probably the only person alive who feels this way, buuut, having read the novels beforehand, I actually believe the storyline in the films is better than the book. It's more streamlined and doesn't meander, stall or die a slow, painful death nearly as often as the novels. If not for the films, I probably wouldn't be a LOTR fan at all. My favorite fantasy series is the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy by Tad Williams. Of course, the films aren't perfect, no movie is, but the parts I love about the movies are enough to let me ignore the stuff I don't like as much.

Elliejabbapop
09-07-2004, 04:02 PM
I've just seen this thread (I hadn't noticed it having been away) and I just want to say to everyone who's ruled out the "important" oscars for ROTS:

FOLKES, IT'S NEVER TOO LATE!!! :)

I don't believe that for everything but in this case it's true.
I also want to point out my opinion on the much spoken about LOTR films: I had read the books long before the films and I have to say that, whereas the first one was beautifully adapted for the screen, the other two, despite the wonderful Gollum and the good acting, lacked too much and it seems to me that PJ lost track of the project. Unfortunate, because they could have been perfect.

tagmac
09-19-2004, 05:26 PM
After the way they gave away those Oscars that should have gone to Star Wars to that abomination known as "The Matrix," I wouldn't count on ROTS getting anything.

And you can bet the academy has never thought highly of George for his ways of staying out of Hollywood politics. How else can you explain A New Hope losing out to a Woody Allen "artistic" piece of garbage.

Elliejabbapop
09-20-2004, 10:34 AM
I totally agree about the Woody Allen piece of garbage, but the first Matrix was quite well made. The other two are terribly ridiculous :ermm:

megaprime33
09-21-2004, 04:36 PM
I didnt read all of the posts, so not sure if this was posted, but I highly doubt it will win any awards at all because GL did not use any SAG actors in this film. So basically no chance of an Oscar. Too bad, but what can ya do.