Is ROTK really a legit Best Picture contender?

[Dr. DVD]

Okay. Since the other two have been nominated and lost, I am sure this one will be nominated as well. However, do you think it has a chance to win, or will it be dismissed as another fantasy/popcorn flick?

Just wondering because internet geeks are typically the most let down by Oscar.

[Jepthah]

I do not expect it to win. I think that the Academy is simply going to be unable to overcome their prejudice against fantasy and sci-fi which arises from a common cultural bias among so called 'artists' and 'intelligentsia.'

The common prediction for those in my camp is that Jackson is a lock for Best Director because no one can dispute his enormous achievement in organizing and realizing this massive project.

Of course it will collect more in the technical categories and possibly Adapted Screenplay (a likely travesty if it doesn't). Acting is a big variable, although the buzz on Astin's performance as Sam is very hot.

If I am proven wrong on the Best Pic question, so much the better. But realistically: this series will make billions in income for 'the company' when all is said and done, and be loved by film fans for ages, so what do a few statues really mean in the larger scheme of things? If the 'popular choice' doesn't get the award again, all it does is make the A.M.P.A.S. look even more ridiculous to a lot of people--if that's even possible. :)

[scroll2b]

Bro, not that I've seen all the films out there, but this film is standing at a 62% chance of winning. Serious.

[jaeufraser]

While I agree that the bias against the genre is there, I don't think it is too much of an issue for these films. They are critically lauded and both of the first films were nominated for best pic. They're enormously successful, and this is the last one. If anything I suspect that this movie will win not only because of its quality but because of all the films. I feel that many will see voting for this movie as a way to reward the whole series. It's chances are...very high.

[Sierra Disc]

Seems like some of the movies that were hyped as "big contenders" have fallen a bit short critically (Last Samurai, The Missing), so it certainly has a shot. I'd be surprised as hell if it didn't get a nomination, at least.

[Geofferson]

With all else that's in contention (not much, IMO), then I'd say yes...ROTK has a solid chance of not only being nominated, but taking home the statue.

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by Sierra Disc
Seems like some of the movies that were hyped as "big contenders" have fallen a bit short critically (Last Samurai, The Missing), so it certainly has a shot. I'd be surprised as hell if it didn't get a nomination, at least.

I think there is absolutely no chance it will not get double-digit nominations.

But you have to remember that as in every year each film will have its passionate supporters. It's still an open question whether the people impressed by ROTK will extend to the most members of the academy in all the different sections who vote for best pic. As popular as it is, (and that sometimes counts against a movie's chances) as critically praised as it is, the Academy above all likes to award films that represent it's own desired "image." Cold Mountain falls right in line with the sort of film they have always awarded in the past--historical, big marquee stars, 'high minded.' And Weinstein is an absolute Oscar machine, or more accurately, Oscar-whore. He stops at nothing to collect the golden boys.

Again, I'd love to be proven wrong, but no matter how great ROTK may be I just can't see the Academy dropping their pretension. It would be a monumental award for a monumental movie, and open the floodgates for all sorts of attitudes toward sci-fi and fantasy to change within the industry.

[Inverse]

Yes, it is a legitimate contender.

Don't believe me. Try these quotes:

"Sure to be an Oscar contender in many categories and a breathtaking argument for director Peter Jackson winning every award there is to give" -- Hollywood Reporter

"A "King" that earns its crown, Peter Jackson's final installment in his monumental "The Lord of the Rings" represents that filmmaking rarity -- a third part of a trilogy that is decisively the best of the lot....

All the outstanding technical and craft achievements that have been duly honored in the previous installments are at least equaled and sometimes trumped here... There has been no let-up in creativity, only intensification.

Similarly, certain members of the cast take advantage of the fresh dramatic opportunities to deepen their characterizations...

So Jackson has done it. After seven years of work, the young New Zealander has pulled off one of the most ambitious and phenomenally successful dream projects of all time" -- Variety

These are the hardened Hollywood trade papers we're talking about, not random fanboys running off at the mouth.

[Jackskeleton]

I expect it to win simply because it is the third, it's last chance to take home an award. The main reason why it didn't get the nod the last two times was simply because the voters knew there would be another next year.

[Neeb]

Okay, part of me does not want ROTK to win Best Picture.

Why? Because it tends to kill the film in our minds. How many Best picture winners in the last 10 years are actually still thought of or loved the way they were upon theuir release?

Schindler's List, perhaps. Anything else? Where is the love for 'Beautiful Mind,' or 'English Patient,' or 'Titanic' ? No where. Because they have become altered in our minds. Because of the award? Doubt it? But I can give you a list of films that will last and do well that were not nominated or if nominated, won- 'Traffic,' 'Pianist,' 'Pulp Fiction,' LA Confidential, FOTR...

We may all want Peter Jackson and company to win- but there is a price for victory, and that price may be our love. We should be careful about what we wish for...

[Inverse]

If a movie winning Best Picture makes you dislike it, then you are seriously messed up. Do you hate Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather just because someone awarded them a statue of a little gold man?

[jaeufraser]

I'd like to see RoTK win best picture because it deserves it. Who cares what perceptions it might create. I think the people who profess hatred to many best picture winners didn't like the movie in the first place. Just when it became lauded, their voice became louder in opposition. I myself, stil think Titanic, Braveheart, Silence of the Lambs, are still excellent movies.

Now, should RoTK win best pic? Well, I haven't seen the damn thing so who knows. But, going off the quality of the first two I suspect I might be in that camp. Especially considering the achievement of the first two films. And quite frankly nothing else has the steam to match. It's too early to tell, but Cold Mountain doesn't seem to be knocking peoplle out of their seats, Last Smaurai good but not gonna do it I don't think.

Regading the bias against fantasy...I really don't think it's going to matter much. These movies have proven themselves I believe. Tow best pic noms show that. And, unless Big Fish is just utterly amazing, I don't see what else is going to take it. Remember, the academy might have a bias against this type of movie, but it LOVES mega grossing epics, which this movie also is. So you never know.

[Grimfarrow]

I didn't think so before either, but after sizing ROTK's competition, I think that it now has a very good chance.

Compare it to:

Cold Mountain - some excellent reviews have been coming out, but the problem with the film is that neither of its leads are getting any positive buzz (Except for Zellweger). Plus, some critics outright hate the film - something that won't happen with ROTK. It depends on the Miramax machine - can they pull of a surprise? Maybe.

The Last Samurai - the reviews have been quite ugly - a 57 on metacritic and 61% at Rottentomatoes attest to that. The audience seems to like it, but the weaker than expected box office doesn't help matters.

Big Fish - some excellent reviews, but the buzz is VERY late - perhaps too late for it to catch up. Also, it is missing from the early awards and Top Ten list.

Master and Commander - very positive reviews, but the audience somehow isn't as into it. Box office hasn't been lighting up either.

Mystic River - by far ROTK's biggest competitor. Sean Penn, IMO WILL get Best Actor. However, the film is very heavy and has some detractors. Also, Clint, while much loved, already won a spade back with "Unforgiven". The Academy may want to give it to someone who's missed it 2 times on a row. And that person is Peter Jackson.

In America - the small film that will tug heartstrings and go on to score a Best Picture nom. But it is also too small to win the big award.

[dcswirl]

If ROTK doesn't win, it will be a crime. It doesn't change my perception of the movie, or any movie for that matter, at all. It's time Peter Jackson was given his due!! Whether or not you're a LOTR fan or not, you cannot deny the quality of this trilogy.

[raven56706]

Here's my two cents.....


Peter Jackson better win the Best Director because he did the best for all three movies. He deserves it and if he doesnt get it, its a crime.

True, fantasy films have never won the oscar but Lord of the Rings should be the exception.

[necros]

RotK if it's as good as we're expecting, will definately deserve best picture and jackson definately deserves best director.

But, the reason there might be "prejudice" for fantasy films is just that up till now all fantasy films sucked. Seriously. Sure, there's people who love Conan, or Willow, or Legend or whatever else, but they're just a handful of people when you look at the bigger picture. In my opinion up until now fantasy movies were most of all boring and/or had terrible acting (usually both). The 3 I mentioned above are perfect examples. And for the record, by fantasy I mean your typical dungeons & dragons & wizards & elves kind of story. There have been other movies out there that mix fantasy with other elements that have been ok.. but really when you look at it, fantasy movies have always sucked. till now, thank god :)

[Movie_Man]

If nothing else, Jackson deserves Best Director for this monumental achievement.

[Groucho]

I think it's hard to award these films "Best Picture" because they feel incomplete...which technically, they are...this was produced as one big long film, not three smaller films.

Return of the King has a better chance than its predecessors if only because it has a definite conclusion.

[PalmerJoss]

Originally posted by Movie_Man
If nothing else, Jackson deserves Best Director for this monumental achievement.

That's what I figure will happen at the Oscars. ROTK will probably take some technical awards, but won't win any big prizes other than Best Director.

[randy1320]

I think in addition to best director, PJ and the cast & crew deserve some kind of special recognition for the whole trilogy. A special achievement award or something. These films are more than epic, they are monumentaly big fat huge masterpieces. After watching the making of features on the EE DVD's, I was stunned by all of the work the cast and crew did on these movies. They went the extra mile on every detail and it shows. I really hope ROTK wins best picture.

[Neeb]

Originally posted by Inverse
If a movie winning Best Picture makes you dislike it, then you are seriously messed up. Do you hate Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather just because someone awarded them a statue of a little gold man?

Okay, I'll clarify my thoughts a little more. Winning Best Picture does not make me hate a film. However, the films that do win Best Picture have become targets for mockery and scorn and become forgotten as the great works of film some of them are. I do not want this fate to befall any of the Lord of the Rings movies.

And the two you mentioned above are [I]great[I] friggin movies.

[Toad]

I hope it wins - not that it really means much, but I think it would be cool for PJ and the boys to get something more than box office records since they deserve it.

Aren't the Oscars about dedication to film? If so, then no one deserves the statues more than the people who worked on this trilogy, in my opinion.

I like movies that win Oscars, I like movies that don't. I think it's crazy for people to hate a movie because it a) wins an award or b) is popular.

[GuessWho]

Impossible question to answer since I haven't seen the movie yet


Duh.

[RayChuang]

...and Peter Jackson will win Best Director. -biggrin-

The reason is simple: the Academy will pretty much give Best Picture and Best Director to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a cumulative award for all three films. They're not going to ignore what is one of the landmark achievements in motion picture history.

I also expect the Academy to honor WETA Digital with technical Oscars for its groundbreaking work with CGI special effects.

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by RayChuang
...and Peter Jackson will win Best Director. -biggrin-

The reason is simple: the Academy will pretty much give Best Picture and Best Director to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a cumulative award for all three films. They're not going to ignore what is one of the landmark achievements in motion picture history.

I also expect the Academy to honor WETA Digital with technical Oscars for its groundbreaking work with CGI special effects.

On the first point, you're priming yourself for a letdown.

On the second point, you're probably right. The Matrix might have given ROTK a run for its money this year if industry people didn't dislike the films as much as they do.

[TCG]

Originally posted by Neeb
We may all want Peter Jackson and company to win- but there is a price for victory, and that price may be our love. We should be careful about what we wish for...
i still love Forrest Gump, Unforgiven & SOTL, as well as many of the films that have been nominated. (i was about to say SPR too, but i remembered when Shakespeare stole it!)

Anyway, as for the Oscars, i dont see ROTK winning both Best Director AND Best Film. i believe the Academy DOES have a bias against fantastical type movies. but if its as good as the reviews are saying so far, then i really hope it wins both. as well as for Screenplay. they deserve it.

[GuessWho]

adapted screenplay

[Dr. Mantle]

However, the films that do win Best Picture have become targets for mockery and scorn and become forgotten as the great works of film some of them are.

It's not that winning a Best Pic. award makes moviegoers resent the film, rather it's that most Best Pic. winners do not fall into the Great Film category. And to have a good (though clearly not Great) film (like Dances with Wolves, A Beautiful Mind, Titanic, etc.) win an award that declares it "The Best Picture of the Year!" when it clearly is not, that makes some people resent the film. (Their anger should really be directed at the Academy.)

No one is going to resent ROTK's Best Pic. win for the same reason no one resents The Godfather's win or Lawrence's win: They truly are Great Films that deserved to be called "Best Picture of the Year!" (Even if that puts them in the company of lesser works like The English Patient or Rocky.).

There are Great Films and there are Best Picture winners. Sometimes the two come together.

But usually not.

[raven56706]

sorry.... titanic sucked big time...

[Dr. Mantle]

sorry.... titanic sucked big time...

Yes, and you've certainly proven that by giving such an insightful and thorough criticism. :rolleyes:


Not everyone in the entire universe needs to agree on the merits of a film for it to be declared "good". Every film has it's detractors, and of course, when talking about artistic mediums, there can be no absolutes.

BUT, for our purposes (a fewpost on an internet forum), it shouldn't be considered ludicrous to call Titanic "good".

Look at it's Rotten Tomatoes score. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Titanic-1082487/)

And it didn't stay number one at the box office for sixteen week because audiences hated.

[TCG]

Originally posted by Dr. Mantle
And it didn't stay number one at the box office for sixteen week because audiences hated.
no, it stayed there bc every 16-year-old girl saw it 10 times.

Box Office gross is in no way determinant of how good a film is. I mean, Armageddon was the top grossing film of '98! (not counting the re-release of SPR)

in every thread about Best Picture Oscars, people are very quick to point out their hatred of Titanic. Personally, 1997 was a pretty weak year for films. I thought Titanic was good, that's all. But I do see the amazing technical mastery that went into it.

what is this thread about again? oh yeah, ROTK. hopefully, it wins Best Picture. :)

[Dr. Mantle]

Box Office gross is in no way determinant of how good a film is.

I agree.

But Titanic's box office gross is significantly different from most films. It is certainly possible to "front load" a really bad movie (like The Mummy Returns) and get it past the $200 million mark. But Titanic is clearly in a category by itself.

SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!

No film cam make that kind of money from a single segment of the population. I'm sure 16-year-old girls were repeat customers many, many times, but they coulnd't possibly be the sole reason for such an enormous success.

Tons and tons of people (outside the above demographic) loved Titanic and went to see it multiple time. I went three times myself.

To bring us back to LOTR: Haven't many individuals, of both genders and all ages, been fans of the Lord of the Rings?

To say that Titainic was so successful ONLY because of 16 y.o. girls is the same as saying the LOTR films have ONLY been successful becasue of 16 y.o. boys.

[MoviePage]

"Is ROTK really a contender?" At this point, it's certainly the clear frontrunner to win.

[raven56706]

Originally posted by Dr. Mantle
Yes, and you've certainly proven that by giving such an insightful and thorough criticism. :rolleyes:


Not everyone in the entire universe needs to agree on the merits of a film for it to be declared "good". Every film has it's detractors, and of course, when talking about artistic mediums, there can be no absolutes.

BUT, for our purposes (a fewpost on an internet forum), it shouldn't be considered ludicrous to call Titanic "good".

Look at it's Rotten Tomatoes score. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Titanic-1082487/)

And it didn't stay number one at the box office for sixteen week because audiences hated.

Ok insightful........ here we go..

Sorry but alot of repeat people were young girls in love with leo.

Sorry but some of the big critics even critized titanic. So far the big boys have praised ROTK.

Titanic was an epic digital movie with some bad acting. The big star was the boat.

Titanic didnt deserve it. LA Confidential should have won. Look at rotten tomatoes. Here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/LAConfidential-1080169/

[Neeb]

Originally posted by raven56706
Titanic was an epic digital movie with some bad acting. The big star was the boat.

Titanic didnt deserve it. LA Confidential should have won. Look at rotten tomatoes. Here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/LAConfidential-1080169/

A few things about Titanic... I always felt there were two sets of acting going on in Titanic.
You have the historical fiction piece involving Bernard Hill, Victor Garber, and the others who played the crew- and they performed magnificently. Certainly as good as anything else in 1997.
Then you have the dime store romance piece involving Leo, Kate, Billy et al. And that varied wildly. And as far as the acting by those players is concerned, they have my eternal admiration through struggling through some trite dialogue- but they believed the dialogue and for three hours, about 100 million people in the US were did. Not in reflection, but in the time we spent in theatre.
Cameron probably should have brought in a co-writer (William Wisher?) or allowed for improvisation, but what did people want? Hip, self-aware, post-modern one-liners? William Goldman is right when he says that dialogue is the least important part of a screenplay. Screenplays are structure.

And as far as the cult of LA Confidential, are you nuts? Film noir is not supposed to have happy endings. Evil wins and people lose their souls and do not walk away with the girl into the sunset. So what does LA Confidential do? It gives us a happy ending . And the force that it had been building for the previous 110 minutes is immediately shot. There are a great many who think its better than Chinatown. I hope that mass does not breed. We as a species can not stand to have the genetic pool polluted with such a mentality.

[Dr. Mantle]

Sorry but alot of repeat people were young girls in love with leo.
I would certainly agree that young girls in love with Leo would be the demographic most likely to see Titanic multiple times. But I truly believe that all other demographics contributed greatly to its box office success. Really, let's think back a few years: Titanic had a major impact on pop culture. It was everywhere. And you absolutely cannot say that young girls were the sole reason for that.

Sorry but some of the big critics even critized titanic. So far the big boys have praised ROTK.
The "Creme of the Crop" at RT is only at 68%, instead of 88% for all critical reviews. But 68% is still a majority. Therefore, it's not out of line to say MOST critics thought it was good movie.

And yes, the LOTR films have gotten much better reviews, and I agree with them getting better review because they are better films.

Titanic didnt deserve it. LA Confidential should have won.
Again, I agree. L.A. Confidential was an infinitely better film that would have truly deserved a Best Picture Oscar. . . But that doesn't mean Titanic is a bad movie.

And as far as the acting by those players is concerned, they have my eternal admiration through struggling through some trite dialogue-
Personally, I always had a very hard time discerning the quality of a performance when the dialogue is appalling.

Film noir is not supposed to have happy endings. Evil wins and people lose their souls and do not walk away with the girl into the sunset. So what does LA Confidential do? It gives us a happy ending.
That ending is from the book.

And I don't think it's fair to say that all film noirs require an unhappy end. For any genre, there are certain ideas and themes that are common, but not all of those ideas and themes are necessary for every film in that genre. I think if you were to ask anyone who's seen Confidential, a vasy majority (like 90% or more) would say that it's a film noir.

***L.A. CONFIDENTIAL SPOILER***


And I think it kind of does have an unhappy ending: Yeah, Bud and Lynn might ride off into the sunset, but Exley (who had so many high ideals about being a police office at the beginning of the film) has accepted the evils of the system. He learned that, to be a good detective, sometime you might have to shoot a hardened criminal in the back.

[dunno260]

*Continuing the LA Confidential Spoiler*

Thank you, I think LA Confidential had a very noirish ending if you look under the surface of it. Exley has certainly resigned himself into the system, the system isn't changed, you still have a dirty DA, and your dirty cop is a hero.

Anyways, the ending FITS the movie. LA Confidential also isn't a film noir, its a neo-noir film, though certainly the most noirish of the neo-noirs. Think of Chinatown, instead of being an extremely dark film like Sunset Boulevard, its incredibly bright. You think Chinatown is a better movie (and it very well may be, I liked LA more, but Chinatown is probably a better) and will give it a pass when it breaks from your genre while you won't give LA Confidential a pass as well. Regardless, LA Confidential was a much better movie than Titanic. It was one of the best movies of the 90s and certainly the best one that year.

[raven56706]

Sorry but Titanic next to LA Confidential, puts titanic in the category of sucks.

[Dr. Mantle]

Sorry but Titanic next to LA Confidential, puts titanic in the category of sucks.

99% of all filmdom falls into the "sucks" category when compared to L.A. Confidential. :cool:

[Neeb]

Originally posted by Dr. Mantle

That ending is from the book.

And I don't think it's fair to say that all film noirs require an unhappy end. For any genre, there are certain ideas and themes that are common, but not all of those ideas and themes are necessary for every film in that genre. I think if you were to ask anyone who's seen Confidential, a vasy majority (like 90% or more) would say that it's a film noir.

***L.A. CONFIDENTIAL SPOILER***


And I think it kind of does have an unhappy ending: Yeah, Bud and Lynn might ride off into the sunset, but Exley (who had so many high ideals about being a police office at the beginning of the film) has accepted the evils of the system. He learned that, to be a good detective, sometime you might have to shoot a hardened criminal in the back. [/B]

Not the LA Confidential I read. The endings are very different. And the main problem I have is that it didn't know where to stop. If we'd faded out right as Exley had shot Smith and the credits rolled right there- you'd have a great movie.
But no, we have a prissy cop played up as a hero. Russell Crowe rides off into the sunset with Kim Basinger and the promise of a bright future.
LA Confidental wants to have two things. 1. The dark side of institutionalized evil in the persona of Dudley Smith and 2. reassurance that there are good people who will fight that evil and eventually survive, better people than they were when they started. I liked, no I loved, it when the movie played up 1.
2. was insulting and really had no place being in such a movie- and it ruins the movie because it says that we can have a better world (and insofar as the LAPD is concerned, that ain't the case).

[QuiGonJosh]

critics dont know jack shit...Titanic deserved it...you dont come across an epic like that every year...

[dunno260]

I thought Exley was a snake personally. I was not left with the feeling that things were great at all. The DA should be in jail, Exley is serving his self interest and not really LA's, whats to like about the ending that makes it oh so happy in your eyes.

[raven56706]

Originally posted by QuiGonJosh
critics dont know jack shit...Titanic deserved it...you dont come across an epic like that every year...

its been three years and three epics.


THE lord of the rings trilogy...... awesome epics

[Neeb]

Originally posted by raven56706
its been three years and three epics.


THE lord of the rings trilogy...... awesome epics

Yup. Although I temper myself with knowledge that such a phenomena occurs once every 25 years or so. No one has tried what Pete Jackson and Company tried, and I don't know if anyone will ever try again.

[aynrandgirl]

Originally posted by necros
But, the reason there might be "prejudice" for fantasy films is just that up till now all fantasy films sucked.
Whether the film sucked or not makes no difference. Haley Joel Osmont got robbed when he didn't get at least a nomination for AI, for example.

Pixar's films have been so good they would have a legitimate shot at Best Picture if the Academy hadn't artfully created the ghetto of Best Animated Picture (which not coincidentally gives Disney's IMO inferior in-house features undeserved Oscar nominations).

[Josh H]

I think it's definitely a legit contender, the favorite even.

1. The academey will likely consider rewarding it for the whole trilogy.

2. Buzz among critics has been very positive. It even one Best Picture from the NY Times critics who almost always give that award to Indie films.

[scott shelton]

Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
I think it's definitely a legit contender, the favorite even.

1. The academey will likely consider rewarding it for the whole trilogy.

2. Buzz among critics has been very positive. It even one Best Picture from the NY Times critics who almost always give that award to Indie films.

The academy skews pretty old. Don't count on a win, though it is possible. I wouldn't call the film "the favorite" just yet...

[Josh H]

True. But I think this film would fare much better with older academy members than Gladiator which won a few years ago given that it's based on a classic book that came out like 60 years ago and is much less violent.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by scott shelton
The academy skews pretty old. Don't count on a win, though it is possible. I wouldn't call the film "the favorite" just yet...

Tolkien wrote this stuff in the 1940s.

The academy remembers this from their college days!

[shawagg]

Will it win: Good chance (the academy may want to give it to him since he's done a great job on the last two and this was a monumental feat of making three films at once. Plus PJ may never make it to this level again)

Should it win: No. It not that good of a film on it's own. And out of the the three the only one that should have won is the first one.


Then again the Oscars suck. It's just an over blown high school president election. Every year films that should be nominated aren't. Films that should win don't. And most of the time the one who wins only wins because either a. the studio swayed voters with ads in varitey and such or b. they're popular among hollywood players and they get the nod (hence all the talk about Tom Cruise winning one this year).

[glassdragon]

YES

[IIG]

I partially agree with shawagg on this one. LOTR: ROTK has a very good chance of winning BP, but it certainly shouldn't. I disagree that the film doesn't hold up well on its own, because in fact, I think it covers the roots of the story very well, and brings closure to the story, which the first two in the trilogy can never boast. In my opinion though, ROTK shouldn't win, because it wasn't the best picture of 2003.

[B.A.]

After seeing it last night - NO, it doesn't have a chance and should not. FotR and TTT deserved it far more, particularly FotR. I have seen at least a dozen movies this year that were more deserving.

[Iron_Giant]

Originally posted by RayChuang
...and Peter Jackson will win Best Director. -biggrin-

The reason is simple: the Academy will pretty much give Best Picture and Best Director to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a cumulative award for all three films. They're not going to ignore what is one of the landmark achievements in motion picture history.

I also expect the Academy to honor WETA Digital with technical Oscars for its groundbreaking work with CGI special effects.
I read all the comments because I knew someone was going to write the correct statement:
1. The award would be for all 3 of the movies, if they gave it to the 1st movie, they would have had to given it to the next 2 movies.

2. Gollum should get his own Award, he was a true actor and deserves to get his own statue.

[Dr. DVD]

Originally posted by Iron_Giant
I read all the comments because I knew someone was going to write the correct statement:
1. The award would be for all 3 of the movies, if they gave it to the 1st movie, they would have had to given it to the next 2 movies.

2. Gollum should get his own Award, he was a true actor and deserves to get his own statue.

Haven't seen it yet, but this is how the Academy works. They like to award filmmakers and actors for movies other than the one for which they should have won in the past. Hence Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator when he should have won for either ABM or The Insider. Not to mention Denzel winning for Training Day when he should have won for Hurricane.
Strange politics, but that's how it works. While I love LOTR, I really don't think TTT deserved a Best Picture nomination last year. I only think they nominated it so they could build momentum for this year and make the series as a whole a legit contender. Having FOTR and ROTK nominated would have made little sense, but having all three does in some weird way.

[Josh H]

I say yes even more emphatically after seeing it.

[jough]

Originally posted by B.A.hist
After seeing it last night - NO, it doesn't have a chance and should not. FotR and TTT deserved it far more, particularly FotR. I have seen at least a dozen movies this year that were more deserving.

Um, can you name ONE film this year that was better than RotK?

I admittedly haven't seen every film released this year, but I found Return of the King to be the most exhilerating film I've seen since Pulp Fiction. To me the Lord of the Rings film represent everything that's right about pure cinema.

What's more deserving in your mind? The Last Samurai? Big Fish? Hulk? Finding Nemo? American Splendor? Lost in Translation?

It's been a good year for cinema, but none are more deserving of winning Best Picture than Return of the King, as a cumulative award for the trilogy if nothing else.

[jough]

Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator when he should have won for either ABM or The Insider.

Well, he won the Best Actor award for Gladiaor a year before A Beautiful Mind was released. But you're right, he should have won instead for "The Insider."

And Chicago won because Academy members should have voted for "Moulin Rouge" the previous year (not that Chicago itself wasn't a good film, but it's not one of the "Great Films" that will stand the test of time, is it?).

Of course, Apocalypse Now didn't win Best Picture.

I think the Lord of the Rings, when viewed as a single 10 hour film, is one of the crowning achievements of cinema. EVER.

And it will likely be regarded as such for some time to come.

Can you say that about Gladiator or A Beautiful Mind? Or even the funny and clever Shakespeare in Love? Or the English Patient?

[raven56706]

Listen, if Chicago can win best picture....... ROTK can.


ROTK ruled and was very moving.

[Lateralus42]

The Lord of the Rings will stand the test of time. 30 years from now people will still love these movies and no one will remember A beautiful Mind or whatever else won last year.

[B.A.]

Originally posted by jough
Um, can you name ONE film this year that was better than RotK?

I admittedly haven't seen every film released this year, but I found Return of the King to be the most exhilerating film I've seen since Pulp Fiction. To me the Lord of the Rings film represent everything that's right about pure cinema.

What's more deserving in your mind? The Last Samurai? Big Fish? Hulk? Finding Nemo? American Splendor? Lost in Translation?

It's been a good year for cinema, but none are more deserving of winning Best Picture than Return of the King, as a cumulative award for the trilogy if nothing else. Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said it doesn't have a chance (I was disappointed w/ it and my frustration and lack of sleep came out in my post), because if it does win it will be a cumulative Best Picture award for all three, but I think RotK was the worst of the three and I don't think it should win the award - Fellowship should have. It's my opinion, and in my opinion I have seen several movies that were better this year.

And in my opinion your argument loses all credibility when you think RotK was the most exhilirating piece of film-making since Pulp Fiction. ;)

[Josh H]

Originally posted by B.A.hist
And in my opinion your argument loses all credibility when you think RotK was the most exhilirating piece of film-making since Pulp Fiction.

I hate when people say elitist crap like that.

Your opinion is no better than his. Movies are 100% subjective. There is no right or wrong when it comes to rating movies, it's simply a matter of opinion.

You disagree with him, and that's fine and dandy. But there's no reason to discredit his opinion. It just makes you look like a snob.

[bdshort]

Josh: I was trying to think of a good way to reply to his post, but I think you pretty much covered it.

[necros]

As much as I loved RotK, I don't think it will get best picture. In fact, I'd rather see some kind of "achievement award" or something that goes for the entire trilogy, instead of just singling out 1 movie

[B.A.]

Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
I hate when people say elitist crap like that.

Your opinion is no better than his. Movies are 100% subjective. There is no right or wrong when it comes to rating movies, it's simply a matter of opinion.

You disagree with him, and that's fine and dandy. But there's no reason to discredit his opinion. It just makes you look like a snob. Oops, I thought I put the ;) in there. I swear I was just being sarcastic. I hate it when people are elitist-snobs on the forum, too. Let me edit my post. Sorry about that guys...there, it's fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out.

[jarofclay73]

I believe that ROTK will get a Best Picture nomination but will not win for Best Picture. Why? Because Peter Jackson has not kissed Hollywood's pinky ring. And none of the actors are Hollywood insiders either. The Oscars have been dumbed down to a popularity contest amongst friends.

With that said, I think "Mystic River" has a good chance of winning the Oscar. Nearly all the internet comments of "normal" people have said this movie is "okay." But there is a critical buzz about it. And if you look at the cast and crew: it's all Hollywood insiders and former Oscar nominees: Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney.

And I believe WETA has won the SFX Oscar for the past two years so they will probably win again. I don't think ILM has won since Forrest Gump.

Oscars don't necessarily give awards to the best movies of the year.

[movielib]

I just came back from seeing RotK. Granted this has not been an overall stellar movie year. Also, I have not seen some of the probable contenders (Cold Mountain, House of Sand and Fog etc.). But The Return of the King so outshines touted contenders such as Mystic River (a fine film but with a number of flaws which, IMO, should take it well out of serious contention), Master and Commander (another fine film but, IMO, falls a bit short of greatness), The Last Samurai (not even close) and Lost in Translation (the typical indie overrated movie of the year - I thought Shattered Glass was much better).

I think RotK, even totally on its own and even in the theatrical version, is easily the best film of the year so far and I doubt the contenders yet unreleased will come close (yes, I don't know that for sure, not having seen them yet). Add in the fact that now the trilogy deserves to be judged as a whole and everyone "knows" the extended edition will make it even better as it did for the first two (I know technically, these things should not count but I think it's deserved) and it should be almost a shoo-in.

I suspect that some Academy members will be looking for an excuse to rally to another film (like A Beautiful Mind two years ago) and I think that film will end up being Mystic River. But I hope the majority can put their prejudices against fantasy films aside and give Peter Jackson, The Return of the King and the whole trilogy their due.

[Dr. DVD]

Originally posted by jarofclay73
I believe that ROTK will get a Best Picture nomination but will not win for Best Picture. Why? Because Peter Jackson has not kissed Hollywood's pinky ring. And none of the actors are Hollywood insiders either. The Oscars have been dumbed down to a popularity contest amongst friends.

With that said, I think "Mystic River" has a good chance of winning the Oscar. Nearly all the internet comments of "normal" people have said this movie is "okay." But there is a critical buzz about it. And if you look at the cast and crew: it's all Hollywood insiders and former Oscar nominees: Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney.

And I believe WETA has won the SFX Oscar for the past two years so they will probably win again. I don't think ILM has won since Forrest Gump.

Oscars don't necessarily give awards to the best movies of the year.

You made a very valid point. PJ and Co. really only went to Hollywood for money and funding, then they disappeared to New Zealand with their own crew and took the actors with them. They decided that they would make their movie without constant supervision from Hollywood sharks and putting in cheap stunts (save for Legolas' tricks). When it boils down, they not only went against the Hollywood formula for making epics, they proved that it could actually work, three times over! While a great accomplishment, that most likely doesn't set well with suits and glamour people.
In all honesty, if winning Best Picture means that PJ has to kiss some Hollywood keister, then I would rather him not do so and retain both his and the films' intergrity.

[movielib]

Originally posted by Dr. DVD
...
In all honesty, if winning Best Picture means that PJ has to kiss some Hollywood keister, then I would rather him not do so and retain both his and the films' intergrity.
If PJ has to kiss a little Hollywood ass to get what he deserves I would not fault him for puckering up.

[QuiGonJosh]

if theirs any justice...it'll sweep the awards...

[Ralph Wiggum]

I would say "absolutely not," but I think it'll win.

[NCMojo]

This is a weak year for Oscar-calibre movies in general, and ROTK is pretty clearly one of the best of the bunch. (B.A.hist -- a dozen movies? Really? I find this hard to believe, unless you just out and out hated ROTK.)

I think it'll get a nod, and I think it stands an excellent chance of winning, but if it doesn't... well, I still think it'll make some critics lists of Top Twenty of All Time.

[B.A.]

Originally posted by NCMojo
(B.A.hist -- a dozen movies? Really? I find this hard to believe, unless you just out and out hated ROTK.)
I didn't hate it, but I built it up so much after seeing the first two several times that I was really disappointed w/ it. It was good, just not great. A dozen may have been a stretch, but I think I have seen several films that are much better just by going through my rankings in the dedicated thread.

Again - I will see it again, but I really can't wait for the EE to really flesh it out.

[creekdipper]

Originally posted by B.A.hist
I didn't hate it, but I built it up so much after seeing the first two several times that I was really disappointed w/ it. It was good, just not great. A dozen may have been a stretch, but I think I have seen several films that are much better just by going through my rankings in the dedicated thread.

Again - I will see it again, but I really can't wait for the EE to really flesh it out.

Uh...B.A., unless I missed it in your ealier posts, you have yet to actually name any of the "several" (downgraded from "a dozen") films that were better than ROTK. Also, your point might be better taken if you would point out WHY those films are better than ROTK.

[chucks888]

Yes and it deserves it.

[Gandalf]

Hope it wins as an acknowledgement for the trilogy, my favourite being FOTR. PJ should win hands down best director as I feel he should've won even in the previous years.

[jekbrown]

for me its a toss up, I wouldnt be disappointed with the Best Picture Oscar if RotK or Seabiscuit won. Pretty much anything else would be a joke... but then the oscars usually are.

j

[B.A.]

Originally posted by creekdipper
Uh...B.A., unless I missed it in your ealier posts, you have yet to actually name any of the "several" (downgraded from "a dozen") films that were better than ROTK. Also, your point might be better taken if you would point out WHY those films are better than ROTK. There is a dedicated thread in the Movie Talk forum - 2003 Rank Them As You See Them. I have my rankings on the second page:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=260568&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

I don't feel the need to explain why each film that was rated higher than RotK was given such a rating. Plain and simple - I was more entertained by those movies.

[jough]

Originally posted by B.A.hist
There is a dedicated thread in the Movie Talk forum - 2003 Rank Them As You See Them. I have my rankings on the second page:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=260568&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

Okay, well, given that you give these films the same rating as RotK, I can understand now the kinds of films you like, and see also that the LOTR films obviously aren't of the same caliber as:

Bad Boys II (2003) - ****
Old School (2003) - ***1/2
Phone Booth (2003) - ****
The Italian Job (2003) - ***1/2
Hulk (2003) - ***1/2
The Recruit (2003) - ***1/2
American Wedding (2003) - ****
The Rundown (2003) - ***1/2
Underworld (2003) - ***1/2
School of Rock (2003) - ***1/2

to you. But there weren't a dozen films on your list rated higher than RotK.

[B.A.]

Originally posted by jough
Okay, well, given that you give these films the same rating as RotK, I can understand now the kinds of films you like, and see also that the LOTR films obviously aren't of the same caliber as:

Bad Boys II (2003) - ****
Old School (2003) - ***1/2
Phone Booth (2003) - ****
The Italian Job (2003) - ***1/2
Hulk (2003) - ***1/2
The Recruit (2003) - ***1/2
American Wedding (2003) - ****
The Rundown (2003) - ***1/2
Underworld (2003) - ***1/2
School of Rock (2003) - ***1/2

to you. But there weren't a dozen films on your list rated higher than RotK. Well, I gave FotR (*****)and TTT (****1/2). I was disappointed w/ RotK, hence the ***1/2.

And I counted 15 movies that I rated higher than RotK.

[astrochimp]

I just saw ROTK tonight,yeah im a little slow but i always wait for the crowds to die down.I usually dont care much about who wins awards and usually i cheer for the "smaller" films but i will be really dissapointed if it doesnt win best picture if not for ROTK itself(which i loved) but for all three films which were something spectacular and captivated so many people over the last couple of years.

And of course i would also love to see Peter Jackson win for direction,that goes without saying.

[Rivero]

Originally posted by B.A.hist


And I counted 15 movies that I rated higher than RotK.

Including Bad Boys II, the most racist, stereotypical, mysoginistic, homphobic and hateful piece of film I've seen all year. How anyone could rate a movie with scenes of borderline necrophilia and a sequence with realistic looking cadavers getting run over by vehicles over ROTK is beyond me, but hey, different strokes for different folks. Getting back on topic, I just thank God you do not vote for the Oscars in any way, shape or form.

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by Rivero
How anyone could rate a movie with scenes of borderline necrophilia and a sequence with realistic looking cadavers getting run over by vehicles over ROTK is beyond me, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Don't tell me that if Nekromantic had come out this year, you wouldn't have been compelled to rate it higher than Return of the King.

[badger1997]

Originally posted by jekbrown
for me its a toss up, I wouldnt be disappointed with the Best Picture Oscar if RotK or Seabiscuit won. Pretty much anything else would be a joke... but then the oscars usually are.

j Why would it be a "joke" if something like Mystic River, Cold Mountain, Lost in Translation, In America or Master and Commander won the award over ROTK or Seabiscuit? Try to look past your bias and realize that there are many other opinions out there and many people liked films other than ROTK this year. :rolleyes:

[jough]

I'm sad that no one seems to consider "The Last Samurai" a legitimate contender. I'd like to see it get a nomination.

There were at least ten good films this year that would be Oscar-worthy (Best Picture). Only half of them will get nominations, and of course only one can win.

The winner is usually the one that's best marketed, especially if the academy members don't get screeners to watch the films.

Lost in Translation will get a push due to its coming out on DVD shortly before the Oscars. But it's a small independent film. When was the last time one of those won Best Picture?

And as far as I can remember, New Line has never won a Best Picture statue (even though they're owned by Warner Bros. which isn't exactly a small independent studio).

[B.A.]

Originally posted by Rivero
Including Bad Boys II, the most racist, stereotypical, mysoginistic, homphobic and hateful piece of film I've seen all year. How anyone could rate a movie with scenes of borderline necrophilia and a sequence with realistic looking cadavers getting run over by vehicles over ROTK is beyond me, but hey, different strokes for different folks. Getting back on topic, I just thank God you do not vote for the Oscars in any way, shape or form. OMG, please calm down - I don't think it's Oscar-worthy material. It was just a completely over-the-top action movie that I happened to enjoy quite a bit. That movie isn't meant to be taken seriously...

[jekbrown]

Originally posted by badger1997
Why would it be a "joke" if something like Mystic River, Cold Mountain, Lost in Translation, In America or Master and Commander won the award over ROTK or Seabiscuit?

prolly cause I dont consider any of those to be in SB/RotKs class... i stated an opinion.. its not any more biased than anyone elses. Take ur pills and calm down a little.

j

[Jan H]

ROTK wins the Producers Guild Award for Best Picture. So, uh, yeah, I think it is really a legit Best Picture contender.

[Jepthah]

I feel a little something like momentum happening here...scuttlebutt is that even the fickle, idiosyncratic Golden Globes may not be going Harvey's way this year... :D

[WillySi7]

im sure "oscar calibur" voters are probably trained to look at several categorys during a theatrical viewing which would include things like quality of acting, cinematography, dialogue, screenplay etc. not just the overall feel good/feel bad experience

in that case, although id LOVE to see ROTK take best picture, it is up against a few good contenders. in reality, i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't win (you never know with the oscars), just dissapointed. for some reason im pulling more for the $1 billion mark than i am the oscars.. something about only the second film in history to reach that status sounds like plenty of an acheivement (if the oscars dont like it, clearly the masses do)

[Jason]

Now that the list of nominees is out, i won't feel bad if ROTK loses the best picture Oscar. All five movies are damn_fine flicks in their own right. It's not like Jackson and company are going to get Annie Hall'ed or something.

I still would love for it to win, of course.

[Groucho]

Bah. Annie Hall deserved the win over Star Wars.

[TCG]

^^
Sorry, Annie Hall is a glorified romantic comedy (this isnt inherently bad, although usually it is). '77 was Star Wars' year. Well, Lucas has the satisfaction of knowing that year will always be remembered for SW, not Hall.

[Suprmallet]

Just to jump in on the completely off topic debate:

1. Annie Hall most definitely deserved to win over Star Wars. Annie Hall is more than a romantic comedy. It's an extraordinarily intelligent film, while still being hilarious. Few romantic films, comedy or drama, have managed to capture the nature of a courtship as well as Annie Hall. Also, cinematically, the film is very daring. For example, the sequence where Hall and Singer have a very shallow conversation on her deck, and their true thoughts are revealed via subtitles, or the reveal of Marshall McLuhan, the animated sequence, etc. It's a very personal film. It may not have the epic arc of Star Wars, but it resonated with more academy voters because so many of them have been in good relationships that for one reason or another went sour. I'd still choose to watch Annie Hall over Star Wars any day, and I'm a huge Star Wars fan.

2. Lord of the Rings could certainly be Annie Hall-ed by Lost In Translation. However, I think there's a bit of a difference in that Lord of the Rings has the power of persuasion in that most people have been waiting from the first one to award Return of the King for all three.

Hell, I'd like to see Lost In Translation win simply because it would give the studios pause for thought as to exactly what films they should be making.

[Jan H]

Annie Hall and Star Wars are two of the best films ever, in their respective genres. The Lord of the Rings films are clearly the best in theirs. Lost in Translation is not worthy of being mentioned with any of these. It is the most overrated movie in many, many years.

[WillySi7]

"Lost in Translation is not worthy of being mentioned with any of these. It is the most overrated movie in many, many years."


true reviews and critiques are based on more than just entertainment value, there are many categories that are looked upon with great detail.

[jough]

Originally posted by Jan H
Annie Hall and Star Wars are two of the best films ever, in their respective genres. The Lord of the Rings films are clearly the best in theirs. Lost in Translation is not worthy of being mentioned with any of these. It is the most overrated movie in many, many years.

If it wasn't for the staggering achievement that is the Lord of the Rings films, I think "Lost in Translation" would be a worthy contender for Best Picture.

I disagree with the notion that it's not one of the best films of its genre. I'm quite a Star Wars fan, but realistically I know that Annie Hall was the best film of 1977, and that while I also believe that RotK was the best film of 2003, Lost in Translation will also be remembered for a long time. I don't have RotK on DVD yet, but I'm sure LiT will get more replay at my house.

[chess]

Originally posted by jough
...I don't have RotK on DVD yet, but I'm sure LiT will get more replay at my house.

sounds like a great place to take a nap.


;)