Why LOTR is winning everything this year and the last two...

bolido2000

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
3,720
1
0
didn't get any recognition?? I personally think this gives the academy even less credibility. Shouldn't film be judge on their own and not "This is a trilogy...we'll give everything to the last one. Same movie sweeping oscars every year is not good"
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
10
81
If they gave the first one what it deserved, what happens when the second one is just as good as the first? Should it get the same awards? Or no awards?
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,093
591
126
Because of the nature of this triliogy I think that they rightly waited until the trilogy was complete before bestowing it with awards.
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
Originally posted by: Howard
If they gave the first one what it deserved, what happens when the second one is just as good as the first? Should it get the same awards? Or no awards?

Well, the awards are made on a yearly basis relative to the other movies out in the same year. So, the first one could have been worse than the second, but the second could have won less awards due to a year of good movies.

That being said, I think they made the right move by judging LOTR as a trilogy and not as individual movies.

R

 

thraxes

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2000
1,974
0
0
Originally posted by: NutBucket
Because of the nature of this triliogy I think that they rightly waited until the trilogy was complete before bestowing it with awards.

Exactly. You don't give out a prize to something that is not finished yet... on the other hand, how many editors choice awards did MS Windows get over the last decade ;)
 

TheBoyBlunder

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2003
5,742
1
0
I think it's for two reasons.
1) Each year they felt there were actually movies that were superior to LOTR.
2) They wanted to save the awards for the third movie and judge it on the basis of the other two.

Edit - Sorry, had to fix that.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
I think it's for two reasons.
1) Each year there were actually movies that were superior to LOTR.
2) They wanted to save the awards for the third movie and judge it on the basis of the other two.

Blasphemy!!
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
I think it's for two reasons.
1) Each year there were actually movies that were superior to LOTR.
2) They wanted to save the awards for the third movie and judge it on the basis of the other two.

Blasphemy!!

Blasphemy is the crime of stating the truth when no one wants to hear it.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
I think it's for two reasons.
1) Each year there were actually movies that were superior to LOTR.
2) They wanted to save the awards for the third movie and judge it on the basis of the other two.
Blasphemy!!
Blasphemy is the crime of stating the truth when no one wants to hear it.
That was poor word choice on his part then. "BS" would have been more accurate. :p

"Beautiful Mind" and "Chicago" will not hold up to the test of time, IMO. I strongly believe that the LOTR movies will show the same resiliance that movies like Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind, and Lawrence of Arabia have shown: when people notice them listed in TV guide 20,30,40 years later, or hit them while chanel surfing, people will choose to watch them because they are still good movies. I know I will, even though I will already own all the DVDs. The LOTR movies were great epics, the movies that beat them for best picture were decent versions of same old forgettable hollywood filler (well, at least Chicago tried to ressurect the musical format, but it wasn't nearly as daring as Moulin Rouge).

That said, I recognize that the Academy has a strong tradition of "spreading the wealth" and aren't prone to repeatedly awarding the same actors/directors/producers when they've had recent victories, and awarding less-than-oscar performances by actors who are "due". In that light, I can understand and accept the Best Picture slights the last two years. If LOTR was to only get one Best Picture win, this was the right year to do it, and this was the right way to do it (with 11 wins, putting it on par with Titanic and Ben-Hur and above everything else). Damn it, I was trying so hard not to put "Titanic" and "LOTR" in the same sentence - there's no comparison...

LOTR has the most Oscar wins of any trilogy in history, and it deserves every one of them. If you want to remain in denial about the quality of these films, nobody is stopping you. The people who know movies from the inside (Academy members) got it right. After the "Gladiator" win however (that routine summer blockbuster didn't even merit a nomination, IMO), I will concede that the Academy isn't infallibe.
 

cerebusPu

Diamond Member
May 27, 2000
4,008
0
0
what i want to know is.....
Before LOTR, Peter Jackson did a few unknown movies, why was he picked for the LOTR trilogy? How could they tell that they he was the one??

his previous achievements::
Forgotten Silver (1995)
Jack Brown Genius (1994) (producer)
Heavenly Creatures (1994) (co-producer)
"Ship to Shore" (1993) TV Series (co-executive producer)
Valley of the Stereos (1992) (co-producer)


Meet the Feebles (1989) (producer)
... aka Just the Feebles (1995) (USA)
Bad Taste (1987) (producer)
 
Nov 5, 2001
18,366
3
0
Originally posted by: rgwalt
Originally posted by: Howard
If they gave the first one what it deserved, what happens when the second one is just as good as the first? Should it get the same awards? Or no awards?

Well, the awards are made on a yearly basis relative to the other movies out in the same year. So, the first one could have been worse than the second, but the second could have won less awards due to a year of good movies.

That being said, I think they made the right move by judging LOTR as a trilogy and not as individual movies.

R

The category is Best Motion Picture...not Best Trilogy