Last night (if you didn't change channels because of all the lame peace symbols) you got to see the Two Towers win Two awards.


SOUND EDITING
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS
Ethan Van der Ryn and Michael Hopkins

Beating Minority Report & Road to Perdition


VISUAL EFFECTS
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS
Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook and Alex Funke

Beating Spiderman & Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones

Check out more at: http://www.eonline.com/Features/Awards/Oscars2003/Scorecard/

Any opinions?

Well, it would have been interesting if "The Man without a Past" would have won for the best foreign-language film, seeing as there would have been no-one to pick up the prize... EVERYONE involved in the making of the film was boycotting the event because of the war :D

What can I say? Kaurismäki is cool. (the director, I mean)

And Eminem has an Oscar now? Coolio.

(Goes off huimming stuff)

Too bad the Oscar for best movie went to chicago instead of The Pianist (which should have gotten it I think!)

I'm glad TTT got the awards -- while I liked the film overall, there were some deviations from the book that I coudn't get 100% behind, and I'm not usually a nit-picker.

IIRC, the Pianist was directed by Polanski, right? He'll never get an Academy Award because of his pedophilic indiscretion a few decades ago. I'm not sure how I feel about that fact, but the fact is there.

Actually he did get the oscar Depaara! And Adrien Brody as well (best actor!) This film had me in a shock. I've never felt as much with a film as with this one. Probably the real hell was far worse, but this movie made me actually understand why people ask: "where was God in WWII" :(

The TT only got 2 awards?!?!? I think Chacago stole the others TT should have gotten...like Best Picture! :rolling:

Well I would have to say that I feel that The Two Towers deserved the awards that it won but quite frankly I don't think that it should have even been a finalist for best picture. Maybe the fact that I am such a big fan of the books makes me look less favourably upon the films but quite frankly I felt most of the film was just repeated displays of eye candy.

I have found that the first two movies have failed to capture the spirit of Tolkein's books and instead have just focused upon action and effects. I realize that the movies were long but in my opinion they would have had to be considerably longer and slower paced to do The Lord of the Rings justice.

Lord of the Rings TTT would never have won best picture. BUT:

If the return of the king isn't going to win best picture and best directing something is seriously wrong with the acadamy.

I always figured that with the last movie they will count three great movies and just award the last one with the major prizes.

If a man can make three films in a row and they are a huge succes I couldn't think of a reason not to award him.

On the Pianist ...

Hollywood Honors Fugitive Child Molester

Roman Polanski was not present last night to collect his Oscar for best director. That's because he is on the lam, a fugitive from justice. The director of The Pianist was
convicted in 1977 for having sex with an underage teenage girl. Rather than face prosecution, Mr. Polanski fled to France, where he has resided ever since. The audience at last night's Academy Awards cheered the absent director and heaped both professional and personal praises on him,
demonstrating again Hollywood's moral vacuity. Few will argue that Mr. Polanski is not a talented filmmaker. But his artistry does not negate the fact that he is a convicted child molester who does not have the moral fiber
to accept responsibility for his actions. The unrelenting narcissism among so many of Hollywood's elite, the industry's rejection of moral standards and embrace of extreme left-wing politics, perhaps help explain why the TV
audience for this year's Oscar telecast was down 23 percent to an all-time low. Hollywood is simply out-of-step with America.

Mathetais, during the Oscars, people are praised for the movies they made..

Not judged for a 25 year old crime, BTW they dont say how old she was, maybe she was 17 :heh:


Edit:
Ouch, just found out she got drugged and was 14..

The praisepart remains the same however, people praise him for his quality to make movies. after all, its about movies, not about sexual desires

[ March 25, 2003, 16:27: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

You have a point about the award judging art, but I have severe problems with a society that says "you can rape a 14 year old girl, buit we'll still accept you as a member of our society, and we'll even let you win awards!" I side with Mathetais' article on this one, regardless of how good the movie may be.

umm I didnt said society should accept him raping a 14-yo child, he still needs to be punished for that..

But still, he gets the price for his way of making movies, not for having sex with 14yo

Well then, I'll add that the movie "The Pianist" missed a HUGE historical fact.

The Nazi did not save the main character because he played Chopin so well. He saved him because he (the Nazi) was a devout Christian.

If you read the memories of the Pianist (that the movie was based on) the German's faith plays a key role ... and it is 100% absent from the movie.

So, our 14 year old raping movie writer is also re-writing history ... and leaving God out. How nice.

well, erm lets ban some more movies:
LOTR, Schlinders List, Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, Band of Brothers, Longest Day, Ben Hur, Jesus Christ Superstar, Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, etc, etc, etc

All for changing the original story, even though it was accepted by the society, Agree?

Of course you don´t, but still, he is rewarded for his ability to make movies, and his sexual desires have nothing to do with it

Actually Mat this was not left out! I can't remember the exact moment this was spoken, but somewhere in the beginning of the movie, a jewish person asks szpilman where God is. This question is underlying the entire movie. But in the end of the movie the german officier says "don't thank me thank God" Or something like that. So I think this key role is still in place. :)

I guess that I should call this blasphemy The Two Oscars now... *sigh*

Sheesh Morgoth ... I'm not saying that you can't take licenses with history in a film. What I am saying is that this film has the cards stacked against it ... rapist director, leaving out key issues of faith (yeah, aegron, there are a few references, but very, very subtle) ... it just shows Hollywood's biases.

(btw .. I think the quote is "you must live, its God's will)

well, give Roman Polanski a break.

He's had a long and outstanding career as filmmaker and a tragic life. And a faible for younger women, that's true.

But think about that:

1. He's a holocaust survivor.

2. His parents where killed in concentration camps.

3. His pregnant wife was raped and killed by the Charlie Manson clan.

And about those accusations against him. I guess they never were that serious really, because the US authorities never tried to get him back.

And anyway, Jack Nicholson (Who also has a faible for younger women) was accused as Polanski's accomplice, but the charges against him where droped.

I just think it's funny that a newspaper aricle would focus on a dubious accusation, just to bash the "immoral and decadent" actors and actresses of Hollywood, when it's got such a biography to chose from.

[ March 25, 2003, 20:53: Message edited by: Yago ]

I am not debating the fact that Polanski can make great films. I like a lot of his films, but the fact is, I cannot separate his immorality from the man -- such a man does not deserve to be honored for ANYTHING. I do not care about what happened to him in the Holocaust or about the loss of his wife -- neither of those two facts gives him the right to drug and rape 14 year old girls. I've had a hard life too, but I'm not raping anyone -- nothing gives anyone the right to rape.

As for re-writing history, well, every screenplay fiddles with the facts. That in itself doesn't concern me.

If it's good enough (I haven't seen it) then by all means, give it best picture, best actor (I know it got that) best backdrops, whatever. But I have a serious problem with honoring a rapist --one that hasn't even paid his debt to society, to boot! Rapists are the lowest form of filth, and to act like he's a normal person is highly offensive to me.

OK, I just looked -- we are way :yot: ! Sorry, folks! If anyone wants to continue this, I'll meet them in a new thread.

[ March 25, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: Depaara ]

"rape"

It's not about rape, it's about sex with minors. These are 2 different things. (If you don't believe me, look it up in a lawbook)

He's not convicted (Or only convicted in absence). And I really don't think those charges are substantiated. At least over here in europe, it seems to me that everyone takes this californian charges with more than only a grain of salt.

And the americans never dared to get to an court in an european country to demand his extradition.

And I really understand that he fled the USA. After what he went through over there, with the american courts and media after the death of his wife.

So, I wouldn't call him a "rapist".

[ March 25, 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Yago ]

If the girl didn't want it, it was rape AND sex with an underaged woman. There you go.

And yes, all those rapists are lowest filth to me as well.

:/

And LOTR should have gotten more Oscars. Idiots. Idiots. Stupid Academy Idiots.

It's not about rape, it's about sex with minors. These are 2 different things. (If you don't believe me, look it up in a lawbook)
Actually, sex with a minor in some countries like the UK *IS* rape. There is no exception - by definition, sex with a girl under 16 is "statutory rape".

It will rarely be prosecuted if consentual and particularly if the two participants are of a similar age, but there it is. Most common cases of prosecution are when the defendant is in some sort of responsible relationship with the underage girl, like teacher etc.

Not sure how law views sex with an underage boy in terms of rape though.

Still, on topic :) TTT could perhaps have got more than the two it did get, but best film would have been stretching things a little.

Already looking forward to part III myself. :)

I agree with Eze. What else needs to be said?

On both counts, that is.

(The blue-haired freak from the cold north)

Oops, sorry, my fault. That's anglo-saxon law then. In continental law, there are special laws concerning sex with minors. Which actually are all the same like the ones you stated.

Except that "rape" under this circumstances per definition is impossible in continental law terms. Roughly translated it would be "defilment". Only dogmatic difference, no difference in Jail time.

But my point still is: If he actually did this, he would have been prosecuted in europe too. French authorities would have been obliged to prosecute him, if there was evidence, that i really did it.
He wasn't prosecuted. So, in my view, the charges are bogus.

[ March 26, 2003, 18:54: Message edited by: Yago ]

"Lord of the Rings TTT would never have won best picture. BUT:

If the return of the king isn't going to win best picture and best directing something is seriously wrong with the acadamy."

It isn't going to get Best Picture, so don't get your hopes up. It's not even out yet for crying out loud.

Be glad TTT got the Visual Effects award. I feel while TTT had great effects, AOTC has more and are better. But SW has had its share of Oscars in the past (especially with the original) and so it's time to share the wealth. Likewise, don't expect Return of the King to get much of anything. Yes these are all seperate films, but they are lumped together as a franchise. A franchise doesn't need to get the same awards for what is esentially a continuation of the original or first of the franchise.

Imagine that ... Big B prefers Star Wars to the LOTR :tie:

:lol: not that he's biased ;) j/k

Hey now, I enjoy LOTR, just not as much as SW. Seriously, the speeder chase on Coruscant, the rumble in the rain between Obi-Wan and Jango, the Asteroid Belt dogfight, the Battle of Geonosis (not to mention the droid factory), and the end lightsaber duel took the cake for visual effects . CG-characters? Been there, done that. But yeah AOTC has Yoda, Jar Jar, Watto, Dexter, and the Kaminoans and Geonosians and the Clones (who are indistinguishable from the extras dressed as stormtroopers). Shoot, at select times it's CG Obi-Wan and Dooku when the need arises to pull off what's onscreen.

And it looks great, especially when you see it on digital projection, since it was made on digital prints and not film. AOTC is far more innovative in terms of effects than anything that came out last year. But it's ok that it didn't get the award and was just nominated for it, as I said SW has already been awarded best visual effects back in the 70's. This is just a continuation of innovation in special effects. It's a continuation of the legacy and I think the Academy acknowledges that without having to give SW the Visual Effects Award everytime a new SW movie is released.

:tie:

I think what probably tipped the scale is Gollum - a CG character that can actually "act". Don't get me wrong I think the special effects in AOTC were good but they were very good computer simulations of bad acting.

Hmm, while I agree Gollum's acting was great (I mean who doesn't love the parts where he argues with himself?), the acting of CGI characters in AOTC is not as bad as you imply.

I think Yoda and Watto give Gollum a run for his money. Dex, Jar Jar, and the Kaminoan leaders, Taun We and Lama Su are not far behind either. As with the case of Jar Jar, just because you don't agree with or like a specific character, doesn't mean that character is badly acted. Time and again, I see people make this mistake.

Big B, one of the reasons I don't like Jar Jar is because he's poorly acted. And as far as I'm concerned, they screwed up Yoda's character as well. Maybe that wasn't so much bad acting as bad writing, but nevertheless, that must have helped the Academy to decide to go with TTT.

Jar Jar's role is that of the fool. Since most people consider him that, I'd say his acting is on the spot. The intended result is reached.

Yoda's character is not messed up. Let me tell you that Yoda is one of my top three favorite SW characters from the whole Saga (long before AOTC ever came out) and I would raise the roof if I thought in any way that Yoda's character was "messed up." He now has significant character growth between AOTC and ESB. When he tells Luke in ESB that wars not make one great, it's even better than it was originally. When he tells Luke that he should sacrifice his friends because he honors what they fight for, it is enhanced in that we see how Yoda learned this valuable lesson long ago. So I would totally disagree that Yoda's character has been ruined. Quite the opposite, his character has been greatly enhanced.

I immediately expected that when I saw the movie for the first time recently. Hey, I thought, this Peter Jackson knows his stuff, better than Tolkien. His interpretation of the book is ... unpreceded ... I didn't really see a (=any) reason for the freely invented half of the movie (nor the falsified other half), like the elves at Horn's Deep :whoa: the continuous dwarf jokes :rolleyes: Legolas skateshielding :almostmad: Aragon's near death experience :mad: and the re-interpretion of the ent's fight ... to name a few ... points. For me one thing is clear, :flaming: the film sucked :flaming:

But eventually the film was nice and colorfull, yes, and the sound was nice and loud too. Cool :p

Well, Big B., I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one -- I loved Yoda in the first trilogy, and I hate what's happening to him (character-wise) in the second. 'Nuff said on that topic!

TTT was fun, but I was still sad when they made so many unnecessary changes and additions. Even taking it on its own, well, I still don't think it merits the best picture award.

Did FOTR get best pic last year? I think it did. I also think it deserved it, even if it didn't get it.

It did not. The utterly idiotic movie called 'A Beautiful Mind' won it.

*trots off to gag*

And TTT didn't suck. Only romance parts did.

And it is Helm's Deep, not Horn's Deep.

I made a resolution long before the movies came out: The books are "bookverse" and the movies are "Movieverse". In oher words, the same story but a different story. Does this make any sense?

Having read fan fiction for years has helped a lot to make this distinction... having learned the concept of "Alternate Universe" has made it easy to accept the movies simply as a different version of the story.

It is like many old legends and folktales that have many versions, I think.

/end rant mode

(*runs off with the elves*)

[ March 28, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Arabwel ]

For more reasons not to watch the Oscars ... see my little rant on Michael Moore here ...

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000209;p=1#000 032

The only real reason to watch the Oscars is the clothes! :roll: