Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Return of the King Wins Four Golden Globes

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the thank-all-the-little-people dept.

Lord of the Rings 397

stubear writes "According to MSNBC, 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King' won 4 Golden Globes, for Best Picture - Drama, Best Director (Peter Jackson), Best Original Score (Howard Shore), and Best Original Song ("Into the West" by Howard Shore, Fran Walsh and Annie Lennox). LotR: RotK was the big winner for the night, at least for movies. Hopefully LotR: RotK will fare just as well, or better, at the Oscars."

cancel ×

397 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There's a moral to this story (5, Insightful)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086897)

When making ambitious trilogies, shoot the whole set in one go. Do not try to make a Version 2 years after the first one made it big, or you will end up looking like a fool. And yes, I'm still regretting having seen the second Matrix movie.

Re:There's a moral to this story (0)

1SmartOne (744638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086901)

You are absolutely correct. I'm glad that they shot it all at once. Too bad about Matrix.

Re:There's a moral to this story (-1, Redundant)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086902)

I agree with you, and I'm not the only one

Go to http://news.bbc.co.uk, and type in

shit movie

into the search box and see what comes up

Jolyon

Re:There's a moral to this story (0, Funny)

!the!bad!fish! (704825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086973)

Using the news.bbc.co.uk search results isn't an accurate method for judging a movie.
Try entering crap movie [bbc.co.uk] into the search box.

I see the Two Towers a number 1.

Re:There's a moral to this story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087123)

What's the inaccuracy there?

Re:There's a moral to this story (2, Interesting)

Anise (740453) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086907)

How likely does everyone think this is to carry over to the Oscars? Or will that awful wallow *Cold Mountain* win everything? (Yes, I just had to watch almost 2 and 1/2 hours of Jude Law covered in mud, blood, and fake beards, which kind of makes it pointless to have him onscreen, and Nicole Kidman getting her hair mysteriously re-highlighted during the middle of the Civil War.)

Re:There's a moral to this story (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087059)

How likely does everyone think this is to carry over to the Oscars?

Based on the odds for the Golden Globes, I'd say it's very likely. If you wanted to bet on last night's awards you had to lay 4-1 for it to win best picture, and 5-1 for best director. (In other words, to win $100 you had to risk $400 or $500, respectively.)

Re:There's a moral to this story (5, Insightful)

Wanderer2 (690578) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086919)

Indeed. It also means you won't have many cases of different actors playing the same characters in different movies because the original actor died/wanted too much money/fell out with the rest of the cast and crew etc.

But there aren't many studios that would let you do such a thing, in case the first movie is a flop and the whole trilogy makes an enormous loss as a result.

Re:There's a moral to this story (5, Insightful)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087128)

If I were a Hollywood exec, I would draw the opposite conclusion from The Matrix. Look at the numbers [boxofficemojo.com] for Revolutions. It didn't even make it's production budget back, with a total that is HALF of what Reloaded made. Given that Revolutions was no better than Reloaded, what could WB be expecting if they had another $150 million matrix movie coming up?

The LOTR movies are remarkable in Hollywood history. Two Towers was the first sequel EVER to a blockbuster ($200 million +) to make more then it's prequel, and Return of the King was the second. They managed this because they were excellent movies: fan liked them, wide audiences liked them, critics liked them. But Revolutions gives you some idea of what would have happened if Fellowship had been a disappointment. It isn't pretty...

So, my lesson from the Matrix would be: WB should never have footed the bill for a second sequel until they knew if the first sequel worked (*). The lesson from LOTRs is really just: sometimes gutsy, risky calls pay off in a big way. Most of the time they don't...

(*) Of course, Hollywood would have looked at the numbers for Revolutions and decided that it did, instead of realizing that it made that money on the back of the first movie, and had no legs to stand on it's own.

Re:There's a moral to this story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087166)

Oops, forgot the overseas numbers there smart guy. Look again and you'll see it's at 400 million, not the under 150 million you claim.

Re:There's a moral to this story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087255)

> The lesson from LOTRs is really just: sometimes gutsy, risky calls pay off in a big way.

Hey, that's just like the message IN the movie!

Re:There's a moral to this story (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087178)

Unless the characters are meant to grow older during the stories (eg Harry Potter - although that's bigger than a trilogy).

Or if you were making a Dr Who trilogy and the Doctor was meant to regenerate...

Re:There's a moral to this story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087206)

....and the third.

I hope Peter Jacson finally gets an oscar.... (1, Insightful)

aeneas (139456) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086900)

He deserves it!

s/Jacson/Jackson/ (-1)

aeneas (139456) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086912)

n/t

Congratulations all round (0, Redundant)

MrRTFM (740877) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086903)

They all did a fantastic job with the movies. I never would have believed it could be done so well.

ROTK had the gayest ending ever (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086904)

Admit it.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (1)

1SmartOne (744638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086909)

The singing was a bit odd. I thought the ending was good though.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (-1, Flamebait)

tankdilla (652987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086931)

The end was appropriately long for the entire length and buildup of the movie. I thought the movie would end with them dying on the rock in the lava river. Actually I wanna see the alternate endings that come on the DVD.

But on the other hand it was a long ending.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086940)

Alternate Endings? The ending is straight out of the book! The only think different is the Battle of Bywater, and they didn't film that.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086963)

Maybe in this alternate ending, Sam and Frodo die, Saurumon comes back and kills Gandalf, and perhaps both acts were masterminded by the betrayer Aragorn, who is now the prince of Mordor?

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087154)

I did read the book but somewhere in my mind there was a small desire to see Peter Jackson f up the story by letting Sauron conquer middle earth. I know that's terrible desire, but it would've been fun to watch. *ducks*

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087160)

Actually I wanna see the alternate endings that come on the DVD.

I am waiting for the sequal made by Paul Verhoeven. It will start in Middle Earth in the year 3266. The ring was not molten and found by a robot who then becomes very powerfull. It will cause a war between Middle Earth and the rest of the universe. We will only see the ring in the firt 3 minutes and after that it is just a lot of exploding spaceships and planets.

The name of the movie is. Lord of the ring: The saga continues. It will be better, faster and more explosive then anything before. It will also contain less talking and more nudity.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087183)

So that's what happens in Star Wars Episode 3. Makes complete sense.

Bruckheimer LOTR adaptation (2, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087229)

How about the Jerry Bruckheimer version?

Merry and Pippin get into the fireworks. Instead of a premature dragon-launch, all of Hobbiton goes up in a 15-minute long orgy of pyrotechnic destruction.

When Gandalf defeats the Balrog, it blows up real good.

The orcs must be filled with gas at Helms Deep, because each time one of them is hit, it explodes like a Pinto.

The kill competition between Gimli and Legolas is made more exciting because each of them has a rocket-launcher instead of a bow or axe. Boom! Boom! Boom!

Those heads lobbed over the Minas Tirith walls? Those are EXPLODING heads now.

Just to make things more exciting, each time an Oliphaunt is killed and falls, it blows up in a fireball the size of Brooklyn.

Ring explodes when it hits the lava.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086935)

How is this a troll?

ROTK didn't just have gay overtones - there is no subtlety in it. Why Jackson did this is beyond me. It added no value to the film at all.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (2, Informative)

Lord of Ironhand (456015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087258)

If you had read the book, you would have known that the "closeness" of Frodo and Sam (which you are presumably referring to) was not added by Peter Jackson, but already present in the original books.
Interesting discussion on the subject here [southernvoice.com] .

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (3, Funny)

spakka (606417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086964)

The battle of Helm's Deep in TTT was gayer. Recall the bit where Gimli calls to Aragorn "Toss me! Toss me!", and then asks him not to tell anyone about it.

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (-1, Offtopic)

darkest_light (663084) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087004)

Come now. The end of TT was *far* more homoerotic. "Tell me more about Samwise the Brave, Mister Frodo"?

Frodo and Sam didn't even end *up* together and they left out the part where Sam goes to Valinor too (although admittedly that's an appendix.)

Re:ROTK had the gayest ending ever (1, Funny)

waitigetit (691345) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087116)

What struck me was that from the moment is Sam pulled in through the window by Gandalf ("Don't turn me into something unnatural!"), he has his googly eyes all over Frodo. Then, the minute the ring is destroyed, he says something like "Hey, I would have liked to marry that Rosie chick."

I think Gandalf used the ring to turn Sam gay, to ensure his loyalty to Frodo.

TOLKIEN WAS A PROFIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086908)

The second movie was called "THE TWO TOWERS", he predicted WTC bombing 47 years before the fact, and the third movie is RETURN OF THE KING. JESUS IS COMING BACK YOU HAD BETTER RECOGNIZE

Re:TOLKIEN WAS A PROFIT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086917)

No, it's Elvis who's coming back, you insensitive clod!

Re:TOLKIEN WAS A PROFIT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086933)

You should probably form a group to get the word out better.. possibly some form of non-prophet organization?

Re:TOLKIEN WAS A PROFIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086941)

1. Predict WTC bombing
2. Predict return of Jesus
3. Profit


???

I'm very happy about this (5, Insightful)

kentrel (526003) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086914)

I was delighted when I saw the news this morning. As a huge movie fan (sometimes snob) I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation. I'm glad they recognised it, and I hope the Academy recognises it. Movies like Cold Mountain come out every year, are usually nicely made, well acted but ultimately lifeless and only represent the generic Hollywood drama rather than push the boundaries of filmmaking, which movies are supposed to.

Well done to PJ who takes home another well deserved award. LOTR will be remembered fondly twenty years from now, and as the influence for a whole new generation of filmmakers. Cold Mountain will be remembered as that forgettable film way back in Jude Law's filmography.

Re:I'm very happy about this (5, Insightful)

sebi (152185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086972)

Just a thought: Of all the films awarded last night the one that is probably going to influence most young filmmakers must be "Lost in Translation".

Re:I'm very happy about this (0)

jazzyseth (607277) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087114)

Yeah probably! I kinda wondered what Bill Murray whispered in Scarlett Johansson's ear near the end - the ending was not laid out for the audience like most movies.

Re:I'm very happy about this (4, Interesting)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087129)

Or Monster with its ambitious turn by Ms Theron playing a serial killer... or Owning Mahoney with its excellent performances by P.S. Hoffman and James Caan. The documentary/pseudo-documentary/cartoon American Splendor... the Morris documentary/deconstruction of Robert McNammara Fog of War. All have cinematic elements that are being lauded even now (who can't love "interrocam"?).

Of course our opinions don't seem to mesh with the standard /. line of "If I haven't seen/heard of it, it must not be good." One could point them to Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress which lead the way for a little movie called Star Wars (which then helped finance two more Kurosawa movies: Ran and Kagemusha)...

but, eh, who wants to complicate things? RotK was a good movie, so it must have been the only good movie of the year. I mean, just look at the box office receipts!

Re:I'm very happy about this (-1, Flamebait)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087199)

Gee great. 20 years of patronising and stereotyped portrayals of the Japanese ("They're short!, "They can't pronounce the letter 'r'", "Their food looks like toes" -- hi-fucking-larious)

Now, how many 5 star hotels in Tokyo do you suppose there are that don't have shower heads that go up to at least 7 feet?

Christ, thats an overrated film. 20 minutes of good dialogue compressed into 2 hours of lingering shots of Scarlett Johannsen's arse.

Re:I'm very happy about this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087228)

...2 hours of lingering shots of Scarlett Johannsen's arse
There could be worse ways to spend a couple of hours, I imagine

I was watching it (3, Funny)

debilo (612116) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086920)

And I'm really glad for Peter Jackson and the crew, they really deserved it. Peter was pretty funny too, he said something like "I didn't realize that working 7 years on this film would turn me into a hobbit". And it really did. He was not much taller than Dustin Hoffman, who gave him the award.

I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.

Re:I was watching it (1)

Kombat (93720) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087303)

I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.

Haha, it never fails. Every time there's a /. story about LotR, the fanboys inevitably and predictably bash the Matrix in a total non-sequitur. It surprises me that for all the anti-mainstream rhetoric that goes on around here, such a large crowd would embrace a series with such a classic, predictable Hollywood ending (LotR), and reject a movie with a completely outside-the-box ending such as Revolutions.

Would it make you feel better if Hollywood promised to stop making movies that try to make you think, and instead churned out more word-for-word direct adapations of straighforward, single-level books?

For the record, I loved both the Matrix trilogy (OK, Reloaded was a little thin, but only in comparison to the other 2) and the LotR trilogy. But the latter was very predictable and had the stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting, even for those of us who have never read the books or heard the story. The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.

Perhaps that's why you guys claim to hate it so much? Maybe it showed you that you don't always know what to expect from Hollywood? Perhaps you'd spent the preceding year telling all your friends, "It's simple, there are 2 levels of the Matrix, Duh! The blue Matrix, their 'Real World', is just another Matrix. You watch. In the third one, you'll see the REAL real world. It's so transparent. Hollywood sucks."

Then, of course, you were proven wrong. Am I close?

Oscar ? (4, Insightful)

Lightman_73 (183090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086922)

Nah. I don't really think so.

Let's face it, LotR won't probably get more than 2 or 3 Oscars.

The problem here is that LotR isn't the average movie, and moreover it's a fantasy one. Fantasy and SciFi movies never did well at the Oscars. Sure, they can get best special effect, or best music, but they'll prolly never get a best movie, or best actor, or best photography.

I hope things will prove me wrong, but...

Re:Oscar ? (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086976)

Human lifespans being what they are, do you think ROTK will finish in time for the decision?

Re:Oscar ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087130)

but they'll prolly never get a best movie

Then I'll just _continue_ not to care about Oscar and the relevance of their decisions.

Two Towers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086927)

Take the Elves out of Helm's Deep, and the trilogy would have been almost perfect. I would have even over-looked screwing up Faramir's character then...

Well, at least we didn't have to suffer through, "Arwen: Warrior Princess."

Re:Two Towers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086962)

I'm with you on Faramir's character, but it was turning the Ents into hasty creatures, whose minds could be changed at the sight of a few tree stumps, that was most out of keeping to me.

Re:Two Towers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087027)

Yeah, but at least the special edition put the Huron's back in....

Every LOTR fan I knew who saw Two Towers had the following comments:

  1. What's with the Elves at Helms Deep?
  2. What is up with Faramir?
  3. Ummm, where are the Hurons? (added back in, thank goodnesss)
  4. Why didn't the Ent's agree to attack Sauroman at the Ent-Moot?

The only real complaint that I've heard about ROTK is:

  • What's with sponge-headed orc?

The appropriate quote from another movie (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087093)

Ents into hasty creatures, whose minds could be changed at the sight of a few tree stumps, that was most out of keeping to me.

"Run Forest, Run!!!!"

The Office wins Two! (5, Interesting)

beders (245558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086929)

BBC News [bbc.co.uk]

Best TV comedy and best comedy actor for Ricky Gervais. Considering they were up against Will and Grace and Matt le Blanc in these categories this was a major surprise and makes me happy that such a fantastic series has been honoured.

Hopefully this will increase the awareness of the show in the USA. Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much.

On the topic of Golden Globes, off the LOTR topic.

Re:The Office wins Two! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087032)

Yep - the Office is very funny. Everyone's worked for a David Brent (Ricky Gervais's character) at some time or another. The first episode I saw had me ROTFL as I remembered an old boss I had who acted in exactly the same immature, insecure manner.

Re:The Office wins Two! (4, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087036)

Hopefully this will increase the awareness of the show in the USA. Hope the USA remake doesn't suck too much.

The thing about the humour in The Office is that a lot of it is quite subtle and cultural - I am not sure it will "translate" very well to the US. Even some people in the UK don't "get it", and people in the UK seem to more aware of subtle humour and irony than many people in the US. Also, a lot of the humour in Ricky Gervais's character is based around his crassness and political incorrectness - if the show is "sanitised" at all for mainstream US audiences I think it will loose a lot of its punch. Personally I don't think it is going to make the translation well - it might still be a good show in the US but I expect it will be very different.

Re:The Office wins Two! (0, Funny)

Mr Reaney (544642) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087281)

I heard a rumour that Brad Pitt was going to be cast as the David Brent character.

Can that be right?

Re:The Office wins Two! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087118)

Foreign? Not seen the UK version of the Office? Want to? Have BitTorrent installed?

Click here http://www.suprnova.org/ [suprnova.org] , click TV shows, then Other, and click on "The Office".

my precioussss (5, Funny)

ed8150 (554077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086930)

they are golden my my precioussss, yeeess. those nasty kill bills want our precious, but we wont lets them have it.

Re:my precioussss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087096)

How the shit is this Funny?

Fark The Mods!!!!

It deserves the awards, and then some (2, Interesting)

radionotme (742163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086934)

The LOTR movies have all earned their respective awards easily. Peter Jackson managed to do the impossible and consistently improve over each 'instalment', despite the fact that each instalment was acclaimed by audiences and critics alike. I wouldn't normally be interested in King Kong, but Jackson has earned enough of my respect for me to go see it no matter what any critics say about it.

Re:It deserves the awards, and then some (1)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087033)

I wouldn't normally be interested in King Kong, but Jackson has earned enough of my respect for me to go see it no matter what any critics say about it.

In other words he's the anti George Lucas (for now). I thought he did a good job with the movies but he had some help with the story from the books. As a fan of the books I'd have gone and seen these movies no matter what the critics said but why someone would go and see a remake of a movie he isn't interested in just because of the director (fanboy mentality?) is something I don't quite get.

Re:It deserves the awards, and then some (2, Insightful)

radionotme (742163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087109)

You misunderstand - I wouldn't normally be interested in a remake of King Kong, because I wouldn't have thought anyone could do it without turning it into a comedy or effects-laden waste of time.
The fact that Jackson has said he'll do it means that he thinks he can make something of it, and given what he managed to do with LOTR I'm happy to take him at his word.
Fanboy is a term I use to describe people who are oblivious to the obvious faults of their 'fandom', and if King Kong turns out to be awful then I may well reconsider my opinion.
Jackson has earned himself a chance in my eyes, not my undying devotion!

Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086936)

In the wake of September 11th, I think that the "Lord of the Rings" creators were pretty insensitive and callous to be releasing a film called "The Two Towers." The title was obviously a reference to the destruction of the World Trade Center, and I find it even more suspicious that many characters in this "Lord of the Rings" series have beards, just like the Muslim enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase "Lord of the Rings" is a reference to the terrorist "rings" and their false heathen "lord," Allah. The governments of both America and Britain should investigate exactly who this "Tolkien" fellow is, and where the revenue from the film are going. I will certainly not see a film is its profits will help Osama bin Laden buy a nuclear missile.

I know that the creators are British, and thus aren't expected to be as sensitive to such issues as Americans, but it's pretty awful all the same. Maybe they hoped to gain publicity through notoriety -- worldwide news agencies would be sure to capture the American reaction when the film were released, and "all news is good news," right?

But I thought that Slashdot was above that. This site has a reputation of journalistic integrity that should be upheld.

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086969)

Insensitive? Tolkien named his masterpiece the Two Towers way back in the late 50s if I am not mistaken, and the NY WTC were build in the mid 60s to early 70s.

Speaking for every Tolkien fan, shouldnt I be apalled they decided to ape Tolkien when they named the WTC the Twin Towers (note the difference -it's TWIN, not TWO)?

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087014)

Congratulations!
You have been trolled!

Your fabulous prize is...
A senseless act of moderation that might or might not be performed on your post at a later date.

Thank you for playing and have a save trip home.

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th (2, Insightful)

Denver_G (253468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087001)

I don't normally respond to flamebait like this, but HOW IGNORANT CAN SOMEONE BE?????

LOTR was written about 50 years ago and draws upon a plethora of historical and mythical references which have existed for centuries (maybe even millenia). The dwarves, etc with their beards were quite well described in the books and the fims merely remained true to the descriptions in the books.

Book 2 (the Two Towers) was published in 1954 - way before the twin towers were even built.

I am also offended as an Englishman. As a nation we were appalled with the attacks on the Twin Towers (Note, not the Two Towers) and we have suffered enough terrorist attacks ourselves (although admittedly, not on this scale) over the years to be extremely sensitive to the victims of ANY terrorist attack (bali, etc).

Hope this sets the record straight (although I know that the majority of /. readers will not need the correction).

Sorry for a slight rant.

Denver

Tolkien profiteering (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087042)

This Tolkien guy is just getting rich writing novels adapting Jackson's film creations, that's all.

Re:Tolkien profiteering (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087098)

This tolkien guy? JRR Tolkien is dead. Learn your history and the man behind the stories before you DARE second guess the reasoning and storyline of the trilogy.

Tolkien is as dead an Alan Dean Foster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087174)

He's dead? Like Alan Dean Foster he is. The guy is ripping up the bestseller charts with his movie adaptation novels.

YHBT. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087115)

YHL. FOAD.

Re:Extremely offensive--Slashdot is suppoirting th (0, Offtopic)

joonasl (527630) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087131)

I think that the original poster was trying (unsuccessfully) to be sarcastic. Calm down :)

Y.H.B.T. (-1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087171)

H.A.N.D.

sequels...ya need to know the plot BEFORE... (4, Insightful)

voss (52565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086938)

You write the movie...and the plot should not suck.

The first three star wars movies were episodes
IV-V-VI and these were each made over a 6 year span.

The difference between lord of the rings and SW/ESB/ROTJ versus the matrix sequels is that the first two there was a story that needed to be told. In the Matrix, they didnt have such a story.

Of course you can still have a story that needs to be told...and it still suck because of lousy execution.

LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... (2, Interesting)

sebi (152185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086943)

I was really surprised that the British series "The Office" won both categories it was nominated for (best comedy TV and best actor in same) edging out American productions like "Sex and the City" and "Will and Grace".

I also thought that the ceremony would have been a good one had they simply given everything to Scarlett Johansson. The Oscar nominations will be published tomorrow and I am curious to see how closely they follow the lead from this awards-show. I would like to see Ang Lee to get at least a nomination as best director for "The Hulk", but am aware that the chances are slim. LOTR must be the big winner this year, but don't hold your breath for Gollum's nomination as best actor.

Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086984)

This was probably because both "Sex in the City" and "Will and Grace" are about as funny as cancer.

Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... (1)

sebi (152185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087079)

This was probably because both "Sex in the City" and "Will and Grace" are about as funny as cancer.

I am not going to deny that, especially not in case of the latter, but both series have been nominated time and again. Sex and the City has also won the best TV Series award twice. I guess it takes a bunch of foreigners to award a show that is as odd as The Office. I wonder how many Brits are on that jury.

Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087112)

*wishes that I had mod points*

That was funny!

Re:LOTR was not the only noteworthy thing... (1, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087107)

If I had the choice between spending eternity either in "The Office" or "Sex and the City's" New York I think I would abscond [reference.com] and run screaming for the safety of Helms deep (straight through Fangorn forest AND the Uruk'hai army). Busting the heads of evil scum with the Rohirrim must be better than spending eternity with a bunch of neurotic yuppies...

RoTK for Best Picture! (5, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086948)

OR ELSE! [pvponline.com]

No acting nods for this one at least (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086957)

Except for Ian Mckellen, the acting in the whole LoTR trilogy was awful.

harsh (3, Insightful)

real_smiff (611054) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087293)

That's your opinion (obviously), I thought Sean Astin was good as Sam, and Viggo Mortensen made a good Aragorn. Miranda Otto was capable too. And Andy Serkis, jesus! Sir (;)) Ian McKellen, as you say. The ones I really disliked were Liv Tyler, John Rhys-Davies and that stupid looking man-elf, can't remember his name. Could have done without Agent Smith in there too. Really the acting wasn't bad considering what they were asked to do, this was a fun movie to act but not an actor's win awards movie, if you know what I mean. They struck an OK balance between epic and cheesiness IMHO. Most of the time. Orlando Bloom was pushing it. Shame Sean Bean had to die in the first episode eh. Most of the older men were great :)

It was a huge cast, don't write them all off like that eh.

For what it's worth... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8086958)

It would be worth more if they weren't a sham [suntimes.com] ...

Howard Shore - my precious! (4, Interesting)

tuxette (731067) | more than 10 years ago | (#8086978)

Brilliant score - kudos to Howard Shore! Such powerful music is rare in these times when "music" is more about shaking your ass and tits on MTV than creating something that sends that chill up your spine, that takes your breath away, that fills you with emotions...

Congrats to the rest of the ROTK gang as well! Good going!

Re:Howard Shore - my precious! (1)

Lord of Ironhand (456015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087146)

I personally found the score rather disappointing. It's not bad at all but, I found nothing "Tolkienish" in it.

If "music" is defined by what's on MTV, then it might be considered brilliant; but with bands like Summoning and Blind Guardian [www.blind-guardian] ( LotR-related interview [fisek.com.tr] ) around to convert Tolkien's stories into music, I consider the LotR soundtrack somewhat of a missed chance.

Re:Howard Shore - my precious! (0)

Lord of Ironhand (456015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087172)

And if that link didn't work because I stupidly forgot the ".com" part, try this one [blind-guardian.com] ...

Re:Howard Shore - my precious! (1)

CaptainAlbert (162776) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087257)

> Brilliant score - kudos to Howard Shore!

To be honest, that's the part that surprised me the most. When I saw the first film, I absolutely loved the music. But when I left the cinema after ROTK, I couldn't help thinking that if anything, the score had been a bit lacking. It seemed almost like all the themes from the first two installments had been stirred up, re-heated and served up without much thought. There wasn't very much that was new; as a scene appeared on the screen I could already guess what the orchestra would be doing in a few seconds' time, and I was invariably right.

Normally, that wouldn't spoil a film for me. But I think all the imperfections of ROTK were magnified (for me, at least) by the knowledge that there was no Part Four. Some of the stuff in TTT was much worse in terms of Tolkien-sacrilege, but I could ignore it (just) because I knew there was another helping left to come which might just make up for it. Ho hum.

Having said all that, I'm still driving people up the wall by whistling the major themes incessantly... :)

Be consistent, damnit! (-1, Offtopic)

GeneralEmergency (240687) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087018)



Why do my fellow /.'s rail against the hijacking of copyright by BigMedia(tm) and then turn around and drool, wet themselves and fawn all over the products from said BigMedia(tm)?

We should all be working to bring Copyright back in line with Patent. 17 years. If you can't capitalize on your IP, of WHATEVER flavor, within 17 years, you are lazy or a dumbass.

Chant with me...

Ninety Years for Brittany Spears?
Ninety Years for Brittany Spears?
Ninety Years for Brittany Spears?
Ninety Years for Brittany Spears?

Great! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087021)

Now I can go see it. I always wait to see how well a movie does in the Golden Globes before I am willing to shell out my hard earned dollars. ;-)

Other things the GGs did right (1)

chad_r (79875) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087038)

ROTR was definitely deserving of awards. But I was also glad to see Lost in Translation also a big winner. It's odd they called it a comedy, but it did allow both movies to win. It wasn't a movie for everyone, but I appreciated the quiet subtleties of it, and was amazed by the quality of it. Even more impressive is that she both wrote and directed, at the age of 32.

Also, of interest to Slashdot readers, The Office won for Best Comedy series and Ricky Gervais for Best Comedy actor. At least it wasn't that god-awful Will and Grace.

Real moral (-1, Troll)

Popageorgio (723756) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087041)

The real moral is that if Hollywood is determined to love a movie, they will ignore its plot holes, poor dialogue ("Let's hunt some Orc." "What does your heart tell you?"), and mediocre acting.

Why does this matter? (-1, Flamebait)

hankaholic (32239) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087046)

I'm a little confused here as to why this matters to anyone here. Basically this boils down to "Some big Hollywood people liked the same movie I did! WHOOOOOOO!"

To me, that seems a little bit Howard Dean (or Steve Ballmer). Does this honestly make a difference to anyone, and does anyone really care how many useless awards a movie wins?

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087074)

It matters for money.
For the oscars if a movie wins it can almost guarenteed to make at least 50% more money if it or an actor(ess) wins. Then for movies such as Monsters Ball or Cold mountain which hardly anyone would see it can mean more then double the amount they would normally get.

Re:Why does this matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087163)

Because if a high quality fantasy movie like this makes lots of money and earns lots of awards, then the Hollywood types will be more willing to fund more quality fantasy movies. And that, Is A Good Thing.

-1 Off Topic (-1, Flamebait)

NoNine (690801) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087052)

Does not belong on ./

Meningful? (3, Insightful)

AmoebafromSweden (112178) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087062)

Well Does these awards really matter anymore?

I lost total faith in the system that time when shakespeare in love nabbed a lot of oscars, not becuase of quality but because of marketing tricks from the creators.

I dont think Golden Globe is any less vulnerable.

Reply Post here :0): Vote for #1 Fellowship. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087069)

Reply with which one (1, 2, or 3) that you liked best and why.

I liked fellowship of the ring (#1) best since it was more supsensful since it was only 9 of them trying to get to rivendale vs. all the evil hordes of monsters (including the ring wraiths that only seemed to be in #1 too).

#1 reminded me of Eye of the World by Robert Jordan for similar reasons, them tring to reach sanctuary with many bad people chasing them.

A word from Howard Dean (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087080)

"Not only are we going to Rivendell. We're going to Caradhras, and Moria and Rohan and the Paths of the Dead, and we're going to Fangorn and West Emnet and Ithilien and Morannon. And then we're going to Minas Tirith, to take back the White Tree! YEEAAARGGHHHHHH!!!!"

Golden globes are a joke (5, Interesting)

smallpaul (65919) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087087)

The Globes are a joke [kiefersutherland24.net] that Hollywood and the TV networks play on the rest of us. The people who vote are neither industry experts (fewer than 40% work full-time in journalism or the film industry) nor representative Joe Averages. Rather they are fanboys (car dealers, accountants, appliance salesmen [eonline.com] ) who work the system to get an opportunity to hang out with stars. The Hollywood system uses these fanboys for more publicity and because they are more malleable than the Oscar jury (which is much larger and thus harder to buy off [eonline.com] ).

Hollywood is full of fake shit. But let's force them to be explicit about what is fiction and what is real [ninemsn.com.au] . The Golden Globes are awarded by an in-bred group of random no-nothing foreigners based in large part on who has given them the best perks [suntimes.com] that year. I think that the world's movie fans deserve better.

Why should we geeks care what 90 people, self-selected for a lack of integrity, think of the Lord of the Rings or anything else?

With such an offensive title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087097)

I feel this is an affront to myself, and all members of the commonwealth. We have a queen, and are proud of her! The Return of the King would involve eliminating our Queen.

Ignorant Americans like Mr. Jackson obviously have no concept of what it is to be ruled over by such a gracious monarch, and feel that we should dispense wit them willly nilly purely to satisfy his sexist royalist views.

Why was Lord of the Rings so appalling bad? (-1, Flamebait)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087103)


I guess now the trilogy is over, we can look back over the wreckage of the destruction of a great piece of literature and ask ourselves: just why did the Lord of the Rings trilogy suck so much?

Allow me to sum it up for the hard of thinking...

1) Miscasting of Ian McKellen as Gandalf.
Let's face it: even a false nose couldn't save Magneto from FAILING IT. He's too old. He exuded about as much power as a limp dishrag. His fight scenes were woeful, he had to be saved by Pippin for fucks sake. Now if they had Shatner in as Gandalf, can you imagine how much better that would be? "DID YOU keepitsecret?" "YOU....SHALL...NOTPASS."

2) Overstrong homosexual subtext.
OK, Tolkien, as an Oxford Don with an interest in ancient languages, was certainly gay. But it doesn't come out in his writing - it stays fully hetero. Luckily for us viewers "Brain Dead" Jackson decided to make all the main characters gay, probably for some mystifying artistic reason. Legolas, Aragorn, Gimli, Sam, Frodo, Merry and Pippin. Hell, even Arwen was probably a rug muncher in the extended edition.

3) Too much singing
It's all right in the book, you can just rip those pages out and burn them. But having to sit in the cinema and watch some woman having a bit of a sing song at a funeral is not my idea of entertainment. Next funeral I go to, I'm breaking into "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life" halfway through the service, and if any fucker takes exception, I'll direct them to the Two Towers.

4) Special effects- shit
OK, granted, the battles were reasonably well down. But those Ents were ripped straight out of the Magic Tree by Enid Blyton. And the Crack of Doom looked more like my electric fireplace, than some kick ass volcano / evil workshop.

5) Gollum
HOLLYWOOD: PAY ATTENTION. Special effects characters with baby voices are not working. STOP INCLUDING THEM IN YOUR FILMS. NOT EVEN KIDS LIKE THEM. DOES ANYONE IN HOLLYWOOD UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

6) Elves = Gay
I don't recall Tolkien writing "By the way, all the male elves looked gay." I don't recall that at all. Why, "Brain Dead", why?

7) "Brain Dead" Jackson: lose two stamina points.
The direction throughout was woeful. I remember clearly listening to the audio commentry when the actors were excitedly describing Brain Dead's direction when Aragorn was tracking Merry and Pippin into Fangorn from the battle. THAT'S AVERAGE DIRECTION. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. IT'S NOTHING SPECIAL. The only way you could think that was good direction is to have low expectations to begin with..."Wow, he's directing in an average, obvious way...that's BRILLIANT. +2 Luck"

8) Hatred of cinema icon, Christopher Lee
Christopher Lee. Huge Fan. Let's give him a meaty part...jeez Farmer Maggot's already taken...Tom Bombadil? Naw, Saruman. Then let's just cut him completely out of the film in every way. Exit Lee stage left, crushed in spirit and bearing a noose.

9) Too many American actors
Can't act for shit. Sound stupid. Also, the Eagles were clearly meant to represent the Americans in both the Hobbit and LotR. Arriving at the end, taking all the credit. Accepting plaudits for finally getting their heads out of their arses 10 minutes before the end.

Re:Why was Lord of the Rings so appalling bad? (-1)

plams (744927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087177)

You're an *roll*.. raving idiot!

Re:Why was Lord of the Rings so appalling bad? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8087210)

If it was so bad, why did you (obviously) watch all three movies? Especially seeing as you are the literary expert on Tolkien.

Best Original Score (1, Funny)

Stultsinator (160564) | more than 10 years ago | (#8087256)

Adam.

Oooo... Feel that Karma burn...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>