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 Leads Oscar Nominations

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the congratulations-to-all-involved dept.

Lord of the Rings 412

PurdueGraphicsMan writes "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, the final chapter in Peter Jackson's directoral masterpeice is leading the 76 Annual Academy Awards with 11 nominations including Best Picture and Best Director. Next in line with 10 nominations including Best Picture and Best director is Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Here is a full list of the nominees in all categories."

cancel ×

412 comments

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

I LIKED "MICHAEL FELLATES A DONKEY" FOR WORST PIC. (-1)

Subject Line Troll (581198) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100079)

Re:I LIKED "MICHAEL FELLATES A DONKEY" FOR WORST P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100415)

That was a fantastic first post. I applaud you, sir.

Finally! (1)

sbjordal (654330) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100081)

Could Return of the King be the first fantacy movie to win an Oscar?

Re:Finally! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100093)

Schindler's List beats it by several years.

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100129)

This is immensely funny, please mod up accordingly.

Re:MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100449)

Made me laugh. More seriously, Bowling for Columbine was best documentary, but was more fiction than fact.

Re:Finally! (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100109)

Well, if, with 12 nominations, this one doesn't get one, then it's doomed :)

BTW, I really enjoyed the Triplettes de BElleville and I hope they'll get one : it was wonderful storytelling and realisation.

BTW, is the topic "oscars", "lotr", or "movies" ?

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100110)

Definitely. As far as I know there has never been such a thing as a "fantacy" movie ever before. How could one have won then?

Considering the competition, they have a shot (5, Insightful)

cryptochrome (303529) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100294)

Actually the only other movie I saw on the list was Lost in Translation. The closer you look at the film itself the more flaws you see. The script is full of cliches (particularly when you think who the director is) but thankfully spends most of the time observing the characters being themselves - and Bill Murray put in what is without a doubt the finest and most honest performance in his career. He totally deserves best actor.

Re:Finally! (1)

firstadopter.com (745257) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100468)

Hail to the King. The best movie of 2003 bar-none!

RotK vs. Lost in Translation (5, Insightful)

MuParadigm (687680) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100470)


It's possible that RotK could win Best Film and Best Director. Best Director seem almost obvious, until you consider that no woman has ever won the Best Director award before. In fact, only two women have previously been nominated, Lina Wertmuller and Jane Campion.

This raise the question of whether women in the Academy will vote for Coppola, to see a woman get the award for once and set a precedent. It's not as if Coppola doesn't deserve it either, she made a delightful and semi-profiund film on a 3 million dollar budget.

Of course, Jackson's achievement with The Lord Of The Rings is amazing and probably the largest single project a director has ever taken on, so he deserves it too.

All I'm saying is don't be too surprised if there's an surprise upset, for Coppola, in these two categories. Coppola has a strong chance, especially since RotK may be considered a "boy" film by female members of the Academy.

How many seconds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100085)

...until the outrage over the exclusion of Andy Serkis will be heard in here?

Re:How many seconds... (1)

wickedj (652189) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100280)

I wholeheartedly agree that Serkis should get an award of some type. But the problem is what category would he belong too? Best Supporting Actor? The problem is that the Gollum character isn't just him but a team of artists, animators, etc. Then it becomes more of a Best Visual Effects award which LOTR is nominated for.

FIRST POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100086)

fuck off, i rulzez

Peter Jackson (-1, Offtopic)

dnixon112 (663069) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100088)

Peter Jackson should just say screw it, and wear sweat pants to go along with the rest of his grooming.

Re:Peter Jackson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100442)

Then become an open source developer. He'd fit the part perfectly!

Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (5, Interesting)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100091)

You can compare the actual nominations to Roger Ebert's predictions [suntimes.com] . He was pretty on point for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actress. Its surprising to see the well liked but little seen roles getting nods. Alec Baldwin in The Cooler for one. Likewise it's interesting to see Keisha Castle-Hughes for her work in Whale Rider. Many were predicitng Charlize Theron would run away with her work in Monster but Castle-Hughes could pull an Anna Panquin upset. That role was powerful AND beloved. Something that might worka gainst Theron.

Jude Law's nod is interesting since I don't remember anyone really talking about his performance (as compared to what Sean Penn, Bill Murray and Johnny Depp did this year). Ebert picked Russell Crowe's in Master and Commander which, likewise, didn't seem to have a big impact.

Strangest one is that City of God got three nominations... although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003 (Ebert made specific mention of it in his Top of 2004 to explain its absence). But here its getting nods for Cinematography, Direction and Writing. It probably only has a chance in Cinematography where RotK is (strangely) absent.

RotK will probably run away with Makeup, Music(Song), Sound, Writing (Adapted), and Costume Design. Of course those are the second tier ones that end up as consolation prizes for a lot of folks. The interesting thing will see how it does in the big categories (which I guess Adapted Screenplay is one).

Re:Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (4, Interesting)

fireduck (197000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100209)

the fact that ROTK took the top 2 golden globes probably gives it momentum heading into the Oscars. Sure there's the history of SciFi/Fantasy never winning the big prizes, but this movie is unique among movies. Jackson directed three movies simultaneously, all of which have won critical, popular and financial praise. That achievement alone has to count for something to the voters. Combine that with seriously state of the art special effects, insane costume/prop department, more than adequate acting, and really this movie is the achievement of the past three years.

Crap! (1)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100259)

although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003

That should be 2002 as taken from this [suntimes.com] : "So true that City of God was No. 2 on my list for last year. The film played in every major festival in 2002 and was a candidate for year-end awards, and although it did not open in Chicago until January, I didn't see the point in waiting 12 months to put it on a best 10 list when putting it on the timelier list might do it some good."

Re:Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (3, Insightful)

mbbac (568880) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100357)

I'd wager those aren't considered "consolation prizes" by the makeup artists, composers, sound designers, writers, or costume designers.

Re:Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (1)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100372)

Most definitely. But I was talking about those out here in /. land keeping score, though.

Re:Roger Ebert's Preliminary Picks (1)

Tellarin (444097) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100475)


actually City of God got 4 nominations,

Directing
Film Editing
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
and Cinematography

No suprise (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100099)

There is no suprise that this movie gets this kind of attention. I know I dreaded seeing it, just because I didn't find the other two movies very facinating. But in the end, I walked out of that theater with a smile on my face, happy with the fact, I didnt feel ripped off.

I know I am not the only person that got caught up in the same kind of situation. It was just good.

all I've got to say (1)

icebones (707368) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100103)

Is it's about DAMN time.

Re:all I've got to say (2, Insightful)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100263)

about damn time for what? I think FOTR had more nominations that ROTK, and all three have been up for best picture. Perhaps you're confusing getting nominated for winning?

But yeah - with no "Chicago" style frontrunner, ROTK has a better than average chance.

For all three (4, Informative)

rm007 (616365) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100435)

There is an interesting article in the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] which discusses the RotK nominations in light of the lack of attention for the major Oscars for the first two. Here is a short excerpt:

Undeniably the success of Jackson's epic has left Hollywood with a slight case of egg-on-face. This was a trilogy shot right outside the establishment orbit; filmed in Jackson's native New Zealand and funded by the independent New Line Cinema after original backers Miramax demanded that the entire story be condensed into a single two-hour movie.

In the view of many experts, The Lord of the Rings was shaping up to be the biggest disaster in cinema history. Now it has gone down as one of its greatest triumphs. Evidence suggests that February 29 will be the date of Hollywood's official mea culpa. Assuming that Return of the King wins best picture (and you'd be a fool to bet against it), it will in effect be an award for all three films. The same goes for Jackson's probable nod as best director.

Is it just me... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100106)

... or did "Big Fish" just get screwed?

Smells like fish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100123)

Every other Tim Burton movie stinks. This was not his year for a good one.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100242)

While we're talking about Big Fish I'd just like to point out that as a mere English peon who has to wait an extra five months for the studio to uh...ship the films (Yeah, thats it!), we've just started to see trailers for Big Fish

So I would just like to get to the point of this post by saying

What
the
fuck?

I thought the point of a trailer was that it is supposed to tell you what the film is about and give you the mood for the movie. Big Fish looks like a bad acid trip and I have no idea what it is supposed to be about. What a load of crap.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100366)

Is it just me... or did "Big Fish" just get screwed?

Dunno - did Troy McLure star in that movie?

nomiated for ...... (1, Flamebait)

pauly_thumbs (416028) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100112)

most wooden delivery of lines.

kind of sad when the best actors in the movie are a cgi and the asthma kid from goonies.

*insert Krusty the clown quote about the academy being out of touch here.

feel free to mod me as a troll or a big meaney or whatever -- I still love you unconditionally

Re:nominated for ...... (4, Funny)

Rhubarb Crumble (581156) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100191)

most wooden delivery of lines.

shurely the matrix reloaded wins that one hands down?

Re:nominated for ...... (1)

10101001011 (744876) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100382)

Let's run down them, shall we:
Neo: "Whoa!"
Neo: "I love you too damned much!"
Neo: "I need you..."
Trinity: "I need you too..."
The Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

Truly a masterpiece of unparalleled proportions!

At least it was a fun "beat 'em up!" movie ;)

Re:nomiated for ...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100483)

Star Wars 3 hasn't been released yet.

yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100121)

hopefully it will win best picture. But since the other two parts didn't win i guess it wont this time either

Simple vs. Epic (5, Interesting)

addie (470476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100125)

I think it's very interesting to see that (IMHO) the two best movies to be nominated for best director are ROTK and Lost in Translation. One is a huge epic with a billion setpieces, thousands of extras, and a weaving storyline; this is an extreme challenge to direct. On the other hand, Lost in Translation features very few actors, very few locations, and some of the best low-key directing I've ever seen.

I'm glad that the Oscars are nominating directors who are working from such completely different directions, but both achieving such brilliant results.

Re:Simple vs. Epic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100221)

> I'm glad that the Oscars are nominating directors who are working from such completely different directions, but both achieving such brilliant results.

And, most importantly, both are american.

Re:Simple vs. Epic (1)

addie (470476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100265)

Actually Peter Jackson is a kiwi from New Zealand. But nice try.

Re:Simple vs. Epic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100444)

moron

Re:Simple vs. Epic (1)

Dragonmaster Lou (34532) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100268)

Isn't Peter Jackson from New Zealand?

Re:Simple vs. Epic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100469)

dumbass

yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100132)

What about nominations from the cast? ZERO.

Granted it's probably because the characters are actually co-dependant and everyone was fantastic but still...

I saw Lost in Translation at a pre-screening and while I thought it was "entertaining" I certainly don't believe Bill Murray was any better in that one than any other movie he has been in.

Depp's character was fantastic and he really led the movie and he probably deserves the award out of the list IMHO.

But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (2, Interesting)

Psiren (6145) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100276)

Depp's character was fantastic and he really led the movie and he probably deserves the award out of the list IMHO.

Got to agree. The film was very entertaining and Depp really made that character his own. You could see he was really enjoying it too, which makes all the difference. The special effects were excellent too, without being over the top as a lot of films are. For example, the parts where Depp is running in and out of the moonlight and changing from flesh and blood to skeleton are really good, but a lot of it is shot from afar so it's not right in your face. Definately one of my favourite films in recent years.

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (3, Interesting)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100305)

But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?

Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (2, Interesting)

CreatureComfort (741652) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100356)

Yeah, Andy Serkis got gypped again.

I know Hollywood isn't ready to award a digital representation an oscar, but for all the work and effort Andy put in (watch the Gollum documentary in the Special Edition "Two Towers" DVD) he deserved at least a nomination.

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (1)

wickedj (652189) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100360)

"But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?
Bill"

You message and sig ran together. I thought you wanted to nominate Bill the pony from LOTR: FOTR.

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100362)

Well, IIRC, you can't get actor nominations for a role you're reprising in a sequel (though I could be wrong).

Frankly, I was disappointed to see that The Last Samurai didn't get a best picture nomination.

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (1)

mike_mgo (589966) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100439)

It may have changed since then but Al Pacino received a nomination for his performance in the Godfather II, though he didn't win.

Re:yeah, great, nominations for the movie... (1)

TheWickedKingJeremy (578077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100393)

Yes, Depp made the film, but really that is only because the rest of the film didn't have much going for it beyond his character. Depp was the only breath of fresh air in it. (ok, the girl was hot, but aside from that...)

And even then a lot of the quarkiness of his pirate character was already exhibited by his Raoul character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas [imdb.com] . Pirates was a decent popcorn flick, but it doesn't deserve consideration in terms of awards based on performances... then again, after seeing Russell Crowe win for that roman movie, I guess I am out of touch.

But the New York Times... (4, Funny)

Bingo Foo (179380) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100140)

The NYT website front page, arbiter of all that is good and important, is touting the splendor and Oscar success of "Lost in Translation," so I can't imagine that any film could have done better than that one. You'd better check your facts.

Re:But the New York Times... (1)

Derkec (463377) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100394)

NYT website front page has been in a state of flux all morning. The initial story was heavily centered on ROTK. We'll have to wait for evening or tomorrow to see what story(s) they decide on.

- side note: When you have a word like "story" how do you properly signal that it might be multiple. "story(s)" or "story(ies)". I know as tempted as it is to all of you, please avoid diving into RegEx.

Oscars are all that matters when judging movies... (4, Funny)

gpinzone (531794) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100149)

That's why Titanic must be the greatest movie of all time. *cough*

Re:Oscars are all that matters when judging movies (3, Funny)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100332)

Hey, Kate Winslet, nude, reclining on a sofa, thats gotta count for something...

Re:Oscars are all that matters when judging movies (1)

savagedome (742194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100342)

Totally agree. The 1998 [imdb.com] Best Picture category was definitely a tough one. IMHO, LA Confidential is probably one of the best movies of all time. How Titanic beat it is still beyond me.

Best director? Hmmm... (4, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100154)

Go see "City of God" and see if you still think Peter Jackson should get best director. I definitely think TRotK deserves an oscar for Adaptation and Art Direction, but City of God was really powerful, and it was mostly kid actors.

Re:Best director? Hmmm... (1, Insightful)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100375)

A directing oscar for City Of God? Are you serious? A film which showcases kids killing kids for our entertainment, without questioning why we should be entertained by this, or the social ramifications behind it. If this movie were in English, the critics would be denouncing it as an amoral piece of trash, but since its in a foreign country and "gritty" but in an artistic sense, it gets heaps of praise. It's director, Fernando Meireilles is a product of the all style/no substance school. Just because its in a foreign language doesn't make it good.

Re:Best director? Hmmm... (1)

hcduvall (549304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100379)

Not only was it mainly young actors, all but a couple weren't actors before they were picked to appear in the film.

That said, City of God is a movie from a long time ago that suffered from bad support. Ah, the vagaries of the near meaningless oscars...

Anyway, I think it was visually stunning and strong, but City of God wasn't as impressive a feat of as RotK, let alone the trilogy (which is what they would be rewarding Jackson for with an oscar, rather than just this one film). If you thought City of God was something, check out Bus 174. Everything short of the biggest moments in City of God, is a cakewalk compared to that.

Re:Best director? Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100389)

I saw the movie, and I still think PJ did better. Yes, City of God is mostly kid actors, but that doesn't change the facts (IMHO), that

1) PJ did something on a scale FAR FAR larger than City of God accomplished
2) PJ did it better, even if there are a few blunders in the script
3) That the acting in City of God is not that good

Yes, they are mostly kids, but they aren't that good. Better than me, certainly. A lot better. Not better than say Elijah Wood, who was ALSO a kid when production of LotR started. Not by a long shot.

Also, while City of God tells a powerful story, so does RotK, and RotK is (again IMHO) a much more powerful story, and it is done better. Maybe this is because of the money they could throw at it, but that doesn't change the fact, that PJ has been able to keep more balls in the air than any other director - and that he didn't drop any of them, even if one of them was an at times bad script.

Put that in your hat and smoke it :-)

Big deal (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100166)

No-one with a half a brain gives a shit about the 'Oscars'.

Oh wait, you're all American aren't you?

You don't have half a brain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100233)

Why did you even bother to read this Oscar item if you don't care?

Re:You don't have half a brain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100450)

I felt the need to denigrate you and your peon ilk.

Master and Commander (1)

sakshale (598643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100168)

Master and Commander is a sleeper of a movie. My son and I went to see it on a lark and were blown away by it... I have always loved sailing ship books and movies -- and have not seen one done as well as this one. RotK is definately number one on my list, but Master and Commander is a close number two.

[Of Note: There was NO love interest at all! Doesn't that break some unwritten rule of Hollywood?]

now WHAT in the HELL!! (5, Funny)

gbd (242931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100176)

hi all (george here)

i have NO idea what the academy is SMOKING here!! god!! return of the king was about the WORST movie i saw all year!! for starters we got to the movie about ten minutes LATE because it took my god damn wife so LONG to shovel the snow out of the driveway and then when we FINALLY got there the idiot at the ticket booth did not accept the tickets i printed out from fan dango because he said that the effing NUMBER was INVALID!! god!!

so then we get to the concession stand and this MORON puts too much butter on my popcorn which gives me gas, but that didn't matter because then my wife spilled the WHOLE god damn BAG as she was carrying it into the theater, also she spilled our sodas, god!! how can i sit for THREE HOURS without soda!! and then during the whole movie this slut in front of us was talking on her CELL PHONE about how her next door neighbor's shit zoo had just given birth to puppies, now what in the hell, PUPPIES, who effing cares!! turn off your god damn phone you hippy

then there was this baby next to us that kept CRYING, now if you have a loud baby take some advice from me (george) and leave the god damn thing at HOME now do you got that!! have a little bit of courtesy for your fellow man now do you got that, all in all it was the worst moviegoing experience of the year and i cannot understand these nominations

your buddy

Re:now WHAT in the HELL!! (1, Funny)

debian4life (701155) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100463)

So what about THE actual movie made IT the worst. It sounds MORE like this IS the worst movie you DID NOT see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry about the random capitalizations, just following suit. However, I am right there with you on the cell phone thing. If you lead such a dynamic life that you can't spare any of your time without getting on the phone then go hang out somewhere else where people like you can all be together. Go hang out at the airport, or Starbucks, or anywhere else where the laptoppers, Wi-Fiers, Blackberry, and other PDA people hang out. I had some guy in front of my as well on the phone. I think the 3 or 4 calls he got were from the same person. When will that person figure out or when will the cell phone guy tell them, I AM IN THE FREAKING MOVIE THEATER. Even if I wanted to talk, I CAN'T FREAKING HEAR YOU. But that is too much too ask, because apparently everyone in society has to cut million dollar deals and consult on surgery or something 24/7/365 now. Either that or talk about Shit Zoo's. Man I got off on a tangent. Anyway, my point is. ROTK was awesome.

Good to see (1)

10101001011 (744876) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100187)

While most here will likely be commenting on Return of the King I would liek to say I am extremely pleased to see that Master and COmmander is getting praise.

I loved the effects and story line. I actually haven't seen Return of the King but just by the prevews I have seen it looks like it deserves all the praise it has received.

Re:Good to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100227)

All I've seen from Master & Commander is a trailer featuring Russel Crow in tight pants. I decided to quit right there...

Master & Commander? (1, Interesting)

telbij (465356) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100204)

Anyone else surprised that Master and Commander got so many nominations? I mean, the costumes and effects were great, and even the acting was decent, but all the characters felt like stereotypes. By the midpoint of the movie I was bored stiff and just waiting for more stuff to blow up (thank god he made us guys easily amused).

Re:Master & Commander? (1)

robot captain (744984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100340)

My main problem with Msster & Commander was how inconsistently paced it was. Long drawn out ship chases which accomplished very little in story, character development, and most of all action! The two major action scenes were muddled and confusing, especially the final fight. It was plagued by the "quick shots with a fast moving blurry camera to simulate action" direction that hurts so many action scenes these days. It was an interesting concept, no doubt. It really gave you a good feel for life on a ship in those times. But it felt so drawn out and poorly paced that I was waiting for the movie to end after the first 45 minutes. I was quite surprised it recieved so many nominations as well.

i agree (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100352)

master & commander was overrated

the cinematography was gorgeous, the cat and mouse game had potential, but the plot was flaccid... in the theatre i was in, people were sleeping through it on the opening weekend

that's not good

no matter what you thought of the rest of the movie, they really could have spruced up the plot, a lot

hollywood should pay screenwriters tens of millions of dollars and spend hundreds of thousands on special effects

unfortunately it is the reverse, and it shows in so many movies

Re:Master & Commander? (1)

xTown (94562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100423)

About 45 minutes into it, I asked my wife if there was going to be any story. Her response was, "This is the story." I'm with you, it was just a horrible, boring, pointless movie.

However, I think it does deserve the editing award, because it was well put-together.

Curse of the Black Pearl (2, Interesting)

osullish (586626) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100212)

Who would have thought a Jerry Bruckheimer produced Film based on a Disney Ride would have produced a nomination for best actor - but it was a brilliant Keith Richards-esque performance by Depp - well deserved - However I think Bill Murray will win the Oscar he sould have got for Rushmore [imdb.com]

Re:Curse of the Black Pearl (1)

smoondog (85133) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100381)

I agree, I thought he might have an outside shot at a nomination. I watched the movie again on DVD, and I still find his performance baffling, in that he pulled off being really wierd without really coming off as too silly ...

That said, Bill Murray will probably win, also well deserved. If Depp had gotten the supporting actor nom, he might have won.

-Sean

Lord of the Rings? (1)

MountainMan101 (714389) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100214)

Has someone made a film of the Tolkien book? Amazing! I must try and get hold of a copy. What a challenge to have taken on. Just the mere thought of how to represent a character such as Tom Bombadil on screen would scare me off.

Master and Commander (4, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100215)

While I gave high marks to Master and Commander for their coverage of the tiniest technical details of period naval warfare, and while I thought the foley work of the battle scenes was truly visceral, and while I enjoyed the basic setting and premise in which the characters found themselves, I was really let down by the movie.

It's a thirty minute plot, at most. It can be summed up as "whups, I guess we fucked THAT up, but let's not let that happen again..." about five times in a row. That's it. We blundered, let's move on. Oops, again. Ouch, let's try to avoid that. And oops, we didn't think of that.

It's like the premise behind Moby Dick. Have you read it? Incredible details, no plot. But a movie can't capture these details to a tenth of the degree that print can. You need story. You need arc. You need something to advance and change.

What, no Matrix? (1)

JayJay.br (206867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100220)

I really don't think any of the two Matrix movies deserved anything, but someone had to say it.

Let the 5,000 posts comparing trilogies begin!

Upset (2, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100226)

I'm a bit upset that Sean Astin didn't get nominated for best supporting role (I didn't care if he won or not, but he should have been at least nominated).

On the bright side, RoTK got the Golden Globe for best picture, so maybe the oscars will take not and follow suit?

Re:Upset (1)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100406)

If anyone for ROTK deserves an acting nom, it's Ian McKellan. He brought true pathos and heart to the story. Those huge battles scenes can't match the hurt in his eyes.

Irony is... (4, Funny)

Cutriss (262920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100238)

Irony is Disney getting nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Finding Nemo [bbc.co.uk] ...

And truthfully, while it was another exceptional movie for Pixar, I didn't find it all that entertaining. Give me Monsters Inc. or a Miyazaki movie any day.

Re:Irony is... (1)

fireduck (197000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100431)

I don't find it ironic at all. Considering that the film was finished by the time book came out [msn.com] and that time spent in pre- and post-production had to total several years, I think this is just a coincidence. Not unlike other coincindences (armageddon and deep impact, thin red line and saving private ryan, da vinci code and the other book that's just like it). The biggest point the guy makes is that the clown fish has a parent killed at the beginning of the story. Isn't that the driving point for almost every Disney movie?

Didn't suck, but still... (1)

chowdmouse (155597) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100247)

Honestly, I'm not trolling, but I thought LOTR:RoTK was by far the worst of the three. My feelings were that they would get the nominations and have the best chance of getting awards this year because the awards organizations knew they could put off throwing Jackson et al a bone due to the way they made/released the three films.

Re:Didn't suck, but still... (1)

hcduvall (549304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100433)

Fellowship was my personal favorite. Boromir's storyline, well, jsut the arc of the first one in general managed to keep the scope of the movie grand and personal at the same time. By the third one, I was being swept along, but it felt more big than grand.

Still, its the way of he Oscars, they often like to reward people after they've missed their best chance.

Creative Writing Award (1)

Walrus99 (543380) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100266)

I hope Jackson gets an award for creative writing for the changes he made to the story line. All the movies were entertaining, but they should have a tag: loosly based on "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy." When did Legolos ever kill an elephant in the books?

Will Tolkein get any credit or award from the Academy?

Re:Creative Writing Award (1)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100376)

Legolos didn't kill an elephant in the movies, either... Legolas killed an oliphant. :)

And may Bob have mercy on my soul if I've made any grammatical or spelling errors in this post!

No cinematography? (4, Insightful)

Patik (584959) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100269)

Of all categories, I expected to seem them nominated (and win) in this one. The cinematography was easily the best I've seen in years. Without that ROTK wouldn't be nearly as good -- it added to the tone tremendously.

The Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100274)

LOTR:ROTK was the worst movie I have ever seen.

Ever.

The film's raison d'etre was BIG NOISY BATTLE SCENES that would hold the attention of the average highschool student/computer programmer. Y'see, a story is too much to ask. The book itself had the dullest story ever written but the verbosity of the telling ensured JR Tolkin published three lucratives books altogether.
The film showed up this failing even more so. We have lousy effects instead of JR's vivid descriptions.

The film is horribly slow when there aren't any battles going on. And the bit with the big spider was horrid.

The only people who liked this kind of movie are the same people who couldn't get laid in highschool and ended up spending weeks reading books about hairy dwarves. Is it any wonder they lap this stuff up?

Re:The Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100458)

Man, you must be the most unpopular guy in the universe. A slashdot reader who hates nerds. I mean, wow. What peer group does someone like you belong to? Did you like, not make the chess team or something, and now you're out for revenge?

Announcing the Eddies! (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100310)

Who cares about rich movie stars and their MPAA-sanctioned award show? What slashdot needs in an award for those overpaid, underappreciated editors.


I propose: The Eddies!


Which editor is most in need of a spell checker? Which one obviously doesn't read the front page? Whom would you most like sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?


Post your nominations here!

No ROtK nomination for Cinematography? (3, Insightful)

clausiam (609879) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100311)

That was one area where I was sure ROtK (or in fact the whole trilogy) was going to win.

In other news, sun rises again.... (-1)

BurKaZoiD (611246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100319)

The goodness that is ROTK is like a grilled cheese sandwich hot off the stove with the cheese just warm and gooey enough to start to hang ten off the crusts...Mmm-Hmmm good.

No Acting? (1)

TachyonAT (739931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100329)

I can't believe Andy Serkis wasn't nominated for best actor as Gollum... after seeing the TTT extended edition it amazes me just how much work he put into that character... i think he deserves some credit for that. Oh well, once again the Academy doesnt agree with me

Top 10 ROTK Nominations (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100330)

10. Biggest scifi/fantasy genre movie WITHOUT a character that looks like the Oscar statue (Bye, C-3PO!)
9. Best performance by mountain beacons
8. Biggest elephants
7. Best Evil Lighthouse in any movie in all of 2003.
6. The National Cherry Tomato Board would like to make sure that John Noble is nominated for best actor for his work as Denethor.
5. "Most Costumed Geeks in Theatre since Star Trek 6"
4. Best use of recycled pointed ears left over from collapsed "Star Trek" franchise.
3 rings for the elven kings
2. Best title ripped off from that of 3rd "Star Wars" film.
1. Those cheesy green ghosts didn't get nominated for "Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion". Let's nominate them for their ROTK cameo instead.

why the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100354)

If you were somehow involved with the making of the Lord of the Rings, then this is something to be excited about? But why should fans of the movie give one damn whether or not it's nominated, or especially wins? I mean, if you like something, then enjoy it. You shouldn't have to have your beliefs somehow validated by a panel of judges. Have confidence in what you like, you shouldn't need anyone to confirm that what you like is somehow 'good' enough.

Samwise (3, Insightful)

fr0dicus (641320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100373)

Very disappointed that Sean Astin (sp?) didn't get a nomination for best support. I haven't seen anyone play a role as well as that for a long time - certainly better than some of the lead actor nominations!

Hell will freeze over first (0)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100409)

Lucifer will catch a cold before a movie like LOTR wins any of the "serious" oscars. Before any of you people get your hopes up, you might as well accept it RIGHT NOW: fantasy movies aren't serious enough for "real" Oscars in the eyes of the voters. We'll always get the token costume and special effects awards, but that's it. Fantasy, sci-fi, that's Kid Stuff. Not worthy of adult accolades. I haven't watched the Oscars in years, and don't plan to again this year. It's a forgone conclusion that the movies I give a damn about will be largely ignored or given consolation oscars (which is what FX, etc really is).

Unless you have "adult" themes and/or biting social commentary, forget it. If Gandalf had invited a cross dressing Hillary Swank along for the ride, and maybe brought Toby Maguire to do abortions on the trip, well, maybe we'd stand half a chance in hell.

The greatest crime here... (3, Insightful)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100410)

...is that Sean Astin was passed over for Best Supporting Actor. After his turn in RotK--particularly the scenes on the slope of Mt. Doom--he really deserved at least the nomination. I can't believe they left him out.

The best film? It's ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100425)

It's so bored, yes, it's spectacular, but nothing more.

If the oscars goes to ROTK it will be only to compensate the money it cost. It isn't a good movie, not even a good adventures movie.

Sadly Clint Eastwood will remain without the oscar.

Not a single worthy performance? (1)

386spart (725207) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100428)

Is there no performance of any kind, male, female, supporting or main in ROTK that is worthy even a nomination? Once you accept that it is fantasy, I think the actors did fine jobs. Hard to pick any single outstanding "oscar moment" though. The best "acting" scenes are in the other movies IMHO.

Can't really think of anyone in LOTR that would deserve a nod before Depp though, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Even stranger is the lack of a nomination for Cinematography. I must have misunderstood something, how can ROTK not get one for that?

Note (4, Interesting)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100438)

No anime in the best animated picture category. Nemo will win, allowing Disney another "me too" moment at the Oscars.

Meanwhile, anime yawns and breaks the $4 billion mark.

Disney's response? Brother Bear.

That about wraps it up.

nominations no one is talking about (2, Interesting)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8100447)

Johnny Depp!! A Keith Richards-inspired glam rocking pirate, going purposefully over the top for every line reading. And he gets the nomination. This is much more monumental than the 13 noms for ROTK.

And where is the love for Peter Sarsgaard for Shattered Glass? Easily the best performance (lead or supporting) of the year.

No CINEMATOGRAPHY Nom? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8100462)

How could ROTK get 11 nominations and then be passed over for cinematography? You're telling me City of God had better cinematography then ROTK? Maybe I'm just biased, caused I loved the movie, but that seems a little odd?
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>