Quick Oscar question

Actually, that’s where I think the fantasy bias still held–the fact that none of the actors got nominated. I mean, hard to complain with a sweep like this (and I’m not, and I agree that at least a couple of the awards might have been better served elsewhere), but still–there were a few roles here (Sean Astin comes to mind) that might have deserved at least a best supporting actor nod…

And yeah, I don’t think Murray was grumpy about being nominated. Seemed like it was just Murray being Murray–and maybe registering a kind of “I’m not worthy” face for the camera in the company of the other nominees. Actually, his worst moment of the night was calling Sofia Coppola an “American girl” twice. Yeah, hi, she’s 32.

Oh, and Liv Tyler: take off those freakin’ glasses.

Actually, I thought that it totally deserved the screenplay award. I never imagined that anyone could adapt Tolkien’s books to film as well as Jackson & co. have done. I think they deserved the award based on the difficulty of the task alone.

Actually, I thought that it totally deserved the screenplay award. I never imagined that anyone could adapt Tolkien’s books to film as well as Jackson & co. have done. I think they deserved the award based on the difficulty of the task alone.

I tend to agree. Many seem to think that Tolkein did all of the work for them but that argument works for just about any work in the “adapted” category.

If there was a longshot category for ROTK, though, it was adapted screenplay. Most of the praise for the films has been heaped on the direction and the visuals and the screenplay category is an excellent one to reward other films that are often overlooked. Many thought this would likely go to to Mystic River as a consolation prize for being shut out of director and picture (although I think Lehane’s novel was much easier to adapt than Tolkein). American Splendor was also a strong contender here since it was very well liked but didn’t have the support for the major noms.

I might agree with that if I hadn’t seen American Splendor, which was so unique and fresh and radical that it was the ultimate kind of adaptation.

I’m not sure Lord of the Rings was any harder than other adaptations of major books. It didn’t reimagine Tolkien, or cast them in an entirely new light. The challenge was what to keep and what to toss, but I think most of that came in the editing room.

And for people talking about editing, I think for the scene where Pippin sings the song while Faromir charges and the pseudo-King dude chomps on the food is all you need to see to say, “Yeah, that was some quality editing.”

Yeah, me neither.

I wanted Murray to win badly. sigh.

Glad to see Master and Commander win a couple.

I’m really not liking ROTK right now. I’m currently fixated on whether the ghost army at Minis Tirith was a purplish version of the scrubbing toilet bubbles commercial on television.

And we need to form a cabal to knock off Stuart Townsend, cause, damnit, Charlize needs to be a single girl again.

I’m not sure Lord of the Rings was any harder than other adaptations of major books. It didn’t reimagine Tolkien, or cast them in an entirely new light. The challenge was what to keep and what to toss, but I think most of that came in the editing room.

I think its considerably more challenging than most give it credit for. Tolkein’s narrative was hardly conventional, in either language or pacing. One of the great challenges of the work is in determining exactly how much of his extensive world background is essential and how much more needs to be put in just to help give the world more flavor. Considering the high cost of everything associated with the film they couldn’t just put in every scene even if they might edit it out later. Every scripted scene was going to add to the already large budget.

Then there’s the difficulty of scripting all three films at once, with the danger that omitting details from the first two films could have ramifications with the third. Some of these challenges are pretty apparent with just editing changes from the Extended Editions. When deciding to remove the majority of the gift-giving from the theatrical cut, they had to consider how it would effect the use of the gifts in the subsequent films. How the changes would effect ROTK had to be made for everything that was included or excluded in the scripts for FOTR and TTT.

After being fired as Aragorn by Peter Jackson, give the guy a break! He must be gutted about that, and no doubt Charlize soothes the pain away…

[quote=“Gary_Whitta”]

After being fired as Aragorn by Peter Jackson, give the guy a break! He must be gutted about that, and no doubt Charlize soothes the pain away…[/quote]

Didn’t know that. He’s kind of scrawny. Probably a good choice by Jackson.

I kind wonder in some horrible Devil/Mr. Webster way which he’d rather have… Theron or the part of Aragorn back.

After being fired as Aragorn by Peter Jackson, give the guy a break! He must be gutted about that, and no doubt Charlize soothes the pain away…[/quote]

Didn’t know that. He’s kind of scrawny. Probably a good choice by Jackson.[/quote]
Jackson have said that he suddenly realised that Aragorn needed to look older than Townsend does.

I don’t think it’s easy, but unconventional narratives are often adapted.

As for whittling down the world, anyone that’s adapted a 500 page novel into a two hour movie has to do the same thing, only instead of a world we’re talking about whittling down character development, inner dialogues, etc.

Then there’s the difficulty of scripting all three films at once, with the danger that omitting details from the first two films could have ramifications with the third.

I’d think that actually made it easier because they wouldn’t say, “Oh shit, we didn’t do that in the first movie, so we’ll need to write a bit of extra backstory.” Though they did do reshoots with every movie, presumably because of edits that were made.

When deciding to remove the majority of the gift-giving from the theatrical cut, they had to consider how it would effect the use of the gifts in the subsequent films.

Well, in the case of the magic capes they were wearing that turned them into a rock, their solution was, “Say nothing.”

Word on the Wellington street is that Townsend was fired more for his bratty airs and being difficult to work with… though the age is probably a big part of it also.

I don’t see how anybody could say adapting Tolkien to the screen would be easy in any way. You need to read the books again if you think so. Putting the books into 3 movies that would be shot back-to-back is an impressive achievement, period.

As for whittling down the world, anyone that’s adapted a 500 page novel into a two hour movie has to do the same thing, only instead of a world we’re talking about whittling down character development, inner dialogues, etc.

There is a lot of detail about the city of Boston in the novel Mystic River. Almost all of this is conveyed on the screen just by shooting on location in the city. There is no need to establish the history of Boston, its location, leaders, etc.

Jackson and co had to work information about Middle Earth’s geography, history, armies, and races into the story with minimal exposition. They had to do justice to Tolkein’s incredibly detailed world (arguably his greatest strength) while still making the films accessible for the mass audience unfamiliar with his works. I can’t believe that you think such an enterprise wouldn’t be “any harder than other adaptations of major books.”

LOTR is certainly not the hardest adaptation ever. I imagine that LA Confidential was almost as difficult. I haven’t seen The Hours but supposedly it was felt that the novel was unadaptable and they seem to have succeeded somewhat with that.

Considering the nominees this year, I don’t think LOTR was in any way an unworthy winner in this category. American Splendor is likely a better adaptation. I think Mystic River was probably the easiest novel of the five nominees to adapt but I expected it to win to give more support to the film.

As much as I’m happy to see LOTR break down a barrier in terms of critical legitimacy for fantasy/sci-fi films, I’m not sure how I feel about the Best Picture win. Sure, it’s easier to understand when you consider that all three films were being recognized, but even then I’m ambivalent.

If the awards criteria were based purely on scope and achievement, all three films should have won each year. But whether these movies were the years’ finest achievements in storytelling is, I think, an altogether thornier question.

I personally found all three films to be extremely hammy in terms of the dialog and performances. Strip away the hard-core production values and I just don’t think you have that awesome a narrative experience.

As an adaptation it was impressive because good luck to anyone who tries to turn that huge book into any kind of workable movie, but taken at face value I don’t think its merits as a story outweighed the other nominees. Grandeur and sweep do not necessarily equate to quality, but when you see movies like TITANIC and GLADIATOR winning Oscars, it’s easy to conclude that there’s a strong trend toward rewarding movies of the old-school Hollywood epic style.

The hardest ever that I’ve seen would have to be “Finnegans Wake.” (Yes, someone really made a movie out of it).

I imagine that LA Confidential was almost as difficult.

OTOH, LA Confidential takes a major departure from the book, dropping an entire plot-line. It would have been equivalent to dropping the Sam/Frodo bits from LOTR. (This is not a slam against LA Confidential, which I thought was a really great movie)

Gav

[quote=“Gav”]

The hardest ever that I’ve seen would have to be “Finnegans Wake.” (Yes, someone really made a movie out of it).

I imagine that LA Confidential was almost as difficult.

OTOH, LA Confidential takes a major departure from the book, dropping an entire plot-line. It would have been equivalent to dropping the Sam/Frodo bits from LOTR. (This is not a slam against LA Confidential, which I thought was a really great movie)

Gav[/quote]

Man, I hated LA Confidential. Seemed like such a cop-out in comparison with the book, which really got into the cop/gov’t culture of racism in the 40s-60s that’s at the centre of all Ellroy’s books. Seemed authentic, where the movie was just a cheesy period piece with a hooker with a heart of gold, a dirty cop, a conflicted good cop, a conventional happy ending, etc. I don’t see how the adaptation could have been all that difficult. I mean, all they had to do was dump the controversial stuff, tone everything way down, add the happy ending where the bad guy bites it. Lame and cliched. I was soooo disappointed when I walked out of the theatre. It hurt me more than The Phantom Menace.

Dropping the Sam-Frodo bits would’ve helped LOTR. The funny/interesting/exciting stuff was always going on with other characters.

Brett- Maybe it wasn’t as good as the book(which I’ve never read), but if you don’t think LA Confidential was a good movie I think you may give up on the medium.

And as far as major studio movies go, I can’t think of many with a more complex plot that still makes sense the entire way through. The plot requires every character, and nearly every detail in the film is important, bbut it’s wonderfully missing the bizarre motivations that most “twisty” films have to use to get their characters in the right places.

I agree, accept you have to add the “and Sting is killing Phil Collins” line.