Why 'Return of the King' won't win "Best Picture"

[Jake]

Dec. 1 issue — Historically speaking, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” doesn’t stand a hobbit’s chance in Mordor of winning this year’s best-picture Oscar. No fantasy film has ever won, nor has the third part of a trilogy. (Gosh. Not even “The Godfather: Part III”?) And only two films that grossed more than $300 million domestically (“Forrest Gump” and “Titanic”) have snagged the top prize. The conventional wisdom is that if a film is too successful, voters think it’s already been rewarded—and the first two “Rings” installments have raked in more than $650 million combined. “People in this town get sick of a winner,” says one Academy member and longtime industry watcher. “They prefer underdogs.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997117.asp

Interesting article

[Matt]

Sounds stupid, but that's how the academy is.

[chernabog_ca]

That's okay, I'm sure it'll win Best Picture at the MTV Movie Awards....

[Gaumont]

“They prefer underdogs.”

yea right

[redbear]

well, oscar has always been more about politics than what the people want. but i think in this case, ROTK will get best picture. just becuase of the time and effort he (and the entire cast) have put into this trilogy and how much money the films have made.

[IceGambit]

Originally posted by red bear
well, oscar has always been more about politics than what the people want.

Or what movie really deserves awards. I hate the Oscars violently, but I really want the best movie to win, and in this case it will most certainly be ROTK. The other two should've won every award on the board, and were robbed. I must believe there is a tiny bit of justice at the Academy.

[WorkShed]

Chicago won Best Picture last year. WHY?!!!! It was a fun movie but it was also instantly forgettable. The Lord of the Rings sticks with the audience long after the lights come back on. I certainly wouldn't want an extended version of Chicago with 43 extra minutes added into it. I didn't even want to see the deleted number that was on the DVD. I stayed away from the DVD even though I liked the film, it just wasn't as great as the hype.

In 2002, I did want The Fellowship of the Ring to win Best Picture, but after seeing A Beautiful Mind (which I saw when the film came out on DVD shortly after the awards), I would say that Ron Howard was right in getting the award for Best Picture and Best Director because A Beautiful Mind was a great film. However, there has been squat this year that should compete with Peter Jackson this year as far as direction goes. Even if Return of the King doesn't take home best picture, Peter Jackson HAS to get the award for best director. I read The Hobbit and had little interest in the whole tale. When rumors spread about a Lord of the Rings trilogy on film, I wasn't interested. However, when I did see the original teasers and trailers, I HAD TO GO!!! I have seen the films in the theaters (I really wish that I could go to the Trilogy Tuesday but finals week at my university prohibits me from going )

Jackson has taken the films in the right direction with his historical take on the story. I always see the films in the theater, but will only purchase the extended versions on DVD because I want to see as much of Jackson's vision as allowed.

I was a fan of The Frighteners and I can't wait for King Kong.

Jackson has the gift and knows how to fully use it.

[trailergod]

but why should it win anyway?

the movie has not been released yet and u guys talk as if its the nirvana of cinema history..

IMO the LOTR movies are huge crowd pleasers, yes, LOTR 1 is indeed a well made movie same with part 2 but they certainly are not great films, especially part 2 with its choppy editing at the end.

i think LOTR part 3 will be good, not only because of the good material that is present but also very talented people are involved in making it, but IMO they dont deserve the best picture.

[Gypsy]

I just want Best Supporting Actor for Ian McKellen.....maybe the movie does not deserve it in their eyes, but he is a PERFECT Gandalf

[IceGambit]

Originally posted by Gypsy
I just want Best Supporting Actor for Ian McKellen.....maybe the movie does not deserve it in their eyes, but he is a PERFECT Gandalf

McKellen, and Sean Astin deserves an award for Sam. Plus, Sam's role becomes really juicy in ROTK, so I am hoping the Academy will be less ignorant than usual.

[WorkShed]

Originally posted by trailergod
but why should it win anyway?

the movie has not been released yet and u guys talk as if its the nirvana of cinema history..

IMO the LOTR movies are huge crowd pleasers, yes, LOTR 1 is indeed a well made movie same with part 2 but they certainly are not great films, especially part 2 with its choppy editing at the end.

i think LOTR part 3 will be good, not only because of the good material that is present but also very talented people are involved in making it, but IMO they dont deserve the best picture.

Did you really believe that <i>Chicago</i> was a better movie than The Two Towers? Come on...

[carl]

Originally posted by trailergod
but why should it win anyway?

the movie has not been released yet and u guys talk as if its the nirvana of cinema history..

IMO the LOTR movies are huge crowd pleasers, yes, LOTR 1 is indeed a well made movie same with part 2 but they certainly are not great films, especially part 2 with its choppy editing at the end.

i think LOTR part 3 will be good, not only because of the good material that is present but also very talented people are involved in making it, but IMO they dont deserve the best picture.

I, and a lot of people don't really consider the editing to be choppy. There was 3 stories being told, they were happening simultaniously so they had 2 options. The book told each story seperately, but IMO it detracted. Running around panicking about an impending event that had already been stopped was one of the areas I felt the book was weaker in, so they chose to cut between them. Personally I found they did very well, keeping each plot point dramatic. I must ask though what you would look for in a best picture winner, if excellent acting, excellent directing (and I'm not a Jackson fan) excellent characters, the best soundtrack since The Godfather, a script that's full of depth, themes and genuine thought, plus manages to be pretty damn entertaining at the same time too, is unqualified then what are you looking for? (I know, I know, you will only ever consider the Pianist). I know a lot of people are against that, anything fun shouldn't win best picture even if it is best, but that desn't make the films "Just good crowd pleasers". Then again, we both know you don't consider fantasy as a serious form of filmmaking, right.

One last thing, you are complaining that people are calling it Oscar worthy without seeing it, which I agree, it's too early to tell, but it's also too early for you to tell that the film will be nothing more han just some big crowd pleaser.

[trailergod]

Originally posted by WorkShed
Did you really believe that <i>Chicago</i> was a better movie than The Two Towers? Come on...

yes, for the mere fact its not a movie that heavily realies of CGI or effects.

IMO and its still the biggest reason for any movie to be great is the ACTING, the natural performace of actors in a film.

[WorkShed]

Originally posted by trailergod
yes, for the mere fact its not a movie that heavily realies of CGI or effects.

IMO and its still the biggest reason for any movie to be great is the ACTING, the natural performace of actors in a film.

Acting?!

Oh, my God! Chicago had ZERO acting except for John C. Riley!!!

On the other hand, Two Towers dealt with issues like addiction and temptation. There was plenty of good acting scenes. Hell, even Gollum, the creature you say is instantly no good because it is a CG character, had a ton more acting scenes than the entire production of Chicago. Chicago was highly theatrical and therefore, didn't have an iota of believable, realistic acting.

Chicago having better acting than a war epic? Come on!!

[carl]

Originally posted by trailergod
yes, for the mere fact its not a movie that heavily realies of CGI or effects.

IMO and its still the biggest reason for any movie to be great is the ACTING, the natural performace of actors in a film.

Chicago had dancing, that was the only reason. The acadamy wanted to make themselves look better by giving a popular musical the winner. Personally I don't think that acting should be the top priority, so much as how the film stands up artistically. So far Lord Of The Rings has achieved that admirably, and like Workshed said, it deals with themes of Addiction and temptation, plus getting over prejudice, how technology is destroying the planet ect...