?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This isn't going to make me popular.

Return of the King shouldn't have even been nominated for Best Picture.

The Lord of the Rings, as a whole, is an amazing work, and recognition should definitely be given. I think a lifetime achievement award for every last member of the cast and crew is appropriate. In lieu of that, I suspect the royalty checks will be enough.

But to be fair, we really need to judge the film against it's competition not as part of a trilogy, but as a self-contained unit. Why? Because it's not an award for best trilogy.

On that level, does it stand up?

Well, no. Not really. How could it?

Honestly ask yourself:
    Would a new viewer, having skipped Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers, get more out of this than they would the other nominees?

    Or would they even see past the special effects, since they have to take your word for it that the conflict resolutions they're watching are based in so many hours of dramatic build-up?

    What is the emotional impact, for them?
It's not a criticism of the film, but a limitation of the form which renders it incompatible with the simple comparison this award calls for.

Likewise, the relationship between theatrical releases and extended DVDs push these further out of bounds.
    By this, I mean the film's not done yet. When series continuity draws from scenes only found in the extended cut, those cease to be "deleted scenes", "extras", or "bonus material" of any kind.

    The theatrical cuts are a necessary compromise, clearing seats in a timely manner and providing a second tier of deadlines with which to get everything finalized. They're placeholders.
We just gave 11 Academy Awards to a work in progress. To a film we really haven't even seen yet. Because we felt strongly about two films most of us have seen only on video.

That... doesn't seem right.

-----

I know I'm a spoil-sport, and I can't help but think back to some friends who refused to participate in New Years celebrations a few years back because the year 2000 didn't really mark the turn of the millenium. They missed out on some pretty good parties, and changed no one's mind with this protest.

Having watched that happen, I can save you the trouble of replying. It goes something like this:
    "Wow. You're right, self. We've all been sharing genuine happiness, but you're somehow better than us because you've found a way to suck the fun right out of it."
I don't know. As easy as it is to come down on myself for not getting excited about this, I'm just not excited about it. Honest reaction? It's one more nail in Oscar's coffin. The awards have no credibility. So, this would be like getting worked up over the latest tabloid scandal. Can't seem to take 'em seriously...
    "What, now you have to ruin tabloids too? Why don't you try enjoying life for a change?"
...if only it were that easy.

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
el_sharra
Mar. 1st, 2004 07:18 am (UTC)
I'm fence sitting on this one, I'm very happy that it won the award simply because I loved the movie(s) so much and was pleased to see that it got that form of recognition (not that the Oscars really seem to represent the 'best of' anymore). And while I think it was the best movie of the year I was also a little dubious because of the same points you wrote about here.
I think the main reason that I'm happy about it winning though is that perhaps now, just maybe, the Acadamy (and teh producers adn bank rollers) will judge fantacy and sci-fi as proper mediums capable and deserving of telling real stories with real meaning.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Profile

self portrait (escher)
self
some guy

Latest Month

October 2014
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow