NO actor noms, at all, I think. A couple director noms, but it won't win. And a few special effect noms. A film that HAD a viable story laid out for it (a story that is second most popular literary one, ever...behind the Bible) deviated from that story to exhbit special effects, was interestingly enough given "thumbs up" by most reviewers, but made precious few reviewers Top 10 lists for 2002, indicating, in my view, that they thought TTT was worth seeing for the spectalce surrounding it all, but that, down the line, there will be lots of other films much more worthy, in 2002 alone, of a customer's DVD dollar. Is TTT paying the price now, in terms of respect from peers and the community, or are the awards irrelevant, particularly in the light of the box office gross? For me, I hated it, hated all the unnecessary changes (three clips of a flying Nazgul...for no reason, Aragorn over the cliff, Bizzaro Faramir, Exorcist IV: Theoden's Turn, etc.) and I'm glad that, for the most part, the film seems to be getting nominations solely on the strength of the Gollum iteration, and is being abadnoned for all its other, glaringly bad, "attributes"... Oh yeah, I think there was a "musical score" nom somewhere in there, which might have been the worst of all. Don't agree? GO ahead and hum the theme from "Two Towers." If you even try and end up gettign somethign out, it'll be the theme from FOTR... a meaningful score for TTT was nonexistent. Your thoughts?
I haven't read the books and have only seen Fellowship. I just miss the good ole days when Peter Jackson made schlock horror masterpieces for $500K each.
While I objected to many of the same things you've mentioned here--and I'm sure we agree on some of the others you didn't mention--I don't object to them as strongly. Actually I'd say disappointment was a more accurate word, which is important to keep in mind since probably more than any other films made Jackson's Tolkien sequence has to confront the massed expectation of legions devoted readers. We all have our favorite moments and some of mine disappeared or got transmogrified in ways I didn't like. However, much as I didn't like "Bizarro Faramir" he fit with something I did like: Jackson's effort to provide us with a more deeply textured depiction of what it's like to struggle against the power of the ring than Tolkien gave us. On the whole, I like the movie, but not quite as much as the first one. As far as fewer nominations being "chickens coming home to roost": what do you mean by that? It sounds like you're treating the relative lack of oscar nominations for TTT as a moral indictment. Given that the logical extension of that position is "oscar nominations are markers of moral validity," I don't think you want to go there. I mean didn't [insert cheap shot at movie/actor of your choosing] win one?
Actually that's one the fairest counters to my argument. Except that PJ didn't just edit Tolkien down...he created new stuff, and manufactured stuff that seemed counter to a story taht belongs to someone else. Now, if we substituted, say, Aragorn going over the cliff (useless!) wth an introduction of the Hurons, for example, then maybe we could have had both a more realistic ending than Eomer and Gandalf leaping into hundreds of spears AND an ending that more reflected the work. As far as Oscars reflecting some moral imperative, well no, I don't go that far. I am submitting that from my perspective, TTT is, worldwide, getting pretty much what it deserves, as a film. A little recognition for its special effects, and a little recnognition for the efforts of the director. My theme continues to be that it just could have, should have, been so much more... I am an absolute fan of the boks, but not a purist; can't be, since like FOTR, and accepted the Awen role-enhancement. But TTT was poorly constructed, poorly scripted (make Gimli the typical funny guy, a shame), and made characters do things they would not do, whle taking precious screen time to add total fluff. I mean, if PJ wanted to do his own thing, he should have exhibited the courage to make "PJ's World of Fantasy," but he chose to make something he and New Line called Lord of the Rings. He certainly saw the advantages of having a built-in brand... I just call on him to let the films be that which they claim to be, and submit that, given the popularity of the work, that the standard must reflect that popularity. The main question of this thread I guess is: Does the current crop of noms and awards for TTT, IYHO, reflect the quality of the work? IMHO it does.
I'm with JPak. Given the constraints of turning such an epic trilogy of books (or one huge book, your call) into good movies, PJ has done an awesome job. I mean, did anyone here see Dune? And read the novels? I did - and believe me, LOTR is a damn sight better than Dune was. I do think TTT was shafted in some areas re: Oscars. Most notably, best supporting actor for Andy Serkis. I think some of that has to do with the fact that everyone knows there is a third film coming, and I expect that the work will be judged as a whole next year, rather than as three separate parts. And maybe that's the right way to do it - I don't know. Universal, if you haven't yet, rent/borrow the 4-disc version of Fellowship, and after you watch the much-improved extended edition, watch the "from books to script" portions of the extras. It's enlightening.
The Two Towers was not as good as Fellowship...Fellowship was a semi-serious film which warranted award consideration, Two Towers decided to dip down to blockbuster status. It won't win many trophies, but all involved will be able to afford solid gold houses...and melt their houses into trophies, if they care to. I hope Return of the King becomes serious again, and that sometime in the future, maybe when they edit the three movies into one giant film, they edit some of the pop-crap out of The Two Towers. These movies are really something for the ages...in a hundred years I think they'll be as big a part of our culture as Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz or any other movie you can think of. They need to stop worrying about short-term box office receipts and start thinking about posterity. They'll get their money. Now make some freakin' art!
Where did you get this from? According to the Online Film Critics Society, The Two Towers made 60 Top Ten lists, which is more than any other film in 2002. http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/awards/2002bestworst It looks like you're completely wrong on that point. I thought The Two Towers was great and just as good as the Fellowship. I'm really looking forward to ROTK.
GringoTex, Have you ever seen Jackson's 'Forgotten Silver'? One of the cleverest pseudo-documentaries I've ever seen (not like I've seen dozens of them, but still...)
Re: Re: Two Towers generally lacking in awards...chickens coming home to roost? Everyone has different numbers, but to submit that TTT made more Top 10 lists than any other film is simply wrong. TTT wasn't even close. http://www.cineperspective.com/List/02top10s.htm Far From Heaven made 215 lists Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN: 166 lists Adaptation: 153 About Schmidt: 122 Talk to Her: 111 Gangs of NY: 108 Chicago: 100 Spirited Away 99: Punch-Drunk Love : 98 The Pianist: 83 Bowling For Columbine: 83 The Hours: 75 ATANARJUAT/THE FAST RUNNER: 69 Minority Report: 64 Now, to be fair, I'll augment your point by submitting that upon further research, TTT may have made up to 111 Top Ten lists, placing it at #4 on this list...if you include yourself, and me, and JPak, and GringoTex... BUt among even relatively authentic critics, globally, TTT is like 16th or 17th... Again, its all good. Having read the books and NOT being a purist, I submit that there are entire scetions of TTT that could have been cut out due to their change of both Tolkien's words and more importantly his clear intent, sections that could have been substituted with, well, more of TTT, instead of "PJs World of Fantasy," which is what we got... But that's all a back-and-forth that might never end... I want to stick with whether or not people believe that this film, on its own merits, deserves more recognition than it is getting. The actors, for example, have been wholly ignored, in all awards worldwide. Does anyone think that the acting was overlooked by the global film community? Can we get an example? IMHO Miranda Otto is WONDERFUL, but her lack of lines means she had no shot. Other than that, IMHO, the acting was realtive garbage. We didnt see Ian (or Chris Lee) enought to counter action-film "blockbuster" keep-it-moving-don't-stop dialogue...thus the actors were totally underused...they didn't get to act, except maybe Wood and Astin, who are among the weaker actors in the ensemble, I would say...
Re: Re: Re: Two Towers generally lacking in awards...chickens coming home to roost? Are you straw-manning me on purpose or did you just misread my post? I stated that TTT made the most top ten lists of those recorded by the Online Film Critics society. Your link doesn't provide the summary page that you posted. Where did you get those numbers? Do you have a link? You originally said that TTT "made precious few reviewers Top 10 lists for 2002". Do you consider 111 lists a "precious few" or are you now conceding this point? Do you really want to get into this very subjective quagmire?
"...I have never been able to understand why motion-picture people insist upon throwing away something of proven appeal to substitute things of their own creation... Readers of a dearly loved book will forgive omissions if there is an obvious reason for them; but very properly, they will not forgive substitutions." Neither, apparently, will Award Committees. The above was written by David O. Selznick to Alfred Hitchcock concerning "Rebecca", a film based on a novel by Daphne du Maurier. Selznick's advice was not heeded by the writers of "The Two Towers", IMHO.
I liked it but then again although I've read the books I couldn't tell you what was changed for the movie and what stayed true to the book. I loved the books and I've enjoyed both movies. According to the internet movie database, TTT is currently the 17th highest rated movie as voted by its users. You might also find this listing of all of the awards that TTT was nominated for or won worth a look. http://us.imdb.com/Tawards?0167261 It's not a short list.
Given the books they were working with, I'm not sure the screenwriters had much choice but to make small changes for the reasons I gave before that Bomb quoted above.
Indeed, I find this list extremely comforting, as it in the main reflects what I've been saying; in terms of the "newest latest" special effects, and the world that surrounds that process, TTT is exemplary... Until next year. That's not what makes agreat film. Acting, Screenplay, Direction...those are what makes a great film, IMHO, And while there are some of those awards out there for TTT, it is woefully lacking in wins in this area, given the absolute richness of the source material from which this "adaptation" is supposedly drawn. IMHO, Jackson drew far too mauch from the "battle heritage" of the literary work, and not enough from the "story heritage"; thus we are left with and action film, when we could have had an epic story, and I think, ironically, that the very cost of those celebrated visual effects took the trilogy into a cost category for New Line where, unfortunately, they had invested so much $$$$ they HAD to see some formulaic elements upon which they could hang their marketing/focus group hat...
I think he had to make a choice between making a great movie and making one that was faithful to the literary works. He chose to make a great movie that follows the book more closely than many film adaptations do. Just look at Jurassic Park, that was a great movie, but nothing like the book aside from the premise. And even if you were pissed about how TTT turned out, I know you will be one of the first people inline to see ROTK. I know I will.