h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Which ones did it win?

I haven't seen any news yet.

Okay, let me think about it...

It won best movie, best adapted script, best art direction, best costumes and best make-up, best music score, best song, best editing, best sound, best visual effects and Peter Jackson won for best director.

I hope, I didn't forget anything.

They pretty much took all of them except for the awards for acting.

Methos

Yes, I believe that's about it.

I can easily live with the fact it didn't get any of the acting awards, haven't seen Mystic River yet, sadly, but both Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are brilliant actors, and Clint Eastwood a very gifted director, can't really say it's unfair they get the awards.



cheers
~Bistro

about LOTR winning so many oscars

about Johnny Depp losing out to Sean Penn. Although any other time I'd have been wanting Penn to win.

ho hum.

As for the Craig Parker/Haldir thing. He just looked so... off as a Blond. Which is odd, because he's a really good looking guy - so right for an elf, just not a blond one.

Tim Robbins got the actor as supporting actor so he wasn't in the same category as Johnny Depp. As for Johnny Depp vs. Sean Penn - it's not even a question that Sean Penn is a great actor and that a movie by Clint Eastwood starring Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon has to be brilliant.

And of course, Pirates of the Carribean is pure entertainment but Johnny Depp did an amazing job. Creating this rich character off the page and playing it without a second of being off character. I think, he would have deserved the Oscar, too.
As would have Bill Murray, though I haven't seen "Lost In Translation".

So, looking as these actors - no, the actors of RotK probably didn't have a chance. If you take a look at all three LotR-movies and take a look at who won in the last two years, then I think, Viggo Mortensen could have been at least nominated.

And about Haldir, Sho, I don't know if Craig Parker is slender enough to play an elf, but blonde is definetly not his colour.

Methos

Excellent

Think of effects-driven films; the sorry thing that Star Wars became; they had some good actors, but only Alec Guinness could rise above the machine that made ciphers of them all. To some extent the LotR actors were cipherised: there simply was no time to develop all those characters. I applaud Jackson for giving sufficient time to Frodo and Sam, balanced against all the stuff he had to jettison. Gandalf was well set up at the start and hardly needed to develop much. The rest -- a lot of them are a blur to me until I do some re-watching.

: they gave too much time to Gollum. Jackson got too fond of the nasty twerp.

*sees the stuck out neck and grabs gimlis axe*

ONE!

*Swings axe*

What have you got against Gollum? He was hilarious--not to mention one of my favorite characters in the book, even for being the irritating prick he was.

Although I was irritated about all the movie-book inconsistencies with Gollum - for one major example, in the movie, he never cringed or ran away from sun- or moonlight. What's up with that?! The whole idea was for them to travel secretly during the night, and Jackson couldn't be bothered. Plus there were a few other minor things I don't feel like grumbling about...

Some great acting on Andy Serkis' part, though. for him.

I agree Shagrath. Serkis did a wonderful job and had great fun with the digitisers -- like playing on a newly invented instrument or mode of transport -- and it is entirely understandable that they let him develop the character as much as he could, because it was going so well.

But I don't think Tolkien meant to dwell on the moral choices of Gollum quite so much. He is presented in the book as a demented lost soul, one of the greatest inhuman creations since Dracula. Now there's an anti-hero! In Coppola's disgracefully misnamed movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" the monster is played as a thoroughly justified and strangely attractive character, while in the book he is only repulsive, chillingly reptilian and without a shred of human sympathy.

Let's not start with Star Wars. At least not the ones with "episode" in the title...

I agree with you, Recumbentman, some of the characters were a bit weakly developed. Like boy, as much as it grieves me to say that.

Gandalf was not a problem because of Ian McKellen. If you got such an experienced and great actor he can to the developing by himself just fine.
And I know that many people say that Elijah Wood showed just two faces as Frodo - sad and very sad, but I thought he was great.
And I really, really think Viggo Mortensen did a wonderful job as Aragorn. Th physicality and intensity... And no, this is not only a attack.

Have to agree with you on Gollum, too. As I've already said, I felt that the scenes with Smeagol at the beginning of RotK were not really necessary and therefore the minutes could have been used for scenes making the plot or characters more clear.
And I'm not sure if Gollum is supposed to be cute.

Methos

"And I'm not sure if Gollum is supposed to be cute."

Blugh! This reminds me of the first time I went to see The Two Towers. Some people behind me kept saying "Awww! He's so cute!" when Frodo and Sam would troture Gollum. How could anyone possibly think that? He wasn't supposed to be "cute". I can't believe anyone could say that.

I do think that Sméagol's story at the beginning of ROTK were relatively important, mostly because they weren't covered earlier in the films (the book FOTR is where the stories are told). The story is a great piece of character development on Sméagol's part, even though it doesn't really help the story all that much.

Gollum's role is pivotal in the books, but less so in the movie.

In the books, Frodo claims the Ring as his own and therefore sets himself up as a direct rival to Sauron. He falls to the power of the Ring and it is Gollum's intervention which finally decides things.

In the movie, you don't see this happen as clearly.

Gollum's presence also shows you what happens when you have the Ring for too long. Look at the moment in FoTR when Bilbo tries to get a hold of the Ring in Rivendell. Who does he look like, just for a moment?

Shagrath, it's the way Gollum is shown in the movies. He's cute there. I didn't mean that it was Tolkien's intention to make him that way.

And wasn't Smeagol's story told by Gandalf in FotR? Of course, rather shortly, but long enough, that we know that he was not unlike a Hobbit once...

Methos

Yes, Gandalf told Gollum's story to Frodo after the party.

Peter Jackson should NOT have made Gollum look cute. Tolkien didn't make him look like anything; that's one of the downsides to a book. The Ring not only corrupts your inner soul but also, after a period of time, your outer appearance; as Bilbo shows in Rivendell.

And we should give some respect to Gollum, in a way. If he'd not stopped Frodo from keeping the Ring, then obviously very bad things would have happened. Yay, let's hear it for greed!

Recumbentman: perfect practice makes

Strontium Dog Grabs Light Saber in One Hand and Blaster in the Other and Leaps (with imposible athleticism) to the defence of Star Wars.

Comercialism to one side, (Dont like that bit) I have a lot of time for Star Wars it's just too short. I reserve Judgement about the whole thing until I see no 3, he better get it right.

I think Harrison Ford also survived the films with his acting future intact, (Frank Oz's right hand did ok too) I think Witness was probably the strongest.

I thought that Golumn in the films was the one thing that was absolutely right. The Fact he is attractive and in a lot of ways enticing in himself really fits him to my image of Golumn, this seems to me to be the aweful thing about the ring and it's influence on those who carry it. They are not only seduced by the ring, but they become seductive of those arround them. This is consistant with Tolkiens description of Sauron in the last part of the Silmarillion, he is Fair in appearance.

The Corrupt cultivate enticement and attractiveness. The split nature of Golumn and Smeagol also replicates duplicitus people, when their Nice they seem trusworthy and honest, when they are not it seems hard to believe you ever fell for it. This is one of the greatest subtlties of LOTR in my opinion.

Peter Jackson didnt make Gollum look cute. Nor did Gollum look cute.

Peter Jackson told Andy Serkis to do X Y Z.
Andy Serkis made Gollum and smeagol look a certain way.
Smeagol did look cute.

The point was to provide a dark constrast to Gollum. The audience likes Smeagol for being cute even though Gollum could come up at anytime...

Rant over

Why do people feel the need to defend Star Wars? It is what it is, no more and certainly no less. It would certainly help if George Lucas had spent more on writers and less on pretty pictures (and then perhaps Hayden Christiansen would have had better material to work with?)

Actually, take a look at Helm's Deep and Pelenor Fields and then compare them to the battles in Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

Also, take a look at Jar Jar and Yoda, and them compare them to Gollum and the Ents. See how far we've come, in terms of technique, in such a short time?

I definitely agree with Gradient...why are we talking about Star Wars? The new episodes sucked anyway.

Sorry I mentioned Stare Warts.

The position of Gollum in relation to the destruction of the ring is analogous to the position of Judas in the passion story. Unfortunately God sometimes needs a villain and hard luck if it's you. Nothing you can do about it; free will comes to an end somewhere.