?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Yay! but... no. >.

You know... I was thrilled all out of proportion when I found out LoTR had scooped thirteen nominations for the Academy Awards. However... I got a message from the soundtrack mailing list (don't look at me like that; they make you put in your email addy before you can look at the nifty extras on the soundtrack... :P), that told me that Titanic, in its year, got 14.

Titanic beat out LoTR. *Titanic*!

Does this seem incomprehensibly WRONG to anyone but me?

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
nute
Feb. 14th, 2002 05:54 am (UTC)
The difference between Titanic and LotR
Primarily, the reason that LotR got less awards (and doesn't deserve Best Picture, IMO) - is that there's no ability to surprise. There's nothing really new about the story - quite possibly the best known fictional work of modern writing. If you go see the movie, you KNOW that Gandalf falls to the Balrog, you KNOW Frodo gets visions when he puts on the ring, you KNOW everything that's going to happen. Sure, some parts were cut out while others were embellished, but most people could recite the dialogue line-for-line the first time they saw the movie.

With Titanic - you KNOW the boat sinks, but everything else is original. LotR had great directing and some good acting (Sean Bean snubbed, yet AGAIN just because McKellen has a 'Sir' in front of his name) - but not what I'd consider Best Picture material.

Objectively, it deserves Best Score, too. Although Titanic's was still better. :)

~M.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Profile

reeciebastion
chandri
Chandri MacLeod
Fantasi.net

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com