|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
riverwalker11
The Shire
Dec 13 2012, 3:08pm
Post #1 of 16
(923 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit: Golden Globes 2013
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just announced and not a single nomination in any category. VERY surprised that Howard Shore's score didn't get one, if anything. Bummer.
|
|
|
Welsh hero
Gondor
Dec 13 2012, 4:03pm
Post #3 of 16
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't see why you're susprised
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
THAUJ will only get technical nominations. Doesn't mean it's a bad film.
-Irfon
Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 13 2012, 4:04pm
Post #4 of 16
(480 views)
Shortcut
|
but aside from Directing, i don't think the Golden Globes have almost any of the technical awards that The Hobbit should rack up noms for with the Oscars...you know, stuff like sound editing, costumes, make-up, cinematography, visual effects, etc.
even if Howard Shore's score hadn't gotten reduced in music editing, i doubt there would have been enough new-sounding material for it to really register as a separate and exciting new work for the viewers who watch The Hobbit more casually than us obsessives. i suspect he will get a nom or two with the next two as he gets the chance (hopefully) to introduce more new themes and motifs for all the places and characters we've never seen before in these films.
|
|
|
riverwalker11
The Shire
Dec 13 2012, 4:08pm
Post #5 of 16
(464 views)
Shortcut
|
only in that the score didn't receive a nomination, considering the somewhat lackluster scores on other films this year. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm only going on the soundtrack release that I've been listening to. I've heard about how that has been edited to an alarming degree, so maybe it doesn't impress as much with the movie as it does on the discs (which I think are very original and would deserve a nomination, especially up against those other movies' scores).
(This post was edited by riverwalker11 on Dec 13 2012, 4:12pm)
|
|
|
Welsh hero
Gondor
Dec 13 2012, 4:16pm
Post #6 of 16
(422 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Didn't get a nomination in critics choice either //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
-Irfon
Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1
|
|
|
hamlet
Rivendell
Dec 13 2012, 4:20pm
Post #7 of 16
(442 views)
Shortcut
|
I never really expected The Hobbit to rack up the critical praise and awards that the LOTR films did. Primarily this is because the subject matter is less "serious," but also, as a protagonist, Bilbo is just less tortured and conflicted than Frodo. The critics and the awards-voters LOVE their conflicted heroes. They love a good adventure romp, too (like The Hobbit), but they don't give a lot of awards to those kind of films. Hollywood will like the big box office that the movie will inevitably generate, and they'll take advantage of the technological advances that PJ and company are pioneering, but when it comes to awards they'll look down their noses at it. There was also bound to be some LOTR comparison syndrome (which is very obvious in a lot of the more lukewarm reviews), but who cares? It's clear from most of the reactions I have read that the fans are loving it -- so awards be damned!
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 13 2012, 4:28pm
Post #8 of 16
(410 views)
Shortcut
|
a lot of the critics have noted that they prefer Bilbo as a protagonist to Frodo, who many viewed as fine and all but a bit simpering and one-note. they find Bilbo much more affable and interesting.
that said, there's no doubt that LotR has a lot more gravitas built in, the narrative much more naturally comes across as epic, and those movies were fresh on the scene, whereas it didn't matter how good The Hobbit was, a number of critics were going to feel like returning to Middle Earth was a rote exercise in commercialism.
|
|
|
Escapist
Gondor
Dec 13 2012, 4:38pm
Post #9 of 16
(407 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The only awards that AUJ will probably get
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
are it's right to exist, be seen and enjoyed by the people that want to see it so much, and return again for parts 2 and 3 ... and to make a spot for itself in film history on a number of points (the number of which is yet to be seen - but already there are some points it has made here).
But I think that this in itself, is pretty awesome and more than many expected (but less than what some hoped for).
This movie is shaking things up ... long established movie making community things that don't like being shaken ... at least not unanimously.
It's hard to compare AUJ to any other movie, really. People want to compare it to LOTR and The Phantom Menace but it really isn't following the path of either of those. The things it is being panned by some critics for have little or no overlap with the things that TPM got panned for. People are trying to draw parallels but the parallels just don't really fit - in spite of how much some minds are trying to make them fit. It's the same world as LOTR, but TH compared to LOTR as a text reads so differently in tone, pace, perspective, characterization ... almost everything. All the differing reviews for AUJ span the gamut of what could be said about any movie. I could probably put a set of random statements made about all the movies (good and bad) this year into a hat, randomly select three or four of them, and make a review - then find some critic somewhere that said just those things. What other movie in the history of film has had this kind of reaction? As much as we are trying to make comparisons, I just don't think there are good overall comparisons. The only comparisons that I think really makes sense are to compare the plot structure of AUJ to the plot structure of FOTR and to compare Riddles in the Dark to Gollum scenes in LOTR. Anything else is really a stretch and quite inconsistent across reviews (or so it seems from what reviewers are contradicting each other about).
Disclaimer: I haven't seen it yet, so I am not so much giving my own reaction to the film as I am trying to make sense of the set of wildly varying reviews and reactions to it.
|
|
|
LoremIpsum
Lorien
Dec 13 2012, 5:55pm
Post #10 of 16
(330 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well I didn't expect anything anyway
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... they probably think LOTR already had enough awards and that's enough, and the Hobbit isn't as great as LOTR so yeah...
I do have high expectations for TABA to be noticed though
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 13 2012, 7:05pm
Post #11 of 16
(330 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit was released too late to be considered for this year's Globes,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
according to radio news this morning.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Dec 13 2012, 8:56pm
Post #13 of 16
(269 views)
Shortcut
|
garner some nominations next December for AUJ?
|
|
|
locko
Registered User
Dec 13 2012, 10:48pm
Post #14 of 16
(260 views)
Shortcut
|
|
im not an awards whore, but.....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
so let me get this straight. no nods because it was released too late.? so how does that work out when life of pi has got nods but also not out yet. i dont quite get how this all works. and having watched AUJ today, for me pj has got so many things right that he got wrong in lotr. the acting from all concerned even hugo weaving , KB etc not to mention martin freeman is so much better than lotr. can someone clear the awards thing up. not that im an awards whore but i certainly beleive the hobbit should be up for more than just the lesser awards, even if it dont win them.
|
|
|
hamlet
Rivendell
Dec 13 2012, 10:55pm
Post #15 of 16
(251 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Good point about Bilbo/Frodo comparison.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Nonetheless, I still think that had The Hobbit in its current incarnation been made first (and I know, it probably would have looked very different if it had been made pre-LOTR, and it certainly wouldn't be a trilogy) the critics would have been a lot more enthusiastic. If this had been our first foray into Middle Earth, it would have been every bit as fresh and exciting to critics as it is for fans. But it's not first -- ergo: LOTR comparison syndrome.
|
|
|
irodino
Bree
Dec 13 2012, 11:13pm
Post #16 of 16
(276 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not surprised this work would be seen as too similar to LOTR. The soundtrack has most of it's themes repeated in LOTR with very minor changes, if at all (Lothlorien..), even I as a fan would probably not vote for it in favor of new scores. This has already won so many awards. And of course the main thing is, when FOTR came out, and got so many nominations, it was because critics did not know what to do, subsequently they decided to steal awards from FOTR and TTT and reward ROTK for all 3 movies at once. This time they know, so they won't nominate the first two movies, and will throw all in on the final movie, just like with TTT. After all it's also one movie, split in 3 parts, seeing each part on it's own will make little sense. You need the whole picture to be able to decide if the entire thing is award worthy.
And it's all political anyway, everyone knows that, and has little to do with how good a movie is.
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that terrible in-between."
|
|
|
|
|
