Imo, as the trilogy meet the requirements of most Tolkien fans, it was a great achievement. Also in terms of logistics... The logistics involved in making these films compared to running the army of a medium sized country! So I would grant them the oscars on the efford put into it. But in terms of acting, it wasnt spectacular! The Denethor thing bugs me! In the directors cut you realize that he have to run something like 1/2 mile on fire to make that jump... hmmm! Why not let him run all the way down onto the Pelennor field... Perhaps he could have made some of the olifants panic, screaming and being on fire:-D
marvinmatthewAs a theatre type, this has been eating at me for awhile. LOTR Return of the King ties Ben Hur as the most winningest movie of all time at the Academy Awards, and it won best picture. That really ticks me off. Don't get me wrong here, the acting was good, but not great. What really bugs me about the whole thing is that LOTR used computer graphics to obtain so much of it's drama. That is what got LOTR it's Best Picture. The CG enviornments evoked the "sense" of drama, but the computer graphics shouldn't be what gets a moive best picture, it should be the acting, and solely the acting. Take Gladiator in 2001. It was CG assisted, but thanks to the excellent acting of Russel Crowe (he went on to win best actor for the role) it won best movie.
i say ur totaly wrong man ,lord of the rings deserved it
jackson did the best he could with the resources he had.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? An infinite amount of money and virtually any actors he would want to get? He was the wrong person for the job.