The Two Towers Win Two Oscars!

Remove all ads!

If the girl didn't want it, it was rape AND sex with an underaged woman. There you go.

And yes, all those rapists are lowest filth to me as well.

:/

And LOTR should have gotten more Oscars. Idiots. Idiots. Stupid Academy Idiots.

 

Actually, sex with a minor in some countries like the UK *IS* rape. There is no exception - by definition, sex with a girl under 16 is "statutory rape".

It will rarely be prosecuted if consentual and particularly if the two participants are of a similar age, but there it is. Most common cases of prosecution are when the defendant is in some sort of responsible relationship with the underage girl, like teacher etc.

Not sure how law views sex with an underage boy in terms of rape though.

Still, on topic TTT could perhaps have got more than the two it did get, but best film would have been stretching things a little.

Already looking forward to part III myself.

 

I agree with Eze. What else needs to be said?

On both counts, that is.

(The blue-haired freak from the cold north)

 

Oops, sorry, my fault. That's anglo-saxon law then. In continental law, there are special laws concerning sex with minors. Which actually are all the same like the ones you stated.

Except that "rape" under this circumstances per definition is impossible in continental law terms. Roughly translated it would be "defilment". Only dogmatic difference, no difference in Jail time.

But my point still is: If he actually did this, he would have been prosecuted in europe too. French authorities would have been obliged to prosecute him, if there was evidence, that i really did it.
He wasn't prosecuted. So, in my view, the charges are bogus.

[ March 26, 2003, 18:54: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

"Lord of the Rings TTT would never have won best picture. BUT:

If the return of the king isn't going to win best picture and best directing something is seriously wrong with the acadamy."

It isn't going to get Best Picture, so don't get your hopes up. It's not even out yet for crying out loud.

Be glad TTT got the Visual Effects award. I feel while TTT had great effects, AOTC has more and are better. But SW has had its share of Oscars in the past (especially with the original) and so it's time to share the wealth. Likewise, don't expect Return of the King to get much of anything. Yes these are all seperate films, but they are lumped together as a franchise. A franchise doesn't need to get the same awards for what is esentially a continuation of the original or first of the franchise.

 

Imagine that ... Big B prefers Star Wars to the LOTR

not that he's biased j/k

 

Hey now, I enjoy LOTR, just not as much as SW. Seriously, the speeder chase on Coruscant, the rumble in the rain between Obi-Wan and Jango, the Asteroid Belt dogfight, the Battle of Geonosis (not to mention the droid factory), and the end lightsaber duel took the cake for visual effects . CG-characters? Been there, done that. But yeah AOTC has Yoda, Jar Jar, Watto, Dexter, and the Kaminoans and Geonosians and the Clones (who are indistinguishable from the extras dressed as stormtroopers). Shoot, at select times it's CG Obi-Wan and Dooku when the need arises to pull off what's onscreen.

And it looks great, especially when you see it on digital projection, since it was made on digital prints and not film. AOTC is far more innovative in terms of effects than anything that came out last year. But it's ok that it didn't get the award and was just nominated for it, as I said SW has already been awarded best visual effects back in the 70's. This is just a continuation of innovation in special effects. It's a continuation of the legacy and I think the Academy acknowledges that without having to give SW the Visual Effects Award everytime a new SW movie is released.

 

I think what probably tipped the scale is Gollum - a CG character that can actually "act". Don't get me wrong I think the special effects in AOTC were good but they were very good computer simulations of bad acting.

 

Hmm, while I agree Gollum's acting was great (I mean who doesn't love the parts where he argues with himself?), the acting of CGI characters in AOTC is not as bad as you imply.

I think Yoda and Watto give Gollum a run for his money. Dex, Jar Jar, and the Kaminoan leaders, Taun We and Lama Su are not far behind either. As with the case of Jar Jar, just because you don't agree with or like a specific character, doesn't mean that character is badly acted. Time and again, I see people make this mistake.

 

Big B, one of the reasons I don't like Jar Jar is because he's poorly acted. And as far as I'm concerned, they screwed up Yoda's character as well. Maybe that wasn't so much bad acting as bad writing, but nevertheless, that must have helped the Academy to decide to go with TTT.

 

Jar Jar's role is that of the fool. Since most people consider him that, I'd say his acting is on the spot. The intended result is reached.

Yoda's character is not messed up. Let me tell you that Yoda is one of my top three favorite SW characters from the whole Saga (long before AOTC ever came out) and I would raise the roof if I thought in any way that Yoda's character was "messed up." He now has significant character growth between AOTC and ESB. When he tells Luke in ESB that wars not make one great, it's even better than it was originally. When he tells Luke that he should sacrifice his friends because he honors what they fight for, it is enhanced in that we see how Yoda learned this valuable lesson long ago. So I would totally disagree that Yoda's character has been ruined. Quite the opposite, his character has been greatly enhanced.

 

I immediately expected that when I saw the movie for the first time recently. Hey, I thought, this Peter Jackson knows his stuff, better than Tolkien. His interpretation of the book is ... unpreceded ... I didn't really see a (=any) reason for the freely invented half of the movie (nor the falsified other half), like the elves at Horn's Deep the continuous dwarf jokes Legolas skateshielding Aragon's near death experience and the re-interpretion of the ent's fight ... to name a few ... points. For me one thing is clear, the film sucked

But eventually the film was nice and colorfull, yes, and the sound was nice and loud too. Cool

 

Well, Big B., I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one -- I loved Yoda in the first trilogy, and I hate what's happening to him (character-wise) in the second. 'Nuff said on that topic!

TTT was fun, but I was still sad when they made so many unnecessary changes and additions. Even taking it on its own, well, I still don't think it merits the best picture award.

Did FOTR get best pic last year? I think it did. I also think it deserved it, even if it didn't get it.

 

It did not. The utterly idiotic movie called 'A Beautiful Mind' won it.

*trots off to gag*

And TTT didn't suck. Only romance parts did.

And it is Helm's Deep, not Horn's Deep.

 

I made a resolution long before the movies came out: The books are "bookverse" and the movies are "Movieverse". In oher words, the same story but a different story. Does this make any sense?

Having read fan fiction for years has helped a lot to make this distinction... having learned the concept of "Alternate Universe" has made it easy to accept the movies simply as a different version of the story.

It is like many old legends and folktales that have many versions, I think.

/end rant mode

(*runs off with the elves*)

[ March 28, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Arabwel ]

 

For more reasons not to watch the Oscars ... see my little rant on Michael Moore here ...

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000209;p=1#000032

 

The only real reason to watch the Oscars is the clothes!