The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Meh, it was alright. Nothing special
Special effects were terrible, I cannot for the life of me understand how they won an Oscar. Terrible
Had some alright moments, like the action (what little action it had) and I've said it once, I'll say it again - Sean Bean is the man
Wood's American accent seemed to slip a bit, but Sean Astin's accent was good (he's from the Goonies, don't you know)
What else? Um... music score was mediocre at best, except for a few bits like Gandalf's fall and when Bean is chinnin' all those Orcs, heh
I want to slap the special effects guys, and Stryke, for lying to me, saying it was excellent (or something along those lines) Oh, and the director (that fat bloke) for using that sweeping camera (revolving around the characters) about 50 times too many
I just prey the sequels are better
Special effects were terrible, I cannot for the life of me understand how they won an Oscar. Terrible
Had some alright moments, like the action (what little action it had) and I've said it once, I'll say it again - Sean Bean is the man
Wood's American accent seemed to slip a bit, but Sean Astin's accent was good (he's from the Goonies, don't you know)
What else? Um... music score was mediocre at best, except for a few bits like Gandalf's fall and when Bean is chinnin' all those Orcs, heh
I want to slap the special effects guys, and Stryke, for lying to me, saying it was excellent (or something along those lines) Oh, and the director (that fat bloke) for using that sweeping camera (revolving around the characters) about 50 times too many
I just prey the sequels are better
Page:
Hmm. Crap special effects? Were you watching a pirate version or something? Have to say, you're the first person I've heard say something along those lines, I thought the whole movie looked spacktacular.
But the film would have benefited with performances from the likes of Steve Guttenberg, and other actors of his ilk.
But the film would have benefited with performances from the likes of Steve Guttenberg, and other actors of his ilk.
Ummm....most of the backgrounds, certainly the exteriors were filmed on location in New Zealand.
I thought the Mines of Moria looked superb, conveyed the immensity of that place and the only time I really thought "CGI" was...well...never.
I'm not saying Mojojojo is wrong, I'm saying I couldn't fault it.
Shame the film was not as involving as I'd hoped.
It's good, but for the most part I sat there thinking "Go Ringwraiths, smash that hobbit".
I thought the Mines of Moria looked superb, conveyed the immensity of that place and the only time I really thought "CGI" was...well...never.
I'm not saying Mojojojo is wrong, I'm saying I couldn't fault it.
Shame the film was not as involving as I'd hoped.
It's good, but for the most part I sat there thinking "Go Ringwraiths, smash that hobbit".
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> You're still not getting my point. So I'm going to give up on your
> stupidity and go do some weights
So people are stupid if they don't agree with you ? lol ! :) Isn't that a bit *ahem* stupid ?
If you have to resort to insulting people then clearly your argument is flawed.
~~Belldandy~~
> You're still not getting my point. So I'm going to give up on your
> stupidity and go do some weights
So people are stupid if they don't agree with you ? lol ! :) Isn't that a bit *ahem* stupid ?
If you have to resort to insulting people then clearly your argument is flawed.
~~Belldandy~~
Is Mr.Mojojojo being controversial for attention........?
;)
I don't care what you think about the film - I liked it, and the book is still better than pretty much everything else around, so my faith has been unaffected by this blasphemous assault!
;)
I don't care what you think about the film - I liked it, and the book is still better than pretty much everything else around, so my faith has been unaffected by this blasphemous assault!
Well it nearly ALL looked fake to me (except for the fire on the ring, that looked good)
So, in my opinion, the effects team failed in their job
*slaps them on the wrist*
Do better next time!
So, in my opinion, the effects team failed in their job
*slaps them on the wrist*
Do better next time!
Yeah the place where Gandolf (or however you spell it) is held does look very fake and computer generated. But apart from that and Murdor (I dont know how to spell anything from LoTR) things look pretty good.
You're still not getting my point. So I'm going to give up on your stupidity and go do some weights
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Fast forward to today, LOTR. The CGI doesn't look REAL, or look
> "right" It looks like fake textures, and like it ISN'T
> REALLY THERE. Please, re-read what I just typed, again and again and
> again till it sinks in. It LOOKS like it's been done with computers,
> it doesn't look real. It has NOTHING to do with what they look like
> (how many arms they have for instance) it's to do with how good the
> textures are, and in LOTR, and a lot of other films with CGI, they
> look bad
Lol ! :) I'm sorry but you're not right on this one, of course it looks like it's been done on computers, anyone with a brain knows there's no inexpensive way of having about 10,000 goblins, orcs, elfs and men fight whilst a guy twice as high sends out shockwaves then explodes in flame ! With the textures, what on earth are you going to compare them to ? If a model had no real life item to be comapredto then you cannot say that someone's vision of it is, in terms of right or wrong. Is there an ideal goblin design out there somewhere ??
>Titanic came out. Some
> of it looked real. Watch it now, and it doesn't look so good. Still
> with me?
Titanic never looked real, not now, not then, it was rather the most obvious CGI ever
CGI creates what does not exist, so when viewers see what does not exist in a movie they know it was done with CGI. Jurassic Park did, and with JP3 still does, only partly use CGI for this purpose and thats what makes it less beleivable because real models just don't work. In the case of Titanic no CGI can ever do it justice. Why ? Everyone knows the real Titanic is gone, destroyed.
Lord Of The Rings blends CGI, acting and traditional SFX together and combines it with the core of Tolkien's story to result in one of the best film's this century will see. However, some of us were too busy with a magnifying glass studying textures to notice this......
> OK, re-read all that, again and again until you see what I'm talking
> about, then don't both replying because no doubt you'll just make the
> same mistake again
Of course I'm going to reply, it lets your mistakes keep being repeated as well ! :P
~~Belldandy~~
> Fast forward to today, LOTR. The CGI doesn't look REAL, or look
> "right" It looks like fake textures, and like it ISN'T
> REALLY THERE. Please, re-read what I just typed, again and again and
> again till it sinks in. It LOOKS like it's been done with computers,
> it doesn't look real. It has NOTHING to do with what they look like
> (how many arms they have for instance) it's to do with how good the
> textures are, and in LOTR, and a lot of other films with CGI, they
> look bad
Lol ! :) I'm sorry but you're not right on this one, of course it looks like it's been done on computers, anyone with a brain knows there's no inexpensive way of having about 10,000 goblins, orcs, elfs and men fight whilst a guy twice as high sends out shockwaves then explodes in flame ! With the textures, what on earth are you going to compare them to ? If a model had no real life item to be comapredto then you cannot say that someone's vision of it is, in terms of right or wrong. Is there an ideal goblin design out there somewhere ??
>Titanic came out. Some
> of it looked real. Watch it now, and it doesn't look so good. Still
> with me?
Titanic never looked real, not now, not then, it was rather the most obvious CGI ever
CGI creates what does not exist, so when viewers see what does not exist in a movie they know it was done with CGI. Jurassic Park did, and with JP3 still does, only partly use CGI for this purpose and thats what makes it less beleivable because real models just don't work. In the case of Titanic no CGI can ever do it justice. Why ? Everyone knows the real Titanic is gone, destroyed.
Lord Of The Rings blends CGI, acting and traditional SFX together and combines it with the core of Tolkien's story to result in one of the best film's this century will see. However, some of us were too busy with a magnifying glass studying textures to notice this......
> OK, re-read all that, again and again until you see what I'm talking
> about, then don't both replying because no doubt you'll just make the
> same mistake again
Of course I'm going to reply, it lets your mistakes keep being repeated as well ! :P
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> It wouldn't look real, it's look pretty unreal because you wouldn't
> expect to see it in real life.
>
> If you go see a film, watch the film, 'cause if you just sit there
> picking through the effects and whatnot then you're going to find most
> films v.boring !
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
-----------
You're STILL not getting my point. It's VERY clear. But let me try and make it even clearer (maybe I should use crayon?)
Remember films of old, where they used green and blue screens to put space and other backgrounds behind things and people (like today, only without computers)
Sometimes they'd have a big black line around them. Other times, the lighting would be wrong, and it wouldn't look like it was really there. Either way, it didn't look "right" or real.
Stop motion doesn't look real either (most of the time)
Fast forward to today, LOTR. The CGI doesn't look REAL, or look "right" It looks like fake textures, and like it ISN'T REALLY THERE. Please, re-read what I just typed, again and again and again till it sinks in. It LOOKS like it's been done with computers, it doesn't look real. It has NOTHING to do with what they look like (how many arms they have for instance) it's to do with how good the textures are, and in LOTR, and a lot of other films with CGI, they look bad
Almost 10 years ago, Jurassic Park came out. It looked bloomin' real. Re-watching it now, it looks fake. 5 years ago, Titanic came out. Some of it looked real. Watch it now, and it doesn't look so good. Still with me?
OK, now, watch Spiderman. It looks fake NOW. Lord Of The Rings looks fake NOW. Not 10 years from now. It looks fake NOW. That's how pap it is
OK, re-read all that, again and again until you see what I'm talking about, then don't both replying because no doubt you'll just make the same mistake again
> It wouldn't look real, it's look pretty unreal because you wouldn't
> expect to see it in real life.
>
> If you go see a film, watch the film, 'cause if you just sit there
> picking through the effects and whatnot then you're going to find most
> films v.boring !
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
-----------
You're STILL not getting my point. It's VERY clear. But let me try and make it even clearer (maybe I should use crayon?)
Remember films of old, where they used green and blue screens to put space and other backgrounds behind things and people (like today, only without computers)
Sometimes they'd have a big black line around them. Other times, the lighting would be wrong, and it wouldn't look like it was really there. Either way, it didn't look "right" or real.
Stop motion doesn't look real either (most of the time)
Fast forward to today, LOTR. The CGI doesn't look REAL, or look "right" It looks like fake textures, and like it ISN'T REALLY THERE. Please, re-read what I just typed, again and again and again till it sinks in. It LOOKS like it's been done with computers, it doesn't look real. It has NOTHING to do with what they look like (how many arms they have for instance) it's to do with how good the textures are, and in LOTR, and a lot of other films with CGI, they look bad
Almost 10 years ago, Jurassic Park came out. It looked bloomin' real. Re-watching it now, it looks fake. 5 years ago, Titanic came out. Some of it looked real. Watch it now, and it doesn't look so good. Still with me?
OK, now, watch Spiderman. It looks fake NOW. Lord Of The Rings looks fake NOW. Not 10 years from now. It looks fake NOW. That's how pap it is
OK, re-read all that, again and again until you see what I'm talking about, then don't both replying because no doubt you'll just make the same mistake again
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Story was mediocre
> Effects were mediocre
> Characters were mediocre
>
> One of the most over hyped films I've ever seen. Nothing happened in
> it
Exactly the same with Harry Potter. Forced to see it for my pros birthday and it was overhyped pap. Wow a wizard going to wizard school. Complete, unoriginal pap. Why does everyone like it!? It is crap.
End of statement.
> Story was mediocre
> Effects were mediocre
> Characters were mediocre
>
> One of the most over hyped films I've ever seen. Nothing happened in
> it
Exactly the same with Harry Potter. Forced to see it for my pros birthday and it was overhyped pap. Wow a wizard going to wizard school. Complete, unoriginal pap. Why does everyone like it!? It is crap.
End of statement.
Page: