Viewing Thread:
"So I *finally* saw Lord Of The Rings last night"

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

Belldandy wrote:
> Right;
>
> Jurassic Park, Lost World and JP3 CGI was all rubbish - the dinosaurs
> moved badly and weren't fluid enough in their motion. They also all
> appeared to overbreathe, constantly.

At the time, CGI was almost unheard of. Sure, now if you watch it, you can spot where the puppet stops and the CG starts, but back when I was 7, it looked bloomin' real

>
> Pearl Harbour wasn't convincing at all, sure it looked good but no
> planes in combat look that clean.

Yes, but the boats and most planes did look good. There's only a few instances when you can tell it's CGI

>
> Spiderman - a great job. In case everyone's forgotten Spiderman isn't
> real, the film was supposed to capture the essence of the comics and
> it did that brilliantly.

Spiderman looked TERRIBLE. It was so obviously a computer generated image that even people who know nothing about effects knew it wasn't real

>
> Lord Of The Rings - so the goblins didn't look real ? Waht on earth is
> anyone comparing them to ? Does someone have a secret tribe of real
> goblins living in their garden ? Dwarves and hobbit live with then I
> suppose ? And a big black fire breathing winged thing ? Lord Of The
> Rings is a FANTASY FILM. If anyone thinks it's suppose to look real
> then theres something a bit wrong with your thinking. The task of
> Jackson's team was to create a believable world and characters to suit
> the book, not create something that looks like you could really see it
> !

You seem to be missing my point. They don't look real as in they don't look like they're really THERE. They LOOK like they've been done with a computer, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen. If you can't spot computer generated stuff, then you're blind. The shadows for when they had shots of midgits and normal people together were awful, obviously fake

>
> The same can be said for the new Reign Of Fire film - we don't happen
> to have London reduced to a charred shell to compare to the film so I
> guess that film's got a problem ? Those Dragons look a bit unrealistic
> to me, nothing like the ones I saw in Wales, rubbish film !!
>
> Anyone see what I mean here ?
>
> ~~Belldandy~~



Next time, make sure you know what you're talking about before you make a post. Of course I don't know what a goblin or whatever looks like, but I do know that if I ever see one, it will LOOK real, and not look like it's been thrown together on an old 486

Right;

Jurassic Park, Lost World and JP3 CGI was all rubbish - the dinosaurs moved badly and weren't fluid enough in their motion. They also all appeared to overbreathe, constantly.

Pearl Harbour wasn't convincing at all, sure it looked good but no planes in combat look that clean.

Spiderman - a great job. In case everyone's forgotten Spiderman isn't real, the film was supposed to capture the essence of the comics and it did that brilliantly.

Lord Of The Rings - so the goblins didn't look real ? Waht on earth is anyone comparing them to ? Does someone have a secret tribe of real goblins living in their garden ? Dwarves and hobbit live with then I suppose ? And a big black fire breathing winged thing ? Lord Of The Rings is a FANTASY FILM. If anyone thinks it's suppose to look real then theres something a bit wrong with your thinking. The task of Jackson's team was to create a believable world and characters to suit the book, not create something that looks like you could really see it !

The same can be said for the new Reign Of Fire film - we don't happen to have London reduced to a charred shell to compare to the film so I guess that film's got a problem ? Those Dragons look a bit unrealistic to me, nothing like the ones I saw in Wales, rubbish film !!

Anyone see what I mean here ?

~~Belldandy~~

A lot of CGI looks real

The ships in Ep 1 + 2, a lot of the stuff in Pearl Harbour, heck, even Jurassic Park looked real when it came out

LOTR just looked poop, like Spiderman

I thought the main purpose of special effects team (In this case anyway) was to create environments and other effects impossible to create off the computer. For example, the giant battle at the beginning of the film, the numerous cities in middle earth, the underground mines ect..

Sure they don't look real, but the effects such as CGI never have, and never will be able to create 100% realistic effects. I thought the effects where great, far better than other films I've seen this year, and it brought to life integral scenes in the film from the book.

I'm sorry but the job of special effects is to make stuff which CAN'T be real, look real

And they failed. Everytime they did a shot with Hobbits/Dwarfs and normal sized people, it looked awful. The CGI monsters looked horrible (there weren't many, but they looked bad) the backgrounds looked computer generated, and basically it ALL looked fake. And there's no excuse for fake looking effects nowadays

If they could get (mostly) realistic looking dinosaurs almost TEN years ago in Jurrasic Park, why can't they do it now? Eh?

Studios seem to think that because it's done with computers, it looks real. And that makes me sick

Well, I have to disagree. It's a fabulous film thats as true to the book as possible, I'd rate it above the Star Wars Trilogy anyday.

Special effects are brillaint in it e.g. all the goblins in Moria, The Balrog, The film's opening sequence with the Last Alliance battle, the pits below Orthanc, even the fireworks display at Bilbo's party and little touches like the Twilight Ringwraiths.

Acting ? Again, pretty excellent on all counts. The actor playing Bilbo does a great job of showing the curse of the ring, Sean bean portrays Boromir well in the spirit of the book, Aragorn is convincing as a future king, John Rhys Davies does a great job of Gimli and Ian Mckellan really gets into the spirit of being Gandalf. All do a great job, especially the people playing the hobbits.

Action ? This is an adventure film, not the latest Schwarzenneger brainless movie ! :) Peter Jackson stayed true to the books, plus when you compare it to Star Wars, Saving Private Ryan and otehr action films, there is just as much action.

Two Towers comes out in December, anyone whose seen the trailers knows this is going to be just as good, if not better....Helms Deep ? Wow !

~~Belldandy~~

Special effects were terrible, I cannot for the life of me understand how they won an Oscar. Terrible. said MoJoJoJo.

I think it was because it was based on a book gave it a slight advantage at winning, just like the harry potter film/s.

Actualy reading through your post again, it doesnt look like you were saying that...

Are you saying Reign of firte is Lord of the rings 2?

If you are saying that...how dumb are you?

LoTR rules, watch it people...even if you dont like it at least you gave it a chance and made up your own opinion.

I seen it last night and it wasn't as good as i would Of thought, anyway they are planning two more movie like that.

They have done:

Lord Of The Rings

And People Think that:

Rein Of Fire is da second one but Erm...Who Cares.