The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It's just a simple "Which is better?" argument between me & a equally beardy mate, but help settle it none the less.
Which is better, Fellowship or Towers?
I say Fellowship, he says Towers.
Which is better, Fellowship or Towers?
I say Fellowship, he says Towers.
Page:
An overly long tale with too much talking, barely any action and not so special visual effects is a perfect film?
Strange.
Strange.
Er everything you said is wrong about a perfect film...
Stryke wrote:
> Excellent, I've decided that I'm right. I reckon Return will be better
> than Towers, but not as good as Fellowship. You'll have to go some to
> better the Fellowship Extended Version - practically as perfect as a
> film can be.
Theie both good for different reasons but i'd go for Towers for the Battle.
> Excellent, I've decided that I'm right. I reckon Return will be better
> than Towers, but not as good as Fellowship. You'll have to go some to
> better the Fellowship Extended Version - practically as perfect as a
> film can be.
Theie both good for different reasons but i'd go for Towers for the Battle.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> An overly long tale with too much talking, barely any action and not
> so special visual effects is a perfect film?
--
Yeah, you need to get over this. Just because a lot of people liked this film doesn't mean you have to slate it. It's OK to like it too, you know.
Plus the special effects are great. You can on about how the cave troll doesn't look as realistic as the one you rendered at Newcastle College or whatever, but practically every single shot of the film is digitally graded in some way, which is the reason why the sweeping shots over the Misty Mountains or the Shire look so superb.
Barely any action? Flight Over The Brandywine. Arwen Vs The Ringwraiths. The Guardian of Moria. The Balrog. Boromir's Fall. There's plenty of wonderfully choreographed action.
And to produce a workable script from a book that is a showcase for self-invented languages is a commendable effort.
> An overly long tale with too much talking, barely any action and not
> so special visual effects is a perfect film?
--
Yeah, you need to get over this. Just because a lot of people liked this film doesn't mean you have to slate it. It's OK to like it too, you know.
Plus the special effects are great. You can on about how the cave troll doesn't look as realistic as the one you rendered at Newcastle College or whatever, but practically every single shot of the film is digitally graded in some way, which is the reason why the sweeping shots over the Misty Mountains or the Shire look so superb.
Barely any action? Flight Over The Brandywine. Arwen Vs The Ringwraiths. The Guardian of Moria. The Balrog. Boromir's Fall. There's plenty of wonderfully choreographed action.
And to produce a workable script from a book that is a showcase for self-invented languages is a commendable effort.
Stryke wrote:
> Yeah, you need to get over this. Just because a lot of people liked
> this film doesn't mean you have to slate it. It's OK to like it too,
> you know.
------
Ha ha. You don't know me at all. Usually, I like the films most people hate. It's nothing to do with "people love it so I have to hate it!" - I'm not a Matrix/Star Wars or Terminator hater. I'm allowed an opinion, don't ASSUME that just because I dislike something you adore, it's because I want to look "cool" or something.
> Plus the special effects are great. You can on about how the cave
> troll doesn't look as realistic as the one you rendered at Newcastle
> College or whatever, but practically every single shot of the film is
> digitally graded in some way, which is the reason why the sweeping
> shots over the Misty Mountains or the Shire look so superb.
-----
They looked computer generated, just like most films. Last time I checked, things in real life don't look like they were made in a computer, they look real. Hence, most of the effects didn't look real. When they had the midgits next to the tall people, it looked terrible.
> Barely any action? Flight Over The Brandywine. Arwen Vs The
> Ringwraiths. The Guardian of Moria. The Balrog. Boromir's Fall.
> There's plenty of wonderfully choreographed action.
-----
Not enough action compared to the talking/walking crap. The end fight was good, and Bean is the man, but there wasn't enough. And I don't know what you just said. Flight Over The Brandywine? Arwen Vs The
Ringwraiths? The Guardian of Moria? The Balrog? Boromir's Fall? I'm not a nerd, I don't know what they are. Say "the fight in the dungeon" or "the end fight" otherwise I don't know what you mean.
> And to produce a workable script from a book that is a showcase for
> self-invented languages is a commendable effort.
------
Yes, I agree on that one, turning a novel into a GOOD script is very hard. I think they did a good job with that, though I haven't read the books (they're sitting on my bookshelf, gathering dust)
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the film as much as I did the first time I saw it, but my GOD there was some boring crap in it. The action was decent, not enough of it mind, and the end was good. But to say it's a perfect film is bollards. No such thing as a perfect film, closest to that is the original Star Wars trilogy. Or Back To The Future ;)
> Yeah, you need to get over this. Just because a lot of people liked
> this film doesn't mean you have to slate it. It's OK to like it too,
> you know.
------
Ha ha. You don't know me at all. Usually, I like the films most people hate. It's nothing to do with "people love it so I have to hate it!" - I'm not a Matrix/Star Wars or Terminator hater. I'm allowed an opinion, don't ASSUME that just because I dislike something you adore, it's because I want to look "cool" or something.
> Plus the special effects are great. You can on about how the cave
> troll doesn't look as realistic as the one you rendered at Newcastle
> College or whatever, but practically every single shot of the film is
> digitally graded in some way, which is the reason why the sweeping
> shots over the Misty Mountains or the Shire look so superb.
-----
They looked computer generated, just like most films. Last time I checked, things in real life don't look like they were made in a computer, they look real. Hence, most of the effects didn't look real. When they had the midgits next to the tall people, it looked terrible.
> Barely any action? Flight Over The Brandywine. Arwen Vs The
> Ringwraiths. The Guardian of Moria. The Balrog. Boromir's Fall.
> There's plenty of wonderfully choreographed action.
-----
Not enough action compared to the talking/walking crap. The end fight was good, and Bean is the man, but there wasn't enough. And I don't know what you just said. Flight Over The Brandywine? Arwen Vs The
Ringwraiths? The Guardian of Moria? The Balrog? Boromir's Fall? I'm not a nerd, I don't know what they are. Say "the fight in the dungeon" or "the end fight" otherwise I don't know what you mean.
> And to produce a workable script from a book that is a showcase for
> self-invented languages is a commendable effort.
------
Yes, I agree on that one, turning a novel into a GOOD script is very hard. I think they did a good job with that, though I haven't read the books (they're sitting on my bookshelf, gathering dust)
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the film as much as I did the first time I saw it, but my GOD there was some boring crap in it. The action was decent, not enough of it mind, and the end was good. But to say it's a perfect film is bollards. No such thing as a perfect film, closest to that is the original Star Wars trilogy. Or Back To The Future ;)
Return probably won't be as good - most of the problems are psychological rather than physical with the Ring, which works much better in books than on film.
That said, it's got the spider woman in it ... who's name I can't remember. Not Shota, that's another book - but something similar : |
And she rules.
That said, it's got the spider woman in it ... who's name I can't remember. Not Shota, that's another book - but something similar : |
And she rules.
fellowship, sets the scene
Towers, gets the action going
return of the king, finishs it off in style
Towers, gets the action going
return of the king, finishs it off in style
Fellowship. Towers seemed to be trying to be amusing with Gimli, and it wasn't working and just irritated me, and they abused the story just too much.
However, they're both really bad about that, there's no singing.
However, they're both really bad about that, there's no singing.
BEARDS. wrote:
> there's no singing.
Yes there is.
I can think of two scenes in the Fellowship right now. One of Aragorn, and the Hobbits singing in the pub.
> there's no singing.
Yes there is.
I can think of two scenes in the Fellowship right now. One of Aragorn, and the Hobbits singing in the pub.
Return shall rock.
And they better put in the bit at the end of Two Towers (book) when Frodo runs aimlessly towards Minas Morgul, and then the witch kings army comes out.
That bit is terrifying in the book.
Like FFF said, a lot of the best bits of LOTR, in book form anyway, are the psychological implications, and indeed horrors, of the ring.
Albeit, Battle Of The Pelennor Fields and the last stand battle shall rock.
And they better put in the bit at the end of Two Towers (book) when Frodo runs aimlessly towards Minas Morgul, and then the witch kings army comes out.
That bit is terrifying in the book.
Like FFF said, a lot of the best bits of LOTR, in book form anyway, are the psychological implications, and indeed horrors, of the ring.
Albeit, Battle Of The Pelennor Fields and the last stand battle shall rock.
Page: