The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Was much excellent
And Gollum/Smeagal is my new favourite character... I was too lazy to read The Lord of the Rings but remember him in The Hobbit. Yep, it was excellent... especially the battle at Helms Deep. I might start reading The Return of the King to see what happens. Although, how annoying is Sam?
Urgh
" Bend over Mr. Frodo sir "
And Gollum/Smeagal is my new favourite character... I was too lazy to read The Lord of the Rings but remember him in The Hobbit. Yep, it was excellent... especially the battle at Helms Deep. I might start reading The Return of the King to see what happens. Although, how annoying is Sam?
Urgh
" Bend over Mr. Frodo sir "
Page:
"I'm guessing Mojo is doing some sort of college/uni course about computer design/effects."
Media, actually.
As for Episode 2, you KNOW the aliens are CGI, so you see it. But did you spot the CG Obi Wan? Did you? I didn't until I watched the special features. I didn't expect them to use a CG stunt double, or even a CG actor just to hug that big fat alien in the diner, so I didn't even think that it wasn't ol' Ewan. ILM did a good job of it, unlike in Blade 2 and Spiderman (yes, Spiderman, not Spider-Man) where the digital doubles looked like characters from Tekken on the PS1.
Media, actually.
As for Episode 2, you KNOW the aliens are CGI, so you see it. But did you spot the CG Obi Wan? Did you? I didn't until I watched the special features. I didn't expect them to use a CG stunt double, or even a CG actor just to hug that big fat alien in the diner, so I didn't even think that it wasn't ol' Ewan. ILM did a good job of it, unlike in Blade 2 and Spiderman (yes, Spiderman, not Spider-Man) where the digital doubles looked like characters from Tekken on the PS1.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Episodes 1 + 2 were (overly) heavy on CGI, it looked better and it
> cost less.
Episode 2 was so dependant on CGI effects that it made me feel like I was watching a computer animated feature, with some real human actors thrown in just for the hell of it.
And not once did the CGI aliens look real, though I couldn't really be sure since I haven't actually seen real life alien creatures like you have, but I doubt they move like they're always under water.
> Episodes 1 + 2 were (overly) heavy on CGI, it looked better and it
> cost less.
Episode 2 was so dependant on CGI effects that it made me feel like I was watching a computer animated feature, with some real human actors thrown in just for the hell of it.
And not once did the CGI aliens look real, though I couldn't really be sure since I haven't actually seen real life alien creatures like you have, but I doubt they move like they're always under water.
Blank wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> It's meant to be a little bloke punching the air.
>
> /o/
>
> ...
>
> \o/
>
> That's what you mean.
*sigh* I know what I mean.
/o/
\o\
\o/
> monkey_man wrote:
> It's meant to be a little bloke punching the air.
>
> /o/
>
> ...
>
> \o/
>
> That's what you mean.
*sigh* I know what I mean.
/o/
\o\
\o/
Blank wrote:
> Whether the new bits were crap or not (they were) doesn't really
> matter (although they were really crap, I mean REALLY crap). Once you
> make alterations like that the film and the book become two separate
> entities. The LOTR film is no longer the same thing as the LOTR book.
> That's why I hate the new bits. Not that I'm a massive fan of LOTR,
> but you can't mess around with the story like that. If Jackson had
> written the original, fair enough. But he didn't. And just because he
> has a beard doesn't mean he can alter it to his own liking.
Jackson is under no obligation to exactly re-create the books. Note 'based on the books by JJR Tolkien'. If it was under another director, I'm sure we would get a lot more changes from the book - if Miramax made this it would most liekly have been two 2 hour films.
And on the subject of comedy in the films, it is really down to Jackson's way of doing things. He has always stated that he likes to bring humour into films, especially those that are more fantastical or supernatural - he says that if he directed a Hellraiser movie he would have the pin-head bloke banging into a wall or something for comedy effect. So I think he was always going to make at least one of the characters in the LOTR in this way, and it's a small price to pay considering what else he is giving us from the films. Yes, I do think it is inappropraite at times, but it's not as bad as Jar-Jar I suppose. "Exsqueeze me?"
> Whether the new bits were crap or not (they were) doesn't really
> matter (although they were really crap, I mean REALLY crap). Once you
> make alterations like that the film and the book become two separate
> entities. The LOTR film is no longer the same thing as the LOTR book.
> That's why I hate the new bits. Not that I'm a massive fan of LOTR,
> but you can't mess around with the story like that. If Jackson had
> written the original, fair enough. But he didn't. And just because he
> has a beard doesn't mean he can alter it to his own liking.
Jackson is under no obligation to exactly re-create the books. Note 'based on the books by JJR Tolkien'. If it was under another director, I'm sure we would get a lot more changes from the book - if Miramax made this it would most liekly have been two 2 hour films.
And on the subject of comedy in the films, it is really down to Jackson's way of doing things. He has always stated that he likes to bring humour into films, especially those that are more fantastical or supernatural - he says that if he directed a Hellraiser movie he would have the pin-head bloke banging into a wall or something for comedy effect. So I think he was always going to make at least one of the characters in the LOTR in this way, and it's a small price to pay considering what else he is giving us from the films. Yes, I do think it is inappropraite at times, but it's not as bad as Jar-Jar I suppose. "Exsqueeze me?"
I'm kinda forced into watching it with the rest of my family, who incidentally work in the fire arms business.
Man, it's gotta suck having that gun to your head making you watch those movies you hate eh?
Whether the new bits were crap or not (they were) doesn't really matter (although they were really crap, I mean REALLY crap). Once you make alterations like that the film and the book become two separate entities. The LOTR film is no longer the same thing as the LOTR book. That's why I hate the new bits. Not that I'm a massive fan of LOTR, but you can't mess around with the story like that. If Jackson had written the original, fair enough. But he didn't. And just because he has a beard doesn't mean he can alter it to his own liking.
The sagacious one wrote:
> The sagacious one wrote:
>
> I think many directors add "comic" moments to their films
> as they are invariably surrounded by sycophants on set.
>
> Who would agree that their dumb@ss idea is good when it isn't? Saggy
> you ain't all there are you?
Not if you're referring to yourself in the third person.
> The sagacious one wrote:
>
> I think many directors add "comic" moments to their films
> as they are invariably surrounded by sycophants on set.
>
> Who would agree that their dumb@ss idea is good when it isn't? Saggy
> you ain't all there are you?
Not if you're referring to yourself in the third person.
The sagacious one wrote:
> I think many directors add "comic" moments to their films
> as they are invariably surrounded by sycophants on set.
Who would agree that their dumb@ss idea is good when it isn't? Saggy you ain't all there are you?
> I think many directors add "comic" moments to their films
> as they are invariably surrounded by sycophants on set.
Who would agree that their dumb@ss idea is good when it isn't? Saggy you ain't all there are you?
The problem is that Jackson probably thought it was a great idea at the time and Orlando Bloom would have thought "surfing down some stairs, what a crap idea, um this is my first film though and I don't want to p the director off"; he would have said "brilliant idea Peter!".
I think many directors add "comic" moments to their films as they are invariably surrounded by sycophants on set. When then film is first shown at the premier everyone is going to pretend they love all of it, even though they hate the stupid bits. The director will then read 50 reviews saying that TT is better than the first (no it is not) and that the comic moments really lightened the mood. The reviews of course are largely written by sycophants.
Therefore his opinion is based on the views of 300-500 sycophantic people, instead of the film viewing populous as a whole who all groaned in disbelief when Legolas went all gnarly to the extreme. The bit with the punch up was another dumb idea and why didn't the Dwarf tell Jackson to get bent? I wouldn't want to be remembered as the crap character in the films...
I think many directors add "comic" moments to their films as they are invariably surrounded by sycophants on set. When then film is first shown at the premier everyone is going to pretend they love all of it, even though they hate the stupid bits. The director will then read 50 reviews saying that TT is better than the first (no it is not) and that the comic moments really lightened the mood. The reviews of course are largely written by sycophants.
Therefore his opinion is based on the views of 300-500 sycophantic people, instead of the film viewing populous as a whole who all groaned in disbelief when Legolas went all gnarly to the extreme. The bit with the punch up was another dumb idea and why didn't the Dwarf tell Jackson to get bent? I wouldn't want to be remembered as the crap character in the films...
Page: