The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
The moment when Legoass surfed down the stairs was one the worst moments in the films. Aside from the fact that it's 100% Hollywood, why, in the midst of a huge battle, would you put down your sole means of protection against the reign of arrows that's bound to be falling and stand on it?
I thought that the frequent "comic" moments ruined the film, as did the "Hollywood" action sequences. So we have Aragorn et al having a punch up, Gimli doing a Jar Jar under some Wargs, Legolas surfing on his shield, Gimili and Aragorn fighting 100 orcs single handed.
WHY DID JACKSON DO THIS?
The first film veered between realism and one man fights fifty but the Two Towers was ridiculous. Oh and the little culvert in the wall; did anyone spot that it was but a small unoticed part of the wall that suddenly became a huge tunnel in which the Uruk placed the device which the torch bearer exploded? I know that films often have mistakes but this was a critical plot element.
"We have an unbreachable fortress, no one can get in!"
"Oh look they are running up that huge tunnel where the minute culvert used to be"
"Oh bummer"
I tried SO hard to let the bad things go (I loved the first film) but I couldn't. I didn't care about the women and children. In fact Jackson should have shown some of the old men and kids who were fighting being slaughtered to up the emotional intensity.
However the extended version looks like it may soften the blow, as the re-inserted scenes may have some quality moments.
The Return of the King teaser made me wet too.
WHY DID JACKSON DO THIS?
The first film veered between realism and one man fights fifty but the Two Towers was ridiculous. Oh and the little culvert in the wall; did anyone spot that it was but a small unoticed part of the wall that suddenly became a huge tunnel in which the Uruk placed the device which the torch bearer exploded? I know that films often have mistakes but this was a critical plot element.
"We have an unbreachable fortress, no one can get in!"
"Oh look they are running up that huge tunnel where the minute culvert used to be"
"Oh bummer"
I tried SO hard to let the bad things go (I loved the first film) but I couldn't. I didn't care about the women and children. In fact Jackson should have shown some of the old men and kids who were fighting being slaughtered to up the emotional intensity.
However the extended version looks like it may soften the blow, as the re-inserted scenes may have some quality moments.
The Return of the King teaser made me wet too.
I'm guessing Mojo is doing some sort of college/uni course about computer design/effects.
I think Mojo is just a cockface.
Oh well i'd rather be uninformed and enjoy the movies than be informed and gasping for breath at the volume of CGI shots.
cookie monster wrote:
> There isnt that much CGI, its only used where necessary.
-------
There are very few scenes, if ANY, that don't involve CGI in one form or another. Backgrounds, large, sweeping camera movements. Entire sequences. So your first point is void. And it's not only used where necessary. Like Lucas, Jackson uses it all the time, for things they could've done other ways. CGI allows for less messing about on set, so directors are using it more and more.
You're probably not spotting all the CGI shots.
> There isnt that much CGI, its only used where necessary.
-------
There are very few scenes, if ANY, that don't involve CGI in one form or another. Backgrounds, large, sweeping camera movements. Entire sequences. So your first point is void. And it's not only used where necessary. Like Lucas, Jackson uses it all the time, for things they could've done other ways. CGI allows for less messing about on set, so directors are using it more and more.
You're probably not spotting all the CGI shots.
If it upsets you so much MoJo, then don't watch the films. It is your loss.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> but Jackson has enough CGI in LOTR to send a man to the moon. It's over > used.
There isnt that much CGI, its only used where necessary.
> but Jackson has enough CGI in LOTR to send a man to the moon. It's over > used.
There isnt that much CGI, its only used where necessary.
Goatboy wrote:
> Er, that was about 2% CGI, the rest of it was midgets and forced
> perspective if I remember rightly from the 4-disc thing.
Yes, it was, but I was referring to the shots they used visual effects for. They looked pants. Hell, the BBC managed to do a better job in Red Dwarf about a decade ago with two Rimmers. I'm sure nowadays, with all their fancy computers, they could do a better job.
Goatboy wrote:
> Your standards and mine differ, I was totally convinced by Gollum and
> that's all I care about.
Good for you. I'll admit, when I was younger, CGI, even stuff that looks crap by today's standards, fooled me. Jurassic Park - I was 7, I didn't even know what CGI was. Watch it now, it looks fake in some places (but still very decent elsewhere) Since then, CGI has been used so many times, for so many things, I can't help but see how fake it is. I didn't know that bloke, who was it? Oliver Reed? I didn't know he had died during Gladiator, and they'd used CGI to put his face on a double for certain shots. I'd seen the film and not noticed it. As soon as I found out, I saw it and it looked extremely fake. I wasn't expecting to see CGI on a sequence involving somebody walking past some cells at night, so I never spotted it.
A tiny little monster, a huge spaceship, a giant cave troll - I know they can't possibly be real. I see them as fake, because I know they are. I *know* they were done on a computer, and it shows. The only CGI that fools me nowadays is the CGI they use on things you don't even notice. If it looks fake to me, I can't understand why others can't see the same. It's like I can see the strings but you can't. Strings make something look obviously fake, bad CGI is the same deal.
Goatboy wrote:
> And if ILM could do better, why did Jar-Jar look so bloody awful with
> Obi-Wan staring off 2ft to the left of it when they were onscreen?
Ol' Jar Jar was the first EVER completely CG character in a film. They didn't even know if they could do it. Techniques never used before were tried and tested with him. Even now, it looks semi-decent. Back in 1999, while it looked fake to me, I'm sure a lot of kids didn't even think of him as an effect. Though they probably wanted to throttle him...
And Ewan hates working with blue screen and has to be constantly reminded to look at the eye markers while filming, so it's no surprise he's looking the wrong way quite a bit.
Goatboy wrote:
> Weta own digital effects, and you didn't think it looked real because
> you're a spandex sausage jockey with one-syllable semi-naked man
> friends.
> So there.
Weta being the company that did LOTR? If so, they don't "own" digital effects. I still think CGI is too young, and is way, way, WAY over used. Lucas is the prime suspect, but Jackson has enough CGI in LOTR to send a man to the moon. It's over used and, in my opinion, isn't good enough a lot of the time to pass off as real. That's me, though. Some of my mates didn't even see the CGI Neo in Reloaded... I have no idea how.
And stop mocking one-syllable semi-naked Wal. I know you love him really. So there.
> Er, that was about 2% CGI, the rest of it was midgets and forced
> perspective if I remember rightly from the 4-disc thing.
Yes, it was, but I was referring to the shots they used visual effects for. They looked pants. Hell, the BBC managed to do a better job in Red Dwarf about a decade ago with two Rimmers. I'm sure nowadays, with all their fancy computers, they could do a better job.
Goatboy wrote:
> Your standards and mine differ, I was totally convinced by Gollum and
> that's all I care about.
Good for you. I'll admit, when I was younger, CGI, even stuff that looks crap by today's standards, fooled me. Jurassic Park - I was 7, I didn't even know what CGI was. Watch it now, it looks fake in some places (but still very decent elsewhere) Since then, CGI has been used so many times, for so many things, I can't help but see how fake it is. I didn't know that bloke, who was it? Oliver Reed? I didn't know he had died during Gladiator, and they'd used CGI to put his face on a double for certain shots. I'd seen the film and not noticed it. As soon as I found out, I saw it and it looked extremely fake. I wasn't expecting to see CGI on a sequence involving somebody walking past some cells at night, so I never spotted it.
A tiny little monster, a huge spaceship, a giant cave troll - I know they can't possibly be real. I see them as fake, because I know they are. I *know* they were done on a computer, and it shows. The only CGI that fools me nowadays is the CGI they use on things you don't even notice. If it looks fake to me, I can't understand why others can't see the same. It's like I can see the strings but you can't. Strings make something look obviously fake, bad CGI is the same deal.
Goatboy wrote:
> And if ILM could do better, why did Jar-Jar look so bloody awful with
> Obi-Wan staring off 2ft to the left of it when they were onscreen?
Ol' Jar Jar was the first EVER completely CG character in a film. They didn't even know if they could do it. Techniques never used before were tried and tested with him. Even now, it looks semi-decent. Back in 1999, while it looked fake to me, I'm sure a lot of kids didn't even think of him as an effect. Though they probably wanted to throttle him...
And Ewan hates working with blue screen and has to be constantly reminded to look at the eye markers while filming, so it's no surprise he's looking the wrong way quite a bit.
Goatboy wrote:
> Weta own digital effects, and you didn't think it looked real because
> you're a spandex sausage jockey with one-syllable semi-naked man
> friends.
> So there.
Weta being the company that did LOTR? If so, they don't "own" digital effects. I still think CGI is too young, and is way, way, WAY over used. Lucas is the prime suspect, but Jackson has enough CGI in LOTR to send a man to the moon. It's over used and, in my opinion, isn't good enough a lot of the time to pass off as real. That's me, though. Some of my mates didn't even see the CGI Neo in Reloaded... I have no idea how.
And stop mocking one-syllable semi-naked Wal. I know you love him really. So there.
monkey_man wrote:
> It's meant to be a little bloke punching the air.
>
> /o/
...
\o/
That's what you mean.
> It's meant to be a little bloke punching the air.
>
> /o/
...
\o/
That's what you mean.
Page: