The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
There is only one part in the whole of TTT where i think Gollum looks fake. The rest of the time it could easily be an actor.
But the point is, you know it's not real, so there is no 'spotting the CGI'.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
The
> "small Frodo, big people" stuff looked terrible. Absolutely
> terrible.
---
Er, that was about 2% CGI, the rest of it was midgets and forced perspective if I remember rightly from the 4-disc thing.
Your standards and mine differ, I was totally convinced by Gollum and that's all I care about.
Would you rather they discovered a real ancient creature corrupted by the power of a ring?
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?
Or that awful Ray Harryhausen finale in Attack of The Clones?
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.
The
> "small Frodo, big people" stuff looked terrible. Absolutely
> terrible.
---
Er, that was about 2% CGI, the rest of it was midgets and forced perspective if I remember rightly from the 4-disc thing.
Your standards and mine differ, I was totally convinced by Gollum and that's all I care about.
Would you rather they discovered a real ancient creature corrupted by the power of a ring?
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?
Or that awful Ray Harryhausen finale in Attack of The Clones?
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.
"*I* thought it was ground-breaking."
Yes but you're old enough to remember seeing Star Wars when it first came out. So you don't count. I can't think of the last time CGI actually fooled me, I either spot it straight away or I notice it the next time I watch. CGI can be done very well, other stuff can't. The "small Frodo, big people" stuff looked terrible. Absolutely terrible. They managed to put the singer out of Electric 6 next to himself in the video for Gay Bar, why with pots of cash can't they put one actor next to another, make one look bigger than the other and have it look REAL?
"Obviously you can do better and it ruined the entire film for you."
Hell no I can't do better, but I'm not *paid* to do it. ILM could've done a better job, and they had a budget of $300 million for all three films. You'd expect the CGI to be amazing for that cash. Episodes 1 + 2 were (overly) heavy on CGI, it looked better and it cost less.
"However, I employed suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the character."
I'm sure we all did that. But it's hard to suspend your disbelief when stuff looks cack. It's like seeing the strings on a spaceship back when you were a kid. All the goodness of the film is pushed aside in a second because it looks fake. You're reminded you're watching a film.
"I'm sure The Wal could do better with a crayon and some paper in between fighting a million "radgies" and stripping off in your garden."
The Wal hates computers. Plus, he's far too busy fighting a million radgies and getting naked to take time out to do visual effects.
Yes but you're old enough to remember seeing Star Wars when it first came out. So you don't count. I can't think of the last time CGI actually fooled me, I either spot it straight away or I notice it the next time I watch. CGI can be done very well, other stuff can't. The "small Frodo, big people" stuff looked terrible. Absolutely terrible. They managed to put the singer out of Electric 6 next to himself in the video for Gay Bar, why with pots of cash can't they put one actor next to another, make one look bigger than the other and have it look REAL?
"Obviously you can do better and it ruined the entire film for you."
Hell no I can't do better, but I'm not *paid* to do it. ILM could've done a better job, and they had a budget of $300 million for all three films. You'd expect the CGI to be amazing for that cash. Episodes 1 + 2 were (overly) heavy on CGI, it looked better and it cost less.
"However, I employed suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the character."
I'm sure we all did that. But it's hard to suspend your disbelief when stuff looks cack. It's like seeing the strings on a spaceship back when you were a kid. All the goodness of the film is pushed aside in a second because it looks fake. You're reminded you're watching a film.
"I'm sure The Wal could do better with a crayon and some paper in between fighting a million "radgies" and stripping off in your garden."
The Wal hates computers. Plus, he's far too busy fighting a million radgies and getting naked to take time out to do visual effects.
I see, the one you just posted looks a little like lol in italics.
It's meant to be a little bloke punching the air.
/o/
/o/
Wha?
\0\
monkey_man wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> Treebeard seemed more patient and wise in the book.
>
> That's because you read slow.
*Amused*
> cookie monster wrote:
> Treebeard seemed more patient and wise in the book.
>
> That's because you read slow.
*Amused*
cookie monster wrote:
> Treebeard seemed more patient and wise in the book.
That's because you read slow.
> Treebeard seemed more patient and wise in the book.
That's because you read slow.
Page: