- Time
- Post link
Lucasfilm to sell Physical Effects Unit — Page 5
- Time
- Post link
Have nothing against Kong. But like most of Weta's work, its the work outside of the main visual effect that I have a problem with. Inconsistent. ILM isn't nearly as inconsistent, even in the Prequels.
-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
- Time
- Post link
. In all seriousness, you pose some good points. The wide shots doubtlessly look better because they need not be as detailed. By contrast, the closeup shot vary somewhat. “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
And i think the main thing that Jackson achieved is that he achieved suspension of disbelief. You know that the Tatooine matte painting is not completely photorealistic in ANH but you never get pulled out of the moment because you are emotionally engaged in the film. The PT always seemed more jarring because we never properly connected to the characters or plot.
- Time
- Post link
Episode I costed 115 million. Episodes II and III were made for 100 million a piece instead of the 115 million that's been reported.
So, essentially both trilogies were made for reasonably the same amount.
-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
- Time
- Post link
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
Even still, The Fellowship of the Ring Extended is pure Tolkien and pure genius. It's pretty much the close cousin to A New Hope from where I stand.
-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
- Time
- Post link
Right off the top of my head, that whole business with the running-away-from-the-skull-avalanche scene just looks stupid; I can't believe they put such time and effort into it.
And also - they removed any sort of suspense over the ghost army, when he wanders out of a wall and says 'we fight' in a crappy money shot.... that is a truly on-the-nose example of when a filmmaker doesn't know when to leave something alone; when they feel the need to spell something out in ridiculous fashion.
Really liked LOTR for the most part, but for movies that people insist are the 'best ever made', there are a crapload of flaws in there. They are very much products of their time, and some shots will not age terribly well (that ridiculous shot of Legolas jumping on the horse, could've been straight out of Spiderman).
LUKE: Dad, where are your eyebrows?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WO_S6UgkQk0
- Time
- Post link
I think this also i more like TPM should have been. Its innocent and whimsical, but also serious and very character-centred in a dramatic and realistic way. Lucas has tried to bring out every excuse he can--people didn't want a light story, people didn't want a kid to be the main character, people wanted to see Darth Vader being the Terminator and killing everyone. The truth is that is all bullshit. We wanted a good movie and Lucas didn't deliver. FOTR is very similar in tone to what Lucas was trying to do with TPM, sort of a lesson in "here is how to do a fantasy film wrong--show TPM--and here is how to do a fantasy film right--show FOTR". The difference between the two is very dramatic when you watch them back to back and the difference is one is compelling and one is not-so-compelling.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Jumpman
I maybe would've preferred the Rings Trilogy if Jackson hadn't killed The Two Towers. No matter what form it's in, extended or theatrical, it's a mess. The book is so much better.
Even still, The Fellowship of the Ring Extended is pure Tolkien and pure genius. It's pretty much the close cousin to A New Hope from where I stand.
I maybe would've preferred the Rings Trilogy if Jackson hadn't killed The Two Towers. No matter what form it's in, extended or theatrical, it's a mess. The book is so much better.
Even still, The Fellowship of the Ring Extended is pure Tolkien and pure genius. It's pretty much the close cousin to A New Hope from where I stand.
I agree about the Two Towers, the books were so much better. But Return of the King was an even greater travesty upon the books. Fellowship was the most accurate in this sense, but still with a number of scenes that make me cringe.
In terms of plain movies, ignoring the books, Two Towers was the best with Return of the King and Fellowship winning a tie in my mind.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
I mean, seriously how can you bring down Isengard and not show the demise of Saruman at the end of The Two Towers or the beginning of King in its threatical form? And then when you put it at the beginning of the King Extended, it's logically and tonally a mess and feels really tacted on.
The Fellowship is just pure Tolkien and even in the scenes they changed slightly, it's still more Tolkien than the rest of the trilogy.
Just give me The Fellowship Extended, Revenge of the Sith, and A New Hope if I had to be strained on a island.
-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Zebonka
The extended version of ROTK is a *mess*.
Right off the top of my head, that whole business with the running-away-from-the-skull-avalanche scene just looks stupid; I can't believe they put such time and effort into it.
And also - they removed any sort of suspense over the ghost army, when he wanders out of a wall and says 'we fight' in a crappy money shot.... that is a truly on-the-nose example of when a filmmaker doesn't know when to leave something alone; when they feel the need to spell something out in ridiculous fashion.
Really liked LOTR for the most part, but for movies that people insist are the 'best ever made', there are a crapload of flaws in there. They are very much products of their time, and some shots will not age terribly well (that ridiculous shot of Legolas jumping on the horse, could've been straight out of Spider-Man).
Perhaps, but on the whole, they're a breathtaking achievement in my view. I don't mind a few crowd-pleaser moments. By and large, I don't remember being so exhilarated by a film since I first saw the OOT on video years and years. As I left FOTR I thougt, "This is why I go to the movies." Some of the visual effects may not age well, but the characters and the story, thanks mostly to Tolkien, are rich and timeless, and Jackson doesn't forget them.
But shoudn't that be the terms upon which the film is evaluated? As a film?
And then when you put it at the beginning of the King Extended, it's logically and tonally a mess and feels really tacted on.
The extended version of ROTK is a *mess*.
Right off the top of my head, that whole business with the running-away-from-the-skull-avalanche scene just looks stupid; I can't believe they put such time and effort into it.
And also - they removed any sort of suspense over the ghost army, when he wanders out of a wall and says 'we fight' in a crappy money shot.... that is a truly on-the-nose example of when a filmmaker doesn't know when to leave something alone; when they feel the need to spell something out in ridiculous fashion.
Really liked LOTR for the most part, but for movies that people insist are the 'best ever made', there are a crapload of flaws in there. They are very much products of their time, and some shots will not age terribly well (that ridiculous shot of Legolas jumping on the horse, could've been straight out of Spider-Man).
Perhaps, but on the whole, they're a breathtaking achievement in my view. I don't mind a few crowd-pleaser moments
. By and large, I don't remember being so exhilarated by a film since I first saw the OOT on video years and years. As I left FOTR I thougt, "This is why I go to the movies." Some of the visual effects may not age well, but the characters and the story, thanks mostly to Tolkien, are rich and timeless, and Jackson doesn't forget them.I maybe would've preferred the Rings Trilogy if Jackson hadn't killed The Two Towers. No matter what form it's in, extended or theatrical, it's a mess. The book is so much better.
I think that the extended edition rectified much from the theatrical version. I certainly altered the character of Faramir, but in the EE, he is redeemed as one of the great Men, as Tolkien intended him.
In what way, precisely?
In terms of plain movies, ignoring the books, Two Towers was the best with Return of the King and Fellowship winning a tie in my mind.
I think that the extended edition rectified much from the theatrical version. I certainly altered the character of Faramir, but in the EE, he is redeemed as one of the great Men, as Tolkien intended him.
But Return of the King was an even greater travesty upon the books.
In what way, precisely?
In terms of plain movies, ignoring the books, Two Towers was the best with Return of the King and Fellowship winning a tie in my mind.
But shoudn't that be the terms upon which the film is evaluated? As a film?
And then when you put it at the beginning of the King Extended, it's logically and tonally a mess and feels really tacted on.
I don't think so, I mean Tolkien wrote it as a complete story anyways. Good points all. Thanks.
And stop calling it "A New Hope
." I find it interesting that the best of the Harry Potter films, the third, is the one that deviates most from the book.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
Keep in mind that the Prequels aren't even good movies.
Revenge of the Sith sucks a crazy dick. Why anyone would want to be secluded on a desert island with only three movies and have Revenge of the Sith among them.... well, it just boggles the mind. Terrible movie. "Anakin you're breaking my heart!" Hahahaha. Have a good one.
