Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I don't want this to degenerate into a "Yes-huh, nu-uh" kind of deal but - the Lord of the Rings does *not* blow. It does, in fact, rock. Being a conlanger, amateur linguist, fantasy fan, and interested in mythology, it all is, as the LOLCat would say, "relevunt to my intrests."
Edit: DAMN it all, another dangling modifier! *shhht* What is with me?
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
I have not read the original LOTR books and so I cannot comment whatsoever on how good or not good they are. I was referring to the recent films, which are bloated, overdramatized, overacted, over-CGI'd and represent to me the epitome of what monstrosities our overstimulated age has spawned in cinema. That they have received so much praise and recognition as films is tragic.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I have to politely disagree, my diligent colleague. IMO an epic saga should be overdramatized and overacted. As for the CGI, well, if there really WERE gigantic underground cities, monsters of flame and shadow, armies of tens of thousands of orcs, and tens of thousands of undead shades - well, it would look more real than models or drawings would look. So, I don't really understand why you dislike the amount of CGI in the films.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I have to politely disagree, my diligent colleague. IMO an epic saga should be overdramatized and overacted. As for the CGI, well, if there really WERE gigantic underground cities, monsters of flame and shadow, armies of tens of thousands of orcs, and tens of thousands of undead shades - well, it would look more real than models or drawings would look. So, I don't really understand why you dislike the amount of CGI in the films.
I realize there was no other way to do it and that's part of the problem. CGI now lets filmmakers basically do whatever they want with no account for believability and practicality. There's no way I can take that stuff seriously on film because there's so way I can suspend my disbelief when it looks so unreal. This is not the kind of material that live-action cinema should be used for. Same goes for everything that has followed in LOTR's wake, like Narnia, Harry Potter, Beowulf, Golden Compass, and whatever other bumfuck fantasy elf/troll/wizard/dragon/unicorn-jizzed thing the kiddies are going for these days.
With print you have the ability to make things beleivable that would never in any way pass in a film. That's the power of human imagination. Animation would work too. I can't believe anyone would give an Academy FUCKING Award to something that tries to be a serious live action film with that sort of material, though.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, it wasn't nearly as CGI'd as you might think. Allot of it was "Bigatures". The CGI mostly came into play with the mass battle scenes and creature effects (Balrogs, Trolls etc.)
As for the acting, if it was done as written in the books then it would have been WAY more hammy than it ended up being. Compared to the books the films were subtle and nuanced. Looking at it in context, as a fantasy film it has to compete with the likes a Dungeons & Dragons, Eragon and Dragonheart . Actually, LotR may well have been some of the only fantasy films NOT to feature a dragon. Anyway, by that measure the Rings films are far and apart the best in their field.
As for not liking Futurama Mim, well we can but feel sorry for you. I mean come one, what other show would use quantum mechanics in a punchline?
posted
If he hasn't read the books he has no frame of reference regarding how much the films actually got right, he seems to have just jumped on the hater-bandwagon, so you are both preaching to the choir and talking to a wall, Rev.
Now, a sci-fi buff that doesn't like Futurama, that was a tough one to get. I don't know what to compare to, except perhaps that Chappelle-skit where he plays a blind man who through funny circumstances has become a KKK grand master.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No guys, I like Futurama. Quite a bit, actually. I never said I didn't. What I meant to get across was that I like Family Guy a lot more.
As for LOTR, I admit that perhaps my disliking of it is due to deeper-seated prejudices than I'd like admit. Even though I just did.
MAKE LOVE NOT WARTS.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: No guys, I like Futurama. Quite a bit, actually. I never said I didn't. What I meant to get across was that I like Family Guy a lot more.
As for LOTR, I admit that perhaps my disliking of it is due to deeper-seated prejudices than I'd like admit. Even though I just did.
MAKE LOVE NOT WARTS.
/me drives the topic bus back onto I-4Futurama
It rules, me likes. nuff said.
/me drives the topic bus back into oncomng traffic
I would masterbate to the theme song of Macross if they did a GOODLive action remake of SDF:M or even better, DYRL. CGI does amazing things ON THE CHEAP. how much money would you spend on a RL 10,000 raging republican Orcs, on somebody's farm? Let's see:
There's the safety aspect you gotta sweat. figure OSHA's gonna stick thier neck into it. Maybe the govenor of the state you're filming in (cause he's a Democrat)? PETA? ACLU? NAACP? MAMBLA?
besides, if you didn't do CGI, no really cool ST:FC, no really good Mechcommander, or Mechwarrior 2, 2:M, 3 or 4 intros...
and Pokemon Pr0n wouldn't be quite as pedolific...
what were we discussing again?
/me blinks and goes wandering to play DDO.
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) a moose, you silly yutz.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Actually, LotR may well have been some of the only fantasy films NOT to feature a dragon. Anyway, by that measure the Rings films are far and apart the best in their field.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
