You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Review: The Return of the King

Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:10pm

Post 1 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +2

At last, the trilogy to end all trilogies draws to a close. And what a journey it has been, these three years that have turned December into the most anticipated month on the movie calendar. The final part of The Lord of the Rings has now played out, and it is truly magnificent.

Whilst the epic mixture of superb acting, giant battles, mind-blowing special effects, beautiful locations, glorious music and deeply touching drama might not be for everyone, those that have avidly followed this most remarkable of stories from the beginning will surely not be disappointed by such a rousing and satisfying conclusion.

Offering up visuals that will burn into your memory and remain long after you leave the cinema, The Return of the King is a filmic treat. The delicate balancing of the characters and the action pays off handsomely, with the heart of the story never becoming lost amongst the enormous canvas of Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth. The battle for Minas Tirith is not simply the best special effects sequence of the year - it's also one of the most moving and emotionally powerful. If the ride of the Rohirrim doesn't bring tears of child-like glee to your eyes, then nothing will.

The Return of the King is cinema at its purest. It creates an experience that could not exist in any other medium. Tolkien's hugely influencial novel may be the stone foundation of the movie trilogy, but Jackson and his team have done anything but make a standard, pointless, Harry Potter-style word-for-word translation. The books have been adapted to take full advantage of the vastly different medium of film, and The Return of the King shows this more than ever before.

Although it may not stand alone as the best film of the year (for my money, that honour still goes to Finding Nemo), The Return of the King completes perhaps the greatest movie trilogy of all-time, as well as an astonishing achievement in filmmaking. When watched in context with The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, The Return of the King is indeed a mighty and worthy ending.

But one question remains - what on earth do we do next Christmas?
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:18pm

Post 2 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

I NEED TO SEE THIS MOVIE! eek

Thanks for the review, by the way. biggrin
for more reviews, check-out

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213

That is perhaps the most accurate review site ever. They take the average reviews of different critics around the internet and average-out the totals. Very good place to see if a movie is worth seeing.

-Again, thanks for the review,
Adam Kabe twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:23pm

Post 3 of 147

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm going to see it friday evening, after watching the first two parts in their special extended edition. cool

I'm looking forward a lot to it.



I have no doubt it will be a climax of an already great cinema year. Currently, my topspot of the year is filled by Verbinskis Pirates of the Caribbean. LotR is a whole different chapter though. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:26pm

Post 4 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

I did enjoy Pirates quite a lot, but all the reviews of ROTK, the fact that I'm a huge fan of the series; book and film, and that there's an !HOUR LONG BATTLE SCENE! makes me 'water at the mouth.' biggrin

-Seeing it Friday, (hopefully)
Adam twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:27pm

Post 5 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

By the way, if you haven't seen the film, be careful when reading the responses in this thread - I expect spoilers will appear fairly soon. smile
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:29pm

Post 6 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

I tpersonally think that a film like this shouldn't be able to be "spoiled." You'd think that after, oh I don't know... 50 years of being a book you'd think the end would be no secret. But, yes, we must keep spoilers to a minimum for those who haven't read or heard the end already.

-Adam twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:35pm

Post 7 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I'm ashamed to say I haven't read the book. unsure

Well, I have read Fellowship - read it straight after seeing the first film. However, as the films came 'first' for me, I decided to wait until after seeing the remaining films before reading the rest of the novel. Certainly the 'wrong' way around to do it, by Tolkienites' standards, but it's just the way I stumbled across the story - plus I'm a film person more than a book person these days.

Thank god for the films, though - otherwise I probably never would have thought of reading 'that silly fantasy book'.
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:39pm

Post 8 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Oh, and on a vaguely product-related note (sorry, can't resist a quick plug!), if you're at all interested in digital grading you should check out Return of the King. It has some incredible use of the technique. The entire film is beautiful.
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:39pm

Post 9 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

You haven't read it? eek That's ok, but you will VERY suprised about the way the books are different in key moments. You'll see what I mean if you read ROTK. Very suprising plot twist not in the film. Well, I'm glad the movie is good, and I expect to be having my jaw forced open the whole time.

-Later,
Adam twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:40pm

Post 10 of 147

Hajiku_Flip

Force: 3786 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1669

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I can't remember much of the first two films, except for the fact that they are trying to destroy the ring. Can one of you give me a short synopsis from the first film up onto what I'm about to see tonight? I'd do it on my own, but I'd run the risk of coming into unintentional spoilers that way. oink Force to whoever does it! biggrin
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:41pm

Post 11 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Oh, and on a vaguely product-related note (sorry, can't resist a quick plug!), if you're at all interested in digital grading you should check out Return of the King.
You couldn't help it, could you? biggrin wink
I'll probably end-up getting Didigrade, though, so I don't care how much hype you give it. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:44pm

Post 12 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

And now for me to pitch in...

As Lord Of The Rings day (as pronounced by yours truly) draws to an end I can't help but remember all the greats moments of the trilogy...

With Fellowship Of The Ring introducing the characters, and starting the quest to save Middle-Earth, you really start getting really into the characters, and really into the action and emotions they have. Then with The Two Towers progressing that story, and bringing in more characters, such as faramir, and the fellowship all going there seperate ways...

I would never have expected Return Of The King to be able to top it all off so perfectly. As a fan of the original book trilogy, I never thought a screen adaptation of the award winning novel would actually come to life so well, and so perfectly, Return Of The King being the trickiest of the 3 - especially as some scenes were moved from The Two Towers - but Peter Jackson has done it again, with the best of the three at hand!!! As a mega Lord Of The Rings fan, obsessed by fantasy, violence, and mythical creatures, the trilogy is by far my favorite set of films ever, and even my favorite stand alone films too...

I can understand this mixture of fantasy and action is not for all, but i can honestly give this film 5/5!

All i can say now, is in answer to tarn's question - next christmas is a Lord Of The Rings: Special Extended Edition Marathon! biggrin

TMM twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:47pm

Post 13 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Well, as Frodo and Samwise travel to drop the One Ring into Mt. Doom, they meet a former Hobbit named Gollum, however he is horribly deformed from the hundreds of years of the ring's mind control. During the time they are going across the world, a man, a dwarf, and an elf travel in serch of the other Hobbits, Merry and Pippen. They have been captured by Uru-Khai and are being taken to Sauramon for "questioning." Once they are freed, they continue into the forest Fangorn where they meet a huge tree called "Treebeard." There he returns them to safety with Gandalf. Afterwards, there is a HUGE battle to save the Rohirrim at a place called Helm's Deep. Big fight. After that, the third film starts off.

-Hope that helps,
Adam twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 9:54pm

Post 14 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

In response to flip:

In Fellowship Of The Ring we saw Frodo, Sam, Pippin, Merry, Boromir, Legolas, Aragorn, Gimli and Gandalf form the Fellowship of the ring, they set off on their quest to mordor, battling all sorts of beasties on the way. Gandalf fell after defeating the Balrog and Boromir died defending the hobbits, Pippin and Merry, whilst Frodo and Sam headed off by themselves to Mordor. Meanwhile Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas went to the aid of their colleagues who have been hobbitnapped by Uruk-Hai's...

In Two Towers we see Merry and Pippin going off with the Ents, the 3 heroes finding Gandalf and going back to Rohan, to save the king, and the kingdom. Meanwhile Sam and Frodo, after being attacked by Gollum, use him as a guide to get to Mordor. Gollum leads them close to Mordor before we realise he is leading him into a trap. Meanwhile Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, the king of Rohan, Theoden, and his people make there way to Helm's Deep to defend themselves from the oncoming threat of Saruman's Uruk-Hai army, after a long battle scene, the ents attack Isenguard and defeat Saruman and his forces, then Gandalf comes to save the day at Helm's Deep with the Rider's Of Rohan, and there it ends...

There's a briefish synopsis that should help you out Flip...

TMM twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 10:11pm

Post 15 of 147

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

CoolKabe wrote:

-Hope that helps,
Adam twisted

TMM wrote:

TMM twisted
Just noticed that you guys end your posts the same way biggrin

Anyway, I'll *try* to go see it this weekend. No guarantee that I will, since the line for the matrix on the weekend after it opened was almost a quarter mile of cars... but I'll try. And I really hope that i get in, because it seems like an awesome movie biggrin
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 10:24pm

Post 16 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Marek wrote:

CoolKabe wrote:

-Hope that helps,
Adam twisted

TMM wrote:

TMM twisted
Just noticed that you guys end your posts the same way biggrin
The filthy little thief, he's stolen my smiley! HE SURVIVES BECAUSE OF ME! </The Two Towers Gollum>

TMM twisted
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 10:33pm

Post 17 of 147

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

For as long as I can remember, I've used that smiley for my ending of the posts.

-Later/hope that helps/HAHA!,
Adam twisted

PS: I now declare that smiley, when it's used as the end of a post, to be copywritten by me. You must now ask permission to use it, TMM. No one else, of course. razz

(Just kidding.)
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 10:43pm

Post 18 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

Visually it was indeed a treat, simply amazing.
The best film of all time - NO biggrin
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 10:54pm

Post 19 of 147

Andreas

Force: 4943 | Joined: 9th Apr 2002 | Posts: 2657

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I saw it last night/this very morning and my god it was so great, sean astin did sam so amazing I just cried whatever he sais, I guess this is my a weak point from this cool hot swede.. wink An great movie, I aint writing more couse of spoilers and thingys.. but watch it please!
Posted: Wed, 17th Dec 2003, 11:49pm

Post 20 of 147

Movie_Manic

Force: 2183 | Joined: 17th May 2002 | Posts: 153

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

CoolKabe wrote:

Once they are freed, they continue into the forest Fangorn where they meet a huge tree called "Treebeard."
in his own words, "tree, i am no tree, i am an Ent." sorry if this sounds offensive but I couldn't resist getting a quote in somewhere. what better way to show appreciation for a film then to quote it.

On another note, i would like to say something about the Return of the King, it is brill, i liked the bit where legolas ... and then when ... down and then Gimli says... 1. pure cinematic brillance.
(and not a single spoiler in the post.) smile those who have seen the film will know what i mean, and those that haven't yet, will when they do.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 3:19am

Post 21 of 147

jstow222

Force: 970 | Joined: 28th Oct 2002 | Posts: 1146

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

For those that have read the books, is the ending similar at all?
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 3:45am

Post 22 of 147

MidnightJester

Force: 532 | Joined: 20th Nov 2002 | Posts: 277

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

It depends on how similar you want to get. They left out a subplot at the end that comes after they get back to the Shire. They also include some things that are only really stated in the appendix (if my memory serves me correctly. It's been a while since I read the book). For the most part, yes, the ending was in line with the book.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 4:52am

Post 23 of 147

N8man

Force: 792 | Joined: 9th Nov 2002 | Posts: 138

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, i just got back from it like 2 minutes ago...that was epic. It was put together so well, and the resoultion acutually satisfied me. Everyone i talked to said it was long but how else can u end such a huge story?
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 6:32am

Post 24 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

TAP2 wrote:

Visually it was indeed a treat, simply amazing.
The best film of all time - NO biggrin
Agreed...and not even close (i can point out bad probs in it...but i wont cuz ull all just gang up on me).

TAP2 wrote:

For those that have read the books, is the ending similar at all?
I honestly think PJ sold out and made it a simple happy ending...the book had a very dark (and important) subplot to it...and they decided to get rid of it cuz its not very audience pleasing (non-formula) for the ending. Notice how there is not a single frame of Sarumon or Wormtongue.

but...many problems aside when we see arwen at the end and the kneeling thing...beautiful.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 10:14am

Post 25 of 147

potman

Force: 700 | Joined: 3rd May 2003 | Posts: 123

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

(for my money, that honour still goes to Finding Nemo)
Hummm you put Finding Nemo ahead of ROTK....Finding Nemo must be a real master piece then!!! (I had better go see it)

I saw ROTK in a theater full of people who worked on the films. It was quite funny listing to the people around me speak of what they did on the film and how they did it. It was like a making of while the movie was going!!!
The end was the most "tear jerking" part for me and the crew (mind you that was the end, end result of their years of hard work).

Im a bit gutted that they left out the "ending dark sub plot" (nuff said for those who have not read the book) I would not have minded it if PJ had taken 10 minutes of the palinore fields out to add it back in......Oh well, extended DVD fingers crossed.

Over all a excellent trilogy.
I wonder what my children will say when they see it (when ever that might be).....(hopefully it wont look to dated wink)
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 10:28am

Post 26 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

While I was watching the film, one thing that came into my mind was how amazing the quality was. And a question came to me that I didn't know the answer to, what resolution equivalent are these films filmed in?

I really loved the 'matrix style' camera that followed the rock being catapulted from the city into the orc army.

Anyways, I'll definitely reccomend all my friends to go and see it.
I also got something to admit... confused ... I only watched half of the two towers!
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 10:38am

Post 27 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Was a great film, best battle action ever. Some of the composited shots were much lower quality and almost blurry compared to others which I found a bit odd. Its always the way with this kind of film - you do some things so amazingly that other fall below your own high standard. Fellowship is still my fav of the 3 but ROTK comes close and is stunningly epic.

P.S. 'matrix style' - don't be so rude. razz
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 10:49am

Post 28 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

TAP2 wrote:

I really loved the 'matrix style' camera that followed the rock being catapulted from the city into the orc army.
I think that was probably the only shot in the movie I disliked - mainly because it was 'matrix-style'. Technically it was great, of course.

potman wrote:

Hummm you put Finding Nemo ahead of ROTK....Finding Nemo must be a real master piece then!!! (I had better go see it)
Yep, it's great. Again, not for everyone - I expect some people will feel a bit silly watching a story entirely about fish. Finding Nemo and RotK gave me by best 'film experiences' of the year by far, nothing else even comes close (X2 and City of God are the next 2, a fair way down).

Although RotK had a far greater impact on me, as an individual film Finding Nemo possibly wins out. However, I don't tend to consider the LotR films as individual films (especially now that they're all out) and, taken as a single huge narrative, The Lord of the Rings has gotta be my favourite film of all time. Taken as part of that story, RotK had me quaking in my seat at its brilliance.

I can't see fantasy or scifi being anywhere near this good again for a long, long time.

Cypher wrote:

I honestly think PJ sold out and made it a simple happy ending...the book had a very dark (and important) subplot to it...and they decided to get rid of it cuz its not very audience pleasing (non-formula) for the ending. Notice how there is not a single frame of Sarumon or Wormtongue.
As for the missing of the 'dark ending', having not read the books I'm not familiar with the details, although I do know the general gist of it. I'll get back to you on that one once I've read the book. razz

The lack of Saruman and Wormtongue is due to the constraints of the theatrical running time. The extended cuts of these films are the definitive versions for me, and only then do I bother to judge them fully.

As for the ending being 'simple and happy'...I can only presume you missed the hugely non-Hollywood ending, which was very poignant and sad, showing that even the victors in war lose a huge part of themselves, that some people can never go back to their old lives. That things don't go back to normal and that it isn't always a happy, easy ending.

Moriarty's review over at AICN pretty much sums it up for me.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 11:51am

Post 29 of 147

Kram1563

Force: 1360 | Joined: 29th Apr 2002 | Posts: 388

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

i went to see the film last night and was totally amazed (after the cinema had finally got the film in widescreen properly which mean everyone missed half of the smeagol deagol bit) i had no idea of the story for the third of course i had read little bits and stuff but nothing prepared me for the epicness of this film, i have to say i think for me it was the Film of the Year i dont think i enjoyed nothing more although i did enjoy Finding Nemo and Kill Bill and if this film is over looked at the Oscars it will be a tragedy the previous two films got hardly any of the oscars it deserved and also i think Andy Serkis and Sean Astin should be up for an Oscar especially Sean Astin he put in a brilliant performance in my opinion and actually Elijah Wood i think putting in a good performance also and whats with Billy Boyds singing voice bit of a hidden talent there me thinks wink but i loved the movie ever second of it i deffinately enjoy it more than the second and its right up there close to Fellowship and i was quite dissapointed that there will never be another installment in the Lord of the Rings story and what the hell are we gonna do next christmas the only thing i can hope for is once Peter Jackson has finished King Kong they can get the right to make The Hobbit which Jackson said he would make if approached and if they could get the rights to the film. i will give this movie without any hesitation 4.5/5
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 12:18pm

Post 30 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

I think that was probably the only shot in the movie I disliked - mainly because it was 'matrix-style'. Technically it was great, of course.
You're joking biggrin That had to be my favourite shot of the whole movie, apart from when the King's army turned up and ran into the orc army... that was awesome...

I promise I won't use the word 'Matrix' in a 'Lord Of The Rings' thread again, unless it's an argument... you CSB guys seem to despise the word.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 12:32pm

Post 31 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Heh, I'm no fan of the Matrix trilogy (well, except the Zion battle), but the main reason I disliked that particular shot is that it broke the 'realism' of the filming style.

Half the reason LotR's effects look so damn good is that they're filmed as if they're completely real. The miniatures are for the msot part filmed as if they are real sets, and we don't have many Titanic-style unrealistic camera sweeps that reveal the shot as an effects shot.

For me, as soon as an effect pulls off a camera move that couldn't be accomplished for real, it breaks the illusion. The shot in RotK I would have preferred if it had been a little farther from the rock, as if it were being filmed from a helicopter for example.

There are, of course, exceptions. The first Matrix film, for example, uses 'unrealistic' camera movements as part of its story, which was rather nifty. And Fellowship of the Ring has some thrilling camera sweeps through the mines of Isengard, which worked brilliantly. But the 'Matrix' shot in RotK was the one shot in the movie where I thought "hm, nice effect" rather than just being caught up in what was happening.

When the Rohan horses rode into the orcs, I didn't think "wow, amazing effects", I just saw the Rohirrim riding into orcs, as if they'd actually filmed it. Verisimilitude! That's what it's all about. smile
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 1:15pm

Post 32 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

I sort of get what you're saying... but you'll have to agree that most viewers will either have my reaction, being - 'wow, that was awesome' or others will have your view which is that it upsets the film's style.

I agree with you, it did look very real... how many of the orcs were actually computer animated?
But I think that if used well, shots like that can create a huge impact because you feel like you're flying through the air and into the world of the film, at the same time as thinking - 'how the hell did they do that?'

With perhaps LOTR being an exception, I think that in films - if you film it for real - it allways comes out much better than it does if you add computer effects. This is exactly why Die Another Day was a rubbish Bond Film - because it was the first to involve ridiculously unrealistic concepts and computer animation. I mean Invisible Cars - COME On!?

BTW, Tarn, can you answer my Q?
'what resolution equivalent are these films filmed in? '
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 1:31pm

Post 33 of 147

Kram1563

Force: 1360 | Joined: 29th Apr 2002 | Posts: 388

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

i actually agree with Tarn here when that shot happend i thought cool effect rather then be in awe like the Rohan Riders, that was just so damn cool there was however one effect in the ROTK that i thought was horribly done when Rohan is riding from its camp there is a shot of Merry riding a horse and it looked horrible as if they just added it at the last minute or something.

Sean Astin for an Oscar!
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 2:00pm

Post 34 of 147

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I walked out of the theatre with a feeling that I have never gotten from seeing a film before. No words can describe how I felt. ROTK was the greatest cinematic experience I have ever had. I left the film knowing that I had just seen the end chapter to the greatest film saga of our time. I have only one regret about this film being made... I will never be able to make it now. Peter Jackson did a brillient job in creating this masterpiece and I do not think any director would have shot it as cunningly as he.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 3:36pm

Post 35 of 147

anonymous

I think Ridley Scott would have pulled LOTR off better and made it more epic than PJ. PJ doesn't really have experience in epics so I commend him for pulling it off, but I have no doubt Scott would have made all three of the films to each be a huge, completely timless epic. He knows how to do this (Gladiator - a definite epic and alien/black hawk down are epic-like films...just feel too dated with their narrative).

tarn: i didn't miss frodo's little speach about things not going back to normal (heavily borrowed from the theoden speech from TTT btw)...but that was an attempt to to cover up the original darker ending. When i say simple happy ending i mean...well (spoilers).....frodo/bilbo/gandalf leave the shores for their "afterlife" so to speak and we see sam with his wife and kids "living happily ever after" as that is the last shot in the film. oh, and did anyone pick up that ending on the circular door signified everything coming full circle? I felt it and like that choice...tho the epilogue is much darker in the novel and more fitting.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 4:01pm

Post 36 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I don't think Ridley Scott would be able to do it half as well as PJ, I don't think any director would have been able to.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 4:16pm

Post 37 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I can't think of many directors that could have handled something of this magnitude for so long. It's not just the director, it's the team - and PJ simply pulled together the best team on the planet. He knew the right people at the right time, to do the jobs that were needed.

As for Ridley Scott...I can't think of anything that shows why he'd be particularly better. Gladiator is fairly epic in places, but isn't but a tiny fly on Gollum's forehead compared to any of the LotR films. Scott's films tend to be quite introverted in many ways - not what you want for LotR.

Plus Scott would probably have insisted on getting Hans Zimmer to score it. Which doesn't bear thinking about.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 4:46pm

Post 38 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Cypher wrote:

Notice how there is not a single frame of Sarumon or Wormtongue.
Yeah, sadly PJ cut those 2 out of the cinematic cut - but, we will hopefully see him in the Special Extended Edition - not much room for him in the screen adaptation of Return Of The King...

MidnightJester wrote:

It depends on how similar you want to get. They left out a subplot at the end that comes after they get back to the Shire. They also include some things that are only really stated in the appendix (if my memory serves me correctly. It's been a while since I read the book). For the most part, yes, the ending was in line with the book.
Agreed, it was as similar as it could get to please the audience, and follow on from the other 2 films. Apart from the subplot it was near enough perfect, the sequence at Mount Doom is just perfect, just how i imagined it from the book!

Should be seeing it again tonight, will get back to you all with a 'second screening opinion'...

One thing I noticed, is after aragorn rides up to the Black Gate of Mordor to see where all the orcs are, he rides back, and then when it cuts back to him, all the horses have miraculously disappeared! smile

TMM twisted
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 5:16pm

Post 39 of 147

anonymous

Tarn wrote:

I can't think of many directors that could have handled something of this magnitude for so long. It's not just the director, it's the team - and PJ simply pulled together the best team on the planet. He knew the right people at the right time, to do the jobs that were needed.

As for Ridley Scott...I can't think of anything that shows why he'd be particularly better. Gladiator is fairly epic in places, but isn't but a tiny fly on Gollum's forehead compared to any of the LotR films. Scott's films tend to be quite introverted in many ways - not what you want for LotR.

Plus Scott would probably have insisted on getting Hans Zimmer to score it. Which doesn't bear thinking about.
Hans Zimmer is a great composer and would have made a score as good if not better than Howard Shore's. I really like lots of the music in lotr...but there's a VERY big amount that is just...well, dry. for instance when the ghost riders ride out from the ships...the music there, for lack of a better word...sucked. It did not fit the context at all. other parts like aragorn walking down and ppl nodding...was great.

And I'm sure Scott would have been able to put together a very good team as well. We'd have a very different rendition of the story, but I feel that Scott's would be infintly times more epic and timeless. And Gladiator is MUCH better than two towers wink I'm not saying PJ did a bad job (its one great endeavor)...but i still dont think he was the best for the job and to me, the final product shows.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 5:23pm

Post 40 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Two Towers was the worst of the 3 and even then I would say it was way more epic than Gladiator. ROTK improves on all the best bits of Two Towers and basically redefines epic cinema (as does the LOTR trilogy in general).

Last edited Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 6:27pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 6:13pm

Post 41 of 147

owen rixon

Force: 1155 | Joined: 30th Jun 2002 | Posts: 499

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I saw it last night. Its is absolubtley excellent, but if I had to criticise I'd say that certain scenes had a serain cheezy whiff about them......but its stlol great.
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 8:35pm

Post 42 of 147

Kram1563

Force: 1360 | Joined: 29th Apr 2002 | Posts: 388

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

as much as i like Gladiator i think every lord of the rings film is better then it it may be an epic film but the epicness of lord of the rings is huge and i think its gonna be a long time before something steals its crown i think in my opinion its the the most Epic film trilogy ever made
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 8:46pm

Post 43 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Gladiator is great fun and superbly made (despite a dodgy script), but it doesn't even begin to compare in terms of characters, drama or emotional pull for me.

Having said that, though, I might have to dig out my Gladiator DVD again sometime. Haven't seen it for a while. smile
Posted: Thu, 18th Dec 2003, 9:38pm

Post 44 of 147

ssjaaron

Force: 1545 | Joined: 11th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1115

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

hey guys i just talked my dad into getting me chromator. just wanted to tell you. and um i have a qeustion i think my dad ordered it but did not put in the maigic code (so i would not find out) cant you put it in later i hope? any way i am seeing LOTR 3 tonight at 7:00 PM so i hope i enjoy it.
i am leaving 1 hour before it even starts in order to get good seats. biggrin
peace out
Posted: Fri, 19th Dec 2003, 4:40am

Post 45 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I see LOTR as a great attempt at an epic and at many parts the elements are there, but at many other parts the direction goes astray and detracts from the films (specially two towers) and I can't call LOTR a successful epic. Gladiator on the other hand, I have very little problems with and call it a true epic film.
Posted: Fri, 19th Dec 2003, 7:14am

Post 46 of 147

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

FLAME ON!!!!
Posted: Fri, 19th Dec 2003, 4:41pm

Post 47 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Gladiator did nothing but bore me to be quite honest. Don't get me wrong, it's well made, and looks a treat, but, it is so booooooring...

I don't think anyone apart from Peter Jackson, and his crew, could have pulled off Lord Of The Rings so well. It's not just talent with film making, but, that fact that he is so passionate about the book (he read it when he was 18 and then re-read it before he was even planning on any films, then he remembered how much he loved the book) also, his crew of Barry Osbourne, Fran Walsh, all the actors, all the people at WETA Workshop, are so passionate about the book, and the story (some only from becoming passionate about it after being cast, or joining the crew) that they put everything they could into the trilogy, and really made it something superb...

Even though there are several differences from the books, such as Shelob being moved, and pointless changes in dialogue, it is by far the bets screen adaptation that could be achieved, and Peter Jackson and his crew have pulled it off so well. The attention to detail on the props, sets, costumes, everything is just superb...

To be honest, even tho Gladiator isn't my cup of tea, I don't think you can really compare it to this amazing trilogy...

TMM twisted
Posted: Fri, 19th Dec 2003, 7:27pm

Post 48 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

TMM wrote:

Gladiator did nothing but bore me to be quite honest. Don't get me wrong, it's well made, and looks a treat, but, it is so booooooring...
I feel the exact same way with LOTR...the only film that didn't bore me too much was fellowship. (which is my fav of the 3).

But as for anyone making a better LOTR than PJ...we'll never know. I think PJ did a good job of it, but nothing marvelous (granted that pulling it off is a great feat) and it could have been much better (specially Two Towers). But this is all opinion and speculation, anyway. (and i would never call LOTR amazing...even with the better, extended cuts)

cantaclaro: what flame? We're just having a discussion on what we think of the trilogy.
Posted: Sat, 20th Dec 2003, 8:06am

Post 49 of 147

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

TMM wrote:

that fact that he is so passionate about the book . . . . also, his crew of Barry Osbourne, Fran Walsh, all the actors, all the people at WETA Workshop, are so passionate about the book, and the story (some only from becoming passionate about it after being cast, or joining the crew)
yeah, you'd be 'passionate' about it if you were being paid what they were, too. 'passion' doesn't even enter into it. it's money. Say what you will about how many times what crew members read the books. if they weren't being paid, they never would have done it.

eh. I don't feel these movies deserve any sort of pedestal. they were all right, but nothing I'd scream and shout about. so what if the book trilogy was super duper? as far as I'm concerned, these movies are merely riding on the success of a well known book series. If I had to come up with a single word that would describe the LoTR movie trilogy, it would have to be 'pretentious'.

But, if y'all enjoyed it, I'm very happy for you. Because that's what we go see movies for. . . . enjoyment.
Posted: Sat, 20th Dec 2003, 9:12am

Post 50 of 147

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

CoolKabe wrote:

...and that there's an !HOUR LONG BATTLE SCENE! makes me 'water at the mouth.' biggrin
Just to say something! WARNING! Spoilers!
















The battle scene is about two hours long... biggrin

Last edited Sat, 20th Dec 2003, 4:56pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 20th Dec 2003, 10:13am

Post 51 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Ice_Man wrote:

TMM wrote:

that fact that he is so passionate about the book . . . . also, his crew of Barry Osbourne, Fran Walsh, all the actors, all the people at WETA Workshop, are so passionate about the book, and the story (some only from becoming passionate about it after being cast, or joining the crew)
yeah, you'd be 'passionate' about it if you were being paid what they were, too. 'passion' doesn't even enter into it. it's money. Say what you will about how many times what crew members read the books. if they weren't being paid, they never would have done it.
Hehehehe. Of course they wouldn't! At least, they'd have been incredibly stupid to do so.

People work for money. If they don't get money, they starve and live on the streets.

However, just because you're working for money doesn't also mean you can't have a passion for what you're doing. It's when the work and passion collide - that's when you get something special.

If you want to take it to the basest reason, I work here at CSB for money - otherwise I wouldn't be able to afford to live where I do or feed myself. But my main motivation for working specifically here is a passion for what we do. Same goes for Jackson & co. And if you can't see that, then your cyncicism must have reached astonishing heights. smile
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 7:35pm

Post 52 of 147

anonymous

totally understandable. but it seems to me that people give too much credit just because these people say they like the books.
I like the book Shogun. That doesn't mean that I could adapt it to movie better than someone else could.

But perhaps I'm just not explaining my stance well enough. perhaps I can't explain it well enough. I just know that somewhere down the line, I started thinking of the Lord of the Rings movies as less of a grand epic series, and more of a stuffy, over-acted, middle of the road trilogy. I think they're all right , I don't think they're great, or any of them to be best movie of whatever year they come out in
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 7:42pm

Post 53 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

They didn't just LIKE the books, they love them! And, I do believe that is a key factor. You can't make anything great, if you think it's a big pile of rubbish! I mean, if Peter Jackson hated the books, and decided to make the films, then they would have turned out rubbish, because he wouldn't have been overly fussed about it, he'd just want to make money...

But here, they are getting paid to do something they love - like Tarn said about how he works - they are doing something they love, and the fact they are getting paid is a bonus, so they can actually eat, and drink, and live!

TMM twisted
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 7:44pm

Post 54 of 147

anonymous

my apologies. loved the books. I did, in fact, love Shogun, so I still like my analogy.
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 7:48pm

Post 55 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

then, if you had a decent budget, and a crew of people who also loved it, you could probably pull off an amazing screen adaptation of it razz

when you love something like that, you don't give up until it is perfect - they refilmed scene after scene after scene until they got them as good as they could...

TMM twisted
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 8:27pm

Post 56 of 147

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I read the hobbit when i was about 9 or 10, in fact i may have read lotr as well, but in the intervening 14 years, i've totally forgotten it.

As a result, only one scene from any of the 3 films reminded me of anything i'd read, and so for me watching these films was nothing to do with the books, or getting it the same, or whatever. It was just 3 films based on books. coincidence.

I give the films credit because they awed me to a level that i never thought a film could possibly attain. In Rotk alone, there were numerous occasions where tears filled my eyes in awe, fear and hapiness - at the scale, the depth, the emotion. I had an overwhelming experience, in the most literal sense. When taken in context of the first 2 films, this experience has only served to solidify my feeling that the lotr trilogy is a masterpiece.

Having said that, they do contain errors. But what films don't? none, thats what!

There were several occasions in Rotk where i thought "meh", such as the poor grading and compositing during the ride of the rohiren, and the suspect repeated troop patterns during some of the more zoomed out shots of the main battle...

...but frankly i don't give a sh*t as the rest of the film eclipsed it's own errors!

There were also numerous occasions of cheese - those who mentionned this aren't wrong. But again i feel the cheese was largely put in places where so much was hapenning, only the most pedantic would have dwelt on the cheese, in the midst of such awesome surrounding material.

For example Legolas's slide down the olephant's (sp) trunk....it was cheesy, i don't deny it - but by that point in the battle the audience was drooling with hype. Legolas could have slid off, said "i'll be back", put on a bad 80s suit, a kipper tie and boogied on down to teeny pop...and it would STILL have been cool!

Even the humor was dealt with well. 3 hours is a long time to go without a laugh - humor was essential. I can only remember 3 bits of humor but they were well placed and genuinely funny.

Rotk, and the previous two, were the kind of film which i have sorely missed over the last decade of action wank made by most of the other studios.
Did anyone else think it was odd that it was only a 12? with that much shock and gruesome detail? How many kiddy films are you likely to see a horse get stamped on by a huge behemoth, or see a character stabbed straight in the face by a broad sword? None thats how many. PJ and his team have done spectacular job of balancing the content.

The only example films i can compare this brutality with, off the top of my head, is starwars 4-6. Those films were aimed -roughly- at the younger generation: but these films contain things like hapless troops being throttled, having their necks broken, men being executed for making mistakes, a son whos father was so evil that he was split from him at birth, culimating in the powerful hatred-fueled slashing of luke at vader, beating his own father to the ground, and about to execute him at point blank range.

Then look at episodes 1 and 2....candied, desensitised, sterile battles. Comedy characters that served no purpose, and actually insulted me with their, banal, pathetic idiocy.

Lotr resurrected an art i had long since suspected was dead - making films which whilst appealing to the younger generation, and accessible to the younger generation, didn't hold back on the things which make film powerful - brutal reality.

Futhermore i can't rightly remember seeing a film that had such beautiful character touches. Gollum, falling towards the lava with a cute, pitiful, but highly moving childlike rapture on his face as his plunges to his agonising death, but blissfully unconcerned. Or the worrying, semi-senile ramblings of bilbo at the end of Rotk...still pining after his ring, wanting one final touch.

Taking all 3 as a whole, i can't say i have ever seen a better "film" in my life. Given the dictionary def'n of "epic", Gladiator just isn't epic at all. It is better in size, depth, lenght, quality and detail by lotr in every single way. I love Gladiator, but its simply not an epic - sorry, not in any sense of the word, not in comparison to lotr.
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 8:46pm

Post 57 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

from dictionary.com

"...celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero."

maximus was the hero, relenquishing commodus' evil throne over Rome and for the injustice he caused to maximus' family - so, but definition, Gladiator actually is an epic wink

or

"Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size"

Gladiator did this VERY well and I am astounded at the final result (lotr had great effort - but i feel the final result was lacking)

there's more definition that can back up Gladiator as being epic (and lotr - i just think lotr failed at being a great epic - it's just fneh)
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 8:55pm

Post 58 of 147

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Well its each to their own at the end of the day i guess. Gladiator did have big battles, but lotr's were many many times the size to my mind. Thats certainly one area where one of the many definitions of "epic" favors lotr.
Anyhoo, i'm not gonna argue such a trivial point.
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 11:06pm

Post 59 of 147

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Wow everyone has very mixed opinions

Personally i think lotr (all of them) are awesome - it was not done just to make some money (for example : shot in TTT - golum in the river trying to get the fish - they wanted to film it in that spot but it was covered in sno - someone who didn't care would move somewhere else that wasn't 100% what they wanted - but PJ said "melt it" and then like 5 hours later they filmed it.)

I think they are if not the - then one of the best trilogies made

-MAGIC
Posted: Sun, 21st Dec 2003, 11:07pm

Post 60 of 147

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

precisely that, Xcession, to each his own.
I've never read the LoTR trilogy, so that doesn't even enter into it. looking at them purely as movies, and not as movies based on best-seller novels, they didn't 'jump out' at me as much as they seemed to have the rest of you.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 12:59am

Post 61 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

And they didn't "jump out" at me either, and I'm a great fan of the novel and have also read it a few times.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 10:08am

Post 62 of 147

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The Lord of the rings trilogy DID stood out. That is a simple fact.
It has exceeded all limits of a normal film in length, size, epicness, work...

If you didn't enjoy it, thats a completely other bag. But saying the films didn't jump out is simply wrong.


To me personally, the LotR trilogy is among the best films ever - though far from perfect. I'm not saying it is the best thing ever, cause for my personal taste, it isn't. I still have Sleepy Hollow in that honor. And this year, I must say I'd chose Pirates of the Caribbean as my favorite film and not Return of the King, wich was great too, but currently my least favorite of the three.

As a whole though, the Lord of the rings trilogy is filmmaking at it's finest, not perfect, but CLEARLY standing out of almost every film that has ever been made yet.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 2:52pm

Post 63 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

FOOL OF A TOOK!

How can you say that the trilogy, individually or as a whole hasn't stood out? Even if you don't like the story, or the screen adaptation of the films, you can't deny it brings a new level to the big screen! The attention to detail, the expanse of characters, the length, the 'epic'ness, everything about it is more advanced or greater than everyother film in the film making side! I personally hold the trilogy as my favorite films ever, but, that's just my opinion, others may not agree, but on the film making side, surely you can see it has 'stood out'!

TMM twisted
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 3:01pm

Post 64 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

Rating: -1

Apart from when somone asked if any Matrix fan films exist on the net, that's the funniest thing I've seen for a long time biggrin

How can they NOT stand out, and don't give us any crap mixing "jump out" and "stand out" biggrin
I hated the first two LOTR films, I thought they were boring. But the trilogy certainly stands out. I won't repeat what TMM just said, but that is a stupid comment biggrin I suppose it is your opinion...
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 4:12pm

Post 65 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar: nothing is ever simple fact - lotr stood out because of the nature of the films (its a first in cinema) - the attention it would get was a given from day one just for attempting to create the films. It's a massive undertaking and i appluade PJ for trying it.

On the technical side of things, TMM, there have been better films in most of those categories (the only thing i'd say is that in size of production, lotr excels). The attention to detail: mixed. Some parts were very good and everythign was looked after, others were very poor. The length: wow, a very long movie. you seem to be easily impressed (and lotr aren't the longest films ever made). On the filmmaking side, a lot of great effort and work has been put in and I don't deny that - its just that it seems the wrong people were chosen for the job. Sure, maybe for them it's the best they could have pulled off, but i doubt its better than anyone else would have been able to. One example of poor filmmaking is the orcs: they look awful because i can literaly see just actors in costumes. The casting for the extras is horrendous and the makeup is quite poorly done.

The one thing I loved about lotr is the framing and shot composition. For the most part, it was great and fellowship remains one of my fav films for framing. its beautiful.

To me, lotr stands out because of its production value, not because of the filmmaking. never has.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 4:26pm

Post 66 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Cypher wrote:

On the technical side of things, TMM, there have been better films in most of those categories (the only thing i'd say is that in size of production, lotr excels). The attention to detail: mixed. Some parts were very good and everythign was looked after, others were very poor. The length: wow, a very long movie. you seem to be easily impressed (and lotr aren't the longest films ever made). On the filmmaking side, a lot of great effort and work has been put in and I don't deny that - its just that it seems the wrong people were chosen for the job. Sure, maybe for them it's the best they could have pulled off, but i doubt its better than anyone else would have been able to. One example of poor filmmaking is the orcs: they look awful because i can literaly see just actors in costumes. The casting for the extras is horrendous and the makeup is quite poorly done.
Ok, not the longest films ever, but we are MOSTLY comparing them to films that have come out alongside, i can't think of any films that are longer - maybe equal but not longer - they have amazing attention to detail, ok, a few mistakes here and there - but what film doesn't have the odd over looked mistake? i believe the right people were chosen - it's the best screen adaptation we would have/will ever have...

The make-up poorly done? have u watched the films? the orcs, uruk-hai and goblins are brilliant, the only thing about them that is flawed, is your knowledge that there aren't real, you can't see the actors in them at all, they are amazing! maybe someone doesn't have an imagination...

You are clearly quite mad to not think LOTR stands out for it's film making, quite mad!

TMM twisted
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 4:36pm

Post 67 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You are clearly quite mad to try and uphold them so well!

And YOU DON'T KNOW that it's the "best screen adaptation we would have/ill ever have"! Nobody does! For one, I think a MUCH BETTER job could be done by others, so therefore, it automatically can't be the best that can be done.

Yes, i have watched the films, all three (including the extended editions of the first two) and i say with confidence that the wrong people were chosen for the makeup of the orcs. They look like costumes, not characters! That's a problem all in itself! And saying that the flaw of me knowing that they are costumes has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I KNOW that Gollum isn't real, yet my suspension of disbelief was held very firmly for most of the scenes that gollum was in - and for non with the orcs.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 4:38pm

Post 68 of 147

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

nothing is ever simple fact
That sentence is a simple fact for example. But a wrong one. smile

When you take average values from all movies ever made, LotR is FAAAAAAAR beyond. That IS simple fact. I´m not saying it is the only one or the highest, but it is among very few.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 4:43pm

Post 69 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

That sentence is a simple fact for example. But a wrong one. smile
EXACTLY! so it just confirms that nothing is ever simple fact. That's the whole point of the sentence.

And average values of what? budget, cast/crew, gross - what? for budget: it's not. its about $300 mil for all three, so $100 mil for one - even Waterworld broke that record YEARS ago. cast/crew: quite possibly. gross: that still belongs to Titanic and will for a very long time (and you cannot combine the three movies for the gross). so again, what values?
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 5:05pm

Post 70 of 147

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Alright, here we go:

I said AMONG the highest. So if SOME films are higher or not is totally unimportant. Thats the difference of "AMONG the highest" and "the highest". I could draw you a picture if you like... smile

What values? For example:

Running Time
Three Films telling ONE story, not three. The number of films doing that are pretty few.
One of thise films running for around 200 mins. The number of films doing that are pretty few.

Number of FX shots
Every single of the film has a number of complex FX shots WAY above the averade. The number of films having that are pretty few.

Number of Crew
The amout of crewmembers working on this is faaaar over average. The number of films having that are pretty few.
Most of the crew has worked for 6 to 7 years alltogether. The number of films doing that are pretty few.

Financial gross
All three films are among the 10 most successful films ever internationally. The number of films doing that are pretty few.

critical success
Despite little Cypher not liking the films, it had a huge impact on the filmword. The number of films doing that are pretty few.


So, I know you make it a hobby disagreing, but saying these film didn´t jump out from the mass is simpley - WRONG. wink

And again, I have nothing against when you say you didn´t like it or brabble about the bad looking orcs, cause thats a matter of taste and I won´t argue about that. Don´t like the films, I won´t have a sleepless night because of that. But the films DO jump out of the mass, for many reasons.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 6:32pm

Post 71 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

there you go: you just proved that the main reason the films "jump out" is because of their size. All of the reasons you stated are size over substance. If anyone else had tried this undertaking, i gaurentee you that you would have seen a similar reaction from the movie-going audience. It's just one of those things. Example: Episode III may suck royally, but it will still make stupid amounts of movie. Same with Spiderman 2 and I'd even say Shrek 2. It's a given, and lotr falls into the same category.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 6:38pm

Post 72 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Cypher - the fact that you think any part of LOTR is "very poor" is quite shocking. Sure there are some cheesy bits and some bits that have slightly odd pacing but there is nothing very poor, not for a second.

Even if you don't like LOTR you have to see that it is one of the greatest technical achievements in film ever.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 6:51pm

Post 73 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

With the money it took to make the trilogy, all the starving kids in the third world countries could have been fed for 10 years...

Think of the poor kids confused

Cypher, I do like you, but you're standing on an oil rig thats about to collapse because a shark ate its supports...
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 9:16pm

Post 74 of 147

anonymous

an oil rig with shark-eaten supports? surely that's not the best the intellectual giants that are LoTR followers can come up with?

I'm actually rather surprised at the response Cypher has gotten from all of you. it seems somehow out of character for most of you.

sollthar - 3 films telling ONE story. I can name you 20 films that all tell the tale of the exploits of a single man.

If I may turn your collective attentions to the *ahem* unusual 1984 release of Dune. Huge production, large budget (for the time), enourmous cast, tons of effects shots (for the time), made by group of people fanatical to the book of the same name.
I do believe that that film covers all of sollthar's points about LoTR (well, except for gross, but that's why it was an unusual release)

another bit that comes to mind, is the 2000 re-make of Dune for the sci fi channel. a FOUR HOUR LONG movie that was aired in 2 parts. Dune was followed by ANOTHER FOUR HOUR MOVIE that comprised the sequels, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune.
production values for the recent remakes weren't quite as high as the '84 version, but since this is all about lenght, that makes them the bitchinest damn movies we've ever seen, right? can I get a 'shout out'?
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 9:21pm

Post 75 of 147

anonymous

oh, and re-reading sollthar's post reminded me -

sollthar wrote:

So, I know you make it a hobby disagreing, but saying these film didn´t jump out from the mass is simpley - WRONG.
who the hell are you to tell him what he thinks? he can think whatever he likes about these films, and you have no right to tell him he is WRONG. you can disagree to your little swiss heart's content, but that doesn't make him wrong.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 9:26pm

Post 76 of 147

anonymous

I mean, I do seem to recall him saying that they didn't jump out at HIM, right? effectively making it his personal opinion, yes? let's check back and see -

Cypher wrote:


And they didn't "jump out" at me either
yep, I thought so.
now, if he had said -

bizarro Cypher wrote:


And they didn't "jump out" at the entire film community either. in fact, they sucked, nobody liked them, and the few who did are all retards
then, perhaps, I'd have let it slide. . . . . I dunno. maybe it's just my arrogant american-ness peeking through the polished veneer that is the Ice_Man, but I don't particularly like it when I'm told how I should feel. . .
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 11:06pm

Post 77 of 147

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Can't we just all be friends?! ...where would be the fun in that though?
Posted: Mon, 22nd Dec 2003, 11:26pm

Post 78 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

an oil rig with shark-eaten supports? surely that's not the best the intellectual giants that are LoTR followers can come up with?
Actually, I was kinda pleased with that biggrin
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 4:54am

Post 79 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

This is a dead topic that wont end. too many of sollthars points to rebut, but why bother. none of us will change our minds. I love fellowship, hate two towers and like most of return of the king - so i'm not just stating things from a very biased point of view. You guys seem to be because you're so engrossed with the films. Just because you think its the greatest, doesn't mean that any negative thing has to be wrong - i'm saying this from an objective point of view, you guys seem to be saying it from a very subjective point of view. (ie, schwar saying its one of the greatest technical achievements in film ever - i strongly disagree. i'd say its one of the greatest technical ATTEMPTS in film, but not an achievement, even if it does get critical success...remember, the majority isn't always right).
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 10:01am

Post 80 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Then you are wrong Cypher. Fact is that even if you think it could have been done better nothing of this scale has been achieved before. LOTR has moved film production on to a totally new level and if you can't see that then you are blind, and wrong. wink
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 12:41pm

Post 81 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I thought the orc make-up was some of the best I've ever seen. smile

Which just goes to show, everyone has varying opinions. It's just that some are more wrong than others. wink

Anyway, I agree with Xcession.
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 2:14pm

Post 82 of 147

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

you just proved that the main reason the films "jump out" is because of their size. All of the reasons you stated are size over substance. If anyone else had tried this undertaking, i gaurentee you that you would have seen a similar reaction from the movie-going audience.
Yeah, you're right. Besides, I'd love to see other directors making the trilogy as well. Cause I agree with you there. Allthough I think PJ made a great job, I'm pretty sure others would have made a better job. Allthough I couldn't really put my finger on who. smile

It's just one of those things. Example: Episode III may suck royally, but it will still make stupid amounts of movie. Same with Spiderman 2 and I'd even say Shrek 2. It's a given, and lotr falls into the same category.
Yeah, again I wasn't arguing with you about the fact you dislike the films Cypher. I never said you should like them. All I said was, that the films stand out from the mass by far. I wasn't talking about anything of taste.

3 films telling ONE story. I can name you 20 films that all tell the tale of the exploits of a single man.
Is that REALLY that complicated? Even if you could name 1000, it would still be a small amount compared to all the films ever made. That was all I said. crazy

I didn't say Cypher is wrong with not liking the films or thinking they were poor, thats his problem and I wouldn't dare to tell him his wrong, just because I disagree - cause THAT is a matter of taste, not fact. But I was talking about facts, numbers. Thats no matter of taste.

And a few posts back, Cypher disagreed with what I said:

And average values of what? budget, cast/crew, gross - what? for budget: it's not. its about $300 mil for all three, so $100 mil for one - even Waterworld broke that record YEARS ago. cast/crew: quite possibly. gross: that still belongs to Titanic and will for a very long time (and you cannot combine the three movies for the gross). so again, what values?
You see the word "average" in there? My point was, LotR stands out with very FEW film (not NO film, see the difference?)

I didn't say more than that and therefore can't really understand your offensive attitude Iceman - besides the fact I wasn't talking to you but to Cypher. He's old enough to make his point alone I'd say. wink

he can think whatever he likes about these films, and you have no right to tell him he is WRONG
He can think whatever he wants. You can think what you want. I can think what I want.
Yet I never have a problem telling people when I think they're wrong. If you don't like that, I'm terribly sorry. er... no, scratch that. I'm not. confused
(not sorr about telling people when I think they're wrong. But I am sorry if you have a problem with me, cause you know I respect you. But I won't remain quiet and say nothing just because of that)

I respect peoples opinions, always have and always will. But not all is a matter of opinion. And in the point I tried to make, it's not about opinion.

Last edited Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 2:36pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 2:31pm

Post 83 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

i'd say its one of the greatest technical ATTEMPTS in film, but not an achievement, even if it does get critical success...remember, the majority isn't always right.
True the majority are not always right, but you have to draw the line somewhere and this is how I draw the line. Some things are a matter of taste, some things are a matter of fact and some are educated taste.

Fact comes first, then educated taste then just regular taste. If you don't like something thats up to you, but you can not state that something is "bad" or "poor" and put it down to taste - thats just weak.

If there are people who are more educated in that area, or the facts prove otherwise, personal taste is somewhat irrelevant in a discussion like this.

This was the view I was taught when I studied art history and its the view point of the art world in general - the most pointless appraisal of an object is a highly personal one. I translate this view point directly to film as an art form.

For instance, I didn't like Kill Bill that much but I respect lots of the craft that when it to making the film. The same is true of LOTR, I have not liked parts of it (The Two Towers) and some scenes don't work as well as I would like but I do see that from a technical and production point-of-view it is beyond anything that has come before and, because of the financial risks involved, maybe anything that will come after. For these reasons I respect the film even when I don't like it.

In conclusion, to say you don't like a LOTR is fine, thats personal taste, but to say the film is bad just appears ignorant because at just a technical filmmaking level it excels in so many ways and thats before you get to anything else.[/quote]
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 4:43pm

Post 84 of 147

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

NO FILM can be perfect for everyone...
We're not a load of identical robots programmed to dislike or enjoy certain films. That's why I respect ALL of your views, for and against LOTR, they are all articulate and interesting. I'll leave you now to continue the debate biggrin
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 6:23pm

Post 85 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

...at just a technical filmmaking level it excels in so many ways and thats before you get to anything else.
The thing is, I strongly disagree that LOTR excells in many technical ways. Sure, Gollum is some of the greatest CG i've seen and the landscapes are beautiful - but that's about it. I can't attribute any other aspect to LOTR that sets it above other films.

schwar wrote:

LOTR has moved film production on to a totally new level and if you can't see that then you are blind, and wrong.
I don't dispute that it has influenced film - of course it has. But the thing is that people got so entrenched with the good aspects (what they consider good) so far in, that they fail to see anything disputing their own opinions of the films. Sollthar, i'll say it again: i dont hate LOTR. I love fellowship, really dislike two towers and like return lots. I'm in the middle ground where i see the pros and cons of the movie and i can safely say that my observations come from a neutral point of view. I have no reason to praise LOTR, nor to condemn.
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 6:49pm

Post 86 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

schwar wrote:

This was the view I was taught when I studied art history and its the view point of the art world in general - the most pointless appraisal of an object is a highly personal one. I translate this view point directly to film as an art form.
That's fine for when dealing with things on a critical, technical and academic level. Which is, of course, a very important level. That's what this particular discussion is involved with - a more academic, analytic appraisal of LotR, rather than a more subjective examination.

However, I'd just like to make my case for the personal appraisal, which I would say anything but 'pointless'. Sure, it might be pointless as far as other people are concerned, and it might not mean much in the grand scheme of things or the history books, but my own personal appraisal is of vital importance to one person - me.

Analysing films from a more objective viewpoint is something I do a good long while after I leave the cinema, and is separate from the first-time viewing experience. And it is the viewing experience itself that informs how a film speaks to me.

Everyone has a favourite artform, that appeals to them for whatever arbitrary and indescrible reasons. Mine is film...I just kinda love film, beyond just the simple 'going to the cinema' aspect. Film is what I'd live and breathe, if I had half the chance.

I consider Finding Nemo and Return of the King to be amongst the best films of the year, from an academic standpoint. But they are among my favourite films for a very different reason - the very personal, very unique feelings they gave me whilst watching. It's those little moments of magic, when you know you're experiencing something in a way that nobody else in the cinema is, not in quite the same way.

It's the feelings that are impossible to articulate that make films special for me. I can't really describe why films like Fight Club, LotR, Donnie Darko etc are important to me. After all, they're 'only' films. Perhaps it's because they speak to parts of me that are usually neglected.

In amongst all this in-depth discussion of the merits of these films, and the technical achievements (or otherwise), I just like to pause occasionally and remember the important thing: my personal, uneducated, raw reaction - set apart from any critical, measured appraisal, which comes later and comes a distinct second place.
Posted: Tue, 23rd Dec 2003, 8:03pm

Post 87 of 147

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Hmm. raw reaction. Its a bit a of fuzzy line really isn't it?

My raw reaction to almost any film is that it is good. I've only seen one film in the last 2 or 3 years which caused a raw reaction of anything other than "omfg! that was sweet". That was The Core, which was conceivably the worst piece of cinema i have ever seen. But thats a different story.

The point is, if i have been entertained by a film, my raw reaction is - bar The Core - always one of hapiness, to a greater or lesser extent. Being entertained, however, is totaly different from a good film, (not that i need to explaing that to my esteemed peers razz).
Starwars Episode 1 entertained me immensely...because it was the first starwars film i'd seen in a cinema, since 13 years before my birth razz that didn't make it good tho, in fact huge swaths of episode one anger me immensely.

What this current disussion is lacking, is any sort of boundary definitions. We're approaching it from evidentally quite different angles, some taking a personal appraisal approach, others a more professional reviewer approach, and others just a raw reaction.

As a result i can't help thinking the discussion is stagnating under its own vagueness. You're not comparing like with like.
Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 3:26am

Post 88 of 147

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

sollthar - maybe it's just one my little quirks, but if you had just said, "I disagree with you" instead of phrasing it "you are wrong", I wouldn't have blinked an eye. I totally respect that you think what you wish, and you have the complete right to think I'm wrong, that doesn't mean I am. Nor does it mean you are. I's like zen. It just is. but eh, bygones.

I didn't feel that LoTR was that ground breaking. Obviously it was, but that doesn't change the way I think about it. It rather serves to confuse me as to why.
Now, before any of you gents try to 'explain it' to me, let me assure, that I'm completely content to sit and ponder why a second rate movie is achieving so much acclaim. biggrin razz

TAP2 - it was mildly amusing (it brought a smile to my face) but at the same time, I was like "What in the hell. . . .?" razz


as for movie enjoyment - I'm looking forward to Hellboy with Ron Perlman; and Troy with too many cool people to name here.
Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 3:49am

Post 89 of 147

AndrewtheActorMan

Force: 1859 | Joined: 31st May 2003 | Posts: 1477

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Just thought this was crazy - our new theatre teacher at our school says that film isnt an art... made me wanna strangle him even more than i did in the first place..heh

Last edited Sun, 4th Jan 2004, 2:48am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 4:03am

Post 90 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

well anything these days can be considered art - so there's no point arguing. One man's garbage is another man's prize (or somethign along those lines). You're teacher isn't really teaching if they're flat out saying its not art. maybe to them its not, but myself and i'm quite sure Tarn, schwar, Sollthar see it as art.
Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 4:13am

Post 91 of 147

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

AndrewtheActorMan wrote:

Just thought this was crazy - our new theatre teacher at our school says that film isnt an art... made me wanna strangle him even more than i did in the first place..heh
Filming is an artform, just alike making a videogame is an artform (although I would consider most pieces a terrible drawing done by a 3 year old with very few fingers). Infact, most things, including scriptwritting etc.. is what I'd consider an artform.

Heh, ask him why he doesnt think its an artform. Then ask him to define art. I'm sure his answer with be selfcontradictory smile
Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 5:52am

Post 92 of 147

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

er-no : mushroom, MUSHROOM! AAGH snake, it's a snake! oh, it's a snake. . . . .
Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 9:05am

Post 93 of 147

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Not the badger song! NOT THE BADGER SONG! *sollthars head explodes*

What an odd teacher... crazy
Posted: Wed, 24th Dec 2003, 4:54pm

Post 94 of 147

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Filming is not an art form, but the end product - a film - can be art. Most of the jobs involved with a film are crafts but these crafts can come together to create a piece of art. Just like making a piece of architecture, there are hundreds of crafts that are involved to create the final object.

well anything these days can be considered art - so there's no point arguing. One man's garbage is another man's prize (or somethign along those lines).
That only true if you go by personal taste which doesn't make it art, just makes it attractive/interesting to you personally. The problem with a film seems to be that although it can be a work of art, who is the artist? The people that makes the models? The people that make the CG? The scriptwriter? The director?

I think with film its difficult to work out who the artist really is, it depends whos vision is coming to life and this is something the audience often isn't told.

This is all getting a little too much like being at university where we were constantly trying to answer "What is Art?" .... lets not go there biggrin
Posted: Thu, 25th Dec 2003, 6:00pm

Post 95 of 147

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

hehehehe
I try, Marco. I try.
Posted: Thu, 1st Jan 2004, 9:55pm

Post 96 of 147

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This may have been talked about already but I didnt feel like reading threw all, what 7?? 8?? pages of this forum topic. But did any1 else pick up on the scar on frodos cheek that keep moving from left cheek to right cheek ect...? It was when he was climbing the volcano w/ sam at the end. It switched sides like 5 times. And no there werent just 2 scars and 1 just on both sides of his cheek. They would have one shot where there was no scar on the left cheek and 1 scar on the right. Then they would cut and the next scene the scar is on his left and no scar on his right. Not really a big deal, I was j/w if any1 else picked up on it.
Posted: Thu, 1st Jan 2004, 10:00pm

Post 97 of 147

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

shhhh....anymore of that and Middle Earth will be no more

Canta ;/
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jan 2004, 3:18am

Post 98 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

There are LOTS of mistakes in all of the LOTR movies - but what can you expect? It's a huge project. Two funny ones that I noticed is that Gollum made the breadcrumbs "magically" appear on Sam only when he shook them off. And near the begining, you see some dude's (i think it was Faramir's) sword bend about 30 degrees. It's quite noticeable. No wonder they lost the fort, using rubber swords and all lol
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jan 2004, 3:54am

Post 99 of 147

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Everyone knows that Gollum can command bread crumbs at will...and Faramir had a sword that was made out of a super Middle Earth alloy...but none of you cynics would know anything about that now would you??? wink

Canta unsure
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jan 2004, 3:55am

Post 100 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Ohhhh - that would explain the poopyness of the events in question. Ok, got it biggrin
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jan 2004, 11:31am

Post 101 of 147

callum_slade

Force: 279 | Joined: 22nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 150

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Good review tarn plus the film iw wickid....



+1
Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2004, 2:56pm

Post 102 of 147

c R a Z y

Force: 41 | Joined: 30th Dec 2003 | Posts: 51

Windows User

Member

I have watched it now 3 times....., and I enjoyed watch it every time....,
Just wanna ask, how many times u guys have watched it???


--------------------- c R a Z y ---------------------------
Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2004, 8:23pm

Post 103 of 147

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

only once, but i wouldnt mind watchin it many more times.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2004, 10:11pm

Post 104 of 147

Serdar3500

Force: 865 | Joined: 4th Mar 2003 | Posts: 408

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I just watched it the second time, but left right after the Harad were driven off. Why? Because I went just to see the Harad. They are my heros, lol.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2004, 10:31pm

Post 105 of 147

AndrewtheActorMan

Force: 1859 | Joined: 31st May 2003 | Posts: 1477

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I know no one cares about the wierd theatre teacher who says film isnt art - but...

I didnt ask him, but i am almost 100% positive he/she said what he/she said out of opinion. Being a stuck-up know-it-all "famous" theatre teacher. ( he/she said he/she was famous and known well in his field, so then we asked him/her why he/she was teaching middle school theatre in a city rarely spoke of - he/she had came out of teaching college...yeah... from college to a middle school..hehe. He/She actually won an Award for directing, we never hear the end of that. We had never heard of this award he/she had since when he/she came, and being intelligent [not trying to brag] students, we looked around and there is absoulutly no good information on this award on the net...)

Anyway, he/she *LOVES* to disagree with you. If i said to him/her that Film wasnt an art, he/she would say it was and vis-versa.

Sollthar wrote:

What an odd teacher... crazy
haha...i agree totally, and so does all of his students (and i mean ALL*) and most of their parents*...hehehe

Andrew biggrin
PS: I wont mention the award due to the fact that he/she might be one of you (or looking at this post) and weather he/she is a, well...he or she!

then i would be dead...


EDIT:: To end the Filming/Film conflict, he meant like FILM - a movie. Like say LOTR. He said that it wasnt an art, but theatre was... Theatre is an art, but film is too


*-Not based on a true survay, but i havent ran into him who loved him, and didnt dislike him/her in some way
Posted: Sun, 4th Jan 2004, 2:57am

Post 106 of 147

Serdar3500

Force: 865 | Joined: 4th Mar 2003 | Posts: 408

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

That was a rather confusing post, lol.
Posted: Sun, 4th Jan 2004, 4:56am

Post 107 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Andrew, I would have given you a -1 for that he/she stuff since it was VERY annoying - but the post was informative.
Posted: Sun, 4th Jan 2004, 11:45pm

Post 108 of 147

Robstro

Force: 400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2003 | Posts: 21

Gold Member

AndrewtheActorMan wrote:

haha...i agree totally, and so does all of his students (and i mean ALL*) and most of their parents*...hehehe

Andrew biggrin
PS: I wont mention the award due to the fact that he/she might be one of you (or looking at this post) and weather he/she is a, well...he or she!

then i would be dead...
You missed out a /she. I guess that means it is a guy. How utterly exciting.
Posted: Mon, 5th Jan 2004, 2:04am

Post 109 of 147

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Busted........
Posted: Sat, 17th Jan 2004, 7:52pm

Post 110 of 147

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

Only just gotten around to seeing it (waited for a possible time to see it with my parents).

No film ever made before and possibly ever made in the future will be able to compare to the LOTR epic. Not but for trying, but there just isn't a story that can even run parallel to Lord of the Rings.

Best. Film. Ever.
Posted: Sat, 17th Jan 2004, 8:46pm

Post 111 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-1

er-no wrote:

...ever made in the future will be able to compare to the LOTR epic.
Sorry er-no, but for that comment - you must be an idiot. NO ONE (not even my great self) can say that about any movie.

er-no wrote:

Best. Film. Ever
Nope. Not. Even. Close

wink
Posted: Sun, 18th Jan 2004, 12:54am

Post 112 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-1

Cypher...

er-no wrote:

...possibly ever made in the future will be able to compare to the LOTR epic.
TMM twisted
Posted: Sun, 18th Jan 2004, 4:54am

Post 113 of 147

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

That judgement as well, canNOT be made.
Posted: Sun, 18th Jan 2004, 9:46am

Post 114 of 147

Serdar3500

Force: 865 | Joined: 4th Mar 2003 | Posts: 408

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

The guy is expressing his love for the trilogy, and rightfully so. No need to bag on him and give -1's here and there. I myself love the trilogy more so than anything I've ever seen, and I don't believe anything will come close to it.

I thought Braveheart was great because of the battle. Then there was The Mummy Returns with the Arab army versus the army of Anubis which I loved even more because it threw in fantasy. And then there was Two Towers with the epic Helms Deep and the Uruk-Hai. Now comes Return of the King with the Nazgul attacks on Minas Tirith, the dead army, magic on behalf of Gandalf, and the Haradrim with the Mumakil. Massive armies of fantasy. What other movie will you find these elements?
Posted: Sun, 18th Jan 2004, 1:45pm

Post 115 of 147

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

Cypher wrote:

That judgement as well, canNOT be made.
Actually. It can be made. See, look! I made it.

Cypher, sometimes your posts are muffled. Remove your head from your ego and read posts properly before rating down, or worse... disagreeing with someone's personal point of view.
Posted: Sun, 18th Jan 2004, 1:51pm

Post 116 of 147

TMM

Force: 2288 | Joined: 10th Dec 2001 | Posts: 1241

Windows User

Gold Member

Cypher wrote:

That judgement as well, canNOT be made.
I agree that if he didn't include the word "POSSIBLY" that it cannot be made, as no one knows the future will hold. But the fact that he said possibly, and it's his OWN opinion (not urs, not mine) then it is a very valid point...

in his opinion, there will POSSIBLY never be anything to surpass lotr, from speaking to him i know it's because he personally likes the style, the story, lots of things to do with the films, not just what other say or anything like that. I also believe (in my own personal opinion), film making wise, that it'll be very difficult to surpass lotr on many levels, but, i expect it shall be done in years to come...

TMM twisted
Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2004, 4:03am

Post 117 of 147

FiveIronFrenzy

Force: 464 | Joined: 25th Dec 2003 | Posts: 438

Windows User

Gold Member

I cried (a little) when the Rohan calvary rode into battle!

Ah, a very emotional movie! The best!

frown biggrin
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 1:13am

Post 118 of 147

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Don't.
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 2:16am

Post 119 of 147

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well as you said the award for closing a 5 year old gap goes too...

biggrin Just kidding.
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 3:01am

Post 120 of 147

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This is what I call getting a headstart on the insult train. wink
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 4:11am

Post 121 of 147

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

I wasn't planning on doing it now; even I realize the don'ts of bringing up a storm of old topics. I was going to wait a while before starting it. However, your revival (or whatever you call it) was far more tactless than mine. It didn't even say anything about the movie. I'm not going to give you a -1, but I'm sure that they're coming.
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 6:37am

Post 122 of 147

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The 'tact' in my post is providing sardonic comedy. As in, it's funny in that I fulfilled my own dislike by trying to prevent it.

There was a time when FXHomers would find that funny...
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 10:09am

Post 123 of 147

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You're just kind of being a jerk...
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 10:18am

Post 124 of 147

Mike Q

Force: 1340 | Joined: 20th Jan 2008 | Posts: 255

VisionLab User VideoWrap User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

I thought Ben was being quite funny in getting his post in first, didn't seem nasty or jerk-ish? I would say, however, that ben and Andrew's overall coments, that old threads should remain "old", is completely wrong; like someone mentioned in the matrix thread, just because someone wasn't around the forums when the film came out, that shouldn't stop them contributing on the film now. And you know if they had started a new thread talking about Matrix, they would have had many responses telling them that there is a years-old thread that they could have added to, instead of starting a new one eek.

This really is a great forum in general, but it is ruined slightly by people who only comment on posts to diss other users, either personely, or about what they write, they don't have anything constructive to add to the actual post.

Just realised I haven't added anything to the actual post... biggrin
Posted: Sat, 6th Jun 2009, 11:34am

Post 125 of 147

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

You're just kind of being a jerk...
It's a joke, come on.

If anything, it's a self-deprecating quip against Richard III's predictability which pokes fun at my own predictability to 'call' him on it. It's not like I'm going out and purposefully insulting everything he writes - we have Atom for that! biggrin
Posted: Fri, 12th Jun 2009, 9:17am

Post 126 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Heh, I actually found Ben's post quite amusing, I have to say.

However, the constant back-and-forth between a tiny number of FXhomers is getting rather tedious.

Let's move along, get along, and stop wasting time, eh? smile
Posted: Mon, 13th Jul 2009, 8:54pm

Post 127 of 147

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Let's move along, get along, and stop wasting time, eh? smile
Yeah, good luck with that! wink

Ps. This:

ben3308 wrote:

The 'tact' in my post is providing sardonic comedy. As in, it's funny in that I fulfilled my own dislike by trying to prevent it.
is perhaps the most pretentious quote I've seen on this forum. Further study is required, of course, but it's at least in the top five. Congratulations!
Posted: Wed, 23rd Sep 2009, 1:33am

Post 128 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I did a LOTR marathon once. All extended version (well actually our VHS player broke so all we saw was II, and III.) Still, it was alot.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Sep 2009, 5:51am

Post 129 of 147

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

That is alot.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Sep 2009, 6:29am

Post 130 of 147

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

Wes the fxhome dude wrote:

I did a LOTR marathon once [...] all we saw was II, and III
I can't help but wonder why you started a marathon with the 2nd movie, Mr. The FXhome Dude?
Posted: Wed, 23rd Sep 2009, 9:33am

Post 131 of 147

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Well, starting a marathon at 3 would have been ridiculous!
Posted: Thu, 24th Sep 2009, 12:54am

Post 132 of 147

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ergo, starting at II was the perfectly logical thing to do!
Posted: Fri, 23rd Oct 2009, 3:10pm

Post 133 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The reason we started at #2 was already mentioned. Our VHS player broke (perfect timing) and the fellowship of the ring was on VHS. However, we had II and III on dvd, and our dvd player worked. (we got done at 2:00 in the morning..lol)
Posted: Mon, 23rd Nov 2009, 4:56pm

Post 134 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I can see alot of people are watching this topic.
cmon, quit -rating this post, I was jk....

Last edited Mon, 23rd Nov 2009, 9:30pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 23rd Nov 2009, 8:27pm

Post 135 of 147

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This topic should have died like 5 years ago. Why would you make a sarcastic remark like that?
Posted: Mon, 23rd Nov 2009, 8:57pm

Post 136 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I knew that would get people to post...
And what's the big idea negatively rating my posts?
U can just call nostagalistic (and btw did you give all 4 of those negative ratings)
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 1:44am

Post 137 of 147

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not sure what the original post was since it has been edited but 1 person's account only has the power to give one "-1" per post. So 5 other people must have negged it also.
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 1:47am

Post 138 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Storm Grenade wrote:

I'm not sure what the original post was since it has been edited but 1 person's account only has the power to give one "-1" per post. So 5 other people must have negged it also.
How mean...just a little fun.
The only thing I edited in was this, "cmon, quit -rating this post, I was jk...."
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 1:48am

Post 139 of 147

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

What is it with the people who are new to FXhome that criticize the rest of the community? Look, why would you want people to post in a dead topic? "I knew that would get people to post..." I'm sorry, but that just made you look like an annoying little five year old. What good did that do. You made people post, well congrats, to bad the posts aren't on topic. You sound like an annoying little kid when you do things like that. And what do you mean what is the big idea about the negative ratings? Read your post. Now read it again. Do you hear how that sounds? We do not all come online to appease to what ever topic you want us too. And no, I did not give all those negative ratings. In fact, I didn't give you a single one. You can only rate once per post. You're post was not helpful, it was not on topic, it looks like you posted just to get people to post back, it was just flat out annoying. No one is being mean, they are just annoyed. Think before you post. How will it help the community?
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 1:55am

Post 140 of 147

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Wes the fxhome dude wrote:

How mean...just a little fun.
The only thing I edited in was this, "cmon, quit -rating this post, I was jk...."
I didn't rate you -1. What I mean is that you implied "rockfilmers" did give you a -1 so 5 other people must have also given you a -1 to bring your total to -6. Even though he didn't.

Plus sometimes it is okay to post in an old topic if you have something relevant to post about it. But please do not bump forums like you just did to try and make more people to post. Either add something worthy to the forum or don't post at all. Like Rockfilmers said "How will it help the community?"
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 1:58am

Post 141 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rockfilmers wrote:

What is it with the people who are new to FXhome that criticize the rest of the community? Look, why would you want people to post in a dead topic? "I knew that would get people to post..." I'm sorry, but that just made you look like an annoying little five year old. What good did that do. You made people post, well congrats, to bad the posts aren't on topic. You sound like an annoying little kid when you do things like that. And what do you mean what is the big idea about the negative ratings? Read your post. Now read it again. Do you hear how that sounds? We do not all come online to appease to what ever topic you want us too. And no, I did not give all those negative ratings. In fact, I didn't give you a single one. You can only rate once per post. You're post was not helpful, it was not on topic, it looks like you posted just to get people to post back, it was just flat out annoying. No one is being mean, they are just annoyed. Think before you post. How will it help the community?
*puts out singed hair* well u asked.
For the record I have been here nearly 6 months.
The reason for that post lies in that I was asked multiple questions about my lotr marathon. I posted a relpy and just noted no one replied, which I felt ironic because the topic was still going after closing in on 6 years old and made a comment. No reply easked or expected. For someone browsing 6 year old forums don't get mad at me. Go ahead and look back. It had been dead for nearly 3 years before it's revival by ben3308. Dont tell me his post wasn't off topic...If you choose to take annoyance at my post so be it. And for the record I hate LOTR.
I am sorry for posting in a 6 year old topic. May this be a lesson for me....
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 2:07am

Post 142 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

In fact, ben 3308 said nothing on the movie what so ever was no help to the community. His post didn't meet any of "criteria" u guys mentioned. Yes, my post was off topic, but nobody has to feel like they gotta reply. Just an abservation.
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 2:10am

Post 143 of 147

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Wes the fxhome dude wrote:

In fact, ben 3308 said nothing on the movie what so ever was no help to the community. His post didn't meet any of "criteria" u guys mentioned. Yes, my post was off topic, but nobody has to feel like they gotta reply. Just an abservation.
Thats because he was in the middle of a conversation (I think) and you just bumped it for no real good reason. See look at this:
we aren't talking about LOTR however we are not getting negged because we are on topic about the post you made earlier. Make sense?

EDIT: Plus you explained why you were starting at #2 insetead of #1. You explained it fine however what is one person supposed to say back other than, "Oh okay. That makes sense." confused:
If they don't reply back in over a month. Probabilities are they probably wont.
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 2:16am

Post 144 of 147

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No problem, no harm done.
For the record ben3308 bridged 3 years with his reply.
You choose to reply.
Let's leave it at that
P.S. The reason I posted that was that I thought it was ironic. Kinda like laughing at myself.
That's what I hate about forums, you can never tell when there's sarchasm, humor, or seriosness
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 2:34am

Post 145 of 147

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I guess some people thought that Ben3308 was funny. Just a sense of humor I guess. I didn't however. I don't neg much so I decided not to neg him.
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 3:01am

Post 146 of 147

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Are you guys serious? I commented on this as an in-joke that you apparently didn't 'get', probably because you're all too new to really understand what's going on around here.

This back-and-forth is pointless, please stop it. Ratings come and go, deal with it.
Posted: Tue, 24th Nov 2009, 3:10am

Post 147 of 147

TheOutlawAmbulance

Force: 931 | Joined: 16th Dec 2008 | Posts: 938

EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Sorry I just wanted to make a point across so this doesn't end up on another topic.