|
Post by LegendaryApe on Jun 24, 2024 21:03:23 GMT
Not enough Skrillex
|
|
|
Post by retro74 on Jun 24, 2024 21:09:56 GMT
I quite like The Lord of the Rings movies, they were decent
Less said about those shitty books they were based on though - absolute tripe!
|
|
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jun 24, 2024 21:59:36 GMT
My son after Fellowship of the Ring, looking at the cover. "I loved it, but why were there no girls in the fellowship? Most action films have at least one girl!" Sigh. He's gone all woke. I remember reading some statistic about The Hobbit, where the only female character is Bilbo's mum or something like that. "No, that's not true, there's... no she's from the movie... how about Galadriel no she's from LotR... uhhhhh... hmm"
|
|
|
Post by Nanocrystal on Jun 24, 2024 22:32:01 GMT
Good quality versions of Furiosa are now on Pirate+.
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Jun 24, 2024 22:58:48 GMT
My son after Fellowship of the Ring, looking at the cover. "I loved it, but why were there no girls in the fellowship? Most action films have at least one girl!" Sigh. He's gone all woke. I remember reading some statistic about The Hobbit, where the only female character is Bilbo's mum or something like that. "No, that's not true, there's... no she's from the movie... how about Galadriel no she's from LotR... uhhhhh... hmm" Statistically some of the spiders are probably female. Or maybe the bees.
|
|
Lizard
Junior Member
I love ploughmans
Posts: 4,398
|
Post by Lizard on Jun 25, 2024 0:16:49 GMT
Should probably get around to watchibg/reading the LotR seeing as I live in Hobbit Town.
|
|
Blue_Mike
Full Member
Meet Hanako At Embers
Posts: 5,146
|
Post by Blue_Mike on Jun 25, 2024 0:19:04 GMT
Last time I watched LotR, it seemed like the Treebeard/Ent CGI had aged quite poorly.
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Jun 25, 2024 3:06:07 GMT
Last time I watched LotR, it seemed like the Treebeard/Ent CGI had aged quite poorly. I watched them all in IMAX a few months back, which did show up some of the aged effects a bit more. That said, I'd say the the effects 90% hold up, even in IMAX. I don't remember having any issues with the treebeard cgi. Unfortunately the Ride of the Rohirrim is clearly a bunch of cgi horses and cloaks, and there are a few other big battle scenes where things look clearly cgi. There's also the odd moment where Gollum is starting to look a bit obviously cgi... but overall he still holds up really well. I mean, he was light years ahead of anything else at the time. But the main issue was just some of the compositing of the hobbits. Like the end scene in Gondor where they're surrounded by full-size humans, and they look a lot more clearly composited in than I remember. That said, I still thought they were fantastic (TTT is the weakest, but still good), and even with the cgi-ness, the Ride of the Rohirrim is still one of the most epic scenes in any movie for me. Bernard Hill (RIP) was a boss! There are obviously a few weak points (some of the jokes, some slightly overdone melodrama, deus ex machina ghost army, ninja cgi-legolas) but I actually found that I minded most of those a lot less these days. When I first watched them those bits stood out more as 'sacrilegious alterations to the text!', but nowadays they're at-worst inoffensive, and at best actually improve things in movie form.
|
|
|
Post by ToomuchFluffy on Jun 25, 2024 6:14:55 GMT
There is also a scene with Aragorn in the battle against the Wargs before they reach Helm's Deep. At one moment he rides forward and for some reason his spear can very clearly and easily be seen to not have been thrown, but rather having been shot like from a Ballista. No clue how they managed to leave that in. Not that it is more than a minor niggle.
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Jun 25, 2024 6:22:21 GMT
The wargs were never quite up to the standard of most of the rest of the cgi. I seem to remember it was because they had to really rush them, and they weren't 100% happy with them. Though these days it's the cgi horses that seem a bit more noticeable.
They were really pushing the boundaries of what was possible at the time though, so I think overall it still holds up really well.
|
|
Blue_Mike
Full Member
Meet Hanako At Embers
Posts: 5,146
|
Post by Blue_Mike on Jun 25, 2024 6:27:08 GMT
I think the worst thing that came out of the Peter Jackson films was the Mouth Of Sauron, not because there was anything wrong with the character, but because it seems to have directly inspired the design of The Batman Who Laughs, a character that definitely can fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jun 25, 2024 6:59:44 GMT
The Mouth was played by my boy Bruce Spence. Also the gyrocopter pilot in Mad Max.
|
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 878
|
Post by otto on Jun 25, 2024 7:12:34 GMT
I remember reading some statistic about The Hobbit, where the only female character is Bilbo's mum or something like that. "No, that's not true, there's... no she's from the movie... how about Galadriel no she's from LotR... uhhhhh... hmm" Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Bilbo's cousin and incidentally a comic villain (in the Hobbit at least), the only female in the entire book, I think that's true lol
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Jun 25, 2024 7:15:35 GMT
I was studying animation when the films came (must have only been a couple of years ago right?) out so paid more attention than I would now.
The really impressive thing about Gollum is the mouth animation, it really gets the muscular construction right and holds up today. It's not just mocap either, whilst they did use a fair bit of mocap, it was still fairly nascent so a *lot* of animation work went into Golum.
A lot of the film looks dated now, but honestly I still think it holds up - I've seen worse effects in some big budget films in the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Jun 25, 2024 7:39:47 GMT
The Arwen change was one of the best things they changed for the movies. To be fair to Tolkein, despite the time when he was writing these things, and the fact he was leaning very heavily on traditional European legends, some of his other stories did have some relatively bad-ass females (for the time). I was studying animation when the films came (most have only been a couple of years ago right?) out so paid more attention than I would now. The really impressive thing about Gollum is the mouth animation, it really gets the muscular construction right and holds up today. It's not just mocap either, whilst they did use a fair bit of mocap, it was so fairly nascent a *lot* of animation work went into Golum. A lot of the film looks dated now, but honestly I still think it holds up - I've seen worse effects in some big budget films in the last few years. That and they did a really good job of compositing Gollum into the scenes. Some other movies around the same time had decent cgi, but it often didn't look like it was part of the scene. I agree, even the bits that look weakest don't look *that* bad, and modern films tend to have a bit of weak cgi here and there too. Personally, I didn't notice any of the terrible cgi people mentioned for Furiosa, but there were definitely a few bits where you could tell that, for example, the column of bikes were cgi. In the same way you can tell the charge of horses is cgi.
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Jun 25, 2024 7:50:16 GMT
There's a scene where Gollum is thrashing about in a shallow stream trying to catch a fish. Serkis performed on the day, and then they digitally painted him out and placed the animated Gollum in, matching him to the real-water splashes.
If you really watch there's a few phantom splashes, but it just looks seamless - compositing onto a moving live action scene, with a camera pan, running water and real splashes was pretty audacious. And it's a relatively small moment so nobody even think about the work that went into it. Guess that's when a VFX shot is successful, when nobody really thinks about it.
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Jun 25, 2024 8:02:24 GMT
Despite having fastidiously followed the production of all the films, and having a pretty good understanding of how they achieved the effects, I'd completely forgotten just how groundbreaking Gollum was. The prevalence of full performance capture on-set nowadays had thrown the complexities of what they achieved right out of my brain.
It was only when I was reading Ian Nathan's book about the making of the films that I remembered: they only took skeletal data from Serkis, the rest was animating it to his performance. Usually the scenes with Gollum in had the other actors acting to a blank space. There's another scene where Gollum paws at Frodo's cloak, and you can see his fingers ruffling the fabric, where they literally painted over Serkis.
I still think it's a phenomenal achievement, one of the most impressive pieces of filmmaking and effects production in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jun 25, 2024 8:44:40 GMT
I remember reading some statistic about The Hobbit, where the only female character is Bilbo's mum or something like that. "No, that's not true, there's... no she's from the movie... how about Galadriel no she's from LotR... uhhhhh... hmm" Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Bilbo's cousin and incidentally a comic villain (in the Hobbit at least), the only female in the entire book, I think that's true lol Is it maybe better that way? Compared to (for example) Wheel of Time, where there's plenty of female characters, but they are all moody, manipulative nags who have a secret society with the literal goal of controlling men? Maybe it's better to just not have female characters, if you've got no idea how to write them as human beings.
|
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 878
|
Post by otto on Jun 25, 2024 8:58:37 GMT
Well I think that was the thing about Tolkien, he was very much a man of his time, his female characters are generally idealised paragons. When he buried his wife he had Luthien engraved on her tombstone.
|
|
|
Post by rawshark on Jun 25, 2024 10:14:57 GMT
I think the worst thing that came out of the Peter Jackson films was the Mouth Of Sauron, not because there was anything wrong with the character, but because it seems to have directly inspired the design of The Batman Who Laughs, a character that definitely can fuck off. I hadn't heard of this character before, but I looked it up and fell into the wikipedia rabbit hole. Apparently there's a 1928 film that basically started the whole Joker thing first... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Laughs_(1928_film)
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Jun 25, 2024 10:32:14 GMT
Anatomy of a Fall - 6/10
The performances were great, and initially the pacing was just right to pull you into the mystery.
Unfortunately I found all the characters unlikeable (this was potentially on purpose) and there just wasn't enough substance to the story to fill 2.5 hours. I kept expecting to be blindsided by a revelation - given the film's deliberately predictable straight plot - but it never came.
It also committed the sin of showing key scenes out of chronological order, in order to create false mystery. The film should have started with the couple's argument scene, then gone on from there.
It just about kept my interest until the end, and some of the insights into the French legal system were interesting, but it was a bit of a slog, and I wished I'd watched something else instead.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jun 25, 2024 11:05:51 GMT
There's a scene where Gollum is thrashing about in a shallow stream trying to catch a fish. Serkis performed on the day, and then they digitally painted him out and placed the animated Gollum in, matching him to the real-water splashes. If you really watch there's a few phantom splashes, but it just looks seamless - compositing onto a moving live action scene, with a camera pan, running water and real splashes was pretty audacious. And it's a relatively small moment so nobody even think about the work that went into it. Guess that's when a VFX shot is successful, when nobody really thinks about it. The whole thing is so impressive effects wise. Aside from a couple of obvious green screens with Aragorn toward the end of ROTK where he doesn’t even look like they’ve tried to match the lighting the whole trilogy is pretty much seamless. And interesting to compare with the Hobbit films where every effects shot stands out like its from Attack of the Clones and its almost as if they didn’t shoot any of it on a physical set. Fellowship in particular still looks so believable even now.
|
|
|
Post by clemfandango on Jun 25, 2024 11:46:45 GMT
I like the bit where Orlando bloom slides down an elephant tusk whilst bullseying forrins in the head with his arrows…
I might actually have just made that up, but I seem to remember it and thinking it was utter crap at the time
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Jun 25, 2024 11:47:40 GMT
Pretty sure that was in the books.
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Jun 25, 2024 12:52:06 GMT
I think the bits with legolas being a badass cgi-ninja stand out less these days, and I can just enjoy them for the badass ninja-ness that they are. Maybe I've just grown used to them.
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Jun 25, 2024 13:10:21 GMT
There's a scene where Gollum is thrashing about in a shallow stream trying to catch a fish. Serkis performed on the day, and then they digitally painted him out and placed the animated Gollum in, matching him to the real-water splashes. If you really watch there's a few phantom splashes, but it just looks seamless - compositing onto a moving live action scene, with a camera pan, running water and real splashes was pretty audacious. And it's a relatively small moment so nobody even think about the work that went into it. Guess that's when a VFX shot is successful, when nobody really thinks about it. The whole thing is so impressive effects wise. Aside from a couple of obvious green screens with Aragorn toward the end of ROTK where he doesn’t even look like they’ve tried to match the lighting the whole trilogy is pretty much seamless. And interesting to compare with the Hobbit films where every effects shot stands out like its from Attack of the Clones and its almost as if they didn’t shoot any of it on a physical set. Fellowship in particular still looks so believable even now. Most of the Hobbit was filmed on practical sets, but they used an awful lot of background extension which wasn't really a viable technology when the original trilogy was made. I think this gives the film a bit of an odd, glossy, sometimes soft look, which isn't really the same vibe as the originals. Also, as most of the film was shot in studio, it wasn't on location. A good chunk of LOTR was on location or even on sets built outdoors.
|
|
|
Post by rawshark on Jun 25, 2024 13:17:54 GMT
I like the bit where Orlando bloom slides down an elephant tusk whilst bullseying forrins in the head with his arrows… I might actually have just made that up, but I seem to remember it and thinking it was utter crap at the time I was fine with that in the moment. Unfortunately it seemed to propel them to bring him back in the prequels and crank the naffness up to Elven.
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Jun 25, 2024 18:31:23 GMT
Deadpool (2016) ****
When I first saw this, I found it utterly hilarious. The combination of foul-mouthed ribaldry and fourth-wall-breaking meta-gags, plus some great action scenes and Reynolds' fast-paced wit, was something so fresh and unexpected. I have to say, nearly a decade later, it is showing its age a bit; the novelty of the conceit has worn off, and the flimsy plot coupled with dodgy bad guys doesn't hold up. It's still very funny and well-done, but not the mini-masterpiece I once considered it.
(Disney+)
Deadpool 2 (2018) ****
Better than its predecessor, which I didn't think back on release. Its structure holds up more; it has themes and a stronger narrative arc. The addition of Cable is inspired, as is - really - the lack of some kind of insidious supervillain. The meta-ness of the concept feels a bit more ingrained into the story, but at the same time is - if anything - wilder and weirder. And it's funnier. And the action is better. Basically, both films are still broadly very good and very funny - with, I suppose, a huge "if you like that sort of thing" caveat - except Deadpool 2 is better than the first one.
(Disney+)
Something that I think is interesting, having watched the films back-to-back, is that whilst Wade frequently references other films - especially other superhero films - and is quite snarky about the X-Men series in particular, they're not really massive cameo-fests. I know the trailer for Deadpool & Wolverine does seem to feature quite a few mutants from the Fox series, but I don't think it's going to be the name-dropping smorgasbord of former superhero actors that some are expecting. I'm keeping my expectations in check that it's just going to be an exciting, funny time at the movies, with a few pops at Disney, rather than some massive multiversal circle-jerk the likes of which we've never seen.
|
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 878
|
Post by otto on Jun 25, 2024 18:49:33 GMT
Interesting. I mean I really didn’t think the second was a patch on the first.
|
|
|
Post by retro74 on Jun 25, 2024 20:06:33 GMT
I watched them both recently and it’s definitely as good as the first in my opinion, there’s some very funny scenes
|
|