Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:57:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Are the Lord of the Rings films the best films ever made?

Started by bgmnts, December 24, 2018, 11:04:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ferris

Should have just hired some actual walking-tree actors instead of erasing them imho smdh

Kelvin

As biggy says, though, the issue is more with thing like camera work and CGI movement that our brains know is impossible.

greenman

Quote from: Kelvin on December 26, 2018, 01:51:08 AM
As biggy says, though, the issue is more with thing like camera work and CGI movement that our brains know is impossible.

Nothing really wrong with that for me though, I mean I know many conventional FX shots are impossible as well yet it doesn't automatically spoil my enjoyment of them.

I would agree one of Jacksons faults is he's taken CGI action to excess at points, its not really presenst much in LOTR bar perhaps Legolas killing the giant elephant in the 3rd film but you do see it in things like the dinosaur chase in Kong or the barrel escape in the Hobbit films. Still though I think the flipside of that is he can deliver some excellent extended action sequence like Kong fighting the T-rex's or the Dwarves and Smaug.

It actually seems as well like a lot of the negativity directed at him post LOTR is due to his reversion more towards his earlier style, Kong the Hobbit films are both naturally more over the top and cartoonish. The CGI excesses are really very much inline with his love of conventional effects previously and indeed he was using it heavily before lOTR with The Frightners.

Ferris


Dex Sawash

I just watched the middle of the 3rd one. I felt bad for the olyphants and thought Legolad should have kept his as a pet or used it against the "baddies"

Ferris

Quote from: Dex Sawash on December 26, 2018, 02:33:16 AM
I just watched the middle of the 3rd one. I felt bad for the olyphants and thought Legolad should have kept his as a pet or used it against the "baddies"

"Legolad" for 2018 typo of the year!

Twit 2

1st film is great, just one brilliantly made set piece after another. I would have been 17 when it came out and it blew me the fuck away. Everything came together on this one. The 2nd and 3rd have their moments but are way too baggy and have some howlingly bad bits. The Hobbit films are turds on a cot death.

Bgmts I hope you are under 21 years old. If not, rewatch those Kurosawa films again properly until you hold the correct opinion on LOTR, cheers.

magval

Do youse watch the extended or theatrical versions? I've only seen the theatrical cuts once each but remember preferring the shorter version of Two Towers. Too much great Witch King stuff in the Return EE to pass up though

monolith

In my head it's the best trilogy ever. I just got them all on blu ray for Christmas so I'll give them another watch soon and see if they're actually shit now that I'm sober and old.

greenman

Quote from: magval on December 26, 2018, 07:22:10 AM
Do youse watch the extended or theatrical versions? I've only seen the theatrical cuts once each but remember preferring the shorter version of Two Towers. Too much great Witch King stuff in the Return EE to pass up though

Return of the King was the film were Jackson was having to cut a lot of material out of the theatrical  cut to meet a hard boundary of 3 hours 45 mins to avoid an intermission I believe. Might have been better off if he had gone that route though as I suspect the negative opinion of the multiple endings was partly based on people on the verge of wetting themselves during them.

I do actually think there is room for a bit of Lucas like meddling personally in terms of making cuts partway between the two, removing some of the more needless scenes but keeping the better ones, maybe updating the CGI a bit as well such as the Fellowship version of Gollum.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Kelvin on December 26, 2018, 01:36:59 AM
I don't think Jackson was a middling director, at all. He has problems, but a good eye for visuals and charachters, and a sense of the grotesque - certainly compared to most mainstream directors. I agree that he got seduced by the convenience of CGI, though.

Just to clarify, in spite of what I said in regards to biggytitbo's post ("I completely agree with everything that you just said"), I don't agree that Jackson is a middling director.  I'm a big fan of his earlier, independent films, Bad Taste and Braindead and whilst I do find his latter films a lot less interesting, I still consider him a cut above your average Hollywood director.  So, more accurately, I almost completely agree with everything that biggytitbo just said.

Quote from: Kelvin on December 26, 2018, 01:51:08 AM
As biggy says, though, the issue is more with thing like camera work and CGI movement that our brains know is impossible.

This is exactly it.  With practical effects, even when they look dodgy, at least there's a physical camera on set, filming them and as such, the shots are limited to what's physically achievable, in terms of camera movement.  With CGI, a wise artist knows to mimic real-life achievable camera movement.  Unfortunately, a great deal of directors have the camera swooping around 360°, like gameplay footage of an action videogame.  The result is a disconnect between what's on screen and the viewer's conscious or subconscious knowledge of what's possible in terms of camera movement.  Given that the magic trick is to sell to the viewer that what they're seeing is actually happening, within the bound of suspension of disbelief, or at the very least, has been filmed on a set with a physical camera, then in these cases, the magic trick is ruined.

Naturally, one's milage may vary and some may not be bothered by such things but for every person who's not, there's someone who is and that's why a savvy director avoids pulling off psychically impossible camera movement in a computer generated shot.

Norton Canes


momatt

Quote from: Small Man Big Horse on December 24, 2018, 04:10:01 PM
Momatt speaks the truth. And almost as good as Starcrash is Sion Sono's Love Exposure which'd be my suggestion for best ever film. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films at the time but have no urge to rewatch them, and I doubt they'd make my Top 100 list.

Thanks, I don't hear that often enough.

Alright, that's going on my big list of films I need to watch, cheers!
Sounds suitably mental/Japanese.

momatt

Quote from: Kelvin on December 26, 2018, 01:36:59 AM
I don't think Jackson was a middling director, at all. He has problems, but a good eye for visuals and charachters, and a sense of the grotesque - certainly compared to most mainstream directors. I agree that he got seduced by the convenience of CGI, though.

Braindead (1992) >> LoTR (2001)

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Some of the scenes in the extended editions are hilariously superfluous, such as Elrond making another big speech before seeing the fellowship off at the gates, just dead weight. And the worst that comes to mind, a terribly paced scene with Aragorn and Gandalf the White with Gandalf basically summarising the plot thus far.

Would agree that the script sucks at points, but in other places everyone shouts DEEEEAAAAATHHHH!!!! DEEEEEAAAAAAAATHHH!!!! so swings and roundabouts

Kelvin

Quote from: momatt on December 26, 2018, 02:05:10 PM
Braindead (1992) >> LoTR (2001)

Not quite sure what this means? That he was only good for a brief period?

Maybe true, but you don't direct 4-5 good to great films by accident, and even his weaker films tend to contain interesting visuals or standout scenes. He's certainly not a middling director compared to the countless journeyman Hollywood typically survives on.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

What's the point of Cate Blanchett's character? She's doesn't do anything of note in the plot, but the characters all act like she's queen fancy britches. That whole detour screws up the pacing of the first film, which otherwise has the best sense of adventure to it.

momatt

Quote from: Kelvin on December 26, 2018, 02:29:52 PM
Not quite sure what this means? That he was only good for a brief period?

Nah, it means that I like Braindead a lot more than Lord of the Rings.
At least I think so anyway.

Glebe

There's top stuff in all of them, but Fellowship feels like the purest adventure before all the CGI took over.

Endicott

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on December 27, 2018, 02:07:41 AM
What's the point of Cate Blanchett's character? She's doesn't do anything of note in the plot, but the characters all act like she's queen fancy britches. That whole detour screws up the pacing of the first film, which otherwise has the best sense of adventure to it.

She opts not to take the ring from Frodo. It's the only surefire way she has to defeat Sauron but she chooses not to do it. This is in contrast to Boromir, who doesn't have the strength to resist it.

Also Elrond and Gandalf and Galadriel bear the three rings that the one ring was created to subjugate. Without their power Sauron's orcs would be running amok all over the place. Although I don't really remember how well the film made that point. It does provide the power for her to keep the group safe for a bit.


Glebe

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on December 27, 2018, 02:07:41 AM
What's the point of Cate Blanchett's character? She's doesn't do anything of note in the plot, but the characters all act like she's queen fancy britches. That whole detour screws up the pacing of the first film, which otherwise has the best sense of adventure to it.

She warns Frodo about all the bad shit going down by looking in her birdbath mirror and gives him that light of Eärendil that helps him get Shelob to fuck off.

daf

Quote from: Endicott on December 24, 2018, 04:16:27 PM
Godawful accent. ( . . .) Sorry but this part required an English voice, not an American voice.

He's doing English isn't he? (well, some variant of it anyway)

You can hear his original American voice in one of the commentaries (the one with Sean Astin making an amazing tit of himself)

Endicott

Quote from: daf on December 27, 2018, 12:11:12 PM
He's doing English isn't he? (well, some variant of it anyway)

Is he? Christ! He's no Alexis Denisof is he.

Replies From View

What I don't understand about Lord of the Rings is why the characters all have the same name.

samadriel

Quote from: Replies From View on December 27, 2018, 01:16:20 PM
What I don't understand about Lord of the Rings is why the characters all have the same name.
Lordé is a perfectly respectable name, Replies.

a duncandisorderly


Shoulders?-Stomach!


Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on December 27, 2018, 02:07:41 AM
What's the point of Cate Blanchett's character? She's doesn't do anything of note in the plot, but the characters all act like she's queen fancy britches. That whole detour screws up the pacing of the first film, which otherwise has the best sense of adventure to it.

Her, Gandalf, Elrond and up until the start of Fellowship, Saruman were effectively guardians of Middle Earth. She loses a great deal of her power before the film starts (as evidenced in The Hobbit 3) so is effectively in an elven retirement home in Lothlorien.

Part of the reason she becomes drawn to the ring is to compensate for losing her power, which I think is a metaphor, unwittingly or otherwise, for the menopause or at least fertility. The key moment is her being strong enough to avoid the lure of the ring despite having a free opportunity to claim it and effectively accepting her lot in life.

However I agree it could be done better and that Jackson and the screenwriters seem to have missed the potential to make those scenes better.

I still think the scenes are beautiful and capture the ethereal state of the elves very well. The shot as the characters stalk across the grass into the forest is very cool.

greenman

Quote from: Endicott on December 27, 2018, 11:58:11 AM
She opts not to take the ring from Frodo. It's the only surefire way she has to defeat Sauron but she chooses not to do it. This is in contrast to Boromir, who doesn't have the strength to resist it.

You'd had some hints at Boromir's temptation before that but really its this section that brings that plot to the fore and the climax at the end of the film. I think Jackson handles it very well having a subtle creepiness to her character communicating with Frodo telepathically when the fellowship arrives.