Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
New Viggo Mortensen interview on the "mess" that was Rings
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea


May 23 2014, 10:32pm

Post #151 of 160 (2386 views)
Shortcut
Single biggest annoying thing about the original trilogy for me... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
My biggest problem with CGI especially in ROTK is that some of the outside battle scenes badly mismatched the environmental conditions of the corresponding live shots. At Pelennor and the Black Gate live shots were quite bright and sunny whereas CGI environments were considerably darker , never more obvious than during the charge of the Men of the West at the Black Gate or the closing scenes of Pelennor with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli.


I can't watch the movies without noticing this.


VeArkenstone
Rivendell

May 27 2014, 7:58pm

Post #152 of 160 (2328 views)
Shortcut
I do totally agree with your comments about the Trilogy, FOTR is the best, [In reply to] Can't Post

followed by TTT which, in my personal opinion, is the worst of the five movies (although the extended version flows better). ROTK has many incredible moments but FOTR outshines them all.


The Foehammer
The Shire


May 29 2014, 12:41am

Post #153 of 160 (2315 views)
Shortcut
I disagree. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...ubtlety-for-CGI.html


What do you guys think. It's a lot for me to process right now, I knew he was disgruntled at The Towers and The Return of the King, but not to this extent. It really saddens me, I can see that the effects got bigger, but in my opinion not to the detriment of the story. For me the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a masterpiece through and through and I really don't see the complaints that story was sacrificed for CGI. The Two Towers and Return of the King simply had a bigger special effects quota to fill for the narrative landscape of the film, and I don't think Jackson lost sight of what was important. There are countless moments in the 2nd and 3rd that are some of the most personal and intimate of the entire trilogy, and the balance of the epic and the intimate is one of the things Jackson pulled off best in his Rings trilogy, reaching its climax naturally in The Return of the King. I am sad Mortensen feels this way but I have to say I really disagree. His performance as Aragorn is one of the best things in the trilogy and he is one of my favorite actors of all time so to hear him say this is a little sad. I can't speak to the degree of controlled chaos that was the filming as Viggo undoubtedly was there and I wasn't, but with the re-shoots and everything that were added I think PJ and the crew and cast were able to make the 2nd and 3rd films what they should have been. It was smart to focus on Fellowship firstly, if that failed the trilogy would have gone with it, but is it right to lampoon the expansion of the tapestry of storytelling and what was possible because of what could be achieved due to increased budget and resources that simply wasn't possible initially. The films certainly get more expensive as they go along, there is no doubt about that. But I do not feel that get any less personal.

The Hobbit is a very different story, and I would agree there, but strictly sticking to The Lord of the Rings some of these comments from Mortensen while very candid and I'm sure things that he really believes, seem quite disheartening.


I disagree, I think it was well made throughout the trilogy, and I also disagree with the Hobbit, thus far, it still marches to the cadence of the LOTR films, as it should and vica versa.

"My teeth are swords, my claws spears..." - Smaug, The Magnificent


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

May 29 2014, 1:04am

Post #154 of 160 (2306 views)
Shortcut
Cadence [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...thus far, [The Hobbit] still marches to the cadence of the LOTR films, as it should and vica versa.

Yes, it should. But there's a whole lot of criticism that says it doesn't. And there are quite a lot of generous reviewers on this site who really do enjoy the films who tacitly admit these are different films, but remain affectionate anyway because they don't judge the films in the same way as the critics. Peter Jackson himself says these are different films and I think it is clear that they are. Saying they "still marches to the cadence of the LOTR films" disregards all of that.


The Foehammer
The Shire


May 29 2014, 1:53am

Post #155 of 160 (2293 views)
Shortcut
Interesting. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
...thus far, [The Hobbit] still marches to the cadence of the LOTR films, as it should and vica versa.

Yes, it should. But there's a whole lot of criticism that says it doesn't. And there are quite a lot of generous reviewers on this site who really do enjoy the films who tacitly admit these are different films, but remain affectionate anyway because they don't judge the films in the same way as the critics. Peter Jackson himself says these are different films and I think it is clear that they are. Saying they "still marches to the cadence of the LOTR films" disregards all of that.


I would love to hear how they differ, I feel The Hobbit films don't miss a beat. Choreography, cinematography, script, CGI, acting, it seems all cut from the same cloth from my perspective, but I would love to hear a different analysis.

"My teeth are swords, my claws spears..." - Smaug, The Magnificent


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


May 29 2014, 11:19am

Post #156 of 160 (2279 views)
Shortcut
for better or worse depending on individual opinions [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought it was pretty obvious that the Hobbit movies are intentionally more far fetched and comical at times and less grounded in "reality" than the LOTR movies. PJ's own way of showing the differences between the manner of storytelling in the books perhaps.


MadgeBishop
Bree

May 30 2014, 12:24am

Post #157 of 160 (2282 views)
Shortcut
It's not the CGI per se... [In reply to] Can't Post

..that bothers me. Certainly not in the LOTR trilogy, where my issues lie with a desire to create character arcs and set pieces, especially in the TTT, leads to incoherence and, in some cases, generate plot holes that don't exist in the book. Still love these movies, but FOTR is, for me, at a level I don't think the others consistently attain. Even the additions, such as Boromir picking up the ring on the slopes of Caradhras are splendid. (Bad cgi is even less of a concern as a side note, such as Legolas and the Troll at Balin's tomb, but perhaps I'm conditioned to ignore this by my beloved 70s Dr. Who)

In the Hobbit movies it is a lack of restraint, which CGI enables, that bothers me. PJ, for all his many admirable qualities, has an innate tendency to exaggerate, especially with action sequences. King Kong is the first movie where this is overt (perhaps because budget and technology caught up with his ideas), but I guess the seeds were in ROTK in hindsight.

The best example I can think of is the difference between the look and feel of the Amon Hen battle in FOTR and the Goblin City skirmish in AUJ. The former feels gritty, is exhilarating, has a cool almost martial arts movie feel and we see Aragorn getting a bit of a kicking. I love this.

The Goblin City fight, however is very overblown. It feels artificial and is filed with cartoonish gags. The sequence would be hard to achieve without CGI, and I don't think the CGI is this issue, but what PJ chose to do with it. I really have an issue with characters following from great heights and receiving naught but scratches. Just because it's a fantasy movie, doesn't mean that plausibility should be sacrificed for spectacle. There are many who object to nitpicking about the laws of physics in a fantasy movie, but it is precisely the decision to represent the LOTR movies as historical drama that sells them to me and the slapstick nature of AUJ which leaves me feeling the Hobbit movies are good (any JRRT movie is most welcome!) but not great like the LOTR.

I understand the Hobbit is meant to be tonally different. That's fine. But it's not a tone that works for me particularly. In truth, I enjoy the Hobbit book far less than LOTR, also for tonal reasons, albeit different tonal reasons.Still desperate for the DOS EE and BOFA nonetheless!


cats16
Valinor


May 30 2014, 12:29am

Post #158 of 160 (2266 views)
Shortcut
Refreshing to hear this [In reply to] Can't Post

I deeply appreciate the way you've explained this, regardless of whether or not I agree with you on everything.

Smile


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

May 30 2014, 1:51am

Post #159 of 160 (2267 views)
Shortcut
THIS [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It's not the CGI per se that bothers me. Certainly not in the LOTR trilogy, where my issues lie with a desire to create character arcs and set pieces, especially in the TTT, leads to incoherence and, in some cases, generate plot holes that don't exist in the book. Still love these movies, but FOTR is, for me, at a level I don't think the others consistently attain. Even the additions, such as Boromir picking up the ring on the slopes of Caradhras are splendid. (Bad cgi is even less of a concern as a side note, such as Legolas and the Troll at Balin's tomb, but perhaps I'm conditioned to ignore this by my beloved 70s Dr. Who)

In the Hobbit movies it is a lack of restraint, which CGI enables, that bothers me. PJ, for all his many admirable qualities, has an innate tendency to exaggerate, especially with action sequences. King Kong is the first movie where this is overt (perhaps because budget and technology caught up with his ideas), but I guess the seeds were in ROTK in hindsight.

The best example I can think of is the difference between the look and feel of the Amon Hen battle in FOTR and the Goblin City skirmish in AUJ. The former feels gritty, is exhilarating, has a cool almost martial arts movie feel and we see Aragorn getting a bit of a kicking. I love this.

The Goblin City fight, however is very overblown. It feels artificial and is filed with cartoonish gags. The sequence would be hard to achieve without CGI, and I don't think the CGI is this issue, but what PJ chose to do with it. I really have an issue with characters following from great heights and receiving naught but scratches. Just because it's a fantasy movie, doesn't mean that plausibility should be sacrificed for spectacle. There are many who object to nitpicking about the laws of physics in a fantasy movie, but it is precisely the decision to represent the LOTR movies as historical drama that sells them to me and the slapstick nature of AUJ which leaves me feeling the Hobbit movies are good (any JRRT movie is most welcome!) but not great like the LOTR.

I understand the Hobbit is meant to be tonally different. That's fine. But it's not a tone that works for me particularly. In truth, I enjoy the Hobbit book far less than LOTR, also for tonal reasons, albeit different tonal reasons.Still desperate for the DOS EE and BOFA nonetheless!

Great post, MadgeBishop.


(This post was edited by J Pierpont Flathead on May 30 2014, 1:52am)


The Foehammer
The Shire


May 30 2014, 4:09am

Post #160 of 160 (2481 views)
Shortcut
I need to go watch them all again consecutively [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
..that bothers me. Certainly not in the LOTR trilogy, where my issues lie with a desire to create character arcs and set pieces, especially in the TTT, leads to incoherence and, in some cases, generate plot holes that don't exist in the book. Still love these movies, but FOTR is, for me, at a level I don't think the others consistently attain. Even the additions, such as Boromir picking up the ring on the slopes of Caradhras are splendid. (Bad cgi is even less of a concern as a side note, such as Legolas and the Troll at Balin's tomb, but perhaps I'm conditioned to ignore this by my beloved 70s Dr. Who)

In the Hobbit movies it is a lack of restraint, which CGI enables, that bothers me. PJ, for all his many admirable qualities, has an innate tendency to exaggerate, especially with action sequences. King Kong is the first movie where this is overt (perhaps because budget and technology caught up with his ideas), but I guess the seeds were in ROTK in hindsight.

The best example I can think of is the difference between the look and feel of the Amon Hen battle in FOTR and the Goblin City skirmish in AUJ. The former feels gritty, is exhilarating, has a cool almost martial arts movie feel and we see Aragorn getting a bit of a kicking. I love this.

The Goblin City fight, however is very overblown. It feels artificial and is filed with cartoonish gags. The sequence would be hard to achieve without CGI, and I don't think the CGI is this issue, but what PJ chose to do with it. I really have an issue with characters following from great heights and receiving naught but scratches. Just because it's a fantasy movie, doesn't mean that plausibility should be sacrificed for spectacle. There are many who object to nitpicking about the laws of physics in a fantasy movie, but it is precisely the decision to represent the LOTR movies as historical drama that sells them to me and the slapstick nature of AUJ which leaves me feeling the Hobbit movies are good (any JRRT movie is most welcome!) but not great like the LOTR.

I understand the Hobbit is meant to be tonally different. That's fine. But it's not a tone that works for me particularly. In truth, I enjoy the Hobbit book far less than LOTR, also for tonal reasons, albeit different tonal reasons.Still desperate for the DOS EE and BOFA nonetheless!

I will have to watch all 5 films again back to back, because I hardly noticed such differences, I do agree that the tone in the books is noticably different and it was intentionally done so, but in the film interpretations I don't notice it, or at least it doesn't bother me, I thought PJ did a good job of bridging that gap, some things were a bit over the top, like Bombur rolling down and killing people stuck in the barrel, but it's still comedy in a classic Tolkien-esque style to me, much like many of the songs (not reproduced) from the original book (which were present in the animated films) are also comedy but of a warm, welcome change of tone from the otherwise gripping, suspenseful quest that guide you throughout the books. It was no more over the top than seeing Legolas and Gimili swinging into hundreds of orcs outside the walls of Helms Deep. Similar far-fetchedness, one from each trilogy.

"My teeth are swords, my claws spears..." - Smaug, The Magnificent

(This post was edited by The Foehammer on May 30 2014, 4:10am)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.