Message in a Battle

Quality of RotK by Jacer · 2003-12-21 21:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

While the battle scenes were very eye appealing, I think that all of the actors did a wonderful job. Sean Astin (not sure on the last name) was so convincing as Sam, it was breathtaking. Not to mention Magne....errrr Gandalf (portrayed by Sir Ian McKellan) really had the presence to convince me that he was both wise and powerful. Anyway, I just felt that yeah, the battles were pretty, and it would be hard to have the LotR without a war going on, I still don't think the movie was made by those sequences.

--
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage

Re:Quality of RotK by EddWo · 2003-12-22 01:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

They had a load of "Out-Takes" at the end of Toy Story 2. How long did they have to run the render farm to produce all of them?

--
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Re:Quality of RotK by gardyloo · 2003-12-22 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, having seen A Bug's Life just a little bit ago, there were definitely at least two "bloopers" which were NOT actor screw-ups, and there may have been others: 1) the bird breaking down when it was going to eat some buggies; and 2) the caterpillar getting yanked out of the walking stick's hands while he was eating the grass. I have a hard time seeing how THOSE suckers were accidental voice-over blunders, unless they were some totally unrelated sound effects.

Matrix by izzo+nizzo · 2003-12-21 21:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

How is it that both Matrix films were un-nominated for visual effects Oscars? While I can understand discriminating against them because of their relative unpopularity, I can't imagine that their visual effects were considered less spectacular. Yet another reason to hate awards shows, I suppose.

Re:Matrix by Sir0x0 · 2003-12-21 21:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

One thing lacking in both Matrices, was fluidity. The Visual Effects were large, and imposing, but they were choppy and fake; did not represent actual motion very well. The movement in the shots seemed too computer generated, and falsely blurred to overcome choppiness. Granted, this was probably stylization to a point not only a shortcoming. The Matrix effects are definately not to be overly criticized, they impressed thier audiences. Yet, in a year that offered the best visual effects to date (as a whole), the Matrix came up just short.
Re:Matrix by bjhonermann · 2003-12-22 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

The thing about the Matrix movies is that they were released in the same year which probably ended up splitting their vote. It's not that the effects were bad but half of those with votes that wanted the Matrix movies up for a nomination voted for Reloaded while the other half voted for Revolutions.

Unfortunately for the Matrix that meant that neither movie got enough votes for a nomination.

You know... things just don't amaze me. by DarthWufei · 2003-12-21 21:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Despite how much work and how amazing these CG segments are for the current time period. I have yet to be impressed. I guess until I can actually not tell the difference, or at least only subtle differences, between real an fake. I'll be happy.

Really the biggest eyesore is CG people. I have yet to see something that really amazes me as it looks like a real person. To be honest, I found the closest being FF:Spirits Within. Crappy movie, but you have to admit the graphics were outstanding.

I guess my standards are just too high.

Re:You know... things just don't amaze me. by _Sprocket_ · 2003-12-22 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

To be honest, I found the closest being FF:Spirits Within. Crappy movie, but you have to admit the graphics were outstanding.

I also thought the graphics in Final Fantasy were interesting. But they went from hot to cold. Some scenes were fluid. Some were... robotic.

All in all, I thought Shrek had more "real" looking characters than FF. In fact, I remember a comment from the animators saying they had to conciously work to make sure their characters didn't look too real - this being a fairy tale and all.
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me. by glyph42 · 2003-12-22 01:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I guess until I can actually not tell the difference...
I'll bet you a dollar that some significant percentage of the CG shots flew by you without you ever noticing, precisely because you could not tell the difference.

--
Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me. by hiryuu · 2003-12-22 04:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

All in all, I thought Shrek had more "real" looking characters than FF. In fact, I remember a comment from the animators saying they had to conciously work to make sure their characters didn't look too real - this being a fairy tale and all.

According to what I remember from the "making-of" snippets, it was Princess Fiona who caused them the most trouble with that issue - their first version was apparently too realistic for believable placement and interaction within the film's world. They couldn't have a "real" looking character interacting with obviously "cartoonish" characters without making the disparity noticeable and interrupting the flow of the movie and setting.

--
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.

The battles would have been a lot better by caitsith01 · 2003-12-21 21:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

If they didn't have all of the ridiculously lame dwarf comedy ("nobody tosses a dwarf", "toss me", etc.) and if Legolas hadn't snowboarded down the stairs on his shield. For a movie with such a realistic look to it, those elements of the battles, especially Helms Deep, were totally unneccessary and really ruined the great ambience that the thousands of CG extras created so effectively.

Why must directors put such painfully lame moments in films, anyway? It's like in Minority Report, when Tom Cruise is fighting the other guy wearing a jet pack and they 'accidentally' cook the hamburgers on the grill to perfection... why? WHY???!

--
Read Pynchon.

Re:It's the *story* that makes it a good film. by DarthWufei · 2003-12-21 21:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Glad this got modded up as I was going to post the same thing. It seems that with the popularity of certain films here in America, story starts to get quite pointless to some film makers going for the quick buck. But it's always nice to see something stand strong, something that makes you laugh, cry, angered, and such. Actually, I'm happy to say that my mom gave me an early gift of the boxset. So soon I'll have finally read the books.

To the writer of the article.... by _spider_ · 2003-12-21 21:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

In my own personal opinion, I think the writer of the article didn't pay attention to the movies. (esp. LOTR: all three)

With that, I'll say his opinion is lame.

Thats my thought..er, .02.

--
'/dev/wit' is not available.

cgi porn by jamesh · 2003-12-21 22:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is a cgi woman doing sexy things to herself for the entertainment of others still exploitation of women, when no specific woman is being exploited?

Down this path are all sorts of questions...

My personal complaint by iapetus · 2003-12-21 22:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Forget the CGI actors. Ignore (if you can) the comedy dwarf tossing. My biggest complaint about the battle sequences is the hideous lack of strategy the leaders seem to have. I don't care who you are: a cavalry charge against a huge rank of spearmen is not a smart idea, and we see it happen at least twice in the series. And charging headlong at rampaging Oliphaunts? You deserve to be crushed underfoot. Swing out and take them from the flank, perhaps?

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.

Re:My personal complaint by Sir0x0 · 2003-12-21 22:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Also, spearmen are effective at taking out the first rank of a cavalry charge. Once they "break the line" the cavalry are going to wreak havoc. Rohan had no (or few) archers, which are the normal response to heavy-infantry-spear-weilding types.
Charging into Oliphaunts was not the best idea, but hey, it was the first time most of them had EVER seen oliphaunts! Beginner's mistake eh... :)
Re:My personal complaint by kaisyain · 2003-12-22 02:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Maybe you've never read John Keegan's classic The Face of Battle. His section on the battle of Waterloo talks in detail about cavalry versus infantry engagements.

You are correct that if they break the line cavalry are very good at breaking ranks. However, you miss two things. One, breaking ranks doesn't mean the cavalry have really caused much in the way of casualties to the infantry.

One Waterloo cavalryman reported, "Many threw themselves on the ground until we had gone over, and then rose and fired." Keegan points out, "To lie down was usually enough to put one beyond a swordsman's reach, and those who shammed were already safely behind the cavalry, whose attention was focused on the enemy lines to which their impetus was carrying them." Thus cavalry can easily break lines but those lines can be readily reformed by good commanders. There is no indication that the orcs armies have poor commanders, poor organization, or poor morale.

More importantly, however, Keegan points out that cavalry are in actuality completely ineffective against trained infantry. "And indeed if the story of Waterloo has a leitmotiv it is that of cavalry charging square and being repulsed...The feat of breaking a square was tried by the French cavalry time and again at Waterloo -- there were perhaps twelve main assaults during the great afternoon cavalry effort -- and always with a complete lack of success."

Cavalry break the line of infantry not because of anything particularly irresistible about cavalry. They break the line because the infantry fear the horses riding down on them and give up the line voluntarily.

Keegan's examination of cavalry versus infantry at the battle of Agincourt, which might seem more germane to Tolkiens technological levels, finds essentially the same thing. The French cavalry charge of the British archer lines failed completely. "The 'shock' which cavalry seek to inflict is really moral, not physical in character...The charge, momentarily terrifying for the English...had stopped only a few feet distant, had been a disaster for the enemy."

I don't see any reason why Gandalf's cavalry charge would have worked out as anything but a similar disaster.
Re:My personal complaint by Minna+Kirai · 2003-12-22 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Jam the speartip with your shield, cut off the blade with the shortsword, and then play a little game I like to call whittle the pikemen.

No, that's completely stupid. If the cavalry pull up short to play around like that, they've given up their speed advantage, and will die. Roman-style techniques work when you have Roman-style phalanxes- you can't do that from a horse: if you inch up to a foe expecting him to jab you in the shield, your horse will be dead long before he turns attention to the rider.

Their only hope is to hit fast and hard, accepting some losses as the cost of breaking over the line. Fortunately, they were not facing a displined front of spearmen, but the rear of a distracted army that had only recently noticed a new foe. Not one of the orcs had a weapon long enough to be honestly called a pike. Some spears, a few halberds- no pikes. They hadn't the organization to be pikemen.

Bullshite! by mrshowtime · 2003-12-21 22:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Return of the King would not have been much of a movie without the battles." Bullshit! The amount of artistry put into all three movies has not been seen since the days of "Cleopatra." I am no blind Tolkien freak either. All three movies were beautiful all around. In terms of cost, ROTK cost only $95 million. Contrast that with the recently released "chick flick," "Mona Lisa Smile," what cost $65 million to make and "The Last Samurai" who's costs totalled almost $140 million dollars. The Last Samurai's battle scenes were rather bland and extremely pale in comparison to ROTK. ROTK was just more than the battles, it had a lot of shit going on everywhere in middle earth. I am amazed that Peter Jackson and Co. completed the movie in less than a year, no other Hollywood director or studio could have made ROTK better than WETA and Peter Jackson. Saying ROTK would have sucked without the battles, is like saying Jedi would have sucked without any space battles. Stupid thing to say.

--
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide

Credit to Casting by drskrud · 2003-12-21 23:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

One thing I really give credit to the LotR trilogy for is their casting. There are virtually no "big-name" actors in any of the movies. While there are the better known stars, Sir Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett and even Liv Tyler and Sean Bean, none of them overpower the other cast members to the point of obscurity.

Furthermore, they found some actors from relative obscurity (Merry and Pippin come to mind) who perform remarkably well. Every single character in the LotR series is acted out almost flawlessly, and I for one can clearly relate their on screen portrayals to those characters from the book. And that's certainly what makes the battle scenes that much more *real* and closer to home. Someone watching the movie can really get a feel for the characters and sympathize with them. No character gets lost behind the face of some huge actor and no one actor steals the show from any other.

As for the CGI effects, I had no trouble believing that those oliphaunts and huge armies of Orcs were real, they might as well have been. The graphics were more than convincing enough and the fact that the movie is indeed in a fantasy setting allows for what Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the "willful suspension of belief." I had a harder time believing that Tom Cruise's character could take out four or five samurai before even getting any samurai training.... not to mention he somehow managed to hold them off with a flagpole of all things...

Re:Credit to Casting by Rinikusu · 2003-12-22 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

/* I had a harder time believing that Tom Cruise's character could take out four or five samurai before even getting any samurai training.... not to mention he somehow managed to hold them off with a flagpole of all things... */

Why not believable? Do you believe that somehow, if you are Japanese and a samurai that you are invincible and superior to every other person in the world? Why? Just because you train in an art does not make you immediately "better" in the areas of combat. In fact, it might be said that regimented training, if enacted as dogma, could be detrimental to training. See the plethora of McDojo's around America: kids learning strictly katas and going through motions who think they're somehow transferred into "bad ass" status get their asses handed to them by hardened kids who learned how to fight on the street. There are great fighters/warriors all over the world and not all of them were formally trained. Also, just because you train every day doesn't mean you're a master. There were samurai who sucked. :P

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

5 year olds in the cinema by Moderation+abuser · 2003-12-22 00:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

What got me was all the parents bringing 5 year olds and younger to see the film despite it being a 12.

We're *not* talking Harry Potter or Peter Pan here, there's massive amounts of blood and guts but they seemed to think fantasy equals gentle fairy story. About half of them were led out in tears.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

The problem I have with this article by TrueBuckeye · 2003-12-22 01:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

is how it trys to portray LOTR as warmongering, which means he absoutely missed the point... "In those days, even if those days are set in an Oxford don's fantasy life, war was war, war was man's business, up was up, down was down, enemies were demons, and best of all, killing them was holy work about which no one had to be guilty. It's nice to deal with a war that, though rendered in color, still plays in moral black-and-white. Thus one hallmark of the modern old-fashioned war movie is a high body count, combined with moral righteousness. It's better that way, don't you think? It's certainly easier." Wrong. LOTR is all about how war can be forced upon a society and you MUST fight. But once the battle begins, noble intentions and ideals are thrown out the window. Neither the men, elves, dwarves, or orcs are any less brutal or more noble once the fighting begins. There comes a time when in order to preserve your freedom, you must become your enemy, you must embrace evil in order to defeat it. And then, victory or defeat, you will have lost something. They were all changed by the war, and none of them for the better. The scene at the end where the Hobbits were sitting in the old bar and give each other a look and a half-hearted toast...THAT is the point of the movies. You are forced into a battle you don't want, you have to become savage and do things you would never have imagined doing before, and then at the end of the day once you can return to your lives, you find that you can't. Your old life, the life you fought for, is gone. It isn't about black and white. It is about how what looks to be black and white is only a million shades of gray.

--
Was that night on the marge of Lake LaBarge I cremated Sam McGee...

Re:The problem I have with this article by Anenga · 2003-12-22 13:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

This may intrest you...

From FotR:
FRODO: I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened...

GANDALF: So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
From Tony Blair:
I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.

Did michael even read the article by geeber · 2003-12-22 01:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

It sure seems like he couldn't have been bothered to read it. The bulk of the article has next to nothing to do with CGI. It's mostly about the glut of current movies having large scale warfare in them, be they produced with computers or an army of extras.

Could the article have been more misleading?

--
Download my free songs!

The World's Worst LOTR Film Review by Nova+Express · 2003-12-22 02:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's an NYT writer complaining about the movies being "an FX extravaganza tailored to an adolescent male's fear of sentiment and love of high-tech wizardry." (Lord knows there's no sentiment in any of those death or parting scenes.) In addition to slamming the films for appealing to "geeks" and "nerds," her complaint seems to boil down to them being bad because they're not chick flicks, in much the same way that Fried Green Tomatoes suffers from a complete lack of sword fights.

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:Your loss by Discoflamingo13 · 2003-12-22 03:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Tom Bombadil was a character of no consequence - a page-filling distraction. When you consider him within the entire scope of the epic, he really does not serve any true purpose.

Except that he was older than any other resident of Middle-Earth, and was the only character the One Ring (or any of its effects) held no power over. I think he serves as an important contrast to the immortality of the elves and the temporality of the humans involved in the last struggle of the Third Age.

Re:LOTR by happyfrogcow · 2003-12-22 03:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

My only response to your respected view of the movies is that the movies are an excellent gateway for a large audience into Tolkien's books. Hundred of thousands of people perhaps would never pick them up, simply because they use to be hidden away in the back with the rest of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy books at your popular bookstores. Now those same bookstores have several central displays dedicated to all of Tolkien's works. Jackson, if nothing else, succeeded in bringing a rebirth to Tolkien's vast world through an accesible representation.

my biggest beef with the RotK battles by Sabalon · 2003-12-22 04:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I liked the movies, but I found it annoying that most of the battle scenes looked as if they were shot about 2 feet away from the action.

I would have rather scene some wider shots of the battle instead of two or people right in your face fighting it out. It all flashes by too fast then. It does help to relay the idea that war is chaos...makes you wonder how much "friendly fire" there is, but on screen it is just a blur.

29 of 460 comments (clear)