Re maxsox and others (who say things like the annual releases are simply to whoop up each sucessive years worth of awards);
You -do- realise that the film was made almost wholly in a city so small it'd hardly feature on any US map... New Zealand has a population of 3 million, and the city where it was almost completely made - Wellington (my home) - only has a tenth of that.
LOTR is leaps and bounds larger than anything created previously in NZ and the infrastructure struggled to do even one film a year. I expect since the shooting is essentially finished, the next two films will have even better editing and computer-generated improvements.
It is rare for such a small country to produce globally acclaimed films; generally this is done by producing offbeat cult films, although those are found more in art-house cinemas. I'm not trying to be overly patriotic or anything, I'm simply believing a large percentage of viewers probably think its yet another piece of US produce.
I personally really enjoyed the film; I had read the first book when I was younger and I just don't think that a graphic portrayal could have been done any better. As for the characters; sure its not the character study of the century, but it sure is alot better than pretty much any standard hollywood film... which is the genre of the movies; something which people who criticise this aspect of the film, forget.
Will the metor showers be visible enough to be caught on standard photographic film ? Would one-minute or longer exposures with 1000+ ISO film catch much? Would B&W pick up more than color? I do not have access to anything greater than a 300 MM telephoto lens and have a Canon EOS 300 camera.
As I live in Wellington, New Zealand I am alsowondering when the best viewing times are...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually im on holiday in the Marlborough Sounds, so nope, can't hear ya :P
Re maxsox and others (who say things like the annual releases are simply to whoop up each sucessive years worth of awards);
... New Zealand has a population of 3 million, and the city where it was almost completely made - Wellington (my home) - only has a tenth of that.
... which is the genre of the movies; something which people who criticise this aspect of the film, forget.
You -do- realise that the film was made almost wholly in a city so small it'd hardly feature on any US map
LOTR is leaps and bounds larger than anything created previously in NZ and the infrastructure struggled to do even one film a year. I expect since the shooting is essentially finished, the next two films will have even better editing and computer-generated improvements.
It is rare for such a small country to produce globally acclaimed films; generally this is done by producing offbeat cult films, although those are found more in art-house cinemas. I'm not trying to be overly patriotic or anything, I'm simply believing a large percentage of viewers probably think its yet another piece of US produce.
I personally really enjoyed the film; I had read the first book when I was younger and I just don't think that a graphic portrayal could have been done any better. As for the characters; sure its not the character study of the century, but it sure is alot better than pretty much any standard hollywood film
Will the metor showers be visible enough to be caught on standard photographic film ? Would one-minute or longer exposures with 1000+ ISO film catch much? Would B&W pick up more than color? I do not have access to anything greater than a 300 MM telephoto lens and have a Canon EOS 300 camera. As I live in Wellington, New Zealand I am alsowondering when the best viewing times are...