LOTR extended editions [Archive] - The ComingSoon.net Boards

Rizor

09-05-2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by jpdill
The only major problem with LOTR and their extended editions are that they lie alot in DVDs making ofs:

1) It wasn't low budget
2) Thier models weren't THAT high-quality - it was CGI when they zoomed into the models, so the models weren't "greatly detailed"
3) They also made it so that the other blockbusters look bad (in terms of making).

BUT they admit no techniques, other than the one where they made the table slide with the camera, as unique, and even in the ROTK preview, they copied a scene form The Lost World: Jurassic Park (ie: the rider going through the olephont's legs)

1. I think the comment was actually meant to be a joke, hence Andrew Lesnie, who said it cracking up afterwards. It's low budget in the sense they're still scrambling around like they would do on a low budget film. He calls it "the biggest low budget film," which is a contradiction.

2. Have you even seen the models documentary? How can you say they aren't greatly detailed? The things are like 10 feet high with all the little wear and tear put in by hand. Did you see the guys going over the Argonath model and saying how that added in all the steps and things to show how the Men of Middle-Earth would have built them?

And I'm also pretty sure that for the most part when you're seeing buildings like Rivendell or Orthanc closeup, they are models. What would be the point of building huge models just to use them in long shots? If they were to do close-ups in CG, they would have cut man hours lots of money by a whole lot just by building actual miniatures instead of "big-atures". They show them filming stuff on the models. It's just the models composited into Cgi shots or blue screen ones. But some stuff like the caverns of Isengard were probably either a model scanned into the computer or just completely CG.

3. Don't know what you're getting at with the third reason.

jpdill

09-05-2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Riddle
Wasn't the FOTR: EE voted the best DVD yet produced?

It was. And in some cases IS.

But it really depends on what people like, so there is no BEST, but heres the MOST FEATURES AWARD, and LOTR wins it.

jpdill

09-05-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Rizor

2. Have you even seen the models documentary? How can you say they aren't greatly detailed? The things are like 10 feet high with all the little wear and tear put in by hand. Did you see the guys going over the Argonath model and saying how that added in all the steps and things to show how the Men of Middle-Earth would have built them?

And I'm also pretty sure that for the most part when you're seeing buildings like Rivendell or Orthanc closeup, they are models. What would be the point of building huge models just to use them in long shots? If they were to do close-ups in CG, they would have cut man hours lots of money by a whole lot just by building actual miniatures instead of "big-atures". They show them filming stuff on the models. It's just the models composited into Cgi shots or blue screen ones. But some stuff like the caverns of Isengard were probably either a model scanned into the computer or just completely CG.

3. Don't know what you're getting at with the third reason.

2) Nope - when you zoom in, they're not models. They're CGI, as it's impossible to get that much detail into a building like that. They can easily do this:

- Create the basic shape from material
- Use blue-screen type paint
- Add all the details afterwards

The Argonath's are CGI, as it is clearly seen in the film. You can see it looks CGI, and it's outdated - any "big-ature" doesn't become out dated, as models don't get updated everyweek.

The DVD made you think that Isengaurd was a model - but here's why they made it. They made it so they can practice the CGI shots that will be done of the computer. Also, models are used in the backgrounds ALOt in big-budget films.

Star Wars 2 used minatures, but for some reason people thought the Kamino scene was CGI. It wasn't, as the buildings you see in it, are all models on blue-screen.

With the Rivendale scene, they said that they used CGI in it - they did. The actual model wasn't as detailed or look anything like the final product done of computer.

The models ARE detailed (sorry - WERE), but now they got rid of the normal-blockbuster detail, and replaced it with CGI. They were great in detail, but nothing like the LOTR DVD made it seem.

They're trying to make you think LOTR is the greatest - it's not, and come this Christmas, i'm afraid it's going to fade away. By Summer, Harry Potter 3 will be out, and that's the major book movie. Then we've got Spiderman 2, which is unquestionably gonna be the most sucessful film that year.

When the LOTR DVDs come out, it'll be big. But then people will fall out the fad. The movie industry knew it wouldn't last forever - that's why they're trying to keep the audience (us lot) interested.

LOTR3 will be the most Hollywood, but in the ned, it's just going to be special effects - that's all. It'll have good acting, and will get a few small awards, but i don't see it winning any major Oscars.

I think Revolutions will win best SFX aswell - Weta is a small company, and it's only won Oscars out of luck - if Star Wars 2 came out at Christmas, it'll have the better SFX, as they have ALOT more money to invest in staff and new technology.

It was becuase Sony Image Works and ILM had to have finished the Spiderman and SW SFX by December 2001 - for TTT, it was Autumn 2002, over 6 months difference.

In 6 months SFX changed ALOT. That's why Weta may not win this year's SFX oscar. I think i'd prefer for M2 to win for Matrix 3, as i think they've done so much more in terms of creativity - Weta couldn't be ****ed to create fire on the computer, so they used that program which just played footage of a flamethrower in the Balrogs mouth.

The Moose

09-05-2003, 10:39 PM

i am just buying both. still worth it, for those of you wondering. but the EEs are way better that the TCs. as obvious above, there is a HEAP of detail in them

Rizor

09-06-2003, 01:15 AM

Those are some pretty big statements there, jpdill. Personally, I think you're a bit paranoid on the DVD side of things. :D It's pretty much the nature of all recent DVDs to pretty much tell you how great the movie is. And you know what? I don't think it's a big overstatement. The guys pulled off an extraordinary feat. Not only did they make three films simultaneuously which had never been done before, but the films are excellent. Better than any other of these so-called "blockbusters" I've seen in the past decade, so I have no problem with that.

On the CG, I think just about everything looks excellent and not dated at all. Hell I'd even say it holds up, if not surpasses all the effects work in films seen since the first movie came out in 2001. The Argonaths look great in all the closeups so if what you're saying is true and everyone's just putting up a front and stretching the truth about the way they did all their special effects and miniature work, then they sure as hell fooled me! The DVD actually shows you that they filmed the models. Even in closeup. They go as far as to show you the original plates with the models in the shot, a rough composite with the model and then the digital background or blue screen elements, then the final scene as seen in the film. Aside from some color tweaks or digital waterfalls and birds, it looks about the same as the original plate. Or should I not trust them because THEY'RE ALL LYING?!?!?

Maybe I went a bit over the top there. :D Anyway, I do not think these movies will be forgotten in a year or two. If any films in this decade will be remembered generations down the line, they'll be The Lord of the Rings.

Or am I just a delusional fan that wasted all my money on theater tickets so I have to take it out on these boards? Actually only seen each film once in theaters and aside from the EE of FOTR, bought none of the merchandise.

jpdill

09-06-2003, 08:42 AM

Have you seen any of the films this year?

So far, the SFX prize is between Matrix 2 and T3. LOTR 2 is now getting dated. Helm's Deep is looking more false than ever before.

The LOTR films aren't ones that you can watch all in one go - they're too long and will make you bored, expecially when you've seen it tonnes of times before hand ( like i have:( )

This is my final theory: By 2005, when SW3 comes out, people will be saying "Wow - that's great" and other stuff among that.

They'd now appreciate the complete Star Wars saga more, and many people who think LOTR is the greatest now, will be slowly drifting away.

I am a little paranoid - LOTR is the only rival SW has had - but it won't last as long, as it's NOT a movie that will be able to withstand future generations. That's what i think, so say what you want about me.

movieaddict

09-06-2003, 10:21 AM

quite a discussion giong on here right now. :)
and I have to say I'm with Rizor on that!
you can't deny that these models are one of the best and most detailed ever made. just look at the sheer size of them (bigatures!).
of course they utilized a lot of CGI in the films including enhancing the models, but all they meant was that they didn't have to do as much with the CGI as planned cause the models were that good!
I really get the feeling you're just trying to find stuff about the films to make them look bad....and they will be remembered for more than just a decade....just like the Star Wars films....
and how can you say that you can't watch these films repeatedly?! there are a lot of films that you can only watch once for different reasons....but LotR is definitely not among those!
there's so much detail in these films that you find new stuff almost every time you watch it....and they're done in such a great way (especially the first one!) that they excite me every time again.
I'm sorry you can't feel this way anymore (if you ever did?) but I wouldn't want to miss out on it! :D
Films should always make us feel...if they make you feel bad don't watch them. try and find films that you like and talk about them and not diss others....

-Mel

scifi guy

09-06-2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by jpdill
Have you seen any of the films this year?

So far, the SFX prize is between Matrix 2 and T3. LOTR 2 is now getting dated. Helm's Deep is looking more false than ever before.

Really? I think Helms Deep still looks good. it is one of the greatest battles ever seen on film. i think people will still appreciate it for decades to come!:)

jpdill

09-06-2003, 03:50 PM

You are right there in a sense - but it's not a film that'll last forever.

We can all see what's going to happen to The Matrix, and it's the same fate for LOTR. It'll die down - it's not future compatible - only backwards.

The Harry Potter films will be around for alot longer, even though they don't deserve it. And they're going to be around because of the books, not the movies.

Harry Potter 5 is still number one (both editions of the book are swapping around though, so this week it's Adult 1, Kids 2, and next week it's prob Kids and then Adults)

The LOTR books are not as popular and in the end it depends on the franchise.

Star Wars remained big because of the new toy releases (that sell compared to LOTRs), it's unique story (based on LOTR and other stories) and all those magazines, comics and books - come on, Star Wars is WAY more in-depth than LOTR is, as there are hundreds of Star Wars books, and only about 15 LOTR ones.

Even though it was fluke, GL had managed to make it so it's always going to remain supreme. Star Wars is still bigger than LOTR, even though it don't seem like it. And the problem is that when SW3 comes out, people will be more interested in those 150 minutes, than the 180 of LOTR3.

I've read LOTR and The Hobbit - they're hard to read books, but good none the less. But for me, the MAJOR difference between LOTR and SW is that LOTR spoon-feeds you, while SW lets the reader/viewer interpret things how they want it.

Who honestly wants LOTR to end like it does in the book? When SW ended, it left so much room for more stories.

Ok - it's becoming SW vs. LOTR, which is not gonig to happen. Sorry for starting this.

In the end, for me:

LOTR is classic; STAR WARS is classic

Oh yeh - SW3's going to rock - i've sussed out how they build the Death Star.

scifi guy

09-06-2003, 03:54 PM

The LOTR books are not as popular and in the end it depends on the franchise.-jpdill

dude! LOTR are the 2nd most read books ever! the first being the Bible!

jpdill

09-06-2003, 04:07 PM

Yeh - but it's become the most read because of bored 60s people.

They were made to read it at school, so no wonder it's most read. If LOTR came out NOW, it wouldn't be as big as it was in those pre-TV days.

adt100

09-06-2003, 06:45 PM

jpdill, it's fine preferring SW or HP over LOTR, but you could at least try to be a bit more objective in your comments, which I'm afraid you're not from what I've read.

Just on the SFX issue alone, many of your comments are simply incorrect, and even on the subjective aspects of the FX I think you under-appreciate LOTR. Both Matrix 2 and SW 2 were made after FOTR, and yet most people in the SFX industry that know what they're looking at, hell, most of the general public IMO, would say that FOTR looks the least 'dated' of these 3 films.

Anyway, g-race, as you have gathered, the EE's are unquestionably worth it. They are some of the more extensive and highest quality DVD's available, and collectively will remain so for many, many years to come.

Rizor

09-06-2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by jpdill
Have you seen any of the films this year?

So far, the SFX prize is between Matrix 2 and T3. LOTR 2 is now getting dated. Helm's Deep is looking more false than ever before.
I saw a few FX heavy films this year, but didn't feel they were on par with LOTR's. I saw Matrix Reloaded, T3, and Hulk. I thought Hulk's FX were, with the exception of one scene great. T3 was good, but more or less the same stuff we've already seen in the past.

I wasn't too impressed with The Matrix Reloaded's FX. They're plentiful and probably groundbreaking, but they just don't look good to me. They depended too much on CG characters and the way they're used in the film, it defeats the purpose. One of the great things about the first film was that they were real people doing their own stunts and you'd wonder how that did it. But in the sequel, it's just all digital. There's no real wonderment in seeing poorly rendered CGI people fighting eachother. And they are rather crude. The CG characters just look too smooth.

I still think Helm's Deep looks good. If you want an example of bad CGI in LOTR, try the Warg sequence. They look and have always looked pretty bad.

I think LOTR has staying power. They're already on millions of people's top favorite movies lists, so as long as they're around and letting they're kids see them, there's no reason why they'd go away. Lesser films have survived.

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but I think you've already got what you wanted. Can't recommend the EEs enough. A set of must-own DVDs if there ever were any.

And jpdill, I also think Episode III will rock. Been reading all these spoilers and can't wait for it. Of course there are some that hate the prequels with a passion, but I enjoy them. :)

jpdill

09-07-2003, 07:07 AM

Sorry also for taking it off topic:

FOTR is a must-buy anyway - it's a good film, and the commentaries are quite good.

TTT will be also a must buy.

If you like LOTR, you'd MAY like other films like Star Wars, and if you do, i'd advise you get them on DVD.

SW2 is a must if you have a good suround sound system

adt100

09-07-2003, 11:01 AM

Whatever you think of their films, both Peter Jackson and George Lucas produce great DVD's for film fans. If only Speilberg could do the same!

jpdill

09-07-2003, 12:48 PM

True - very true.

Spielburg is like still in VHS mode. LOL

sunflower03

09-08-2003, 12:38 AM

the lort films are not dated. i haven't ever read the books and i love the films.

jpdill

09-08-2003, 10:35 AM

SFX wise they are now.

Frodo looks SO out of of proportion, and there are other things. Those Argonaths look fake. The first film is dated.

Number 2 is becoming dated from each new release. It happens - it's not a big deal.

Also:

Who here agrees Jurassic Park has the best SFX for a film ever? I do, and even though it's only 8 minutes of SFX, they're still the best.

When the T-rex comes out of his fencing, it looks realistic. Too relistic for 1993...

Fanible

09-08-2003, 10:54 AM

Man I just finished watching FOTR EE and TTT DVD yesterday, and they're still as amazing as when I first saw them, the first one even more so now.

And the graphics still look superb (besides my thing with the cave troll and watcher). All the zoomed out huge battles I think look great. The only CGI I didn't like was the cave troll really, and the watcher wasn't that amazing. But Helm's Deep? It still rocks my socks off.

MMM... and I can't wait for Shelob.

Some of the greatest films of all time.

Oh and the sets of like Rivendell and everything, are models or large sets. They usually digitally incorporated the two. Models in the backround, then when it starts zooming in on some locations, it's actual huge sets they built.

HAVE you watched the EE Appendixes? Your argument with them being CGI doesn't make sense after viewing what they actually did. After the cinematography, and the good detail mixed, the big-atures look fantastic. True I'd prefer them have being CGI, as CGI buildings and whatnot look fine anyway, because I CAN tell when they're models, but they are still really neat.

jpdill

09-08-2003, 01:40 PM

The models were re-done on the computer!

They knew it wasn't as detailed, so before release, they put a new layer of "skin" on the models to make them look more realistic.

The Extras make it out that they only changed a bit - they didn't change a bit. They changed ALOT.

jpdill

09-08-2003, 01:46 PM

Helm's Deep still looks fake when it explodes. End of story.

Other than the big battle and Gollum, all the rest of the movie's CGI sucked. Those trolls on the Entrance to Mordor looked un-realistic, as did those really terrible giant-elephants.

TTT was a good film. One of the greatest of all time. For me, LOTR is my 3rd favourite film. But it's not the best at CGI. As i said, Weta have had time at their aid, as i have said already.

This year, they don't. I'm going to have my fingers crossed and hope The Revolutions are going to be major - they are anyway.

"The Greatest Battle of Our Time" - The Matrix Revolutions

Hah hah Morpheus. You didn't stop the war.

Also, even though it's wrong forum, do you think it's a good thing Agent Smith being a goody?

adt100

09-08-2003, 06:07 PM

jpdill, you're going off on one again I see. :rolleyes:

If you seriously thinkg the CGI work in either LOTR film thus far looks 'dated' and 'poor' then you really need your eyes testing. And by that logic every other movie out with extensve CGI also must look fake.

As for JP, yes the SFX were superb, ahead of their time, but nowadays it's only the animatronic T Rex that actually looks 'real' and stand up to todays standards in visual terms. The actual CGI work (particularly the Bracchiasaurus at the beginning) looks extremely dated.

Luckily, when it comes to technical awards at ceremonies such as the Oscars it's those experts in the profession that get to judge these things. Therefore I don't think you can really argue with the technical merits of Weta's achievements.

As for your comments on the miniatures, I really don't understand your complaints here. So what if they improved the lighting and textures via the computer. There is no false information given in the EE. It is Weta's combination of miniatures and CGI that in my (and I think most) people's opinions gives a greater level of realism than the CGI everything approach of GL.

sunflower03

09-08-2003, 11:14 PM

lotr movies don't look dated, infact, i think they are ahead of their time for a lot of the stuff they did in these movies. i doubt these movies will look dated for years. i can understand someone saying that a movie like, say star wars, looks dated but lotr come on.

The Moose

09-09-2003, 04:13 AM

lotr has just been waiting for the technology to make it. now it is here, the films are being made. but some of the things in it can been seen to have faults

adt100

09-09-2003, 05:22 AM

I wouldn't say 'faults'. Of course the FX aren't perfect, and maybe, the more film-makers and FX's houses push the boundaries they never will be perfect, the more elaborate and spectacular they become. (and by that I don't simply mean 'BIG', Gollum for example could be classed as an elaborate and spectacular effect)

On the whole they are pretty much as good as can be achieved at present though, and have helped fully realise the story that perhaps only 10 years ago they couldn't have been.

We have come to a point in CGI where it is more a case of ever more detailed refinement in the realisation of effects. The leaps and bounds that the industry has undergone in the past 20 years are enormous. However, the progression over the next 20 years will be far less spectacular and noticeable, but rather focussed on subtleties to create ever more life-like appearances.

The pace of technological advancement, of processing power and such may remain as rapid as ever, and the tools to achieving these FX will become ever more advanced and easy to use, but not for quantum leaps in visual quality. As such, good CGI work today (like Gollum) will remain good in years to come, even though it will get better. We will never look at a character like Gollum in 20 years time and say "that looks so fake" in the way we do now of films 20, 30 years ago.

jpdill

09-09-2003, 10:03 AM

People's attitudes change - always do.

That's all i'm going to say following on from your post, adt1k

adt100

09-09-2003, 11:47 AM

Yes, attitudes in terms of their view of a film, maybe, because opinions can be subjective and evolve over time for various reasons.

In terms of objective judgement based on technical merit though, they don't, or at least shouldn't. As I say I think we are at a stage with CGI that spectacular effects can be achieved that can at least be passed off as 'real', in a way that Harryhausen's work (pioneer though he was) couldn't.

It's going to be more a case of refinement over coming years rather than huge leaps. Metaphorically speaking we are over half-way up the mountain, with every step we get closer to our ultimate goal, with every step this distance shortens.

(BTW, you got my name wrong. :p)

jpdill

09-09-2003, 12:42 PM

I didn't see that it only had 2 zeros.

Sorry for me being stupid anyway - LOTR isn't dated. The SFX aren't dated.

But also, Star Wars 1 and 2 aren't dated either. If you think they are, just tell me which scenes. I'm that kind of odd person who'd check 'em.

spiderman_2k

09-09-2003, 01:17 PM

The scene where Anikin is riding that bull thing in the field..some of the worst CGI ever IMO

jpdill

09-09-2003, 01:39 PM

True - looks fake.

Anything else...

Surely someone thought the CloneTroopers looked fake - nobody ever points that out.

jediknight

09-09-2003, 02:10 PM

LOTR f/x > all other fx out there.

Yoda looked fake in SW...I like the puppet better, although puppet couldn't have fought Dooku.

Hulk looked fake

The CGI part in Matrix Reloaded (burly brawl)...fake!

All CGI looks fake. If it was real, we wouldn't need those people called actors.

Rizor

09-09-2003, 03:56 PM

The CG in Finding Nemo is extremely fake looking. The scenery is alright, but the digital characters simply blow. Not once during the movie did I think I was watching a real fish.

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/5692_002_thumb.jpg

http://www.wamas.org/images/clown.jpg

First of all, fish don't talk. And if they wanted them to, they could have photographed live action fish and digitally animated their mouths. They're all wacked up now with human charcateristics. Pixar obviously skipped the research trips on this bomb. The humans even look horrible. They're all disproportional and look like freakish dolls. Jesus! What the hell was Disney trying to prove when they made it all CG? They definately took it overboard and didn't know how to handle it.

jpdill

09-09-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by jediknight
LOTR f/x > all other fx out there.

Yoda looked fake in SW...I like the puppet better, although puppet couldn't have fought Dooku.

Hulk looked fake

The CGI part in Matrix Reloaded (burly brawl)...fake!

All CGI looks fake. If it was real, we wouldn't need those people called actors.

There was only one CGI thing that made LOTR look better - all the other CGI stuff is average.

And Gollum looks really bad (on Yoda scale) in some scenes. One is when Faramir enters Gondor, with Gollum on a rope. It looks odd.

jpdill

09-09-2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Rizor
The CG in Finding Nemo is extremely fake looking. The scenery is alright, but the digital characters simply blow. Not once during the movie did I think I was watching a real fish.

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/5692_002_thumb.jpg

http://www.wamas.org/images/clown.jpg

First of all, fish don't talk. And if they wanted them to, they could have photographed live action fish and digitally animated their mouths. They're all wacked up now with human charcateristics. Pixar obviously skipped the research trips on this bomb. The humans even look horrible. They're all disproportional and look like freakish dolls. Jesus! What the hell was Disney trying to prove when they made it all CG? They definately took it overboard and didn't know how to handle it.

1) Disney film, and is meant to be ANIMATION. What's the point in making a CGI film (by Pixar) if you're not going to use much of it.

2) You missed the point of PIXAR animation, didn't you

3) It's all CGI - even the backgrounds.

Also, Finding Nemo is the best CGI work anyway. But for live action, the best so far has to have been T3.

By the end of the year, i think we'll end up saying Matrix Revolutions will be the SFX King, with LOTR coming second to it.

Rizor

09-09-2003, 04:17 PM

:applaud:

Maybe I forgot the :p

sunflower03

09-10-2003, 01:22 AM

i meant dated as special effects go as compared to what they can do today.

adt100

09-10-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by jpdill
There was only one CGI thing that made LOTR look better - all the other CGI stuff is average.

And Gollum looks really bad (on Yoda scale) in some scenes. One is when Faramir enters Gondor, with Gollum on a rope. It looks odd.

Now I know you need your eyes testing. ;)
Gollum compared to Yoda is no contest. It's not always about quantity either. TPM and AOTC had good CGI in general, but overall looked incredibly fake due to the fact that virtually every background and piece of scenery was created in a computer, and you could tell.

Revolutions I really doubt will be seen as having greater SFX than ROTK, simply because the CGI work will have been going on around the same time this year (so no technology leaps) and Reloaded I genuinely thought was pretty average at times, despite it releasing well after TTT.

There were some good FX in Reloaded, but when it came to modelling Neo/Smith in CGI, despite them being relatively simple forms to model in terms of humanoid figures (ie they were dressed in long, matt black suits/coats), they came off as incredibly fake at times.

TTT also had it's faults, there were 1 or 2 short scenes that stick in my mind as being slightly below par, but on average the level was better and more consistent.

(BTW, Rizor was clearly joking in his Nemo comments yet you seem to take it seriously).

spiderman_2k

09-10-2003, 02:25 PM

No offence intended to the guy, but he seems to take everything too seriously IMO

Riddle

09-10-2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by jpdill
1) Disney film, and is meant to be ANIMATION. What's the point in making a CGI film (by Pixar) if you're not going to use much of it.

2) You missed the point of PIXAR animation, didn't you

3) It's all CGI - even the backgrounds.

Also, Finding Nemo is the best CGI work anyway. But for live action, the best so far has to have been T3.

By the end of the year, i think we'll end up saying Matrix Revolutions will be the SFX King, with LOTR coming second to it.

:eek:

I'm getting you a sence of humor for Christmas. I desperately need one!

scifi guy

09-10-2003, 02:34 PM

The cave troll in FOTR looks really good compared to the 3 Arena Battle beasts in AOTC. LOTR CGI is better then SW CGI(don't get me wrong i love Star Wars) But you just can't compare the two.
Now the Gollum- Yoda issue. Again you can't compare them. Yoda was supposed to look like the puppet(which he did) and Gollum was supposed to look like a tormented Hobbit (which he did)
bottom line is Star Wars and Lord of the Rings can't be compared... they both have their strengths and weeknesses!

jpdill

09-10-2003, 03:46 PM

Gollum is better looking than Yoda - i never actually meant to imply Yoda looked better

jpdill

09-10-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by adt100
[B
Revolutions I really doubt will be seen as having greater SFX than ROTK [/B]

Um. I can see it as having.

ROTK: Big battle on the Field, and other ones. Good CGI.

Matrix 3: Big battle around scorched earth, and other ones. Matrix 3 also had invested more time into it's CGI - the big battle sequence itself cost $40 million, so it's alot more than anything else.

LOTR may think they'll have the biggest battle in cinema history, but Matrix 3 is just keeping their under-wraps.

jpdill

09-10-2003, 03:59 PM

If you pause the UK trailer for Revolutions, you see that there are new baddy robots (huge ones), and that there is a human-army against them.

But Revolutions and ROTK will be similar:

Agent Smith and Neo vs. a big bad guy
Frodo and Sam fight together

Humans vs. 250 thousand Sentinels and other robots
Humans vs. 200 thousand Orcs and other beasts

Trinity vs. really evil person
Gandalf vs. Nazgúl

Also, in Matrix 3 trailer, there's a scene where there a pod-trees everywhere, with some ships flying above them.

adt100

09-10-2003, 05:10 PM

I think it could be more difficult to judge Matrix in a way because it is based in a more artificial/fantastical kind of world, and the SFX show this. LOTR on the other hand is supposed to represent an alternative history in 'real' landscapes and such. Visually you could describe LOTR as being closer to real world in terms of comparisons than Matrix.

Rabbit

09-10-2003, 05:12 PM

EEs are definately worth it.

Johnnys Apples

09-12-2003, 02:27 AM

maybe this was already answered somewhere else, but does anyone know exactly how much extra time will be on TTT EE?

jpdill

09-12-2003, 09:58 AM

The new EE is 223 minutes, 13 secs - i think.

Sculder

09-12-2003, 04:05 PM

about 43 minutes will be added on to The Two Towers in the Extended Version

The Moose

09-12-2003, 09:47 PM

yeah. the FOTR one had about 30 something minutes of new footage on it. so it looks like we'll get about an hour of new footage for ROTK

jpdill

09-13-2003, 07:03 AM

Arghhhh - why so long?

Well it'll make a nice filler until 2005...

adt100

09-13-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by The Moose
yeah. the FOTR one had about 30 something minutes of new footage on it. so it looks like we'll get about an hour of new footage for ROTK

That is strange logic you apply there.

jpdill - why so long? because they're such great films, that's why. :D

JBomb87

09-13-2003, 07:18 PM

Not only that,they wanted the fans of the books to see what they intended to include in the movie. But do to time restrains they had to edit them down for pacing.

The Moose

09-13-2003, 09:31 PM

what's strange about it adt? jumps in 15 mins, so why can't it continue (don't get mne wrong, i will be quite happy with more than an hour of new footage in the ROTK:EE)

Cmoney

09-14-2003, 09:21 AM

Fotr didnt actually have 30 minutes of footage. alot of it was "fan club credits".

adt100

09-14-2003, 11:11 AM

No, the figures of extra footage that they give (ie 30mins, 43 minutes, or whatever) are actual extra film footage. The fan credits are an extra chapter at the end of the regular credits that are obviously not included in the total time because they are about 20mins in total length.

The logic was strange Moose because they add what they need to add to make the story complete in their eyes. It could be only 20 minutes or it could be 50 minutes, but they don't say 'right let's add 30 mins to FOTR, then add another 15 mins to TTT, and another 15 to ROTK'. I doubt ROTK will have any more than 43 minutes extra, and more like closer to 30mins due to the fact that ROTK theatrical will already be a good 15 mins longer than FOTR and TTT.

jpdill

09-14-2003, 05:31 PM

What's the word used to describe 10% of LOTR's film time...

Oh yeah:

Eye Candy

Eg 1) You didn't really need to establish that Argonath shot - it was to make the audience go "Aww".

Eg 2) The battle of Helm's Deep was a little over the top with it's explosion - trying to make you go "Wow" this time

Eg 3) Legolas - the CGI scene (which was blurred a bit as without blur it looks fake-er) where he flips onto the horse - again, not needed. Just to get your attention...

Other than the scenes which are directly copied form other films, and the fact the DVD tells bull**** from time to time (eg. The Big-ature Case), LOTR is among the greatest films of all time.

The DVD is worth it - the only problems are that you can tell that the newly added scenes were deleted (as they look like they're Pro DV-shot)

Get the DVD...

My final word on it.

--- Mr Contradiction ---

The Moose

09-15-2003, 05:31 AM

i know that the logic i used was rather odd, but there was a pattern. they want to finish the story, and there just happened to be a pattern, so i pointed it out

adt100

09-15-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by jpdill
What's the word used to describe 10% of LOTR's film time...

Oh yeah:

Eye Candy

I've seriously NEVER heard LOTR described as such. Frankly it doesn't need to be either. The SFX in LOTR are fantastic yes, but are only there to tell the story and enhance it. They are essentially not there be noticed as 'special effect/CGI' and such, rather to blend into to a realistic vision of some kind of pre-historical setting.

Matrix Reloaded on the other hand seems to have been marketted almost solely on the CGI and 'flashy' visuals, which I found exhilirating at times, but more often than not a bit of a turn off. They couldn't hide a weak script either.

This from a supposed 'fan' of LOTR (jpdill), I can't wait to hear his opinions on the same themes with regard Matrix and Star Wars. On second thoughts, maybe I can!

jpdill

09-15-2003, 11:02 AM

1) Matrix and Eye Candy match. The hole point of bullet time was that you go "wow" and Matrix is that kinda film...

2) SW does it, but it's subtle - you never ever get a few seconds focusing on SFX - never.

For LOTR, the Argonath thing was a "eye-candy" scene, for the audience to gaze at. I don't remember any scene like that is SW. Possibly the valley scene...

Cmoney

09-15-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by adt100
No, the figures of extra footage that they give (ie 30mins, 43 minutes, or whatever) are actual extra film footage. The fan credits are an extra chapter at the end of the regular credits that are obviously not included in the total time because they are about 20mins in total length.

no the fan club credits were part of the extra 30 minutes. There was not 30 minutes of footage and 20 minutes of fan club credits. I can tell that just by putting the dvd in and checking the length.

The Moose

09-15-2003, 08:30 PM

we had more than 10 mins of new footage, i can tell ya that now.

Johnnys Apples

09-19-2003, 02:50 AM

SO... more extended footage for TTT than FOTR is that what I'm understanging?

The Moose

09-19-2003, 05:01 AM

yes, that is it, is a sentence

movieaddict

09-21-2003, 04:57 AM

can you believe it the money they want for those sets?!??!??!!?
in germany it is priced around $100 , in the UK around $60 and why the hell is that???????????????

-Mel

The Moose

09-21-2003, 05:08 AM

that's nothing. here in NZ for the Gift set, they want $200 NZ

movieaddict

09-21-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by The Moose
that's nothing. here in NZ for the Gift set, they want $200 NZ

how much is that in USD?????
I really don't understand the pricing policy sometimes.....well most of the time....

-Mel

sunflower03

09-22-2003, 12:19 AM

i guess i shouldn't complain because a gift set in the u.s. is a lot cheaper, but that doesn't mean the price couldn't be lower everywhere.

DVD_Archiver

09-22-2003, 11:24 PM

It really don’t matter how much they cost, the extended lord of the rings DVDs are well worth the money. These movies are some of the best to ever hit DVD. And the quality that went into making the movies as also went in to the DVD. They are so damn beautiful to look at. They are made with a very high level of class. the new scenes blend into the movie seamlessly and add more insight into the next movie. The play all button on the extra features allows you to sit back and watch a very in-depth look into the making of these movies. These movies have great replay value and bring great pride to any DVD collector. I have even talked to people who didn’t even use their free movie pass just because they wanted their DVD treasure to be worth even more. The movie pass was worth about $8.50 itself. I hope TTT extended also comes with a movie pass, but even if it doesn’t I know I will add the DVD to my collection because I know its value as a DVD is worth so more then its minor price.

movieaddict

09-23-2003, 01:53 PM

I don't care how much they want for it. What I don't understand is why they ask for a different price in a neighboring country. and with different I mean almost double!!!!!!

-Mel

DVD_Archiver

09-23-2003, 02:54 PM

Maybe it has something to do with shipping and import charges. Maybe it costs so much more just to be allowed to sell it there, that they have to charge more to make their money back. Another factor could be marketing. Maybe the sales in one county will be far less then somewhere else. So that would mean they would produce less for that country causing prices to go up there. But hell that’s just some guess’s.

adt100

09-23-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Cmoney
no the fan club credits were part of the extra 30 minutes. There was not 30 minutes of footage and 20 minutes of fan club credits. I can tell that just by putting the dvd in and checking the length.

No, the fan club credits are extra. Try to get your facts straight before refuting a comment. :rolleyes:

Rizor

09-23-2003, 05:46 PM

The total length of the film with fan club credits is 3 hours and 48 minutes. That would be 50 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.

Cmoney

09-23-2003, 07:15 PM

maybe I'm wrong. or theres something wrong with my dvd.

The Moose

09-25-2003, 05:55 AM

i would think that you are wrong

EmpireOfDust

10-27-2003, 01:01 PM

time to bump this up! For it is only 22 days now until the two towers extended edition will be upon us!

KenM

10-27-2003, 06:43 PM

Both EE and the normal DVd have different extras on them, plus the stuff they add to the movies makes it worth it, IMO. BTW, my DVD has a timer, FoTR EE credits start about 28 minutes later then the theactical, so it is an extra 30 minuts of movie footage.

Blizzardman15

10-27-2003, 08:44 PM

Do the extended ed. have the xtras from the reg too?

droidguy1119

10-27-2003, 10:19 PM

No...that is the idea...that people will want the EE because the special features are all different.

For the Extended Editions they use all footage and materials that Wingnut Films shot on their own, with their own budget and money.

The standard DVDs contain the promotional features, like website featurettes, TV specials, and other things like that.

Personally, I love the EEs...and you can get Two Towers for a measly $24 preorder online at Overstock. Rock on.

Anamorphic

10-27-2003, 11:23 PM

The EE edition of LOTR included the option of DTS ES in addition to DD EX, if that's important to you. It is to me. The same is true with the TTT releases. I got both releases of LOTR. The added theatrical material in the EE of LOTR isn't mind blowing or anything, but why wouldn't you want it? The result for me is that it's not all that likely that I'll be rewatching the first release. Now, when I want to watch LOTR I reach for the EE. Especially now that things have changed for me economcally (for the worst, lol), I won't even bother with the first release of TTT. I'm waiting for the EE of TTT... that's where I'll put my money. Perhaps if I was a super duper fan of LOTR I would have to have both, but I'm not.

QUOTE:

"I wasn't too impressed with The Matrix Reloaded's FX. They're plentiful and probably groundbreaking, but they just don't look good to me. They depended too much on CG characters and the way they're used in the film, it defeats the purpose. One of the great things about the first film was that they were real people doing their own stunts and you'd wonder how that did it. But in the sequel, it's just all digital. There's no real wonderment in seeing poorly rendered CGI people fighting eachother. And they are rather crude. The CG characters just look too smooth." ----Rizor

Rizor!!!!!!! I'm so glad to hear someone else found some of Reloaded's cgi a stumbling block. Usually, if I even dare to suggest that, people get ticked off fast, lol. Is the problem that those instances they used entirely cgi rendered images? Blade II used far less sfx, I suppose, still, when I see some of the shots in which Blade is flipping through the air and I imagine that it may be similarly all cgi I am impressed with how much more believable it is than in Reloaded. Reloaded's sfx are still fantastic and they must get applause for attempting some very ambitious things, but in those cases it's fairly glaring. I almost wonder if they ran out of time in post production, or something. I can't believe they missed it. So, did they just have to wrap it up due to time or money constraints, or something? Could they have first captured the real actors images going through the needed motions using pullies or something, then used cgi to animate them further to make the end result more believable?

I think Star Wars II had awesome sfx and the dvd is fantastic, too, for video and audio quality. Star Wars will probably last longer and with greater intensity simply because it has already long captured the public imagination. But personally, there are some glaring annoyances in some of the films. And the original Star Wars... Episode IV... is so dated I can barely stand to watch it. The Ewoks almost ruin Episode VI. Jar Jar Binks does ruin Episode I.

Even if the distant midevalism of the LOTR movies never strike as strong a cord with audiences as the Star Wars Universe they will remain three of the most beautifully produced movies you can see for a long time to come

The Moose

10-28-2003, 01:37 AM

TORn has a new review of the EE. it's also floating about on the LOTR forum here, as Jedi's review

droidguy1119

10-28-2003, 09:29 AM

Basically, I can see WHY they used CGI in Matrix Reloaded -- they only do it for the "bullet-time" sequences, to make them longer, and more complicated. It would have taken months, maybe half a year or longer to piece together the bullet time sequences if they had not been CGI, because the Wachowski's obviously wanted to make the moves more complicated. Just after Neo gets the pole in the Agent Smith fight -- watch how long that shot lasts.

I dunno what you're saying, though, with Star Wars is dated. That's a terrible thing to say!

I pretty much hated Episode II, although the audio/video quality on the DVD is top-notch. The only scene I like is probably the best-looking part of the disc -- asteroid field chase. Wow. Too bad the whole damn movie suffers from little or no John Williams score...where's the damn music?!

And...The LOTR movies have already struck a chord. I believe they're the big trilogy of the new millennium. Or at least the first big trilogy.

diasyjazz

10-28-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by The Moose
TORn has a new review of the EE. it's also floating about on the LOTR forum here, as Jedi's review

Here is said "review"

The Two Towers Extended Cut Review!
leo @ 9:44 am EST

Ringer Spy CJ wrote in what must be the first review we have from the Extended Cut from The Two Towers that will appear on the Exteneded DVD (available from November 20th)! Mind you, it does contain a lot of spoilers!!

I saw the Two Towers Extended Edition over a week ago and am happy to report that fans are in for a treat. I cannot go into the events the led to my wonderful good fortune, or I might end up like an orc trying to flee Helm's Deep.

I thought the Fellowship EE did a nice job of fleshing out the story and adding things that fans would have liked to have seen in the original but I thought Two Towers EE was a more substantial improvement over the theatrical release. Many of the new scenes really helped explain dialog or events that were in the original cut. A small example is when Frodo and Sam are eating Lembas near the beginning of the movie and Frodo says to Sam something like, 'Sam ,there is nothing that can dampen your spirits is there?' and Sam looks over and says 'Those rain clouds might.' In the theatrical release, the next scene shows Frodo and Sam wandering through the fog, soon to realize they are going in circles. In the extended edition, the next scene shows the Hobbits sitting under their cloaks getting drenched which follows a comment about pending rain much better than a fog bank. It also serves as a nice intro to Gollum as he peeps over a rock ledge from above (I'm pretty sure I have seen this shot posted). I will not try and go through everything I remember- I must say I really enjoyed being surprised by the stuff I was not expecting. But for those of you who like to know in advance here are a few new scenes:

When Merry and Pippin are drinking the ent draught, they wrestle over the jug it is in and fall at the roots of a tree which proceeds to suck them in until Treebeard shows up and pulls a Tom Bombadil and rescues them. I am not sure if the literalists will appreciate this nod to old man willow (it did not look like a willow tree to me), but I liked it and it emphasized that the forest is dangerous and edgy which made it all the more cool when the forest started off to Helms Deep and then when the orcs ran into the forest at the end. The final forest shot reminded me of the shot of the orcs who are taking Merry and Pippin to Saruman at the beginning of the film, right after one exclaims 'It looks like meat is back on the menu boys!' No flying organs, but a mass of violent writhing. Ironic, but a nice link... and very PJ.

There is more dialog as Gimili, Legolas and Aragorn enter fangorn in which Legolas says that the Elves originally taught the trees to talk and Gimili exclaims that he can't think of anything trees would have to talk about except squirrel crap. I thought his comment was a bit awkward, which is probably why I remember it, but most of the new dialog was great. There were many new (more successful in my opinion) humorous moments which I thought really fleshed out the movie since so much of it is dark and violent.

For example... Merry and Pippin make several comments about good 'pipe weed' and there are some Flotsam and Jetsam scenes at the end where they find apples and what looked like a turkey or big chicken floating in the flood and follow the goods into a storage room where they find barrels of the good stuff. There is a funny scene where Treebeard walks up to the open door in the ruins and peeks down through it. All you hear is Merry and Pippin having a good time in the room with clouds of smoke billowing out into the air.

There is a scene with Wormtoungue riding back to Isenguard. Wormtongue describes Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimili to Saruman who asks about Aragorn. Wormtongue describes Aragorn's ring and Saruman looks it up in a book and says something to the effect of 'So Gandalf thinks he has found the heir of Isildur... No matter...' That's what he thinks!

droidguy1119

10-28-2003, 04:13 PM

The review says the DVD will be out Nov. 20th. Unless you're not in America, the street date is really the 18th.

All home media comes out on Tuesdays.

Rizor

10-29-2003, 05:27 PM

Anamorphic, I'm no expert on vfx or anything for the matter. I'd guess some of the crudeness is more about time. The fx budget was huge for the sequel, so it's probably not money. Maybe they just tried to do too much in too little time. On SW, I think the fx are generally great with some things that aren't up to par with some of the other stuff. With digital Yoda I felt he was beautifully animated by was lacking in the redering side of things.

I'm glad the TTT EE is only 3 weeks away, but for some reason I can wait. Last year it seemed like a slow death from the time they were announced to Novemeber. This year, with Indy and everything and probably the fact that I've already got the FOTR EE, things seem low key. But I'll still enjoy ripping through the extended cut, four commentaries, and seven hours of other features.