DashRendar Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy If we could, it'd be nice to get back on topic... After reading your posts I forgot what the topic was to the point of having to go back up to the top to see the title. Now that being said... Topics in which 2 "Great Works" are compared are normally either gonna depend on if the forum it's posted in has to do with one of the choices (as it was here) or it will most likely come out split right down the middle, simply because these are matters of opinion. As you have seen at least 2 or 3 people in this thread alone have stated that they can't decide. Therefore I take back my vote (well I would if I could!) and state that they are of equal interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Heehee, don't get your feathers riled over Lord Fergie Tieguy, he's quite the idiot, and yes we all feel sorry for Darthfergie having to live with him. Also they are uncomparable because both of them originated in different time periods on different forms of media, you can do different things with one that you can't do with the other. You might as well have posted a topic saying "books or movies?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Artoo You might as well have posted a topic saying "books or movies?" Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa What is it with these hard questions. As long as I don't have to decide, I wont. I Like Lotr and Sw and those can live togheter. Same with books and movies. I can divide my time, it's not like I have one hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 easy. Star Wars all the way. Come on, guys, how hard can it be ? Think of your childhood ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I has nothing to do with childhood. I'm a Star Wars fan since 1997 and a LotR fan since 2000. And altough I know SW longer, LotR existed longer. So for some, LotR could be their childhood. And at the moment ... look at 2002. Star Wars had Episode2 and a 2 disc DVD. LotR had a 2 disc DVD, a 4 disc DVD and a movie (TTT). We will see 3 great movies in 3 years for Lord of the rings with a total running time over 9 hours (over 10 hours when you consider the extended editions). With star wars we have 3 movies in 6 years (1999 - 2005) with a running time of somewhat over 6 hours. And all of those with a very simple 2 set DVD. About the DVD, look at the extra's. Yeah, Ep1 had the best making of documentry (The beginning) but apart from some documentries ... that's it. Look at the deleted scenes, Ep1 had some cool things around the the podrace, Ep2 had nothing special. With the extended edition of LotR what do we find out? Even the deleted scenes are great! Star Wars always remains one of the best movies ... ep4-6 I mean, the prequels are good ... but not very special. Too digital I say. GL chose for too much bluescreen and computereffects that it sometimes have a surreal fake look, while it's proven that you can do great things without digital. Look at the dino's in Jurrasic park (there's digital there, but also a lot of puppets), The Apes in Planet of the apes, the set miniatures in Lord of the Rings ... SW is so digital nowadays that we should wonder if we'd compare it to Shrek. Digital is for enhancing movies ... not replacing. Therefore, I think that SW was great. The movies don't have the impact they used to have and the EU ... before there was NJO there was a good EU. SW leanes to much on past successes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 The Two Towers, if i'm not mistaken, had the most digital characters of any movie ever, though AOTC had the most digital shots. Besides, in LOTR, taking place in middle earth, you can easily film a mountain or a forest or a tower. But tell me, how do you plan to actually film Geonosis, or the astroid ring, or Kamino, or the Senate Hall, or Coruscant. You just can't. Digital technology makes AOTC possible, and quite frankly i think it looks incredible, not surreal and certainaly not fake. And to me, the 3 running time of LOTR is a weakness, not a strength. I just can't sit down and watch a 3+ hour movie, no matter how good it is, and LOTR so far has only been good at best, not incredible. and my sister (who's a self-proclaimed nut though she never heard of LOTR befor ethe movies) got the Extended version and thats just insane how long it is. I can't imagine trying t watch it all at the same time. And the extra scenes that i saw aren't anything special. They may satisfy bookies who wanted to see some left out stuff, but other than that they aren't too great. SW on the other hand, i can watch whenever, because its reasonable at only 2 hours, and i regurally do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy The Two Towers, if i'm not mistaken, had the most digital characters of any movie ever, though AOTC had the most digital shots. Gollum is not more digital than Yoda ... he's just better. Both needed to be digital. Gollum because he's a misformed hobbit, Yoda because Frank Oz is limited in what he can do with a puppet. However, Gollum was acted. All animation of Gollum is acted by Serkis. Oz however only lended his voice to Yoda, no more. Besides, in LOTR, taking place in middle earth, you can easily film a mountain or a forest or a tower. But tell me, how do you plan to actually film Geonosis, or the astroid ring, or Kamino, or the Senate Hall, or Coruscant. You just can't. Digital technology makes AOTC possible, and quite frankly i think it looks incredible, not surreal and certainaly not fake. To a degree it is needed to make digital sets. But geonosis was not filmed on location. All outside shots were digital or painted, and don't tell me that there aren't places on earth that don't look like geonosis. The part were Padme fals out of the gunship and rolls in the sand is fake, you can see it. A lot of background characters are fake, all the clonetroopers are fake (there is not even one clone trooper costume). The palace of Naboo is very fake, you can see it. This is a great example of a place where a miniature could have been used. There are points when the digital parts of AotC are amazing, but's overdone. And to me, the 3 running time of LOTR is a weakness, not a strength. I just can't sit down and watch a 3+ hour movie, no matter how good it is, and LOTR so far has only been good at best, not incredible. and my sister (who's a self-proclaimed nut though she never heard of LOTR befor ethe movies) got the Extended version and thats just insane how long it is. I can't imagine trying t watch it all at the same time. And the extra scenes that i saw aren't anything special. They may satisfy bookies who wanted to see some left out stuff, but other than that they aren't too great. SW on the other hand, i can watch whenever, because its reasonable at only 2 hours, and i regurally do. The length is not a weakness. In fact LotR is one story, not three. So you'd have to watch it in parts. I barely watch it in one turn. The Extended Edition is 2 discs so I watch FoTR in 2 parts (right now I'm seeing part 2). But since I think LotR is a good movie I have no trouble with the lengt. When I saw TTT two weeks ago I wasn't bored for a minute during those 3 hours, same with the Theatrical Release of FotR. And the extra scenes. Those of AotC weren't even finished. You could see Anakin standing on a mate painting in front of Padme's house and the hair of Obi-Wan was blending with the digital background. The extra scenes of FotR are seamlessly inserted in the original cut, there as good (quality) as the rest of the movie. And aren't these great? The introduction of the hobbits by Bilbo Baggins and The Green Dragon (The pub where Merry and Pippin are singing on the table) give great insight in what hobbits are. Aragorn telling about Beren Luthien, a story that reflects on the relation between Arwen and Aragorn. Gandalf talking black speech in Rivendell (Powerfull scene if you have a subwoofer). Everything that was inserted in Lothlorien, in the original cut it looked like a rush, here it felt complete, and not just because of the gift giving. And there are lot of more small great details. I bought AotC and FotR:EE on the same day. I've seen FotR:EE more often than AotC ... I've even seen Spiderman more often. AotC just isn't as powerful as, say, ESB. Lovely debate this ... Pointless (I'm still a SW fan), but fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by Young David [bLovely debate this ... Pointless (I'm still a SW fan), but fun. [/b] Yes, debating truly is the essence of this forum, no? Anyways... I cannot agree with you on gollum. Sure, he looked real, but i thought his performance was terrible, i hated him. I just thought he was terribly handled, especially in his split personality scenes. Everyone in the theatre laughed, i just thought it stupid. Either way, it was supposed to be a serious thing about him getting rid of his "evil" self and redeeming the hobit within him or whatever. But it turned out commical and stupid IMO. Plus, he was so ugly and disgusting, more than necessary i thought. maybe he was supposed to be like that, but i still didn't like it. Yoda, on the other hand, was a lot better, with the exception of one or two lines. He may not have been acted, but what does that matter? He didn't need to be, because he didn't have the same kind of interaction with the characters that gollum did. I think that they succeeded splendidly in making yoda just as he is supposed to be. He's an old "man" with incredible power and wisdom inside of him, and thats exctly how he's portrayed, a great overall performance. And, of course, Frank Oz did a great job with his voice. As for genosis, they did use some miniatures, like the stadium, and maybe they could have used real sand, but it looks just as good digitally IMO, so why bother? And how can you tell its fake when she rolls in teh sand anyways? Is there some telltale sign other than you know its fake so you are looking for flaws? I couldn't see anything fake looking in the movie, probably because i wasn't looking for any. Many digital characters were acted, like Dex and JarJar, but you can't expect them to make 200000 clone trooper suits and fill them with real people, its just not practical. Besides, none (or a very small number at most) of the Uruk-Hai were real, and thats painfullly obvious in a number of scenes were they just don't move naturally. The same goes for the main characters when they are running down the stairs in Moria after in collapses, even my Mom, who's blind as bat, pointed out they didn't look real. Now tell me Obi-Wan when he's whipcorded by Jango doens't look absolutely real? Or when he jumps out the window? He isn't. I will give you that the extra scenes in AOTC weren't great, they should have had the TF ship attack scene that was cut. Oh well. But the scenes in LOTR weren't anything special either, not to me. BTW, when i said "most digital", i didn't mean one character was more digital than another, but just forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Heh, speaking of digital actors, both movies prove we have come a long way. All I must say is that instead of an actor doing the acting for yoda, several CG animators did it, and they worked on it so much, that it looked fantastic, all of the subtleties were handled with yoda, combine that with Frank Oz being able to seemlessly match his voice with it, and... well... WOW. Even if he wasn't a puppet it was the best yoda ever. Gollum. What can I say, I loved him too. If it were up to me the awards would hvae one for best digital actor. And Gollum would win it. His acting was superb to the level of Willem Dafoe in Spiderman on the whole split personality thing. You could see the Gollum, and you could see the Smeagol, and you could tell there was a battle between them, and it was good. Also using an actor using motion capture technology and the actor lending his voice to it really helped bring Gollum alive. I'm not sure they could have done such a good job as the CG animators were able to do with yoda without the help of the actor. And then there's JarJar but I won't talk about him. Anyway digital characters are going places, they just won't replace humans, except for very fast stunt sequences, such as Count Dooku in the duel against yoda, and obi wan jumping out the window. (Ok so it was only Dooku's head, but it was still a replcement) What was this thread about again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 LotR all the way. George Lucas made a mistake when he decided to make more star wars IMO. I thought EP I & II were terrible. If it was just down to the original star wars and LotR I would have called it a draw, but greedy George tried to eat too much pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by duder If it was just down to the original star wars and LotR I would have called it a draw, but greedy George tried to eat too much pie. But the original trilogy has always been Episode 4-5-6. Leaving your saga unfinished when you have the means to complete it is absurd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I agree on that. I remember religiously wishing for the moment Lucas would announce the prequels.. That was in 1986. So go figure. Right now, for the ageing SW-fans among us, the most fun is in the periods living up to the movies; finding out snippets, piecing them together, and creating the story in our mind bit by bit as we complete the puzzle. Hence a large explanation as to why the movies seemed 'disappointing'; everybody has something else in mind beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar But the original trilogy has always been Episode 4-5-6. Leaving your saga unfinished when you have the means to complete it is absurd I would have prefered it left as it was. I found EP I & II to be absurdly weak films. Don't get me wrong I was excited when I heard about the prequels, incredibly so. But I don't think I'm on my own when I say that I feel that they let the 'saga' down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.