<strong>If the Scouring is not in the third film (and Jackson as already said as much), then I hope we don't see the Shire at all in the third film. </strong><hr></blockquote>Yes - watch the film on your new extended DVD with the director & writers' audio commentary. In the Galadriel's mirror scene, Jackson explicitly says that there is no scouring of the shire, and that what Frodo sees in the mirror is their homage to it because they left it out.
(I couldn't watch it with any of the other audio commentaries, but the one with the director and writers is pretty good.)
<strong>In the trailer as far as I could tell, I'm going to be dissapointed: I can't help but see a very distinct difference between the real-action characters and even the very fast flashes of Golem . . . . why oh why didn't he use a scrawny actor with make up!?!?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
He did.
Many of the scenes are Andy Serkis in 13 hours-worth of make up.
<strong>I'd read that they ended up going with an all-CG Gollum. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they did? It seems to have been quite a liquid project, with things changing as production went on. If so, I feel a little sorry for poor Mr. Serkis going through 13 hours of make up every day only to find his scenes on the cutting room floor.
Maybe they did? It seems to have been quite a liquid project, with things changing as production went on. If so, I feel a little sorry for poor Mr. Serkis going through 13 hours of make up every day only to find his scenes on the cutting room floor. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that was a problem ... Serkis acted in a special black-and-blue spandex bodysuit that allowed the animators to match the CG character with Serkis' body movements. There's a brief clip of Serkis in the bodysuit in the FOTR Extended DVD "appendices". No makeup (although that may have put him in makeup a few times early on before they decided to go CG).
On the CG-tip: being a computer nerd had really hindered my ability to enjoy films with special effects.
I was pissed at the first Harry Potter because of how atrocious the CG was (Neville Longbottom on the broom, Jesus Christ I could've done better with MS Paint) and in ranting about to my girlfriend I realized that it didn't make a damned bit of real difference, she loved the movie and I should have as well.
Anyhoo, as a result I was far less judgemental of LOTR:FOTR and will remain so for LOTF:TTT
Gollum is rendered entirely in CG, with animation captured from a motion capture company based in Atlanta, GA. It was in a trade magazine of mine about 8 - 10 months back that talked about all of the CG in LotR, especially how all the large massive battles are being built. They essentially built a simulation, and the battles end up getting virtually fought with the computer deciding every move each character makes based on a set of variables programmed into the simulator. Fun stuff
<strong>Let's just say I'll be spending the evening with people I wouldn't normally spend time with. I'm such a bitch.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did. And I picked up an infection. Then spent the last five days in hospital.
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>So, Belle?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I saw the first movie, I honestly sat through the entire three hours without blinking. I think my mouth was probably hanging open, too. I just couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I figured that it wouldn't be quite the same this time, because we've already seen the "vision" of the movie - the way it looks and feels and sounds.
I was so wrong. I did it again, and just gaped the whole time. (Probably how I picked up the infection.) I may have drooled.
I think that Peter Jackson deliberately went easy on the battle scenes in the first movie. We just got a few glimpses of the battle in the prologue. But in this! Oh my.
What surprises me so much is that through both movies you feel the characters are in such peril, even though you know the outcome.
And the "embellishments" to the story (which was pretty much confined to the story of Aragorn and Arwen in FOTR) are much more satisfying. Éowyn is great, though I may be biased.
Éomer kicks ass, too. And Aragorn, who I thought was the peak of manhood in FOTR, despite not liking Viggo Mortensen in any of his other roles, is awesome in Two Towers.
Gollum is noticeably CGI, though perhaps I was looking out for it?
Oh, and for those who just want the Helm's Deep stuff, it starts about two hours in.
I'm a bit annoyed that I saw it now, though. Not because of the infection, but because I desperately want to see it again NOW.
[Edit: Oh, and the Ents... Can anyone say Jim Henson's Workshop? Hehe.]
I've been reading some reviews (seems like it's been pretty heavily sneak-peaked) and they've all been positive. Someone at New Line is gettin' a promotion!
I've just gone through the Fellowship (It's been over ten years since the last time I read it) and for the first film, I have to say that Jackson made very good choices about what to leave in/out and where to make changes. Some of the dialogue is even an improvement over Tolkien's. Personally, I would have put a bit more into them, 4 hour films don't phase me, but all in all, a very decent adaptation, one of the better book to film transitions in a while.
Seems to me that because they shot all three movies in one go that the three would be either all bad or all good. Like one good movie split into three parts. Also considering the first on did so well there's little pressure to "fix" or out do the first one with the second.
I haven't seen The Prophecy, but I'll give it a go. I'm used to seeing Mortensen in things like Daylight. *Shudder*
Oh, another good thing about Two Towers - there's no prologue. We don't get a "Previously on Lord of the Rings..." flashback. It just goes straight to where we left off - Frodo and Sam entering Mordor, and Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas chasing the Uruk-hai.
It's a good move. I'd have been annoyed if the first twenty minutes were just a summary of the first movie.
So if it's been a while since you last saw Fellowship, dig out your DVD.
On the other hand, EW's other critic, Lisa Schwarzbaum, just named it <a href="http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,398641~1||397796|1~0~ewslisaschwarzbaumname s,00.html" target="_blank">the third-best movie of 2002</a>. Last year she gave FOTR a glowing review as well.
Comments
<strong>If the Scouring is not in the third film (and Jackson as already said as much), then I hope we don't see the Shire at all in the third film. </strong><hr></blockquote>Yes - watch the film on your new extended DVD
(I couldn't watch it with any of the other audio commentaries, but the one with the director and writers is pretty good.)
<strong>In the trailer as far as I could tell, I'm going to be dissapointed: I can't help but see a very distinct difference between the real-action characters and even the very fast flashes of Golem . . . . why oh why didn't he use a scrawny actor with make up!?!?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
He did.
Many of the scenes are Andy Serkis in 13 hours-worth of make up.
<strong>
He did.
Many of the scenes are Andy Serkis in 13 hours-worth of make up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd read that they ended up going with an all-CG Gollum. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>I'd read that they ended up going with an all-CG Gollum.
Maybe they did? It seems to have been quite a liquid project, with things changing as production went on. If so, I feel a little sorry for poor Mr. Serkis going through 13 hours of make up every day only to find his scenes on the cutting room floor.
<strong>
Maybe they did? It seems to have been quite a liquid project, with things changing as production went on. If so, I feel a little sorry for poor Mr. Serkis going through 13 hours of make up every day only to find his scenes on the cutting room floor.
I don't think that was a problem ... Serkis acted in a special black-and-blue spandex bodysuit that allowed the animators to match the CG character with Serkis' body movements. There's a brief clip of Serkis in the bodysuit in the FOTR Extended DVD "appendices". No makeup (although that may have put him in makeup a few times early on before they decided to go CG).
I was pissed at the first Harry Potter because of how atrocious the CG was (Neville Longbottom on the broom, Jesus Christ I could've done better with MS Paint) and in ranting about to my girlfriend I realized that it didn't make a damned bit of real difference, she loved the movie and I should have as well.
Anyhoo, as a result I was far less judgemental of LOTR:FOTR and will remain so for LOTF:TTT
Chamber of Secrets rocked. I love that series.
[quote]Originally posted by me:
<strong>Let's just say I'll be spending the evening with people I wouldn't normally spend time with. I'm such a bitch.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did. And I picked up an infection. Then spent the last five days in hospital.
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>So, Belle?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I saw the first movie, I honestly sat through the entire three hours without blinking. I think my mouth was probably hanging open, too. I just couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I figured that it wouldn't be quite the same this time, because we've already seen the "vision" of the movie - the way it looks and feels and sounds.
I was so wrong. I did it again, and just gaped the whole time. (Probably how I picked up the infection.) I may have drooled.
I think that Peter Jackson deliberately went easy on the battle scenes in the first movie. We just got a few glimpses of the battle in the prologue. But in this! Oh my.
What surprises me so much is that through both movies you feel the characters are in such peril, even though you know the outcome.
And the "embellishments" to the story (which was pretty much confined to the story of Aragorn and Arwen in FOTR) are much more satisfying. Éowyn is great, though I may be biased.
Éomer kicks ass, too. And Aragorn, who I thought was the peak of manhood in FOTR, despite not liking Viggo Mortensen in any of his other roles, is awesome in Two Towers.
Gollum is noticeably CGI, though perhaps I was looking out for it?
Oh, and for those who just want the Helm's Deep stuff, it starts about two hours in.
I'm a bit annoyed that I saw it now, though. Not because of the infection, but because I desperately want to see it again NOW.
[Edit: Oh, and the Ents... Can anyone say Jim Henson's Workshop? Hehe.]
[ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Just occurred to me.
And Aragorn, who I thought was the peak of manhood in FOTR, despite not liking Viggo Mortensen in any of his other roles, is awesome in Two Towers.
[ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: Belle ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
He was great in <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0114194"; target="_blank">The Prophecy</a>, playing Lucifer. A small role, but nicely done.
We won't have TTT until Dec 26. Cannot wait.
Oh, another good thing about Two Towers - there's no prologue. We don't get a "Previously on Lord of the Rings..." flashback. It just goes straight to where we left off - Frodo and Sam entering Mordor, and Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas chasing the Uruk-hai.
It's a good move. I'd have been annoyed if the first twenty minutes were just a summary of the first movie.
So if it's been a while since you last saw Fellowship, dig out your DVD.
On the other hand, EW's other critic, Lisa Schwarzbaum, just named it <a href="http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,398641~1||397796|1~0~ewslisaschwarzbaumname s,00.html" target="_blank">the third-best movie of 2002</a>. Last year she gave FOTR a glowing review as well.
I'll judge for myself midnight Tuesday! :cool: