|
Acne Rain posted:The real question is why is that's always forgotten. It's never forgotten, people would've really just preferred if they'd flown there in 10 minutes and then the series could have been over as soon as possible. Remember when people were saying LoTR was going to be the new Star Wars? Hah, people forgot those movies about ten minutes after Return of The Kind ended. Not that the marketing machine ever figured that out, as they still occasionally pop out LoTR crap hoping people will bite.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Acne Rain posted:The real question is why is that's always forgotten. They start out as the nine riders, on horses. We never see their flying mounts doing patrols in Mordor without their ringwraiths so initially the eagles might have had a chance. If Aragorn had rolled up to the gates a lot earlier and distracted the eye... Okay yeah that would never have worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Remember when people were saying LoTR was going to be the new Star Wars? Hah, people forgot those movies about ten minutes after Return of The Kind ended. Not that the marketing machine ever figured that out, as they still occasionally pop out LoTR crap hoping people will bite. They made a prequel trilogy, each film of which grossed around a billion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:They made a prequel trilogy, each film of which grossed around a billion dollars. And a shitton of video games and other tie-ins, one of which was one of the best games of
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And a shitton of video games and other tie-ins, one of which was one of the best games of What game?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:What game? Shadow of Mordor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:It's stuff like that that make me wish movies just used the phrase 'science device' whenever there's a magic device that does some science thing instead of giving it an actual name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
SubG posted:I think my favourite example of this is the fantasy novel Jurgen, A Comedy of Justice by James Branch Cabell: `Thus it was that Jurgen and the Centaur came to the garden between dawn and sunrise, entering this place in a fashion which it is not convenient to record.' Aren't dawn and sunrise the exact same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
I think dawn actually starts before sunrise. Like dawn's early light.
Snak fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Snak posted:I dawn actually starts before sunrise. Like dawn's early light. So dawn is the period of time after it starts getting light, but the sun isn't visible over the horizon, that's like a ten minute period at most unless you live in a deep valley or North of the Arctic circle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:So dawn is the period of time after it starts getting light, but the sun isn't visible over the horizon, that's like a ten minute period at most unless you live in a deep valley or North of the Arctic circle. It's like 25 minutes--NOAA gives a prediction for every calendar day based on location. It's less if you're close to the equator, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:So dawn is the period of time after it starts getting light, but the sun isn't visible over the horizon, that's like a ten minute period at most unless you live in a deep valley or North of the Arctic circle. Who cares how long it is? It's not the same thing as sunrise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Snak posted:Who cares how long it is? It's not the same thing as sunrise. I'm just saying, fudge a bit on the time line if you want a dramatic sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:They made a prequel trilogy, each film of which grossed around a billion dollars. Yeah, and still no one gives two shits of LoTR. When they said "it'll be the next Star Wars", they didn't mean in earnings, they mean that people would supposedly love it for decades to come and it would become part of the popular zeitgeist. Which clearly hasn't happened. Maybe something will change in 20 years, but I seriously doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Yeah, and still no one gives two shits of LoTR. It seems odd to dismissively talk about the marketing machine hoping people will bite on LotR stuff when since Return of the King there's been three billion-dollar LotR-stuff films. But, sure, "next Star Wars" is obvious hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Star Wars is unique in pop culture, but Lord of the Rings is definitely a defining moment of the decade/generation, like how Friends and Independence Day was for the 90s or how Game or Thrones and comic book movies are for the 2010s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Aren't dawn and sunrise the exact same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
LotR was the Star Wars of the 00s much like how Pirates of the Carribean was the Indiana Jones of the 00s, sorry about your sour grapes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:It's stuff like that that make me wish movies just used the phrase 'science device' whenever there's a magic device that does some science thing instead of giving it an actual name. Unobtainium baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Where's the Tremors of the '10's? Roadhouse too. I did hear there's a remake in the works though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
effectual posted:Where's the Tremors of the '10's? This exists, it's called Attack the Block.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Remember when people were saying LoTR was going to be the new Star Wars? Hah, people forgot those movies about ten minutes after Return of The Kind ended. Not that the marketing machine ever figured that out, as they still occasionally pop out LoTR crap hoping people will bite. Legolas was suuuuuper popular among Tumblerinas for quite a few years there and the trilogy was a lifechanging experience for some people - there's a secondhand bookstore in my city run by two middleaged sisters and they still have all their LOTR cardboard standees proudly on display behind the counter. But that was a pretty narrow margin of society and the films didn't invade the pop culture zeitgeist anywhere near as much as Star Wars did back in the 70s and 80s so yeah, not really comparable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Legolas was suuuuuper popular among Tumblerinas for quite a few years there and the trilogy was a lifechanging experience for some people - there's a secondhand bookstore in my city run by two middleaged sisters and they still have all their LOTR cardboard standees proudly on display behind the counter. Though arguably it did bring fantasy (at least the dragons and elves type) back into the mainstream after it died out in the late 80s. Since then we got Narnia, we got fairly good stuff like Stardust, and then not so great stuff like Eragon and Golden Compass. And the Hobbit series of course. computer parts fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Does anyone even remember people saying LOTR was going to be as big as Star Wars? And like not being as big as Star Wars is some great insult? This is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Though arguably it did bring fantasy (at least the dragons and elves type) back into the mainstream after it died out in the late 80s. Yeah, 2001 just seemed to be the year that fantasy came back in a big way. In the few years preceding that we got Dragonheart which was okay but also crap like Dungeons & Dragons and Kull the Conqeror but in 2001 when Fellowship of the Ring came out we also got Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Shrek. Then in 2002 along with The Two Towers we also got Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Reign of Fire and in 2004 (the year after The Return of the King) we got Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Hellboy, Shrek 2 and Van Helsing. So we got 'dragons and elves' high fantasy along with modern urban fantasy, animated comedy fantasy and action hero fantasy all in one continuous hit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Does anyone even remember people saying LOTR was going to be as big as Star Wars? And like not being as big as Star Wars is some great insult? This is stupid. Some people compared it to Star Wars because it was in theaters at the same time as one of the prequels. I never heard anyone call it "the next Star Wars".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Though arguably it did bring fantasy (at least the dragons and elves type) back into the mainstream after it died out in the late 80s. Would we have had a huge GOT series without LOTR? Maybe but I'm sure it made it more likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
How is it that Tangerine, a movie shot on iPhone 5s, looks orders of magnitude better than almost every other low budget movie? I watch some of that stuff on Netflix and it looks like poo poo despite having better equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Good use of lighting, solid color grading, and, really importantly, the use of an anamorphic adapter, which gives a really unique look for super cheap. Anamorphic lenses seem to be kind of out of fashion right now, nobody seems to be making them for DSLRs, which most low-budget movies are shot on. It really elevates that sense of punky dynamism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Good use of lighting, solid color grading, and, really importantly, the use of an anamorphic adapter, which gives a really unique look for super cheap. Anamorphic lenses seem to be kind of out of fashion right now, nobody seems to be making them for DSLRs, which most low-budget movies are shot on. It really elevates that sense of punky dynamism. This is so cool. What a time we live in. I'm taking an A/V class this semester, and I had no idea what it was gonna be about, but in the first week they already have me editing video, so it's probably gonna be my favorite class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Good use of lighting, solid color grading, and, really importantly, the use of an anamorphic adapter, which gives a really unique look for super cheap. Anamorphic lenses seem to be kind of out of fashion right now, nobody seems to be making them for DSLRs, which most low-budget movies are shot on. It really elevates that sense of punky dynamism. Yeah, saying it was shot on an iPhone is a little misleading because while they do use the phone as the camera it's still using professional lenses and rigs for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Most of the dolly shots were achieved by the cameraman riding a bicycle. The crane shots were gotten by fastening the phone to a long pole and hoping the framing was right since there was no monitor. The lens adapters they used were actually prototypes. The director phoned the guy who made them and managed to sort out a deal where he could test them out for a pretty low price. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
This might be too subjective and too personal to really answer, but the final scene in The Hunt for Red October has always looked really bad to me, and I can't quite figure out why. It's obviously green-screened, but there are other obvious green-screen effects that I have no problem with. It really seems like a terrible effects shot and I can't explain why. Is there anybody who sees what I'm talking about with a more in-depth knowledge of this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:This might be too subjective and too personal to really answer, but the final scene in The Hunt for Red October has always looked really bad to me, and I can't quite figure out why. It's obviously green-screened, but there are other obvious green-screen effects that I have no problem with. It really seems like a terrible effects shot and I can't explain why. Is there anybody who sees what I'm talking about with a more in-depth knowledge of this stuff? To my untrained eye, it actually looks like rear projection. In any event, the short version is that the lighting is really, really bad, and as a result it makes Connery and Baldwin stand out from the background like sore thumbs. There are also some really noticeable matte lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
It's also really obvious day-for-night, but the weird lighting doesn't help: Also yeah, whatever compositing is going on there needs a little help. Unless Baldwin is actually a ghost, I dunno, I've never seen this movie: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
It looks like they're flying through the water but their hair is perfectly still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Its a super awkward looking shot, too. The kind of shot that makes you go "oh thats fake" even if the effects were better. Just two guys close up faces floating 15 feet above the water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Also, the reflection on the water makes the moon look like its behind them, but they're lit from the front
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
And Connery as a Russian?! I mean COME ON! That's a worse crime than the time he said sometimes you gotta smack a bitch. Now let me get into my primo material on airline peanuts, vis-a-vis a "what is the deal" motif.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:And Connery as a Russian?! I mean COME ON! That's a worse crime than the time he said sometimes you gotta smack a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 03:24
|
|
