And the staff. Don't forget the staff!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Printable View
And the staff. Don't forget the staff!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I can understand Legolas' appearance in the movie, since (as drone pointed out) he is the son of Thranduil, King of the elves' realm in northern Mirkwood. Given that, it would be natural enough for us to see him in action. (Indeed, I would have been genuinely surprised if Legolas *didn't* show up in the film.) Of course, the fact that roughly 90% of Earth's female population seems to want to do naughty things to Orlando Bloom might have factored into this as well... ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Galadriel's appearance is a little harder to justify, but not impossible. My guess is that she'll be involved in the White Council's efforts to deal with the Necromancerat his fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. Given both Galadriel's longstanding involvement with the White Council, and her realm's relative proximity to Dol Goldur (I believe Lothlorien is only several days' hard ride south of the fortress), it would make a certain amount of sense for her to have a somewhat larger role than might be otherwise assumed...particularly if Gandalf & Co.'s efforts to take out the Necromancer is given more screen time than in the book.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I remain puzzled by Jackson's desire to create an entirely new (female) elf character, though. It still strikes me as being a hackneyed attempt at "gender balance".
Actually, I *loved* Cate Blanchett being cast as the Lady of the Wood! (Indeed, she was my favorite casting -- second only to Sir Ian McKellen as Mithrandir.) Her portrayal of Galadriel was very much how I'd always envisioned her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I'd never say that Liv Tyler looks like a "horse" (I've always found her to be pretty), but I do feel she was the wrong choice to play Arwen. The role called for someone who looked young (at a "mere" ~500 years old, Arwen was considered barely more than an adolescent by elf standards), yet could still seem wise beyond her years. Unfortunately, when played by Miss Tyler, Arwen just came off looking like an elvish "Daddy's girl".
I loved Miranda Otto as Eowyn. Not because she was easily the hottest of the three main female characters (although I do concur with that assessment), but because IMHO she pulled off very well the combination of fierce courage & spirit combined with grim determination/despair that was the signature of Eowyn's personality (especially prior to her slaying the Witch-King at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields). I get shivers every time I stare into those gorgeous, icy-blue eyes of hers!
You kidding me? Eowyn was so mediocre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_BE..._order&list=UL
When she makes that cry when thrusting here sword in the witch-king's face (at 0:25), it just wants to make me facepalm.
To quote the Urban Dictionary article-
She might look weird in this scene. I always felt so. but she looks hot in Two Towers.Quote:
She slew the Witch-King AND got the guy.
This is a corny video. But tell me she does not look better than elven girls in the scene where she ties up her hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKrz1dhP4UI&feature=related
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that storyline. It's been a long while since I read "The Hobbit", I usually skip it when I decide to re-read the Tolkien books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Well, I don't agree with your take on the elf women, but I definitely agree about Eowyn. Lots of women could have been hot in that role, but very few could have acted it well. Still fewer who could act it well and be hot. :P Miranda Otto was perfect in that role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Begone fool! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Seriously though, pause that vid at 0:22. 'nough said.
As far as her acting goes, it was spot on. I doubt any other woman could have pulled her role off so beautifully.
Same here, last time I read the Hobbit was in 2004 or 2005. :P I am reading the LotR now, and then I am gonna reread the Hobbit, though I guess I should have done it the other way around. I have read the LotR 8-10 times, and the Hobbit only twice though. :P I definitely have my favorites.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
shes not that hot...
cate blanchet, though also not exactly hot, is more beautiful imo
No, not in the massive oiled, Dolly Parton boobies porn video type of way. She is hot in a very different way which has more to do with her attitude and her eyes then with her figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Attachment 3433
hot (or angelina jolie or adriana lima)
Attachment 3434
(weirdly) cute (also think of julia roberts or camerion diaz)
Attachment 3435
Beautiful
sorry dblpost
I think my problem is that I start with LotR, then move on to The Silmarillion, and by the time I slog through that I'm done with Tolkien for a while. I should probably read The Hobbit first...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
i like Silmarillion best of all.
I think I'm with you on that one. It puts the epic in epic. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
I remember I read that once when I was a little kid, but to be honest, I don't remember much about it other than I did not like it as much as LotR. (though maybe that is because I had a harder time understanding it...which I remember I did.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Don't get me wrong, I like it as well. But the style is part LotR and part Bible, and after the appendices and timelines my mind wanders to something else. Completely on the opposite side of the Tolkien spectrum from the Hobbit.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
That's probably because The Silmarillion reads more like a history book, rather than a proper novel. It's still a good read, but don't expect your standard story narrative as in The Hobbit or the LotR trilogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
the start is hard to get through, being biblical and all but then it gets EPIC!
Attachment 3440Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
:yes:
Article :10 minute screening at 48 fps
So what's the deal I don't understand. Higher number of frames per second is supposed to be good, far as I know. Makes for a smoother 'motion'. And yet everyone is saying that a high fps video looks choppy. :confused:
I don't know, he says it actually is really realistic, and that that is the problem. Sounds like it is so realistic that it is showing up all the faults in the make-up, costumes, and CGI. Maybe it is better suited for a more realistic action film and not for a fantasy film where everything is fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
That is one point he makes but in the end he also states, (I quote)
It would appear that this was done solely so that the movie could use this new-fangled 3D tech.Quote:
It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings
Yes, but I interpreted that to mean that it look cheap because you could see all the imperfections. Maybe I was wrong. Either way, I will give the first movie a try. If it is no good, I will just not bother with the second. I wish people would get over the 3-D craze. Honestly, it kind of sucks. The only time I really appreciated 3-D was when I was watching Wrath of the Titans and rocks started falling down toward the camera. I was sitting there dodging them and the people beside me were looking at me like I was crazy. That was pretty cool, but overall I would have like it better without 3-D.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
The 'cheap' issue is due to movies being screened at 24 fps since almost the beginning, solely as a cost cutting measure (higher fps=more film used).Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
But soap operas and the like are, IIRC, shot at a higher than 24 fps. So when people see high fps in a movie they associate it with low production soap operas because that's all they've ever seen in high fps before.
It's a sort of mental delusion forced on movie audiences. But once we see more movies take advantage of the great viewing experience 48+ fps offers it'll go away.
I only heard about 48 fps for The Hobbit today, and now I am definitely going to watch this in theaters.
CR
Yeah, I was really wondering how 48 fps could possibly be worse. Thankfully for me, I don't watch TV, so I won't have any bad associations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Actually really looking forward to that movie. I cannot say I expect too much of it but it'd be nice to see the story made into a movie anyways =)
It's been 80 years at 24 fps, I say give the new tech a chance. Even if people are saying it's absolutely horrid.
Who's existence makes no sense what so ever in terms of the plot. And is the typical example of the meandering mess that the Fellowship of the ring can be at times. Peter Jackson did everyone a favor by excising him whole sale from the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I completely understand the criticism. People don't want real life in movies, especially fantasy movies. The crisper movement means there is less art to it and the brain can't abstract as much. Plus, like Lemur posted, people have been doing it for so long it's familiar.
I can see the difference and am glad they're improving the frame rate, although I've always been concerned about the artificiality of using frames. Why isn't it done per pixel, or is it already? "Movies" are still old-fashioned moving pictures.
It will take time for audiences to move on and filmmakers to make it more visually appealing.
Not gonna watch it even if the whole world praises it. Yes, I'm biased. :yes:
Now all we need is the pre-quel: Silmarillion; shot with a cast of 1000's ala the The Ten Commandments.
What good is mythology w/o a creation story?