[dave_baer]

Overall, I liked it. However, there was much to be desired with some of the matteing and compositing. For instance, the scene where they first are walking through the mountains... They are stage lit while the rest is outdoors. Why did they do that seeing as how they filmed other scenes on location? Perhaps it was a scene added later to fill time, but the compositing was bad there. Also, in the Dwarf Mines, the compositing was bad while they ran. Looks as though instead of building a partial scene (ground and some surrounding details) they totally composited the people into a CG set. I think the rotoscoper is looking for a new job right baout now. But, that's just IMHO.

[lazydead]

Almost all of my problems are with the compositing. Like you stated, the "stage lit figure on an outdoor scene" popped up all too frequently.
I was actually laughing through the long shots of running. Look at Gandalf just kicking ass as a long disdance runner! He's really booking it in those robes! LOL

B A L R O G was S I C K !

[Derek]

Shouldn't this have gone in Random Musings?

[Quasar]

No not really Derek this movie had tons of CGI and other digital work to talk about and people have...are you the forum Nazi or something?

[Derek]

That's my point... where has any discussion about the art or graphics or compositing or anything been in these posts? A quick mention in about three posts doesn't quite do it. For the record, I agree with them, stil...
Don't get testy if you feel like your toes have been stepped on.
These forums were specifically designed with a section for topics without art related issues. So far this has been cool to see what people think of the film, and sure I can choose not to address what's here, but it's a bit much scrolling through a lot of 'I liked this, that, or kewl! or I'm so sure J.R.R.'s gonna roll in his grave...' posts for little substance about the art of the film.
A reminder to respect the nature of the forums and their structure.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Derek Smith ]

[Muzman]

I just have to say "Best FANTASY movie evar"?!
Ouch! Talk about faint praise.
Next week "Best movie to heavily feature a Rollerderby." or "Best acting in a Zombie movie"

[lookitsfrank]

allright, let's get to talking about the art in the film for a moment. anyone else think that gollum's fingers and eyes rocked the casbah? I soiled myself when I saw saurmon's throne. anyone else think gandalf (is it mckellan?) did a heck of a job acting like always? he made the film. balrog was sweet, but gandalf was sweeter in that scene. "I command you to halt!" I'm going to be the first in line to reserve this on DVD. I can't wait to pause it and do some sketches and paintings from my TV!

[jabber]

I just saw it this afternoon, and walked away extremely impressed. I loved it. One of my favorite scenes was the Watcher. It was very creepy, and I think ole bill got away!

Im so looking forward to the next movies, i cant wait. of course, there was the "Hollywoodish" moments, but i think you have to expect that. besides, there are only a few of them.

the begining war scene was also incredible. just amazying.

[TurboYVR]

I concur with most of you, in that I love the movie... one of my favourite films, to be sure. I can understand the alterations that PJ made, and the reasoning behind each. I do however, feel that Lothlorien was given short shrift. Where is the the giving of the gifts? Gimli's adoration of Galadriel? the blindfolds? the orc chase? As it is, Lothlorien comes off as creepy and mysterious, and doesn't quite justify either the characters' relaxation/relief at being harboured there, and the book's depiction of Lorien as the Golden Wood, the Dreamflower. Instead of peaceful and safe and utterly ageless beauty, ruled by a kind yet noble queen, it's kind of cold and mysterious, and ruled by a melodramatic witch. I don't think this is a problem with PJ's vision, but merely one of TIME. There is a sense of RUSH. So much had to be cut out to fit under the 3 hour mark, and most of that came from Lothlorien. It's a shame really... Hopefully, the DVD will be the original 3:30 cut, and Galadriel and Lorien will be more fully explored and portrayed to better serve the story.

[Quasar]

Ohh man I really disappointed. It only did 74 million in its first week. Harry potter did well over 100 million...how does something like this happen..I mean the movie has great reviews...something doesnt add up??

[Andrew Crocker]

if i remember right, harry potter did 90 million

[SporQ]

i agree, gollum's eyes were just awesome, the reflected glow was cool, just like cat eyes. and i loved the close up of the balrog's mouth when it roared. the glowing fire, and the heat distorting the light. *sigh

[Jucas]

As far as I am concerned this movie is in my top 5. It was amazing and I was completly enthraled the whole time. To those who complain about pacing, imagine if peter jackson had included all of the book! You wouldn't be able to sit though that.

I thought it was masterfully done, and I can't wait till the next one! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[iamsimon]

i totally enjoyed the more lively moments the film had to offer and have read the whole series. i am disapointed by the pacing of the film. Things moved rather slow to me, but i am not saying that i wanted it to be as fast paced as snatch or run lola run. i saw the showing in my area the day after it opened and by the last half hour you could tell that people were wondering when it would be over. perhaps i am a bit biased since i saw amelie and ocean's eleven the days before watching this movie; both great movies in their own rights.

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: iamsimon ]

[atomicmonkey]

I agree with most of the positive comments on this thread. I loved this movie to death. After leaving the theatre my mind was swirling with things I had just seen, and it lasted all night. I thought about it when I was lying in bed trying to sleep. It was that good.

As far as the comments on the movie vs. the books, well, quite simply, this entire trilogy, no matter how well done the next two movies are, will NEVER equal the books. Never.

Does that make the films bad? Hell no. The Fellowship of the Ring is easily the most well made, finest piece of work to come out of the film industry in many years. It deserves any award it is nominated for this year, simply because it is that good (not because this has been a horrible years in movies). The imagination and quality of the images alone make it incredible.

It's odd, but I've only read the fellowship of the ring out of the 3 chapters to this trilogy. And after seeing this film, I want to read the other two even more, before I see the next two movies. To ignore these films because Tolkien did not make them is not right... These films are not at all here to replace Tolkien's, they're here to continue the legacy into another medium. I personaly this Jackson did a damn fine job of keeping the story and for that matter, pretty much everything in good shape from the transition of book to film. The deleted scenes and minimized speech may seem bad at first, but it can't all be in there. No matter how much I enjoyed this movie, my ass was getting a little sore near the end, because it was long. The deleted parts were necessary to make it an enjoyable viewing.

One thing this movie has that the books do not, are the incredible visuals. Yes, Tolkien did not create these visuals. But the artists did a damn fine job of interpreting Tolkiens words (and art for that matter), and created one of the most beautiful films ever. It was a aspect they couldn't skimp on either, I don't think, because we all have to remember what made these books so damn good...

It was a great, interesting adventure. There was always more places to go, and things to see. Every new page was a discovery. And as you were reading, it never seemed to end. If you ask me, the movie does this very well. When the fellowship reaches new locations, the camera pans and shows these beautiful locations, and they are indeed beautiful. You could take screen captures of this movie and hang them on your wall. Maybe that's why I like it so much... the art is really in there.

Amazing film. Above all others this year, and above most I've seen in my life. And I don't think we have anything to worry about considering the next two. They were all filmed at once, so if you like what you've seen in the first, expect nothing but more excellence in the next two.

EDIT: Almost forgot. The Troll and Balrog sequences were the most exciting pieces of filmwork in recent years. I have a feeling when I finally get the dvd of this movie those parts of the disc will be greatly worn down by the laser. Lol

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: atomicmonkey ]

[Quasar]

Andrew harry potter did 93 million its first 3 days ..man I thought lord world deffinatly do better..hmm

[Sukhoi]

You guys hate hollywood moments in movies but insist on comparing how much the movie grosses??

Weird.....

I mean, money when spent on a movie can be very good. But if a movie grosses big bucks the chance are that it is really not that good, yeah?!

LOTR, directed be Michael Bay...It would propably make big bucks but it would certainly suck!

Sukhoi

Sukhoi

[XandGash]

You've gt to realize that tons of children went to see Hary Potter, and their parents had to take them. There are more tickets being bought there than from hardcore fantasy fans. I think that in the longrun LoTR will do better, because of word of mouth that it's great movie, not just a great fantasy movie. I am a bit concerned about how it'll fare tommorrow against Ali.

[Lev]

I'm certain LOTR will do better in the long run than harry potter, the word of mouth reviews and reviews in the business are really pimping it hard.

Besides it costed 90 million per episode for he trilogy so it will no doubt make a big profit considering they've already passed that mark when you total the income from europe too, at 150 million + already.

Also everyone should see it and go see it again another time, support the film so that more movies of the like can be made!!

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: Lev ]

[Quasar]

Ehh good thought LEV im going to go see it again on wensday...damn fine movie I gotta see it one more time before the DVD!!!

[c]

i didnt like the movie that much. i thought it was pretty, with pretty actors and pretty fighting and goddamn, that legolas is REALLY pretty, but i didn't get that 'goddang that was a good movie' feeling after, just an aching butt

[waylon]

I thought the casting could have been better. I mean, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Tom Bombadil?! What were they thinking?!!?!

[Sumaleth]

Fianlly got to see the film this evening. Wow. I've never read the books so I have no idea how much was changed to make it work in the movie format, but it was still remarkably well done.

Highlights;

The environments, and the way they got the different character sizes to work so well. Ian McKellam too.

Lowpoints;

The scene where Cate Blanchett gets Frodo to look into the mirror and then she goes weird. No idea what she was about.

And in terms of a story it was pretty vacant - a series of expositional scenes joined together in the form of a "road trip". But they did do a remarkable job keeping the interest level up, even though there was little in the way of plotting. I'm hoping that the next two are more than "travel across the countryside" stories but I suspect they're going to be the same.

But an incredibly impressive piece of work regardless.

Row.

[Muzman]

Yeah Galadriel's role in this wasn't exactly clear. I doubt I would have got it if I didn't know it before hand.
She's a ring bearer, as you may recall (but they didn't make big enough deal out of that either). If she gets the one ring she could take Sauron between second breakfast and elevenses (but the ring is bad and nasty and the end result would be the same over all). That was her test, to refuse the ring. It's quite a thing for the ring to be offered like that. Usually they are staunchly defended. It's also testament to Frodo's good heart that he can so easily part with it. She passed.
On the one hand I think there's a lot there and it's a bit confusing for the average folk. But on the other I'm not too worried as I think we are supposed to be confused by the monumental scale of events and history at work in the story. Frodo and the others definately would be.

[SporQ]

sorry to disappoint sumaleth, but the other two are about a nice travel across the country also. the same way casablanca is about a bar. or catcher in the rye is just about new york.

there is so much more to the story than just them walking across the country, thats just the setting. i hope you dont focus on that or you'll miss a great tale.

(edit: me fail english, that's unpossible)

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: SporQ ]

[Lev]

Well LOTR is more of a milieu story anyways IMO, the movie reflects that. I think once it's all over it'll be amazing.

[sacrelicious]

The story is spread out over all three books- It's really just one long novel. And much of the story is in the development of the characters, which got the shaft in FOTR even with a three hour running time... but the literary FOTR is lighter on characterization than the following two anyway. The DVD is supposed to expand the characterization greatly (30-45 minutes longer!). I personally feel the movie should have been 4 hours long with a 15 minute intermission, like Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.