[macgeek2005]

1 = Inexcusably terrible.

10 = Perfect. Flawless. Unchangeable.

Vote please!

****, I forgot to add the poll. How do I do that?

[Dakar²]

Where's ambush... or is olepigeon?

[Eug Wanker]

8

Lame without a poll though.

[centerchannel68]

The books? Or the movies?

[Jawbone54]

FotR - 8
TT - 10
RotK - 8

This should've been a poll, and I'm terribly upset that it isn't.

This thread, limited as it is, has made me want to watch through all 3 extended editions again.

[gradient]

this thread seems more than a little bit behind the times but..... 8.5 overall, not perfect but as good as I could possibly have expected.

[macgeek2005]

I'm gonna start another one, with a poll.

Mods, please forgive my stupidity, and lock this thread. Thank you.

[macgeek2005]

1 = Inexcusably terrible.

10 = Perfect. Flawless. Unchangeable.

Vote please!

[Steve]

Posts were merged!

[:haripu:]

I would normally have rated it 10, but I am giving it only 8 because of the five, six, seven different terrible kitsch endings at the end of part 3. Other than that it was a perfect visualisation of a supposedly unfilmable book.

[blackbird_1.0]

8/10.

[Madrag]

I gave a 7, although maybe I should have given an 8, I liked it, they're not perfect, but very delicous to watch.

[larrinski]

An 8. I love Peter Jackson(Dead Alive etc...) and LOTR, but it is hard to do such a massive story in only 3 movies. A lot had to be left out. Too bad.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

6.

No grit.

greg

[His Dudeness]

Should have been called Bored of the Rings. The books were excellent, the movies were flat out boring. I tried three times to get into the Fellowship of the Ring and couldn't.

I would, however, love to see a Shannarra series. Remember those, from Terry Brooks? Much much better, imho.

[Jawbone54]

I guarantee that the 3 (thus far) votes for 1 are from the book snobs who are bitter about the absence of Tom Bombadil and such.

[mdc]

Overall I gave them a 7. I enjoyed the movies and will be buying the set when they come out on HDDVD.

[centerchannel68]

Jawbone. You just reminded me. I now give it a 6 instead of 7. Tom was badass.

[Jawbone54]

I liked Tom too. Anyone who didn't is, to quote my ex sister-in-law, a "dingaling."

Nevertheless, I can see why they left him out of the movies.

[ort888]

Started out great and went a little downhill with each subsequent movie.

OVerall I would still give the trilogy a solid 9, with the amazing positives far outweighing the many flaws.

[lpkmckenna]

The movies were good, with several bothersome flaws:
1. Tiresome use of "slow-mo."
2. Each film was at least 30 mins too long.
3. "Added content" (Arwen in TTT, Sam being sent home in RotK) was worse that stupid.
4. Aragorn never "felt" like a strong warrior or strong leader. Lame.

Overall, I give the series a 7 outta 10.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

4. Aragorn never "felt" like a strong warrior or strong leader. Lame.

I somewhat agree. I blame it on Viggo's nasal tone when his voice is raised.

[MOTHERWELL]

ask me this again in 10 years........

We might all hate it by then - the effects could look totally fake compared to whats out there in 2017.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by MOTHERWELL 

ask me this again in 10 years........

We might all hate it by then - the effects could look totally fake compared to whats out there in 2017.

Seems impossible right now, but you could be right about it looking archaic one day.

HOWEVER...

For truly great movies, it doesn't matter. The original Star Wars looks nasty today, but is still a great movie, and it doesn't detract from the experience for me.

[MOTHERWELL]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Seems impossible right now, but you could be right about it looking archaic one day.

HOWEVER...

For truly great movies, it doesn't matter. The original Star Wars looks nasty today, but is still a great movie, and it doesn't detract from the experience for me.

I agree, but I think that is true because Star Wars (old ones) used the old techniques. Things like miniature models and matte paintings we real, physical things that needed to be filmed.

Either way I think we can all agree that using computer effects to tell the story is a good thing. Using them to make the story is not a good thing.

[olePigeon]

FR: 6
TT: 3
RK: 2

Overall: 4

The first movie was somewhat enjoyable. I was even willing to look past Elijah Wood's abysmal acting as I thought Sean Astin was doing a superb job carrying Elija's dumb ass. I didn't know how Gimli was going to work out in the next two films, I greatly anticipated seeing Gimli open a can of whoopass with his axe. He didn't do much of anything in the cave, hoped he'd do something at Helm's Deep. I was a little disappointed in the Ring Wraiths with the starched hoods. Overall, an OK movie-going experience.

Second movie started off decently. I really liked the battle between the Balrog and Gandolf. Movie was kind of slow, was getting really sick of the Epic Frodo Crying shots by now. Battle of Helm's deep was annoyin with Gimli was a bumbling idiot and the lackluster "charge" of King Theoden. Ugh. Two or three Epic Frodo Crying shots later, I was ready to slit my wrists. Really hoping the theird movie would be able to save it.

Third movie was unexcusable. Special effects/matting was just horrible. At that point I was ready to walk out of the theatre if I saw another Epic Frodo Crying shot. And I did, about an hour into the movie. I eventually had to sit through the whole thing when my dad and stepmom wanted to see it, so I got to see the absolutely horrible "ice skating" hobbits up the mountain and Aragorn, Jr. fully conceptualized in Grand Theft Auto quality poloygons and Junior High Video Class transitions.

The entire third movie was pretty horrible except for the first part of the fight with those badass mercnearies on the Oliphants with the huge spikes and chains... up until the point where Master Jedi Legolas runs around cutting them down, and the clumsy puntastic C3PGimli trips over his own feet again.

[Jawbone54]

Hard to please as far as special effects are concerned, eh?

Give me 3 examples of movies with significantly better CG.

[MOTHERWELL]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Hard to please as far as special effects are concerned, eh?

Give me 3 examples of movies with significantly better CG.

I'm not the huge fan of LOTR - I saw each movie only once. Regardless, I think it set the bar for visual effects for this era.

But these are ephemeral eras...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Hard to please as far as special effects are concerned, eh?

Give me 3 examples of movies with significantly better CG.

I said it was completely hit and miss. Sometimes the effects were spectacular, other times they were just absolutely dismal. The consistency of the special effects for Lord of the Rings was atrocious.

Jurassic Park is still on my list as the best CG, even if the movie itself wasn't all that great.

However, as the alltime best special effects movies that beat Lord of the Rings hands down in terms of technical achievement and overall kickass factor:

Jason and the Argonauts
Star Wars
Jurassic Park

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MOTHERWELL 

I'm not the huge fan of LOTR - I saw each movie only once. Regardless, I think it set the bar for visual effects for this era.

I would only partly agree. There were glimpses in the movie of how incredible the effects could be implemented. I don't know if it was whatever company they used was incompentent, or, if their post production team was just really, really, lazy. Either way, it came to be a huge disappointment when you're rudely punted out of "the zone" by horrible special effects when you're trying to enjoy a movie.

[MOTHERWELL]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I would only partly agree. There were glimpses in the movie of how incredible the effects could be implemented. I don't know if it was whatever company they used was incompentent, or, if their post production team was just really, really, lazy. Either way, it came to be a huge disappointment when you're rudely punted out of "the zone" by horrible special effects when you're trying to enjoy a movie.

WETA was the effects company that was created for this and they are right there with ILM in quality. I think it is simply the best it could get at that time.

Best Visual Effects is one of the few Oscar categories that has little room for argument. LOTR swept this category.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I would only partly agree. There were glimpses in the movie of how incredible the effects could be implemented. I don't know if it was whatever company they used was incompentent (sic), or, if their post production team was just really, really, lazy. Either way, it came to be a huge disappointment when you're rudely punted out of "the zone" by horrible special effects when you're trying to enjoy a movie.

Not once do I remember ever being punted out of "the zone" during the LOTR trilogy. Nearly every shot in the movies used digital effects to some degree, and it was spectacular. You're the only person that I've ever heard call the special effects in LOTR "atrocious."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MOTHERWELL 

WETA was the effects company that was created for this and they are right there with ILM in quality. I think it is simply the best it could get at that time.

They had parts that were amazing and I agree will set the bar. The problem is that they had equally horrible effects.

That's perhaps the main difference between ILM and WETA, consistancy.

Originally Posted by MOTHERWELL 

Best Visual Effects is one of the few Oscar categories that has little room for argument. LOTR swept this category.

King Kong is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever created and is expected to get a nomination for Best Picture. Sorry, but the Oscars have lost all credibility with that piece of .

It's obvious I'm not going to be able to convince you. I've seen a lot better overall effects than in Lord of the Rings. Gladiator comes to mind.

I don't disagree that WETA can put out some amazing visual effects. They just really, really need to work on being able to tell the difference between good and bad effects shots; it's painfully obvious their post production is absolutely clueless.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Not once do I remember ever being punted out of "the zone" during the LOTR trilogy. Nearly every shot in the movies used digital effects to some degree, and it was spectacular. You're the only person that I've ever heard call the special effects in LOTR "atrocious."

I said the consistency of the effects were atrocious, and I was constantly put out of the film by ice skating characters and horrible transitional effects.

[ink]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The movies were good, with several bothersome flaws:
1. Tiresome use of "slow-mo."
2. Each film was at least 30 mins too long.
3. "Added content" (Arwen in TTT, Sam being sent home in RotK) was worse that stupid.
4. Aragorn never "felt" like a strong warrior or strong leader. Lame.

5. Faramir's character was completely destroyed.
6. They chose the worst ending; if they were forced to pick due to time constraints -- Sharky would have been a better choice than the endless farewells.

The series was great up until RoTK. I give it a '7' as well.

[MOTHERWELL]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

King Kong is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever created and is expected to get a nomination for Best Picture. Sorry, but the Oscars have lost all credibility with that piece of .

Didn't King Kong already have its run at the Oscars? I believe it won Best Visual Effects.

I haven't seen the movie because I heard it wasn't good. I heard that the story sucked, not the visuals.....

[Kevin]

This thread reminds me of Clerk's 2.

[Peter]

too much walking.

[Kevin]

[Peter]

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Sorry, but the Oscars have lost all credibility with that piece of .

We agree on something.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Peter 

too much walking.

Definitely deserved the numerous

[olePigeon]

S**t, even the trees walked.

[macgeek2005]

I gave the trilogy a 10.

The Fellowship of the Ring is definetaly a 10. It's pretty much flawless, incredible fantasy.

The Two Towers I give a 9, simply because it gets a little boring. Frodo and Sam's story isn't very interesting to watch.

The Return of the King I give a 22 out of 10. It's the most incredible movie ever made. The special effects were beyond belief. To see the Siege of Gondor and the battle of the pelennor fields come to life was breathtaking.