Round 1: Spiderman 2 vs. The Lord of the Rings trilogy

Juice · Post by **Juice** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:20 pm

Combo7 wrote:
Tommy Bunz wrote:LOTR were fucking awesome. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people sometimes.

citizen · Post by **citizen** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:20 pm

you cant deny the classicnicity of the LOTR trilogy

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:33 pm

If this was Spiderman2 vs. Fellowship, I would vote fellowship, but since the last two LOTR movies are AWFUL and almost unwatchable and Spiderman 2 is probably the second best comic book movie ever behind The Dark Knight....I voted SM2...

SuperFeen · Post by **SuperFeen** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:39 pm

never understood the knobbslobbering for spiderman 2, easily some of the most unbearably corny shit ever put to film, yes even compared to LOTR

ALASKA · Post by **ALASKA** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:41 pm

the thing is i think most people are voting for spiderman are only doing so because they think LOTR sucks. its not a glowing endorsment of SM2

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:47 pm

Juice wrote:
Combo7 wrote:
Tommy Bunz wrote:LOTR were fucking awesome. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people sometimes.

This.

I can actually see why people wouldn't like LOTR, but man, I enjoy the fuck out of it.

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:57 pm

SuperFeen wrote:never understood the knobbslobbering for spiderman 2, easily some of the most unbearably corny shit ever put to film, yes even compared to LOTR

why did giant eagles come and render spiderman's plot useless?

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:03 pm

The thing about LOTR is that I think most of the valid beefs with the movies are really more a product of the books, which aren't so much books as they are an old coot jacking off with inventing a language and a world and walking backwards into an interesting story. The sloppy plotting that leads to the eagles question obviously being one of the more obvious ones. I think one of the great thinks that Jackson and co did was clean up a lot of Tolkein's BS.

Career Over Like Mike(NJJ) · Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:09 pm

ALASKA wrote:the thing is i think most people are voting for spiderman are only doing so because they think LOTR sucks. its not a glowing endorsment of SM2

Indeed.

Voted Spiderman 2.

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:18 pm

Dids wrote:The thing about LOTR is that I think most of the valid beefs with the movies are really more a product of the books, which aren't so much books as they are an old coot jacking off with inventing a language and a world and walking backwards into an interesting story. The sloppy plotting that leads to the eagles question obviously being one of the more obvious ones. I think one of the great thinks that Jackson and co did was clean up a lot of Tolkein's BS.

it's true, the books are incredibly sloppy, unfocused and sprawling in the worst way. the story is just a skeleton frame to support an attempt of creating an organized mythology out of pre-existing fantasy concepts

which why making them into some kind of palpable movie is a monumental achievement

Juice · Post by **Juice** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:24 pm

drizzle wrote:
Dids wrote:The thing about LOTR is that I think most of the valid beefs with the movies are really more a product of the books, which aren't so much books as they are an old coot jacking off with inventing a language and a world and walking backwards into an interesting story. The sloppy plotting that leads to the eagles question obviously being one of the more obvious ones. I think one of the great thinks that Jackson and co did was clean up a lot of Tolkein's BS.
it's true, the books are incredibly sloppy, unfocused and sprawling in the worst way. the story is just a skeleton frame to support an attempt of creating an organized mythology out of pre-existing fantasy concepts

which why making them into some kind of palpable movie is a monumental achievement

wait, are you actually saying that the movie was better than the book?That a 1300 page LOTR book was unfocused?

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:26 pm

drizzle wrote:
Dids wrote:The thing about LOTR is that I think most of the valid beefs with the movies are really more a product of the books, which aren't so much books as they are an old coot jacking off with inventing a language and a world and walking backwards into an interesting story. The sloppy plotting that leads to the eagles question obviously being one of the more obvious ones. I think one of the great thinks that Jackson and co did was clean up a lot of Tolkein's BS.
it's true, the books are incredibly sloppy, unfocused and sprawling in the worst way. the story is just a skeleton frame to support an attempt of creating an organized mythology out of pre-existing fantasy concepts

which why making them into some kind of palpable movie is a monumental achievement

BUT THE FILM ISNT PALPABLE, ITS NOT EVEN POOPABLE....ITS INTESTINE CANCER.

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:28 pm

i am saying the book was unfocused, how many asides into various legends and back stories are in almost every chapter? you can't read the book without having a reference glossary, that's not exactly what i would call a straight forward narrative

i am not saying the movie was better, but it did do justice to it and that's very impressive considering how much the book covers

Juice · Post by **Juice** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:34 pm

drizzle wrote:i am saying the book was unfocused, how many asides into various legends and back stories are in almost every chapter? you can't read the book without having a reference glossary, that's not exactly what i would call a straight forward narrative

The first 50 pages are hard to read, I`ll give you that.After that the whole book is about the main story/journey.

drizzle wrote: i am not saying the movie was better, but it did do justice to it and that's very impressive considering how much the book covers

that is correct and I will co-sign that.

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:01 pm

The movie is better than the book in terms of storytelling and just pure fiction.

The book is fucking amazing in terms of world creation/language/all the stuff Tolkein was trying to do.

And yeah, the point I was trying to make was

"it did do justice to it and that's very impressive considering how much the book covers"

And on a technical level the movie is unfuckwithable.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:27 pm

Dids wrote: And on a technical level the movie is unfuckwithable.

Oh hell no. Ratatouille is a much more impressive technical feat, imo. There's nothing new about goblins, elves, wizards, etc. I think a film like Pan's Labyrinth, who's creatures are far more original, is a better technical feat as well. Jackson could have done a lot more with the budget he had.

Pan's Labyrinth vs. LOTR would have been a good matchup. Fuck.

blastmaster · Post by **blastmaster** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:33 pm

Icesickle wrote:
Dids wrote: And on a technical level the movie is unfuckwithable.
Oh hell no. Ratatouille is a much more impressive technical feat, imo. There's nothing new about goblins, elves, wizards, etc. I think a film like Pan's Labyrinth, who's creatures are far more original, is a better technical feat as well. Jackson could have done a lot more with the budget he had.

Pan's Labyrinth vs. LOTR would have been a good matchup. Fuck.

Donny Chicago · Post by **Donny Chicago** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Spider man...

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:35 pm

blastmaster wrote:

Pan's Labryinth isn't gei either.

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:40 pm

Icesickle wrote:
Dids wrote: And on a technical level the movie is unfuckwithable.
Oh hell no. Ratatouille is a much more impressive technical feat, imo. There's nothing new about goblins, elves, wizards, etc. I think a film like Pan's Labyrinth, who's creatures are far more original, is a better technical feat as well. Jackson could have done a lot more with the budget he had.

Pan's Labyrinth vs. LOTR would have been a good matchup. Fuck.

I fully believe you know enough to make this judgement. Movie effects budget expert imo.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:50 pm

But you are and can say it's "technically unfuckwitable" right?

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:30 pm

Yes, I believe I am more qualified to look at a movie and judge my ability to suspend disbelief based on how realistic I felt the effects were moreso than I believe you can look at a movie and assume what they actually could have done given their budget.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:32 pm

^^^

What does your ability to suspend disbelief have to do with knowledge of the film's technical merits?

Some people could suspend their disbelief for the Blair Witch Project. That doesn't mean it's a technically accomplished film.

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:38 pm

Because I'm not a foaming at the mouth idiot?

This doesn't have to be about me. The avg person is more qualifed to judge the technical merits of any film, just based on their perception of the quality of the effects than you are to start making shit up about what they could do with a given budget.

Specifically with LOTR, the level of detail put into the set and costume design, the AI engine they used for the battle, the blending of minature photography, live action and digital elements all strikes me as very very impressive from a layman's standpoint. Perhaps there are folks who know more than me who can speak better to this issue and I'm totally wrong and it's just my imagination that makes me think the movies looked fucking awesome.

You, however, are not one of those people.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:39 pm

Dids wrote:Because I'm not a foaming at the mouth idiot?

This doesn't have to be about me. The avg person is more qualifed to judge the technical merits of any film, just based on their perception of the quality of the effects than you are to start making shit up about what they could do with a given budget.

Specifically with LOTR, the level of detail put into the set and costume design, the AI engine they used for the battle, the blending of minature photography, live action and digital elements all strikes me as very very impressive from a layman's standpoint. Perhaps there are folks who know more than me who can speak better to this issue and I'm totally wrong and it's just my imagination that makes me think the movies looked fucking awesome.

You, however, are not one of those people.

omg. This is what film has come to.

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:06 pm

What, it isn't pure enough if they don't cast 10,000 extras that will require more direction, coordination, costuming, etc? Using something like Massive is just fucking smarter than anything else if you want to produce something on that scale.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:18 pm

Besides creating a multitude of Orks and other assorted cliched fairytale creatures, what did it the film do that's so technically accomplished that it's "unfuckwitable." Did Jackson use lenses developed by NASA like Kubrick had for Barry Lyndon? Did he revolutionize science fiction like Kubrick did in 2001? What about what Jackson did is more impressive than what Spielberg did for Terminal (he had a custom made airport built) or Scorsese did for Gangs of New York (the whole world of which was erected on a soundstage in Italy)? I just don't see what Jackson did in that film that moved the art form forward or was such a humungous endevor that makes it stand head and shoulders above other achievements.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jackson ain't shit! Had del Toro or Spielberg directed it it would've been much, much better. It's technically accomplished, I won't debate that (I just think you're overrating it's technical achievements). But it's visually clunky in places where it should be majestic (the scene in Pan's Labyrinth when the girl walks to the tree and light is shimmering around her..that's what I'm talking about when I say majestic) and Jackson can't direct actors for shit. He had a top 10 actor (Vigg) and the best actress of her generation (Blanchett), plus Ian McClellan, and he coaxed just "good" performances out of all of them. del Toro got that little girl in Pan's Labyrinth to jump through hoops with her performance.

Dids · Post by **Dids** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:24 pm

I'm not saying he did anything groundbreaking (beyond Massive), just that in terms of creating Middle Earth they did a fantstic job. A lot of that is less Jackson and more Weta. I don't think we really disagree that much unless you want to haggle over the definition of "unfuckwithable".

To some extent, PL also came after LOTR, which has to mean something in terms of both what they potentially may have learned/advances in technology in general. It's what, like 5 years inbetween the filming of LORT and Pans (this is totally off the top of my head).

I think the only really visually clunky parts of LOTR are the Warg fight, which is just an excess of CG that probably could have been cut down and still been just as effective.

ardamus · Post by **ardamus** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:38 pm

Maybe I have a sleep disorder or maybe ADD but, everytime I tried watching the Lords trilogy, I ended up either wanting to do something else or I was snoring. I'll give it one more shot when I have a complete day to bullshit around on but, damn, I swear I had to re-start the first one four times to watch and then I'd knock out. Voted Spiderman 2 even though the ending was pretty ghey.

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:41 pm

Ice, you got to look at it in terms of scope, not just individual orcs or actors. This shit is a sustained 12 hour drama with casts of thousands that took almost a decade to make. As far as technological achievement goes, there are special effects techniques that are being used now that were invented specifically for this trilogy. Gollum is by far the most accomplished CGI character ever created, and btw Serkis as Gollum gives one of the most underrated performances ever.

And yes, orcs and dragons have been done before, but never this well.

Individually, some elements here are obviously stronger than others (gay ass fucking eagles), which is why the whole point is to view it as one long movie and not a trilogy. The sum is much greater than the parts.

Historically, the trilogy as a whole is the next step in the evolution of CGI blockbusters after Star Wars and Jurassic Park. You can already see the effects it had in some of the movies being made now, and you will continue to see more and more of it until the next step is taken, whatever the fuck that may be.