The Two Towers

Yes, I think so many of us have just lost our ability to suspend disbelief. My wife grows weary of me knit-picking the CGI details as well. But as you noted, there was so little to pick in Two Towers. It's certainly the most persuasive, subtle use of CGI I've seen.

If you're not already seen it, there's a great article on the "smart crowds" tech used to render the battles scenes: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,56778,00.html.

yeah, after seeing that movie, we got a bite to eat, and then I threw up 11 times. thanks a bunch, gandalf.

another scene which sort of jolt the fantasy out was when Legolas flipped himself up the horse in an almost impossible angle...mabbe elves has rather flexible limbs..perhaps...

but well..watched it twice and it still rocks!

Yeah, there were a few things that my wife and I discussed after the movie that just didn't sit well, even though we enjoyed the movie. In addition to the already mentioned items, I had a difficult time allowing myself to believe in the overwhelming odds of the big battle, especially when the elves were using arrows. I tend to pay attention to the details of the story, since I'm a screenwriter myself. I am drawn to the Frodo-Sam elements of the film for that reason. The rest is just filler. Well-done filler, of course.

Agreed on the humor bits, but I suppose it's necessary to appeal to a wider audience. I have to say, though, as jaded as my CGI sensibilities are, I was mightily impressed by Gollum. Maybe not so much as a typical CGI creature (they still make them move too fast to be part of the world they're in), but in the "acting" of the character, which I believe is superior to any pseudo-realistic CGI character I've seen. Gollum had *personality* and appropriate, well-timed expression and reasonably good lip-synching. Of course I understand they used a human actor for motion capture, but for the first time that I can remember the CGI character actually felt just like an actor in a movie, instead of a gimmick.

Ahh yes, the horse-flipping bit. I think the response from my wife during that moment went something like..."what the fuck was that?"

I burst out laughing at the dwarf tossing bit in an at-that-moment quiet theater in Paris, my half-American wife not even knowing the very contemporary reference. Totally out of place but in the end I did not mind.

Middle Earth could really benefit from a good mass-transit system. It seems to me they spend way too much time walking everywhere.

I have to say the dwarf tossing bit had me in stitches. The thing that bothered me the most was the distortion of Faramir. Jackson made him out to be a punk. Oh that and all the ring geeks crowin' through the whole thing...I wrote a little diddy about that if you want to take a look.
http://www.opedit.org/articles/000008.html

I agree with the person you linked to who wrote the comparisons between the book and movie. I was feeling pretty good about the movie versions after the first movie, but wound up pretty disappointed after the second, especially with the character assasination of Faramir and all the unnecessary Arwen stuff. Hopefully they'll get back on track for the last part. The CG was pretty outstanding though. I especially liked the ents. I was wondering how they would ever pull that off but it's about as good a representation of talking walking tree people as I could have ever imagined. I found all of the special effects very realistic and convincing.

While I agree that the shield "gring" scene was over the top....I thought the horse flip was a very nice trick. Remember, elves have superior grace and dexterity to humans. It was a cute effect and IMHO true to the spirit of the universe.

I also really liked the horse maneuver. Also, did you notice in the first move when the Fellowship was walking on the crest of a snowy mountain, that Legolas walked on *top* of the snow while the others sank into it?

I think Peter Jacksons mastery is precisely in the fact that you don't sit watching his films looking for where the CG cuts in. I am very simlar (to Todd) in the respect that I often have to engage my "suspend disbelief" filter in order to sit through a lot of modern cinema. Actually, I should probably qualify that a little: It's not that I have to, more that I want to.

Films being art an' all; I reckon we all kind of owe it to the folks that make 'em to watch at least once without being too too critical. We live in weird times in this respect methinks - everyone's an 'expert' nowadays, and sometimes this 'expertise' gets in the way of enjoying the story.

This is especially relevant (imho) in the case of TLOTR. Has anyone seen the FOTR boxed DVD set? I was lucky enough to receive one for Christmas, and two of the DVDs do nothing but dissect the film in minute and wonderful detail. This is a fine thing, but I know of people who watched the documentaries first...

I was pretty upset the way they "macho"-ized Legolas and made Gimli into little more than a joke. I think it's a nod to younger audiences, especially those who haven't read the books (or have any intention of doing so). It also felt a bit rushed in places. I couldn't understand Faramir's sudden change of heart toward the end of the film. It didn't make any sense.

Nevertheless, bring on Return of the King!

Agree with most of what you have said here, although did you notice the motion blurs in Monsters, Inc.?! Quite distracting at times :(

My thoughts exactly on the CGI. It didn't make the movie, it enhanced it. Let's face it about The Matrix -- CGI is what people go to see. Personally I'm looking forward to the May release just to see the "virtual cinematography" as mentioned in Newsweek. In LOTR: The Two Towers I didn't find the technology visually overwhelming like the last half hour of Star Wars: Episode II. Yeah there was some cheezy scenes added at Jackson's discretion but overall the film was pretty dang close to the book. No complaints from me.

I think the thing that I respond to the most with the LOTR movies is the way that Peter Jackson has managed to capture a very romantic, painterly quality with his shot composition.

These films have such a beautiful, old-school cinematic quality that I find very refreshing after all the constant Matrix-riffing of late.

And I love the Matrix. But after a while it plays more like a soda commercial and it's been copied to death.

The wide shot of Gandalf the White leading the riders down the hill into battle at Helm's Deep is pure cinema and that one shot really took my breath away. And while the geeky side of me tried to dissect the creative process for that shot, the emotional half of me simply reveled in the glory of the moment. Amazing.

Also, I think it's interesting how visual effects are critiqued these days. I read a lot of phrases like "it looked very CG" or "It was too CG-looking." It seems like there was time when I was a kid where you just accepted visual effects movies for what they were and simply enjoyed the ride.

Weeks before the movie was released, Peter Jackson & crew seemed to be on every morning show talking about New Zealand, discussing the huge sets and beautiful natural surroundings. Knowing this, I just assumed so much of the visual surroundings were real, not even second-guessing that some shots were most definitely altered.

Think of the circling-panaromic shot around Aragorn when he first arrives at Helm's Deep... it's gotta be hard to sneak a fortress into a mountainside and make it seem subtle, but they pulled it off nicely.

I agree about the strange personality shift of Faramir--it's the first thing my 12-year old cousin complained about (her and her siblings went to see it in full battle dress; I had forgotten how into it I was as a kid). That, and the continuted annoyance at how Gimli is portrayed (like a buffoon--why couldn't they have gotten a small man instead of trying to shrink Rhys-Davies?), are pretty much the only beefs I had. Every other minute I was like, "Wow.", "Man!", "Whoa!". The scenery alone (like the fog before the hobbits were rescued, the shots of Edoras) was stunning. I already see New Zealand marketing itself as, "The Land of the Ring".
I hear ya on the "Matrix-iz-ation" thing. Still, we did name our daughter Trinity...we loved it! =) Can't wait for the sequels!

Have you seen any of Peter Jackson's prior movies? he's always had a "unique" sense of humour, and I'm sure the surfing and dwarf-tossing was his attempt at throwing in some of that "Dead Alive" slapstick wackiness.

Overall I have not let myself become too critical of special effects in movies. I'm more concerned about the presentation of a truly compelling story. I think of movies as visual books, and if there are special effects problems it was because of money or technology limitations. So many movies are riding the bleeding edge of visual art these days, and everybody involved in those special effects is learning as they go. I don't think it's fair to expect absolute perfection.

As for shield-surfing and dwarf-tossing, I found them to be small reliefs because I had become so hypnotized by the magnitude of the movie that I needed to be jolted awake at times.

I waited to buy Fellowship on DVD because I had heard about the 4 DVD set back when the first set was released. Watching the documentaries has given me a tremendous amount of respect for everyone involved in this film. This will most likely be the biggest thing that any of those individuals will ever work on in their lives. Also, I believe the actors truly felt the characters they were playing, and that is reflected in their performances.

As for storyline differences from the books, they are mostly all explained in the DVD special features and I feel they are justified. Telling a story visually is very different from telling it in print. Arwen only had a tiny part in the novel, but her story is still there to be told, and I have enjoyed her parts in the movie.

Okay, I need to get off the soapbox now.

Movies shouldn't be visual books. Movies should be an art form on their own.

Am I the only one who is sick of movies where the only great thing is how utterly amazing they look?

You can always tell when a movie relies completely on it's look when afterwards the only thing people can comment on is how _real_ it looked. 'I could hardly tell the difference'

The good thing about Monsters Inc. was that the story overshadowed the look of the film. Afterwards, I wasn't thinking about 3d and effects, but still chortling at the jokes.

Also the horrible nobleness of LOTR irritated me to bits. I was whispering to myself all the way through the film 'we get the point! they are brave! good for them! now let's get on with the story!'

The battle scenes were good.. But were they really the only good things in the movie?
Yes. I guess they were.

No wait! Golum looked real! Uhm... yeah.. I wonder how they did that? Wow! This movie was great! Everything looked so real!