Originally posted by SnakeEyes
So, use of humor = me shoving my opinion down peoples' throats? I feel like I'm walking on eggshells around here sometimes, which is kind of ridiculous considering it's a forum.
You're right. That wasn't a good example, at all, of you shoving your opinion of films down others' throats.
But this was:
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Yeah. Bruce is wrong.
How can Bruce's opinion of what he likes in a film, be wrong?
But, all joking aside, you and I have a large movie "like" overlap. If I make fun of the movies you like, I am making fun of myself, most of the time.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You bite your tongue! How dare you compare LotR to Avatar? The gap in quality is big enough for me to build a bridge!Bad acting? The trilogy is full of talented actors (Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, etc.) and pretty much everyone delivered.
The Lord of the Rings plot is simple, but executed fantastically well. And bad cinematography? Were you blindfolded? That sweeping shot of Pelenor Fields in the third one immediately comes to mind as one of the most memorable shots I've seen in a movie theater.
Anyway, obviously it's just a difference of opinion/perception but to me it sounds like you're stating blatant falsehoods, sir!
I didn't say the film had bad actors...I said it had bad acting. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Ian McKellen was the only decent performance in it. So i'm not questioning the lack of talent but only some directors can get those actors to perform at their best...Peter Jackson is clearly not one of those directors.
The Star Wars prequel trilogy is the same...Packed full of exceptional talent with equally as bad performances.
And yeah...The battle of Pelenor fields is exactly what i'm referring to when I say bad cinematography. Was it a big and epic scene?..Yes I have no doubt. Were the shot choices right?...No. The close ups were completely disconnected from the panning shots. Don't even get me started on how bad the army of the dead looked. As I said....The Two Towers was the best of the trilogy by a royal mile.
300 utilised 1 single overhead shot during the hot gates battle and it was more effective than all of LotR panning shots combined...The one when the 300 Spartans began to march out from the cliff sides. Granted the next shots were epic failures due to the blatently obvious cardboard cut outs in the background being completely static. But that's besides the point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
How can Bruce's opinion of what he likes in a film, be wrong?But, all joking aside, you and I have a large movie "like" overlap. If I make fun of the movies you like, I am making fun of myself, most of the time.
Bruce's opinion isn't/can't be wrong, I was being slightly sarcastic at the time and also I just disagree with him so strongly about some things that I phrase it so his opinion is factually wrong, despite me knowing that's not actually possible.
It's just like when someone says that American Idol is their favorite TV show or that Ashley Simpson is their favorite musical artist; of course they're not factually wrong, but to me that's piss-poor taste/a complete lack of it. So it's just easier and more to the point to claim that people like that have worthless opinions; maybe that's a better way to put it. Bruce's opinion isn't WRONG, it's just meaningless to me.
Anyway, yeah we do have an overlap for sure, that's probably why I'm maybe extra harsh on you when we disagree, cause I expect better! 😛
Originally posted by jaden101
I didn't say the film had bad actors...I said it had bad acting. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Ian McKellen was the only decent performance in it. So i'm not questioning the lack of talent but only some directors can get those actors to perform at their best...Peter Jackson is clearly not one of those directors.The Star Wars prequel trilogy is the same...Packed full of exceptional talent with equally as bad performances.
And yeah...The battle of Pelenor fields is exactly what i'm referring to when I say bad cinematography. Was it a big and epic scene?..Yes I have no doubt. Were the shot choices right?...No. The close ups were completely disconnected from the panning shots. Don't even get me started on how bad the army of the dead looked. As I said....The Two Towers was the best of the trilogy by a royal mile.
300 utilised 1 single overhead shot during the hot gates battle and it was more effective than all of LotR panning shots combined...The one when the 300 Spartans began to march out from the cliff sides. Granted the next shots were epic failures due to the blatently obvious cardboard cut outs in the background being completely static. But that's besides the point.
You raise some good points, I think. I agree that maybe Jackson didn't get the absolute best performances out of the actors, but I still think you're underrating the performances quite a bit.
Then you have to compare it to the prequels... which are far worse in every way (especially the acting) in comparison to the Lord of the Rings flicks.
And now that you're bringing up specific details/shot choices about the battle of Pelenor fields I will have to revisit the film and see if I can understand where you're coming from. As of now though, all I can say is that I don't recall having any problem with the cinematography; I remember really digging it. So I'll have to return here after I rewatch the movie.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite1998:
Best Actor went to some italian dude...it [B]SHOULD!
have gone to Edward Norton for American History X.[/B]
Benigni did do a very good job though. I've seen people not like his selection because he was foreign and lots of people don't like watching foreign films. So I just wanted to throw it out there that if you haven't seen it, you should.
Btw, I could go either way between the two. Funny that both movies have to do with racism (though the racism and subject matters of each definitely are not funny).
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Bruce's opinion isn't/can't be wrong, I was being slightly sarcastic at the time and also I just disagree with him so strongly about some things that I phrase it so his opinion is factually wrong, despite me knowing that's not actually possible.
A smug remark is a smug remark (unless you're parodizing a person being arrogant...then it can be funny, especially if it's your boss). Even if it was done with humor, it can still offend or get annoying to the recipient.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
It's just like when someone says that American Idol is their favorite TV show or that Ashley Simpson is their favorite musical artist; of course they're not factually wrong, but to me that's piss-poor taste/a complete lack of it. So it's just easier and more to the point to claim that people like that have worthless opinions; maybe that's a better way to put it. Bruce's opinion isn't WRONG, it's just meaningless to me.
You say rude things when it comes to your opinions on movies. That's what was being said. That's it.
And, lol...American Idol is part of what's wrong with young America. And, I'm quite sure BruceS doesn't care for American Idol, as well.
It doesn't really matter, though, if you couldn't care less what others think of you on the internet. If some opinions are such trash and rubbish, to you, I say have at it, as long as you don't care about alienating people or appearing rude.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Anyway, yeah we do have an overlap for sure, that's probably why I'm maybe extra harsh on you when we disagree, cause I expect better! 😛
K. And that could be true. lulz
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You raise some good points, I think. I agree that maybe Jackson didn't get the absolute best performances out of the actors, but I still think you're underrating the performances quite a bit.Then you have to compare it to the prequels... which are far worse in every way (especially the acting) in comparison to the Lord of the Rings flicks.
And now that you're bringing up specific details/shot choices about the battle of Pelenor fields I will have to revisit the film and see if I can understand where you're coming from. As of now though, all I can say is that I don't recall having any problem with the cinematography; I remember really digging it. So I'll have to return here after I rewatch the movie.
I agree that the acting was worse in the prequel trilogy of SW than it was in LotR...I think that had a lot to do with the fact that everything was done in green screen...Even the vehicles the actors sat in were just green boxes. It can't have been easy to give a natural performance in that kind of setting.
I guess my biggest gripe with the Pelenor fields/Minas Tirith battle wasa that they just packed in as much as they could in each scene. I got bored watching the same shots flying over the city with all the action shown as tiny specks below. It never seemed connected with the known characters during the close up scenes. The only exception being when Denathor falls while on fire and the scene pans out to show the whole city. The framing of the shots was extremely poor. There didn't seem to be any good implementation of the golden ratio to have the object/person that the director wanted focus on in the right spot on screen.
Odd though given that some scenes were constructed brilliantly. The final panning upward shot of Two Towers where you see the mountains surrounding Mordor was fantastic...The scene in FotR when they are passing the giant statues. When Aeowyn walks outside and you see the mountains across the plains of Rohan...Beautiful.