Subject:
|
Re: Lord of the Rings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:01:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1245 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:48:04 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> wrote:
> (BTW Jasper, you've been away too long :-)
Thanks. That warms my heart, it does.. (or is that the scotch?)
>
> Yeah, I've seen a coupla sites and been kinda keeping up on the casting. I am
> sorta concerned about a lot of CGI though: while it's very good now,
> stretching characters to adjust for size is risky, not that some actors aren't
> good at compensating. But I can tell when a character is does not have the
> look of either looking a CGI in the eyes, or shows no sign of responding to
> nuances in the CGI's movement. Even in TPM I could tell sometimes, and they
> had on-set physical representation of the character.
This is true, but using it for armies of orcs and dwarves shouldn't
have those problems.
Then again, on-set representation (preferably by a live actor,
bodypainted Braveheart-blue all over if necessary), _should_ give you
the same visuals. What it can't do is allow the chemistry between
leads to develop.
>
> I don't want LOTR to be more eye-candy than anything else. I want it to be a
> good movie all around. Here's hoping for the best!
Seconded, of course.
Although I'd like it to be a good entire _trilogy_, not just a good
film with bad sequels.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lord of the Rings
|
| (...) in (...) oh bulletsh, they do too. :-) (BTW Jasper, you've been away too long :-) Yeah, I've seen a coupla sites and been kinda keeping up on the casting. I am sorta concerned about a lot of CGI though: while it's very good now, stretching (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
69 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
