LOTR

LOTR

Post by Eric Wilhel » Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:31:44



Anyone seen this yet?  There was an interesting post on
comp.graphics.packages.3dstudio about the behind-the-scenes work:

I was just watching TechTV (on in the background as I do CG of course) and
as it happens they aired a 5 minute segment on the tech behind LotR.
Some interesting facts:

Software: A|W Maya for character animations, Nothing Real's Shake for
digital compositing.
Render Farm: 192 Silicon Graphics servers which will be working non-stop
24/7 for the next two years rendering 1000000+ frames of animation/effects.

 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Bone » Sat, 22 Dec 2001 02:30:01



> Just a shame that troll looks so shit. And that Elijah Wood cannot act.

And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much Tim-Burtonized the
books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

----
Bones

The opinions  stated  here are
my own, and do not necessarily
reflect  those of my employer.

 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Darren Winspe » Sat, 22 Dec 2001 03:41:06



> On 20 Dec 2001 17:30:01 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,



>>> cannot act.

>>And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much Tim-Burtonized
>>the books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

> I'm staying at home as a protest. It's been butchered to pieces. I bet
> Tolkien is turning in his grave.

Have you actually seen the film?  I must confess that this is the first
(new) film I've seen in a long time that hasn't been a let-down.

--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)

Our government claims to be fighting terrorism to "defend our freedoms",
yet it is busy taking those freedoms away in order to "fight terrorism".

 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Michael Veste » Sat, 22 Dec 2001 04:14:39



> On 20 Dec 2001 17:30:01 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,



> >> cannot act.

> >And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much Tim-Burtonized
> >the books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

> I'm staying at home as a protest. It's been butchered to pieces. I bet
> Tolkien is turning in his grave.

Did you read "Lord of the Rings?" It is a big, thick book with lots of
words.
--
 12:10pm  up 36 days,  1:00,  1 user,  load average: 1.00, 1.05, 1.07
Spammer diluetent (additions welcome)


 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:05:37



> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:41:06 +0000 (UTC), in comp.os.linux.advocacy,


> >> On 20 Dec 2001 17:30:01 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,



> >>>> cannot act.

> >>>And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much Tim-Burtonized
> >>>the books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

> >> I'm staying at home as a protest. It's been butchered to pieces. I bet
> >> Tolkien is turning in his grave.

> >Have you actually seen the film?  I must confess that this is the first
> >(new) film I've seen in a long time that hasn't been a let-down.

> Is there actually anything in it that's in the book?

Yes, in fact they're very true to the original story for the most part.  It's
not word for word, scene for scene (that would be a 20 hour movie at the very
least), but they've done a miraculous job of condensing things down while
keeping true to the spirit of the story.

For instance, rather than going through the entire bit about how Gandalf
escaped from Isengard, they showed a brief flashback of his escape.  I think
the screenwriters wisely decided that the escape was important, but not so
important that they had to devote a lot of time to it.  Although they glossed
over a lot of tiny details, the spirit was very much there.

If you're overly *about every tiny detail, you probably won't like it.  If
you're enchanted by the story itself, you will very much enjoy it.

 
 
 

LOTR

Post by GreyClou » Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:21:09




>> Just a shame that troll looks so shit. And that Elijah Wood cannot act.

> And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much Tim-Burtonized
> the books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

What!?!  No Tom?!?  Typical Hollywood *-up.
 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Doug. » Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:51:22





>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:41:06 +0000 (UTC), in comp.os.linux.advocacy,


>> >> On 20 Dec 2001 17:30:01 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,



>> >>>> cannot act.

>> >>>And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much
>> >>>Tim-Burtonized the books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

>> >> I'm staying at home as a protest. It's been butchered to pieces. I bet
>> >> Tolkien is turning in his grave.

>> >Have you actually seen the film?  I must confess that this is the first
>> >(new) film I've seen in a long time that hasn't been a let-down.

>> Is there actually anything in it that's in the book?

> Yes, in fact they're very true to the original story for the most part.
> It's not word for word, scene for scene (that would be a 20 hour movie at
> the very least), but they've done a miraculous job of condensing things
> down while keeping true to the spirit of the story.

I would gladly pay to see the extras they left out or at least pay extra
for when they start shipping the DVD with parts they hopefully they left
out but are including due to lenght issues in movie threaters.

--
My System Specs:

Asus A7M & AMD 1.2 ghz CPU
512 DDR-RAM
LeadTek Geforce 2 GTS Pro
SoundBlaster Live X-Gamer ( with LiveDrive )
3COM Etherlink XL C905C-TX NIC
60 GB IBM 75GXP Hard Drive
60 GB SeaGate Barracuda IV Hard Drive
Pioneer 106S DVD/CD-rom Drive 106S
Hi-Val 24X10X40 CD-RW
19 inch GS790 monitor
OS: Dual-Booting - SuSe Linux 7.3 and Win 98SE ( for Windows only games )

 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Ian Pulsfor » Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:14:07



> Anyone seen this yet?  There was an interesting post on
> comp.graphics.packages.3dstudio about the behind-the-scenes work:

> I was just watching TechTV (on in the background as I do CG of course) and
> as it happens they aired a 5 minute segment on the tech behind LotR.
> Some interesting facts:

> Software: A|W Maya for character animations, Nothing Real's Shake for
> digital compositing.
> Render Farm: 192 Silicon Graphics servers which will be working non-stop
> 24/7 for the next two years rendering 1000000+ frames of animation/effects.

Tolkein was a medieval scholar.  I studied old and middle english
literature at uni too, one thing you quickly realise is that there is no
such thing as the 'authorised' version of a medieval story.  There were
many different versions of Gawain stories for example.  Perhaps the best
way to approach the LOTR movie is the same way, without detracting from
the fact that the book was the one and only original.

IanP

 
 
 

LOTR

Post by GreyClou » Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:21:22



> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 03:21:09 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,




>>>> cannot act.

>>> And there's no Tom Bombadil! I think they've pretty much Tim-Burtonized
>>> the books. But, nonetheless, I will go see it.

>>What!?!  No Tom?!?  Typical Hollywood *-up.

> Yes, Tom Bombadil is the only decent character in it.

Yes, and it deviates from the book too.
 
 
 

LOTR

Post by Bone » Mon, 24 Dec 2001 16:32:42


Just saw the movie. I don't think we'll ever have a chance to see an
adaptation of the book done better in our lifetimes. I was pretty impressed.
The film follows the original (save Tom B. and barrow downs), and it was
probably the only flick I saw this year that was worth the money. I was
surprised that there was no contemporizing of the dialog; no 'yo dudes' or
'whazzups' to speak of.

Definitely worth a look.

----
Bones

The opinions  stated  here are
my own, and do not necessarily
reflect  those of my employer.