The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

We can't talk about CGI (which is a big part of the series)? Or did I miss an earlier off-topic discussion...

We can but we were talking about Davy Jones from POTC. That's sort of off topic.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Why can't you talk about CGI on the LOTR EE. I just saw nothing posted about in a page or 2

Makes sense. I only posted once anyway, so no biggie.

[Mr. Movie Fan]

Speaking of effects. I always thought it was bad not to cast real little people to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I never felt that the Hobbits and Gimli were shorter than any other characters, and to exclude a little person from a staring role in those films was really strange. Not unlike blackface.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Speaking of effects. I always thought it was bad not to cast real little people to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I never felt that the Hobbits and Gimli were shorter than any other characters, and to exclude a little person from a staring role in those films was really strange. Not unlike blackface.

I agree and there are many shots longer shots in the trilogy where the hobbits faces are turned away from the camera and you can tell they are real little people acting as stunt doubles.

[xybeptek]

Just saw this trilogy in Ross department store for $24.99. I've never seen any of the LOTR movies, but something tells me I should have grabbed it.. Maybe I'll go back tomorrow

[Stinky-Dinkins]

I dunno, I think the CGI in the trilogy holds up remarkably well given its age... but some shots definitely look a little rough these days.* When Legolas slides down that slain elephant it looks particularly rough, the cave troll looks pretty dated too. Still though, overall very decent. Weta proved that ILM wasn't the only major player in town.
I think it adds to its charm though - Part of the magic of when the movie was made. There's something special about what made it so special when it was first seen.
The Thing (Carpenter remake) was made probably at the height of special effects prosthetics and puppetry. Sure it looks dated now (in the CGI-era), but those special effects haven't lost any of the magic or charm that made them spectacular in the first place. I still love that movie and wouldn't have it any other way.
I also think Weta was well served by not relying solely on CGI. A tremendous amount of their special effects were completely hand-crafted. Someone mentioned that the SW Prequels make the CGI in the LotR trilogy look bad. To me the CGI in the SW Prequels looks way, way worse.... and the hand-crafted effects of the originals (before Lucas shat on them) still hold up. I think many things do and will continue to look better when made by human hands in the physical realm. I just got back home and I'm pretty buzzed, I'm trying to catch typos here. I am catching them and putting them in a jar.

*That being said, would I want an updated version released at the exclusion of the originals? No way. Updated versions would be welcome and interesting to watch but if (and only if) the originals were included alongside them in equivalent quality.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I agree and there are many shots longer shots in the trilogy where the hobbits faces are turned away from the camera and you can tell they are real little people acting as stunt doubles.

Elijah Wood is a real little person. He makes Peter Dinkalge look like Shaq (not just tall but black too, don't question it).

[SolidBlu]

will watch my copy later today

[mlittle3]

Lord of the Rings effects never looked impressive to me. Some of the CGI in Return of the king is downright embarrassing. CGI Legolas? WTF? The shot of the Fellowship together as a group in the first movie looks incredibly fake. Why they didn't simply cast real little people is beyond me. Peter Dinkalge is a far better actor than Elijah Wood will ever be.

If Peter Jackson really wanted to improve these films, he would have WETA go back and update the antiquated CGI.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Speaking of effects. I always thought it was bad not to cast real little people to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I never felt that the Hobbits and Gimli were shorter than any other characters, and to exclude a little person from a staring role in those films was really strange. Not unlike blackface.

I'm kind of with you here. I'm not in favor of little people having the roles of hobbits in LotR (that would be ridiculous) apart from stunt doubles and stand-ins, but I am in favor of those who got the roles having to wear blackface throughout the trilogy. Sean Astin in blackface would be so friggin' spectacular.

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Lord of the Rings effects never looked impressive to me. Some of the CGI in Return of the king is downright embarrassing. CGI Legolas? WTF? The shot of the Fellowship together as a group in the first movie looks incredibly fake. Why they didn't simply cast real little people is beyond me. Peter Dinkalge is a far better actor than Elijah Wood will ever be.

If Peter Jackson really wanted to improve these films, he would have WETA go back and update the antiquated CGI.

Your avatar looks a little dated these days by the way. If Lucas really wanted to improve the SW trilogy he'd replace the body of a young Mark Hamill with the body of a young Ryan Reynolds. On Dagobah only an 8 pack is impressive these days. You could hardly grate cheese on the body of a young Mark Hamill, God knows Yoda tried.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I'm kind of with you here. I'm not in favor of little people having the roles of hobbits in LotR (that would be ridiculous) apart from stunt doubles and stand-ins, but I am in favor of those who got the roles having to wear blackface throughout the trilogy. Sean Astin in blackface would be so friggin' spectacular.



Your avatar looks a little dated these days by the way. If Lucas really wanted to improve the SW trilogy he'd replace the body of a young Mark Hamill with the body of a young Ryan Reynolds. On Dagobah only an 8 pack is impressive these days. You could hardly grate cheese on the body of a young Mark Hamill, God knows Yoda tried.

Yeah?......Okay?........So you say you're buzzed are you? No Sh..!

Anyway, back on topic.

What possibly could have made a difference is if PJ or the studio gave more time between sequels. Some of the effects shots could have been polished a bit more. A lot of what's in these films is very good either way.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by greg_achen

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Davy Jones is not only the most photo real CGI character to date, but there is a subtlety and nuance to his movements that is unbelievably real. With that said, Gollum is still a far better character than Davy Jones, and Pirates of the Caribbean isn't even in the same league as Lord of the Rings compared to everything else. But Davy Jones, to my eyes, is the pinnacle of CGI character animation at this point and time.

Outdated effects do not bother me. Is the CGI in Lord of the Rings a little dated? Sure. But I somehow always look past that when watching the movies because the story is so engrossing. If the filmmakers have done their jobs as filmmakers, audiences will ALWAYS be able to forgive dated effects. Hence why films like Jaws remain classics to this day.

I'm totally with you on this one. Davy Jones is definitely the best CGI character I've seen (although Gollum comes in second). And sure, some of the LOTR CGI may seem a little dated, but to me that just makes the films seem more fantastical. I know that probably sounds dumb, but it's how I feel.

[LordCrumb]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Speaking of effects. I always thought it was bad not to cast real little people to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I never felt that the Hobbits and Gimli were shorter than any other characters, and to exclude a little person from a staring role in those films was really strange. Not unlike blackface.

Um.. because Hobbits are not dwarfs, they are perfectly proportioned little people.. and no offence to any 'vertically challenged' people on here, but they would have looked odd.. stumpy legs, stumpy arms and large heads.



I think they did the illusion of the height perfectly. Gimli always looked shorter than everyone else, and the hobbits even more so.

As for another user saying the effects have dated.. that's just bull.

[Andrewtst]

Finished watch EP 1 of lord of the rings - the fellowship of the ring.

Ya, they do change the color tone, but I feel it much more suite the film itself now and they is no green tin issue for me.

This extended copy is the most clearance and in details copy I ever seen

I am gladly to said I am proud to own this extended blu-ray edition and happily sold of my previous DVD extended copy.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Speaking of effects. I always thought it was bad not to cast real little people to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I never felt that the Hobbits and Gimli were shorter than any other characters, and to exclude a little person from a staring role in those films was really strange. Not unlike blackface.

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Why they didn't simply cast real little people is beyond me. Peter Dinkalge is a far better actor than Elijah Wood will ever be.

Because, to put it delicately, their walking is distinctive, and would have detracted from the story. Hobbits are supposed to be like the rest of us, just shorter.

[Jimmy Bro]

Does anyone know?

[SkillzthatKillz]

For all of the trolls saying that cgi in these movies looks dated and that the star wars prequels look better I just have one question...why did the two towers get the Oscar for best visual effects and not star wars:attack of the clones?

[Andrewtst]

My complete review of The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy - Extended Edition Blu-ray



Proudly getting this gorgeous BestBuy Exclusive Set, and after completing the whole Trilogy, I never regret selling of my previous DVD Extended, LOTR is look gorgeous as ever it can in this Extended Blu-ray edition.

The Fellowship of the Ring
PQ - 4.0 Star
AQ - 5.0 Star
Remark: A lot talk about the green tint issue, for me it looks OK, I believe it is intentional to comply another 2 episode or even the upcoming release of The Hobbit. It is not the greatest but it give me the whole better experience as I feel the new color is more appealing to the film itself after finish watching it.

The Two Towers
PQ - 4.5 Star
AQ - 5.0 Star
Remark: PO is absolutely better than the 1st episode, compare with 3rd episode, it stand in between.

The Return of the King
PQ - 5.0 Star
AQ - 5.0 Star
Remakr: PQ is among the best for this Extended Edition Trilogy set.

In overall, highly recommended if you love LOTR EE, the splitting to two disc for every episode is the right choice to maintain such high in PQ & AQ. The only drawback is, it could be better if the Extra had been remastered to HD quality and loading in Blu-ray instead of the same source from the previous release DVD edition.

Overall Rating:
The Film: 5.0 Star
PQ: 4.5 Star
AQ: 5.0 Star
Extra: 4.0 Star

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Speaking of effects. I always thought it was bad not to cast real little people to play Hobbits and Dwarfs.
I never felt that the Hobbits and Gimli were shorter than any other characters, and to exclude a little person from a staring role in those films was really strange. Not unlike blackface.

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Why they didn't simply cast real little people is beyond me.

And why not cast a real blind person for Scent of a Woman? Or a real Cuban for Scarface? Or a real amputee for Forrest Gump? Or a real pornstar for Boogie Nights? Or a real German for Schindler's List? Or real soldiers in war movies? Or an actual man for The Year of Living Dangerously? Or a real Mexican for The Mask of Zorro?

It's called acting. Casting is based on the actors ability to play a part. Not for being a exact match to the character's race, gender, disability or size.

[punisher]

.aq rating is 5.0

never mind..I see it's corrected

[dcowboy7]

I thought the TOYS in the best buy LOTR set could have been done better.

Star wars is the original "tentpole" movie not jaws.