Just give me a movie with swords

[Kent2010]

CGI can get way over the top, I'm thinking about the Wachowski brothers' Matrix movies. The Matrix was an exciting movie and the CGI was an interesting compliment. But, for the last two Matrix movies, the CGI just got out of control. There was too much, it was cheap, and it looked video-gamish.

There were some bad CGI moments in LOTR (like Legolas jumping off the back of a troll, sliding down the Oliphant - well almost any Legolas "stunt," - or the Army of ectoplasm.) but the CGI was also quite stunning. What they did with Gollum was far better than the Star Wars Jar Jar disaster. Also, I thought the battle scenes looked real, despite a few places where you could tell it was obviously CGI. Like Saruman's "blocks" of troops outside Isengard.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I can't say if LOTR really changed my taste in movies. Prior to LOTR, I was a huge Star Wars fan (of the original trilogy, anyway...the new ones choked to death on CGI), so that falls into the same sort of epic escapism category, and I already loved The Princess Bride.

LOTR didn't really lead me to any other movies within the genre, though I tend to wind up interesting places when I follow LOTR actors around. Elijah Wood brought me to Everything is Illuminated, a truly unique film that is definitely within the top five on my favorites list. Viggo Mortensen led me to Hidalgo which has served my friends and I well in terms of rainy-day entertainment. Seeing his face on the cover of The Road by Cormac McCarthy led me to discover a bleakly beautiful book. I'm awaiting the movie with bated breath.

I do think I wouldn't have watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail without LOTR's influence. Make of that what you will, as I certainly don't know as there's any significance to that.

I don't care for the special effects revolution that LOTR brought about. There's something about seeing flesh-and-blood people onscreen that no amount of computer wizardry can replace. That said, the special effects in LOTR do still remain the standard by which I judge other movies. So far, only the first Chronicles of Narnia really measures up. Movies need to have a soul, a purpose, beyond special effects, or they're just a disaster, and I hope that cinema realizes that sooner rather than later.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Well, I don't know how the LotR films have altered my view of movies, if at all, but I have noticed a proliferation of annoying CGI armies sprawling endlessly across horizonless blue screens in the wake of Jackson's movies.

Indeed, but is it fair to blame Jackson et al for that (if that's what you're doing)? Besides I don't think "too much CGI" is ever the basic problem with a film.. it's more like "too little of anything else". I know the sort of thing you mean, though.

Originally Posted by Kent2010

CGI can get way over the top, I'm thinking about the Wachowski brothers' Matrix movies. The Matrix was an exciting movie and the CGI was an interesting compliment. But, for the last two Matrix movies, the CGI just got out of control. There was too much, it was cheap, and it looked video-gamish.

I doubt anyone would be complaining if those movies had been better in other ways, though– to repeat myself, there's a basic difference between using special effects to tell your story and telling your story in order to use special effects. By and large I think the LotR movies get it right (with notable exceptions, of course).

[Kent2010]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

LOTR didn't really lead me to any other movies within the genre, though I tend to wind up interesting places when I follow LOTR actors around. Elijah Wood brought me to Everything is Illuminated, a truly unique film that is definitely within the top five on my favorites list. Viggo Mortensen led me to Hidalgo which has served my friends and I well in terms of rainy-day entertainment. Seeing his face on the cover of The Road by Cormac McCarthy led me to discover a bleakly beautiful book. I'm awaiting the movie with bated breath.

I do the same, although I haven't seen Hidalgo. I watched History of Violence and Eastern Promises just because it had Viggo Mortensen.

I don't care how bad the reviews are, I will watch any movie with Viggo, Ian Holm, or eventhough not an LOTR actor I wish she was - Natalie Portman.

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

I don't care for the special effects revolution that LOTR brought about. There's something about seeing flesh-and-blood people onscreen that no amount of computer wizardry can replace. That said, the special effects in LOTR do still remain the standard by which I judge other movies. So far, only the first Chronicles of Narnia really measures up. Movies need to have a soul, a purpose, beyond special effects, or they're just a disaster, and I hope that cinema realizes that sooner rather than later.

I really have enjoyed the Narnia movies and can't wait for The Dawn Treader. On some levels I think they are better than the LOTR movies. They aren't on the same 'grand' blockbuster scale like LOTR, but I like the attention on the characters. I thought most of the LOTR characters were one-dimensional or too simple.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I doubt anyone would be complaining if those movies had been better in other ways, though– to repeat myself, there's a basic difference between using special effects to tell your story and telling your story in order to use special effects. By and large I think the LotR movies get it right (with notable exceptions, of course).

True, with a competent lead actor and a story line people can follow (I doubt the guy who played the Architect knew half the things he would ramble about), the CGI might not have mattered.

I have to admit I enjoy the Sci-Fi original movies, simply for the dreadful script and bad CGI. I've seen the Sci-Fi movies with better CGI than The Matrix, and I doubt those movies had the amount of money put into them as The Matrix.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I am a bit scared for the Dawn Treader to come out, the last Narnia film was very well, it had much CG animation in it, they will probably have more nasty stuffs in the next one.

Going back to LotR though, I didn't really like the whole large CG army thing, give me real acting and I'll be happy. Even if it isn't very good acting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Lawrence of Arabia. Lots of scimitars, horses, camels, mass charges.

Zulu, if assegais count. Or bayonets. Lotsa real, human extras who were genuine Zulus.

[Kent2010]

To be fair, I agree with what everyone thinks about the human element in movies like Braveheart or Lawrence of Arabia, but we should remember that those movies are based on real stories, where Lord of the Rings is a fantasy.

I think that significantly changes things. I mean it's rather inconvenient and tedious to hire 1,000 people and get them dolled up as orcs. It took John Rhys-Davies hours to get into full make-up and costume as a dwarf, to dress up 1,000s as Orcs just might not have been possible. I can see why fantasy movies would rely more on the CGI route than a movie like Braveheart or say King Arthur would.

Even though Jackson drastically inflated the number of Orcs, it would still be a heavy burden for the make-up and costume department to hire "armies" of people just to turn them into Orcs.