I think Marilyn Monroe already was... 
Posted on 05/16/2014 4:31:40 AM PDT by Perdogg
So much for that fellowship of the ring.
Viggo Mortensen took a shot at Peter Jackson's dependence on visual effects in the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy films, which are widely considered to have launched the actor's career to a higher level.
In a frank interview with London's The Telegraph, the 55-year-old star of the upcoming "Two Faces of January" gave a thumbs-down to every J.R.R. Tolkien adaptation his former director has made since the first installment, 2001's "The Fellowship of the Ring."
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Have you ever tried casting 100,000 Orcs for a couple weeks of battle scenes? Even if Moochelle is available that still leaves you 99,999 short.
For my tastes, Vigo Mortenson can go pound lembas bread. He was probably the weakest character in all the LOTR films, a greasy, unkempt mumbler who showed little of the regal bearing required of Tolkien’s Aragorn. It was a bad casting job, and Vigo should be doing “Paint Your Wagon” at the Suburban Dinner Theater’s matinees.
Yes, I’m sure that will happen but that stuff is already there; just different faces.
Wait - you mean with each other?
Agreed, although I liked him in Eastern Promises and Historey of Violence. I thought the LOTR films were an excellent adaptation of te books.
When the world created by the mind of the ORIGINAL STORY writer, to create the environment within the character(s) live, breath, think, feel, and act, is changed by Hollywood to where THAT WORLD, i.e., CGI, takes precedence over the character-driven stories, as J.R.R. Tolkien’s stories have always been, the movie sucks.
Example: Edgar Rice Burroughs; John Carter of Mars.
TWICE made, once with Traci Lords, and one without. One called John Carter of Mars. The other, just John Carter.
TWICE sucked.
I have read Tolkien’s works many years ago, before the Bakshi-animated film, “The Hobbit”, was released. THAT film, though not CGI, did act as a precursor to today’s muddling CGI.
I think Viggo is a dork but I also think he’s right. The first movie was closer to the book, it was story driven. CGI in that one complemented the story nothing else. Starting with the next one, CGI started taking over, visuals over story and ROTR was worse.
The Hobbit (I’ve only seen the first one) was awful. CGI to the point of phoniness. I can’t blame the studios for funding these though, the movie going public (ie young people) don’t care about story. They didn’t grow up reading, they don’t have the desire for a plot.
I think Marilyn Monroe already was...
I’ve been playing with 3D effects for years, and I routinely ask “how did they do that?!”
Anyone who thinks the computer does all the work has no idea what they’re talking about. It takes an enormous amount of work and creativity to pull some of this stuff off. That doesn’t detract from the old school special effects stuff, it’s just different.
I was going to note that Dunedain were beardless, being of partial Elvish extraction. Maybe CGI can replace Mortenson...
I'm sure some female was used as the model for Tink's face, but I don't know who.
She looks more like Sandra Dee than MM, to me anyway.
Agreed. Viggo Mortensen is a lousy actor. And a hard left radical.
Oh, sure - MAKE me blow coffee through my nose. Bastard. LOL! :)
Reminds me of my son’s love for Alfred Hitchcock films. While in college on a Saturday night, he decided to stay in and watch one of his favorites: “Rope.” A few of his friends dropped by to see if he was interested in hitting the bars. When he declined, they started making fun of him for choosing to watch “old movies.” One by one, however, they all fell silent as the story line drew them in. Within minutes, the entire gathering fell silent, transfixed by an “old movie” depicting a cold blooded murder, filmed entirely in one room, and centered on three actors. No blood. No gore. No special effects. The boys never moved or spoke during movie. The magic of Hollywood, pre CGI.
The Hobbit movies are okay. Not great literature. I’ve read the LOTR and the Hobbit multiple times and at the first viewing of each movie I had the book in my mind and was disappointed. The second (and in the case of LOTR third time to watch the movie, I got into the visual and accepted that the story line had to change. Most recently I wanted the second Hobbit movie with my granddaughter and loved it. The acting in the Hobbit movies is actually okay. I put them in the same category as the Raiders of the Lost Ark and the other Indiana Jones movie I liked, the Grail with Sean Connery. Fun to watch, not great literature.
Wouldn’t her toes give you another 10 or so?
Agreed. Just because the artist is using a computer rather than film, it doesn’t make them any less an artist.
In the end, if you don’t have a good story, and good writing—the best artists couldn’t make a good production.
It’s about the end product.
That’s a nice story - and Rope isn’t even one of the Master’s top movies! It’s all shot in one or two takes I believe. I think all children should be given art education - film, theater, art, opera and dance appreciation. Of course, that’s a pipe dream since kids don’t even get gym or recreation in the playground anymore.
You’re right, they had to wait for the technology to catch up to the books. And this moron after finishing the movie said when asked what he learned he replied war never solved anything.
He should have played a tree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.