It's actually fricking crazy how after 20 years, no one has managed to the trilogy PLUS it sitll looks fresh with few dated scenes.
It's actually fricking crazy how after 20 years, no one has managed to the trilogy PLUS it sitll looks fresh with few dated scenes.
500 years and no one has wrote a poem as good as Dante's
Dante was a hack. Ariosto was the true genius.
you never read either of them
Someone is asking for a duel.
George Eliot
Inferno is literally just a self insert fanfic about Christianity where Dante wanders through Hell with his man crush and watches all the people who bullied him suffer.
I hold there is no fundamental difference between My Immortal and Dante's Inferno.
you can tell a midwit who hasn’t read it because you’ll find zero comment on the actual quality of the poetry itself and nothing about 2/3 of the work, just the start. the fact that people still regurgitate this reddit, canned opinion and expect people to believe it’s their own is fricking hilarious. some people are so dumb
>I hold there is no fundamental difference between My Immortal and Dante's Inferno.
Except for the actual language and metre, the entire point of poetry. So one of these people has an intricate understanding of the cadence of language and spent like a decade fine tuning every word to be as impactful and economical as possible and one is some talentless autist who just wrote pages of garbage with zero thought put into it. Reading non Cinemaphile opinions on Cinemaphile makes me want to vomit.
>Inferno is literally just a self insert fanfic
Midway upon the journey of our life
I found myself within a forest dark,
For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say
What was this forest savage, rough, and stern,
Which in the very thought renews the fear.
So bitter is it, death is little more;
But of the good to treat, which there I found,
Speak will I of the other things I saw there.
I cannot well repeat how there I entered,
So full was I of slumber at the moment
In which I had abandoned the true way.
But after I had reached a mountain’s foot,
At that point where the valley terminated,
Which had with consternation pierced my heart,
Upward I looked, and I beheld its shoulders,
Vested already with that planet’s rays
Which leadeth others right by every road.
Then was the fear a little quieted
That in my heart’s lake had endured throughout
The night, which I had passed so piteously.
And even as he, who, with distressful breath,
Forth issued from the sea upon the shore,
Turns to the water perilous and gazes;
So did my soul, that still was fleeing onward,
Turn itself back to re-behold the pass
Which never yet a living person left.
True but this is only valid if you’ve read it in italian. Reading translated poetry is pointless.
For all it's flaws, be grateful that Jackson made it in time before they really went all out on pushing their propaganda. We will never have a Middle-earth adaptation again without Black folk.
Maybe if some future Chinese film company does it.
>Black female dorfs
I guess I can deal, that's just how visual are made now, I guess...
>Without beards
I'm gonna start yelling and there's gonna be no fricking end to it.
>to the
"To top the"
>sitll looks fresh
lol
It does though. Looks like real CINEMA recorded on FILM (Fellowship ofc)
Yeah, except those multiple scenes which look like video-games.
Why are morons so fond of film? 8k digital is so much better
Lmao, pixel-counters will never understand cinema
9/11 and Lord of the Rings was the end of White Culture.
True
>The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own.
i guess its time for another rewatch on my OLED 4K DOLBY VISION rip
Zoomer born in 03 here, my bf showed me this shit and it's completely moronicly overrated. I don't know what you homosexuals smoke while watching this but it's dated as frick. The CGI is ultra obvious and bad, compare it to any high budget film from 2020+ and it's not even close. I was browsing on my phone for the most part after the first movie
Bait too obvious
They may be exaggerating but anyone who claims those movies still hold up visually compared to modern CGI are either stupid or lying to themselves. It's the same thing as Jurassic Park. It also doesn't help that they have a whole bunch of production mistakes that get conveniently left out of circlejerks around them being masterpieces. I can watch the movies and enjoy them but it won't stop me from acknowledging their flaws.
There's some visuals in this film that just won't get old.
The fell beast swooping the Rohan Bois and fricking up the horses... Yeah I can see today where it looks shitty but I still fricking love the visual in and of itself.
The visuals are dated in some respects, but in other areas I can't get over how well done that distance trick they did with the camera is, even in some shots where I know what I'm looking for and where to look for it I can't see the skewed furniture. Masterwork of practical effects.
Practical effects are generally longer lasting than CGI, especially when the CGI isn't stylized and is trying to look as real as possible, as is the case with LoTR and things like King Kong and Lion King. LoTR's CGI was always destined to end up dated because of this, and that's not even to say it took this long to look dated. CGI that is trying to look real always gets outclassed within a year because of how quickly it advances.
The CGI scenes last for like 30 seconds top and they aren't overly used.
Regardless of how many CGI scenes there are and how long they last (I disagree with you fyi) the problem is that people claim the CGI is amazing and still holds up, which is categorically false.
It's good enough that it doesn't detract too much from the excellence of the movies.
It's used sparingly, only where it matters, only for the objects that need it, integrated with practical when you can, always show/don't show.
It doesn't detract from the movie therefore is good
>born in 2003
>authority on bad cgi
Yes, no one has managed to make a more boring trilogy.
Harry Potter for women
I thought Harry Potter was for women. Most women I know love it, I can't think of a single man who does
you speak like it's from the fifties lol
the hobbit trifecta is kino.
all spectacle
all the films do is tell you who is good and who is bad, complete nonsense to anyone not familiar with the books
what a moron
THE MOVIES SUCK! WATCH THE NEW SHOW ON AMAZON! IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY GOOD!
>few dated scenes
Every scene with gollum was unwatchable in 7 years. They never should have made him a cartoon character. If they can make the tallest actor on the set look like a dwarf, they could've made an actual human actor look like an emaciated gollum next to the others.
I'm no lore expert but how accurate is the movie portrayal visually to the book description of him? If it's accurate, I'm not sure a normal person in makeup could provide the same hit as how twisted and corrupted he looks in the movies. Picturing it in my head, a gollum that is just a person in a costume isn't a good look.
The portrayal compared to the book is irrelevant when the question is: "is it watchable 10 years later?" I ffwd every G scene except the final when I rewatch LOTR.
Batman from The Machinist, smeared with dirt and wearing a tattered loincloth would have held up much better on screen, even if he didn't match 1:1 the description of Gollum from The Hobbit.
It's not like 99+% of viewers even knew what he was supposed to look like anyway.
The books are way way WAY better though.