this is the last great film before the overuse of CGI diluted the industry into the soupy, shitty mess that it is today.
prove me wrong
>>69128632
I agree that this was the last great film, but it has nothing to do with CGI. People just don't know how to write compelling stories anymore.
>>69128632
Master and Commander
>>69128632
LOTR is great, but there are still great movies being made today with outstanding practical effects and CGI being used properly (see pic related)
Although it is strange how CGI in movies, like Jurassic Park, can still hold up today, while the effects in the new Hobbit movies look like utter cartoony shit
>>69128632
Apocalypto accomplished quite a bit with real sets and extras.
Stardust
>>69128730
The best CGI is the CGI you don't notice.
harry potter you fucking idiot
>>69129155
>he watches movie adaptations of shitty children's stories
>>69129217
>complains about shitty children's stories
>OP pic is LOTR
bit hypocritical tbhfam
>>69128730
this movie in 10 years will be a joke
>>69129217
>hes a literal fucking idiot
the films are different for a reason. film as a medium is different than novels and theyre way more mature and thematic than the books could ever be and have more to offer than even lotr. sorry for your lack of deciphering film
not only that youre sperging your shit opinion when its off topic to the thread. the cig and practical effects are top notch
>>69129285
LOTR is childish but not for children
>>69129296
>that's not the force awakens
You're a joke now.
>>69129327
The harry potter films have more to deconstruct as an adult, there's literally brazilian references all over the ministry and shit, sorry it was so british and tongue and cheek and you couldnt fucking understand anything bc youre a pleb who doesnt even recognize basic shit like that.
>>69128632
I dropped $80 on the blu-ray extended editions. They've aged so terribly that I can't watch them.
Any modern film that you liked after around 2001 has some degree of CGI in it unless it was made on a hairline budget. If you liked any film after 2001 then you have proved yourself wrong.
HOWEVER, what would be much harder to prove wrong and what is more likely the point you are attempting to get at is that CGI has enabled many poor-quality films to be made without having to be concerned about their viability as a story or a script due to the spectacles that CGI has made possible being able to take their place.
In short, whereas before a movie about a 250-story tall monster exploding New York would have involved some degree of budget and thus would have not been as likely to be greenlit new films don't have these issues, and gaudier action sequences and more barebones plots are made.
However what you should also take a look at is the promotion mechanisms that exist for films now. If you make a mediocre or niche film a lot can be done in terms of cheap online advertising in order to advocate for the film or get people to see it in theaters whereas films used to depend on word of mouth, and their overall cost having been higher often reduced the number of films made which went to theaters, again, ensuring high quality.
>>69129311
Easy there, don't pop a vein.
>>69129349
if TPM isn't a joke today, I'm sorry my dear but you're wrong(and probably younger than me)
>>69129386
I never watched harry potter and never will. I see it as childish because 8 to 12 years old read the books
>>69129446
nice retort. theres literally more the analyze in harry potter movies than lotr hate to break it to you.
>>69129453
then fuck off faggot you have no opinion. as stated they are different from the books in their presentation, so go fuck yourself m8
>>69129490
I hope you have some lotion for that butthurt. I recommend coconut oil.
>>69129490
different from the books? more childish, I guess haha :*
>>69128632
>mfw no Tom Bombadil
>tfw never saw a <16 years old reading LOTR
>tfw never saw a >14 years old reading harry potter
>>69129586
haha
considering they get pretty dark, so much that plebs complained when they didnt get why, id say you are even worse because you dont even know what youre talking about
>>69129599
Your kind is the worst
>>69129623
>tfw some people dont understand what a film adaptation inherently means for an adaptation
hint: films have different necessities than books, director have say in how to adapt see 2001
>>69129630
>get pretty dark
haha
what happens? blood? rape? torture? you're so cute haha :*
>>69129650
I understand that, but I can't imagine harry potter movies going the opposite way from the books. so, childish content anyways ^^~
>>69129387
That's odd, I just watched all 3 extended versions about 2 weeks ago and they are even better than I had remembered them.
>>69129647
>harry potter
>wizard school
Sounds like complete faggotry to me, and I've sucked my own dick.
>>69129687
>but I can't imagine harry potter movies going the opposite way from the books.
so youre completely ignoring fact now to coincide with your bias....its well known they went in a different direction than the books. they are much darker. thats what every critic has affirmed. bravo
>>69128632
definitely the comfiest LOTR film
>>69129572
its okay you lotr babbys get offended when anyone points out its overrated and childish. you can dish it out but you just get so defensive about the truth. ive probably seen them just as much or more than you, lotr is overrated.
An adaptation by a shock-jockey of escapist pop-lit is not a good film, much less a great film, and it's clear you pay no attention to art film, and I can almost guarantee your exposure to film includes only 100 titles, all of which can be bought, right now, today, at Wal*Mart.
>>69129783
>trying this hard
>>69129783
>not realizing, let alone appreciating the immense amount of work that went into every detail of LotR
>shitposting in a vain attempt at some cheap (You)s
disgraceful iih(if i'm honest)
