SNAFU's

[Shadowfax]

There might already be another thread on this, but I was wondering about any mistakes they made. Here's my list:
~When Isildur is riding his grey horse, and they do a close up of him, his horse's hoof beats keep going at a trot, yet from his body movements, he is obviously walking.

~When Pip gets hit with that apple, it bounces off the R. side of his head. When he staggers backwards immediately alterwards, there is an apple in his LEFT hand. It happens so fast that the 2 apples are almost in the same frame!

~When the Hobbits are hiding under the tree, there is a small patch of light on the right side of the tree, yet, when the black rider appears, hedoesn't block out that part of light when he passes.

~The car in the cornfield.

~Frodo's tear lines.

Anymore?

[FrodoFriek]

I still haven't seen the car in the cornfield:(. Ummm.....in Rivendell the chain with the ring that Frodo has around his neck disappears and reappears several times.

[Shadowfax]

The car is in the final shot of the field when bilbo does the voice over. you can only see a cloud of dust moving from right to left at the base of the hill in the upper right corner of the screen.

yeah, bout that chain, Frodo never has to fumble with the alsp or anything to get the ring off the chain, and either he never breaks it or he has several auxilliary backup chains in his pocket.

[Úlairi]

Who knows?

[BelDain]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
~When Pip gets hit with that apple, it bounces off the R. side of his head. When he staggers backwards immediately alterwards, there is an apple in his LEFT hand. It happens so fast that the 2 apples are almost in the same frame!


The apple in Pippen's hand is the one that Merry tossed him. There were two apples thrown back at the Hobbits. One Merry caught and tossed to Pippen then as Merry starts to walk on ahead a second apple is tossed back and hits Pippen in the head.

[Shadowfax]

I thought merry took the apple for himself!

[Úlairi]

Who really cares! They were only very minor mistakes, it didn't lose the movie any Oscars or anything! Shadowfax, I suggest you go and see the movie again and look out for the mistakes, yes they are funny. I also have one. After the battle in Moria with the Orcs, all the Orcs are laying dead, but one in the very corner lifts up its head and then lies back down! I laughed when I saw it and everyone in the cinema looked at me!:rolleyes:

[Shadowfax]

I would go and see it again, just to see the orc, but I have already seen it seven times, and my mom has forbidden me from going again!:(

[Úlairi]

Well that's a pity!

[Niniel]

I've also heard there is a sticker on one of the apples, but I haven't seen it yet! And does Boromir blink when he's dead in the boat?

[Úlairi]

Really Niniel? I've never seen those!

[Niniel]

No, I haven't either, though I really tried... But a friend of mine said she did.

[Úlairi]

Lots of people say that they saw things that were never really there Niniel, so your friend may have been wrong.

[Kit Baggins]

There's one I don't think anyone mentioned. When they're going down the river, and they come to those statues, both statues have their left hands raised. When you see the statues from the back, the one on the left has its right hand raised instead.

~Kit :)

[Úlairi]

Really? You guys are so nit-picky.

[EverEve]

Hey, I dont really care.....I'm just discussing minor editing glitches with other members of this forum who are complaining:D

[Shadowfax]

We know, but it's still fun!:D

[Úlairi]

Yes, nit-picking is one of my many specialities.:D

[Niniel]

About the statues: I heard this one before and I've taken a good look, but it's not true. The statues have their hands raised in a strange sort of way with their left hands almost in front of their right shoulders, and if you look closely you can see that it's still the left hand that is raised.

[Gary Gamgee]

Originally posted by Kit Baggins
There's one I don't think anyone mentioned. When they're going down the river, and they come to those statues, both statues have their left hands raised. When you see the statues from the back, the one on the left has its right hand raised instead.

~Kit :)

Really didn't notice that one i will look for it next time. No-one has mentioned Gandalf's staff at Orthanc Saruman takes it, Gandalf leaves on the Eagle without it, but then has it again when the fellowship set off from Rivendil.

[Gary Gamgee]

sorry Niniel only scanned this thread and i didn't read yours till just then, I will lok for that too then.

[Isilme]

I've only noticed a few mistacks but none really stick out that much unless you look for them.
I tried to find the car in the cornfield but I can't find it!!

[Shadowfax]

You have to look really closely, and even then, all you can see is the dust. Just when Bilbo begins his voice over, look at the base of the hill in the upper right corner of the screen.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Gary Gamgee


Really didn't notice that one i will look for it next time. No-one has mentioned Gandalf's staff at Orthanc Saruman takes it, Gandalf leaves on the Eagle without it, but then has it again when the fellowship set off from Rivendil.

Yes, I noticed that also. Perhaps Gandalf stuffed down his robe!:D

[Greenwood]

No-one has mentioned Gandalf's staff at Orthanc Saruman takes it, Gandalf leaves on the Eagle without it, but then has it again when the fellowship set off from Rivendil.

It is a different staff. The heads are different if you look carefully at them. Somewhere there is a thread on the forum where ReadWryt posted pictures of the two staffs and they are clearly different.

[Niniel]

Yes, that's true. But what about the 'magical stone' that is put in the staff? The thing that gives light in Moria? I don't suppose such things are found on every streetcorner, so how did he get a new one?

[ReadWryt]

Ok, first off...It really does look like the arms on the Argonath are screwed up from behind...

[ReadWryt]

And secondly, who says that Saruman took away anything more then Gandalf's Hat, Staff and Pipe? I didn't see Saruman strip Gandalf down and search him...all we see confiscated are the three items I inumerate above, the pipe being the least obvious of the bunch because it was in the Staff at the time.

~When Pip gets hit with that apple, it bounces off the R. side of his head. When he staggers backwards immediately alterwards, there is an apple in his LEFT hand. It happens so fast that the 2 apples are almost in the same frame!

Wait, which apple are you talking about...the one in his hand before the apple hits him or the one that hits his head? He was quite plainly already holding an apple in his left hand when the next one strikes him...

[Turgon]

The pipe thing is cool, never noticed that... but then I've only seen the film twice *gasp*. It's a nice touch though!!!

[Shadowfax]

he had an apple in his hand before???? but where did he get it? and, if it was in his hand, why did Aragorn throw another?:confused: (am v. confused!

[Úlairi]

Well, I guess we can all agree with the fact that there are numerous mistakes in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'!

[ReadWryt]

...but where did he get it? and, if it was in his hand, why did Aragorn throw another?

He probably got it from the same place that Aragorn (assuming it WAS Aragorn who threw it) got his, and as for why Aragorn threw it, to make him SHUT UP ABOUT FOOD! :)

This is not so much an example of an error in the movie caused by production mistakes as it is an example of what happens when someone who complained that he had to cut so much from the script that was in the book tries to fill time by turning Merriadoc and Pippin into R2D2 and C3P0 for the sake of Comic Relief...

[Úlairi]

Hmmm, a very good point there ReadWryt.

[PRH]

Look, about the apple -- Aragorn tosses one, Merry catches it and he hands it to Pippin. Then Aragorn tosses another one that hits Pippin. Clear?

As for the arms of the Argonath, this has to be a matter of a cornfused perspective. How could this possible be screwed up? The Argonath was a physical model, not CG.

[ReadWryt]

It's actually the screwed up way that the statue on the right (when facing them, left from behind) is holding his right arm up against whatever that book is he is holding. It causes the right shoulder to be very sharp and angular so that when you see the hand outstretched from behind it appears that it is protruding from that shoulder. The amount of work it would take a 3D Modeler to make a model that actually had the right arm extended would have been more then enough time to correct the problem before it ever got rendered.

I doubt seriously that it was a Physical gag though, but if you have some evidence that has convinced you of this, like some "making of" book or something then I defer to your far more advanced knowlege...

[PRH]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
I doubt seriously that it was a Physical gag though, but if you have some evidence that has convinced you of this, like some "making of" book or something then I defer to your far more advanced knowlege...
What are you talking about? Gag? Huh? No....I was getting the impression that people think this was messed up because it was some sort of matte painting created seperately from the frontal view (or some such confusion along those lines)(or a CG model that got switched up in the rear view). What I was saying is that since the Argonath was a physical model which was filmed, I don't see how the arms could possibly be screwed up. Therefore, people who think they see screwed up arms are just suffering from a trick of the camera perspective (such as the one you described at the beginning of your last post).

At least you got the advanced knowledge part right!

[Niniel]

I was watching the film again today and I was just wondering: does Frodo have plastic buttons on his white shirt? They look just like ordinary buttons that are on any shirt you can buy in any clothing shop, but I didn't think they would be so careless. Did anyone notice this as well?

[EverEve]

That's a good point. I'll just wait to see my screen saver, and see if I can tell. *pauses* They look wooden to me...

[Úlairi]

They are wooden Evereve.

[Niniel]

Well, that's nice to know!
I noticed something else, which really bothered me: the Elves that are standing behind Haldir are holding their arrows completely wrong! If you hold your bow with your left hand, the arrow should be placed on the left side of the bow, because otherwise it is impossible to shoot. I didin't notice this mistake anywhere else, eg. Legolas holds his arrows always correctly, but therefore I was so surprised when here they did it wrong. Maybe it was on purpose, to show that the Elves can shoot no matter how they hold their arrows, or maybe it was just a little mistake. But I had so see the film nine times to notice it, so isn't that important...

[Úlairi]

That's very observent Niniel. I never noticed that.

[EverEve]

Well maybe, it was to show that they were just there to look intimidating, and they werent really gonna shoot.......................or maybe not.....

[Rasec]

I saw once here, a thread saying about 5 "secrets" of the movie...
They are not exactly secrets... and actually people, FOTR has already 104 mistakes found!!! It is the 3rd most mistaken film.
How do I know this? Just go to www.movie-mistakes.com and click on "Top Films" there you'll find Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. click on it and there will be a list of all the 104 mistakes. They are not all conffirmed, but if u watch the film after reading them , you'll see them. (I've done it!!)
well, i guess people will get curious and go there. Its very cool, visit the website!!

Cesar Filho.

P.S: The mistakes are sent by people who watches the film. Even YOU can send a mistake.

[Shadowfax]

Or if you notice how Lurtz shoots HIS nerf bow (thats what I first thought it was when I saw it) he rotates his hand so that the top of his hand is facing him. I am an archer, and I know I couldn't bend a bow like that more than a foot! Is it just something they put in to make him different? Oh, and I still don't understand the apple. I guess it's just too complex for my puny mind!

[Niniel]

The apple is really simple: Aragorn throws apple to Merry, Merry gives it to Pippin. and then Aragorn throws another apple that hits Pippin on the head. It seems that if you look closely to one of the falling apples you can see a sticker on it, my father saw it (and he has only seen the movie once, so it must be easy to spot!).

[PollySandybanks]

I'm just sooooooooo tired of discussing these so called "mistakes". First of all.. THERE IS NO CAR!!! If you look again you'll see that it's only smoke, coming from a house or something.

Anyway.. the only mistake I've seen is the two statues. When the fellowship are coming, in their boats, in front of the statues they are both holding out their left hands. But when you see them from behind one is holding out its left hand and the other its right hand. But that is really the only mistake I've seen. All the other mistakes that people have talked about were no mistakes at all.

[Gamil Zirak]

It's up to 106 now. I don't have time to read them all now, but I will later on. Thanks for the site.

[ReadWryt]

Polly, I beg to differ. What then, if not a mistake, is the fact that Bilbo steps directly in front of the Fireplace between it and Gandalf, and yet he casts no shadow on Gandalf or anything else?

[ReadWryt]

What are you talking about? Gag? Huh?

Physical Gag is a Special Effects term for an effect that is done by practical means, also called a Practical Gag. In otherwords, for instance, in the movie "Dante's Peak" the scene with the flood taking out the bridge was done using 1/25th scale models of the Humvees and Bridge making it a Physical or Practical Gag as opposed to doing it using CGI, in which case it would not have been "Physical" or "Practical" in the terms of the SFX vernacular.

I was under the impression that they didn't make physical models of the Argonath, but instead modeled them at WETAFX digital. I have long since dropped using the term "Practical" because it is obviously no longer IMpractical to do effects on computers as it was in the 80's when that deliniation was taken into acceptance.

Of course it was strictly presumption on my part that they had done the Argonath in software instead of building models, as it would obviously make much simpler the task of combining the footage of the river with something as malable as a 3D Mesh then it would to have a moving camera matching the actions of the moving camera that shot the three boats, or the landscape in relative movement and lighting. I have not read any of the pieces about the making of the movie that may have revealed the nature of the composition of this footage, so I cannot make knowlegable discourse on the subject.

What, before you hurt yourself patting yourself on the back for your "advanced knowlege", is your source for knowing that these were not CGI, if I might ask?

[PRH]

Hmm..never heard that phrase 'practical gag,' but then again there's not reason I should have.

There was surprising very very little CG in the movie (in terms of what you'd think would've been CG). There were a lot of long-shot CG characters (digital doubles for all of the Fellowship, Cave Troll, Balrog, Gollum, background armies in prologue, massing orcs in the Dwarrowdelf, some orcs in Isengard, Gwaihir, moth). Almost none of the environments/sets were CG. The Dwarrowdelf was. Most everything else was composited miniatures - even stuff you'd think would be matte backgrounds were miniatures (which is why it all looked so absolutely real)(Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Barad-Dur, Isengard - all miniatures). The use of motion controlled cameras to match camera moves between live action and miniatures, etc. was very widely employed. Compositing was king in FOTR - compositing of filmed elements. When I first saw the movie I declared it the best special effects film ever. Their aim was high and everything was stunningly real. This was largely thanks to using so many miniatures rather than arrogantly thinking they could draw everything in CG.

I've seen pictures of the miniature Argonath statues so I know they were models. But if you think I'm making this all up...

[ReadWryt]

Don't burn braincells over it man, If I were that big a hardhead and you were dealing with me I would suggest that you tell me to go check out the latest issue of Cinefex Magazine and see for myself! It's just that the only physical model of the Argonath I've seen to date was the prototype for the Argonath Bookends that Sideshow is going to be making and that are rumored to be a bonus packaged with the super-way-cool-not a "Director's Cut" extended DVD that they flashed around at the ComiCon here in San Diego last year...if you could picture how cool THAT would be, BOOK-ENDS!

Otherwise, "Practical Gag" or "Practical Effects" are terms I wouldn't expect a lot of folks to know, being the type of really geeky jargon that for whatever reason sticks in my brain, so don't feel bad for not knowing it. If anything I'm embarassed that I actually used such an esoteric term on the assumption that, from your innocent post, you would necessarily know what I was talking about in spewing my "Psudo-cool Effects Technobabble".:)

"Practical" is actually the accepted term anyways and it will be used when talking about anything Real, like Lighting or Explosions or a physical model. "Gag" is something that crept into the vernacular when SFX guys started working around Stunt Men who refer to any particular stunt as a Gag, as in "I think I pulled a muscle doing that last Gag, it was supposed to be a simple Branny, but I got turned around on the hood of the car...".

I don't know if it is from having grown up in Southern California, if it's from having wanted to work in Special Effects from the time I was 15 and reading everything I could get my hands on (Including attempting to memorize the American Cinematographer's Manual), if hanging out with Stunt Men has tainted my brain or if it's some twisted combination of all of that coupled with a really geeky love of Jargon...but for some reason, which I am not claiming to be proud of, I have accumulated and incorperated bunches of the language into my own when talking about film.

[PRH]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Don't burn braincells over it man, If I were that big a hardhead and you were dealing with me I would suggest that you tell me to go check out the latest issue of Cinefex Magazine and see for myself!

If you've read it you should know all this stuff! If you haven't - why?! I remember a picture of the Argonath model in there (and other places).

Something tells me you just bought it or are about to based on our discussions.

Thank you for cheering me up about my unfamiliarity with the term 'practical gag.' I have been feeling down because of it.

[ReadWryt]

Actually, I stumbled across the fact that this month's is about LotR when I was out looking for quotes from SFX people where they use the term "Practical Effect/Gag". I used to subscribe but one year I moved so many times that it had a hard time catching up with me, so I didn't renew...:( Don't ever let yourself get disheartened by any of the garbage I type...especially if it's some obscure vocation specific jargon!

[Dwimmerlaik]

I've tried to look for the car,but all I could come up with was Aragorn clutching two small children whilst climbing Caradras.

[Shadowfax]

They probably took it out when they released the DVD and VHS. It wouldn't be that hard to do, the whole thins in very quick.

[Goldberry344]

I have never seen the car or heard the horse go HI and i looked for it 11 times. garh.

did anyone mention that the scene at the moria gates?? pipin throws rocks in, then merry is the one throwing the rocks, then its pipin again.

also, at bag end, when gandalf throws sam onto the table...the stuff that falls to the floor dissapears and reapears almost every time you see sam.

sorry if these have been mentioned, ill delete em if they have.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
There might already be another thread on this, but I was wondering about any mistakes they made. Here's my list:
~When Isildur is riding his grey horse, and they do a close up of him, his horse's hoof beats keep going at a trot, yet from his body movements, he is obviously walking.

~When Pip gets hit with that apple, it bounces off the R. side of his head. When he staggers backwards immediately alterwards, there is an apple in his LEFT hand. It happens so fast that the 2 apples are almost in the same frame!

~When the Hobbits are hiding under the tree, there is a small patch of light on the right side of the tree, yet, when the black rider appears, hedoesn't block out that part of light when he passes.

~The car in the cornfield.

~Frodo's tear lines.

Anymore?

This person is completely out of it. The only two things he gets right is the car and empty patch. Both of those were done on purpose. The fact that you don't see the rider in the top right corner (which, by the way, was slightly cut out in the DVD) adds to the mystery.

In case you didn't notice, Aragorn throws 2 apples at Pippin. The first one Merry catches, and hands over to Pippin. The second one hits Pippin on the head.

[Shadowfax]

Ehem, would you mind explaining to me how having a car was done on purpose? The wraith appearing I can *kind of* see being done on purpose, but for me, at least, it was rather disorientating. (A condition I am often in, btw) If you read farther on the thread, you will see that the apple thing was explained to me, and when I saw the DVD, I realised that at the theater I went to, the projection was too low, and cut off the bottom of the screen, thus making it look like Merry had taken the apple and not given it to Pip.

Also I should clarify my Isildur statement. When they zoom in on him, his *horse* is walking from his body movements (I *do* happen to know something about this, I have been riding for most of my life) yet the hoofbeats conitnue in an unbroken one-two-one-two trot rhythm.

The tear lines are when Frodo is standing by the boats holding the One in his hand. From different angles the tear tracks are switched from right to left. Go look at it again. It's there.

[Talimon]

PJ puts his car in every one of his movies. Ussually it's in a much more obvious location, but since LotR doesn't exactly suit automobiles he put it in a very well hidden spot.

I'm not sure about the hoof-beats, since I don't ride, but it sounded to me as if what you are reffering to is a result of not just Isildurs horse but the other riders horses as well. But I could very well be wrong in this regard.

I've noticed the tear lines, but there is a fade to Gandalf talking, which would allow new tears to come down/old tears dissapear. It didn't seem that much of a "mistake" to me. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert in the physics of tears either, so I suppose that could be a mistake.

[Shadowfax]

Interesting about PJ's car...huh, I guess you learn something new everyday! :) I don't know, I think it was too quick for atleast old tear lines to disappear...

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
PJ puts his car in every one of his movies. Ussually it's in a much more obvious location, but since LotR doesn't exactly suit automobiles he put it in a very well hidden spot.

There's been a lot of talk about the car, but this is the first time I've heard about PJ's foible. It was just about OK for Hitchcock to appear himself in all his films, but that was ages ago, and for anyone to do something vaguely the same now is nothing but childish; I begin to understand the carrot now.

[Anamatar IV]

when aragorn picks frodo up in bree in the prancing pony its so obvious that its a puppet.

When aragorn and lurtz are fighting lurtz throws aragorns knife at him and aragorn CLEARLY breaks it when he struck it with his sword. Minutes later he sticks it back on his belt.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy

There's been a lot of talk about the car, but this is the first time I've heard about PJ's foible. It was just about OK for Hitchcock to appear himself in all his films, but that was ages ago, and for anyone to do something vaguely the same now is nothing but childish; I begin to understand the carrot now.

What's wrong about appearing in every one of your films? Everyone has little things like that. Tarantino has the same waitress in all of his movies, not to mention the same made up Ciggarette brand ("Jack rabbit slims"). It's very common for directors to play some small extra role in thier movies. I remember another big director that had his children in all of his movies. I don't see what's wrong with it. It adds to directors charachter and style. There is nothing I hate more then a director that doesn't have his own unique style. You see so many generic movies that could have all been made by the same director. While PJ's style is far from being my favorite I commend him for having his own distinct way of doing things to begin with. So many directors follow the same formula that it's always refereshing to see something a little more unique. Like I've said that's what bothered me with Harry Potter: You couldn't tell where the director fit in.

[Goldberry344]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
when aragorn picks frodo up in bree in the prancing pony its so obvious that its a puppet.


look at this.

[Shadowfax]

*snicker* I think Aragorn has more important things to worry about than the morgul wound...like that broken neck...

[Anamatar IV]

well that too. Im talking about the time when aragorn lifts frodo up afterhe took the ring off.

[Shadowfax]

Go to my caption contest thread, and look at the latest image. Behind Gandalf, "Frodo" is very clearly a bobo doll.

[Goldberry344]

where is that thread located?? hrum. ill search around.

[Shadowfax]

It's in Bag End...

How about Aragorn's wobbly sword? Several times he draws it really quickly, and it whips back and forth.

"Excuse me sir, but you sword seems...limp."

Aragorn: "Well, you know, at my age..."

(think: Robinhood: Men in Tights)

sorry, I couldn't resist!

[Anamatar IV]

when frodo is running away from the orcs on aman hen you can see strings in his cape to make it look like its flowing.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I have only seen a few of the mistakes mentioned. And actually only one that I saw turned out to be true. The other ones worked them selves out. The thing with the apple was not a mistake. I never ever saw Boromir blink. The scene with the black rider was indeed a mistake that I had hoped they would have fixed on the DVD, but who knows?

~Ariana

[Anamatar IV]

what black rider one?

[Goldberry344]

I have seen boromir blink. then again, i didnt see it until the 12th time, but i saw it. i havent heard the nazgul say hi or anything, but ya.

[Anamatar IV]

would someone explain this nazgul thing to me?

[Shadowfax]

I think I saw Boromir blink, but it looked like Aragorn's hair blocked the view of his eye for a nanosecond, which made it look like he blinked.

Is the Nazgul thing where you can see his breathing tube? It's supposed to be the but of the torch that was thrown, but if the Nazgul are ethereal, wouldn't it no stick, but go right through? And if it did indeed stick in his face, Strider must have thrown it pretty darn hard!

[Anamatar IV]

imdb.com search for the movie, and click goofs. There are so many of them!

The ring is constantly changing postions from chained to unchained.

[Shadowfax]

It did that in Bakshi's version too. I mean, It would be under Frodo's cloak, and then the chain would pass through the cloak, so he could lift it up and look through it.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
What's wrong about appearing in every one of your films? Everyone has little things like that....It adds to directors charachter and style....There is nothing I hate more then a director that doesn't have his own unique style.
I've said what's wrong with it: when Hitchcock had a foible once, that was fine, when anyone else starts doing it, it becomes silly and childish -"copy cat!". I am surprised, and rather disgusted, to hear that "everyone" goes in for that kind of silliness.
If that's character and style, I'm sorry for film as a genre. Most of the arts have something much more substantial than that for style.
I doubt if many people count the director's style high on their list of reasons for watching, and liking, a film.
And, going back again, if those foibles ARE such a normal part of directors' style, then they don't deserve much respect.

[Talimon]

If that's character and style, I'm sorry for film as a genre. Most of the arts have something much more substantial than that for style.

What I'm reffering to is your average stock Hollywood movie where you could never know who made it because the studios try and hide thier directors and writers. I'm obviously not saying that having little signatures like that is the only thing that constitues to a films style. It's just a cool little thing that directors do all over. As do writers, as do musicians. Your a little behind the times if you think directors who make an appearance in thier movies are "copy cats". I don't see how that constitutes as silliness, but if it does then so be it. I'd think twice before listening to the opinions of someone who thinks having little signatures like that in your films is such a horrendous act

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
It's just a cool little thing that directors do all over....Your a little behind the times if you think directors who make an appearance in thier movies are "copy cats"....I don't see how that constitutes as silliness....someone who thinks having little signatures like that in your films is such a horrendous act
You think it's "cool" whatever that means; I think it's silly and childish.
Why "behind the times"- what do you mean?
That they are copy-cats is a FACT: they are copying Hitchcock's original idea, and then any others who have taken it up!
How do you transform from my word "silliness" to yours "horrendous"?
Film is a massive industry, run by serious business people; if other industries' directors behaved like that they'd be out of a job. Managing director of Coca Cola: "Hey, I'm putting my finger print on all the bottles; how cool is that?"

[Talimon]

I think there is something just a little wrong in comparing the movie industry with the soft-drink industry. But maybe that's just me

My point is that movies, ideally, are art. Obviously many movies today that pass as movies are anything but, but that's the ideal. To criticize little things like that, which are obviously just an artists signature, as silly is neglecting the fact there is an artist behind this movie. I'm sorry, and maybe we highly defer on this point, but whenever people says that art is made by "serious business people" I tend to get angry. Those are just the producers, studio execs, and marketing directors you are reffering to. Indeed, the very people that tend to limit artistic freedom. Maybe this industry is run like an industrial machine, but it sure shouldn't be.

[ApplCobbler]

The biggest mistake, or rather lazy ass editors was apparant when the nazgul were hassling the hobbits on thier way to Bree at night. Whenever the Nazgul face was loking at the screen or sept by, it was blacked out very poorly. It is a different type of black then the cloak it wears and sticks out even when rewinding the dvd.

Also, it says coca cola on the ring of power.:D

[Talimon]

What people these days will do with Photoshop...

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
My point is that movies, ideally, are art.
To criticize little things like that, which are obviously just an artists signature, as silly is neglecting the fact there is an artist behind this movie.
Those are just the producers, etc,....the very people that tend to limit artistic freedom.
As long as it's a multi-million dollar industry there's going to be conflict, to put it mildly, between industry and art!
It's just as silly for an artist to be a copycat as for an industrialist.
Something silly doesn't become sensible by being done by an artist.
The DVD lists P Jackson as one of the four producers of FOTR- he limits freedom?

[Talimon]

He happens to be in the fortunate position where he is the producer as well as the director. That makes a lot of sense for a project of this size, but it's rare. Very few directors get the priveledge of producing thier own movies. And note that he's not the only producer. He still has limits on him (as shown by the cutting of the gift-giving scene).

You can go ahead an criticize him for making a 1/2 second appearance, but my point is that if you are criticizing him on that sole basis then you might as well criticize a dozen other directors, directors who are widely considered pioneers and geniuses of the film-making world. To say it's copying is like saying every film with a close-up copies Citizen Kane. It's such a standard thing in movies (for members of the crew to make short appearances in thier films) that I think if anything is silly here it's you criticizing it.

[ApplCobbler]

Originally posted by Talimon
What people these days will do with Photoshop...

:D

[ApplCobbler]

Originally posted by Talimon
You can go ahead an criticize him for making a 1/2 second appearance, but my point is that if you are criticizing him on that sole basis then you might as well criticize a dozen other directors, directors who are widely considered pioneers and geniuses of the film-making world. To say it's copying is like saying every film with a close-up copies Citizen Kane. It's such a standard thing in movies (for members of the crew to make short appearances in thier films) that I think if anything is silly here it's you criticizing it.

Case In Point: M. Night Shyamalan with his cameo appearances in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. He even had a talking role in Signs (the guy who locked the alien in the pantry/killed Mel's wife).

[Anamatar IV]

i wonder if i can see that on my precious that is dangling around my neck.

[joxy]

Originally posted by ApplCobbler
Case In Point: M. Night Shyamalan with his cameo appearances in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. He even had a talking role in Signs (the guy who locked the alien in the pantry/killed Mel's wife).
Yes, I know it's something several have done, not just PJ. That doesn't make it any better- it's just a silly childish thing to do, that they can get away with because it seems to be conventional in the film industry.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
And note that he's not the only producer.
To say it's copying is like saying every film with a close-up copies Citizen Kane.
....my point is that if you are criticizing him on that sole basis then you might as well criticize a dozen other directors, directors who are widely considered pioneers and geniuses of the film-making world.
It's such a standard thing in movies (for members of the crew to make short appearances in thier films) that I think if anything is silly here it's you criticizing it.
I don't need to note that he's not the only one- I pointed it out myself!
And you haven't answered the point: that you said the producers and directors are (among) "the very people that tend to limit artistic freedom", and PJ is the d. and one of the p.'s, so does he limit it?
Close-ups and cameo appearances are two quite different matters:
close-ups are essential features of film-making,
cameos are personal idiosyncrasies.
I know others do it; that doesn't make it any less silly; even pioneers and geniuses go silly if they're allowed to- it's just that in other industries the convention of allowing silliness would not apply, and I don't see why the film industry should be different in this respect. Being silly isn't a necessary part of "art".

[Talimon]

I really don't want to get too deep into what is in my opinion a "silly" discussion to begin with. If "silliness" is what you want to call it then I'll be the first to say that this "industry" could use more of it. And I never said directors limit artistic freedom. That would be hard to do, considering that thier the ones who are making the movie :). The Producers tend to do that, but since PJ is the producer he has the priveledge of not having to have some other Producer breathing down his neck. I'm not sure what you're getting at: are you asking me whether PJ is limiting himself by being his own boss? I'd like to hope that by being his own producer it's the other way around; He has more artistic freedom. That's how things tend to work. :)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I really don't want to get too deep into what is in my opinion a "silly" discussion to begin with. If "silliness" is what you want to call it then I'll be the first to say that this "industry" could use more of it.

And I never said directors limit artistic freedom.

Industry, enterprise, artistic endeavour, whatever you want to call it.
What I am saying is that I would like to respect and admire the artistic integrity and professionalism of its top people. If they do silly things, such as wasting time and money by copying a foible that Hitchcock stopped using fifty years ago, then my respect and admiration for them is reduced. If they want to show off their personalities they should look for something original to do.

Quote from Talimon, number 81, "Those are just the producers, studio execs, and marketing directors you are reffering to. Indeed, the very people that tend to limit artistic freedom."
That's producers, as distinct from producers/directors, right?

[Talimon]

Quote from Talimon, number 81, "Those are just the producers, studio execs, and marketing directors you are reffering to. Indeed, the very people that tend to limit artistic freedom."
That's producers, as distinct from producers/directors, right?

In the vast majority of movies made today, there is a director and a producer. The directors literally speaking "directs" the movie: He is the main mastermind behind it, artistically speaking. The producer, 95% of the time, is hired by the studio to make sure the movie comes out at the right time, doesn't go over budget, and (quite unfortunately) has the "right" content. It is common for Directors and Producers to get into many big fights during the production of the movie. It is rare for them to strike a good relationship. By PJ being one of the producers on this movie, he has more power regarding the budget, time constraints, etc. In a movie this large it only makes sense that the person directing it also have a say in the actual producing.

What I am saying is that I would like to respect and admire the artistic integrity and professionalism of its top people. If they do silly things, such as wasting time and money by copying a foible that Hitchcock stopped using fifty years ago, then my respect and admiration for them is reduced. If they want to show off their personalities they should look for something original to do.

Wating time and money? PJ's 1/2 second appearance is there regardlesss. It's there to establish the people of Bree, and the hobbits reaction to it. If PJ wasn't there they'd have hired an extra just as easily. In fact, while time certainly wouldn't have been saved, money would be spent (though on a production this big those expenses are neglible). He doesn't have a single line of dialogue, for crying out loud. Sorry, this is just a really dumb arguement. It's not like we're talking about Tarantino, who has whole fleshed out scenes in his movies. And I love him for it: he's a great actor. I mean... this really has nothing to do with Hitchcock at all...

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
By PJ being one of the producers on this movie, he has more power regarding the budget, time constraints, etc. In a movie this large it only makes sense that the person directing it also have a say in the actual producing.
Sorry, this is just a really dumb arguement. It's not like we're talking about Tarantino, who has whole fleshed out scenes in his movies. And I love him for it: he's a great actor. I mean... this really has nothing to do with Hitchcock at all...
OK, thanks for the explanation; it didn't come over that way in your entry 81, now it makes sense.
No, we're not talking about Tarantino! But if he has found an original way of showing his personality in the way you describe, then that sounds an original idea and a good one.
The PJ thing has everything to do with Hitchock- Hitchcock was the first to do the cameo appearances; maybe some others followed his example, did the same thing, many years ago- at that stage it became a cliche, old-fashioned, done-to-death, silly, for others to carry on doing it. All I am saying is that by following that tired old path PJ loses just a little of the respect I'd like to give him. If he'd found something original to do, fine!