Sean Astin wrote the IMDB plot summary for The Long And Short Of It. - The Long and Short of It Discussion

[–] ShirtOfMist 21 years ago

And you know that because? It just says plotsummary written by Sean Astin and ------, it's the username... that doesn't mean that it's Sean...

reply

[–] Greatwhitewhale 20 years ago

There's some guy saying he's Bruce Springsteen but he's not.

Joey: Oh, sorry. Did I get you?
Chandler: JOEY, IT'S A DRILL, YOU GET ME, YOU KILL ME!!!!

reply

[–] armoreska 14 years ago

why not? you think Sean Astin or any other actor doesn't know about IMDb?

www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=23949572 - vote history (>8500 titles)

reply

[–] Gelsomina659 20 years ago

whatever man, Peter Jackson does great films in all genres.

"Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollars and cents..."

Roger Waters

reply

[–] postbagboy 20 years ago

LOTR are great films, not exactly deserving to be in the top 10 in the top 250, but still great films.

--Postbagboy
http://postbagboy.livejournal.com

reply

[–] ronflorax 20 years ago

two words: shut up
you are the stupidest man in the world for not loving these movies, although that might just mean you've got bad taste:D

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grrrdevin 15 years ago

you are the stupidest man in the world for not loving these movies, although that might just mean you've got bad taste:D

Wow. What are you, 12 years old? Grow the hell up.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

[–] steelsniper 20 years ago

Astin is the man. one of my favorite actors.

reply

[–] kcfan-3 20 years ago

rayzor09 wrote :

Sean is a big hairy friggin ******* and Lord of the Rings is one of the worst movies/books ever written/directed/acted/cinemetography/(insert anything about Lord of the Rings here).

A bold statement. Regale us with your reasons for making it. Or don't you have any?

"Now, once again. This time...wiv fee-wing!"
Evan Kim - "Kentucky Fried Movie"

reply

[–] dynamite_xi 20 years ago

Ahh! It's a TROLL!!!!

Just ignore him...he's full of hot air, and enjoys kicking anthills, if you know what I mean.

We got movie sign!

reply

[–] ronflorax 20 years ago

Woooo!!! nice call dynamite xi:D

reply

[–] Febtober 20 years ago

i'm gonna have to go ahead and agree with that guy.
these movies just couldn't hold my attention. and i am not much for tons of computer annimation.
and as for ronflorax, you should learn to accept others opinions about things. if someone doesn't like a movie, why does that make them a moron?

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jllees 20 years ago

It has been my experience that those who demand nothing less than perfection from everything and everyone are always disappointed, and as a result are satisfied with nothing.

It has also been my experience that such people are in fact dissatisfied and disappointed with themselves.

reply

[–] Brisbane15 20 years ago

Amen.

Apparentaly a certain viewer must be blind to the fact that the LOTR has cutting edge deigital effects for the time, better than Lucus's effects. Not to mention that LOTR is FANTASY and therefore, it is fantastical. Things that couldn't be real in "the real world" take a certain amount of imagionation or trust to believe what you see. LOTR makes that fantasy a reality by using approiate CG technology is just the right places.

You must have an imagionation to watch fantasy. Or read it and have it stick in your mind. This must just not be your genera, but please, at least respect the honor and work that went into these movies, they wern't exactly some fly by night fling.

As for the long and short of it, well, as far as short films, it was intriguing.

-BB

reply

[–] Mithrandir_Gandalf 20 years ago

Hey those of the educated type you shouldnt waste your time teaching these adolescent retards *cough* ronflorax, crap another *cough* MovieCritic2004 the extravigance of CG in lotr and how it really is "better than Lucus's effects"- Brisbane15. A great man once said "to make a movie that has CG incorperated in it, you have to understand CG or it will take over the movie" -Peter Jackson. PJ did a great job in keeping the CG from taking over the movie but because of morons that misinterpret this, they are the ones that ultimately have to comment junk about the movie. Then again it might just be their imagination, maybe they dont have one or just cant see it. Then again who cares, let them talk crap because we know the CG was the best of its time and/or probably the best we will see in a long time.

reply

[–] alexbet 20 years ago

I hate movie critics. You guys always talk *beep* about great work. I think it derives from a frustration of wanting to learn the craft and not even knowing how to turn a camera on that makes you opt for that "career" of yours.

You're probably a very bad movie critic too when you say the CGI is bad and it lowers the respect you have... wtf??? Take your head out of your ass, dude.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Corsten 20 years ago

The Oliphants, on the whole, were astounding. The Cave Troll was good too - though the shot of Legolas leaping off his back was poor.

Still, when looking at the bigger picture, put bluntly, only a moronic newt would say the digital effects in LOTR were done poorly. Even to call them medicore is an injustice

Go back to the Abyss! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you & your master!®

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickj_g 20 years ago

If CGI lowers respect for you then you must not like 90% of the films that have come out in the last 10 years. I can think of like Kill Bill that doesn't use CG. Or at least uses it for one shot or something like that.
The films are awesome. The CG is great for what we have today, they're not using Pixar's stuff which despite what you've seen can render out stuff better than it looks in real life.

reply

[–] reyjamiei 20 years ago

Before they had CGI, people complained because the special effects weren't good enough and would say that movies would be better if they had better special effects but now that the technology is available, people complain about it being used. The special effects are too good and now people aren't willing to accept it in a movie, although the movie is fantasy and is obviously not real, some people want the monsters and mythical creatures or whatever to look more real. Most people just jump on the bandwagon when it comes to movies anyway and what I mean by that is that once a reviewer gives a movie a bad review, everyone seems to start talking about how bad the movie is. Or perhaps it's because once alot of people start talking about how much they don't like the movie, no one wants to admit liking it. No one can decide for themselves anymore, if they like a movie or not and rely too much on movie critics to tell them if a movie is worth seeing or not. I never listen to movie critics nor do I read movie reviews because they don't know what I like.
I'm not really a fan of The Lord of the Ring movies, I've only seen the first two but I wouldn't call them bad movies, nor would I bash them.

reply

[–] wiltaz69 19 years ago

Just out of curiousity. What would have gained your respect? Bad puppets or stop animation with models? Before CGI it was "that was so fake looking". Now everyone complains because you can tell it's CGI. The CGI looks and moves better than stop motion, but people are never satisfied, because they can tell it's CGI. But in 100 years maybe you people will be happy when they can artificially produce a real creature that will be in a movie and look as real as a real dog on screen.

To me the CGI doesn't make a bad movie if the CGI supports a story. Movies that are made just to show off CGI suck.

reply

[–] MooseyDoom 20 years ago

When you start saying jerky crap about someone who hasn't done anything to deserve it it isn't "opinion" it's just jerky crap from a person who likes to criticize everything that's different. And as for computer generation, did you want "Wraiths on Strings?" or zippers in the back of the trolls? What was gollum supposed to do. the plot calls for fantasy and those effects are the best you can get.

reply

[–] alexbet 20 years ago

They should do an IQ test for users to sign up to this board, cause this guy is apparently stupid as *beep*. I can't believe they let seven-year olds post (and most of them have better things to say than this dumb-ass)!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gcaraker-1 20 years ago

As a new registered user, I would like to add my own comments about the CG in the LOTR trilogy. Having examined the extended version of the first two installments (and how Gollum was created), the CG was excellent. Look closely and you'll see the strong resemblance between Andy Serkis and Gollum are striking, the same was as with Drako and Sean Connery in "Dragonheart."

Before the movies came out, I really was never interested in the LOTR (having seen previews of the animated versions), but am now so impressed (can't wait for the Extended version of ROTK to come out) that I'm currently reading the books. It is a shame that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences didn't award any Oscars for the cast, but with all the great acting, it would have been next to impossible to place one over the other. Some people have complain that the films are different from the books, that is true, but I don't think that anyone could have been more reverent and respectful of J.R.R. Tolkein's works than Peter Jackson. It was said somewhere on the DVDs that no one thought that the films could ever be made, because it was too complex a subject matter, but how wrong they were. Enjoy the films. Take care, everyone.

reply

[–] the_daria 19 years ago

Before making this kind of criticism, remember: IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NICE TO SAY, DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL!

If you feel a film is of poor quality and want to say it is, you should constructively explain why it was bad and what should be done to improve it. Don't just say its bad and leave it at that. Its poor criticism, you'll get no respect for it, and you're likely to be chewed out by fans if you don't watch out.

-D

reply

[–] meril_lupin 19 years ago

Well said!

It is so obvious that the Lord of the Rings movies are really well-done and the CGI is EXCELLENT. There is no movie so full of CG images that are of such high quality.

I do realize that not everyone can like the same thing. Some people are too close-minded, some think the LotR movies are pro-war, some think they are a bad representation of the books, and some people just don't like this kind of action movie. But everyone should be able to realize that these movies are of the highest quality, even if you may not particularly enjoy them.

I know a lot of people did not like the LotR movies, but whoever said 'Titanic' was good, they were so wrong! All the sets, costumes, props were exceptional but the plot was AWFUL. It dragged on so much, and ruined the whole movie - just because of this one lacking element. But the LotR far exceeds 'Titanic,' because the storyline as well is very good. So much passion and effort by die-hard fans went into making these movies possible, it's no wonder they turned out so good.

Watch out for the Chronicles of Narnia series coming up; WETA Workshop is doing all the props, armour, prosthetics!! Should be GREAT!

reply

[–] Alyahn_Darkelf 19 years ago

WETA ROCKS!

And leave those LOTR dis-likers alone. Some people just don't dig fantasy, so let them be.

but don't worry, I LOVE LOTR! *dances*

-------
Hey look! You can't see a thing!

reply

[–] chrisgrainger 19 years ago

To: loosenanduneiel,

lossenanduneiel: "the plot [of Titanic] was AWFUL"

I don't think that James Cameron wanted to change history that much, and adding the love story between DiCaprio and Winslet just kept the film from being a documentary. Can you think of any other B-Plot (which I consider the love story in Titanic to be) that would be able to take place within the context of the historical events?

e.g - a murder perhaps? - well a murder would have made the news

Chris Grainger

p.s - I presume you are talking about Titanic 1997?

reply

[–] meanmistermustard 18 years ago

by - meril_lupin on Tue Feb 8 2005 21:03:01 Well said!

It is so obvious that the Lord of the Rings movies are really well-done and the CGI is EXCELLENT. There is no movie so full of CG images that are of such high quality.

It amuses me that you say something that is clearly a matter of opinion is "so obvious." You're amusing.

reply

[–] Aragorn450 18 years ago

I'm going to have to agree here... Yes, I liked the Lord of the Rings movies a lot. But I was also a huge fan of the books and the CGI (to me) didn't distract from the movie.

And yes, those are my OPINIONS. Same with everything else written on this page (well, except for reporting the current rankings and such of movies...). People are allowed to have their own opinion. MovieCritic for example. He (or she) should not be criticized for stating their opinion that the CGI distracts from movies.

Speaking of which, I believe the hardest thing they have a problem with in creating CGI is not the shadows (although, those create problems for sure), but rather the focus. CGI tends to look too sharp because it wasn't taken with a camera and it's ALWAYS perfectly focused no matter how far away it is.

This obviously causes a problem when CGI scenes are being compiled because you may have a CGI object and a real object that are supposed to be next to eachother and despite the sizes being right (and the shadows and the rest of it), it still doesn't look right because of the sharpness (or these days, too little focus because of over-correcting the problem).

I STILL think the best CGI movie was Jurassic Park. Yes, it's old but in my eyes, it's held up over time and still looks as "realistic" as it did when it came out. But that might be my eyes too...

reply