|
Post by F.K.M on Dec 21, 2010 4:41:22 GMT -5
That's true the books are definitely more in depth. The only tolkien book i read was 'the hobbit' but i enjoyed it very much. I do know about a lot of the things that urineed off nerds with inaccuracy and stuff left out. For instance the elves at helm's deep. Supposedly there was at least one character left out of the movies (some god-like character?). Supposedly this character also had a wife or something. Nobody cared about that character though.
|
|
|
Post by The Envoy (AWOL) on Dec 21, 2010 9:27:45 GMT -5
Supposedly there was at least one character left out of the movies (some god-like character?). Supposedly this character also had a wife or something. Nobody cared about that character though. That would be Tom Bombadil. Who was fine for the books, but that whole thing would really have messed up the pacing of a movie. Also, as Peter Jackson said in the commentary for the Special Edition DVD's, "Just because we didn't show it on screen, doesn't mean that the characters didn't experience it."
|
|
|
Post by ElegaicRequiem on Dec 21, 2010 12:08:50 GMT -5
Which is an amazing cop-out line.
But yes, they really should redo some of it like some sort of special, to cover the awesome that could have taken place.
|
|
|
Post by The Envoy (AWOL) on Dec 21, 2010 14:53:31 GMT -5
Like the Star Wars Christmas Special?
Only less horrifying to the viewer.
Obviously.
|
|
|
Post by ElegaicRequiem on Dec 21, 2010 14:56:26 GMT -5
There's really no way to market my idea to anyone but the hardest-core nerds. I'm content to read the books if I really wanted to know the story. Unfortunately, I have no idea where my copies are. I'm not among those hardest-core nerds when it comes to LotR, you see...
|
|
|
Post by The Envoy (AWOL) on Dec 21, 2010 15:01:00 GMT -5
The ones who have their books enshrined in a holy case blessed by the ashes of Tolkien?
|
|
|
Post by ElegaicRequiem on Dec 21, 2010 15:10:22 GMT -5
Well, they had that, but it got put into storage after they were all rounded up and put into psych wards for refusing to speak any language except elvish.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Man on Dec 21, 2010 16:42:37 GMT -5
I speak the language of Mordor which gandalf won't utter, because he's a wuss.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Dec 21, 2010 17:08:46 GMT -5
Finally my copy of the moie has arrived - so, as soon as I have time to watch it (down Childerbeasts, naughty childerbeasts!) I will offer my (informed?) opinion... For now, all I'll say is someone I know mentioned that he actually really enjoyed the first 30mins and had to struggle to turn it off (he was supposed to be going out... foolish man )
|
|
|
Post by Soap on Jan 3, 2011 11:02:01 GMT -5
In fear of talking about Ultramarines Movie and not Lotr, Ill risk going back on topic anyway lol.
Santa was good to me. So good he sent me a copy of the Ultramarines movie. Iv only watched it once, but I think I do need to watch it again to deside if I like it or not.
So first view of the film left me excited for more, but at the same time dissapointed. The story was poor and predictable, and you need to read the comic thats supplyed as its a prequel and tells you whats going on. I found it hard to follow who was who. Once they have helmets on they all look and sound the same. The action sequences I felt where very good, almost awsome. Almost. The graphics where fantastic and you could tell some coin had been spent, but to be frank, the animation was not as good as it could be. Yes the majority of the film was flush and smooth, but they where some parts of the film where the animation let it down. For example they is a scene where a land speeder does a U-turn to return to the squad, but it looked so wrong. The turn was hard and cornery, where you would expect it to be flush and aerodynamic.
Over all I felt that the film was more of a test, rather than a full production film. Its good but just not good enough. So Ill give it a 2 out of 5 stars. Close, but no cigar.
On a further note. If GW and Codex productions (or what ever they are called) go ahead and make more films, then I would love to see them make films about already published novels. Although that may just make me moan that they got the story wrong lol.
|
|
|
Post by F.K.M on Jan 3, 2011 13:25:51 GMT -5
Well you have to remember land speeders are skimmers and they don't actually fly. I'm not sure about all the technical sci-fi bull written about it but it skims the gravitational field of a planet or something to simulate flight. So it's hard to say if it works exactly like a plane would when turning. However you're probably right that that's done wrong. I mean i suppose wind would still effect it.
|
|
|
Post by 3ff3ct on Jan 4, 2011 4:49:34 GMT -5
I agree with Soap, I watched the film and enjoyed it, and although I did manage to keep track with who was who, I found it hard to relate to the characters. I thought this might be due to it being an animated film, although having empathised with shrek, buzz lightyear and wall-e in a host of other CGI films i realised this was just due to a bad storyline.
Yes, Abnett wrote it, yet it didn't translate to the film well in my opinion.
I'm sure that if another film is made (which I hope it is) then it'll be awesome, although I do hope they develope characters more and improve the textures and animations (although i thought the texture work in the ship was awesome, as was the lighting, very atmospheric!)
I would definately recommend watching it.
|
|
|
Post by Soap on Jan 4, 2011 5:06:02 GMT -5
Something else that fustrated me was the ship. When the doors open for the Thunderhawk to take off, where did they go? It might just be me, but the hanger looked like it was sticking out of the ship so when the solid hanger doors open they should have been veiwable to the sides.
Ref the Land Speeder, Although they are skimmers, they still are not on the ground and still have to follow the physics of flight. It turned at 90 degree angle which just looked wrong and stupid.
I still say it as a good first attempt though lol.
|
|
|
Post by F.K.M on Jan 4, 2011 12:18:45 GMT -5
Well if it was 90 degrees then yeah that sounds entirely stupid. I thought it just didn't turn enough. Either way it doesn't work well when i see it. It's just like how space battles should be devoid of sound. That wouldn't be exciting though would it.
|
|
|
Post by Soap on Jan 4, 2011 13:32:56 GMT -5
Space battles without sound? Thats just crazy talk! But they is a line when something is entertaining, like hearing space ships being blown up, and when something is stupid, like when that something doesnt look right.
|
|
|
Post by Julian Sharps on Jan 4, 2011 14:34:13 GMT -5
Well if it was 90 degrees then yeah that sounds entirely stupid. I thought it just didn't turn enough. Either way it doesn't work well when i see it. It's just like how space battles should be devoid of sound. That wouldn't be exciting though would it. Strictly speaking, not only should space battles be devoid of sound during exterior shots (aside from radio traffic), but the ships involved should be maneuvering as Newtonian physics allows (no sweeping turns, no "He's on my tail, I can't lose him" garbage), there would be no visible laser beams (as there's no medium to diffract them), spaceships shooting at each other should not be in the same shot unless one of them is a little speck off in the distance (as anything closer than 100 km is effectively point-blank range in space) and stealth would be for all intents and purposes impossible without either hiding behind a celestial object (which anyone with a decent telescope would be able to determine by watching your exhaust trail) or violating the laws of thermodynamics and more precisely the law of conservation of energy. Also, space fighters would make almost no sense at all as it would be more effective (and would save a lot more lives) to make them unmanned drones, at which point you have an expendable missile bus that might as well just be a missile in its own right. So yeah, making space combat sequences scientifically accurate to a fault would make them pretty boring. In this world of movies whose best selling points are sex and lots of big explosions, what amounts to a sniper duel at 300,000 km where there is essentially no hiding would have a very small fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by Soap on Jan 4, 2011 15:57:40 GMT -5
I think my head is about to melt... far to many long words in a post hurts!
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Jan 5, 2011 7:22:26 GMT -5
I received my copy some time ago, watched it the day after and have been contemplating what I witnessed for the past couple of weeks. My conclusions?:
Graphics For characters and some internal shots, I'd say these were at the level of high end "in game" graphics for most recent games on the xbox platform. They're good, and satisfying enough to watch, but they're not at the level you'd expect for a "film" (i.e. nothing compared to Final Fantasy or Toy Story). External shots and vehicles (we're talking spaceships here) were in my opinion of a higher level - more in line with what you'd expect for film level visuals.
Plot Line Acceptable. That's probably the best I could say for it. To say this was written/scripted by Dan Abnett, I was slightly disapointed - it didn't live up to his novels, but I wonder if that's more down to the conversion to film media rather than a reflection of the stroyline itself. Personally I would have expected a bit more depth etc from Abnett, but again, this may have been because of the media used.
Accuracy - physics wise There are the issues that have been mentioned already, so I won't go far into these other than to say; no - there shouldn't have been sounds etc in the Space bound shots. no - I don't think that's quite accurate flight for a landspeeder no - some of the movements (jumping/climbing) of the Marines seemed a little off, but, yes - the shooting/recoil seemed pretty groovy.
Accuracy - 40k universe wise Abnett seems to have some issues with accepted canon/names of weaponry in his books (not a big issue, and you could put this down to an increase in the variety of weapons available when writing a book compared to what can be done in game/rules terms), but the weapons in the film seemed far more accurate - bolters, flamers, chainweapons, they're all there (even an unused multi-melta on the landspeeder...), and it was nice to see them actually being visualised on the screen. There's even some random fun with a Thunder Hammer! Now, while the only characters involved in the fighting are Marines (which makes comparitive capabilities hard to judge) there was the appearance of (what I interpretted as) a Daemon/Daemon-possessed Marine. What was nice to see was that the Marines didn't just deal with him off handedly - it was a real struggle. Which is nice to see, rather than the "I'm a Marine, I kill you all, BWAAAAAR" partyline that's normally conjured. You could argue that the "Squad" was inaccurate - not a Tactical Squad, not a Command Squad, but containg elements of both. But I'd simply counter this with the theory that it's more of a "Kill Team" composition.
Overall Opinion I was satisfied - I actually thought it was a really good film overall. It's not the best most groundbreaking thing you'll ever see, and nothing compared to a lot of the super high quality films we're used too, but at the end of the day, this is a legitimate Warhammer 40,000 film. An enjoyable little indulgence, and certainly worth owning.
My Advice If you don't own it, buy it. Or at least watch it. Just be open to it - it's not a huge breathtaking spectacle, but if you're willing to give it a chance, you could easily enjoy it (and the more positive we can be about it, the mroe chance there'll be more in the future, more that should just improve visually and plot-wise).
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on May 2, 2011 7:32:59 GMT -5
Ello..
I have resisted ranting about this film for a loong time...
its awful!...
I've been a hardcore fan of GW for years, and I nearly turned it off part way through!
problem 1: sound levels, as common with many films, quiet dialogue with really noisy explosions makes for a constant fiddle with the volume control in order to not irritate neighbours and sleeping baby, or with earphones on..risk deafening myself! (I know the heavy bolter is the voivce of the emporerer but it could have been balanced a bit more).
problem 2: loads of lazy smoke effect time fill... not atmospheric, just dull and boring.
problem 3: poor animation (in places), the leaping across broken bridge ruins was comical!... land speeder was off too, and I felt they had an inconsistency, as though different animators had worked on each scene.
problem 4: characters, I stil cannot fathom why the commander passed rank on to the hot headed idiot.. out of all the characters he was the least suitable... I found no relation to the honour or nobility of the ultramarines, just idiots in armour looking for a fight.. maybe the script had been for orks but told the animators it was ultramarines. (in fact that notion makes the whole film more entertaining and plausible).
problem 5: chaos... again, lazy as its the same animation model with spikes on, and there was no explanation as to why chaos / traitors are bad, where they come from etc.. could have had 20 seconds of narration to cover that.
problem 6: no insight into the 40k universe.. just a very lonely mission on a dessert chapel..
problem 7: missed opportunity, this could have brought fans to the game, as its easier to say 'come watch this film' then get people to embrace playing a game with no idea of the setting or relation between the races etc.
problem 8: I expected too much, my fault, I thought it would be enjoyable to watch, with characters whom I empathised with, in situations I could believe (and I'll believe a lot), with examples of the tech, history, wargear, races and the scale of the battles that make 40k such an interesting game...(just one flyover of a large battle would have done!)
I still think the best movie for 40k is the one in Dawn of War 1, with the blood angels vs the orks.
I do want to see more movies released about 40k, and thats why I spent out on a limited ed copy... let hope the next one's better!
|
|
|
Post by Empirespy on May 2, 2011 8:58:41 GMT -5
I thought it was good but it wasn't as good as it could have been. With flamingkillamajig's point, Star Trek (2009) does this quite well at the beginning, when the girl gets sucked into space and there's just silence. I was reading about when they were making the plot line, their first idea was to base it in the Horus Heresy, but Abnett said that it would be to hard to make it with out mistakes. some guy made a trailer for it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPfd2AiV6mA
|
|
|
Post by vonted on May 12, 2011 9:11:46 GMT -5
Oh my,this was a terrible movie. It was honestly about 75% walking.... I was bored to tears. I was hoping for so much more
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Man on May 12, 2011 13:03:14 GMT -5
It's bad bad bad bad bad bad don't don't don't don't watch it.
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on May 14, 2011 16:02:43 GMT -5
I have to agree with Treadiculous about adjusting the volume control all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Trooper One-Nine-Seven-Four on May 14, 2011 16:49:42 GMT -5
As much as I'd like to support GW and possibly have them make more movies, I just cannot justify spending money on this movie based on the reviews I've read. Plus it's about Ultrasmurfs.
|
|
|
Post by Soap on May 15, 2011 12:44:11 GMT -5
Trooper, although nearly everyones comments are negitive, you really should watch it and make your own mind up. Find someone who owns it already and borrow it
|
|