2 ms·
> the author's entire argument is: <amazing old film> is better than <terrible new film> I think that's unfair. Villeneuve's Dune is not a terrible film, and i
by the_af 5y ago
> the author's entire argument is: <amazing old film> is better than <terrible new film>
I think that's unfair. Villeneuve's Dune is not a terrible film, and in fact its visuals are pretty nice -- though I agree they suffer in the comparison shot with Lawrence of Arabia.
The original Lord of the Rings trilogy by Peter Jackson, also mentioned in the article (as a "good movie"), is a special case: its visuals are both terrible and good. They are good when they are practical effects, e.g. the makeup of the Orcs looks terrific, and they are terrible when they are CGI, e.g. the mines of Moria have some of the worst CGI ever, and so is the embarrassingly bad troll.
- Apocryphon 5y agoYMMV. The LoTR troll was fine for its time and holds up okay imo, though maybe that's also because it was released the year as the horrid-looking troll from Harry Potter.
- the_af 5y ago> The LoTR troll was fine Obviously this is subjective, but to me it was pretty bad at the time. But disregard the troll: take a look at the scenes with the Fellowship running through Moria. They are horrid, laughably bad. They are a painful to watch, and were bad back then as well. They were worse than videogames at the time!