This movie does not need to exist.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
75 points (87.1% liked)
movies
3972 readers
470 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just wait until they do Lord of the Rings: 2 Frodo 2 Furious
10 Things I Hate About The Precious
The Hobbit 3: but this time, they take a time traveling steam engine to the future to help get Frodo to Mount Doom.
Me, Myself, and Isildur
Leisure Suit Legolas, Slay the Shire
Gandalf "Where we go now, Frodo, we don't need roads."
lmao
Mordor Drift
It already does. And allegedly they had a budget of $3,000 . I think it is on YouTube.
I remember watching that ages ago and being really impressed with how closely they matched the look of the movies.
Like so many movies nowadays trying to cash in on an existing IP
Yeah, but I have luke warm hope for it. Colbert seems to respect and understand the books, and the content is taken from chapters in the books that were not covered by the other films.
The LOTRCU
The Lord of the Squeeze: The Hunt for Greed.
I'm very impressed that this movie is still moving forward even though the Gollum game crashing and burning in development made it clear nobody wants a story centered around him.
yeah i dont think that was the only issue with the game...
That game did not fail because people dislike gollum as a character.
The problem with the gollum game was that they got a studio famed for indie point and click adventure games to make a 3d aaa action/adventure game. Daedelus are a fine studio, but would be far far far from my consideration for such a game
Wait, this isnt a shit post? Its an actual movie?
It is being directed by Gollum!
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's a dum(b) place to start looking.
"You loved small amounts of a tragic story refined by the ground breaking acting of Andy Serkis, you will love it as a SEVEN COURSE CGI ONLY SERKIS-LESS BANQUET. You will."
Corridor Crew recently interviewed the top man at WETA, who led the company as they put extraordinary detail into set pieces like dead oliphants and miniatures of Helm's Deep, just in case a fan ever went frame by frame, the detail would more than just hold up. That interview helped me finally find peace with why the Hobbit movies disappointed me: the top guy says that they had NO practical effects. The original LOTR films was ALL practical effects. I had no idea, but my eyeballs were trying to tell me: this is clanker. This does not matter, because it's just slop on a greenscreen. No wonder.
The original LOTR films was ALL practical effects.
This is not accurate. There was a LOT of CGI in those movies. But CGI is not inherently bad. We have this strange notion that CGI is bad and practical effects are good, but in reality a proper blend between CGI and practical effects is important, and both need to be done well. Poor practical effects will look bad, poor CGI will look bad.
The Hobbit movies looked bad because they were rushed. It was like 6 years lead-time for LOTR vs 6 months for The Hobbit or something. So no time for good practical effects.
I think the biggest problem with high-budget, CGI heavy movies, is that they make the movies backwards when you rely on computer graphics too much.
When you make a primarily practical effects movie, you have to plan out everything before you start shooting. When you make a primarily CGI effects movie, you can shoot, then do the effects later. Also, many primarily CGI focused movies use multiple contractor companies to make the effects, and they never have to talk to each other.
Then you have the issue where the actors don't even need to be in the same room to shoot their parts, cause it's all greenscreened in a soundstage.
I think a movie that's mostly CGI can be great, as long as the same care is taken as a mostly practical effects movie. Do all the planning beforehand, have the actors move around and interact with each other, and physical things. Have the artists involved with the lighting and camera work, so they're all part of the process.
I may have misunderstood what Sir whatshisbucket said in the interview. Perhaps he was being hyperbolic. I know there is CGI in the original trilogy.
People looking at a literal flaming eye exploding be like "amazing practical effects!"
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Hobbit movies looked bad because they were rushed.
Wasn't it also because a lot of people watched them in HFR initially? There was so much complaining about the "soap opera" effect when the first one came out, but one other downside was it was just easier to spot imperfections with smoother panning.
load more comments
(1 replies)
i cant watch corridor crew after they went all in on ai slop
Does that jacket look more modern than it should, or is it just me?
This movie is going to be dumb, but this is a strange criticism imho.
I don't actually mean it to be too critical, it's just the first thought I had when seeing this image.
I think it's that the image is too sharp, revealing too much detail in the fabric, where the original LotR trilogy are very soft (in a good way). Modern lenses pushing for sharpness and clarity make a lot of things look cheap or hyper-real in an immersion breaking way, in my opinion.
That could definitely be it.
It's a very nice still. Hopefully the whole movie is pretty like this.
Movie can't be still. That's why they are called 'movies'.
I don't see nobody movie-n, maybe this is actually just a magazine?
What is this, a Gollum cash grab for ANTS?!
Certainly won't be watching this shit
Image isn't loading in my app (summit), browser on both phone and computer, both via the lemmy link and the image url.
It finally did for me on Voyager, but quite slowly from top to bottom like it's 1999.
I am on Summit and I can see it.
I don't really like prequels. A lot of the tension goes away when you know the ending. Getting a concrete answer to a mystery is also less rewarding than leaving it for people to mull over. But I don't think there even was any mystery left here.
Thanks but no thanks.
There are so many great fantasy stories out there, that haven't been adapted yet. Do them. Stop regurgitating the same three franchises over and over again. We don't need anymore Lord of the Rings. We don't need anymore Harry Potter and we most certainly do not need any more Game of Thrones - and this comes from someone who thought Knight of the Seven Kingdoms was okay and enjoyable.
Move on.
Does anyone know if it has to do anything with the free fan free fan film ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9H09xnhlCQU ) or is it just based on the same story?
Yes, it is literally based on the fan film. There was some shenanigans going on shortly after it was announced that Andy Serkis would make a professional adaptation of the film and the studio struck down the original film and channel on youtube for copyright infringement, but they were luckily able to plead their case and the movie is back up.
I forget when this was going on exactly, just that I was a spectator in real time while the drama was happening.
view more: next ›