[quote=“Silence, post:120, topic:2074”]I don’t see what’s good about Lord Of The Rings at all. The first half hour of the first movie is great but after that it just gets worse. The first movie is overall ok but the other two are pretty bad IMO.[/quote]Especially the third part in it’s theatrical cut which doesn’t have the Christopher Lee’s death scene but 30 minutes worth of really boring and futile “endings”.
God yes, those ‘endings’ were a mess. On the whole I thought they were as good a film adaptations as you could hope for but no masterpieces by any means.
As i have already said I think LOTR are really good movies but far away from my favourites. To my all-time-favourites belong the first three Star-Wars-Movies which are better than LOTR. I think the first LOTR is the best one. The reason I have watched LOTR 3-4 times by now is the show-effect of the DVDs especially the sound. If you have 4 active Subwoofers like me, LOTR is great stuff. If I had not have this sophisticated equipment, maybee wouldn’t have watched it that much (if clause type 3 ???, sorry 4 my poor english).
4 subwoofers?
How many front, centre and rear speakers do you own? And what does this mean for the relationship with your family members (not to mention the neighbours) ?
[url]http://img251.imageshack.us/i/18explosionspan3ready1.jpg/[/url]
[size=12pt]And only three of elSanto’s subwoofers were active …[/size]
;D
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:124, topic:2074”]4 subwoofers?
How many front, centre and rear speakers do you own? And what does this mean for the relationship with your family members (not to mention the neighbours) ?[/quote]
Its ok 4 my familily. But i gonna move out this year and than I will be totally fu**** up, I know that. Maybee my equipment will remain here and I will come and see a movie from time to time.
Its just normal 5.1 but the LFE-channel is supported by 4 subwoofers (12,5-Inch; 20kg each; 120 Watt RMS, Type: frontfire-). 4 Subwoofers are much better for the room-accoustics than 1 Subwoofer. Thats due to the so-called Resonant room modes[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_room_modes[/url].
The second advantege is that if the dynamic Range is very high I dont have to worry about the Subwoofers playing up cos each one of them is playing very moderately. The effect of 4 Subwoofer though is the following, to put it into figures:
If you double the amount of Subwoofers the loudness increases by 6 db therefore 4 Subwoofer are 12 db louder than 1 subwoofer cos the amount of Subwoofer is doubled two times. Look it up on the internet.
I have bought some 600€ absorbent materials to further enhance the room-accoustics.
here are some impressions:
cinemascope-TV (the first two Subwoofer are re-varnished to match the Canton Ergo main-speakers, but all 4 Subwoofer are the same Heco Concerto W30A
third subwoofer (the 4th one is by the opposite wall)
blueprint (Hörplatz = place where I am sitting; Concerto = Subwoofer)
The best Amp in the world (THX Ultra):
elSanto in the dark on a self-masked 2,35:1 TV (the self-made bars for better contrast are not attached in this picture though cos I cant find another picture right now)
![http://img251.imageshack.us/i/18explosionspan3ready1.jpg/[/url]](http://img251.imageshack.us/i/18explosionspan3ready1.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:125, topic:2074”][url]http://img251.imageshack.us/i/18explosionspan3ready1.jpg/[/url]
[size=12pt]And only three of elSanto’s subwoofers were active …[/size][/quote]
As a matter of fact, the more subwoofers are switched on, the better 4 the neighbours due to the “bad waves” having a little effect. “Bad waves” are normaly too loud and can be easily heard by the neighbours.
Rambo
Der Untergang
Equilibrium
Are the only ones worth remembering IMO.
If you meant First Blood I would agree with you. But Rambo 4? Altough there havent been many outstanding movies during the last 10 Years, Rambo 4 is definately not one of them.
Well thats your opinion.
JOHN RAMBO kicked ass.
John Rambo was certainly technically proficient, and I suppose upping the ante in terms of screen carnage - in a relatively mainstream movie - is an accomplishment of sorts.
Not much else to it though, though Stallone looked good.
Ok, after so much pessimism about modern film making, I say it again:
The last 15 years were very, very good years for cinema, with a great aesthetic progress for the film language, which led to a pretty huge amount of beautiful and fascinating films. The best time for masterpieces together with the 60s and 70s.
[quote=“Starblack, post:133, topic:2074”]John Rambo was certainly technically proficient, and I suppose upping the ante in terms of screen carnage - in a relatively mainstream movie - is an accomplishment of sorts.
Not much else to it though, though Stallone looked good.[/quote]
Well, I certainly didn’t go to see it expecting a thought-provoking movie with groundbreaking social commentary. That’s why I enjoyed it so much I suppose.
Me neither, but something with a little more relevance (topical villains notwithstanding) or a more diverting plot would have been welcome. First Blood, after all, was much more than a simple-minded action movie (and I love those when they’re well done, by the way).
Ultimately, it was nothing worth arguing about, which is a shame.
It was a healthy peaceful argument, nothing more nothing less 
I cant say that I disagree with what you said, I am simply saying that the movie is very good for what it is and it doesn’t pretend to be anything more than that. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be a bit better though.
[quote=“Stanton, post:134, topic:2074”]Ok, after so much pessimism about modern film making, I say it again:
The last 15 years were very, very good years for cinema, with a great aesthetic progress for the film language, which led to a pretty huge amount of beautiful and fascinating films. The best time for masterpieces together with the 60s and 70s.[/quote]
What are those masterpieces then, and what is exactly that great aesthetic progress?
Not that I would say the last fifteen years were particularly poor, but I don’t think they were a period of great innovative cinematographic art either.
If you watch a movie like a member of a Jury at the Berlinale Festival and have to be “objective”, maybee you are right (I am not that objective) but when I tink about the movies which are my favourites, there are hardly any movies out of the last 15 Years and no movies out of the last 10 Years at all. I think the “great” living Directors like Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola, Spielberg, Tarantino, The Coens and so on have accomplished very little in the last 10 Years compared to the 90s, 80s or 70s (David Lynch is maybee an exception).
Some directors who made brilliant films in the last decade out of my mind and after a quick look over my DVDs:
Almodovar, Medem, van Sant, Yimou, Coen Bros, Chan-Wook, Kim Ki Duk, Ozon, Tykwer, Soderbergh, Tarantino, Gaspar Noe, Dominik Graf, Weingartner, Haneke, van Trier, Fatih Akin, Jonze, Gondry, Carlos Reygadas, Kim Ji-woon, Kar Wai, Allen, Sofia Coppola …
All these have made at least one film which can mess with every film classic. They use a great narrative freedom to tell their unique stories, and many of these films look visually quite different from most of the films which were made the decades before.
And there are many more if I expand this list into the late 90s. And I’m sure there are more of which I even haven’t seen anything.
And the action films are aesthetically often unbelievable looking.