I think the spectacle of a lot of the CG in TTT and ROTK served the film greatly, and really helped make the trilogy as epic and grandiose as it is. On the other hand, I also love how FOTR doesn't feel quite as big as the others. We really hone in on Frodo's perspective, and his view of the world is very limited. We discover it as he does. Further into TTT, the cat starts to come out of the bag and the world opens up. 10,000 orcs attack Helms Deep. Giant talking trees flood Isengard. This is big stuff, and the CG was needed. Well, maybe not the silly Legolas acrobatics, but a lot of it.

LOTR may have been done at the perfect point, when PJ had enough technology to do it, but not so much that he could go over board with it like in his following films.

It's interesting to hear an honest take on how Viggo felt about it during production. I think he loved the project and was excited to be a part of it, as is evidenced in the DVD appendices, but I can imagine the concerns he and others may have had. Whenever I've seen a cast member asked in an interview, "Did you always know it was going to be something special?" it's always seemed like they really want to say yes, but they know deep down that they had no idea.

But he made the point to say that the support is not going to come from elsewhere. This is a very tightly focused plea for one man to give money.

I'm wondering where KUNG FURY will fit into this discussion.

If someone can watch a nanar spoof, without the foreknowledge that it's a spoof, and be fooled into thinking it's actual nanar, then I would say that the movie is successful in being so-bad-it's-good on purpose.

It is a little more than just that "the story is derivative," though. The main villain is very mustache twirly, and all the military guys are unbelievably cookie-cutter; soulless killing machines. I lose it whenever I hear the bald guy yell, "GET SOME!!!"

I don't think it's as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, but that aspect of it rubs me the wrong way.

Nice video. I had heard the Sony SLTs weren't able to use AF wider than f/3.5 but I didn't know it locked you into full auto too. Pretty lame.

I like that Sony and Panasonic push the market forward in terms of features (though Sony still throttles their prosumer cameras, just more sneakily than Canon does). The GH4 and A7s look very cool, though I'm content with my little NEX-5N for now.

That being said, the Canons do produce great images. My brother has a 5D3 and shot this video with it last summer. And yeah, he shot in ML raw... 

It's a ton of extra work in post but the color detail you get out of it makes a world of difference, when the type of shoot you're doing allows for it.

That's how I feel about Shameless right now.

Any sport has the potential to be difficult. It all depends on who you're competing against. Except for Ninja Warrior. Although in that case the competition would be the course itself.

Baseball is one of the hardest sports for anyone to just pick up and play. In high school all the lacrosse players would talk trash about baseball (lax bros and baseball players hating each other was a thing at my high school), until one time our coach had a few of them take some swings in batting practice. Not one of them came close to hitting the ball, and for two main reasons. 1, they didn't know how to properly swing a bat, which is much more complicated than it looks. 2, they were afraid of the ball. Who could blame them though, it was coming pretty fast... for batting practice Besides, when the best players in the world have about a 35% success rate, that probably means it's not easy.

I love sports; playing much more than watching, but I do enjoy watching football and baseball, and sometimes college wrestling. It's more fun to watch a sport that you have a lot of experience playing, probably because you have a greater understanding and appreciation for the artistry of it, as Eddie was saying. You can marvel at the idiosyncrasies that the players have perfected over years of experience. People like watching people do impressive things, and that extends beyond sports.

I don't like watching soccer. It's a lot of back and forth, and in an hour and a half you're lucky if they score more than twice. But I've also never played it, so a lot of the little stuff blows right by me.

True, but it's more than just that I think. The first time I saw LOTR, I didn't remember who a lot of the important characters were, because there were so many of them. But it was still a great movie. DoS is kind of a mess of a film, and I think it has most to do with the intense focus on the visual grandeur rather than... well, everything else. The visuals are beautiful, yes, but they're so quixotic and phony that they suck the heart out of the movie.

I know the book is more light-hearted than LOTR, but when you go bubbly with dwarves, elves and goblins, things start to get real silly real quick; and that overarching tone brings down the more serious moments. It would also help if the leader of the pack had some redeeming qualities.

To me most of the characters were too 1-dimensional/cookie-cutter, and a lot of it was very unrealistic, so that brought it down. But it did succeed in generating emotion, and Sorbo really brought it.

So many feels here.

And "Soundtrack by Michael Giacchino."