Less than 100 million for a films with more than 3 hours with GOAT special effects

They were under the radar so they didn't get jewed out while buying services and goods from others.

If people had known what kind of monstrous trilogy Lotr was going to be the budget would have been tripled.

Would the special effects be even better?

>GOAT special effects
It does NOT hold up at all, where as pirates 2 does.

Take your nostalgia glasses off and try to judge it objectively you fucking cunts.

>What as their trick?
They though HD was we today call 480p on YouTube.
A lot less stuff tonodel and render. Kids in their basement today could do a better job with CGI. Not shitting on the movie though, I love it.

Are you saying that Davy Jones looks better than Smeagol today?

I don't think so.

Yes, it does. Go back and watch both again.

fag

Why live in denial?

LoTR >>> Pirates

masterful blend of practical and special effects, this is whats missing from big budget movies nowadays.

Although both series eventually went to shit, LotR is isolated from the Hobbit, whereas the only Pirates actually worth watching are the first two.

nah senpai. yeah there are parts where gollum's feet look like made of cardboard and legolas seems to glitch in something but overral is extremely well made. mostly because of this >masterful blend of practical and special effects

Yeah but the cgi is fucking shite in lotr, and if you deny that you're just a fan boy in denial. Gollum looks great, except for when he's shown with real actors in the scene, then it's just shit.

Also, don't get me wrong I love LoTR way more than PotC but the effects of pirates are just better. I'm not saying the movies overall are better.

Plus you do know they actually made those ships in pirates right? Those are fucking real life size props. So in the nothing wrong with the practical effects either.

I'm not joking at all when I say the Lord of the Rings trilogy are my favorite movies.

>Didn't spend ass loads on meme actors' salaries
Seems pretty obvious to me

Do you know how many actual props they made for LotR?

>he's one of those autstic fucks who pauses movies and watches them frame by frame pouring over them with a fine toothed comb looking for mistakes

oh nevermind. No, I don't notice how fake gollum looks when he's shown with real actors, because I'm doing this thing called being immersed in the movie.

The 3rd and 4th Pirates movie are just so immeasurably bad that I can't possibly give a shit that they built actual ships. And the 5th looks even worse than the last two

LOTR was one of those magical things that was kind of under the radar while it was being made and pretty much everybody involved in the project gave it 150%

they put the work in

implying inflation alone can justify these differences

I sometimes think I'm the only one that thinks Pirates III is better than II.

Maybe because I like longer films with a great scope, dunno.

I agree, having barbossa back was nice too

The trick is that the cgi was shit

>Yeah but the cgi is fucking shite in lotr
Lotr work with CGI is probably on the top 5 of the most important milestones of all time, along with Tron, T2, Jurassic Park and Avatar. Maybe Matrix.

every potc film > every lotr film

get over it kid

it's just facts

...

3 has some amazing scenes but overall it just feels dumber than 2 and 1 and 4 as well

all of the pirate lord stuff was pretty silly and so was calypso, i mean it's fun to watch but although some retards shit on the second movie as well it's still much easier to take seriously than 3

>pirate king and pirate queen
>keith richards as papa sparrow
>that godawful clusterfuck battle at the end in the middle of a giant maelstrom

Pirates 3 is a giant goddamn clusterfuck of bad ideas

weak m8 m8

The Two Towers >>> every Pirates movie
FotR >>> Pirates 1

keep crying kiddo, i know you will

how many films have you seen? be honest

there's honestly no way you can claim to be a patrician and unironically think lotr is a better series

>hurr being a patrician means thinking good stuff is shitty and mediocre stuff is amazing

Nice scotsman fallacy you have there, m8.

I guarantee I've seen more movies than you buckeroo. The number of movies I have seen has nothing to do with which series I think is better. You're talking about a series headlined by drunk drug addict Johnny Depp and based off a ride at Disneyland. You don't get much more creatively empty than that. The first movie is a huge throwback to old school swashbuckling pirate movies, like those starring Errol Flynn from the 30s, but beyond that the series is mostly muck. Two is a pretty solid sequel as far as blockbuster sequels go.

There is no way you can justifiably defend whats happened to the series after the 3rd one and whats going to keep on happening as long as they break even. It's already practically Terminator level, how long until Jack Sparrow finds some magical time travel mcguffin to go back in time to save Will from becoming the Flying Dutchman?

so maybe what, 400? 500? that's not a bad start, i remember when i was around that level and i still thought lotr was good

i'm sorry but i feel like i can't even communicate with you right now, what i say is glaringly obvious to anyone with taste and it has nothing to do with some ridiculous rule that you concocted

keep it up though and come talk to me in the potc5 threads once you've matured a bit and you're as hyped as i am

I didn't deny that, it became too convoluted. It was a really ambitious project after all, just like LOTR, but it was still made mainly for kids and it suffers from the lack of good production.

However, I like the action scenes and I find it a good idea that could be better.

And as I sayd before, I also have something with movies with almost 3 hours and a huge scope and scale.

>Pirates
had way more CGI and filming with water

what a gimp you are
sound like you belong on reddit

I see you postin in that other thread

Your boy here flat out admits PoTC is made primarily for kids with "good" action scenes sprinkled in, while lacking good production. How do you counter that one laddy?

>implying Depp's personal life has anything to do with the creative value of the films

>how long until Jack Sparrow finds some magical time travel mcguffin to go back in time to save Will from becoming the Flying Dutchman?

i can already tell you're some pleb who's main complaints about the new movies is that they follow a theme of undead/supernatural pirates for the enemies etc

they've already introduced supernatural elements so what would be the point in reigning it in? any suggestions as to what a sequel could be about without involving some new magical artifact or ghost baddies?

if they did a shitty job with these elements it would be a different story but they didn't, although the zombies in 4 admittedly were incredibly forgettable. however, everything involving the fountain of youth was actually good. Jack + Barbossa scenes towards the end, the entire climax and the scenes that followed were all great and made up for what would have been an average follow-up

in 3 everything to do with davy jones' locker was great as well. the upside down ship scene, lost souls on the lifeboats and Jack's scene on the beach are all very memorable aspects of the concept of the afterlife in these movies

and although calypso was dumb the climax in 3 was great too

i was being courteous though

>lack of good production
>convoluted

he isn't my """boy""" because he clearly didn't watch the movies

>asking for a different poster's counter-argument to a post from someone he wasn't even arguing with

if POTC is made for kids then you should enjoy it, junior

that's going by posted budget vs gross.

waterworld was easily more expensive than persons of the color three, but they didn't post the fact their overages took them well past 300 million, in 1995.

If anything that bullshit just looks like a load of shit designed to make BvS look like something other than abject failure.

>tfw you will never be as retarded as potc fags
Feels good mane

the cast was cheap unlike all the other blockbusters

They didn't pay royalties to the Tolkien estate until sued, claiming that the films didn't make any money

movie theaters had resolution of at least 2k back then as a standard so thats just fucking wrong

please stop posting here

I agree, hardly any of the CGI in LotR holds up. Likewise Pirates CGI isn't too great either but it still looks better than LotR cartoon shit

Wikipedia lists LotR's budget at $281 million.

there were a lot of movies that got slammed for horrid special effects because they were reviewed based upon the theatrical print. Which, like you said, was around 1080p, give or take. Thus the bad special effects were pretty glaring and obvious.

But then in home video they got a second wind because the lower resolution hid a lot of the super-imposition artifacts.

That said, it can be argued LotR looks pretty bad in HD and only has such a devoted following because of the low resolution of DVD.

It's crazy to think that I made 50k last year with massive amounts of overtime, working every Saturday I could.
>5 million only for a couple years of work
Makes me sad

i suppose you're right then

The effects in LOTR are mostly miniatures and matte paintings and the like, the majority of what is CGI doesn't hold up that great.

I would rather watch Pirates 1 than any LotR film. Fellowship is the best but even then Pirates 1 is much more enjoyable. Hard films to compare though. I think Pirates CGI holds up better honestly, even though Gollum was groundbreaking he just doesn't look that great

I think the overall scope of LotR's effects was better, but you cannot deny that Davy Jones is the best looking cgi character to this day.

His left eye there is showing the CGI is slowly dating. Everything else is still top notch.

Keep this dumb shit in Cred Forums

kek wut

didn't pirates of the carribean 2 come out like 4 years after?

Idk why special effects cost so much. Blender is free?!