LOTR director Peter Jackson restores WWI footage for new documentary, "They Shall Not Grow Old."*

It also helps that Peter is also so very unassuming (well, mostly, at least my perception of him). It's NOT like he's a traditional "ivory tower" sort of talking head, or anything. Fairly plain-spoken, or certainly direct and (I think) pretty unpretentious. So all those qualities, added to the fact that he and others on the project had a personal connection to the war (through their own relatives), really helped "humanize" the story BEHIND the story, and the rationale for the whole project in the first place (or how it came to be).

ANYWAY, my main point is that Peter's talking-head stuff at the end was a big plus for me, and probably (I'm assuming) really reframed/reset/redirected my own personal emotional response to seeing the whole thing. Without that last 30 minutes of "behind the scenes" stuff, I think I would have walked out of the theater a bit of a mess -- not entirely, but the whole experience would have felt a LOT heavier (god, it was heavy enough as it was). I mean, clearly War is Pointless. But I might have left the film (but for that "behind the scenes" mini-doc)... ...I might have left the film also feeling like watching that kind of documentary about WWI was pointless too. Maybe "pointless" isn't the right word -- clearly the war had a purpose. But the "pointlessness" of the individual experiences of those in the war (and the pointless losses of life, on such a huge scale) were monumental.

TL;DR: I already felt enough damn "uugh" in my gut in reaction to the main film, that I fear how much MORE "uugh" I might have felt without that "making-off" mini-doc.

 

In the '70s, '80s, and '90s, as well. Remember, the last British combat rifleman of The Great War passed away only 10 years ago.

It makes me wonder if the Germans and French kept record when their last one passed away. I know that the last US combatant died in the 2000s.

 

You might add "IMO" to preserve your credibility...

 

I wonder if he understood that documentary consisted of restored WWI films that were made 100-years ago, along with intercut footage of interviews of WWI vets.

Curious as to what he was expecting to see?

Plenty of WWI historical documentaries on the history channel.

We already have WWI history, just like we knew the history about the Titanic. Still that old story was made into a few movies.

 

Not likely.

 

I never get why some folks think we need to add IMO or IMHO to any of our posts.

Of course these are our own opinions as we are the ones writing them. Nobody else writes my comments ​

 

Never enough car crashes or robots for some folks

 

"IMO" or "IMHO" is kind of a disclaimer that indicates that you are not here merely to thread-crap by being a contrarian (or by just being a knucklehead).

 

Yeah. I don’t personally subscribe to that. I trust that people are writing what they believe. If someone really dumps on something I like and I disagree I may respond or simply move on.

People take thread crappers too personally imho

 

History confuses Americans with post-modern public school educations. The blame falls where it always does.

 

I don't enjoy seeing people makes fools of themselves in public. Maybe I'm just too empathetic...

 

Nope. Just a boring documentary. If this film wasn't blown up to look like a modern film, I'd bet more people would agree with me.

 

I bet Nipper writes a few comments, when you are out & about

 

I don't know. If you take away all that Peter Jackson did, then all you again left with is the same old 100-year old war footage that has been around, ever since the war.

People will just not watch this stuff. For those that will, there is the history channel.

Peter effectively used the footage and interviews to tell many different experiences from the soldiers point of view.

While we have seen footage and interviews before, we have not seen them interwoven in such a way as to make an entire movie that way.

Telling a story this way separates it from ordinary newsreel footage.

 

Making it 3-d doesn't make it a better film either.

 

Thread-crapping is so tiresome. Why not go to a thread about something that you are interested in? You're clogging up the casino here...

 

I saw it in 3D. Liked the film but I agree i didn’t need the 3D. In fact I don’t recall any film where 3D was needed. I prefer 2D and feel 3D is another gimmick to get you in the theater seats. But I know some folks love it.

 

I was somewhat surprised to see that the film was being offered in 3D, as I did not expect it.

Since I am a Stubb's A-List member, the 3D showing does not cost anything, so I opted for it.

I would have to see it in 2D to directly compare it. But I don't think that the 3D took anything away from the experience. I think that it did add depth to the archival film.

Keep in mind, that in watching the "Making Of" documentary at the end of the movie, you really did see the original film and Peter does explain what he did and why. It is a long movie and the more it is interpreted in a modern day movie making technique, the better I think it would hold the audiences attention.

To those who don't care for 3D, why go to a 3D showing? Just go to the 2D showing, problem solved.

I'm forever not understanding how people keep saying that they don't care for 3D and yet, they keep attending to 3D movies?

 

Exactly! My wife and I simply avoided the 3D showings. I don't think it would have made a huge difference otherwise, but all things being equal - we prefer 2D. As I may have already said, the only modern 3D movie we've ever seen was Gravity, which we had specifically read/heard was quite well done in 3D -- and was maybe one of the few modern 3D films (yet) that didn't rely on the effect in a bombastic or overly dramatic way.

I would gladly see 3D films where the effect in exceptionally well used, but in a more restrained sort of way -- and so much so that reviewers make a point of highlighting that. Absent that kind of recommendation, though, we basically avoid all 3D films -- which, again, is easily done.

 

It's not thread crapping. And I praised the technical achievements of the film. We can't have 194 posts in this thread all praising the film. Groupthink can be dangerous

 

Imagine sucks! See what I did there?

 

No wars are great.

 

Orange and teal.

 

I still know a lot of folks who think that Star Wars (the original, not the franchise) is great...

 

Funny story about this movie and 3D. I went to the second showing of this movie specifically for the 3D. It was the last showing of the night. You know what's coming. The movie starts with the black and white scenes. Even though there isn't that insert to tell you to put the glasses on, once the movie gets past those scenes everyone in front of me puts their glasses on sooooo I do the same. I can't tell any difference in the movie. I want to be able to tell a difference but over time I am certain the 3D is either not very good or not there. I can see that everyone else has their glasses on so I'm thinking I'm nuts. Finally after about 30 minutes (!) the movie stops, an attendant comes out and tells us all that the 3D isn't working. Everyone sheepishly removes their glasses. I received a free ticket for another movie - non 3D.