|
Post by themaster on Apr 24, 2005 9:01:56 GMT
Actualy Evilnerfherder I responded to the earlier post of "...a load of ******* crap, screw you guys, GO PENDRAGON" which confused me as you couldnt get much worse than the Pendragon film (a cold fact not a dig at Tim Hines or anyone else) so I couldnt see the point of the post given the fact this asylum film looks professionaly produced (still cheap and nasty but fun non the less) so it raised certain questions about the logic behind the thinking of the 'hard core' pro Pendragon lobby (I am neither for or against so i'd rather not be put into any 'catorgory') I know there are those who stuck up for Pendragon who also like this new film, without a doubt im talking about a select few, like I say, the 'hard core' who want the book in film form at any cost up to and including lowering their standards to the absolute minimum while pretending to still have standards with regards to the Asylum film, this is, as I also said, hypocricy, (again, a cold none offensive observation).
Yes this film might be complete rubbish, yes it may bare almost no resemblence to the book and yes it may have bad FX but...surely the subject matter deserves it one chance? Surely the fact that Asylum have made the film in weeks (as apose to four years) with real actors on decent equipment with a real release date with no grand delusional claims or falcitys qualifies it for the slimest of chances?
With the hard core giving Pendragon every mind boggling chance no matter what they throw up it seems a bit unfair not to give the same grace to this film just because its not from the book, I also point out at this moment in time we dont know exactly what has been added or taken away from Pendragons version as yet, its possible it is completely different from the book apart from a few word for word scenes.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Apr 24, 2005 9:38:45 GMT
I'd like to actually see a trailer for this then maybe we can make constructive comparisons. It's a little early for me to go either way on this one with only some photos and a (somewhat derivative) DVD cover. It would appear (from the elements present in the photos) to be a pretty good stab at the novel in updated form but I'd like to see more. Asylum, if you're looking in.. any chance of getting the trailer working?
|
|
|
Post by D.A.V.E on Apr 24, 2005 12:10:02 GMT
This has shown up as the image on the home page for the SPFX company. Looks kinda interesting. Shame the website still isnt finished..
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Apr 24, 2005 12:21:09 GMT
As the subject of Pendragon is a taboo (understandably) I wont get into a handbags at dawn argument with you about the merrits of the Pendragon martian as it speaks for itself. You've mischaracterized my post. I wasn't discussing the pros or cons of anything; I was questioning your praise of the Martian photo. I'm not against any of these films and haven't indicated such in any of my posts. Getting demonstrably angry about a movie is like getting angry at the weather. Unlike you I havent made up my mind about this new version at all, you will find my posts quite fair on these threads, I stick up for it when I feel I need to and I critisize it when I want to as is my right, however, you are quite right, there is no bias here. I reject your assertion that I've made up my mind about the new version. This is either a misunderstanding of or an intentional mischaracterization of what I wrote, and I invite you go back and reread my post. It would be feeble-minded to draw a critical conclusion about a film based upon a photograph. In fact, I qualified the statement as I didn't want it to be seen as a negative opinion. You've misread my questioning of your praise for the Martian as a condemnation of the film. It wasn't. Contrary to your claim of not having any, this illustrates your bias. Perhaps you just don't realize it. The dead 'thing' by the mine shaft does look shoddy, This articulates my first impression of the photo exactly; nevertheless, I didn't condem the film becuse of it, as you suggest. (the bit we have seen looks like the first thing it will say is "wheres the nearest toilet" as it looks a little 'strained') LOL and last but not least they reply to their emails. This seems an odd way to evaluate a film. I wouldn't expect Steven Speilberg to answer my e-mails, or Jeff Wayne, or Tim Hines. To believe that you're a person of such stature that you deserve their attention suggests hubris on your part and doesn't reflect reality. Now I dont want to get into a debate about this, im not anti or pro anything but fair is fair and those who have been very pro Pendragon have used the same tired arguments they use to defend Pendragon now to slate this version, which to be quite honest is hypocricy (said as a cold none offensive observation). I don't think we're debating anything here, as our observations were the same. I didn't understand why you were praising the Howell Martian--I wasn't fault-finding the film--I was questing your behavior. I'm not anti any of these films. I'm pro all of them. I appreciate your claim of fairmindedness here and ask you not to read into my posts what isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Apr 24, 2005 12:22:58 GMT
Cool, looks dare i say good. D.F.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 24, 2005 13:47:45 GMT
Gray, I see you point entirely and I think it was missunderstanding on my part so let me explain the root of my error. I percieved your post as a defence of Pendragon using the shoddy rubber dildokite that looked like it was made by a primary school art class as an example, however I couldnt understand your logic as although this one unknown prop looked quite bad everything else looked 'ok' (and compared to Pendragon it looks quite good) so in following that logic I found your post somewhat surly in tone and a little sarcastic. If you didnt mean to sound this way then please forgive my error.
Like Evilnerfherder has said quite rightly we need to see the trailer to make comparisons however we can compare anything seen thus far with its equal and oposite in the Pendragon version (production stills etc).
On the point of Asylum returning emails it seems that they are quite keen to answer any questions, if you tried to contact Paramount you would probably get some sort of preprepared press release or maybe a standard email, so I think my coment stands when I say compared to Pendragons track record in communication every one else fares 100% better.
I will say this for the record I have never said the dildokite looks good, nor have I said this production is of some amazing quality, what I did say was it looks vastly superior to Pendragons version, which it does, dodgy puppet aside, if we were to include the dildokite we would have to go over the CG martian eyes which look decidedly painful, in fact my grandad had eyes like that every time he drank guiness. So please dont miss quote me, its boring constantly re stating old posts.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 24, 2005 13:59:39 GMT
This has shown up as the image on the home page for the SPFX company. Looks kinda interesting. Shame the website still isnt finished.. That does look interesting, the fighting machines do look more creepy at different angles, they have obviously gone for the insect look (in fact one does look almost tripodal). If they can keep up that standard and the animation isnt to cheesy this might turn out to be a little gem. At least its not done in 'sepia'.
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Apr 24, 2005 15:01:19 GMT
The Master: Fair enough. And I take your point on the e-mail communication--But this still seems like a dodgy way to evaluate the quality of a film, as you're drawing conclusions about it based upon marketing infrastructure. I would say this if it were Asylum or Paramount or Jeff Wayne, too.
As to postings being repetative and boring, I certainly agree. I'll also point out that you managed to get in 5 digs against Pendragon in 4 short paragraphs in a reply about the Howell Martian on the Howell Movie Board.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 24, 2005 15:32:40 GMT
Grey, I assure you there is no intensional digging at Pendragon or anyone else, I wished to draw a comparison between the two films to show the stance that some members are taking to be slightly askew, I wished to point out they are both cheap films and that this latest film has a bit more going for it than Pendragons film so it did not deserve the contempt it was being shown.
If you go back and re read my posts you will find that no where do I say this film will be any good, I said it looks like it could be fun, I havent judged this film at all so please try not to imply that I have judged it based on the little we have seen, if I had to judge it based on the tiny amount of current evidence I wouldnt rate it very high, but what we have seen looks superior to that of Pendragon, that doesnt mean the film will be any good. The trailer should be most interesting.
In regards to the 'digs' at Pendragon, unfortunatly I do find it hard to talk about the Pendragon seriously (without speculating) and not accidentaly make a 'dig' as everything seems so negative from them at the moment.
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Apr 24, 2005 16:05:13 GMT
In regards to the 'digs' at Pendragon, unfortunatly I do find it hard to talk about the Pendragon seriously (without speculating) and not accidentaly make a 'dig' as everything seems so negative from them at the moment. My hat's off to you for being candid about this. I've wondered if some folks were digging at Pdragon accidentally, not quite aware how often it was coming across. It has become difficult to discuss any of these movies without putting them into the context of the other versions.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 24, 2005 17:02:50 GMT
What we need Grey old bean is a trailer from Asylum to give us something to chew on, then people can make declarations of hate based on personal taste rather that some strange biggotry about a film they know nothing about as yet, then comparisons wont have to be made, do you hear us Asylum?
TRAILER!
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Apr 24, 2005 17:13:35 GMT
What we need Grey old bean is a trailer from Asylum to give us something to chew on, then people can make declarations of hate based on personal taste rather that some strange biggotry about a film they know nothing about as yet LOL. I second that: TRAILER! TRAILER!
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Apr 24, 2005 18:07:03 GMT
I third that: TRAILER!
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Apr 24, 2005 19:11:21 GMT
I was told that the trailer would of been release days ago now. It never happened, they best not be pulling a pendragon on me. Anthony
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Apr 24, 2005 19:40:09 GMT
anyone got a link to the SFX house who did this and are doing the movie sfx?
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Apr 24, 2005 20:29:02 GMT
It's Velocity Visuals, according to Asylum themselves. The webite is here.. velocityfx.com/.. trouble is there's nothing on it apart from contact stuff and that same picture. New website coming soon apparently. A quick scoot around shows that they are mainly known for TV work on shows such as 'Poltergeist: The Legacy', 'The Burning Zone' (not a bad show), 'The Pretender', 'The Tick' and, according to the IMDB they were involved in....... wait for it..... 'Battlefield Earth'. I couldn't find what they did in the last, but it is on their cross reference list. They have 2 offices, one in L.A. and one in Vancouver, Canada. These are the services they provide.. ''Motion Pictures, Television, Commercials, IMAX, Laserdiscs, Computer Graphics, Real-Time Motion Control, Miniatures, Matte Painting, Digital Effects, Visual Effects, Free-lance Visual Effects Supervision''. I've sent an e-mail to them to find out more.. will let you know if they reply.
|
|
|
Post by neuronomad on Apr 25, 2005 8:41:34 GMT
While I don't expect a whole lot from the film, the one pic of the FM or Walkers as their site calls them looks cool. I agree that they need to either put up the trailer or take the link off their site. Then again their site looks like it was very hastily thrown up.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Apr 28, 2005 10:37:25 GMT
It's Velocity Visuals, according to Asylum themselves. The webite is here.. velocityfx.com/.. trouble is there's nothing on it apart from contact stuff and that same picture. New website coming soon apparently. A quick scoot around shows that they are mainly known for TV work on shows such as 'Poltergeist: The Legacy', 'The Burning Zone' (not a bad show), 'The Pretender', 'The Tick' and, according to the IMDB they were involved in....... wait for it..... 'Battlefield Earth'. I couldn't find what they did in the last, but it is on their cross reference list. They have 2 offices, one in L.A. and one in Vancouver, Canada. These are the services they provide.. ''Motion Pictures, Television, Commercials, IMAX, Laserdiscs, Computer Graphics, Real-Time Motion Control, Miniatures, Matte Painting, Digital Effects, Visual Effects, Free-lance Visual Effects Supervision''. I've sent an e-mail to them to find out more.. will let you know if they reply. Did someone say 'Battlefield Earth'? ;D Will we get to see people with absolutely no flying experience taking to the skies in Harrier Jump Jets and sending them to kindgom come?! Oh who can forget the 'Specsavers Optician' machine...
|
|
|
Post by krys666 on Apr 28, 2005 16:46:17 GMT
Another half-arse* job at a martian! Pull yourself together and make it look remotly like an alien C.T please...!
|
|