|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 21, 2006 22:39:01 GMT
I've only seen the trailer twice and it won't play properly for me at the moment. I liked the glimpses of the aliens when I saw the trailer but now looking at the screen cap - the alien doesn't appear too faithful to the books description. It's hard to make out where the eyes are and it looks a bit like Medusa from that picture. What's anyone else think?
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on May 21, 2006 22:48:10 GMT
Terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 22, 2006 7:18:34 GMT
Looks like they grew a heap more hair.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 22, 2006 17:58:12 GMT
The martian has grown dredlocks.
You can see the eye's, much larger but no longer the almond shape of the first render. But as the eyes are black and the body a dark oily colour, they seem to blend together which is not a good thing. Also, the tenticles appear all around the body and the thing has a huge mouth, very fleshy with teeth - yeap, it has teeth.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 22, 2006 19:19:48 GMT
I wouldn't say it's terrible as an alien design and whoever did it is a good cgi artist but when I watched the trailer [ and glimpsed them briefly ] they seemed to be more faithful to Wells description - so I'm surprised looking at that screen cap to see that they don't appear to be as faithful as I first thought. If they wanted to alter the original concept artwork that they showed us a while back - why did they put the dredlocks in?
Mind you - if this is just for the tour and live dvd, I don't mind. It's the film that concerns me. The tour cgi is great for what it is - but the film's a different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on May 22, 2006 21:27:40 GMT
I really don't think that the design on the tour CG reflect the design for the movie- compare the tripods to the R&D footage- similar in places, but not in mood. The whole style of the material came across more as an accompaniment to the music, to emphasise certain events/aspects, rather than the focus of the show in it's own right- it was more promo clip and background than feature film. And, for me, this worked very well.
I quite liked the martians myself and, though skeptical of the whole concept, the prologue worked very well- even the voices (though speaking perfect English! This always detracts from aliens). Again, they may not be too much like what we'll see in the film (still a couple of years away). Also, seeing this onscreen, behind all the lights, it was very hard to make out too much of them- something that always works well with such subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 23, 2006 1:38:19 GMT
Yes, Martians speaking English in the film won't be a very good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 23, 2006 7:24:36 GMT
Come to think of the teeth - did Wells ever say that the Martians didn't have teeth (He might have I just can't remember)? I don't believe that just being the blood sucking race they are doesn't mean that they haven't got any teeth at all.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on May 24, 2006 17:44:34 GMT
Not in so many words- the whole 'everything's atrophied but the brain' thing pointed at no teeth, but I don't remember Wells actually writing 'they didn't have any teeth', yeronner.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 26, 2006 19:35:30 GMT
Wells describes a "fleshy beak" and a "V - shaped mouth with it's pointed upper lip" so could teeth be open to interpretation?
Also, I said it looked looked like Medusa and Wells described "Gorgon groups of tentacles" and later -"in a group around the mouth were sixteen slender, almost whip like tentacles, arranged in two bunches of eight each" - but that's not on top of the head!
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jun 5, 2006 12:12:46 GMT
Wells describes a "fleshy beak" and a "V - shaped mouth with it's pointed upper lip" so could teeth be open to interpretation? True...but most animals we are familiar with that have beaks don't have teeth. ...Conversely I could defeat that argument by saying Martians wouldn't be anything like any animal we are familiar with!! ;D KR
|
|
|
Post by Poyks on Jun 5, 2006 14:21:23 GMT
Wells describes a "fleshy beak" and a "V - shaped mouth with it's pointed upper lip" so could teeth be open to interpretation? True...but most animals we are familiar with that have beaks don't have teeth. KR ;D
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jun 6, 2006 16:21:49 GMT
True...but most animals we are familiar with that have beaks don't have teeth. KR ;D At last - proof that animals with beaks do have teeth!
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jun 7, 2006 19:54:46 GMT
I didn't see that one on Vic's Chicks!
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jun 14, 2006 13:19:49 GMT
True...but most animals we are familiar with that have beaks don't have teeth. KR ;D Now that's just plain scary!! KR
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jun 15, 2006 0:34:31 GMT
[/quote] LOL. You're a sick and twisted individual, and thank you for that! I needed a laugh today. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jun 16, 2006 6:03:04 GMT
LOL!
But seriously, reality check: Why does a creature that doesn't eat need teeth? It doesn't. And there's no point in exposing yourself to the dangers and pain of tooth decay, abcesses etc.. If you don't need teeth, get rid of 'em! And that's exactly what the Martians would have done.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on Jun 16, 2006 6:36:10 GMT
Agreed Lensman. So why are there teeth then?
The desginers wanted to try something else?
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jun 26, 2006 0:27:36 GMT
It would be nice if I could see what you're talking about. Is the screen cap posted somewhere you can give me a link to?
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jun 26, 2006 8:20:23 GMT
|
|