|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Apr 18, 2005 23:21:41 GMT
...a movie with a great story, directing, and acting, but FX that varied between passable and really bad... Sadly, on the evidence thus far Hinesy has shown none of points two and three (point one even he couldn't balls up, seeing as he's sticking so closely to Wells), and will probably fulfill your expectations of passable to shoddy FX amply.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 18, 2005 23:40:48 GMT
The Ray Harryhausen movies are a prime example here- I'm not disrespecting his work here- it's all great and he put a lot of effort and innovation into 'Claymation'- but they are still very enjoyable to watch. I love Harryhausen too, altho I admit compared to modern FX his stop-motion technique is sadly dated. A minor quibble: Harryhausen's usual technique isn't called claymation; he mainly used posable models with armatures (artificial skeletons) inside.
|
|
amber14
Full Member
Welsh Bunny
Posts: 72
|
Post by amber14 on Apr 29, 2005 11:17:34 GMT
To be honest as I've said before effects aren't that important, never have been in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Apr 29, 2005 19:21:20 GMT
As a student doing a degree in the production of both TV and Film, i agree. The most important part of the narrative is the story with the visuals coming second. It has often been said that good visual effects don't make a script better (or summit along those lines). I have always had this in my mind when thinking about the PP movie.
Yes we have to believe in the reality of the world the story inhabits. Whats mor eimportant is 'Yes' we have to believe that the characters of the Martians are far more believable than the setting.
But most of all, we have to be convinced that the narrative is the WOTW we all know. I have always gotten that from the PP movie, regardless of its cheeseieness.
Its just a shame its become a sham!
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 29, 2005 19:43:17 GMT
To be honest as I've said before effects aren't that important, never have been in my opinion. With a film based on a classic sci fi novel such as this the special effects are very important. Yes the story, acting script etc should be the top priority but a very, very close second has to be special effects. Imagine you get some of the finest actors around delivering some great performances then all of a sudden - a dodgy looking tripod appears spouting a dodgy looking heat ray with a few muppet like aliens in tow. Modern audiences would throw their popcorn at the screen. Just like LOTRINGS just about everything should be lavish and spectacular and bad sfx are totally inexcusable for a film like this.
|
|
|
Post by JediMartian on May 9, 2005 16:19:28 GMT
I wonder....... Can we petition George Lucas to do a faithful 1898 version? Sans the Jar Jar Binks, but better FX than what we've seen (or rather haven't) from Pendragon?
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on May 10, 2005 19:34:10 GMT
Only if we get someone else to write the screenplay. I do not trust the guy who wrote the Padme/Anakin love scenes in AOTC with WOTW. Even if ROTS turns out to be good, 1 out of 3 is not a good batting average... Actually, I can think of several directors I would choose before Lucas...Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson, among them.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on May 10, 2005 19:36:07 GMT
I also have to point out that even cutting Hines some slack on the SFX, the acting we have seen in the footage from his alleged film is terrible.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 10, 2005 21:46:44 GMT
I also have to point out that even cutting Hines some slack on the SFX, the acting we have seen in the footage from his alleged film is terrible. I think it's totally unfair to say all the acting was terrible and how can all the acting be judged by just a few seconds of film. The artilleryman when he says "it's you - the man from Woking" was definitely a bit of a thigh slapping pantomime moment but Anthony Piana delivered the line "it is the Thunderchild I believe" quite admirably.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on May 11, 2005 18:40:42 GMT
By definition a trailer is an extract from a film or programme used to advertise it, now if we choose to use the official definition of a trailer then we could, if we wanted to, presume that Tim Hines chose those clips on purpose to advertise his film, then we could also presume they were choice cuts or at worst standard cuts, they couldnt be examples of the worst acting because I cant believe Tim Hines would sabotage his own production, so we could logicaly presume that that acting is the standard and that its very possible it gets worse (even likely if they are select cuts for the purpose of a trailer with which you would advertise your film) so we can judge the acting for the whole film from those clips.
I think we can all admit that the acting is very very substandard, no amount of justification can cover the incompitance of the show pony actors and actresses but and I do have to say this, is there any point in debating this any more? Surely this horse is dead, why flog the corpse? Even if its suddenly released tomorrow its lost all credability even among the most die hard fans, Tim Hines might sell a few DVD's but to be honest his cause is lost.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 11, 2005 19:10:11 GMT
By definition a trailer is an extract from a film or programme used to advertise it, now if we choose to use the official definition of a trailer then we could, if we wanted to, presume that Tim Hines chose those clips on purpose to advertise his film, then we could also presume they were choice cuts or at worst standard cuts, they couldnt be examples of the worst acting because I cant believe Tim Hines would sabotage his own production, so we could logicaly presume that that acting is the standard and that its very possible it gets worse (even likely if they are select cuts for the purpose of a trailer with which you would advertise your film) so we can judge the acting for the whole film from those clips. I think we can all admit that the acting is very very substandard, no amount of justification can cover the incompitance of the show pony actors and actresses but and I do have to say this, is there any point in debating this any more? Surely this horse is dead, why flog the corpse? Even if its suddenly released tomorrow its lost all credability even among the most die hard fans, Tim Hines might sell a few DVD's but to be honest his cause is lost. If by some miracle we do see this film and it does by a miracle turn out to be good then it will gain respect and credibility amongst WOTW fans again. I think fans are willing to have a bit more flexibility than to just write something off totally like that. Again, the acting certainly isn't the best I've seen but it's by no means the worst [ apart from the artilleryman ]. The fact is we've seen tiny rough pieces of footage and we simply don't know what the rest of the film [ if it even exists ] is like. Take a look at Tom Cruises acting. He's average to ok in 1 or 2 films but in most films he overacts and he's become famous for his hearthrob image - not his acting. He might be world famous and worth a huge amount of money but he's a lightweight in the acting field and when you see him on screen - you just see Tom Cruise playing himself. That to me affects the credibility of Spielbergs film.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on May 11, 2005 20:41:46 GMT
If by some miracle we do see this film and it does by a miracle turn out to be good then it will gain respect and credibility amongst WOTW fans again. Thats a lot of 'if's', im no betting man but if I was I wouldnt put my lunch on it being good when it eventualy sees the light of day, which to be honest I think it will come out eventualy.
|
|
amber14
Full Member
Welsh Bunny
Posts: 72
|
Post by amber14 on May 11, 2005 20:44:38 GMT
I couldn't agree more. Tom Cruise is a terrible actor. I just don't get the appeal of him and that orange peel mouth just turns me off too. There is only one filum I've enjoyed him in and that is Legend!
Now if Tom Hanks or somebody of that calibre was doing schmucky Spielbergs effort then I might be tempted.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 11, 2005 21:02:36 GMT
I couldn't agree more. Tom Cruise is a terrible actor. I just don't get the appeal of him and that orange peel mouth just turns me off too. There is only one filum I've enjoyed him in and that is Legend! Now if Tom Hanks or somebody of that calibre was doing schmucky Spielbergs effort then I might be tempted. I think one of his worst films has to be Top Gun. God that film was so sh*te. Him and that Val Kilmer chewing gum, acting cool and just coming across as a right pair of arses. To think I even went along to the cinema with a couple of friends to see that when it came out - and sat right through it. AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on May 11, 2005 23:46:36 GMT
I couldn't agree more. Tom Cruise is a terrible actor. I just don't get the appeal of him and that orange peel mouth just turns me off too. There is only one filum I've enjoyed him in and that is Legend! Now if Tom Hanks or somebody of that calibre was doing schmucky Spielbergs effort then I might be tempted. No. Can't agree. Tom Cruise is a babe! He's enough for me to want to see the Speilberg version Zoe
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 11, 2005 23:51:19 GMT
I thought he did a pretty decent job in COLLATERAL.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 15, 2005 4:47:11 GMT
I doubt Tom Cruise will never be a Lawrence Olivier or a Spencer Tracy, but critics have given him high marks for his performances in "Collateral", "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Minority Report." I also thought he did a great job in "The Firm" and "Vanilla Sky". I think those who see Cruise as just a pretty face haven't seen the right movies.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on May 15, 2005 12:45:42 GMT
Tom Hanks has done some cheesy movies in his past (Batchelor Party, anyone?) and look how well respected he is now. The Cruiser was indeed good in 'Collateral' and I daresay he will pull of the part of 'Ray' just as well.
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on May 15, 2005 12:56:13 GMT
That was true in the 60s. Post 'Star Wars', it's debatable.
Look at 'Matrix', for example: the story was a joke, but it sold a lot of tickets and DVDs because it used new effects technologies that hadn't really been seen in movies before.
Equally take a look at the short films at film festivals sometime: shoot crap on 35mm film and you'll get in, shoot a good story on DV and you'll have a much harder time.
Of course there are plenty of movies with good effects and bad stories that don't sell.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 16, 2005 19:04:47 GMT
That was true in the 60s. Post 'Star Wars', it's debatable. Look at 'Matrix', for example: the story was a joke, but it sold a lot of tickets and DVDs because it used new effects technologies that hadn't really been seen in movies before. Equally take a look at the short films at film festivals sometime: shoot crap on 35mm film and you'll get in, shoot a good story on DV and you'll have a much harder time. Of course there are plenty of movies with good effects and bad stories that don't sell. I totally disagree with most of your points. The ideas in "Matrix" made it one of the most original movies ever made. Not that I think it took full advantage of its own ideas, and the film makers completely fell on their collective face in the sequels, but the original movie is deservedly a landmark. Digital, not film, is the wave of the future. I've heard that the film-fest crowd looks down its nose at anything not "real film", but that entrenched attitude is just foot dragging. It will change. And I don't agree that FX are more important post- Star Wars. It's just that the demographics of ticket buyers have shifted to a younger audience, which is more easily impressed with flash-bang, and isn't mature enuff to be care as much about what is a good story and what isn't. I'm not talking about what will sell tickets. I'm talking about what is required to make a great movie which will stand the test of time. Great story-telling is a requirement. Great FX is not. The FX on "The Wizard of Oz" are quite dated by today's standard, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the most popular movies with every new generation.
|
|