|
Post by Anthony on Jan 30, 2005 22:28:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Jan 30, 2005 22:30:47 GMT
Excellent!
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jan 30, 2005 22:33:06 GMT
Mr. Hines' version looks better IMO. This is very obvious some C&P from various scraps and pictures.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Jan 30, 2005 22:34:56 GMT
I think that version looks 10 time better. If Bigben got hit by the heat ray it would not break up into massive lego pieces like in the trailer.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Jan 30, 2005 23:12:01 GMT
Big ben would fall straight down into the street.
cough 911 footage cough...
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Jan 30, 2005 23:14:29 GMT
Lets make sure this thread doesn't turn into the terrorist guide to blowing up Big Ben. ;D
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Jan 30, 2005 23:19:40 GMT
thats a nice picture, but where is all that fire coming from? was there a stack of dynamite placed at the exact position where the heat ray struck?
concerning the 9/11 reference... those buildings fell downward because the supporting girders melted directly underneath the point where the towers were struck. did anyone notice all of the debris shooting outward for several hundreds of feet when the planes hit? the force of the impact caused sideward motion.
i remain fast with my belief that the superheated concrete with which big ben was constructed, caused a localized explosion and propelled big ben in the opposite direction from which the heat ray struck it. at least, i think this is a plausable explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Amasov on Jan 31, 2005 3:46:47 GMT
thats a nice picture, but where is all that fire coming from? was there a stack of dynamite placed at the exact position where the heat ray struck? concerning the 9/11 reference... those buildings fell downward because the supporting girders melted directly underneath the point where the towers were struck. did anyone notice all of the debris shooting outward for several hundreds of feet when the planes hit? the force of the impact caused sideward motion. i remain fast with my belief that the superheated concrete with which big ben was constructed, caused a localized explosion and propelled big ben in the opposite direction from which the heat ray struck it. at least, i think this is a plausable explanation. Sort of like this: www.vengeance-unlimited.org/WOTW/PEP.jpg
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Jan 31, 2005 3:57:00 GMT
similar principle... not exactly the same as what i had in mind, but if you can just apply that roughly to the big ben scene then you have it.
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Jan 31, 2005 12:19:55 GMT
It should atomise into shards and particulates which explode outwards in a roughly circular expansion. The main body of the tower would collapse down ward. There would be no floating. Structurally NOTHING could support a vast structure in air like this - that's why buildings have foundations.
Also Hines Big Ben is geographically incorrect - no amount of artistic licence can allow for such a misrepresentation.
Has no one ever seen footage of an old housing estates being demolished. Once you cut a section out all that's above crumbles and falls even if it is not directly destroyed by the 'beam/weapon' strike. We are dealing with stone here - as in the thing they make cathedrals out of. It's heavy and subject to gravity. It is not a unifed form - it is thousands of individual brick sections which would shatter under incredible heat. Anyone seen a furnace brick under pressure ? It cracks. Imagine a super heat wave that would hit instantly. We are talking physics here.
There would be tonnes of dust, the glass from the face would vulcanise, the metal hands would plasmate and there would be a general dissolution of form
Shards, blocks and lumps may arc out and splash into the thames but given the geographical location to the bridge it would not float and dump on top.
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Jan 31, 2005 12:28:49 GMT
malf - back to 911 - the section of the towers above where the plane sliced through any supporting structure in effect 'decapitating' the head above did not cause thedecapitated section to float across the city and into the hudson river...
This is their centerpiece effect - the shot of big ben under seige from Dragons alone is what accounted for the primary buzz regarding Reign Of Fire - so you'd think such an iconic image would get a better makeover than the cartoon rendering currently offered.
given that the Spielberg trailer clearly showed 'the hustle and bustle' of london - one wonders if HE will indeed show 'in montage' the destruction of various world cities and thus we may indeed see how Big Ben SHOULD explode. One can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Jan 31, 2005 12:37:21 GMT
Take a look at 'Mars Attacks!' ;D
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Jan 31, 2005 14:24:47 GMT
flyn, the wtc was a LOT bigger than big ben, with a hundred years of architectural experience gone into its construction. ok one more time and i promise i will shut up about this because i'm starting to sound like flynn the heat ray struck from one side. the SIDE, mind you. one side of big ben was superheated. a localized portion. the construciton materials, probably concrete, contain a lot of water. that water was superheated, which is a known, documented fact that happens to any solid material which contains a significant amout of water. the superheated water expanded violently, causing a localized explosion, which forcibly blew big ben in the opposite direction of the explosion. now, is that such a hard concept to accept? it doesn't mean its true, but it IS a logical explanation as to why everybody thinks that big ben is 'floating through the air' as if propelled by magic. there, i'm done, my explanation works, and i'm satisfied with it. you guys go on and debate about it
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Jan 31, 2005 15:32:32 GMT
Take a look at 'Mars Attacks!' ;D Or 'The Avengers' (which i note is a bad film). There is a lot of fire in that. Also the big laser thing on Independence day destroyed empire state building, its gets blown to s**t.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jan 31, 2005 16:46:32 GMT
What, Im not buying that?, you must be joking, look at it, not right, not right at all. . . . The clock is 2 minutes fast!.
H_C
On another note, H.G describes the Heat Ray as a 'invisible sword of heat' , as seen in the PP trailor, Beg Ben mearly gets 'sliced' into pieces.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jan 31, 2005 16:49:08 GMT
I think we need to call the mythbuster team from the discovery channel so they can create a special program to answer the quesion "Will Big Ben float across the Thames if hit with a Martian Heatray?" ;D
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 31, 2005 18:41:48 GMT
Horsal: I dont think Wells actualy meant an actual blade when he made the reference to sword, its just a more dramatic word for weapon.
Malf: Sorry dude, your exploding water theory just doesnt hold water (forgive the pun). The super heated steam from your trapped water expands to thousands of times the volume of the water in the stone/concrete, it suddenly needs space in which to exist so forces its way through the weaker parts of the stone/concrete shattering brick and mortar sending pieces this way and that. The weaker parts of the structure would be the morter between the bricks and the load bearing strutts made of stone. You wouldnt have that much water and what you did have probably wouldnt be noticed as it would be internal anyway but the first thing to go would the very stuff holding up your building, or in this case Big Ben. Although super heated steam can cause damage and shatter stone, it would only weaken the structure so it would not convey anywhere near the energy needed to (A) keep hundreds of tons of stone and iron (remember that in the head of Big Ben lies the machinery for the clock, huge iron cogs) and (B) by its very nature it would weaken a structure rather that hold it together so after the main structure was smashed by the heatray the 'head' of Big Ben being devoid of the energy needed to carry that much weight hundreds of feet and having no structural integrity to hold it all together it would simply crumble or explode and gravity would pull it all down to earth.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Jan 31, 2005 18:54:57 GMT
If memory isn't failing just yet, no where in the book does it mention that the martians blow big ben to nuts anyway. It mearly says that the machines appeared beyond the clock tower (Chapter Exodus from London)
Perhapse it should be changed altogether to show the martians destroying the dome of St Pauls since in the final chapters wells mentions that it has a gaping hole in it.
Anyone remember the first Mini adventure advert... ;D
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 31, 2005 19:06:32 GMT
Yeah, those little tripods were actualy very well done.
I understand adding more dramatic scenes to the book, in some cases it has to be done, but the point is if your going to add scenes you do it to make the viewing experiance more enjoyable and you have to do it well.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Jan 31, 2005 20:50:35 GMT
Lol, how many posts do i need to get 4 stars ;D?
|
|