|
Post by Rob on Feb 6, 2005 22:32:30 GMT
back on topic please
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 6, 2005 23:10:19 GMT
So , I assume if that is an actual piccie of the Thunderchild,
It is going to be a rather funky ship ,BUT I think the Titanic was a model in the film and that looked pretty good (feel free to correct me), would it have been better to maybe go that route for the T,child, or can it be pulled off by CGI alone or are they going for a mix.
If the FM are models I assume a mix
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Feb 7, 2005 9:34:19 GMT
Just because PP's people decide to depict a TBD doesn't make the 'Thunder Child' a TBD - nyah nyah nyah!!! I still maintain Wells's ship is entirely fictitious, a Mk II 'Polyphemus', for all the reasons I go into elsewhere. In any case, I like the old TBDs, so I don't have any objections, it's just that that doesn't mean they're right, that's all. ;D
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 7, 2005 12:22:29 GMT
Ofcourse Wells thunder child was fictitious, they didnt have mass media or the internet with which to research these things and the Navy was only just turning to metal, in fact the first boats were wood with an iron outer hull for armour. wells my not have known the exact type of boat was in his imagination hence the title "iron clad" which was what they called those ships at the time, and to honest sounds more dramatic than TBD.
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Feb 7, 2005 13:17:00 GMT
Ofcourse Wells thunder child was fictitious, they didnt have mass media or the internet with which to research these things and the Navy was only just turning to metal, in fact the first boats were wood with an iron outer hull for armour. wells my not have known the exact type of boat was in his imagination hence the title "iron clad" which was what they called those ships at the time, and to honest sounds more dramatic than TBD. I’d agree with you there about possible uncertainty in Wells’s mind and his desire for a more dramatic vessel than a destroyer. However, I would throw in these caveats… Wells was keenly interested in military affairs (he was, after all, an avid war-gamer), and whilst I’ve criticised him elsewhere for clinging to out of date terminology (referring to dreadnoughts as ironclads as late as 1907!), he certainly knew the differences between warship types. He quite distinctly differentiates between torpedo boats and destroyers in, I think, ‘What happened in Surrey’, and the heavy unit ‘Thunder Child’. I say ‘heavy unit’ as clearly the description is of a fairly substantial but also, crucially, fast vessel. Now, the problem was that ironclad rams (which were small second class ironclads intended both for coastal and harbour defence, and thus more likely to be found loitering alone where ‘Thunder Child’ was) were slow, whereas the TBDs were fast, but rather insubstantial (and unarmoured, hence not in any way ‘ironclads’). Therefore, I think he decided to create a fictitious hybrid vessel, an enlarged ‘Polyphemus’, a warship heavy enough to have presence but fast enough for maximum drama. Also, whilst the Victorians may not have had the sheer media saturation we enjoy/suffer today, they still lived in an information rich environment. Thanks to mass education, most people could read and there was a thriving press to take advantage of this – newspapers, both highbrow and lowbrow, magazines, pamphlets, penny dreadfuls, the works. Naval, and military, affairs were constantly reported both in mainstream papers, such as the ‘Illustrated London News’, and more specialised, but still by no means niche, publications such as ‘Navy & Army Illustrated’. Finally, just to be relentlessly anal, although you’re correct that the first ironclads were wooden vessels sheathed with iron armour (although the British built all-iron armoured vessels right from the start) the last ones of that type had been built in the 1860s. By 1897 the Royal Navy had long been working with iron and steel, and had pretty much worked through the experimental phase of its technological revolution, having settled on sophisticated steel battleships which followed a more or less standard pattern until HMS ‘Dreadnought’ in 1906. BTW, I have a copy of the open book sat by the monitor with the wireframe 'Thunder Child' on the screen, it's 'The First Destroyers - The Turtleback TBDs of the 1890s' by David Lyon. There are some excellent scale drawings and elevations of various vessels, drawn by John Roberts (superb draughtsman). If the Pendragon CGI people use those as a basis, at least they'll have an accurate 1890s warship (unlike in 'Pearl Necklace' - sorry, 'Pearl Harbour' - which had 1980s warships being 'bombed' with pyrotechnics - shudder...).
|
|
syrtismajor
Full Member
Heat rays are for wimps, all hail the egg whisk!
Posts: 87
|
Post by syrtismajor on Feb 12, 2005 12:45:00 GMT
hehehe, I just bought the book that in the photograph. It shows a TBD 'Lynx' from 1897 (it's on page 99 of 'The first destroyers' by David Lyon if anyones interested). Wells' text is a bit funny about the Thunderchild. He calls it an Ironclad but describes it moving at great speed. He calls it a torpedo ram but describes it firing it's cannons. All this contradicts itself as if he was describing a hybrid of a pre-drednaught battleship (such as the Canopus or Formidable class with their 12 inch cannons) and TBD such as the one in the book and the picture from Pendragon. That is one heck of a hybrid. Even imagining the HMS Polyphemus with cannons and two funnels (mkII as people seem to like calling it ;D) still doesn't (to me at least) fit the description of how it could have enough power to cut down a Fighting machine. Also, any extra arnament severely weighs down a ship slowing it considerably (at the time at least) basically turning it into a slow battleship. Whatever Wells was trying to describe seems like nothing that really existed when the book was written. The only ways it can be shown is either as a super fast battleship or a heavily armed TBD, both contradictions in their own right. It seems that Pendragon have gone with a TBD, whether it is armed to the teeth with cannons is yet to be seen. Anyway, how it is shown in the film doesn't bother me at all! A TBD certainly looks the part, as much as a pre-dreadnaught monster would.
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Feb 14, 2005 10:17:19 GMT
You’ve hit the nail on the head, Syrtismajor – the ‘Thunder Child’ is a contradictory vessel, although a bigger, more heavily armed successor was mooted (not that Wells necessarily knew about that, anyway); and the guns wouldn’t have to be that big to destroy the Martian machines (the army at Shepperton would have used standard field pieces, so they wouldn’t have been much bigger than 12 or 15 pounders). From the look of the wireframe on the screen, Pendragon are going for a standard 1890s turtledeck TBD, and they were armed with 12 pounders, so that ought to do the job. And one of those steaming full pelt at the Martians certainly will look the part!
To digress completely from WotW, the torpedo ram concept was briefly resurrected by the US and Russian navies around 1908 and 1912 respectively. The USN study didn’t get far, but the Russians actually designed (but didn’t order) a battleship-sized cruiser protected with incredibly thick armour (getting on for 50% thicker than contemporary dreadnoughts’) and equipped with 84(!) underwater torpedo tubes, 42 on each side. Great looking ship, though I don’t think I’d want to have been on one in a battle (they were supposed to escort squadrons of dreadnoughts, and then charge the enemy head on, swerve around, fire off a broadside of torpedoes, and charge off, hopefully not getting shot to bug*gery in the process…).
|
|
|
Post by Gerkinman on Feb 14, 2005 10:55:02 GMT
thats not a thunder child, thats a bunch of nerds making a 3D thunderchild. what a misleading topic name >=(
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 14, 2005 14:16:56 GMT
gerkin, do you ever have anything constructive, or at least debate worthy to say? all you ever post is childish crap. at least from what i've seen
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 15:55:21 GMT
Hang on malfy he does have a point, just because its hidden in humour, after all he didnt call YOU a nerd did he, dont take it so personal.
Its is a missleading title for a thread to have as pendragon did not release an image of the thunder child, its a bloke on a tatty computer with a simple wire frame of a boat, it might as well be on an etch-a-sketch its that simple.
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 14, 2005 16:16:46 GMT
man who crapped in everyones cheerios this year
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 14, 2005 19:53:17 GMT
No, it is not a misleading title - as Pendragon are working on WOTW and as the VDU in the piccie shows a ship one has to assume that it is one of the two main ships in the film/book ie The steamer or the thunderchild.....as I don't think steamers were armed with 12 pounder guns ( unless the captain was a paramilitary ex TBD dude ;D ;D , I assume therefore it is a design for the thunderchild. Now it may be crude...but I assume the need to refine the finished ship graphics as with most computer generated images .
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 21:23:14 GMT
Now it may be crude...but I assume the need to refine the finished ship graphics as with most computer generated images . Yeah like....erm......BigBen!
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 14, 2005 21:25:27 GMT
Erm yes ...exactly like big ben!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 21:52:02 GMT
Only Big Ben was finished, that didnt turn out too well did it.
You have one guy at a computer with a simple wire frame of a ship, hes using a picture in a book for reference, now thats all well and good but its not very impressive is it? Thats not even pre vis, its just some lines and a couple of circles on the screen.
So lets say they give it the treatment and it comes out the same quality as Big Ben, will that not detract from the story in any way?
|
|
syrtismajor
Full Member
Heat rays are for wimps, all hail the egg whisk!
Posts: 87
|
Post by syrtismajor on Feb 14, 2005 22:00:30 GMT
'So lets say they give it the treatment and it comes out the same quality as Big Ben, will that not detract from the story in any way? '
The same way the effects in the 1953 film detract from the story when watched today? Personally the effects don't bother me that much, I've seen much worse in low budget films. CGI shots bother me when it's they're 'supposed' to be good so most of the film revolves around them, but is actually crap (ie The last two star wars films). When it's someone with a small budget trying their best I try so see what they tried to do and appreciate the effort. (T Hines 'state of the art special effects' comment being ignored here and just thinking of the crew who are working for him)
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 14, 2005 23:53:09 GMT
' The same way the effects in the 1953 film detract from the story when watched today? Personally the effects don't bother me that much, I've seen much worse in low budget films. CGI shots bother me when it's they're 'supposed' to be good so most of the film revolves around them, but is actually crap (ie The last two star wars films). When it's someone with a small budget trying their best I try so see what they tried to do and appreciate the effort. (T Hines 'state of the art special effects' comment being ignored here and just thinking of the crew who are working for him) Just for support, I must say that I largely agree with you on these points (for whatever that's worth!). Best, Quaderni
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 15, 2005 6:35:40 GMT
So , I assume if that is an actual piccie of the Thunderchild, It is going to be a rather funky ship ,BUT I think the Titanic was a model in the film and that looked pretty good Actually there was at least one model of the _Titanic_ built for that film. Dunno how much CGI they used. For instance, the "beauty shot" which shows the ship from overhead, with the POV "flying" from bow to stern, was a model with CGI "people" inserted. ~~~~~~~~~ People here are *assuming* the CGI screen shot is the _Thunder Child_. But we don't *know* that it is. The _Thunder Child_ was described as being very fast, which would fit a small, speedy torpedo boat, but was also described as having guns large enough to smash a fishing smack to splinters with a single shot, and massive enough to leave other ships rocking in its wake. There isn't anything "in period" which would fit both descriptions. If Pendragon has indeed chosen to make the _Thunder Child_ a small torpedo destroyer, then that's at least as good an interpretation as a massive warship. Re Motile: He's just a troll. Why else would anyone who claims to hate the subject of these threads so intensely, spend so much time posting here? What trolls want is to upset people and get them to respond to their rants. If we can all just ignore him, he'll eventually go away. I know that will be hard, but that's the only real solution unless someone in authority is willing to ban him.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 15, 2005 6:40:22 GMT
Oh, and I hope no one *seriously* thinks that shot of the torpedo destroyer's bow on the computer screen is a finished CGI shot. Look at any "making of" film showing the development of CGI models. This one is in monochrome with no surface texturing, color or lighting. Calling it a "wire frame" is inaccurate, it's past that and in the polygon stage, but it's very far from a finished shot.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 15, 2005 6:54:06 GMT
It's such an obviously staged publicity shot. My personal theory is that this is a screen grab put up onto some secretary's machine, and then pressed into service because it was the only one on a wheeled desk that allowed it to be rolled into the green room for the shot! ;D
I think you're probably right that what's on that screen was not the current, finished CG model of the ThunderChild. It may have been the TC, but I'd guess they'd put up an early model (and obviously without texture and bump shaders) so as not to 'give away' the final product.
Every time I've seen a publicity shot involving CG, it's always turned out to be an early model.
It's going to be interesting to see how the final product turns out, whatever it is!
|
|