|
Post by themotile on Feb 19, 2005 22:27:44 GMT
;D Errr, no. They were Californian hippies. They were talented Californian hippies
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 20, 2005 8:51:32 GMT
Topaz:
Pardon for the delay in replying. I couldn't post and thought there was a glitch on the boards; just realized resetting my computer to reject cookies was the problem.
Oh, *now* I see why you said it was an actor pretending to use the computer in that picture. The caption for the picture clearly says it's an actor. And that means that yes, absolutely that was a staged publicity shot. The caption also suggests that the ship being CGI rendered is indeed the _Thunderchild_.
Someone else asked why they would stage a behind-the-scenes shot. Publicity for FX-heavy movies often feature behind-the-scenes shots these days. Extended promo trailers are often filled out with behind-the-scenes videos. I guess the short answer is: Because they think it will generate interest in the film, just like any other form of publicity.
A follow-up question might be: Why did they cram so much into one shot? Why didn't they release a bunch of shots, showing model work, computer redering, and actors? This is just a guess, but my guess is that Pendragon's profile is so low that they can't hope for a photo "spread" in magazines or on websites. So they created a sort of composite picture in the hope that this one photo might get placed where people will see it.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 20, 2005 12:46:12 GMT
Which worked didn't it
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 20, 2005 13:17:41 GMT
It might have worked better if it didnt look so cheap and shoddy, it was seen through instantly and gave the impression of a small amature operation.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 20, 2005 13:24:10 GMT
True I agree with you there Motile ... i does LOOK shoddy , Pendragon really are not doing themselves any favours ... but
It is a small amature operation but they should have posted pictures which does not portray them as such, this they didn't do.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 20, 2005 15:20:46 GMT
True I agree with you there Motile ... i does LOOK shoddy , Pendragon really are not doing themselves any favours ... but It is a small amature operation but they should have posted pictures which does not portray them as such, this they didn't do. I wouldn't call $43 million, amature!
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 20, 2005 15:23:02 GMT
;D Errr, no. They were Californian hippies. Thats why I only asked rather than stated but I'm sure Goerge Lucas had run with students for a fresher outlook on film FX.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 20, 2005 15:25:57 GMT
I wouldn't call $43 million, amature! But at the same time, considering what movies these days cost it ain't exactly big bucks either.
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Feb 20, 2005 17:31:44 GMT
I wouldn't call $43 million, amature! Amateurs with $43 million dollars are still amateurs.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 20, 2005 17:35:49 GMT
Amateurs with $43 million dollars are still amateurs. So its not the amount thats problematic but the people who use it. Ah, now i see.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 20, 2005 19:09:59 GMT
$43 million is loads if you arnt wasting $20 million on big name stars or some massive publicity camaign costing millions and your not even paying an editor.
Im sure before you start a multi million dollar project you avtualy plan how your going to spend the money and if it isnt enough then you either adapt, ask for more or bin the project, so money doesnt come into the finished project, its all down to talent.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 20, 2005 19:27:28 GMT
A follow-up question might be: Why did they cram so much into one shot? Why didn't they release a bunch of shots, showing model work, computer redering, and actors? This is just a guess, but my guess is that Pendragon's profile is so low that they can't hope for a photo "spread" in magazines or on websites. So they created a sort of composite picture in the hope that this one photo might get placed where people will see it. Yep, expediency über alle. No doubt they were trying for maximum effect from minimum release. I always use the 'TV wall' analogy with my new brochure clients: They always want to cram everything possible into the brochure. I implore them to pick several 'best' and 'most representative' pieces instead. I relate to them how when you go into an electronics store and you see the 'wall of TV's on display, how much more attention do you pay to each different image when only a few sets are turned on, versus the way your attention ISN'T grabbed by any of them when they're all turned on. Staging the photo like this made for maxium impact for the one shot, but I personally feel it was over-done: Now it's quite obvious that the shot was staged, even to someone not in the movie industry.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 20, 2005 19:30:20 GMT
Thats why I only asked rather than stated but I'm sure Goerge Lucas had run with students for a fresher outlook on film FX. As I recall the 'founding' computer operators at ILM were largely students - nobody else was doing that kind of stuff at the time! The SFx studio for Star Wars Ep IV was in California, and ILM still is. I understand most of the sound-stage work was done in the UK for that movie.
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Feb 24, 2005 11:39:31 GMT
Topaz:
Yes it was, the soundstage was at pinewood, which is where all the other star wars films (right up to episode 3 this year) were filmed.
Slick2097
|
|