|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 5, 2005 13:26:22 GMT
So the original plan was to do away with the screw? apparently so. The rest of the ORIGINAL storyboard made the cylinder more like an egg being cracked open.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 5, 2005 16:19:56 GMT
Anyone know if they are using the screw in the "faithful" version?
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 5, 2005 18:16:43 GMT
Anyone know if they are using the screw in the "faithful" version? Does this suggest something. The Concept art for the house is Copyright 2005 so this is for the 'Faithful' version. The Story board is copyright 2001. so its the old plan. But notice the cylinders in both. Tho in the concept art its a big black blob, it suggests the same structure as the storyboard. Hmmmmm.............altho they do change ideas in production.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 5, 2005 19:31:02 GMT
I see motile has blessed us with his pearls of wisdom ... Mottie what the hell do you want ..the HM to turn up on your front door, and ask if you want to go for a beer and a kebab and then put him up for the night cos he ain't got no change for a cab, and then maybe breakfast in the morning, then maybe a trip to see his big FM brother and mum and dad , all in glorious technicolor . I think the film is coming on so there Mr Negative
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 5, 2005 19:43:57 GMT
Available now! New World Domination kit, only £99.99 from Argos. 'World Domination Kit' - that's seriously hilarious!!!! (Manufacturer's warning: may experience technical difficulties in certain planetary atmospheres. Batteries sold separately. Do not use in enclosed areas. Keep heat-ray and black smoke away from small children. If you experience side-effects, like headache, nausea, hives, or putrefactive disease, discontinue use immediately and call a physician. Within continental Martian landscape, call 1-800-RED-WEED for customer service).
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 5, 2005 20:51:03 GMT
Again we have all the detractors steaming in saying the house model is crap...
Well ...in ID4 did the filmmakers actually use
The Empire state building and blow it up....if so why is it still there...did they rebuild it???
Actual F18's ...Did they actually destroy a fleet of americas front line aircraft
In Starwars ...Were did the filmakers get there hands on X wings and he deathstar ...were they hidden in area 51 , (was the Deathstar built by the Japs in orbit and then allowed the filmakers to blow it up!!!!
***BREAKING NEWS*** They were models ... DOH, or didn't you know that
The Battlestar Galactica in the film was made up from model kits...
Now even a 5ft model of a battlestar is not that impressive plonked on a table by itself.
Jeez some people are determined to pick holes in anything relating to this film
Even Sir we are not worthy to be living on the same planet as you Speilberg probably has to use the odd model...like in Close Encounters.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 5, 2005 21:51:53 GMT
What bout LOTR? I thought all they did was pick up a camera and film those big places. (< extremely bad sarcasm ;D)
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Feb 6, 2005 0:28:50 GMT
Though stil self-preservingly cynical about Pendragon's chances (a general defense mechanism since Phantom Menace) I have to say in their defense...
A model depends a lot on how you light it. The house has enough detail to look pretty realistic in a cleverly lit shot. And if you notice the green board around it isn't just a 'grassy' effect, it's the greenscreen colour to composite action onto it. The house may work quite well, especially if they're careful with the shaped charges in the explosive effects.
Douglas Trumbull and friends, and not ILM, did the effects for Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and they did use models. (Only thing available at the time) It's a testament to Trumbull's genius that he got such results with an SFX department of a dozen people and without computer graphics. I still think that 2001 looks better in effects than modern day space stuff, another masterpiece of his. (Blade Runner looks fab too with models too. Look closely and you can spot the Millenium Falcon made into a skyscraper)
Models are used more often in films than you'd expect. Though CGI has become amazing (and I think, artistically, that ZOIC studies as well as WETA are at the top of their game) some realistic shots still need models for weight and presence.
Now back to the Paramount boards for me, for more general cheerleading in a 'putting my heart on the line' kind of way.
Pete
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 6, 2005 0:33:19 GMT
The house is delibertyly designed the way it is so that the camera crew and the lighting crew can get the right impression on film when all is said and done. Small scale models rewuier much more detail than in real life, becasue of scale, which is why the house, in proper lighting, looks the way it does. Belive me, it won't even look like a model house when it's finished.
Now enough with the lego house jokes, it's not constructive is it?
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 6, 2005 0:54:11 GMT
Now enough with the lego house jokes, it's not constructive is it? Actually, Lego IS constructive... (just thought to make this joke before all you synics will do). But I agree with you, Ash. I'm fed up with all this slamming of Mr. Hines project. -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Feb 6, 2005 0:58:45 GMT
Actually, Lego IS constructive... (just thought to make this joke before all you synics will do). But I agree with you, Ash. I'm fed up with all this slamming of Mr. Hines project. -Gnorn "Me too Gnorn, until at least the big official trailer and the film comes out, then I'll sharpen my critical knives," - Me, an avowed huge anticpatory fan of Spielberg's effort. Pete
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 6, 2005 1:09:39 GMT
Agreed, I will base my opinion on Mr. Hines' movie on the movie itself. Not on any production-stills or what have you. The movie itself.
It is cheap and easy to tear down Mr. Hines' efforts on the basis of some production shots, acting snippets, and pre-rendered FX.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 6, 2005 5:55:14 GMT
Again we have all the detractors steaming in saying the house model is crap... Well ...in ID4 did the filmmakers actually use The Empire state building and blow it up....if so why is it still there...did they rebuild it??? Actual F18's ...Did they actually destroy a fleet of americas front line aircraft In Starwars ...Were did the filmakers get there hands on X wings and he deathstar ...were they hidden in area 51 , (was the Deathstar built by the Japs in orbit and then allowed the filmakers to blow it up!!!! ***BREAKING NEWS*** They were models ... DOH, or didn't you know that The Battlestar Galactica in the film was made up from model kits... Now even a 5ft model of a battlestar is not that impressive plonked on a table by itself. Jeez some people are determined to pick holes in anything relating to this film Even Sir we are not worthy to be living on the same planet as you Speilberg probably has to use the odd model...like in Close Encounters. Holy model kit batman! Tom I dont know were to start with this particular rant, it seems to be nosensical ravings and doesnt realy have any relevence. Firstly who said models where wrong? Not me and nobody else to my mind so I dont get your point, so desperate were you to counter my points with a pro Hines rant you seemed to go off the rails in a big way. My point is that you can see where the house will break up, they may fix this but when you get to see this endevour you will see the house break up and you will know what I mean when its in 16 big pieces but thats academic at this point. Secondly who mentioned Spielberg, you seem to have a thorn in your butt about him Tom YOU keep bringing him up. I have tried to bring up some good points and also to inspire conversation about this project other than "wait and see" thats just boring, theres questions people havent asked, im asking them, like the screw on the cylinder, it looks like there isnt one. Its funny, I havent told any lies about Hines or Pendragon but I get the impression you dont want to hear the truth but rather you fancy a little fantasy world where everything is OK and you can skip around in ignorant bliss. Im not judging the movie but rather the material seen so far. The "Official Theatrical Trailer" was a FINISHED product, Hines has never said it was unfinished, in fact to say it was unfinished would be calling Hines a lier as he said it was finished. This film has a lot of you stoked because (and rightly so) its war of the worlds but none of you seem to asking where is it? I mean its out next month but where? As we speak it exists on only two web sites (PP's & howstuffworks) it is not listed as coming soon anywhere, it is not advertised in movie magazines anywhere. Ifthe Pendragon website vanished over night this project would cease to exist as far as the world was concerned. Also Tom I would apreciate it if you would stop making it personal between us, I pick fault with PP you attack me personaly by name. Its a rubbish cycle and its boring. If you disagree counter with inteligent points like the others do. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 6, 2005 12:00:58 GMT
I actually agree with motile there.
Ive seen nothing bout the PP WOTW in any mags, do search and it hits the usual spot or its old news. I never expected Hines movie to be the best it can be but I did expect to at least see it.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 6, 2005 12:44:46 GMT
Its crazy, if you read any of the 2001 articles about the first WotW version it all sounds so promissing, they went out and filmed actual forrest fires for the heat ray destruction shots and had an ace SFX team on the books to do all the compositing and animation. What happened? The release date for Chrome was 2003, it never came, the Chrome stuff on the website hasnt been updated for over a year.
It sounds to me like the company hit a bad patch some time in 2003 that had a knock on effect with WotW.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 6, 2005 13:06:43 GMT
NONSENSICAL RANT EH MOTILE!!! All YOU have done is slag this film off at every attempt ...you badmouth every piece of footage and pictures that are shown.. it is you that is spouting nonsense ... YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE BLOODY FILM and all you can do is spout it's crap it's crap blah blah blah jeez isn't there anything positive you can say eh... is is that too below you...make you sound like a hippocrite perhaps.. The rant was to explain to you THAT MODELS CAN LOOK CRAP out of context.... and filmakers do use models .. Idiot ...grow up and chill out , again i shall reapeat for the umpteeth time .. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN DON'T GO AND SEE THE FILM OK... stop spoiling the threads with your crappy negative views... and stop trying to dress them up as "constructive disagreement" as it doesn,t wash say something positive for once
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 6, 2005 13:49:05 GMT
I actually agree with motile there. Ive seen nothing bout the PP WOTW in any mags, do search and it hits the usual spot or its old news. I never expected Hines movie to be the best it can be but I did expect to at least see it. I have read it in cult times, SFX, and another sci-fi mag the name of which tempoarly escapes me (duh, I'm so tired). All of which have given Hines a fair deal of publicity. Indeed, the SFX article gave him a whole page, and SFX being the biggest sci-fi magazine to date, thats no small feet. Suggestion, go to WH Smiths once in a while ^-^
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 6, 2005 13:52:19 GMT
it had a big article in DreamWatche Mag. (can't remeber which issue like, but i know it was there)
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 6, 2005 14:04:49 GMT
Ashe ... come on .. obviously Pendragon haven't featured in "The Muppets BIG BOOK of the War of the Worlds" thats why certain people haven't seen any of the writeups!!!
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 6, 2005 14:59:34 GMT
My point is that you can see where the house will break up, they may fix this but when you get to see this endevour you will see the house break up and you will know what I mean when its in 16 big pieces but thats academic at this point. you continue to ignore my explanations. how do you know that the place where the mortar is darker is where the pieces of the house are joined together? of course, if it were a real house, i would say... nice observation! mortar after all does hold individual pieces together. however, that look is very common on cracked, repaired mortar. as i told you before, we have that same look in the warehouse where i work. but because you are so anti-hines, you insist on assuming thats where the 'big lego pieces' go together. tell me... how do you know this? just skeptical assumption on your part? or maybe you bought that actual model and have built it yourself? please instead of just whining and moaning about it, tell us how you KNOW that the house is made of 16 pieces. in fact, how does anyone know that this house is going to come apart? what if hines uses a cg house to render the scene where its being hit by a cylinder? everybody is assuming a lot with the hines project, especially motile, and its with a bias against it usually.
|
|