|
Post by themotile on Feb 3, 2005 17:19:30 GMT
If the handling machine is the same could the martian be the same?
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 3, 2005 17:26:58 GMT
Ithink they ditched that
though in the light it looks rather menacing. Isn't that the scene from the house where the martian peers through the window?
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 3, 2005 17:37:37 GMT
Its from the first version set in Seattle W so it could be anything, just like if we were given a similar pic from SS we couldnt tell what scene it was from as we dont know what scenes are in the movie.
If they kept the HM design and the legs of the tripod are the same as the concept art for the first version then wouldnt it make sense to keep the martian too as it would save money in CG shots.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 3, 2005 17:43:37 GMT
Probably
I've always looked at the Martians as brains, with the comlex machines being their bodies, created to adapt to their needs.
The tenticals could be a form of intergration into the body as it were, like a brain stem.
Course this is all conjecture and theory, guess we won't know what Hines's final vision is till we see it. Everyone has a different idea.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 3, 2005 17:53:37 GMT
Certainly confirms my exo skeleton theory to this movie, assuming this is what he sticks with
|
|
|
Post by twistedrabbit on Feb 3, 2005 19:08:55 GMT
The leg's aren't the same. Look closely...barely a match. Though the heatray is the same...I guess there's really no way to know for sure what they look like.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 3, 2005 19:15:19 GMT
Although Hines said they had approached the design of the FM from the view point of the Victorian era so its highly fiesable that the concept art is the machine but with slight changes.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 4, 2005 0:23:09 GMT
the legs of the two designs are similar... especially around the foot area, but not exactly the same. and as for that early martian footage... i don't like that martian design at all. it looks too much like a bug. or 'the fly'.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 11:24:02 GMT
The finished product never looks exactly like concept designs because when you try it the idea may not work, I dont like the concept art as its messy and stylised with no scale and the worst heatray ive ever seen so it makes sense that they would choose to change designs. The tripod feet are still 'hoof' like and they kept that dire heat ray, which seems to be a theam in the PP martian technology as the electro bondage scene has the same squigle effect holding the woman -(I wonder will we get a different scream to the fake scream in the trailer?)-. Is that the woman from the music hall? After watching the "finished theatrical trailer" 17 times so far I am starting to think its the same woman, if it is -(im not saying it is at all, it just looks like it is)- then its not a dream sequence and its not in the book so what extra scene could have been added and why?
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 4, 2005 14:31:02 GMT
but motile, according to the infinitely cheesy physics and effects of PP, it would fit right in if it was a dream sequence. i would think that you would be the first to notice this. no no, no need to thank me
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 14:43:37 GMT
Yeah im not disputing that its just that its supposed to be authentic adaptation of the book and the dream sequence was the narrators wife, but that writhing electro bondage woman isnt the narrators wife from the first teaser so realy apart from the tripod legs and a vague reference to a music hall plus a couple of snipets of the actors and the narrator shouting for every one to get into the water, what else from the book is in the official theatrical trailer? The two most effects laiden bits are not in the book.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 4, 2005 15:07:59 GMT
I heard recently that the screaming woman scene was indeed in the original novel, but removed due to the Victorian values of that era.
Can anyone expand further on this (like, is it true for starters!)? Does anyone know if Hines had access to any of Wells' original notes and excised material - and can old Joe Bloggs get hold of it?
The tripod sequence is definately in the book, and could be one of several confrontations mentioned in the countryside, or even Horsell Common. Aapart from the Big Ben sequence (and the WW1/2 bits), every other element is in the book (the music hall bit is probably the initial introduction of the writers brother going about his business as normal, until the sketchy news from Horsell Common reaches him).
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 15:16:07 GMT
No thats not true at all, the only reference to a captured human is the lad who gets killed while the narrator watches and the hypothesising of the artileryman about the fate of man under the martians. Nothing like that was cut out, however there was a different ending Wells himself changed after the first edition, where the narrator goes with explosives to take on a martian in a suicide run but only to find the martians dead or dying.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 4, 2005 19:00:07 GMT
I heard recently that the screaming woman scene was indeed in the original novel, but removed due to the Victorian values of that era. Can anyone expand further on this (like, is it true for starters!)? Does anyone know if Hines had access to any of Wells' original notes and excised material - and can old Joe Bloggs get hold of it? The tripod sequence is definately in the book, and could be one of several confrontations mentioned in the countryside, or even Horsell Common. Aapart from the Big Ben sequence (and the WW1/2 bits), every other element is in the book (the music hall bit is probably the initial introduction of the writers brother going about his business as normal, until the sketchy news from Horsell Common reaches him). Thats an interesting theory and considering everyones JOKING reference to porn with that scene it would not suprise me one bit that the victorean editors would have thought it to erotic for printing. However true or not if I was creating a faithful adaptation I would not be adding deleted scenes. Motile, the dynamite ending you mentioned, wasn't from a previous script planned in the nineties for a TV mini series?
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 4, 2005 19:01:13 GMT
That martians awful. Not enough tentacles and too thick. It cant be the martians for the new film. And Id swear it has a crown on!!!
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 19:53:32 GMT
Thats an interesting theory and considering everyones JOKING reference to porn with that scene it would not suprise me one bit that the victorean editors would have thought it to erotic for printing. However true or not if I was creating a faithful adaptation I would not be adding deleted scenes. Motile, the dynamite ending you mentioned, wasn't from a previous script planned in the nineties for a TV mini series? No it was edited out by H G himself, its true honest.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 4, 2005 20:32:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 4, 2005 20:45:02 GMT
I did prefer them to that one.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 4, 2005 23:44:54 GMT
The two most effects laiden bits are not in the book. it doesn't surprise me that liberties have been taken with the special effects scenes. so what? you have to expect that, as long as they don't stray from the story... add a new character like beth, or combine the narrator and his brother into one character, or turn the tripods into flying saucers, then why worry about it? it is my opinion that the scene with the woman getting zapped is the view from underneat the house. so wells didn't describe that happening EXACTLY like that... he did say that the curate saw something that really freaked him out, but it didn't say what. what if what we're seeing is what the curate saw? its not a big deal really. it can be explained as still being faithful to the book, unless you just WANT to nitpick it to death
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 4, 2005 23:56:19 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]I thought that the text implyed that more than one exsanguination was witnessed? [/glow]
|
|