|
Post by HTT on Feb 4, 2005 14:15:12 GMT
I notice that what is believed to be the Heat Ray in the trailers is surrounded by green electricity, and the commonly held belief is that the heat ray is invisible. This isn't entirely correct. The first three references to the heat ray describe 3 puffs of smoke, a droning noise, then: "...the ghost of a beam of light seemed to flicker out from it." "...and the flashes of flame." "...a complicated metallic case, about which GREEN FLASHES SCINTILLATED, and out of the funnel of this there SMOKED the Heat-Ray." So, it looks like Hines has got it more or less spot on!!
Now comes the Easter Egg challenge! Hines said he found some buried details in the text that may surprise us: Let's try and get a list together of what these could be!! So, bury your heads in the books and start hunting (and refresh our memories as to what to expect!)
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 4, 2005 14:22:21 GMT
nice observations, but i'm sure there are people here who would love to tear that argument to shreds, unfortunately i have to rush off to work so it won't be me and about the wobbly disc... thats been discussed to some extent in the 'original novel' forums
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 15:11:21 GMT
I notice that what is believed to be the Heat Ray in the trailers is surrounded by green electricity, and the commonly held belief is that the heat ray is invisible. This isn't entirely correct. The first three references to the heat ray describe 3 puffs of smoke, a droning noise, then: "...the ghost of a beam of light seemed to flicker out from it." "...and the flashes of flame." "...a complicated metallic case, about which GREEN FLASHES SCINTILLATED, and out of the funnel of this there SMOKED the Heat-Ray." So, it looks like Hines has got it more or less spot on!! Now comes the Easter Egg challenge! Hines said he found some buried details in the text that may surprise us: Let's try and get a list together of what these could be!! So, bury your heads in the books and start hunting (and refresh our memories as to what to expect!) GREEN FLASHES SCINTILLATED, yeah but where does he describe comedy green crayola squigles of doom? The heat ray is as spot on as a four year olds drawing. The heat ray is invisible in the book, with only a shimmer of the air preluding the flames and death. Crazy green spaghetti lightning is not 'green flashes'.
|
|
|
Post by twistedrabbit on Feb 4, 2005 15:47:47 GMT
Wells' novel is subjectional. How do you illustrate...nothing...and translate it to the big screen and still have a powerful, destruction effect. Wouldn't it have been cheesey if we just saw fighting machines point their heat rays at a building...have a puff of smoke, and the building goes boom? Maybe green spaghetti electricity wasn't the best idea though...I mean of all things, a bright white/red beam of light would have been more preferable...even if it was surrounded by green noodles.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 17:55:45 GMT
The heat ray need to give the impression of heat, fantastic heat barely contained in a beam. A violent shimer in the air or full on lava stream it doesnt matter, even the 1953 arc welder sparkler effect looked good for the time.
The PP heat ray looks about as dangerous as a bad rash, all green and moldy, its not even bright enough to pass as energy, its almost like they animated it frame after frame with green felt tipped pen.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 4, 2005 23:56:19 GMT
I think this can be settled quickly and easily: Okay, so the Heat-Ray beam is, in fact, invisible. Green flashes can 'scintillate' around the case of the generator, but he's not talking about the beam itself in that reference. "Smoked" in this context is simply a metaphor for heat. The "ghost of a beam of light" referred to in the first use of the Heat-Ray is the anolmaly in the text. Of course, it's twilight when this scene happens, so if there is any visible light associated with the Heat-Ray beam, (higher harmonics, perhaps?), that would be when they'd be visible. Unfortunately, it looks as if the SFx folks at PP are taking a bit of artistic license with the Heat-Ray. I can hear someone in some meeting saying that "green lightning bolts of doom" are more "visually exciting". No doubt it was some soulless drone from the Marketing Department.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 5, 2005 0:39:04 GMT
they could have rendered a really cool looking heat ray just using the shimmering 'heat' effect, like looking at the refraction of the air above a hot road, or the jetwash of a plane. i personally don't like the green lightning either
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 5, 2005 11:38:38 GMT
I think you will see that comedy lightning a lot, it seems to be the essence of the martian technology, they even use is as shackles in the electro bondage scene.
I dont think PP has 'departments' as such, if Hines is editing at home, has the website registered to himself and has run the marketing campagne himself it was probably Hines who decided on the heat ray as he is the director, why though didnt anyone in the FX team tell him it looked rubbish? Also he claims to have treated the book like an arceological dig, finding all the intricate facts one by one but if we all agree the heatray was invisible he didnt look too hard now did he, either that or he just decided to hell with it he was doing it his way which also means this authentic version may not be that authentic after all.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 5, 2005 13:22:06 GMT
Authentic could just reference the fact its set in the Victorian period. It's got all the characters from the book and most of the events too. An Ugly lie
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 6, 2005 6:28:57 GMT
Authentic could just reference the fact its set in the Victorian period. It's got all the characters from the book and most of the events too. An Ugly lie Except that Hines has gone out of his way to explain how much attention to detail has gone into it, he says its absolutely word for word authentic from the book. Except hes only released one trailer with FX shots and half of that isnt in the book. And now it looks like the cylinder is totaly different too. Change isnt a bad thing im not ripping him for it its just people keep saying it "at least he doing an authentic version" apart from the script and the period costume that may be where it ends.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 6, 2005 13:37:40 GMT
Oh dear ... now resorting to slagging of a fictional weapon and how it is portrayed...jeez Anybody seen a heat ray ...no oh thought so ....Look if it does the job ie blows the world to kingdom come then so what ...eh .... I don't see the heatray in the 53 film being an Invisible beam of light ..but it did the job.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 6, 2005 15:16:12 GMT
Except that Hines has gone out of his way to explain how much attention to detail has gone into it, he says its absolutely word for word authentic from the book. Except hes only released one trailer with FX shots and half of that isnt in the book. And now it looks like the cylinder is totaly different too. Change isnt a bad thing im not ripping him for it its just people keep saying it "at least he doing an authentic version" apart from the script and the period costume that may be where it ends. remember the scenes with no FX? just the dialogue? almost every bit of that was directly from the book. every teeny piece of every scene could be attributed to the book. even the scene where the trains were unloading the guns - 'we're the beast tamers' ... so, nitpickers and 'smack talkers' like you motile are naturally gonna take issue with every little nuance that 'isn't like the book'. its not surprising anymore, coming from you. there are 2 types of peeps in the Pendragon forums... 75 percent of us who choose to enjoy the movie at least once, and the rest... you, motile, comprising most of it... who have judged it and sentenced it with no jury, a smattering of evidence, and a big chip on your shoulder. since you hate the hines project so much, why keep posting about it? there are two other movies coming out that you haven't ripped to shreds yet, and there is very little evidence for those two yet either.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 6, 2005 16:04:01 GMT
Dear oh dear boys, we are touchy arnt we. Its funny though I have this WHOPPING GREAT CHIP on my shoulder but im not the one ripping into other people for what they post now am I? Nope thats up to them. Can I tell people they cant post positive things about it over and over again like "the M25"? No, I wouldnt, I may offer a counter point, but that would be called DEBATE.
Its mind boggling how you people think, hyprocracy rules supreme in here and it bloody stinks.
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 6, 2005 21:45:18 GMT
Err...on a diffrent note, i'd like to contirbute somthing about the heat ray in this film. While the beam is as far from teh discription as is possible... if ya watch carefully during the big ben sequence... there is the green flashes that Wells describes. One part of it from the book. lol
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 6, 2005 22:07:30 GMT
Err...on a diffrent note... there is the green flashes that Wells describes. [...] One part of it from the book. lol Hey, stupid question on my part - do you think they may change the heat-ray effect for the released film? It's such a 'caché' thing in terms of the novel. I seriously doubt it, but the thought has crossed my mind. Any other opinions?
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 6, 2005 22:45:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 6, 2005 23:02:48 GMT
Now the heatray is a powerul weapon requiring a lot of power , what if the green lighting is say discharge from the powersource which produces the heat ray ..the ray may indeed be invisible, but the discharge wouldn't be.
Also in the book nobody described what the heat ray actually looked like when fired from a FM , perhaps the weapon used from the pit was different, more of a wide area defense weapon (remember the wobbly mirror, not seen on a FM)
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 6, 2005 23:57:41 GMT
Now the heatray is a powerul weapon requiring a lot of power , what if the green lighting is say discharge from the powersource which produces the heat ray ..the ray may indeed be invisible, but the discharge wouldn't be. Also in the book nobody described what the heat ray actually looked like when fired from a FM , perhaps the weapon used from the pit was different, more of a wide area defense weapon (remember the wobbly mirror, not seen on a FM) An interesting theory. If Wells fails to describe the heat ray then its open to interpretation and no one can acuse Hines of ignoring the source material. There is one thing tho. the medium of film is all about visuals. Audiences like things to be there in front of them and not have to think too much. A heat ray that is invisible wouldn't hold up on screen because there would be too much thought involved. I think HInes understands that and thats why he has done it like a lightning strike.
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 7, 2005 0:20:59 GMT
An interesting theory. If Wells fails to describe the heat ray then its open to interpretation and no one can acuse Hines of ignoring the source material. [...] I think HInes understands that and thats why he has done it like a lightning strike. You're probably right, I think. In any case, Wells is sufficiently vague to leave it open for interpretation. It's interesting that the original illustrators, Goble and Corrêa, both chose to illustrate the heat-ray as something visible. We know, of course, that Wells didn't approve of Goble's work but he liked Corrêa's stuff very much indeed. He spent time in the book edition blasting Goble's tripods; if he didn't like the visible heatray, he probably would have also mentioned this too: "In addition to the lousy fighting machines, the artist of said pamphlet got the heat-ray wrong too..." Just a theory.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 7, 2005 5:51:43 GMT
Hey, stupid question on my part - do you think they may change the heat-ray effect for the released film? It's such a 'caché' thing in terms of the novel. I seriously doubt it, but the thought has crossed my mind. Any other opinions? Other than, "I hope, I hope, I hope?" I'm looking forward to the PP version of the story and will definitely go see it, but Wells does accurately describe the Heat-Ray in the book (see the quotes I pulled earlier in this thread) and the 'green lightning bolts of doom' will annoy me if they stay in. I completely understand WHY they'll be kept in (whoever posted that 'invisible' heat-rays would 'require too much thought from the audience' understands the movie-industry mind-set perfectly), but I also understand that I'm a purist and wish it would be exactly like the book.
|
|