|
Post by Gnorn on Mar 1, 2005 23:17:16 GMT
Hi fools! In my ever ongoing quest for information about Mr. Hines movie, I came across this february article at hollywood-elsewhere.com hollywood-elsewhere.com/2005_02_04_arch.phpGot some new facts about the release, and seems to confirm the mentioning of the DVD release at the Nokota horse site. Also seems to hint (but NOT confirm!!!) at distributor problems. The interviewer has spoken to Mr. Hines over the phone, so a lot of the info is from the man himself! Enjoy! P.S. The journalist's name is Wells... eh? -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 1, 2005 23:27:27 GMT
Strange Invaders
There’s no telling how good or even credible Timothy Hines' screen adaptation of H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds will be, but it’s hard not to sympathize with any David facing a Goliath...especially when the kid with the slingshot got rolling on his project first.
Hines' film cost $12 million and apparently has no formal distributor, but will open, it is being claimed, seven and a half weeks from now -- on Wednesday, March 30 -- in five major cities on a four-wall basis...or so I've been told. (Hines is claiming he has a distributor, although he won't identify it.)
Paramount Pictures War of the Worlds (6.29), which is costing at least $150 million to produce, boasts the talents of director Steven Spielberg, star Tom Cruise and screenwriter David Koepp. Nonetheless, it will open about three months after the indie upstart.
No one thinks this will have even a slight effect upon the grosses of the Spielberg film, but the timing of the release of Hines' film could work in his favor.
The notion of a Seattle-based, hip-pocket filmmaker beating Spielberg, Cruise and Paramount Pictures to the Martian punch is, at the very least, intriguing.
As Hines told me yesterday over the phone, "I’m not doing this on the coattails of Spielberg. I’ve been working on this film for seven years. We almost made it two years ago but 9/11 forced us to rewrite it and start over. In any event we’re not selling sizzle -- we actually have the steak." And yet there are issues about the Hines project that are giving me concern.
For one thing, the 44 year-old Hines (House of the Rising, A Midsummer Night's Dream) won’t tell me who his financial backers are, except to describe them as "computer industry people, and I’m not talking about Paul Allen or Bill Gates." He said one of the individuals behind the project is "one of the largest venture capitalists in the world."
Then there's the issue of Hines declining to tell me who his distributor is. I was told Friday morning that he doesn't actually have one -- he and his partners are going to self-distribute (i.e., "four wall") by booking screens outright, paying for their own advertising, etc. Hines has since declared this is "not true," although he wouldn't cough up specifics.
The one-sheet for Hines' film looks half-classy, half-exploitation...passable but a little bit cheesy-looking. It's not the sort of movie poster, I would think, that a savvy, hard-core distribution marketer would necessarily use to sell a movie with. Is this reflective in some way of the film itself?
Hines, the head of a Seattle-based company called Pendragon Pictures, has been doing a fairly skillful job of promoting his film on at least two websites aimed at sci-fi geeks, but it bothers me that the trailer won’t play, and is viewable only via Windows Media.
(Hines wrote me after this article posted on Friday and insisted "the trailers on howstuffworks.com are perfectly downloadable and have been downloaded by millions." Good to hear...but I couldn't download them, and a screenwriter friend who lives in New York had the same experience.)
Hines' feature, an apparently faithful adaptation of Wells novel that’s set in 1900 England, cost a reported $20 million, although $8 million of this was sunk into an earlier version that was going to be set in the present day, but was abandoned after the 9.11 tragedy. (It was decided that a modern-day film about invading destructive Martians would seem exploitive.)
H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds, the official title of Hines' project, may turn out to be a half-decent low-budgeter, a surprisingly inventive film or a grade-Z stinker, but come hell or high water it is apparently set to open in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco on 3.30.
A follow-up DVD release is set for 6.15 -- two weeks before the Spielberg-Cruise flick hits screens.
Whatever else it may turn out to be, the Spielberg-Cruise War of the Worlds is expected to be an all-out, go-for-broke CG extravaganza. It’s a modern-day spin on Wells' allegorical tale of alien invaders (i.e., it was meant as a metaphor for British colonialism, and was actually a kind of protest about the Boer War), and will be set largely in and around Hoboken, New Jersey, with Cruise apparently playing a longshoreman.
It wouldn't be totally out of line in a present-day context to call the Spielberg-Cruise flick a metaphor about U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- just think of U.S. forces as the Martians and the Iraqis as Hoboken natives.
I called around yesterday (i.e., Thursday) and found it hard to find anyone in the indie distribution community who’s seen Hines' film, or has spoken to anyone who’s seen it.
Hines told me a story about the film’s release strategy and financial backing was expected to break in Forbes on 2.11, but I checked about this on Friday morning and it appears that the story may be delayed.
I asked Hines why his pre-release strategy didn't involve a trade story or two in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. He didn’t have much of a response other than to air a suspicion that trade magazine reporters are too caught up in catering to powerful Hollywood distributor-advertisers to deliver an unbiased report about a small-time producer going up against the big guys.
I asked Hines two or three times about when the film would be shown to critics, and each time he gave what sounded to me like an evasive answer. He later told me he'll let me have an exclusive peek sometime in early March.
Here's some verbatim excerpts from what Hines told me. I’m just running the quotes undoctored, not having time to double-check everything before my scheduled return to Santa Barbara early this afternoon:
“I’ve been wanting to make War of the Worlds since I was ten years old. We were going to make a present-day version but we had to abandon our plan after 9/11."
[Note: I don't know for a fact that Hines began his film in '98, but he took out a trade ad announcing his project in the 5.7.01 issue of Daily Variety, timed for appearance during the Cannes Film Festival.]
"I’m a small independent coming out of nowhere. We’re clearly not part of the Hollywood machine. Obviously, Steven Spielberg doesn’t want to be seen as trailing in our footsteps. This is the first time ever in history in which a major studio, big-budget film will be following a smaller indie version of the same thing into the marketplace.
“We’re expecting to be trashed by critics, but my film is gorgeous. I cry every day at how well it’s coming together.
“We’re following the Wells book very closely, which partly involves using an old-fashioned idea know as story tension. The book begins with the initial landings, but the Martians don’t really show their hand until one third of the way in...but you know all the while that they're going to emerge and start attacking, and that’s where the tension lies."
"I didn’t make it as an analogy to the Iraqi War, although, yes, it’s about occupiers and hubris. All through history invaders and conquerors have fallen prey to their own hubris. You see it again and again and again. Wells was protesting the Boer War with his book. He was saying Britain is going to fall one day, and it did...it was beaten by a little brown man wearing a loincloth.
"Paramount is trying to get people to compare our film with theirs on the basis of budget and special effects alone, but a satisfying film is about more than just that.
"That said, our effects are going to look as good as if not better than what you see on Star Trek, for instance. Our film, at its best, comes off as visually assured as The Matrix."
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Mar 1, 2005 23:34:46 GMT
Eh... yes? That's what the article says? Maybe I'm not that bright, but why'd you quote it?
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 1, 2005 23:36:33 GMT
For the lazy bunch of so and so's who cant be bothered to click the link ;D
If the article has any ring of truth, I'm not happy and I feel cheated.
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Mar 1, 2005 23:42:09 GMT
Thanks HC, I am one of those lazy so and so ;D Fascinating article. I guess my only chance of seeing this movie is getting my hands on the DVD when it is released.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 1, 2005 23:44:37 GMT
Thanks HC, I am one of those lazy so and so ;D Fascinating article. I guess my only chance of seeing this movie is getting my hands on the DVD when it is released. See, I new they exsisted, like the fabled Yeti or the Loch Ness monster ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Mar 1, 2005 23:51:46 GMT
I don't feal cheated, I feel hearthbroken for Mr. Hines. As it seems, he is putting all his love and time into this movie, but it seems like nobody has the bloody guts to support him! No distributor seems brave enough to back him! I feel sorry for him coming all this way, and then - IT SEEMS - to be ignored like the plague.
I HOPE I'M TOTALY WRONG!!!
F*ck this, I'm growing more and more pesimistic about this. Not about Mr. Hines efforts. But about the apearant lack of support from the industry for his project.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Gerkinman on Mar 2, 2005 0:02:07 GMT
Itll be interesting to see what happens, its always a shame when people dont support what someones doing just because its out of the box
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Mar 2, 2005 0:07:30 GMT
For once, I'm putting in my penny worth (I've been avoiding posting on the movie threads because they've got so, well, grouchy)...
I'm a sceptic about Hines' film (even though I hope he pulls it off, fnar fnar), yet I find this piece strangely comforting. Yes, it's full of the, by now wearisomely familiar, Hinesian bol*locks, but...
...I've never expected it to appear in the cinema anyway, and it looks quite possible that it'll appear on DVD (at some point). And, quite frankly, that may be for the best - there's no doubting that it's a labour of love for old Timbo (even if he is a complete fantasist, a Munchausen of the production world - yes, a bullshi*tter), but frankly, it's a cheapie effort and from what he's revealed of it, it looks it, so perhaps the TV screen is the best place for it. Maybe Hines should try and get the Sci Fi channel to air it as well.
Perhaps he'll have it ready for a DVD release in June, who can say? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, and I certainly wouldn't put any money on it. But I would put money on it not even getting anywhere near a cinema screen at the end of March (unless Timbo has a mate who's manager of a cinema and shows it on a slow night as a favour).
One thing I will do, though, is simply wait.
Calmly.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Mar 2, 2005 0:09:27 GMT
...and his first name is Jeffrey. Sounds like the love child of Jeff Wayne and HGWells ;D ;D Sure there isn't a conspiracy in there somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Mar 2, 2005 0:15:46 GMT
Yes, it's full of the, by now wearisomely familiar, Hinesian bol*locks, but... That 'Hinesian bollocks' is - in my opinion - more a matter of (maybe to high) hopes Mr. Hines had in this project and movie bussinesses coming aboard. I absolutely do not believe he was trying to fool us with his anouncements. Maybe a bit excaggerating, but that is totally normal in the bussiness-world. He is just trying to sell his movie! -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Mar 2, 2005 0:17:57 GMT
...and his first name is Jeffrey. Sounds like the love child of Jeff Wayne and HGWells ;D I love the arched eyebrow on his byeline pic... "Hi, I'm Jeffrey Wells, you may remember me writing for magazines like Schlock of the New!, and Bums on Seats Weekly..."
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Mar 2, 2005 0:25:17 GMT
That 'Hinesian bollocks' is - in my opinion - more a matter of (maybe to high) hopes Mr. Hines had in this project and movie bussinesses coming aboard. I absolutely do not believe he was trying to fool us with his anouncements. Maybe a bit excaggerating, but that is totally normal in the bussiness-world. He is just trying to sell his movie! -Gnorn Don't get me wrong, despite my tone I'm not having a go at him - like you say, he's trying to make a movie, and we all know the heights of Bullshi*ttology that film-makers attain at the best of times! Hell, I admire the guy's chutzpah, but I can also see just how great the gulf is between his intentions and what, so far, the results have been. Let's face it, his track record thus far is not exactly scintillating - if Orson Welles at 25 making Citizen Kane was playing with the biggest toy train set in the world, Tim Hines at whatever is playing with a McDonald's Happy Meal Thomas the Tank Engine, but that's not to say that nothing will come of this. I just think no-one should get their hopes up too high. Be realistic about him.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Mar 2, 2005 0:26:02 GMT
I'm rather disappointed to hear that distribution (for theaters) will apparently be limited to those five cities - since I don't live near any of them. If this proves to be the case, I'll hope to buy the DVD. Perhaps an Amazon.com release?
I want to see this film, regardless of alleged distribution problems.
|
|
Winky
Full Member
May 21st, 1999
Posts: 131
|
Post by Winky on Mar 2, 2005 0:27:59 GMT
If I need to, I'm heading to New York on the 30th
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Mar 2, 2005 0:35:50 GMT
Cool some news. I wonder if he releases in the UK what cities will be included.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 2, 2005 1:12:38 GMT
"No distributor seems brave enough to back him! " Maybe the saw the footage available and decided the film was not going to be very good. THis artical just confirms that Mr. Hines has gotten in over his head, and my betting is the film will never see a full release. "Four Walling"..a filmaker renting a theater himself for showing his film..is the film industry equivilant of "Vanity Publishing" and is generally a kiss of death for a film. It is coming down to faith versus reality as far as Pendragon goes. I prefer reality.
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Mar 2, 2005 1:18:10 GMT
After watching the available series of trailers again, I actually think it is a shame that this movie will probably never receive a decent showing at independent cinemas worldwide. Despite its obvious flaws it has some serious potential.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 2, 2005 2:43:59 GMT
...and his first name is Jeffrey. Sounds like the love child of Jeff Wayne and HGWells ;D ;D Sure there isn't a conspiracy in there somewhere? Yes, slight coincidence there. I've done a search on Google but he seems genuine enuff though.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 2, 2005 2:54:22 GMT
If the article has any ring of truth, I'm not happy and I feel cheated. *Sigh* Me too. Released in only 5 cities, and then only by renting a single theatre directly, like studios do for advance publicity screeners? And Hines is already saying the critics will trash the film? It's beginning to sound like this no more than a low-budget horror flick, like Pendragon's earlier efforts. I've just lowered my expectations, by rather a long distance.
|
|