|
Post by Baron of SG-12 on Mar 12, 2005 20:18:47 GMT
I have a friend that owns theater here in Western North Carolina, I have ask him to keep a eye on Hines WOTW movie and try to get it for his theater. It came time to order the movie yesterday. To no surprise it is not available and, no new date for a reorder was given. Just “I have no Idea”. Now this maybe just for us here in NC, But I don’t know for sure. Anything new pops up, I’ll post it.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Mar 13, 2005 2:16:45 GMT
I have a friend that owns theater here in Western North Carolina, I have ask him to keep a eye on Hines WOTW movie and try to get it for his theater. It came time to order the movie yesterday. To no surprise it is not available and, no new date for a reorder was given. Just “I have no Idea”. Now this maybe just for us here in NC, But I don’t know for sure. Anything new pops up, I’ll post it. This is probably a terrible heresy but I think that if you are going to be that disappointed by this film not coming out you would probably be disappointed by any period film adaptation of The War of the Worlds. Surely, if you really want to see the book brought to life on the screen they are never going to make it how you guys imagined it when you read it? Well I remember when my sister and I - brought up on HG Wells I might add.... and heads filled of tripods; 'boilers on stilts' as Wells described them - well do I remember when we went to see the 1953 film together! Were we disappointed? Not a bit of it! Gene Barry - whom we both knew from 'Burke's Law' was great as the hunky hero and the Martians were frighteningly formidable. We'd grown up thinking that we human beings had the power of the atom and that we were invincible - with nothing to fear but ourselves. The Martians were just unstoppable and in the end the one hope of victory was snatched away by human beings fighting over the precious few remaining resources. The film ended with the scary thought that if we ever did come up against a superior technology we might as well just pray for a miracle as we could never save ourselves as - by definition - a superior technology was insurmountable. This did not take away my love of the original book. A book works in a way that a film never can. You enter into the world of the writer and you use your own imagination..... I can read 'The First Men in the Moon' and not worry about the description of the Moon complete with atmosphere and exotic flora and fauna. I can read Lucian and Cyrano de Berjerac in the same spirit..... But somehow I can never make the same journey in a film adaptation. I remember seeing 'One Million Years BC' when it first came out - I was 15 and I was disappointed seeing the dinosaurs coexisting with 'cave men'. I remember thinking "Maybe he's stumbled into some kind of hidden valley where dinosaurs have survived." Of course, when Raquel Welch turned up wearing eye shadow, mascara and peach coloured lipstick I just about threw my hands in the air! This was a film that - however good its special effects - was just dumb on every conceivable level! The older version with Victor Mature ('One Million BC') was paradoxically more believable because it had a framing story where a couple discovered a scientist examining cave paintings who told an imaginary tale so that the couple entered into his world peopled with fantastic creatures and brutal semi-human people. It was rather dream-like and this made it exciting! The film version of 'The First Men in the Moon' also had a framing story to explain how we could get to hear this improbably yarn! I was also relieved that they wore some kind of aproximation of space suits. I enjoyed the film because it was just possible to suspend disbelief and enbrace it in a way that would have been impossible if they had kept strictly to the book. So I would probably have problems with a period version of The War of the Worlds. I can't see it scaring me in the way that a contemporary version would scare me..... or a period historical war film would scare me. I enjoyed Pearl Harbour..... but if Martians or Dinosaurs or Selenites had turned up in the middle of it I would probably have walked out in disgust. Hines originally intended to set his film in a future where the Martians had used some kind of Electromagnetic Pulse weapon to wipe out our microchip based technology and hurl mankind back into a nineteenth century style dystopia. This sounds like he had in mind the ill-conceived and ill-fated BBC series 'The Tripods' based on John Christopher's trilogy. For which see; rqc.tripod.com/tripods.htmwww.the-snu.co.uk/tripods.htmlwww.themovieblog.com/archives/2005/01/the_tripods_bbc_tv_series_undergoing_treatment.htmlI remember watching a few episodes of 'The Tripods' - a friend had a part in it so I had to . It had novelty value in that on rare occasions a tripod hoved into view and blasted something with its rays just like in the HG Wells novel! I had not read the books so for me it looked just like a spin off of the novel with an alternative scenario where the Martians subdued the humans. Apart from that it was boring and not particularly well made. Above all I could not see the point in having tripod machines. To the Victorians they represented advanced technology but we have moved on quite a bit since then! I await Spielberg's interpretation with even more scepticism. I just have this nagging feeling that anything resembling the Novel's Martian fighting machine will look terribly old hat! Zoe
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 13, 2005 3:08:53 GMT
True Zoe, no film translation of any book is ever going to be exactly the way you imagined it, but if the film is done extremely well [ LOTRINGS for instance ] then I think most people will accept the film version straight away.
There were some things in Tolkiens book that I imagined differently but because Jackson did them so well I immediately accepted them and now if I read parts of the book I picture Jacksons film as well as my own initial visions. Sometimes I can't help just picturing Jacksons film when I read it now.
Film making technology has now caught up with the imagination and virtually anything can now be done [ or will soon be able to be done ] so Wells visions can now truly be brought to life like never before. Imagine trying to film LOTRINGS even 15 years ago - it would have been unthinkable.
I think a proper period version of WOTW has the potential to be much more alien and frightening than a modern version. Victorian Britain was quite a creepy place - just think of Jack the ripper films.
Why do you say that anything resembling the novels fighting machines will look old hat. They can easily be made to look as modern, futuristic or Victorian looking as any other alien or non alien machine you see in every day life or in sci fi films. It's how realistic, creepy and spectacular looking they're done is what counts and that can be done with todays special effects no problem. Look at the machines in THE MATRIX or S.WARS EPISODE 2 for instance.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Mar 13, 2005 4:46:50 GMT
True Zoe, no film translation of any book is ever going to be exactly the way you imagined it, but if the film is done extremely well [ LOTRINGS for instance ] then I think most people will accept the film version straight away. There were some things in Tolkiens book that I imagined differently but because Jackson did them so well I immediately accepted them and now if I read parts of the book I picture Jacksons film as well as my own initial visions. Sometimes I can't help just picturing Jacksons film when I read it now. Film making technology has now caught up with the imagination and virtually anything can now be done [ or will soon be able to be done ] so Wells visions can now truly be brought to life like never before. Imagine trying to film LOTRINGS even 15 years ago - it would have been unthinkable. I think a proper period version of WOTW has the potential to be much more alien and frightening than a modern version. Victorian Britain was quite a creepy place - just think of Jack the ripper films. Why do you say that anything resembling the novels fighting machines will look old hat. They can easily be made to look as modern, futuristic or Victorian looking as any other alien or non alien machine you see in every day life or in sci fi films. It's how realistic, creepy and spectacular looking they're done is what counts and that can be done with todays special effects no problem. Look at the machines in THE MATRIX or S.WARS EPISODE 2 for instance. Sorry. I don't agree. 'Most people' don't care about 'The War of the Worlds'. There is no buzz of anticipation about any of these films. Nobody I know gives a damn. I actually think that Spielberg took a considerable risk in filming something which has such a minority appeal. If a big bucks version that followed the book came out I honestly think that most people would say "So what?". Fans always imagine that everone else is as fanatical as they are - or nearly so. 'The War of the Worlds' cannot be compared to 'The Lord of the Rings' which is sheer fantasy. I gave my reasons for this in the previous post but the same applies in that people will watch 'The Lord of the Rings' knowing it to be fantasy and suspending disbelief. A film about the Martians invading earth in the nineteenth century is not fantasy and requires a different order of suspension of belief. The trouble is that most cinema goers are teenagers without a place of their own; or a car; looking for a dark room with a couple of chairs where they can have a good snog. Film makers know this and are extremely cautious about making a film that requires too much thought. No amount of wishful thinking can change the fact that they are not going to share the taste of older and more specialised customers - like fans of HG Wells' 'The War of the Worlds' - who are bound to be in a cinema-going minority. To grab their attention, film makers must attend to their young audience's preoccupations and tastes. Do you honestly think that the majority of audiences that Spielberg is attempting to attract will have read The War of the Worlds before seeing the film and will say "Oh! Great! Tripods! Just like in the book!"? HG Wells was just ahead of the technology of his day. He wanted to give the Martian's fighting machines an advantage over the horse drawn artillery of the day so he raised them up a hundred feet into the air on legs and had them striding into battle like mobile lookout towers with superior 'fire power'. If he were writing today I do not believe he would write it like that. The Martian War Machines of Pal's movie were also extrapolated from contemporary technology - and in doing so they WERE true to the spirit of Wells' book. The sinister, hovering Martian machines of the 1953 film were a triumph of common sense over sentimentality. Spielberg's tripods may well look weird and unearthly but he will have a hard time not making them look ridiculous - and old hat. He has set himself a difficult task and if he falls flat on his face he won't get an accolade from his mass audience - or the fans; who can't have it both ways either. If Spielberg delivers Martian tripods that manage somehow to reinterpret the design in order to bring it up to date it will not please the fans who want it done according to the book. So why bother? It is not how well the special effects are realised it is their contemporary relevance that decides how successful they are. The Fighting Machines as depicted in the book are old hat because they have become very nearly achievable or can be done in a different way. The insectile mechanical creatures in The Matrix or the Walkers in 'Star Wars' are a different order again. They occupy an imaginary world where we expect to find and accept things which have their own logic - like the logic in dreams. The Martians rely on the fact that they are interacting with our own world for their power to disturb and frighten us. The world that the Martians are destroying is our world; really our world and not a manufactured dream; or another planet "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". A film about Victorian England being invaded by Martians in tripod fighting machines just makes no sense. It never happened so why should we expect an average audience to believe that it did? There are all kinds of films it would be fun to see. A film where the Germans won WW2 or where the Roman Empire survived until the present day..... But the only way we get to see these is if they are framed for example as a Star Trek story. Science Fiction fans have no difficulty with parallel world stories but that is because they understand the convention. Science Fiction is primarily a literary genre where the reader learns to suspend disbelief. It does not easily translate to film. It does better on television because television is more intimate. Film is really too in your face and intense to allow much suspension of disbelief. The only way that The War of the Worlds, set in period could conceivably pass would be if it had some kind of framing story - like the one for 'The First Men in the Moon'. Perhaps like 'The Space Machine' but with an ending where the time traveller goes back further in time, prevents the invasion from happening and then loses the time machine. That might work..... although judging by the reactions to the ending of the remake of 'Planet of the Apes' I doubt it. Film is still way behind evem 'The Twilight Zone' and most cinema goers like spectacle and action rather than ideas. So, after all that I remain unconvinced. And if I am not convinced when I'm sympathetic how would you or anyone else convince the average teenage cinema goer to go to see it? Zoe
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 13, 2005 12:59:45 GMT
Its not a case of people not carring because its obvious they do, some 630+ members on here gives claim to that, OK only a small amount, but its a start. Those that know about it would like to see it if they so wish, those that follow it can't wait to see it and those that dont know it become curious and so go and see it. And this happens with many films, not because its just War Of The Worlds. Peoples first reactions to a film of any kind starts with pre-advertising such as advanced material, TV spots, tabloid reportings and teaser trailors. Sometimes a person can make there mind up right away whether this film is going to be good for 'them' to view. If it does not lead to 'your/there' expectations then what is the point of watching it if you have already made your mind up its not for you.
War Of The Worlds is 'for me' a prime example of how todays sci-fi came about. Why else is H.G regarded as the Grandfather of sci-fi, the projects coming out is a fitting tribute to this mans work. As for whether the film is a success or not, that entirely down to the film studios.
I have heard that WOTW has been done to death, not only as a direct retelling but other recarnations. Take for example the liner Titanic. . . . Famous for what? - striking an iceberg and sinking with a great loss of life on her maiden voyage. For the film industry this was a perfect example of mankind falling to its knees with the outcome of a disaster, ideal for cinama hence James Camerons 1998 film. I draw breath through my teeth when watching that film because of all the historical facts blown out of the water and bought about in true Hollywood style. Being a Titanic Historian for over 20 years I still long for a film about that tragic night, but Im not going to get it, so I live with it. . . WOTW is now differant, other than (thank god) it never happened in real life unlike those poor souls who gave there lives for others during April 1912.
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Mar 13, 2005 15:50:13 GMT
Being a Titanic Historian for over 20 years I still long for a film about that tragic night, but Im not going to get it, so I live with it. . . WOTW is now differant, other than (thank god) it never happened in real life unlike those poor souls who gave there lives for others during April 1912. Hullo, Horsell! I trust you've seen the excellent British B&W 1950's film, 'A Night to Remember', which is acknowledged by many critics to be the definitive Titanic movie? It's shot almost like a documentary and doesn't mess about with any soap opera sub plots. It's a straight face account of the events of the sinking and is very moving. True, the Titanic doesn't split in half, I cannot recall if that was because it couldn't be afforded or done well; or if that fact wasn't known at the time. It stars Kenneth More and has David McCallum in one of his first roles. Good effects for the time, great acting, biting script and solid direction. And a good score. Watch it if you haven't. Far better than Cameron's Titanic. Pete
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 13, 2005 16:14:00 GMT
I have lost count how many times I have seen ANTR, but personally and other will agree (in my field), I would not call it 'definitive' account. It was (at its time) accurate, same as Camerons is accurate with its sinking and looks of the ship, although later this year will see the 4 disc 'Special Edition' of the film released with Cameron putting back (rumoured) almost all of the cut fooatge of a histrical nature, bringing the film upto 5 (yes) 5 hours in length.
Camerons TITANIC is much like WOTW today. The producers/director deciding to stick a well known face amoung the pigeons or change the story to suit todays society or even suit the younger generation - much like Cameron did with his charactors of Jack & Rose.
I remember a Titanic show I atteneded when the lecture I did closed with a Q&A, the amount of children who asked about Jack & Rose. . . They never excisted.
Bless em!
H_C
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 13, 2005 16:38:58 GMT
I have lost count how many times I have seen ANTR, but personally and other will agree (in my field), I would not call it 'definitive' account. It was (at its time) accurate, same as Camerons is accurate with its sinking and looks of the ship, although later this year will see the 4 disc 'Special Edition' of the film released with Cameron putting back (rumoured) almost all of the cut fooatge of a histrical nature, bringing the film upto 5 (yes) 5 hours in length. Camerons TITANIC is much like WOTW today. The producers/director deciding to stick a well known face amoung the pigeons or change the story to suit todays society or even suit the younger generation - much like Cameron did with his charactors of Jack & Rose. I remember a Titanic show I atteneded when the lecture I did closed with a Q&A, the amount of children who asked about Jack & Rose. . . They never excisted. Bless em! H_C Interesting to see that Camerons releasing a 5 hr cut of the film and that it might include more historical bits. That could significantly improve the film with a bit of luck.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 13, 2005 16:40:46 GMT
I have a friend that owns theater here in Western North Carolina, I have ask him to keep a eye on Hines WOTW movie and try to get it for his theater. It came time to order the movie yesterday. To no surprise it is not available and, no new date for a reorder was given. Just “I have no Idea”. Now this maybe just for us here in NC, But I don’t know for sure. Anything new pops up, I’ll post it. I can't say I'm surprised. This whole things just gets weirder.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 13, 2005 18:36:14 GMT
Sorry. I don't agree. 'Most people' don't care about 'The War of the Worlds'. There is no buzz of anticipation about any of these films. Nobody I know gives a damn. I actually think that Spielberg took a considerable risk in filming something which has such a minority appeal. If a big bucks version that followed the book came out I honestly think that most people would say "So what?". Fans always imagine that everone else is as fanatical as they are - or nearly so. 'The War of the Worlds' cannot be compared to 'The Lord of the Rings' which is sheer fantasy. I gave my reasons for this in the previous post but the same applies in that people will watch 'The Lord of the Rings' knowing it to be fantasy and suspending disbelief. A film about the Martians invading earth in the nineteenth century is not fantasy and requires a different order of suspension of belief. The trouble is that most cinema goers are teenagers without a place of their own; or a car; looking for a dark room with a couple of chairs where they can have a good snog. Film makers know this and are extremely cautious about making a film that requires too much thought. No amount of wishful thinking can change the fact that they are not going to share the taste of older and more specialised customers - like fans of HG Wells' 'The War of the Worlds' - who are bound to be in a cinema-going minority. To grab their attention, film makers must attend to their young audience's preoccupations and tastes. Do you honestly think that the majority of audiences that Spielberg is attempting to attract will have read The War of the Worlds before seeing the film and will say "Oh! Great! Tripods! Just like in the book!"? HG Wells was just ahead of the technology of his day. He wanted to give the Martian's fighting machines an advantage over the horse drawn artillery of the day so he raised them up a hundred feet into the air on legs and had them striding into battle like mobile lookout towers with superior 'fire power'. If he were writing today I do not believe he would write it like that. The Martian War Machines of Pal's movie were also extrapolated from contemporary technology - and in doing so they WERE true to the spirit of Wells' book. The sinister, hovering Martian machines of the 1953 film were a triumph of common sense over sentimentality. Spielberg's tripods may well look weird and unearthly but he will have a hard time not making them look ridiculous - and old hat. He has set himself a difficult task and if he falls flat on his face he won't get an accolade from his mass audience - or the fans; who can't have it both ways either. If Spielberg delivers Martian tripods that manage somehow to reinterpret the design in order to bring it up to date it will not please the fans who want it done according to the book. So why bother? It is not how well the special effects are realised it is their contemporary relevance that decides how successful they are. The Fighting Machines as depicted in the book are old hat because they have become very nearly achievable or can be done in a different way. The insectile mechanical creatures in The Matrix or the Walkers in 'Star Wars' are a different order again. They occupy an imaginary world where we expect to find and accept things which have their own logic - like the logic in dreams. The Martians rely on the fact that they are interacting with our own world for their power to disturb and frighten us. The world that the Martians are destroying is our world; really our world and not a manufactured dream; or another planet "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". A film about Victorian England being invaded by Martians in tripod fighting machines just makes no sense. It never happened so why should we expect an average audience to believe that it did? There are all kinds of films it would be fun to see. A film where the Germans won WW2 or where the Roman Empire survived until the present day..... But the only way we get to see these is if they are framed for example as a Star Trek story. Science Fiction fans have no difficulty with parallel world stories but that is because they understand the convention. Science Fiction is primarily a literary genre where the reader learns to suspend disbelief. It does not easily translate to film. It does better on television because television is more intimate. Film is really too in your face and intense to allow much suspension of disbelief. The only way that The War of the Worlds, set in period could conceivably pass would be if it had some kind of framing story - like the one for 'The First Men in the Moon'. Perhaps like 'The Space Machine' but with an ending where the time traveller goes back further in time, prevents the invasion from happening and then loses the time machine. That might work..... although judging by the reactions to the ending of the remake of 'Planet of the Apes' I doubt it. Film is still way behind evem 'The Twilight Zone' and most cinema goers like spectacle and action rather than ideas. So, after all that I remain unconvinced. And if I am not convinced when I'm sympathetic how would you or anyone else convince the average teenage cinema goer to go to see it? Zoe Most people [apart from the fans] don't really care about any upcoming film releases and I think most fans are clever enough to realise that non fans are not as fanatical as they are. Was there much of a buzz before THE MATRIX, 1st STAR WARS, JURASSIC PARK, INDEPENDENCE DAY, ETC, ETC, ETC, came out. No, it was only when the films came out that people started to see them in droves. I never directly compared WOTW with LOTR and I used this as an example of book to film translations. Though you could argue that WOTW is fantasy in a way but not in the sword and sorcery vein. People have to suspend disbelief in lots of films and just because Martians didn't invade Victorian Britain doesn't mean you can't make a film of it and people won't suspend disbelief and enjoy it. It all depends on how realistically it's done. To make it seem believable you put yourself in the film and imagine that you live in Victorian times and the Martians are about to invade. Whenever I went to see LOTRINGS at the cinema it was packed with older people and I'm sure I read somewhere that a significant majority of the audiences with those films were people over 40. How also can you say the machines in Pals film were more true to the spirit of the machines in Wells book. Er no, they were tripods in Wells book and you say that the technology to make tripods is very nearly achievable. Maybe it is, but a tripod is a very ungainly, design that is very unstable on uneven ground. That's one of the reasons he used tripods because they were such an alien design. No living thing [ as far as I'm aware ] on Earth has 3 legs. Where do you also get the sweeping statement that "it's not how well the special effects are realised it's their contemporary relevance that decides how successfull they are". Special effects are used for all sorts of different reasons and surely it's how well they're done, intergrated in to the film and whether they complement and add to the story that matters. Why do they have to have contemporary relevance? You could argue that a Pal saucer like design is very nearly achievable. Look at some of the technology recently such as the Russian flying saucer. It might be possible to build a 100ft tall tripod that moves slowly with todays technology. But try making it move fast over uneven ground - that's a totally different matter. The Martians in Wells book were obviously advanced enough to overcome this and anyway it's not only the tripods in Wells book there are other machines as well. I'd also hardly say a film with the epic sounding title of WAR OF THE WORLDS, or HG WELLS THE WAR OF THE WORLDS would be a minority appeal film. Most cinema goers [ apart from fans ] won't care if it's true to the book or not agreed, but if the film in question is done well enough then word gets around and I think most people will know a good or great film when they see it.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Mar 13, 2005 19:30:32 GMT
Most people [apart from the fans] don't really care about any upcoming film releases and I think most fans are clever enough to realise that non fans are not as fanatical as they are. Was there much of a buzz before THE MATRIX, 1st STAR WARS, JURASSIC PARK, INDEPENDENCE DAY, ETC, ETC, ETC, came out. No, it was only when the films came out that people started to see them in droves. I never directly compared WOTW with LOTR and I used this as an example of book to film translations. Though you could argue that WOTW is fantasy in a way but not in the sword and sorcery vein. People have to suspend disbelief in lots of films and just because Martians didn't invade Victorian Britain doesn't mean you can't make a film of it and people won't suspend disbelief and enjoy it. It all depends on how realistically it's done. To make it seem believable you put yourself in the film and imagine that you live in Victorian times and the Martians are about to invade. Whenever I went to see LOTRINGS at the cinema it was packed with older people and I'm sure I read somewhere that a significant majority of the audiences with those films were people over 40. How also can you say the machines in Pals film were more true to the spirit of the machines in Wells book. Er no, they were tripods in Wells book and you say that the technology to make tripods is very nearly achievable. Maybe it is, but a tripod is a very ungainly, design that is very unstable on uneven ground. That's one of the reasons he used tripods because they were such an alien design. No living thing [ as far as I'm aware ] on Earth has 3 legs. Where do you also get the sweeping statement that "it's not how well the special effects are realised it's their contemporary relevance that decides how successfull they are". Special effects are used for all sorts of different reasons and surely it's how well they're done, intergrated in to the film and whether they complement and add to the story that matters. Why do they have to have contemporary relevance? You could argue that a Pal saucer like design is very nearly achievable. Look at some of the technology recently such as the Russian flying saucer. It might be possible to build a 100ft tall tripod that moves slowly with todays technology. But try making it move fast over uneven ground - that's a totally different matter. The Martians in Wells book were obviously advanced enough to overcome this and anyway it's not only the tripods in Wells book there are other machines as well. I'd also hardly say a film with the epic sounding title of WAR OF THE WORLDS, or HG WELLS THE WAR OF THE WORLDS would be a minority appeal film. Most cinema goers [ apart from fans ] won't care if it's true to the book or not agreed, but if the film in question is done well enough then word gets around and I think most people will know a good or great film when they see it. Yes there was a LOT more buzz around Jurassic Park and Independance Day.... I can remember the Buzz about Pearl Harbour very much, for instance. Incidentally, there was far less interest among my girl friends about 'The Lord of the Rings' and at work it was the men who were looking forward to it coming out. There was a LOT of buzz for the new Bridget Jones movie for too.... In fact I can think of so many examples of 'eagerly anticipated' films that I can't see how you can say "Most people [apart from the fans] don't really care about any upcoming film releases" - And you tell ME about sweeping statements! I never hear about TWOTW outside this board. You even contradict yourself by saying 'word gets round' - it ain't doing in this case! And I still think that fans tend to exagerate the importance of a film that they are fanatical about..... That's what fans do. It's their job Pretty obviously, we can't be certain about things but I am still pretty sure that Martians in Victorian London would go down like a lead balloon and we may never know who is right.... I tried to put what I was saying into a theoretical framework and you ignored it. That's not my fault. You've missed the point in a lot of what I said and I suggest you read my post again before you patronise me by your 'er no' statement or take things I said out of context and misinterpret (misunderstand?) them. I did not say that the machines in the George Pal were true to the spirit of the machines in Wells' Novel - that would be absurd. Are you trying to make me look stupid? What I was saying was - you only get a few seconds to impress a film audience.... you get whole pages of description to captivate a reader. You've got to hit film goers between the eyes like the heat ray on its first appearance in Pal's movie. I've not seen anything in your post to make me change my mind and I don't suppose I will change yours so we'd best agree to differ. Hope this helps Zoe
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Mar 13, 2005 21:58:34 GMT
i dont know, alot of ppl im talking to are very anxious to see wotw, and none of them have ever read the book
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Mar 13, 2005 22:29:00 GMT
Ive known alot of people who have heard of TWOTW who are not fans. Many watched the film on the basis of my opinion and found it at least, watchable. Alot loved the Uncle bit with his cross etc.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Mar 13, 2005 22:32:22 GMT
I have a friend that owns theater here in Western North Carolina, I have ask him to keep a eye on Hines WOTW movie and try to get it for his theater. It came time to order the movie yesterday. To no surprise it is not available and, no new date for a reorder was given. Just “I have no Idea”. Now this maybe just for us here in NC, But I don’t know for sure. Anything new pops up, I’ll post it. Could this be simply because Hines could only get a limited number of prints made, and it's all booked up for showings in the big cities first, well before it gets to smaller venues?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Mar 13, 2005 22:41:39 GMT
Yeah but we still have no confirmations on that also lancer.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 15, 2005 0:10:11 GMT
Yes there was a LOT more buzz around Jurassic Park and Independance Day.... I can remember the Buzz about Pearl Harbour very much, for instance. Incidentally, there was far less interest among my girl friends about 'The Lord of the Rings' and at work it was the men who were looking forward to it coming out. There was a LOT of buzz for the new Bridget Jones movie for too.... In fact I can think of so many examples of 'eagerly anticipated' films that I can't see how you can say "Most people [apart from the fans] don't really care about any upcoming film releases" - And you tell ME about sweeping statements! I never hear about TWOTW outside this board. You even contradict yourself by saying 'word gets round' - it ain't doing in this case! And I still think that fans tend to exagerate the importance of a film that they are fanatical about..... That's what fans do. It's their job Pretty obviously, we can't be certain about things but I am still pretty sure that Martians in Victorian London would go down like a lead balloon and we may never know who is right.... I tried to put what I was saying into a theoretical framework and you ignored it. That's not my fault. You've missed the point in a lot of what I said and I suggest you read my post again before you patronise me by your 'er no' statement or take things I said out of context and misinterpret (misunderstand?) them. I did not say that the machines in the George Pal were true to the spirit of the machines in Wells' Novel - that would be absurd. Are you trying to make me look stupid? What I was saying was - you only get a few seconds to impress a film audience.... you get whole pages of description to captivate a reader. You've got to hit film goers between the eyes like the heat ray on its first appearance in Pal's movie. I've not seen anything in your post to make me change my mind and I don't suppose I will change yours so we'd best agree to differ. Hope this helps Zoe There might well have been a buzz around J.PARK and I.DAY amongst film and sci fi fans who are on the lookout for information about upcoming films, but the average person on the street didn't know about these films before the hype, mass promotion and advertising started. You use the example of the new BRIDGET JONES movie but surely this is because your work colleagues had seen the previous movie and had heard that a new one was being released. They must have been fans or slight fans of the previous film or book already to have anticipation for it. Surely if you're interested in an upcoming film you're either a fan or a bit of a fan - so you will seek out information on it. The average non fan won't know hardly anything, if anything about it. That's why I said "Most people [ apart from the fans ] don't really care about any upcoming film releases. That's true isn't it? Not just a sweeping statement! The real hype and marketing [ well for Spielbergs film anyway ] hasn't really started yet [ apart from bits of info here and there ] and there's also been quite a bit of secrecy surrounding these projects from the start - so that's why most people don't know anything about them. Again, apart from the fans. Take a look all over the net. WOTW is one of THE biggest things in the sci fi world and there's plenty of people outside of these boards talking about the WOTW films. So I would say there is quite a bit of a buzz going on. Even though Pendragons film is probably the most anticipated of the WOTW films the lack of info and handling of the film so far hasn't raised fans expectations to a fever pitch but there is still a buzz for any information on it. I certainly wasn't trying to make you look stupid and you're obviousy not stupid but you did say that the Pal machines were more true to the spirit of Wells book than the tripods by your following sentence -"The Martian War Machines of Pal's movie were also extrapolated from contemporary technology - and in doing so they WERE more true to the spirit of Wells book". I think a giant bio-mechanical tripod with a heatray will hit film goers between the eyes just as much as a Pal saucer design with a heatray on top - probably more so. How also did I contradict myself when I said "Word gets round" The reason word hasn't got round YET is because as I said the real promotion hasn't started yet. Where's my contradictory statement in that? Word has certainly got round the fan and sci fi community though hasn't it?
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Mar 15, 2005 0:25:00 GMT
Whatever you say. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 15, 2005 0:45:58 GMT
"So I would say there is quite a bit of a buzz going on." About the Spielberg film, you bet. About the Pendragon film...well, in most of the websites I visit it is a joke. Not because of the Victorian setting, but because the clips looked so bad. I would bet big bucks the Pendragon Film is straight to DVD.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 15, 2005 1:23:41 GMT
"So I would say there is quite a bit of a buzz going on." About the Spielberg film, you bet. About the Pendragon film...well, in most of the websites I visit it is a joke. Not because of the Victorian setting, but because the clips looked so bad. I would bet big bucks the Pendragon Film is straight to DVD. Who knows! I've virtually given up speculating lately.
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on Mar 17, 2005 12:07:05 GMT
Indeed. Even the imdb.com trolls seem to have found better things to do with their time than support this movie.
|
|