|
Post by djmatt82 on Mar 15, 2005 14:55:30 GMT
I'm not going to say anything else about this movie, other than, I will be buying it, and some peoples attitude & language has been terrible regarding this picture. All we have to remember its a small indie outfit, that does not have the same clout as Paramount. So what - At least someone tried to make this movie, and I hope its every bit as good as the book. Thats all I am saying on the matter I refuse to have any petty arguments, because, personally, i am really looking forward to getting hold of a copy - I mean seriously, it cant be THAT bad a movie can it?!. I hope people agree with me, I mean, what did we used to grade a movie on 15-20 years ago?!
1: The Story 2: The Story 3: The Story
What do we rate a move on now?
1: CGI 2: Tom Cruise / Speilbergs Credits 3: Budget
The whole storytelling idea has gone out the window. Countless movies recently has been absolutly SHOCKING because the story has been terrible (cue Everything made by Paul.WS.Anderson).
LETS HOPE THIS MOVIE TELLS A STORY. After all, thats what HG intended it to be, not a MultiMillion Dollar Movie Starring Tom Cruise.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Mar 15, 2005 16:06:04 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Hmmm...interesting!
I don't think most people rate a film on any of those points. They may inspire people to see the movie, but what it's rated on is entertainment value.
Take Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space. A truly awful story - yet it persists and grows in popularity because it is entertaining. Entertaining for the wrong reasons perhaps, but it is now rated quite highly.
Maybe it's not what's put into the movie, but what the audience gets out of it. [/glow]
|
|
Boz
Junior Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Boz on Mar 15, 2005 16:06:38 GMT
Plot is important, yes. But a great story (we've got that already by the way) needs to be told with great acting. The trailer suggested a serious lack in this department. CGI is not important, neither is budget (witness films like Pitch Black) but if you don't have the budget, don't try to emulate films that do have it. Work around it. Otherwise hilarity and no release will ensue.
|
|
|
Post by VES on Mar 15, 2005 16:16:39 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Hmmm...interesting! I don't think most people rate a film on any of those points. They may inspire people to see the movie, but what it's rated on is entertainment value. Take Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space. A truly awful story - yet it persists and grows in popularity because it is entertaining. Entertaining for the wrong reasons perhaps, but it is now rated quite highly. Maybe it's not what's put into the movie, but what the audience gets out of it. [/glow] Agreed, but speaking as a Well's reader and enthusiast, making certain the main ideas of the original story come through are of high importance in this case. While SS's film may be wonderfully full of eye candy, and you may be entertained for the entire time flashy visuals bound across the screen, in the end if the story truly is full of about a hundred holes, you still end up walking out of the theatre rather dissapointed. I will indeed be checking out the Hine's DVD in one form or another; hoping that the story and the ideas it contained will remain intact. I'm not so certain those ideas will make it through in the SS version.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Mar 15, 2005 16:41:15 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Very true. Your Average Joe and the Wells enthusiasts are each going to have very different expectations from SS.
I suspect, as fans, we'll end up disappointed on the ideas front, but like Average Joe, we'll probably rate it highly for entertainment.[/glow]
|
|
Boz
Junior Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Boz on Mar 15, 2005 16:55:47 GMT
Surely Wells' original vision was the fallibility of the (then) modern world: the ease by which what he saw as 'civilisation' could be overturned. Although the novel is wonderful - still chilling after over a century - the actual story is slight and perhaps more suited to a one hour television treatment (BBC? Anyone?). Although I would love to see a period retelling of this book, I think the best way to preserve Wells' vision is to make it contemporary. Wells did not write an historical novel - it was actually set in the then future. Blah blah blah etc.
|
|
|
Post by VES on Mar 15, 2005 17:01:27 GMT
Surely Wells' original vision was the fallibility of the (then) modern world: the ease by which what he saw as 'civilisation' could be overturned. Although the novel is wonderful - still chilling after over a century - the actual story is slight and perhaps more suited to a one hour television treatment (BBC? Anyone?). Although I would love to see a period retelling of this book, I think the best way to preserve Wells' vision is to make it contemporary. Wells did not write an historical novel - it was actually set in the then future. Blah blah blah etc. Very good, then; However, part of the terror of the original story was the period it was set in; a time considered rather primitive by today's standards obviously. That was part of the suspense for me; the fact that the world was truly ill-equipped for such an invasion from a race that had centuries of scientific development.
|
|
Boz
Junior Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Boz on Mar 15, 2005 17:11:03 GMT
Yes, you're right.
|
|
|
Post by twistedrabbit on Mar 15, 2005 17:19:48 GMT
Nice to see non abusive discussion going on. ;D
SS will be entertaining no doubt...I agree we may be dissapointed with ideas changing and missing, but we might appreciate it as a piece of cinematic work anyway.
The Hines version can only appeal to what the SS won't give us. A classic retelling based directly off of the text in the book. It could turn out to be a flop, but at least someone gave an original telling a go. We could be satisfied or we could be harsher judging the movie because it proclaims to be an exact rendition.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 15, 2005 17:30:57 GMT
" But a great story (we've got that already by the way) needs to be told with great acting. The trailer suggested a serious lack in this department.' 100% agreed. The acting worries me a lot more then the SFX. I cut Hines some slack in that the SFX is saw in the clips was a beta, unfinished version, ,but he is pretty much stuck with the acting the way is is. Some of the "British" accents make Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins" look like a masterpiece of authentic dialect. And Van Dyke at least could act, which I have very grave doubts about in WOTW.
"I mean seriously, it cant be THAT bad a movie can it?" Yes it can, the best book in the , badly handled, will make a lousy movie. And it's not enough just to be "faithful" to the novel. I can think of a couple of films that have been very faithful to the book and still been lousy movies.
And the point about resources is well taken. There are some projects you should not undertake unless you have an adequate budget. I agree that the emphasis on eye candy today is irritating, but in a story like WOTW you have to make the Martians convincing, that takes decent SFX and is a major part of the storytelling,and that takes bucks. If 12 Million is all that Hines spent on this film, then I really doubt the effects are going to be what they need to be from a story telling point of view..And the report that Hines is doing the effects on his home computer is not good. If it is a single man operation we are in trouble. I just don't think that being faithful to the novel is good enough. It has to be good as a film as well. And I have very grave doubts about the latter. And Hines was selling this film on the website as a major motion picture with State Of The Art Special effects.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Mar 15, 2005 17:32:53 GMT
I'm not going to say anything else about this movie, other than, I will be buying it, and some peoples attitude & language has been terrible regarding this picture. All we have to remember its a small indie outfit, that does not have the same clout as Paramount. So what - At least someone tried to make this movie, and I hope its every bit as good as the book. Thats all I am saying on the matter I refuse to have any petty arguments, because, personally, i am really looking forward to getting hold of a copy - I mean seriously, it cant be THAT bad a movie can it?!. I hope people agree with me, I mean, what did we used to grade a movie on 15-20 years ago?! 1: The Story 2: The Story 3: The Story What do we rate a move on now? 1: CGI 2: Tom Cruise / Speilbergs Credits 3: Budget The whole storytelling idea has gone out the window. Countless movies recently has been absolutly SHOCKING because the story has been terrible (cue Everything made by Paul.WS.Anderson). LETS HOPE THIS MOVIE TELLS A STORY. After all, thats what HG intended it to be, not a MultiMillion Dollar Movie Starring Tom Cruise. Spielberg does not want his film be 'overblown' as he puts it. He wants to keep the essence of the Wells' novel. And how can you compare the great visual storyteller which is Spielberg to P.WS. Anderson who made crap like Resident Evil and Alien vs Predator. He is filming it in a documentry kind of realism way (watch Nil'byMouth' that filmed in a documentry realistic way) to give it a personal feeling. Like what Wells' did in the novel, he made it almost like a personal journey of the Writer. When Hines though talks about his film i think sometimes he is being a bit ambitious. Saying the effects at times are as good as the Matrix sequels and that Anthony Piana is the new De Niro. Cant you see why people are slightly annoyed, from what we have seen so far tell me and many others that he is lying. Even so, am really looking forward to seeing his film and will continue to promote it. Anthony
|
|
|
Post by Lucius909 on Mar 15, 2005 18:12:01 GMT
I would have thought 12 million would be more than enough, if PK Wars is anything to go buy - the budget of that was on a similar scale and you got three cracking hours out of that.
My guess is the Hines budget was a hell of a lot less - I'm sure I read something way back when indicating it was barely 7 figures! We'll have to see - personally I shall watch it with great interest and probable amusement - I'd like to think there's no reason still why it can't be bought for TV.
And relax people! The level of upset on occasions is comparable to watching an ethnic cleansing sqaud rape and murder your neighbours from your front window. It's only a film, and much as some of you want to be seen to be the protectors of Wells' legacy, the simple fact is you aren't - nothing personal, just the way the world works.
|
|
|
Post by djmatt82 on Mar 15, 2005 18:15:10 GMT
lets just hope its good eh!?!
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Mar 15, 2005 18:43:34 GMT
I really want to see this movie too. I'm more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, and excuse the cheap special effects and bad acting. The most important thing is to capture the right tone, and from what little footage I've seen, I think he's done that. If it's properly dark and bleak, that will make up for a lot of other shortcomings. And who knows, maybe in context all that overacting actually works. It is the end of the world, after all.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 15, 2005 19:07:12 GMT
"The most important thing is to capture the right tone, and from what little footage I've seen, I think he's done that." You are in a minority there. As for "Tone", it seems to be that acting is a major part of the tone of a picture. We seem to be in Two camps: those who will be satisfied with any period version as being better then none and those who also want it to be a quality production and feel that a bad film will do injustice to Wells no matter how "Faithful" it is. And I have to point out that really bad effects and bad actings will bring laughter...hardly conductive to a dark and bleak tone.
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Mar 15, 2005 19:36:58 GMT
Sure in a movie theater it might bring laughter, but who really expects this to be released theatrically anyway?
As far as the two camps go, I'm much more excited about Spielberg's version anyway. When all is said and done, I think his will end up being more faithful to the spirit of the book than Hine's. Hines seems to be trying to make an "epic" or 19th century disaster movie (albeit a very cheap looking one). Spielberg is telling the story from one character's perspective as the world crashes down around him.
Maybe we shouldn't be sastisfied with what Hine's is making, but there's not much we can do about it. Either we choose to watch it or we don't. Personally, I'd like to see it.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 15, 2005 22:38:50 GMT
Lets look at it this way. . . .TH has made a movie for fans, for fans to purchase on DVD, to be seen (maybe) at selected cinamas of his choice for some of his fans, to then release the movie before Speilbergs to please the fans.
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Mar 16, 2005 0:27:32 GMT
Lets look at it this way. . . .TH has made a movie for fans, for fans to purchase on DVD, to be seen (maybe) at selected cinamas of his choice for some of his fans, to then release the movie before Speilbergs to please the fans. But was that limited appeal by choice or just because he's incompetent?
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Mar 16, 2005 0:31:53 GMT
What do we rate a move on now? 1: CGI 2: Tom Cruise / Speilbergs Credits 3: Budget I don't think I'm alone in rating films on: 1: Screenplay 2: Direction 3: Acting From all early evidence PP seems sorely lacking in at least two of these departments.
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Mar 16, 2005 0:54:31 GMT
I have to admit, after watching the so-called trailer again... it does look very amateurish. From the poorly mixed dialogue and screams, to the bad synthesizer music playing throughout, to the CGI which jumps off the screen. It basically looks like a really bad SW fan film. I have a feeling that's what this project basically is, a fan film made by an amateur. And we fell for it.
|
|