|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 27, 2005 0:02:48 GMT
did you take into account that ROTLA was made in the 80's?
Inflation adjusted was your assesment?
Aliens was made with 20 mil back in the mid 80's
i dare you to try it now with modern budgets....
ROLFLMAO
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:03:04 GMT
the CG cartoon that was attack of the clones only had hundreds of effects shots Once again Mottie shows he's not afraid to open his mouth and expose his ignorance. Keep 'em coming, Mottie, you keep us in stitches! ;D
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 27, 2005 0:06:14 GMT
Once again Mottie shows he's not afraid to open his mouth and expose his ignorance. Keep 'em coming, Mottie, you keep us in stitches! ;D once again lensman has not a clue about the film industry. Where Motie and I do.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 27, 2005 0:11:30 GMT
Play nice or no choc pudding tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:12:01 GMT
did you take into account that ROTLA was made in the 80's? Inflation adjusted was your assesment? Aliens was made with 20 mil back in the mid 80's i dare you to try it now with modern budgets.... ROLFLMAO Another Hines basher who's not ashamed to reveal his ignorance. Filming with digital cameras is much less expensive than using film. "28 Days Later" had a budget of $8 million.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 27, 2005 0:17:56 GMT
I was trained by the art director of Aliens, motie works in the UK TV industry i think we know just a little bit about films yes...
The buget for Aliens was 20 mil, make the film now with that level of FX would set you back 50 mil minimum
28 days later used little SFX apart from some make up and a few bangs it wasnt an FX heavy production
WOTW is tereribly FX heavy and i just cant see a decent production being slapped together for 12 million.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:26:16 GMT
2: This post verges UTILIZES a number of clear and cut progoganda techniques Yes it does. Now, can you name one single film which was not hyped this way? Any one at all? Ever? Has there ever been a film for which at least some of the cast didn't make public statements of how great the film was, and that everyone should go see it, even if it was utter tripe? I know there are a couple of cases ("Leonard Part 6" comes to mind) where the star actually did come out and say "this is a turkey, don't go and see it." But for over 99% of films produced, those involved in making it are expected to help promote it-- and they do. Can it possibly be that you are ignorant of this? Possibly, but I doubt it. And if you knew this, then-- you are trolling. (A Hines basher trolling, again. What a surprise!)
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:35:37 GMT
Please don't tell me that somebody actually believes this <snip> If Lucas wanted to do something underhanded to stop WOTW..which I don't think he does...there are lots better ways he could have spent 12/20 Million bucks then finiancing a cheap film. Yeah, especially when you consider that Lucas and Spielberg are close friends. But some people will believe even the most ludicrous rumors... such as some we've seen on this board. "GO PENDRAGON " Wow, that is an brilliant defense of Tim Hines. I swear, I have images of some Hines loyalists drinking the Kool Aid at some point along the line when it becomes clear the guy is a hack and\or a phony.. dudalb, it's you who have drunk so deeply of the Hines Bashers' Kool-Aid that you have made up your mind about this film before having seen it. That's very apparent. In addition to all your other negative comments, you're bashing even the new poster, which is very good if not absolutely great! GO PENDRAGON!!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:40:27 GMT
I was trained by the art director of Aliens, motie works in the UK TV industry i think we know just a little bit about films yes... Between you, Hines and Mottie, who has proven the most credible? Hint: It ain't you or Mottie. But go ahead, keep up your unintentionally hilarous posts. We all need a good laugh! P.S. -- Having worked on a few amateur films, I know "a little bit" about film making, too. But I don't go around claiming that makes me an expert. Most of what I know I learned because I read a lot and keep my ears open.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Mar 27, 2005 0:41:57 GMT
I get a kick out of seeing how anything Timothy Hines releases irritates a few here to the point they can’t stop themselves constantly pissing and moaning about him and the film. On top of that, Flynn now thinks I commute from Missouri to Washington state every day. Classic.
It really is worth the price of admission around here. Oscar Wilde would be proud.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:43:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:47:25 GMT
I'm quite surprised Hines actually read it, let alone believed it was anything more than a joke to pass the time before the film was released. Rumors often get started as jokes, and most likely Hines heard it as a rumor. I doubt Hines has time to read message boards at the moment!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:49:37 GMT
You just gave me this vision of a poster on a wall with a tripod on it and the caption reading 'I wan't to beleive' LOL! "The truth might be out there!"
|
|
|
Post by Zoë on Mar 27, 2005 0:50:44 GMT
Hi Zoe! Welcome back to the forum. We missed you! no no no wrong zoe, iv never left here before
|
|
|
Post by Marztok on Mar 27, 2005 0:51:50 GMT
I am new here.
I have been a fan of Wells's WOTW novel for many years and always hoped that one day, an adaptation set in the time period of the book would make it to the big screen.
I have been following Pendragon's efforts at a WOTW adaptation since early 2001. I didn't like their original approach to do an updated version and was happy when they opted for a period version in 2002.
I have read most of all your posts and found most of them to be valid arguments. I have seen the trailers and had mixed feelings about them. Not sure about the acting, but the sequences were far too short to tell. Made me think of a theatrical play. I do not dislike it.
As for the SFX in the one trailer, I got a kick out of them ! No, they are not the most technically sophisticated, but they caught my fancy - as crude as they may be. And few mega-million dollar movies of recent years have done that...
I really don't know what the final product will be like, but I am very curious to see it as it will be the closest I will get to ever seeing a period version of this story.
I think most of the frustration expressed on this board has to do with the fact we have a hard time believing we will ever see this movie. And I agree that the release date "sometime in late April" is hard to take seriously since cinema bookings must be made many weeks (if not months) in advance.
Nonetheless, I hope I will see it sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 0:58:32 GMT
WOTW is tereribly FX heavy and i just cant see a decent production being slapped together for 12 million. You mean, you can't envision WotW being done in a version that's not very heavy on the FX. Thankfully, Hines is doing this and not you. Clearly, you'd exhaust the budget long before finishing the film. IIRC Hines is quoted as saying WotW will be "Independence Day meets The Bed Sitting Room". The latter film had absolutely no FX at all. I feel sorry for those of you who can't enjoy a good film without a lot of flash-bang. Personally, I thought "Gattaca" was one of the best recent SF films, and it had almost nothing in the way of FX. Sure, an epic treatment of WotW needs more FX than "Gattaca". But it's quite possible to do a respectable treatment with only a few FX heavy scenes. Those who are more interested in flash-bang can go watch "Independence Day" and "Attack of the Clones" again. The rest of us might enjoy a period WotW production.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 1:03:25 GMT
no no no wrong zoe, iv never left here before Oh, sorry. Well it's nice to hear from the distaff side, anyway! It's a stag party around here most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 27, 2005 1:23:47 GMT
I am new here. <snip> I think most of the frustration expressed on this board has to do with the fact we have a hard time believing we will ever see this movie. And I agree that the release date "sometime in late April" is hard to take seriously since cinema bookings must be made many weeks (if not months) in advance. Welcome, Marztok! Yes, it is frustrating for us die-hard Wells fans. The Pendragon production has been postponed several times, and it's indeed frustrating to keep getting our hopes up and having the film delayed again. However, I'm fairly confident the DVD will indeed come out in June as promised. As for the theatrical release, to be realistic I think we shouldn't hope for more than it appearing in the SF Museum in Seattle, and perhaps-- just maybe-- a few "art house" cinemas scattered across the U.S, and also just maybe a couple of others "worldwide" as previously announced, altho I certainly wouldn't bet on the latter at this late date. Previously Hines had promised trailers in theatres and on TV, indicating a "wide" theatrical release, but he's no longer talking about that. OTOH if Hines can work out the deal, a showing on the Sci-Fi Channel would almost certainly be more profitable and get much more attention for the DVD release. But there's not a hint Hines is trying for that.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Mar 27, 2005 1:47:50 GMT
Lensman, your not a die hard Wells fan, your just a mug. Hines could crap on a plate, stamp war of the worlds on it and you would be there silver spoon in hand waiting to spoon all that nutty goodness down your sniveling whiney gullet. Yet again I see the old pattern, we who dislike what we are seeing are cast down as heretics or the "anti Hines brigade" while we are also attacked with crazy foundationless slandur, little yellow smiley faces only get you so far, mug boy The true hard core fans sit back now and wait to see what happens next, you on the other hand are simply delusional, I bet you even call Hines 'the Father' dont you. You go on to say that Hines has more credability than we do, yeah hes NEVER lied has he? OOOOH NO not once!! The guy runs on telling porkys like my car runs on unleaded, but you love that nutty goodness dont you! To be hones if I had the choice I would rather be the village idiot than a sniveling Lensman style fanboy creeping my way around forums routing for con men and idiots, "welcome back zoe!" LOL you didnt even know who the fu*k you were talking too!! goon. One last nugget for you, attack of the clones had less than 500 effects shots, ID4 had in the region of 400 ish, your beloved and credible pal Hines has THOUSANDS of effects shots, better get that spoon ready Lensy your gunna eat tons of his crap before it makes you sick! This is the part where I am supposed to put the smiley little emoticon to make insults 'ok' but you know what? Kiss my arse buddy.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Mar 27, 2005 2:08:26 GMT
News comes out = "I hate this news, I don;'t belive it"
Trailer comes out = "I hate this trailer, SFX are crap, acting is crap, everything is crap"
Poster comes out = "I hate the poster, it's crap. No I know it's out, Iknow you think it's cool, it's still crap cause your a mug."
Press release comes out = "I hate the press release, it's crap. Its full of crap, your a mug if you accept even a little of it, cause it's crap"
Nothing positve has come out once about this film from you at all Motile, so it's very very hard to take your negative attitude towards this film as constructive.
I'm a supporter of this film, but not a die hard, as I have constantly pointed out. I don't belve a word Hines says right now, but that does not mean I wont stop believing in this film if even a little. I'll be harsh when I see fit to be harsh, supportive when I feel it is earned. And I'll state my honest opinion on this film when (or if i see this film).
As you say constantly, "keep it real", soemthing I feel your not :/
Sorry to be harsh, it's just an observation.
|
|