|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 30, 2005 19:16:56 GMT
I think it's getting fairly obvious now that Pendragons WOTW was never meant for a wide cinema release right from the start and I think the only rights Pendragon ever had was for a straight to video or dvd release. Ok it might as some of us suspect be shown in 1 or 2 arthouse cinemas [ probably in Seattle ] but that's about it and again, I don't know anything about film distribution but I think it's strange how the dvd release is locked but the supposed theatrical release hasn't been worked out yet.
Their latest press release sounds a bit suspicious especially when Mr Hines says that their film is an epic with thousands of effects. This really smacks of B.S. to me.
I only read it briefly and I might have remembered it incorrectly but I skimmed through the latest issue of Empire magazine in Asda today and there was a section with the top 10 films to look forward to this summer.
Spielbergs WOTW was in there but there's absolutely no mention of Pendragons film as usual. It also said [ again I was in a rush and might have remembered it incorrectly ] that Spielbergs film has about 450 sfx shots in it. Somehow I find it hard to believe that a low budget film [ who's budget is now mysteriously 20+ million dollars instead of 40 odd milllion ] has more special effects than a big budget Hollywood film.
I'm prepared to eat massive humble pie if I wrong but I think the whole thing is now starting to add up and as Johnny Rotten once said - "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated".
|
|
|
Post by krys666 on Mar 30, 2005 19:19:59 GMT
I don't care if it is releaced on a piece of cheese, I'll still love it!
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 30, 2005 19:21:38 GMT
I don't care if it is releaced on a piece of cheese, I'll still love it! Mouldy with raving botcho...?
|
|
|
Post by krys666 on Mar 30, 2005 19:24:58 GMT
Whats "raving barauchreas"?
Oh, and don't forge tthe crackers! ;D
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 30, 2005 20:49:21 GMT
raving botcho: botulism. You get it from mouldy food like cheese or crappy hack made movies... ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 30, 2005 21:18:19 GMT
raving botcho: botulism. You get it from mouldy food like cheese or crappy hack made movies... ;D So thats how the invaders died
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 30, 2005 21:52:23 GMT
I don't care if it is releaced on a piece of cheese, I'll still love it! Apparently you will get a free slice of Wensley Dale when it's released in to the bargain dvd section.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 30, 2005 22:02:45 GMT
'cracking bit of cheese Gromit'
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 30, 2005 22:21:42 GMT
Spielbergs film has about 450 sfx shots in it. Somehow I find it hard to believe that a low budget film [ who's budget is now mysteriously 20+ million dollars instead of 40 odd milllion ] has more special effects than a big budget Hollywood film. The problem is that there's no consensus on how to count FX shots. I've heard more than one film maker say this. You may have heard counts of so many thousand FX shots for a Star Wars film or a LOTR film. Well think about it: How is it possible that it comes out to an even thousand? The numbers they throw around are estimates only. And if you were to try to do an actual count, what would you count? Every individual element in a CGI scene might amount to 6 or 7 sequences which are overlaid into one brief shot in the movie. So is that one or 6-7? And when you add individual elements to live action films-- say, the lightsaber glow to a SW scene-- do you count each element separately, or do you count multiple lightsabers in the scene as one? And do you count an entire extended fight sequence as one, or each shot within the scene as one? So you see, you could have wildly varying numbers for the same amount of FX.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 30, 2005 22:48:07 GMT
Apparently you will get a free slice of Wensley Dale when it's released in to the bargain dvd section. i prefer gorgon-zola myself...
|
|
|
Post by VES on Mar 31, 2005 1:40:15 GMT
I think it's getting fairly obvious now that Pendragons WOTW was never meant for a wide cinema release right from the start and I think the only rights Pendragon ever had was for a straight to video or dvd release. Ok it might as some of us suspect be shown in 1 or 2 arthouse cinemas [ probably in Seattle ] but that's about it and again, I don't know anything about film distribution but I think it's strange how the dvd release is locked but the supposed theatrical release hasn't been worked out yet. Their latest press release sounds a bit suspicious especially when Mr Hines says that their film is an epic with thousands of effects. This really smacks of B.S. to me. I only read it briefly and I might have remembered it incorrectly but I skimmed through the latest issue of Empire magazine in Asda today and there was a section with the top 10 films to look forward to this summer. Spielbergs WOTW was in there but there's absolutely no mention of Pendragons film as usual. It also said [ again I was in a rush and might have remembered it incorrectly ] that Spielbergs film has about 450 sfx shots in it. Somehow I find it hard to believe that a low budget film [ who's budget is now mysteriously 20+ million dollars instead of 40 odd milllion ] has more special effects than a big budget Hollywood film. I'm prepared to eat massive humble pie if I wrong but I think the whole thing is now starting to add up and as Johnny Rotten once said - "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated". I actually believe he did originally intend it for a theatrical release; however, I also believe he got in over his head, and I think he realized this somewhere along the way. Also, (just to be really, really nice) it's possible that film distributers just didn't see a need for another WOTW film to be released; especially a period piece, and didn't want to touch it for such reasons. Think of it; as a studio executive, do you believe a period adaption of WOTW would sell to the general "Wells-ignorant" public(so to speak.)? In the U.S., at least. Just a possibility, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 31, 2005 7:42:18 GMT
Think of it; as a studio executive, do you believe a period adaption of WOTW would sell to the general "Wells-ignorant" public(so to speak.)? In the U.S., at least. I wish I could say I think you're wrong, but a good friend of mine said just recently he didn't think there was much of a market for period science fiction. Look at what happened with "Sky Captain"; several fans in my SF club thought it was one of the best pictures of the year, yet it flopped at the box office despite good promotion. Hines might have a more savvy approach to selling it as a horror film. Horror films very rarely get the kind of box office draw that blockbusters do, but there's always an audience for horror films-- even the worst.
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on Mar 31, 2005 11:56:09 GMT
Sky Captain didn't flop because it was 'period science fiction', it flopped because it sucked. Bad story, bad choice of actors, bad acting, bad directing, boring CGI-only 'action' scenes... only those truly desperate for 'period science fiction', or more impressed by 'clever' historical jokes than good characters and a good story could look past such blatant flaws.
I mean, seriously, the backstory between Jude Law and Angelina Jolie sounded vastly more interesting than the movie they made, and the best acting came from a corpse. I have a hard time understanding why anyone is surprised that it was a flop... there are a limited number of people whose opinion of a movie is based on their ability to spot King Kong hidden in the background of a shot of New York, rather than by the story it tells and how its told.
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Mar 31, 2005 12:04:41 GMT
I liked Sky Captain, I thought it was an enjoyable movie. It certainly was not the best movie i've ever seen (infact it'd probably be in the 100's in a top 200 movies of all time list), but I did not go into it expecting it to be an epic, just an enjoyable movie.
Likewise with the pendragon movie, i'm not expecing an amazing film, just something i'll watch because i'm interested in the subject matter.
I find I enjoy more movies if I try not to pre-judge them before I see them, a prime example of this was "Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind", I personally have a deep loathing of jim carey, but I thought i'd go and see if he could redeem himself for the mental scars of "cable guy"... He did. It was a great film and I really enjoyed it.
This is how I treat all films these days, too many time's i've hyped myself up for films and they have been a let down. Now I just watch with an open mind and make up my own mind at the end.
Slick2097.
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on Mar 31, 2005 12:29:43 GMT
Same here. It's a shame that the plot made no sense ('Let's go to Tibet now' 'why?' 'Because the script say so'), the movie was poorly cast (sorry, Jude Law is a decent actor, but he's no action hero), the acting was lousy (particularly Gwyneth Paltrow... again, she's a decent actor, but obviously not when put in front of a green screen) and the director was more concerned with showing off his knowledge of old movies than making a good movie himself. And the blurry CGI didn't help.
It's the kind of movie that might have been fun if done on a 50k budget with amateur actors, where you could forgive all the flaws, but just sucked on a 50 mllion budget where there's no justification for being bad.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Mar 31, 2005 13:00:26 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]I'd never heard of Sky Captain, till I saw a trailer on the telly t'other day. Looked interesting though.
Regarding the DVD release - can Pendragon release a DVD wordwide? Although Paramount have wordwide rights to the movie, does this relate to cinemas only? I hope so, coz it'll be easier to get it off play.com, rather than importing it & getting stung for a heavy customs charge.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Mar 31, 2005 13:06:48 GMT
Top Tip for dealing with Customs:
Always get the vendor to mark it as a 'gift' (and make sure the order is less than £35, or thereabouts). If necessary, write a gift message to yourself (I've used 'To my favourite person in all the world - myself. Love, Me xxx' and had no problems).
|
|
|
Post by Marztok on Apr 1, 2005 1:30:41 GMT
Paramount holds the worldwide rights to any movie version of The War of the Worlds in ANY form. This means: cinema TV, VHS, DVD, etc.
Tim Hines has claimed from the onset that he has an "acknowledgement from Paramount" in writing that "they have a right to make a movie based on The War of the Worlds".
The only way Pendragon (or anybody else) can release its movie in ANY form elsewhere than in North America (and a few other countries where early Wells writings are also in the public domain) is if Hines's claim is correct and legally defendable.
Based on some reports, Paramount appears to contradict Pendragon in this regard. I guess that, in the end, it will be for their lawyers to work this one out since Pendragon still mentions plans to distribute the DVD worldwide.
P.S.: The situation with Jeff Wayne is different since he owns just about every other performance right to WOTW and that his movie is based on his musical.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 1, 2005 8:07:19 GMT
Paramount holds the worldwide rights to any movie version of The War of the Worlds in ANY form. This means: cinema TV, VHS, DVD, etc. Tim Hines has claimed from the onset that he has an "acknowledgement from Paramount" in writing that "they have a right to make a movie based on The War of the Worlds". The only way Pendragon (or anybody else) can release its movie in ANY form elsewhere than in North America (and a few other countries where early Wells writings are also in the public domain) is if Hines's claim is correct and legally defendable. Based on some reports, Paramount appears to contradict Pendragon in this regard. I guess that, in the end, it will be for their lawyers to work this one out since Pendragon still mentions plans to distribute the DVD worldwide. P.S.: The situation with Jeff Wayne is different since he owns just about every other performance right to WOTW and that his movie is based on his musical. That is correct . . . 'Tim Hines has claimed from the onset that he has an "acknowledgement from Paramount" in writing that "they have a right to make a movie based on The War of the Worlds".' - How true is this is another matter. We have to take it at face value, but Tim has (so far) not a very good track record in the 'tell the truth' contest. Come on Tim, get things sorted out. When your done, tell us what the aftermath of this film is going to be. H_C
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 1, 2005 8:41:48 GMT
[re "Sky Captain"] the acting was lousy (particularly Gwyneth Paltrow... again, she's a decent actor, but obviously not when put in front of a green screen) and the director was more concerned with showing off his knowledge of old movies than making a good movie himself. And the blurry CGI didn't help. Perhaps when you've had some experience watching older films that "Sky Captain" was referencing you'll be able to appreciate the "cool blonde" period performance Paltrow gave, and be able to appreciate soft focus films such as "Lost Horizon", another film heavily referenced in "Sky Captain". Until then... it's too bad you didn't "get it". Your "blurry" comment makes clear you didn't understand what you were watching.
|
|