|
Post by Peter on Apr 2, 2005 12:41:19 GMT
With the now DVD release, and the slating from members for the first trailer - does anyone know if Pendragon have any plans to release a new trailer, that showcases the more completed special F/X and production?
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 2, 2005 16:51:16 GMT
I don't know, Peter, but I sure hope there will be. Would be cool.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Apr 2, 2005 17:37:49 GMT
Hines will need to release something to gain back confidence from the doubters.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Child on Apr 2, 2005 18:56:44 GMT
Agreed. I expected a new trailer on march 30, to compensate the delay of the film. Anyway, a new trailer would be a wise step.
Johan
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 2, 2005 18:59:15 GMT
Well we would certainly like to see one, of course, but as time goes along it seems less and less likely. There has to be an economic incentive for them to produce a trailer. If it's gonna be straight-to-DVD then there's no reason to do one. It's not just the cost of producing the trailer, it's the cost of advertising. If your showing is limited to a handful of cities (or less) then is it really worth advertising on TV? Maybe on local TV, in the wee hours when the rates are low. But most "art house" movies get no TV ads, and if they show a trailer it's only in the art house cinema it's being shown in. So I guess my thoughts are the same as for the possibility of a (very limited) theatrical release: I'm hoping for one, but not really expecting it. I *am* expecting them to give their website a facelift. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't already done so. But any day week now. Guys? Hey, Pendragon?
|
|
|
Post by krys666 on Apr 2, 2005 19:53:09 GMT
Pleeeeeeease Pendragon? I would love to mabey see a hint of heat ray or martian etc, but not to give it away etc...
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on Apr 2, 2005 21:50:43 GMT
How are people supposed to find out about their straight-to-DVD movie without a trailer? Trailers are one of the biggest marketing devices for any movie, regardless of whether it's released in cinemas or on DVD.
We might know that it exists, but 99.9% of people do not. If there's no trailer then their main hope for sales is that idiots will buy the movie thinking it's the Spielberg 'War of the Worlds'.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 2, 2005 22:01:28 GMT
And an internet only trailer will cost next to nothing. All the footage is there, it just needs a recut.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 2, 2005 22:09:36 GMT
If there's no trailer then their main hope for sales is that idiots will buy the movie thinking it's the Spielberg 'War of the Worlds'. That's pretty much right. Read the "Pendragon Press Release - March 25th 2005" threads. And an internet only trailer will cost next to nothing. All the footage is there, it just needs a recut. But there already is an Internet trailer. A couple of 'em, actually. If this is what you mean, then certainly I hope we'll see a new, improved one.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 2, 2005 22:22:03 GMT
Indeed Lensman, that's what I meant. One for the fans :-) Allthough I fear it also will be shread to threads by the AHB, no matter what or how cool it is ... :-(
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 2, 2005 22:54:50 GMT
Indeed Lensman, that's what I meant. One for the fans :-) Allthough I fear it also will be shread to threads by the AHB, no matter what or how cool it is ... :-( That seems inevitable. But things have improved recently, a great deal. (Thanx again Bayne!)
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Apr 3, 2005 2:00:54 GMT
Indeed Lensman, that's what I meant. One for the fans :-) Allthough I fear it also will be shread to threads by the AHB, no matter what or how cool it is ... :-( -Gnorn If by 'AHB' you mean 'Anti-Hines Brigade' then if it's a shi*te trailer, yes, it will be shredded. If it's good, it will be praised. Hines has been, is, and will be, judged on the merits of what he presents. If what he had presented so far had been good, then he would have been praised, QED. People aren't slagging him off simply because he's Tim Hines, nobody could give a damn who he is - they've slagged him off because what he's shown so far has been cr*ap, and because so far he's strung everyone along with copious quantities of the rankest BS.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Apr 3, 2005 9:48:06 GMT
Id been happy by what Ive seen apart from the big ben sequence and that was because some geometrics were missing. Also Id rather he hadn't put it in at extra cost if the budget was pushed because of it. Its not in the book.
Id looked at bug wars a few months ago so I was quite prepared for effects that were coming.
I didn't like the trailer though. But that was the layout of the scenes rather than the effects.
The acting isn't that bad and Ive seen as bad in big budget films. The one big redeeming feature which has constantly reasured me is just how many scenes have been put in from the book.
Im really gonna pass judgement when Ive seen the film.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 3, 2005 20:23:57 GMT
Id been happy by what Ive seen apart from the big ben sequence and that was because some geometrics were missing. Also Id rather he hadn't put it in at extra cost if the budget was pushed because of it. Its not in the book. I was surprised to see, when I looked at Dr. Zeus' website, just how many editions of WotW had covers that depicted Big Ben. As you say, it's not in the book, but I guess a lot of artists want to put it in anyway. Of course it is an iconic image that says "Setting: London". Not to mention that it's strikingly photogenic and oh-so-Victorian in appearance!
|
|
spelky
Junior Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by spelky on Apr 3, 2005 21:04:54 GMT
At this stage I any type of update to the site would be better than nothing, just some new stills would do, good grief thats not difficult is it?
As to the existing trailers, I could put up with them as I always expected a slicker version to be posted nearer the release date but if they are going to be the only trailers released then I think Pendragon would be better off without the first two and just re-edit the final one (particularly the Big Ben sequence)
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Apr 3, 2005 22:04:32 GMT
I was surprised to see, when I looked at Dr. Zeus' website, just how many editions of WotW had covers that depicted Big Ben. As you say, it's not in the book, but I guess a lot of artists want to put it in anyway. Of course it is an iconic image that says "Setting: London". Not to mention that it's strikingly photogenic and oh-so-Victorian in appearance! The semiotics are as close as could be. A victorean landmark being destroyed by an alien power. I only minded the addition if it didn't mean pushing the budget. I like to think Hines thought weve got 20, 000 left what can that get us...? thus the big ben scene.
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Apr 3, 2005 22:59:34 GMT
The semiotics are as close as could be. A victorean landmark being destroyed by an alien power. I only minded the addition if it didn't mean pushing the budget. I like to think Hines thought weve got 20, 000 left what can that get us...? thus the big ben scene. In the book, they whacked St Paul's, but I guess it doesn't have the same cachet for non-British audiences. But in any case, Hines, I think, really wanted to blow up some public buildings for his film. The concept art for the original script had the Martians zapping the Seattle Space Needle. For this reason, when he says that 9/11 sobered him up on this score, I'm inclined to believe such a statement. Fell off the wagon though, I guess! I'd love to see a high resolution trailer. And yeah, I'm dying to see Hines's tripods. I don't care what the film looks like otherwise: I'll merrily sit through the whole darned thing just to see the FMs, handling machines, black smoke, and the like. Instead of a pedantic, patronising list of 'what Hines should do', it might be rather fun to come up with a list of key moments in the book that we'd think would help sell the film to a broader audience. You know, we could play 'friendly focus group'. Or is that too dumb an idea?
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Apr 3, 2005 23:19:45 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Doesn't sound at all dumb to me Quaderni.
I think showing some more moments, but not the resolution of course, of the struggle between the narrator and the curate would help raise the serious drama side. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Apr 4, 2005 12:12:25 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Key moments to sell WOTW in a trailer:
Opening shot of Mars - a green flash is seen Shots of everyday safe & tranquil life Glipse of something huge smashing into Horsell Common (the location, not the mod!) Shot of lid hitting the floor of the pit Close up of two eyes rising out of the cylinder Glimpse of tentacles shooting out of the pit/cylinder Shot of Ogilvy with a white flag Shot of carriage driven at speed through thunderstorm Shot of tripod leg by lightning Shot of heat ray striking buildiongs Shot of Screaming crowds running in panic Shot of man picked up by metallic tentacle Shot of argument in cellar Shot of Writer using axe Shot of ruined window as handling machine 'eye' lowers into view A shot of the 'Brave New World' in all it's glory Shot of artillery firing as black smoke envelops them Shot of Thunderchild sweeping towards something just out of shot Title fades up on screen Glipse shot of flying machine shooting over a ruined London An atmospheric cry of "Ulla" rings out...
That's get me sold! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 5, 2005 0:37:50 GMT
For a trailer for an action film, I've always preferred a series of short very quick cuts, not in chronological order. Like the newest Star Wars trailer (and a very nice one that is!) But the same approach is probably not best for a moody, atmospheric piece like WotW. Horror film trailers need longer cuts to establish suspense... maybe that's the right approach for a WotW trailer.
|
|