Article and tripod pic in new CFQ

[Winky]

Nevermind it's easy enough to read.

[David Faltskog]

Wow!, cool! thanks for them.

D.F.

[DaveJames]

Cool. You saved me the trouble. Now I can't wait to hear the reactions. Should be fun... ;D

[Gnorn]

Matt, thanks for the scanning. We can read it fine! :-)
But the pictures (especialy of the FM's in London) are a bit hard to judge due to the screening of the pictures. But they look pretty cool non the less...

-Gnorn

[Winky]

I'm working on getting better scans of the important Tripods and the Narrator/Ogilvy thing soon.

[mctoddridesagain]

Very interesting, Anthony and Matt - many thanks for posting all that!

Well, I've not read all of what Hinesy Boy has to say, and to be honest, BS or not, I'm not terribly interested in his conspiracy theories.

I am interested in the stills and behind-the-scenes photos, I like what I can make out/understand of the Fighting Machine designs (they're certainly a damn sight better than the prelim sketches of a few years ago, IMHO) - yes, the London background appears to be shoddily Legoland blocky (like the awful Big Ben shot!), but at least there seems to be progress.

The fact, too, that there is a whole 4-page article in a big circulation magazine (and a genre stalwart at that) means that Hines & Co must at least have the confidence that they will finish the film.

After all the months of arguing, bickering, slagging etc. (which I still stand by), I'll be impressed simply to see it. I know it's dead cheap, I'm not expecting ILM-level fx, yes the acting looks a bit ropey, but damnit, I do look forward to watching it (if I can get it on DVD).

[AlmicheV]

Thanks for the scans!

Sepia though....maybe it'll work. But I guess it's a time saver for the effects peeps.

[Gnorn]

AlmicheV said:

Thanks for the scans!

Sepia though....maybe it'll work. But I guess it's a time saver for the effects peeps.

I don't think time has anything to do with it. It is the number of objects and the way they relate to eachother (as in reflections and stuff) that takes most of the time in rendering a CGI scene... not the color.

-Gnorn

[DaveJames]

Like I said earlier, the main problem I have is those big, bulky tentacles. It's hard to imagine those picking up ANYTHING.

But the more I think about it, the more I can live with the shoddy FX. Whether intentional or not, that shot has a classic scifi movie look to it. It looks like something straight out of the 50s or 60s. If that style worked for those old movies, why can't it work for this one?

[Gnorn]

I can't realy comment on a picture which is screened like this one, but about the tentacles... the tentacles in the trailer look pretty sleek... so I'm sure it will all turn out quite right!

-Gnorn

[mctoddridesagain]

And with their big joints, those tentacles rather remind me of the tentacles on the little mechanical 'spiders' in the second episode of Doctor Who.

If it's good enough for Aunty, it's good enough for me...

[Lensman]

"Everyone at Pendragon knew, in the first years of the twenty-first century, that their production was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences far more fanatical than theirs, and yet as mortal as their own; that as they busied themselves about their various post-production activities they were scrutinized and studied, even more narrowly than a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water."

I wonder if that picture of the tripods is an old design. Doesn't seem to fit with the trailer's shot of the tripod legs. Also, the tentacles in the trailer were segmented in a similar manner, but appear to be thinner and more flexible, and therefore more "workable" than the picture in the article.

[Anthony]

I dont think they would put the sepia effect on an artwork (because its a film effect). This image seems more complete than others seen i think. London looks better.

[DaveJames]

Lensman said:

"Everyone at Pendragon knew, in the first years of the twenty-first century, that their production was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences far more fanatical than theirs, and yet as mortal as their own; that as they busied themselves about their various post-production activities they were scrutinized and studied, even more narrowly than a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water."

That was hilarious. ;D

I wonder if that picture of the tripods is an old design. Doesn't seem to fit with the trailer's shot of the tripod legs.

Yeah I was wondering about that too. The way the thing walked, it didn't look like it had such a wide stance. And weren't their tripods supposed to be all CGI? Those are definitely models in that pic.

[Lensman]

DaveJames said:

The way the thing walked, it didn't look like it had such a wide stance. And weren't their tripods supposed to be all CGI? Those are definitely models in that pic.

I thought it looked like CGI in the CFQ picture. But then I've not seen the actual article, just the poor scan posted.

Yeah, the tripod legs in the trailer look like they converge a lot more than the wide stance seen in the CFQ picture.

[quaderni]

First, let me say, things look very cool.

I agree with you, Dave and Lensman - I'm having a hard time reconciling the image, there, with what we've seen on the trailor - particularly the sleek leg design. But Wells wanted those legs retractable, so maybe they can go the crab-like way and then raise up all the way and walk with the legs in tighter formation (if that makes any sense - sorry for the lousy sentence!).

Anthony, you've worked so much with these images on your website (and how wonderful, too, I should add). What do you think?

[FALLINGSTAR]

Interesting article and pics - and the fighting machines look good also. I find it slightly strange the way he keeps mentioning the practices of a certain big film company though. Surely saying things like that is not exactly going to go down to well with a large Hollywood studio and it's legal team if you know what I mean.
Anyone else find this a bit odd?

[BrutalDeluxe]

DaveJames said:

Yeah I was wondering about that too. The way the thing walked, it didn't look like it had such a wide stance. And weren't their tripods supposed to be all CGI? Those are definitely models in that pic.

They definately look like models to me in that magazine picture. They stand out like dog's bollocks against the CGI background. Could just be the scan though.
The psuedo ball and socket joints look too limber to be reconciled with the tripod legs in the trailer. Strange eh?

[Amasov]

Unless what we're seeing in the trailers is just some early animatic footage, the other theory could be is that these are either a "completed" fighting machine and the ones in the trailer were just quickly assembled to begin the attack or just a different type altogether, possibly better adapted for operating in cities.

[Lensman]

Some of Hines statements do indeed sound like conspiracy theory. (And we've had not a few of those on this forum, eh?) OTOH I think I've heard elsewhere that the Spielberg production *was* fast-tracked. If that's true, then perhaps there is some truth to Hines' seemingly paranoid statements. Remember: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a plot against you!

However, it still does read a lot like spin control to me. I suspect that, as usual with a press release, there's some truth there but it's slanted and "spun" to narrowly present a certain viewpoint.