|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 18, 2005 23:31:56 GMT
this film should at least have the backing and financing from a major studio - like LOTRINGS did and it's bloody appalling that it hasn't. According to who? Sure we Wells fans would like to see such, but period science fiction is a niche market-- the poor box-office showing of "Sky Captain" is certainly proof of that. Can you name one single period SF film that was a hit? I can't. Spielberg knows this; that's why his film is set in modern day, despite the fact that Spielberg himself said he'd like to see a period production. You disagree? Good! Please, *please* prove me wrong-- get out there and recruit the talent and raise the money for a big-budget period WotW production with top-notch talent all around. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 19, 2005 0:44:16 GMT
You said it! Clearly some will not be happy even if Pendragon's film were to turn out to be the best movie ever made. Just like there were rabid Tolkien fans who raged at Peter Jackson for taking liberties with "Lord of the Rings". Funny, we haven't heard much from those particular naysayers since "The Two Towers" came out. Wonder why?  I certainly would be happy if Pendragons film turns out to be great and I've said this on many occasions. Just because some people are quite rightly questioning Pendragons ability doesn't mean they're anti - Pendragon. Let's not forget Pendragon haven't released anything apart from extremely low budget straight to video stuff in the past. I think that's a good reason to be sceptical of them don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 19, 2005 1:02:47 GMT
According to who? Sure we Wells fans would like to see such, but period science fiction is a niche market-- the poor box-office showing of "Sky Captain" is certainly proof of that. Can you name one single period SF film that was a hit? I can't. Spielberg knows this; that's why his film is set in modern day, despite the fact that Spielberg himself said he'd like to see a period production. You disagree? Good! Please, *please* prove me wrong-- get out there and recruit the talent and raise the money for a big-budget period WotW production with top-notch talent all around. Who says period sci fi is a niche market. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was a big hit wasn't it and the reason the Time Machine flopped could well have been to do with the fact that it wasn't done properly and pleased no one. Wells fans didn't go to see it because they'd heard it was a travesty and when fans don't like a film word usually get's round about how bad it is and then the general public don't see it as well. I don't know exactly why Sky Captain flopped but it could have been due to a variety of reasons and not just because it was period sci fi. King Kong is a sort of period sci fi and I bet that will be a huge hit. And when did Spielberg say that he would have liked to do a proper version of the book. He said recently that he didn't want to do Victorian sci fi. Spielberg is a fan of the original film [ contrary to what he said recently ] and has said that the 1953 film was one of his inspirations to get him in to film making. He's no fan of the book and neither is Cruise. If he was, he would have used his massive Hollywood clout to do the book properly. Again they would never have done the book properly as it wasn't set in America. Spielberg and Cruise are only interested in America. |
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Apr 19, 2005 4:08:10 GMT
Sorry, a bad film of WOTW, no matter how faithful to the original, is still a bad film. And what we have seen gives us no reason to be optimistic that the Pednragon film will be anything but bad.
Anybody who knows anything about the film business sees nothing but red flags about this whole project.
Hines has never gotten one of his films into theaters. Everything he has done so far has been straight to DVD. That should really tell you something .
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 19, 2005 7:45:54 GMT
Hines has never gotten one of his films into theaters. Everything he has done so far has been straight to DVD. That should really tell you something .  Yeah, it tells me he's never before gotten the backing to do a major feature film. Since the term AHB is considered objectionable by some, and since I've asked those who make uniformly negative comments about this film (which they haven't seen) to come up with a label for their "camp" but no one has suggested one, I'm going to start using the term "Loyal Opposition". I hope this isn't considered objectionable... Anyway, I see the Loyal Opposition is in full cry on this thread. I just continue to be amazed that those who are ready to villify the film before they've even see it spend so much time here. I personally think it's a travesty that Spielberg is making a big-budget adaptation of WotW but is not even attempting to make it an authentic period piece. Yet I don't spend time on the Paramount forum bashing that. No one in this forum can do anything about the quality of Pendragon's WotW. It will be what it will be. If it's a great film, that will be wonderful! If it's just okay, those of us who have been waiting for decades to see a period adaptation will at least be able to see our desire partially realized, and we should be grateful for what Pendragon will give us. In other words: Glass half full. If it's a travesty like the recent "The Time Machine" then we'll shake our heads in sorrow... and then we'll get on with our lives!It's like the old saying: You can't do anything about the deal that life hands you. But you can do something about your attitude towards it. To those who think that Mr. Hines doesn't have the "right" to make a film which they personally think isn't up to their personal standards: Perhaps you should move to Cuba or North Korea, and get a job with the government agency that approves or censors all art in those countries, based on their political "value". As for me, I thank God I live in a country where artists are allowed to express themselves freely. |
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 19, 2005 7:58:11 GMT
20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was a big hit wasn't it Yes it was. And it was released in 1954, in an era when family films could be a hit. And Disney films have, to some extent, been the exception that proves the rule. A "G" rating is considered the kiss of death these days; only Disney films seem to be able to excape that curse. For example: When the MPAA ratings board split over their ruling for "Star Wars"-- they couldn't decide between a "G" rating and "PG" (or maybe it was "GP" back then), Lucas immediately opted for a PG. Compare the success of "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" with, say, "The Iron Giant", another absolutely fabulous family film, with wonderful word of mouth advertising, and despite two theatrical releases it remains a "hit" only on video. And gee... that's another period SF film, isn't it? What a coincidence... NOT!! As for "King Kong": In the first place, that's fantasy, not SF; and in the second, we don't know if it will be a hit yet, now do we? |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 19, 2005 20:12:02 GMT
Yes it was. And it was released in 1954, in an era when family films could be a hit. And Disney films have, to some extent, been the exception that proves the rule. A "G" rating is considered the kiss of death these days; only Disney films seem to be able to excape that curse. For example: When the MPAA ratings board split over their ruling for "Star Wars"-- they couldn't decide between a "G" rating and "PG" (or maybe it was "GP" back then), Lucas immediately opted for a PG. Compare the success of "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" with, say, "The Iron Giant", another absolutely fabulous family film, with wonderful word of mouth advertising, and despite two theatrical releases it remains a "hit" only on video. And gee... that's another period SF film, isn't it? What a coincidence... NOT!! As for "King Kong": In the first place, that's fantasy, not SF; and in the second, we don't know if it will be a hit yet, now do we? Some good points but I'm still not convinced that there isn't a big market for period sci fi. If you think about it there haven't really been that many period sci fi films to say whether there's a market or not. Don't forget loads of non period sci fi films have flopped and have done ten times worse than Sky Captain or The Time Machine. Of course you can say that it's a bit of a coincidence that these 2 didn't do that well at the box office but I bet that if The Time Machine had been done properly it would have been much more successful - the fans would have praised it and if it achieved a classic status like LOTR maybe it would have picked up a few Oscars which also might of helped. I did say that King Kong was 'sort of' sci fi. Not in the proper sci fi sense I know but in the out of the ordinary fantastical sense. It's a work of fiction and you could argue there's a science aspect to it as well. It's obviously not really full on fantasy though. I suppose it's hard to pigeonhole. I think the best thing anyone making a period sci fi film is to make it as realistic as possible and in the case of HG WELLS WOTW - make it really frightening and even notoriously frightening so that word gets around. |
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Apr 19, 2005 22:37:02 GMT
To those who think that Mr. Hines doesn't have the "right" to make a film which they personally think isn't up to their personal standards: Perhaps you should move to Cuba or North Korea, and get a job with the government agency that approves or censors all art in those countries, based on their political "value". As for me, I thank God I live in a country where artists are allowed to express themselves freely. Ah Lensman, what would we do without your posts to brighten up our days with their wonderful brand of fuzzy logic? How do you join the dots to connect someone who is legitimately questioning a film-maker's ability to make a particular movie, to likening them with a totalitarian propaganda ministry apparatchik? Bravo, that's an innovative argument, Lensman. I find it amazing that you fall over yourself so obsessively and at such enormous length to defend a film-maker who spent years faffing around with cheap derivative schlock sci-fi dreck, and on the evidence so far (for which Hines has no-one but himself to blame, as his PR has been disastrous) he's busy wrecking WotW as well. Bravo indeed for The Land of the Free, defeating the godless commie hordes was worth it to make the world safe for Timothy Hines. |
|
|
|
Post by FutureDirector on Apr 19, 2005 23:13:57 GMT
lol im sure this isnt the place for this post but still ill put it here. Theres another... yes another wotw film lol. its a direct to video but looks real... the tripod has 3 sets of 2 legs... so 6 legs... on the site they have the poster and pic of a tripod over an deserted place under production page. This is a modern day relese. A few known people are in it. www.cthomashowell.net/mainpage.htm is the actor and some pics. then the main movie page with poster is www.theasylum.cc/cgi-bin/showMovie.cgi?id=10 This looks good... or could. lol. |
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Apr 19, 2005 23:49:57 GMT
Where the feck did that come from FD?  Talk about appearing out of nowhere... C.Thomas Howell? Oh Boy... FD, this news demands it's own thread and I shall set one up in the general section. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 20, 2005 0:10:50 GMT
Nice, a 6 legged tripod. . . Smells of tv movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 20, 2005 9:41:18 GMT
How do you join the dots to connect someone who is legitimately questioning a film-maker's ability to make a particular movie, It's not the *ability* of this film maker which some of the Loyal Opposition are questioning, it's the *right*. A very, very different thing. Yet again, you are twisting my words. |
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Apr 20, 2005 10:12:01 GMT
Lensman, just let go, dude, it'll be okay, it'll all be okay...
|
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 20, 2005 12:40:00 GMT
It's not the *ability* of this film maker which some of the Loyal Opposition are questioning, it's the *right*. A very, very different thing. Yet again, you are twisting my words. I have read and re read these posts and have a few comments... Firstly well done future director, well done that man! I did hear something about it a while back, I think it is due on the sci-fi channel....good find anyway, well done! Lensman, although the more critical on the board point out Tim Hines short comings (hard not to do with out spectulating on "what could be", all the facts are negative) and that could be seen as none constructive how is calling one of the most fair and intelligent people on these boards a troll in any way constructive? I think it is you who are twisting peoples words trying to defend the indefensible, why not just say "I dont agree with that because..." instead of implying some insidious motive and casting anyone you dont agree with down as a troll. EVERY negative post thats not about Tim Hines is posted BY YOU. Does that not trouble you? It troubles me  |
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Apr 20, 2005 12:58:10 GMT
Alright.. everybody has made their point..
Back on topic now please.
|
|
amber14
Full Member
Welsh Bunny
Posts: 72
|
Post by amber14 on Apr 28, 2005 9:42:07 GMT
Great! Spielberg gets John Williams - Pendragon gets Jamie Hall?? Is Williams that good any more? Yes he does some cracking stuff but a lot of it sounds like Last crusade and the majority of music from phantom menace was in Clones, hardly original. I have always loved Williams but he is getting on now you know. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 28, 2005 22:05:18 GMT
Is Williams that good any more? Yes he does some cracking stuff but a lot of it sounds like Last crusade and the majority of music from phantom menace was in Clones, hardly original. I have always loved Williams but he is getting on now you know. That's a fair point I suppose and even though he's done some fantastic scores - is he still cabable of doing something as memorable as some of his previous ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Apr 28, 2005 23:31:17 GMT
The repeating music theme in the star wars films is there on purpose. Its no accident that he keeps reusing the same theme for certain characters. Its a way of linking the films together. For example, no doubt in episode 3 as anakin turns into vader, we will hear vader's theme play sounding like it did in episode 4, 5 and 6.
Howard shore did it in the three LOTR movies as well, slightly modifying them per movie as williams is doing.
its common practice in films with prequels these days.
If you want to hear williams (and non-starwars related tunes) you need to look at saving private ryan and schindlers list style movie soundtracks.
|
|
amber14
Full Member
Welsh Bunny
Posts: 72
|
Post by amber14 on Apr 29, 2005 10:53:57 GMT
I know Williams uses themes for his scores but how do you get the mix up in themes for the new star wars filums? Considering the main theme is meant to be Luke's theme, shouldn't the new filums have the Imperial March (Darth Vader's theme) as the opening titles instead?
Nope I'm sorry your case doesn't hold water. There are def mix ups between Phantom Menace and Clones and a lot of it is too much like Last Crusade which was one of his weakest film soundtracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Apr 29, 2005 12:49:01 GMT
but that would be like changing a TV series theme tune everytime the show was based on a different character, it wouldn't work. The main "Star Wars" theme is the opening credits, whereas lukes theme is a section of that, but played in a different key (something minor I think, I can't remember now). The opening music lets you know this is a Star Wars film, thats all. I agree that most of his work recently has been indiana jones'y, the Harry Potter stuff especially. I also think that he can, when given a free reign, produce wonderful music still such as schindlers list. Welsh eh, hello from sunny warrington |
|
Yeah, it tells me he's never before gotten the backing to do a major feature film.
