|
Post by Lensman on Jun 4, 2005 3:04:07 GMT
But the CGI stuff, when you see the handling machine, it looks like it has the "floating-in-mid-air" movement. The lighting on the CG models doesn't even look right. They just look like they have been "copied and pasted" right in without any afterthought. My suspension of disbelief has totally been destroyed by this. You have your choice: You can see a WotW adaptation that has top-notch FX... from Steven Spielberg. OR, you can see a WotW adaptation that's an authentic period piece, but is a "B" film... from Timothy Hines. Or-- if you're like me-- you can watch both films with the attitude that you'll try to view and enjoy each on its own terms. As WotW fans, we should rejoice at having such an excess of riches! Why, then, must so many come on here and whine that they can't get absolutely everything they ever dreamt of in one single film? We should all be turning handsprings that this will be the greatest year for WotW adaptations ever!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jun 4, 2005 3:16:42 GMT
There does seem to be a very stange phenomenon on this part of the board which is absent from the Spielberg and Asylum sections. Disagreement in those sections seems to be, by and large, tolerated in a mature way, but on the Pendragon bit anyone offering a negative opinion is told to shut up. Why is that? I suppose it's because we Hines supporters have gotten tired of the fact that no matter what shows up, no matter how good or bad it is, people come on here and say it's all crap. This trailer is *so* much better than the last one, and the FX in it are *so* much better than most we've seen from Pendragon, and the music is *so* much better than the earlier trailer. But can you tell that from what the AHB says? Nope, not at all. We're hearing the SOS (Same Old Sh--) again from them. And those comments from you that it's "just as bad as 'Plan 9'" and it's "not even up to the level of a fan film" are really beyond the pale, Tinckelly. I mean you're entitled to your opinion, but when you say something that absurd and inflammatory it's difficult to believe that's your honest opinion.
|
|
MikeH
Full Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by MikeH on Jun 4, 2005 3:42:04 GMT
Just stumbled across this, and to be honest I'm disappointed. Some of the action scenes look like PC game from about 7 years ago... really ropy in places.
Some of the FM shots (mainly the ones where you can just see the legs!) are good, but the ones of the entire thing look horrible.
If anything, I think it will be the effects rather than the acting that spoil this film... but I'd like to see it on a proper screen before I pass judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jun 4, 2005 3:43:28 GMT
Bad fx are unacceptable nowadays and most fans will feel cheated if they aren't what Hines promised. Take a deep breath, Fallingstar, and repeat after me: "The Spielberg production will have great FX. The Spielberg production will have great FX. The Spielberg production will have great FX." So go watch that... and accept the Pendragon Production for what it is: a "B" film. And we always knew it would be, now didn't we? So, as Nerfy said sometime back, there's no use crying for a raspberry lollipop, when what you are offered is a grape lollipop. Either be thankful for the grape, or go without.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jun 4, 2005 5:48:03 GMT
Yeah.. if you don't like grape, there's also another two lollipops to choose from, neither is raspberry but one of them has lots of sprinkles on.. and probably icecream in the middle. And the other one is strawberry flavoured. Which is close to, but not quite raspberry. Damn I'm good.
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jun 4, 2005 6:12:45 GMT
(locks and loads the Lewis Gun) Might have to call in ironman For naval support on this one
But seriously lensman, why not modify your one post instead of talking to yourself for like 13 posts lol
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 4, 2005 7:09:16 GMT
FALLINGSTAR wrote: Most probably because this is the one most Wells fans want to succeed and this creates strong emotions. You said it. Love is blind. If love is blind how come I've done my fair share of criticising Pendragon before. You never heard of a 'love-hate' relationship before? Zoe
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jun 4, 2005 7:39:12 GMT
So help me, I actually want to see this film now. I never thought this day would come with copies actually available in the shops; I increasingly assumed Timbo was stringing us all along with no product. I still think that awful website of his needs changing though.
Just got to find a way to import it now.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 4, 2005 7:40:57 GMT
If people here dont like the film, you dont need to order it, watch it, or even pay attention to it, form an opinion, and share it by all means, but atleast share in a way that isnt remarks about the quality with no real evidence to back it up. Do the effects look poor? Yes, Ill be the first to admit that. But too raise that as an arguement, in manors Ive seen here makes your arguement now less valid than saying you dont like the name Timothy so its not up your alley. Once people have the seen the film, lets all make a big thread and share opinions, maturly their, but lets also back the opinions up. We were all harsh to this film, and I think it deserves merit for being made, wether it be made poorly or not. It has crap effects? Yes, it does. Do that make it a bad film? No. The key of my post is this. Wait until you see the film, then comment on it quality, the quality of effects are in no way related too the films value. Unfortunately there is evidence to back up criticisms of the quality. And besides, what else is a legitimate area to criticise this film? The lack of publicity - no...... although that is something that can be criticised. To say that the publicity is poor is a valid point. Your example about not liking the name 'Timothy' is just plain silly. Nobody is anywhere near that in their criticism. There is plenty in this trailer to criticise as Pendragon have taken the risk of showing some of the special effects and they ain't that good. Now, this film is three hours long. I for one have strong doubts that I will have the strength of will to sit through this DVD just because it is 'HG Wells' the War of the Worlds'. OK - I am not such a fan as some on this forum. I like the story and I would like to see a film version but there are limits and three hours of poor acting and poor special effects would be pushing those limits. Seeing as Pendragon have put together this short, representative sample of one hundred and sixty minutes what conclusions can we draw? If they want to attract people to see the film then they want to impress them, tantalise them, if possible blow them away! Well....... I watched the trailer and I was kind of impressed that there was a trailer at all but not that impressed..... It was a bit like when your son or daughter comes home from school and shows you what they've made and you know that really it's not terrific but you put it in a prominent place and tell everybody who comes that your kids made it and feel a certain nagging guilt that you hope they don't think you never in a million years would have bought it and shown it off if it hadn't been for the love of your little darlings. Well, you've been given a film and for your darling HG's sake you will sit and watch it - all one hundred and sixty minutes of it - and feel good and proud..... and rightly so.... because HG's a terrific writer...... But will you put it on when friends come round? And will they stay friends if you do? I said it before and I'll say it again..... Hines has done well to get his opus this far.... He should be congratulated for that. But compare this trailer to the one for Chrome. Then go figure..... Zoe
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jun 4, 2005 9:19:52 GMT
I downloaded this last night- watched it through and laughed! Yup- I laughed. I scanned back through a few scenes, couldn't quite put my finger on how it cme across, switched off my Mac and went to bed. Though I was drunk. So, soberer today, I watched it again and here are my views- It doesn't look particularly good- the acting looks a little stilted and the effects are fairly poor and will not help my suspension of disbelief (is that red weed just a dead bush spraypainted?!). As Bittersound put it- like a BBC period serialisation from the 60's or 70's. But I think I may still enjoy the film. However, after weeks and weeks slowly forgetting about this one, it was actually a pleasant surprise to hear something new- Tim Hines and co have been working away, and no they didn't keep us informed- in all honesty they don't really have to (but as I said before, it is better pr to court your core audience than snub them). Fair play for him for sticking to his guns and just getting on with it. The London scenes (that's what I think they are, anyway) look like a small row of buildings in the country! The trailer is many miles ahead of previous offerings and shows it as it actually is- the tripods I didn't like from previous offerings I am now starting to like more- the 'dish' on the hood isn't that at all- but a mirror. Still not sure I'm keen on the sausages, but tough- enjoy it anyway! The martians themselves look quite good. (Curiously enough, when the trailer is paused, the superimposing looks much neater than when it is moving- possibly the stop motion effect...) The scene with the handling machine crossing the path near the end of the trailer is awful (as is the 60's sound affect that accompanies it!). The music is much better (but still the woeful trumpet sound! Oh well..) but it still suffers from Hines' editing style- lots crammed in and many very short glimpses. In short, not brilliant (though I didn't really expect this), but a far sight better than the last trailer and I really think that I may enjoy the film (and get to see it after all!). And, to be honest, I'll be watching the film myself- so I really don't care about anyone else's opinion on this! ;D Having just watched this again- I think the stop-motion effect is exaggerated by the low frame rate of the trailer.
|
|
|
Post by jackson on Jun 4, 2005 9:39:04 GMT
Are you guys tripping? that trailer looks appaling, there are no excuses, the acting looks arse, the FX could have been done on a spectrum and the music was all midi. absolute pants. I love this story as im sure mr Hines does but if you dont have the rescourses then leave it alone.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jun 4, 2005 9:46:53 GMT
Hooray! Here we go again!
Round and round and round and around!
'The Circle is complete"
Step right up folks- ride the Pendragon Rollercoaster- enjoy the thrills as the opinions once again polarize! Feel the lurching stomach as the pendulum swings back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and fourth!
Oooh- nearly hyponitised myself there!
You guys are all brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by tinckelly on Jun 4, 2005 10:24:52 GMT
Posted by Lensman on Yesterday at 23:16 And those comments from you that it's "just as bad as 'Plan 9'" and it's "not even up to the level of a fan film" are really beyond the pale, Tinckelly. I mean you're entitled to your opinion, but when you say something that absurd and inflammatory it's difficult to believe that's your honest opinion.
I am being asked to judge this film by you, it's supporters and mainly Timothy Hines, as a professional enterprise. From the evidence visible on the screen in front of me it is fan film level.
I am being asked to believe that the budget is tens of millions of dollars. None of that money, or artistic care, is visible on the screen where it matters. No film maker would put their worst effects in the final trailer, so this IS the standard of the effects in this film.
So I can either accept the evidence of my eyes, or I can accept being shouted down by you. That is my opinion. Why is that classified as inflammatory?
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jun 4, 2005 10:30:52 GMT
Yeah.. if you don't like grape, there's also another two lollipops to choose from, neither is raspberry but one of them has lots of sprinkles on.. and probably icecream in the middle. And the other one is strawberry flavoured. Which is close to, but not quite raspberry. Damn I'm good. 99 please
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jun 4, 2005 10:43:16 GMT
For god sake, what is so wrong with excepting the film/trailor for what it is instead of going over it time and time again. How many more times do we have to read the same postings. What differance will it make on a almost finished film, you expect them to go back and start it all over again, do you?. Whats done, done, end of the matter.
Now its long over due to move on so I suggest we give that some serious thought. People have put there point across, expressed there feelings for this, stated there likes and dislikes and there have been some good comments, positive or negative, but all in all good and by these comments you ALL have commited yourself and time into this.
Its really simple, for those that have seen the trailor/reviews and want to watch it - watch it and for those that have seen the trailor/reviews and dont want to watch it - then dont, can it be any simpler than that?
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jun 4, 2005 11:07:55 GMT
I'm tired
I've seen the trailer. I am going to see the film, accept it for what it is, and hell I might even enjoy it, or then again, maybe not. Still Liked the trailer for what it was, and the childish insults from those who didn't arent going to change that opinion.
I rest my case. I think the thread has taken it's course.
|
|
|
Post by tinckelly on Jun 4, 2005 11:26:24 GMT
OK. This is going to get me barred, But so be it.
Posted by Horsell_Common on Today at 6:43 For god sake, what is so wrong with excepting the film/trailor for what it is instead of going over it time and time again.
Because a trailer is designed to make us have an opinion about a film. This site exists in order for people like us (I thought) to exchange those opinions. I've given mine and because it is negative I'm called "infalamatory" by Lensman, and now by AsheRaven, "childish". On top of that there is a rush to shut me up, but not those others.
Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by thed0ct0r on Jun 4, 2005 11:39:25 GMT
For god sake, what is so wrong with excepting the film/trailor for what it is ...? You mean accepting, right? ;D I do. I'll enjoy it. It's not up there with Star Trek & the Matrix on the effects level that Hines promised but I'll enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jun 4, 2005 11:39:50 GMT
If you are trying deliberately to get yourself banned tinckelly, you failed this time. But I will say that I am pig sick of this film starting arguments like this. It's just bloody ridiculous. For god's sake it's just a movie! GROW UP! This section is being very closely monitored and we are not going to tolerate armchair anarchy by people trying to disrupt this board with their stupid behaviour. We WILL have these issues discussed, by EVERYBODY in a calm way without iritating other users. If anyone else feels like testing the waters, and my patience, I will not hold myself responsible for the consequences. I am NOT kidding. You have all been warned. Now... back on topic.
|
|
|
Post by Amasov on Jun 4, 2005 11:45:30 GMT
If you are trying deliberately to get yourself banned tinckelly, you failed this time. But I will say that I am pig sick of this film starting arguments like this. It's just bloody ridiculous. For god's sake it's just a movie! GROW UP! This section is being very closely monitored and we are not going to tolerate armchair anarchy by people trying to disrupt this board with their stupid behaviour. We WILL have these issues discussed in a calm way without iritating other users. If anyone else feels like testing the waters, and my patience, I will not hold myself responsible for the consequences. I am NOT kidding. You have all been warned. Now... back on topic. Funny how sitting in front of a computer screen alters people's perspective on how to act towards each other isn't it? For example (quite big, 21 meg copy & paste): demandmedia.net/metagen?vurl=http://files.redvsblue.com/NYC2/RvB_NYC2.mov
|
|