|
Post by tinckelly on Jun 6, 2005 21:18:47 GMT
Hey no prob Tomahawk. I understand. The reason I found this website in the first place, was because I was surfing looking for WOTW stuff, and came across the Pendragon website last year. I was sooo breathless with excitement about the idea of a period WOTW that I found this forum site to see if it was true. I lurked for ages. I was later wracked with dissapointment when I saw the first bits of footage. Gutted.
We're all drawn here because we love WOTW. I so want to see WOTW done right on the big scree, It's easy to forget that.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jun 6, 2005 21:35:32 GMT
Hey no prob Tomahawk. I understand. The reason I found this website in the first place, was because I was surfing looking for WOTW stuff, and came across the Pendragon website last year. I was sooo breathless with excitement about the idea of a period WOTW that I found this forum site to see if it was true. I lurked for ages. I was later wracked with dissapointment when I saw the first bits of footage. Gutted. We're all drawn here because we love WOTW. I so want to see WOTW done right on the big scree, It's easy to forget that. So true and the last thing we want is Wells novel turned into a laughing stock.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 21:57:26 GMT
Thats what has riled me the most ... Nothing personal with anybody, and I am not calling anybody liars or whatever (the peeps with DVD's) In fact as Nerfy /HC will probably confirm .. I am a BIG advocate of this film and indeed had slanging matches with people dissing the film .... Embarassingly for me ... all this has made me seem a bit of a prat, which is a bit hard to take cos it seems the AHB (for want of a better word- no disrespect intended ) or the peeps who doubted the film seem to be correct and I was adamant this was going to be ok. So you can imagine how I felt when the first few reviews came in ..., but I will buy it , and make up my own mind, after all what have I got to lose, it's a period WOTW after all, it may even get better with age (look how dodgy the effects are in the 53 movie these days, but it doesn't stop you watching it)
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 6, 2005 22:07:36 GMT
Well.... I accepted a long time ago that this film might not even happen..... I was intrigued to hear that it might..... and now I don't think I could be disappointed...... If and when I get to see it I hope I don't have to fast forward it too often.... I really hope that I am reasonably entertained to keep watching..... even if I never watch again. I showed the original trailer to two friends..... One said "Very cool" the other said "Cliched..... with poor effects"..... The one who said "Very cool" was 19..... The one who thought it cliched and poor was in his late 50s..... So you never can tell how people will react. We've all been spoiled by expensive productions and maybe we've forgotten what it was like to watch - as children - men in rubber suits falling over expanded polystyrene rocks..... It's amazing what people can accept when they haven't been told how bad something is. I have never seen the wires in the 53 version of The War of the Worlds..... In the book illustration, yes.... on the screen.... no.... I'm always too busy trying to will Uncle Matthew to come back to the bunker..... You can't see bleeding matte lines when you're on the edge of your seat..... You can't see 'bleeding anything' when you're on the edge of your seat.... or behind the sofa..... All you see is Martian or Cyberman.... you don't see 'how low was my budget' When I saw the trailer I was impressed by the handling machine.... It looked strange and alien..... It was only when people started saying that it looked like bad CGI and it made a silly noise as it moved - and what was it doing anyway? - that I looked at it critically. I think the worst thing about the trailer is that it shows too much..... Spielberg had that right..... Asylum had it wrong... and Pendragon had it wrong. People on this board are primed for criticising..... 'Always keep them wanting more' is the old theatrical adage. The reviews are fair enough..... One of them seemed pretty balanced to me..... The other was expressing disappointment..... But remember the example I gave above..... Maybe we are pre-judging this from an 'ivory tower' as 'professors of WOTW-ology'..... Kids are sophisticated...... but they are capable of accepting all kinds of media, variations and permutations of Manga, cartoon, live action and CGI..... Why shouldn't Timothy Hines have hit on some kind of rendering of sepia-tone cum live action cum montage cum CGI cum stop-motion that has a charm and magic all of its own and one that young people can readily relate to? I don't know..... maybe.... maybe not.... I can't say I've seen any reason to pre-empt a young audience's reaction might be. I just don't know. When I was a little girl I saw a film called 'Kronos' that really scared me..... It was about a tripodal metal monster that threatened to wipe out humankind. I was enthralled.... The reviews of the day were less than impressed. I had then something that it is too easy to throw away as we get older. I had imagination. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 22:16:55 GMT
that i suppose was my point with this thread... although I may have gone about it the wrong way ... I agree and have said that PP showed far too much, and perhaps we shouldn't have had the reviews in a general topic .. it has made us prejudge the film unfairly biasing towards the negative. I have seen my fair share of dodgy effects ( I love Space 1999 and Star Trek the original series .. Hardly groundbreaking effects) and to be fair PP's are superior to those , from what I have seen.
I suppose it also hasn;t helped with SS version coming out and what we have seen from that, I suspect PP have rushed it to capitalse on DVD sales with the SS film coming out , if so It is a shame, when with just some more work it could have been so much improved.
However I'll pay me dosh and see for meself
|
|
|
Post by wargasm on Jun 6, 2005 22:31:34 GMT
I wasn't expecting big things for this movie. I knew the actors were stage actors and weren't Charlize Theron or Michael Caine caliber and I knew, by the trailers, that the FX were not great but good. There are parts of the movie that the CGI are really great and then there are the truly awful moments. Like someone else said, it looks like different people with varying degrees of talent worked on the CGI sequences.
I say, buy the movie. If it stinks to you, let Pendragon know. They have a mailing address.
We have 3 movies this year for WoTW. Make a collection. You can start off with Pendragon's.
|
|
|
Post by wargasm on Jun 6, 2005 22:34:01 GMT
....Any posibility that those screen caps coulda been fakes? They were absolutely not fakes. Two or three (can't remember, I sent lots) were from me. I took them from WinDVD and saved them at maximum quality .JPGs.
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jun 6, 2005 22:36:36 GMT
Zoe, I always enjoy reading your posts, they are articulate, knowing and eloquent, poetic even. But I don't always agree with them, and here's one where I don't. Why? Because, for a start, Space 1999 and Star Trek (the original) were both TV series, at a time when TV companies didn't devote large budgets to sci-fi. They were also cranking out dozens of episodes a year, each one of which had a number of different alien settings, not spending five years making a single earth-bound movie. Comparing Pendragon's WotW with them is not comparing like with like - Hines has always said he was making a big budget spectacular, which was going to get wide cinema releases. Remember his tearful claim after a preview some moths ago that it equalled The Matrix in visual opulence? Pull the other one Tim...
And no, even with its lower budget, Space 1999's production values still crap over Timbo's film, from what's been shown in the trailer (and before anyone has a go saying 'But the trailers only two minutes long!', face it, he's shown elements of the most visually opulent episodes - the cylinder at Woking, Shepperton, the ruined house - no Thunder Child, not even a glimpse, one wonders why...).
And comparing it with ancient special effects films is again a spurious comparison. I can watch Willis O'Brien's King Kong of 1933 and ignore the rippling rabbit fur, the staccato strobing inherent to stop motion animation, because it was made in 1933, that's part of its period charm. I can ignore the wires which I can see holding up the Martian machines in Pal's films, because it's over half a century old. I would expect Hines's film to be more technically assured than them, because it's new. But it ain't.
The fact that he's actually finished the film (and does anyone really believe that the Walmart DVDs are 'early cuts'? How much is he going to get done in a week, when he's pissed away the last five years?) is amazing, but doesn't detract from the fact that it's an amateurish slab of tripe. Perhaps an enjoyably amateurish slab of tripe a la Plan 9, but cheap nonsense regardless.
Don't forget, Hines built up everyone's expectations for years, only to give everyone the finger. I'm still going to buy it because I'm a masochist, and I may very well enjoy it. But I will not let the bare fact that Hines has finished it against all (dashed) expectations delude me into excusing just how poor it is shaping up to be.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 22:41:35 GMT
erm McTodd ... it was me, Tom, that mentioned Space 1999, ST
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jun 6, 2005 22:46:51 GMT
Ah feck, so it was, sorry Zoe, sorry Tom... Anyway, it's all cobblers, so there.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 22:54:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jun 6, 2005 22:56:38 GMT
You missed that bit? It's where the Army manage to trip up a Martian machine at Shepperton by fitting it with really poorly made shoes from Miggins & Sons of Jermyn Street ('Cobblers to the Queen'). Or something...
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 23:07:15 GMT
Oh .....well what can I say......erm Cheers McT... tee hee
I saw a martian were? there in the street were in the street right there a big fecking martian with clogs on there in the street going clip clippity ZAAAP zaaap zzzzzzz zzzzz .... clop in the street
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jun 6, 2005 23:08:59 GMT
Then there's the Space 1999 episode where Maya transforms into a shoe in order to trap a deadly Cobbla monster which terrorizes Moonbase Alpha, but the plan is foiled when Koening puts her on by accident. She can only save the situation by transforming into a rancid sock which, as luck would have it, Cobbla monsters are much afeared of. The Cobbla monster transforms into a much less deadly Keecutta and the day is thus saved. Or did I dream that?
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 23:17:23 GMT
Dream it ... fecking ell Nerfy , were did that come from, sounds like you was just possessed by an evil long script writer ....don't get ecto on the keyboard , it's a bitch to clear up, just don't let it dry...............
crap.... theres me thinking Snot is ectoplasm again ...jeez the amount of times i have thought I had been possessed ...when all it was was a big sneeze
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Jun 6, 2005 23:26:42 GMT
"So true and the last thing we want is Wells novel turned into a laughing stock. " That won't happen. The Pendragon film seems to be headed in that direction but the novel's reputation will survive. Shakespeare has survied a few hundred years of his plays being butchured on stage by bad actors and inept directors. I think the Wells classic will survive a bad film adaptation.
Zoe, the point is that Hines has a product that, by all evidence, is long way from being what he time and time again he promised. Like many people I think that if Hines would have been up front about this being a low budget effort and not made remarks like "The SFX will be better then The Matrix" and infamous "New Al Pacino" remark people would be a lot less upset with him. He pulled, apparently, a "Bait and Switch" and people are quite rightly mad at him.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jun 6, 2005 23:40:54 GMT
Dream it ... fecking ell Nerfy , were did that come from, sounds like you was just possessed by an evil long script writer ....don't get ecto on the keyboard , it's a bitch to clear up, just don't let it dry........ And what makes you so sure that I'm NOT an evil long dead scriptwriter anyway?
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 23:45:46 GMT
looking back through the" DVD purchased at" thread I am coming around to the idea that the DVD's that have been sold are prerelease test items / or perhaps an earlier pre cleaned up/updated version of the film ... Maybe somebody at PP secreated a few out, for whatever reason .
It would be interesting to put a thread up asking people to reply if they have managed to get a copy to try and obtain how many are available ... if it is a small number the more then likely they shouldn't have been on / weren't for general sale ...
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 6, 2005 23:47:54 GMT
ooooh scary Nerfy ...the staypuffed marshmallow man ....
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jun 6, 2005 23:51:11 GMT
....Any posibility that those screen caps coulda been fakes? They were absolutely not fakes. Two or three (can't remember, I sent lots) were from me. I took them from WinDVD and saved them at maximum quality .JPGs. Was just hoping they were, uggh....
|
|