|
Post by RustiSwordz on Jun 17, 2005 1:45:27 GMT
im gonna PMSL at this sci fi version of saturday night live.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jun 17, 2005 2:27:49 GMT
Great, high budget crap from Spielberg [ complete with whiny kid ] and low budget crap from Hines. Jeff Wayne please save us from these travestymongers!
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Jun 17, 2005 5:18:25 GMT
And here is the scary part, folks: A lot of these stills look better then the actual film because they don't show the incredibly fake movement in the film. And then there is the issue of the acting, which is on a par with the SFX....
|
|
|
Post by beecus on Jun 17, 2005 5:30:19 GMT
That cow is worth the money alone!! ;D Now I want to see this even more!!
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Jun 17, 2005 9:18:30 GMT
BOO HOOOO!!!!!!
NAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MUUUUUUMMMMMMMMYYYYYYY!!!!
Happy now! - SOB - Youve made a grown man cry TH!!!
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Jun 17, 2005 10:06:22 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Oddly enough - I quite like some of these images (although I don't like barbie) I love the martians in the forground shots of Barbie & HolyCow. Even the Thunderchild doesn't look as bad as I was expecting (probably would look a lot better if the damned Sepia wasn't heavily tinted!)
Still, as Dudalb points out, the actual movement may ruin it. Nice to see they've posted a link to reviews also (albeit all bad!). My DVD should arrive soon - looking forward to it, in a perverse sort of way! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Zoë on Jun 17, 2005 12:25:16 GMT
That cow is worth the money alone!! ;D Now I want to see this even more!! ha I know your probably being sarcastic, but I actually agree, as soon as my dad gets back im ordering it
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Jun 18, 2005 11:19:34 GMT
Its a little confusing as to why the martians are draining a highland cow in the middle of surrey, which looks like the American West at times and even the train wreck looks like an American train and not a Victorian England one.
|
|
kurt
Full Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by kurt on Jun 18, 2005 12:35:19 GMT
Have the effects been done by the same guys who did that dire straights video "money for nothing"?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jun 18, 2005 22:04:16 GMT
The effects guys [ or guy ] obviously did get 'money for nothing' well maybe a dollar or two from Hines, and they work for 'Dire Productions'.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Child on Jun 19, 2005 20:39:15 GMT
I don't think these images look to bad. I hope to have the DVD sometime next week so I can finally judge it myself...
Johan
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jun 20, 2005 19:28:54 GMT
What amazes me is the depiction of the Thundechild scene .... Notice a few things ..
A .. It appears to be in one piece whilst sinking ..... i may be wrong but didn't it explode taking out a tripod in the blast
B: ... No smoke, flames or debris in the water
c: ... What the hell type of ship is it .... TBD ... don't have Two funnels
What a joke
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jun 20, 2005 21:52:30 GMT
What amazes me is the depiction of the Thundechild scene .... Notice a few things .. A .. It appears to be in one piece whilst sinking ..... i may be wrong but didn't it explode taking out a tripod in the blast B: ... No smoke, flames or debris in the water c: ... What the hell type of ship is it .... TBD ... don't have Two funnels What a joke Very very crude modelling, sadly, that's what's up. However, it is a recognisably typical Royal Navy TBD of the 1890s (albeit poorly modelled) - they had anything from two to four funnels, sometimes rather strangely arranged. Here's a three funnel job, HMS Ranger: Note the main mast between the first and second funnels, like the Pendragon boat. There's another vessel, HMS Velox, that had three much thicker funnels, even more like Pendragon's effort than Ranger, but I've only got pictures in a book and no way of scanning (not that it matters anyway). Not that I am in any way defending Pendragon for their lousy job.
|
|
|
Post by smitty97 on Jun 21, 2005 10:13:05 GMT
What astounds me is how bad the effects are. I use Lightwave as a hobby - in my worst day I'd never post an image of the quality we are seeing up, let alone put in a film. EEK! The daft thing is, Lightwave has a good cow model supplied in the royalty free clipart which is 100 times better than the blobby thing used in the effect shot. Same goes for the other items, if there isn't a better one in the clipart, I'd wager there is a wealth of public domain models Timbo could of used. As to "putting the model in the scene" - I guess the 'N00b' who did the effects had never heard of environment mapping or occlusion - two tricks that would have at least made the FM's look like they were more than generic "fractal noise reflection" models. Dire - woefully so.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Jun 21, 2005 10:23:27 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Assuming that it IS a cow in the still. Apparently, it's hinted that it's a beastie brought as food from Mars (instead of the bipedal creatures in the book), so the amphorous horned blob could be correct for what it is.
I suspect the CGI is done by people like me - little experience, much enthusiam, cheap "free on a disk with this months magazine" software. As Foundation Imaging folded, with no budget he's probably had to ask friends who like to play with CGI in their spare time, but don't know a lot about it, but want to be involved in a WOTW project. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Happy Chappy on Jun 21, 2005 10:32:24 GMT
Still cannot see them! Waaaah!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of Man on Jun 22, 2005 6:28:31 GMT
Well, I have to say, I didnt have high hopes, but they were a little higher than the standard seen here. I know that if some1 gave me $48mill (or however much it was) & said "Go make a fillum about WoTW", you probably wouldnt see me for dust.......or ya cash , but I'd have a few standards if I did actually go through with it. I think I would just be embarrased to release something like that!!! I dont think I personally could do any better, but thats ok, cus im not a Director But, alas, I am inflicted by that morbid fascination and I want to see / own it.
|
|
|
Post by smitty97 on Jun 22, 2005 9:22:23 GMT
I suspect the CGI is done by people like me - little experience, much enthusiam, cheap "free on a disk with this months magazine" software. That's not the case I think though, (at least with the software), there was definitely a Lightwave screenshot of what was "supposed" to be the thunderchild in the images on Pendragons website. Can't find a link to it any more - it was the one with the computer on a desk with the greenscreen in the background. To be honest, I think even a beginner with some drive would have done better than some of the work I've seen in this film! I'm tempted to dig out one of my old bits of work to show just how much difference "basic" surfacing vs mapping makes..
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jun 22, 2005 9:45:05 GMT
Do you mean this?
|
|
|
Post by smitty97 on Jun 22, 2005 15:26:46 GMT
That's the one yeah - that's Lightwave on the monitor Except of course, contrary to the terxt, that isn't a render on screen at all but an OpenGL version of the model, without textures etc... Actually, alarms bells should have rang back then - if they thought that was a render then they knew nought about the package
|
|