|
Post by bittersound on Jul 20, 2005 18:55:33 GMT
Aye, some people need to give the poor guy a break. Seems like he's taken on board the critisism and trying to do something about it. What more do people want??? Blood? Nope, just a decent film
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 20, 2005 20:54:43 GMT
What more do people want??? Blood? We've spent too much time on this board, were slowly turning into the martians
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jul 20, 2005 23:44:06 GMT
What more do people want??? Blood? We've spent too much time on this board, were slowly turning into the martians Haha! Gary Larson could make a very funny cartoon of that. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 21, 2005 0:18:26 GMT
I undertsand how some people say return your DVD the buy the new one and how some are saying its only $9 at walmart, but I was on holiday when i bought it so cant return it and will have to order the new one of amazon which I am not sure about, cos I had a friend do this and she was charged import costs and the royal mail charged her again, so her $8 item came to a totla of $20 odd so I dont find this fair that I will have to pay a possible total of £15 to own a crappy dvd and a slightly improved directors cut dvd.
But I will still buy it if charles says it has improved
|
|
|
Post by DanMacK on Jul 21, 2005 1:28:37 GMT
Thanks for the heads-up Charles, Sounds interesting. I've not seen the original, not being able to find it up here (Canada), but I may order the re-edit off Amazon if it's as good as Charles says. I wonder if the cow and the infamous "barbie doll" are re-edited as well . It looks like Tim's listened to our gripes and from the sounds of it, despite all odds, we may get a version that may please most people. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Jul 21, 2005 9:51:15 GMT
great, so I spent all that money buying it from amazon and paying the same price again on shipping and now there is a new release which is going to be better than the one i've bought .. fantastic. *thanks* mr hines. Well, I don't know how much you spent, but I'm not going to cry too hard over the $9 I spent at WalMart. If he made the film better then good for him. Obviously he didn't have to--it was already in distribution. <snip> I mean, if we were talking $20-30 I might balk at it, but at $9 it is hard to get too upset about the whole thing. Hi, Living in the UK I had to get my version shipped from the US via Amazon, the total cost of the order was $20.97. So as you can see, we are talking about a $20 - $30 film here for us in the UK. Don't get me wrong, i'm looking forward to the re-edit, i'm a bit cheesed off because i'll have to order another dvd from amazon, wait 2 weeks for delivery then get to see if its any better (which it may not be). For me this is pure fustration. Anyway, lets wait and see. Ste.
|
|
|
Post by recumbentrider on Jul 21, 2005 12:00:49 GMT
Unlike many of you in the U.K., I was lucky enough to buy the original DVD at Wal-Mart for less than $9.00. I have to say, even if the price for a 're-edited' version were as low as that, I am not to sure I would spend the money! I would need to see some evidence (probably in the form of reviews) that the 're-edits' made the movie substantially better.
I am highly skeptical that Mr. Hines will do anything else with this movie. The comments that he made after the DVD came out eroded his credibility, at least in my mind. However, if a 're-edited' version of this film does come out, I will be looking forward to reading what people think about it.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Jul 21, 2005 18:42:35 GMT
Unlike many of you in the U.K., I was lucky enough to buy the original DVD at Wal-Mart for less than $9.00. I have to say, even if the price for a 're-edited' version were as low as that, I am not to sure I would spend the money! I would need to see some evidence (probably in the form of reviews) that the 're-edits' made the movie substantially better. I am highly skeptical that Mr. Hines will do anything else with this movie. The comments that he made after the DVD came out eroded his credibility, at least in my mind. However, if a 're-edited' version of this film does come out, I will be looking forward to reading what people think about it. Well it was Charles who says he's seen Hines re-edited version and weve no reason to doubt his word have we. As someone who has seen a 're-edited version' myself I can say it thought it was much better. Once the worst of the CGI is removed and the pace of the film improved the film is far better. I'm glad Hines is doing this even if it does seem a little unique. I think though he needs to get this on the airwaves to convince some of the skeptics. As already pointed out you can't improve the acting(but you remove the worst of it - honestly) etc
|
|
|
Post by RossH on Jul 21, 2005 19:22:23 GMT
I too will be interested in Charles's review of the new edit, but just cutting out the 'chaff' and bad fx probably isn't enough for me to buy another version (although it may be worth it for those who haven't bought the film yet).
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 21, 2005 19:39:31 GMT
The only reason I'd be glad to hear of Pendragon re-doing this is one of damage limitation. In other words to stop Wells story being regarded as a joke even further. The film to me sounds beyond salvation and let's not forget how high our hopes were for this with all the promises and VERY econimical with the truth statements from Hines - and what a HUGE, MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT this film turned out to be in the end. We were promised an epic but all we got was an amateur dramatics production.
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Jul 21, 2005 19:49:17 GMT
Thanks Charles. This is interesting news. Glad I popped back in.
Most folks here are evaluating Hine's WOTW like it's a 20th Century Hollywood release by a filmmaker who will now move on to his next project.
But that just ain't the case. It really does seem to have been his lifelong dream to make a WOTW movie. If he just wanted to cash out with the Spielberg version, he wouldn't still be working on it. Look at Lucus. He's been tweaking his original Star Wars for over a quarter of a century. --I'm not saying that Hines is a Lucus (hell, Lucus isn't a Lucus anymore), but he's got the masters and can do whatever he wants with them. If he wants to keep improving the movie for the rest of his life, I say good for him. I think the best thing we can do is encourage him and offer advice, as many hear have done. He appears to be considering it.
I don't want to discount anyone who is so strapped financially that it's a hardship to buy a cheepy DVD, but the complaints seem really disingenuous from anyone able to afford the equipment necessary to read these words.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 21, 2005 20:04:49 GMT
The thing is it still has cheapness written all over it and I think it always will. It sounds as if it would take a major and I mean major revamp to bring it up to scratch and also unfortunately Pendragon now have a stigma attached to them. The stigma of cheap straight to dvd schlock. As bad as this film is though I think I'd still rather watch it than sit through Spielbergs again, but it just ain't good enough. Wells story should only have the best of talent bringing it to the screen.
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jul 21, 2005 20:35:03 GMT
The thing is it still has cheapness written all over it and I think it always will. It sounds as if it would take a major and I mean major revamp to bring it up to scratch and also unfortunately Pendragon now have a stigma attached to them. The stigma of cheap straight to dvd schlock. As bad as this film is though I think I'd still rather watch it than sit through Spielbergs again, but it just ain't good enough. Wells story should only have the best of talent bringing it to the screen. Nail-Hammer Interface Scenario, fallingstar. Most folks here are evaluating Hine's WOTW like it's a 20th Century Hollywood release by a filmmaker who will now move on to his next project. Hines lost faith with the fans through his constant BS over the years (and I'm talking years). It was Hines who talked himself into the same league as the big boys, not the fans. It was Hines who said that his film would have the 'best acting talent' - remember the 'new Al Pacino'? It was Hines who claimed that the vfx equalled anything from the 'Star Trek' films and 'The Matrix' (maybe he meant the Nintendo games?). It was Hines who claimed to have shown a preview screening to an audience who showered it with applause (maybe they were applauding the end of their ordeal). It was Hines who claimed it to be an utterly faithful version of the novel, despite the many errors in the script and the trucation of crucial episodes. As for the numerous fundamental shortcomings of the film, these have been discussed at inordinate, not to say interminable, length elsewhere, so there is little to be gained by my recapitulating them here. Given his total inability to deliver on his promises having had five years to make this film, I find it stretches credulity to breaking point to believe that Hines can suddenly resuscitate this dead dog of a film in a matter of months, with merely a nip here and a tuck there. If he does, it will be the greatest miracle since Jesus raised Lazarus.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 21, 2005 21:20:16 GMT
Exactly. Again what the hell have they been doing for the past few years. I know some people might say they've been stacking shelves in a supermarket but it just boggles the mind. They've supposedly been at this since 2001 and this is all they come up with. It just doesn't add up!
|
|
|
Post by RossH on Jul 21, 2005 21:24:45 GMT
I don't want to discount anyone who is so strapped financially that it's a hardship to buy a cheepy DVD, but the complaints seem really disingenuous from anyone able to afford the equipment necessary to read these words. My problem is not that Hines is releasing a re-edited the film. That is his right, to be honest it needs the re-edit and I'm genuinely intrigued to see what he comes up with. Yes there are some people who are maybe a bit too negative about the Hines film- c'mon, it's only a film folks. BUT for some people on this board to claim that some of us who bought the DVD when it came out are somehow ungrateful because we're not jumping up and down with glee and praising Hines for releasing another (and let's be honest, a finished rather than 'directors cut') version. I've supported Hines up to now, disappointed as I was with the movie on DVD. I avoided all the flames about the movie both before and after its release. And maybe I will pay for another copy of the film, we'll have to see. I really hate buying a DVD just to find that a few months later a 'fully loaded' one appears and (if I like the movie enough) I end up buying it again. I do not complain about the filmmaker, it's nothing really to do with them. Just don't ask me to be happy about it!
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jul 21, 2005 21:38:08 GMT
Precisely, it's the principle, not the money per se.
What I forgot to mention in my previous post was that given Hines's inherent untrustworthiness, why should we believe that this is such a labour of love? Far more likely is that he's cutting it down to 2 hours in the hope of getting it aired on the SciFi Channel, or somewhere like that.
And as RossH so atutely points out, it's not really a re-edit, Hines is actually finishing (or attempting to finish) the wretched thing properly, as he should have done all along in the first place!
Now that's chutzpah!
|
|
|
Post by robkral on Jul 22, 2005 7:05:41 GMT
The thing is it still has cheapness written all over it and I think it always will. It sounds as if it would take a major and I mean major revamp to bring it up to scratch and also unfortunately Pendragon now have a stigma attached to them. The stigma of cheap straight to dvd schlock. As bad as this film is though I think I'd still rather watch it than sit through Spielbergs again, but it just ain't good enough. Wells story should only have the best of talent bringing it to the screen. AGREED, but I't would be interesting if the following were done: 1) Employ another editor / post producer as Hines is too close to his material....it needs MAJOR slashing which DOES mean losing authenticity to the book (some scenes will jsut have to go) 2) RE-VOICE EVERYONE, this is actually a nightmare. I work on a 20th Century Fox TV show where last week we considered revoicing about 5 minutes of dialog from one character, and decided it was just too difficult. (We could use "other takes" instead as it was just too much to replace by re-performing it). 3) Literally try to remove EVERY bad CGI shot (REALLY bad ones i mean: thunderchild would disappear, OR someone could speak of it and show just the shot in slow mo of the impact for a few seconds, which might work, and ONLY that shot!) 4) CUT the worst acting also (young elphinstone's screen time drastically reduced. 5) REMOVE ALL FILTERS OR CONVERT EVERYTHING TO BLACK AND WHITE. REMOVE JUMPY film effect: it DOES NOT WORK. You know what? I'm really fascinated with this. Perhaps I want the period version so badly. I really want there to be even something in there that would work. BUt as you say, there's so much wrong with it all over it I don't know if its possible. Re-voicing may help bcause even Anthony's accent is so completely and totally un-acceptable. And I mean this not in a mean spirited way: the accents are downright completely distracting from being able to respect the movie. (From memory I think only the woman who nurses the writer back to health had a good accent, maybe even a real one?!).
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Jul 22, 2005 9:49:41 GMT
The only reason I'd be glad to hear of Pendragon re-doing this is one of damage limitation. In other words to stop Wells story being regarded as a joke even further. The film to me sounds beyond salvation and let's not forget how high our hopes were for this with all the promises and VERY econimical with the truth statements from Hines - and what a HUGE, MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT this film turned out to be in the end. We were promised an epic but all we got was an amateur dramatics production. I agree with ya!!! Totally! Im bad tempered and very vindictive yet Ive took this film very well. Oh well!
|
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 22, 2005 16:00:30 GMT
It was Hines who claimed that the vfx equalled anything from the 'Star Trek' films and 'The Matrix' (maybe he meant the Nintendo games?). Thats a nasty stab, Nintendo revolutionised console gaming in the 1980's. Games wouldn't be what they are now without them. Even today they are often the most up to date with gaming technology, it's just that most of the masses can't appreciate many of their games. Back to the point though, I don't mind a re-edit as long as they don't make another one, and another one etc.
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Jul 22, 2005 16:56:23 GMT
Hats-off to Robkral for the specific suggestions.
|
|