|
Post by Charles on Sept 3, 2005 5:05:03 GMT
No, the Thunder Child sequence was not redone that I could tell. Should have been, though.
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Sept 3, 2005 9:24:13 GMT
The Blackmoon re-edit is the damm funniest thing i,ve seen since granny fell down the well and grandad got locked in the outside bog. Inspired, brilliant, funny as feck, give blackmoon an oscar!. ;D D.F.
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Sept 3, 2005 10:01:56 GMT
No, the Thunder Child sequence was not redone that I could tell. Should have been, though. So basically it is simply a straight re-edit, nothing more, nothing less. Well, what a wasted opportunity that is. Quelle surprise... Now Charles, I'm not looking to pick a fight, but I do find your comments in the SyFy article interesting: The antipathy he [Hines] has provoked makes it plausible that some reviews are the work of pranksters. There is evidence for this in recent submissions that suggest the film has a "gay" subtext. They could also be part of a semi-organised attempt to sideline Pendragon’s film. Hines told me that he was invited to the house of a Dreamworks executive in 2001, hoping that he might want to discuss a deal. Instead, Hines says, he was told that making “War of the Worlds” would be “the worst thing you could do in your life” because “people will come at you in 1000 ways.”
This theory is supported by Charles Keller, director of the American H.G. Wells Society. “There seemed to be a concerted effort to discredit Timothy Hines and Pendragon from the moment they announced completion of principal photography last September,” he said in an e-mail to me. “I saw several cases on message boards of vicious personal attacks made by Pendragon critics if someone was even perceived to be supportive of the (then) unseen film.”Are you saying that you support Timothy Hines' conspiracy theories? Do you not think that the 'effort to discredit... Pendragon', as you put it, was entirely unconnected with the fact that the trailer and publicity Pendragon had revealed showed their production to be an amateurish z-grader of the cheapest kind, falling far short of the big-budget beautifully crafted adaptation Hines had for years led us, the fans, to expect? And why did you not also point out that 'vicious personal attacks' were also made on the critics of Hines' film?
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 3, 2005 18:48:50 GMT
the fact that the trailer and publicity Pendragon had revealed showed their production to be an amateurish z-grader of the cheapest kind, falling far short of the big-budget beautifully crafted adaptation Hines had for years led us, the fans, to expect? McTodd, the problem is that this is *not* a fact, it's just your opinion, and regardless of the fact that indeed the film turned out to be awful, it is an opinion that many of us did not share, and in fact I still do not share that opinion. The live-action still shots which were the first thing seen on the Pendragon website gave me a thrill every time I looked at them, and in fact they still do in a wistful "if only..." way. The shot (which was in the trailer) of the tripod legs striding thru the battery position was equally good, and in fact if the entire movie had been up to the quality of that, I think we'd be having a very different conversation about the film.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 3, 2005 20:10:37 GMT
I agree with you there Lensman. Some of the early live action shots showed potential and some of us were getting excited.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Sept 3, 2005 21:26:03 GMT
So do many others, it seems. It never ceases to amaze me how people really do care about what I think - to the point of a few having supposedly felt offended by my opinions over the last year - as if they had even heard of me before reading my posts. Its just laughable.
You call them 'conspiracy theories.' Hines might call them 'opinions.' I made up my own mind about where I thought things stood, so to answer your question directly:
Nope.
As I said, the attacks began as soon as they announced the completion of principal photography and therefore well before anyone saw any kind of trailer.
Because that wasn't the question I was asked.
I hate to sound like everyone's Dad in all this, but its only a movie.
Its time to get over it.
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Sept 3, 2005 22:17:46 GMT
Now that Blackmoon has brought the inbuilt sh!tness of this cowpat of a film to it's ultimate extreme, how can anyone take this crummy movie seriously anymore. ;D Benny Hill LOL! Blackmoon should be knighted, Hinez should be booted up the ass and Goforthandmultiply should be dunked. D.F. ( imo of course )
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 4, 2005 1:57:29 GMT
I hope Blackmoon does one of Spielbergs flick too. Bag O' Sh*te!
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Sept 4, 2005 10:37:04 GMT
I have to agree with Charles... it really is time for everyone to get over this. I've not been around so much of late due to my new job, but I'm suprised to come back and find the same discussion continuing albeit queitly in the corner of WOTW online
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Sept 4, 2005 11:38:25 GMT
the fact that the trailer and publicity Pendragon had revealed showed their production to be an amateurish z-grader of the cheapest kind, falling far short of the big-budget beautifully crafted adaptation Hines had for years led us, the fans, to expect? McTodd, the problem is that this is *not* a fact, it's just your opinion, and regardless of the fact that indeed the film turned out to be awful, it is an opinion that many of us did not share, and in fact I still do not share that opinion. The live-action still shots which were the first thing seen on the Pendragon website gave me a thrill every time I looked at them, and in fact they still do in a wistful "if only..." way. The shot (which was in the trailer) of the tripod legs striding thru the battery position was equally good, and in fact if the entire movie had been up to the quality of that, I think we'd be having a very different conversation about the film. Cherry picking a few stills (which anyone could have shot with a bunch of friends for the cost of hiring a few costumes) and a one-second clip from all the other indications that Pendragon were (and are) an amateurish operation to bolster your argument that I am merely expressing baseless opinions is pointless. As is saying 'if only the rest of the film had measured up to those'. Well it didn't. The 'if' game is very easy to play - as my old dad is fond of saying, 'If my auntie had had a c**k and balls, she'd have been my uncle'. Of course if the rest of the film had been as good as that shot, we'd be having a different conversation. I do not include the stills in this regard, however, because stills give no clue whatsoever as to the quality of acting, dialogue, editing, and all the myriad elements which make a movie, i.e. a moving picture presentation, a movie, as opposed to a static photonovel, which is all a collection of stills could ever aspire to be. But Pendragon's activity over their movie always smacked of amateurishness from day one, but we were all (including myself) too eager to see a period WotW to realise. Do you really believe that their abysmal website, with all the visual design sensibility of Helen Keller after a stroke, ever betokened a professional film company? Do you really believe that Hines's disingenuous excuses and wildly exaggerated promises ever betokened someone other than a charlatan? If you do, fine - that's your opinion.
|
|
tug
Full Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by tug on Sept 4, 2005 21:30:34 GMT
You seem to be missing the point Paramount have made sure that no large film company can touch this story to make it in the way it deserves. check it out!
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Sept 4, 2005 21:58:43 GMT
Good grief, more conspiracy theories!
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 5, 2005 2:43:43 GMT
You seem to be missing the point Paramount have made sure that no large film company can touch this story to make it in the way it deserves. check it out! Nice to see there's someone else questioning Paramounts role with WOTW there tug. They deserve a lot of scrutiny from fans who wanted to see Wells book done properly as a film.
|
|
tug
Full Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by tug on Sept 5, 2005 15:15:35 GMT
Well they had the property on the shelves for over 50 years and many approaches were made over this time by british and american producers and directors. Most wanting to set the film in the correct time and place. Perhaps an approach should be made to Paramount just to see what there standing is on this .Will we have to wait another 50 years for another attempt ? and will that be a remake of the 2005 film.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 5, 2005 19:44:11 GMT
Looks like that will be the case tug - if at all. That's why I'd say to fans who would like an authentic live action epic - as bad as Hines is, it's Paramount who deserve the most criticism.
And it's Paramount who could so easily have done a proper live action version of the book if they had wanted to. If it wasn't for Jeff Wayne I can guarantee things would be incredibly bleak for Wells fans - we wouldn't have seen anything apart from the cheap and nasty.
|
|
|
Post by obiwanbeeohbee on Sept 6, 2005 1:15:16 GMT
I predict that not too long after the Jeff Wayne film is released, a new, Victorian period television version of "War Of The Worlds" (most likely a mini-series) will be produced. By Paramount or an indie studio backed by Paramount. I believe that this will happen because of history. Case in point - The 1988 series was produced so that Paramount could:
1. Capitalize on the 35th anniversary of the George Pal film, and 2. Provide another show that wasn't Trek for the fledgling Paramount/UPN network.
I'm sure that Paramount has it's folks looking at forums like this one; especially since this summer was quite a downer for all of Hollywood; trying to figure what they're doing wrong and how they can fix it. I hope they see that we movie-goers are a lot more sophisticated than they have been assuming and demand a bit more for our admission price.
Also, just look at the stir that Pendragon has made on this and other forums. Why would intelligent people rush out to buy a direct to video film that we all knew wouldn't be any better than a college film? Because there was, and is, a market for a WOTW set in the original time period. Paramount can't deny that they missed the boat with the Spielberg film, even though it was quite good.
I say that it will come after the Wayne movie because I don't think they will want to step on the release of such an eagerly awaited project and alienate fans any further. They will probably be watching to see how the Wayne version does with quite a bit of interest. I assume how well it does will determine the budget and format their version finally takes.
As for the Pendragon re-edit... I will go out and buy it. Why? Because I think it is a step in the right direction. A baby step, maybe, but a step none the less. I kind of enjoy the original version and I hope one of these days to hear that it will also be getting a complete special effects makeover. That will be a giant step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 6, 2005 5:03:26 GMT
Cherry picking a few stills (which anyone could have shot with a bunch of friends for the cost of hiring a few costumes) and a one-second clip from all the other indications that Pendragon were (and are) an amateurish operation to bolster your argument that I am merely expressing baseless opinions is pointless. I don't believe I ever said your opinions were baseless, McTodd. Since on the whole you turned out to be correct about the quality of the film, clearly they were not. Besides, it's a *two* second clip. ;D (Just checked the trailer on the DVD.)
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 6, 2005 5:19:13 GMT
Perhaps an approach should be made to Paramount just to see what there standing is on this. Already done, more than once. Both BBC and Hallmark Hall of Fame wanted to make period productions, and Paramount stopped them. A summary of the case and the court's opinion from the Hallmark vs. Paramount court case can be found at: makeashorterlink.com/?V21F31DBB
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Sept 6, 2005 8:33:25 GMT
Cherry picking a few stills (which anyone could have shot with a bunch of friends for the cost of hiring a few costumes) and a one-second clip from all the other indications that Pendragon were (and are) an amateurish operation to bolster your argument that I am merely expressing baseless opinions is pointless. I don't believe I ever said your opinions were baseless, McTodd. Since on the whole you turned out to be correct about the quality of the film, clearly they were not. Fair do, Lensman, I was feeling a bit snappy when I typed that (time of the month and all that... ;D). Besides, it's a *two* second clip. ;D (Just checked the trailer on the DVD.) ;D Ah, but if you take off every repeated fourth frame, it makes it 1.6 seconds. I'll get me coat...
|
|
tug
Full Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by tug on Sept 6, 2005 17:49:44 GMT
I certainly hope that the folk at paramount are sniffing around the forum. One might realise the fact that if they produced a top quality TV film of the BOOK, not a interpretation of it they would have a product that would sell the world over ..TV distribution and then Long ..Long term DVD sales. Or perhaps one of them could make a statement as to why they would have no interest in doing this.
TUG
|
|