Eve Of The War
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/

The Pendragon Version Was Better!
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=717
Page 2 of 2

Author:  MARCIANO! [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:11 am ]
Post subject: 

I think too that pendragon version is better

Author:  Alland [ Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 

With the changing technology for saving TV programs and preserving movies, I'm practically forced to buy two copies of every film that interests me: one VHS tape and one DVD. That way I can be certain of having at least one copy I can watch at all times. Right now, at home I have one TV set hooked up to a combination VHS/DVD player, another TV set with a built-in VHS, a TV set with both a VHS and a DVD player build in, and a lone DVD player, all scattered in strategic parts of my home. It sounds extreme, but if you REALLY feel yourself in the mood for a particular film or documentary, it's amazing how quickly you'll get agitated if you can't see it for some reason.

Author:  oever532 [ Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 

What are the differences between the Spielberg and the Hines adaptations that make some of us think that Hines' version is better, anyway?

Author:  Loz [ Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

oever532 wrote:
What are the differences between the Spielberg and the Hines adaptations that make some of us think that Hines' version is better, anyway?


Pendragon, is very faithful to the book. Set in Victorian England. Follows scenes in the book. Same characters. But is so badly made, and so badly acted that it is actually painful to watch.

Parramount, is far less faithful to the book. Updated, but still has plenty of nods to the book. Has none of the books characters or dialogue, apart from the dialougue at begining and end. The production values are second to0 none, and is a joy to watch.

How's that?

Author:  oever532 [ Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

I just watched the Paramount version (Spielberg) and I must say that the special effects were awesome! :D :shock: :a103: :a007: \:D/ :mrgreen: =D> 8)

Nevertheless, the scenes in the house was a minor point :( , since I'm very fond of action. And about the people in the basket who would get drained, to me it felt like as they were absorbed in the machine, which reminded me of the anime Dragonball Z, where some villans have the capability of absorbing people into their being. And that Rachel character was way too hysterical. It has almost some connections to the '53 movie.

Author:  Madbadger [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:16 am ]
Post subject: 

Loz wrote:
oever532 wrote:

Parramount, is far less faithful to the book. Updated, but still has plenty of nods to the book. Has none of the books characters or dialogue, apart from the dialougue at begining and end.



Did you listen to the dialogue? most of it was changed ffs it was so damn crappy and stupified im guessing for mainstream america. It blowed it realy did i havent seen this pent version but it looks better than bergs the aliens look right for one and thunderchild is in it.

Author:  oever532 [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:21 am ]
Post subject: 

What do you actually like at the Spielberg movie, Madbadger? I only heard minor points from your side. By the Way, the Machines of Spielberg look like a cross between a Fighting Machine and a Tempest. All I know is that the Tempest in the games is the ONLY machine which carries TWO Heat-Rays, and the Fighting Machines in Spielbergs movie also had a dual Heat-Ray generators, and that while ANY Fighting Machine as far as I've seen by now has only one of them.

Author:  Alland [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:42 am ]
Post subject: 

As I've stated even before Spielberg's monstrosity came out, the best parts of the Pendragon film are the land battle scenes. The first and longest one (the artilleryman flashback scene) is the best; with the tinted film, it actually looks like newsreel footage of a turn-of-the-century battle. In the other two land battle scenes, the film follows Wells' book by showing one tripod apiece getting taken out by artillery: a direct hit to the cockpit in the Weybridge battle, and later, a tripod getting one of its legs smashed. James Lathrop as the artilleryman is also more interesting than any of the military people---make that any of the people, period---in the new Paramount flick. While that might not be saying much, at least you don't find yourself hoping he gets killed, even when he's sitting on a house roof smoking a cigar instead of organizing the human underground.

Author:  crc32 [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:01 am ]
Post subject: 

lepter wrote:
If I were you I would stop critisizing Tim hines for his effort and look at this film for what I is. A reasonably accurate adaptation of the book. True, it could have been so much better. Some of the effects are of a low standard and the acting a bit suspect in parts, (although the curate was a cool character).

Watch it without speilburg tinted glasses. Hines did not have ILM to do his CG (and it shows) Better editing and less blue screen face shots would have helped but I was very impressed by the tripod shots.
I watched it in three one hour segments, (like a serial) and enjoyed it this way.

I think we make a mistake in expecting too much from a low budget film.
Dead london should have been longer, thunderchild should have had more work done on it but this did not detract from my enjoyment of the film.
For $8, I think you would be a fool to miss it!
I`m saying this and I spent 20 POUNDS to get this film. (About $35 I think!)

Give it a try...You never know, you just might like it! (then again, you may not!)


Don't make me laugh. Editing alone is what killed the film for me. I mean how many times are we gonna watch that main character falling on his face.

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:40 am ]
Post subject: 

Or the same extras crossing the screen, over and over and over and.... Ad infernitum!

Author:  oever532 [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:59 am ]
Post subject: 

:roll:

Author:  Alland [ Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:46 am ]
Post subject: 

Actually, I thought the tinted scenes were part of the film's charm. They made it look like an old-fashioned film, and though it wasn't, that's more in keeping with Hines' sticking to the Victorian Era in his version. The original story took place around the turn of the century, when the film industry was just getting started, so having it LOOK like one of those old films magnifies the impact.

And if tinted pictures bother you, what did you think of "Reign of Fire", where nearly every scene was tinted to simulate a world burned over by dragon fire?

Author:  McTodd [ Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Alland wrote:
Actually, I thought the tinted scenes were part of the film's charm. They made it look like an old-fashioned film, and though it wasn't, that's more in keeping with Hines' sticking to the Victorian Era in his version. The original story took place around the turn of the century, when the film industry was just getting started, so having it LOOK like one of those old films magnifies the impact.


It was made in 2005, not 1905. Going by your logic, if a film is set in 1603, it should have all the women's roles played by teenage boys rouged up to the hilt.

If Georges Melies had done those 'special effects' he'd have been run out of Paris and had his mistress confiscated.

No mate, it was still crap.

You can't polish a turd, no matter how hard you rub - all you end up with is a nasty mess on your hands.

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

If you turned the sound down it was like watching a silent film, everybody was that anmimated.

If Speilberg had have made that film exactly as it was instead of Hine's, with exactly the same film at the end result, I reckon you'd have slated it.

The Kaleidoscopic colouring was a joke. I don't even think the movie remotely mimicked old turn of the century film. When you look at the old footage from a bygon age, you can see that it is reel. Hine's film just looks fake, it looks in fact like a really poorly made student film.

Author:  darkfire [ Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:14 am ]
Post subject: 

WTH why are we talking about americas former masters? This is the year 2006 not 1776 were friends both of our great nations have become world powers and good allies. Anyways, alland wth are you on?! I saw the pen movie and my 1st reaction was woah this movie is queer, my 1st reaction to paramounts wotw version was :shock: =P~ seeing the tripod come out of the ground and start torching everything =P~ .

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

:lol: Alland just likes to wind people up. we just tend to ignore him these days, unless he says anything sensible :roll: which is rare :lol:

Welcome to the forum :D

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/