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

Calm Before The Storm
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=182
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Charles [ Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Last time I heard from Mr. Hines (quite recently) everything was on schedule.<br /><br />I have been amused by some of the posts on this board (and others) recently speculating, formulating, worrying, venting, ranting, raving, and consoling, but I am not worried. Whether that tells you anything hinges on how close you’ve been paying attention.<br /><br />We cannot allow ourselves to lose track that Pendragon is an independent film company doing its best to deliver the best film they can for “Worlds� fans - while facing incredible pressure and often deeply entrenched (and rather emotional) personal expectations. And let’s not forget distributors can be a fickle and slightly paranoid bunch when it comes to indie films.<br /><br />In any case, let’s let deal more with what we know and less with what we think we know.

Author:  gavv8 [ Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thank you i for one feel a little better now, it's just that for a lot of us, pendragon are carrying the originality flag and although we all realise that they must be under enormous pressure it's still quite a nailbiting time for the fans.

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

see, my faith never waivered :)

Author:  The Curate [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:55 am ]
Post subject: 

Yeah Leper!,like mines up and down like a bloody yo-yo.(within keeping of my character like)what else do you expect from me :D<br /><br />I rant,i rave and make a alot of fuss but after nearly giving up on a film offering after 27 years what would anyone expect.27 years...thats my 'right of passage'.(a very 'up my own bum' sort of comment but what the hell!) :D

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

where i come from we say up your own arse :P

Author:  The Curate [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

Was trying to be polite leper :)

Author:  The Massacre of Mankind [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Very victorian of you Curate. I bet they'dve said up you bum rather than arse too! :)

Author:  Loz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Charles+Feb 25 2005, 07:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles @ Feb 25 2005, 07:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Last time I heard from Mr. Hines (quite recently) everything was on schedule.<br /><br />I have been amused by some of the posts on this board (and others) recently speculating, formulating, worrying, venting, ranting, raving, and consoling, but I am not worried. Whether that tells you anything hinges on how close you’ve been paying attention.<br /><br />We cannot allow ourselves to lose track that Pendragon is an independent film company doing its best to deliver the best film they can for “Worlds� fans - while facing incredible pressure and often deeply entrenched (and rather emotional) personal expectations. And let’s not forget distributors can be a fickle and slightly paranoid bunch when it comes to indie films.<br /><br />In any case, let’s let deal more with what we know and less with what we think we know.<br />[right][snapback]1474[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />nothing amusing here. if you are going to make a film of War of the Worlds either set today or 1899 then you have to be able to make it big. it has to be lavish it has to be grande. think about if someone had made Lord of the Rings with 10% of the budget it was made. it would have been awful.<br />So doing your best isn't enough. <br />

Author:  McTodd [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quite.<br /><br />As I've written elsewhere, just because Hines has ‘made an effort’ does not automatically entitle him to unreflective adulation. If I go into hospital for an appendectomy, and I end up with half my colon missing and shi*ting into a bag taped to my hip because it turned out that the surgeon was a complete fu*kwit but at least he’d ‘made an effort’, somehow that wouldn’t sugar the pill for me.

Author:  Charles [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 3 2005, 09:44 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 3 2005, 09:44 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nothing amusing here. if you are going to make a film of War of the Worlds either set today or 1899 then you have to be able to make it big. it has to be lavish it has to be grande. think about if someone had made Lord of the Rings with 10% of the budget it was made. it would have been awful.<br />So doing your best isn't enough.<br />[right][snapback]1692[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Is that what you said to the makers of "The Infinite Worlds of H.G. Wells?" Or to DreamWorks before they destroyed "The Time Machine?" Or to Frankenheimer before he Brandoed "The Island of Dr. Moreau?" Somehow I doubt it. <br /><br />The fact here is that it is only your subjective opinion that "it has to be lavish it has to be grand." The greatest SFX in the world are utterly wasted if the writers don't understand how to convey what Wells was really saying. Full stop.<br /><br />I've seen dozens of Wells-based films, shorts, plays, and other productions, and without exception the best were always those on a shoestring budget, done authentically with love and care - and with minimal effects. They did the best with what they had and gave us a fine product. Not since 1936 has a 'big budget' film done H.G. Wells any justice, and it does not appear the trend will change this year, either.

Author:  Loz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

[quote=Charles,Mar 3 2005, 07:42 PM]<br />Is that what you said to the makers of "The Infinite Worlds of H.G. Wells?" Or to DreamWorks before they destroyed "The Time Machine?" Or to Frankenheimer before he Brandoed "The Island of Dr. Moreau?" Somehow I doubt it. <br /><br />The fact here is that it is only your subjective opinion that "it has to be lavish it has to be grand." The greatest SFX in the world are utterly wasted if the writers don't understand how to convey what Wells was really saying. Full stop.<br /><br />I've seen dozens of Wells-based films, shorts, plays, and other productions, and without exception the best were always those on a shoestring budget, done authentically with love and care - and with minimal effects. They did the best with what they had and gave us a fine product. Not since 1936 has a 'big budget' film done H.G. Wells any justice, and it does not appear the trend will change this year, either.<br />[right][snapback]1701[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote<br /><br />With a great script and no money you cannot make War of the Worlds, same as you can't make Lord of the Rings with no money and a great script. On a project brimming with such incredible imagination, you cannot get around it. <br />Some stories can exist on script and acting and direction alone, but not War of the Worlds.<br /><br />Would you liked to have seen Lord of the Rings done with a 10th of the budget used? It wouldn't be as good a film, because film is about reality, realism and grit.<br /><br />Just because people who had the money to get something like The Time Machine right and didn't doesn't mean that we should give up on H. G. Wells War of the Worlds being a peice of cinematophic genius.<br /><br />

Author:  Charles [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

What you obviously don’t know is that WOTW has been done nicely in a short version by a small company from Australia with next to no money and a great script. So yes, it can be done.<br /><br />It isn’t just that The Time Machine wasn’t done right (an understatement for sure), there are still more equally disappointing versions of Wells novels out there, all equally wide of the mark which you may or may not have seen.<br /><br />The lesson should have been clear by now: Wells' scientific romances are best left in their own context and do not need to be updated for the silver screen by anyone.

Author:  Loz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

I know all about that Australian film, and if you think that that film is War of The Worlds done well then I shall confir with you no more.

Author:  gypsywlf [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 3 2005, 04:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 3 2005, 04:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know all about that Australian film, and if you think that that film is War of The Worlds done well then I shall confir with you no more.<br />[right][snapback]1708[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Okay, I've not seen this one. Can you tell me more about it? (not just that it was poo or priceless, but some more objective details)<br /><br />

Author:  Charles [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

I enjoyed it for what it was. Evidently the Great Books people also thought it was good enough to use elements from in their profile of "War of the Worlds". <br /><br />Okay, bye.

Author:  Martian Myster The New Ma [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Charles+Mar 3 2005, 10:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles @ Mar 3 2005, 10:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I enjoyed it for what it was. Evidently the Great Books people also thought it was good enough to use elements from in their profile of "War of the Worlds". <br /><br />Okay, bye.<br />[right][snapback]1711[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />Think youve made a new friend there Loz. :D <br /><br />Come on you guys keep it fun. we all have our opinions, but that is all they are.<br /><br />However Ive not come across this Australian version and there is nothing IMDB. Can someone point me in the right direction so I can watch it :) <br />

Author:  Loz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Man he came at with the old - "You obviously haven't seen this and you can't know about that and if you knew this then you wouldn't say that." and then goes and points to an Australian short as something of a holy grail. When alls I had said was if your going to make a decent War of the Worlds movie then it's going to cost you. <br />

Author:  Charles [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 

I get very tired of the attitude that films can’t possibly be good unless they have massive funding - which means obviously only big Hollywood can make good films. Something that is obviously not true.<br /><br />My point is that you don’t have to have DreamWorks or Lucasfilm doll-hairs behind you to do a good version of a Wells story. I never said the Aussie version was a Holy Grail (your words), I’m just saying it was a more authentic version of Worlds than has been tried before, even if it was a short with an odd past.<br /><br />If I can go to the theatre and see a Wells story done as a play, with minimal props and obvious stage FX and see it expresses the main points Wells intended, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt you definitely don’t need the big bucks to do a Wells story justice. <br /><br />You may only be happy with flashy special effects and big name actors, but that is definitely not the point to a Wells story…and that attitude among film execs is a big part of what I think is WRONG with Hollyweed these days. Big money has been thrown at Wells stories how many times since the ‘40s? How many can the average person name? Obviously big money does not equal a great film. More often than not it has produced a something we remember only as totally missing the point, and even sometimes being utterly absurd.<br /><br />It really is that simple.

Author:  The Curate [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:11 am ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Charles+Mar 3 2005, 08:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles @ Mar 3 2005, 08:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you obviously don’t know is that WOTW has been done nicely in a short version by a small company from Australia with next to no money and a great script. So yes, it can be done.<br /><br />It isn’t just that The Time Machine wasn’t done right (an understatement for sure), there are still more equally disappointing versions of Wells novels out there, all equally wide of the mark which you may or may not have seen.<br /><br />The lesson should have been clear by now: Wells' scientific romances are best left in their own context and do not need to be updated for the silver screen by anyone.<br />[right][snapback]1706[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Updated being the operative word.......................keep it true to the novel!!!

Author:  Loz [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:46 am ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Charles+Mar 4 2005, 12:28 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles @ Mar 4 2005, 12:28 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I get very tired of the attitude that films can’t possibly be good unless they have massive funding - which means obviously only big Hollywood can make good films. Something that is obviously not true.<br /><br />My point is that you don’t have to have DreamWorks or Lucasfilm doll-hairs behind you to do a good version of a Wells story. I never said the Aussie version was a Holy Grail (your words), I’m just saying it was a more authentic version of Worlds than has been tried before, even if it was a short with an odd past.<br /><br />If I can go to the theatre and see a Wells story done as a play, with minimal props and obvious stage FX and see it expresses the main points Wells intended, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt you definitely don’t need the big bucks to do a Wells story justice. <br /><br />You may only be happy with flashy special effects and big name actors, but that is definitely not the point to a Wells story…and that attitude among film execs is a big part of what I think is WRONG with Hollyweed these days. Big money has been thrown at Wells stories how many times since the ‘40s? How many can the average person name? Obviously big money does not equal a great film. More often than not it has produced a something we remember only as totally missing the point, and even sometimes being utterly absurd.<br /><br />It really is that simple.<br />[right][snapback]1730[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Who said anything about me like flashy special effects? I like my special effects dull. Real dull, without a hint of glizt.<br />And I once saw a spectacular stage production of the Star Wars Trilogy and loved it. The only SH*T part was the AT AT sequence, they dressed to elephents up in silver foil and on the night they just couldn't trip them up no matter how much the fellahs in the wings pulled on them ropes. <br />Still a great production, but not quiet as good as the films.

Author:  MarkG [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

The problem with CG is that if you use it, you have to use it well or it just looks bad. If someone made a WoTW movie and had tripods made of pipe-cleaners and toilet rolls blowing up a lego city because they had no money, I could accept that as a style statement. But bad CG is close enough to reality that it looks bad and out of place, and few people are ever going to deliberately use bad CG as a style statement.<br /><br />And currently, every single piece of CG that Pendragon have released on the web looks bad.<br />

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

so then Loz what you appear to be saying is you have something against this production in particular<br /><br />You do not need a colossal budget to do this film properly, in fact colossal budgets lead to expectations of high results or careers will be severely damaged, and that is when people start removing large chunks of original story and putting in nice, safe generic action movie plots like "guy with family, possibly with issues with one or more of them".

Author:  Charles [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 4 2005, 05:46 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 4 2005, 05:46 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who said anything about me like flashy special effects? I like my special effects dull. Real dull, without a hint of glizt.<br />And I once saw a spectacular stage production of the Star Wars Trilogy and loved it. The only SH*T part was the AT AT sequence, they dressed to elephents up in silver foil and on the night they just couldn't trip them up no matter how much the fellahs in the wings pulled on them ropes. <br />Still a great production, but not quiet as good as the films.<br />[right][snapback]1742[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />You don't have to say 'flashy sfx' specifically, but when you insist on lavish productions you clearly imply big budgets; and flashy sfx is exactly what people will expect. And the movie will live or die accordingly to today's fickle audience.<br /><br />Comparing LOTR and Star Wars to WOTW is a non-starter, though I can appreciate where you're coming from. It is important to remember both Star Wars and LOTR lack the clear moral imperative Wells' stories have as their hearts. Where Star Wars and LOTR are basic 'good against evil' stories centered around fantasy (and are designed with escapism in mind), Wells' stories are speculations on specific possibilities facing mankind, and simply do not call for the constant barrage of SFX the others do. And this is exactly why if a stage play of Wells can come off so well with just a little green, there is no reason a modest film cannot. We'll see if it can be done.<br /><br />That was a pretty visceral reaction you had against the OZ production. There are dodgy moments and elements (what movie doesn't have them), but I'd wonder if our opinions match at all...

Author:  MarkG [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Charles+Mar 4 2005, 03:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles @ Mar 4 2005, 03:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And this is exactly why if a stage play of Wells can come off so well with just a little green, there is no reason a modest film cannot. We'll see if it can be done.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Sorry, but there are huge differences between plays and movies: most obviously the fact that the former is generally dialog-based while the latter is image-based. In a play you can have a couple of actors in a room talking about how they're watching the destruction of society through a window and make it work with no money... you can't do the same with a movie, because people expect to _see_ that destruction.<br /><br />Can you imagine 'Star Wars' if we'd only heard people talking about the final battle with the Death Star rather than seen it, for example? It just couldn't be done unless you were making an art movie for a very limited audience.<br />

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

well have no fear Mark, you watch this film and you will see battles between the Martians and Humans rather than just hearing about them. Im confused why youre suggesting otherwise.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/