Eve Of The War

A forum for all 'War Of The Worlds' fans
Home Page Home Page Home Page Home Page
Login 
View unanswered posts View active topics

Delete all board cookies

All times are UTC




Home Page Home Page  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page
1, 2
 >> Next 
  Print view
Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:02 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
A Pendragon clip shows Big Ben being blasted (by a heat ray?). I don't recall any such event. (unless I just missed it)<br /><br />As a (possibly) modern director-inspired bit, I thought the visual symbolism rather similar to that used (overused) in ID4 -- the aliens blast national symbols. Given how folks have been generally down on ID4, this blasting of Big Ben got me curious.<br /><br />Did Big Ben get blasted in Wells' text?


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:46 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 15
Yes, it happens, though the actual event is implied and not described in the novel. In "Dead London" the Narrator, standing on Primrose Hill, described the "jagged ruins of Westminster rising hazily beyond."


"One attains the gifts of reason, empowered with the bitter truth. Through suffering perseverance to the end, One's strength emerges frozen in steel. I am He, Conqueror of Fear." - ORDER FROM CHAOS


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:41 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:29 pm
Posts: 2
<!--QuoteBegin-Charles+Mar 2 2005, 02:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles @ Mar 2 2005, 02:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, it happens, though the actual event is implied and not described in the novel. In "Dead London" the Narrator, standing on Primrose Hill, described the "jagged ruins of Westminster rising hazily beyond."<br />[right][snapback]1632[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Hi all,<br /><br />Considering Pendragon are supposed to be doing an accurate version of the book, they could have at least got Big Ben/Houses Of Parliament right!!!<br /><br />In the opening shot of the sequence you see moonlight reflected on water, therefore the camera/persons point of view is either from the Thames, or the river bank opposite The Houses Of Parliament (where St. Thomas Hospital is).<br /><br />From this point of view, Big Ben is actually at the right hand end of the Parliament building !, not the left hand end in the sequence. This would also have made the shot far easier, with Big Ben in the right place, Westminster Bridge is right along side Big Ben. When the top of Big Ben falls, it wouldn't have to float sideways as far, it could have fallen straight down and still hit the bridge!.<br /><br />Before you ask, I don't live in London, I just looked at a detailed map of London, something Timothy Hines or the CG artist should have done!!!!<br /><br />Iain


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:53 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 188
Location: Bite my Martian ASS!!!
<!--QuoteBegin-iain+Mar 2 2005, 09:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(iain @ Mar 2 2005, 09:41 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi all,<br /><br />Considering Pendragon are supposed to be doing an accurate version of the book, they could have at least got Big Ben/Houses Of Parliament right!!!<br /><br />In the opening shot of the sequence you see moonlight reflected on water, therefore the camera/persons point of view is either from the Thames, or the river bank opposite The Houses Of Parliament (where St. Thomas Hospital is).<br /><br />From this point of view, Big Ben is actually at the right hand end of the Parliament building !, not the left hand end in the sequence.  This would also have made the shot far easier, with Big Ben in the right place, Westminster Bridge is right along side Big Ben.  When the top of Big Ben falls, it wouldn't have to float sideways as far, it could have fallen straight down and still hit the bridge!.<br /><br />Before you ask, I don't live in London, I just looked at a detailed map of London, something Timothy Hines or the CG artist should have done!!!!<br /><br />Iain<br />[right][snapback]1665[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Nicely pointed out, I would say that is quite a major blunder, so lets all say DOH!!! together. :P <br />


www.tshirt-shop.co.uk
www.webspaceinvaders.co.uk

YOU! Off My Planet!


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:59 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
couple of shots of big ben and the bridge for reference. <br /><br />Image<br /><br />Image<br /><br />the extended flight of the thing is not down to the thing coming from the wrong side of the houses of parliament, but actually due to the fact that, as you'll see in this picture, the clock has some way to go to actually hit the bridge at the point it does in the trailer<br /><br />Image


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:15 am 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:29 pm
Posts: 2
Hi all,<br /><br />Thanks for posting the photos Leper, I understand what your saying, but do you see my point?.<br /><br />The more I watch this scene, the more disappointed I am with it, Big Ben moved to a new location, and martian weapons that don't adhere to the laws of physics!.<br /><br />Its such a shame when Mr Hines says that he is going to great lengths with attention to detail.<br /><br />Iain<br />


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:50 am 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
actually i didnt notice Big Ben being in the wrong place, where is it positioned if its not where it is in those photos? It certainly seems to be launched from the same point.<br /><br />what i dont understand is why it flies off at that angle considering the way it was hit, unless the weapon that hit it was a temporary effect. Theres already been a lot of question as to whether the entire sequence is a finished shot or not


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:49 am 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
It quite simply can't be a finished shot. Because it's awful! There is something not quite right about the whole trailer. We'll just have to wait and see but I can't see that Big Ben shot remaining the same.<br />What I can't understand is why he didn't use any real principle photography, like in some of the pictures we've seen. Just a couple of characters talking about their situation.


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:20 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 12
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 3 2005, 10:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 3 2005, 10:49 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It quite simply can't be a finished shot. Because it's awful! <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Why does being awful mean it's not a finished shot? Why would they have released a trailer with CG shots that they didn't consider 'finished' and no disclaimer to that effect? That would be suicidal from a marketing standpoint.<br /><br />
Quote:
What I can't understand is why he didn't use any real principle photography, like in some of the pictures we've seen.
<br /><br />Well, the movie was shot thousands of miles from London, I guess a $40 million? $12 million? $whatever million budget wouldn't cover the cost of a couple of plane tickets (or wages for a couple of days for freelancers in London) for second-unit shots, or an Internet connection to download some photos of Parliament to work out where the bridge is.<br />


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:08 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 10
Now, now, you're all just being far too serious over this - besides it is quite obvious that the clock flies way too far to hit Westminster bridge, therefore the only logical explaination is that the part of the scene being mistaken for the rest of the houses of parliment is actually all the other building inbetween parliment and the Savoy Hotel and that the clock is actually hitting Waterloo Bridge!<br /><br /> :D <br /><br />(Urm think what I'm trying to say is- just be greatful that it's Big Ben and Westminster in London and not The Empire State Building! and that it's in England and not Dizzney Land!!! and in Victorian times and not the present ot future.)<br /><br />Stop over analyzing everything and enjoy it for what it is. I bet if Speilberg were doing the same thing he wouldn't be getting half the scruttany or stick that Hines is getting because you'd have more faith and then he could get away with murder because you'd miss the obvious little details.<br /><br />I really think some of you want Hines to do a bad job just so that you can say I told you so which is very sad, especially considering this is a WOTW Fansite.<br /><br />Remember NOBODY SAID IT WOULD BE PERFECT - Even Hines Himself hasn't said that, all that has been said is that it will be a faithful to the book adaptation. So please just Calm down on the pointing out of what you believe to be wrong and just enjoy all the things about it that are so right.<br /><br />Thanks. :)


Move on be brave, don't weep at my grave, because I am no longer here, But please never let your memory of me disappear.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:16 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 12
<!--QuoteBegin-The Massacre of Mankind+Mar 3 2005, 01:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Massacre of Mankind @ Mar 3 2005, 01:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember NOBODY SAID IT WOULD BE PERFECT - Even Hines Himself hasn't said that, all that has been said is that it will be a faithful to the book adaptation. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Hines has reportedly said:<br /><br />“We’re expecting to be trashed by critics, but my film is gorgeous. I cry every day at how well it’s coming together. "<br /><br />"... our effects are going to look as good as if not better than what you see on Star Trek, for instance. Our film, at its best, comes off as visually assured as The Matrix."<br /><br />(http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2005_02_04_arch.php)<br /><br />Does anyone think the 'Big Ben' shot is even remotely that good?<br /><br />The whole problem I have with this movie is that Hines' claims and what we've actually been able to see from his PR machine are so totally at odds: and he doesn't seem to be making any attempt to explain why.<br />


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:07 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:09 am
Posts: 112
Location: Northern Ireland so I am
"... our effects are going to look as good as if not better than what you see on Star Trek, for instance. <br /><br />SFX on Star Trek are pants. Let's hope thier better :alien5:


"We've gone on holiday by mistake....."


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:37 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
<!--QuoteBegin-The Massacre of Mankind+Mar 3 2005, 01:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Massacre of Mankind @ Mar 3 2005, 01:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, now, you're all just being far too serious over this - besides it is quite obvious that the clock flies way too far to hit Westminster bridge, therefore the only logical explaination is that the part of the scene being mistaken for the rest of the houses of parliment is actually all the other building inbetween parliment and the Savoy Hotel and that the clock is actually hitting Waterloo Bridge!<br /><br /> :D <br /><br />(Urm think what I'm trying to say is- just be greatful that it's Big Ben and Westminster in London and not The Empire State Building! and that it's in England and not Dizzney Land!!! and in Victorian times and not the present ot future.)<br /><br />Stop over analyzing everything and enjoy it for what it is. I bet if Speilberg were doing the same thing he wouldn't be getting half the scruttany or stick that Hines is getting because you'd have more faith and then he could get away with murder because you'd miss the obvious little details.<br /><br />I really think some of you want Hines to do a bad job just so that you can say I told you so which is very sad, especially considering this is a WOTW Fansite.<br /><br />Remember NOBODY SAID IT WOULD BE PERFECT - Even Hines Himself hasn't said that, all that has been said is that it will be a faithful to the book adaptation. So please just Calm down on the pointing out of what you believe to be wrong and just enjoy all the things about it that are so right.<br /><br />Thanks.  :)<br />[right][snapback]1684[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />we most certainly should not be greatful just because someone is making war of the worlds and sticking to the script. he still has to deliver a good film. I want it to be good, but making a low budget war of the worlds is like making low budget fantastic four.


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:17 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Leper Messiah+Mar 2 2005, 05:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leper Messiah @ Mar 2 2005, 05:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->couple of shots of big ben and the bridge for reference.  <br /><br />Image<br /><br />Image<br /><br />the extended flight of the thing is not down to the thing coming from the wrong side of the houses of parliament, but actually due to the fact that, as you'll see in this picture, the clock has some way to go to actually hit the bridge at the point it does in the trailer<br /><br />Image<br />[right][snapback]1672[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Leper, thanks for the photos. Guess they didn't help me sort out the Pendragon blast clip. I still can't figure what angle that's trying to come from. <br /><br />With the water in the foreground at the start, you're limited to only a few possibilities. From the water-side, I'd expect to see the spikey-topped Parliament building nearby to the left of Big Ben. It does have that short connector building at it's base, which I also don't see in the clip.<br /><br />I've studied your photos and others online, and can't really place that pointy-dormered building to the right of Ben in the clip.<br /><br />Maybe it's just a huge case of disorientation on my part. However, even if the modelers cut a few corners on the context buildings, we certainly get the point -- Big Ben is blasted. Perhaps, since the scene is all of a few seconds, the producers felt it wasn't worth another 60 hours of modeling time to do the context buildings. Limited budgets stuff, perhaps.<br /><br />That said, it did strike me odd that a "slicing" shot from a heat ray would send the upper part of the tower sailing off sideways. Seems a bit reminiscent to the alien ships in ID4 sliding off sideways when destroyed, rather than just falling flat atop the cities they hovered over.<br /><br />More dramatic, perhaps, but seems to suggest a degree of directoral license, even while trying to stay 'faithful' to the original text.<br /><br />-- cheers!


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:03 pm 
Advanced Member

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:06 pm
Posts: 98
<!--QuoteBegin-MarkG+Mar 3 2005, 02:16 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkG @ Mar 3 2005, 02:16 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hines has reportedly said:<br /><br />“We’re expecting to be trashed by critics, but my film is gorgeous. I cry every day at how well it’s coming together. "<br /><br />"... our effects are going to look as good as if not better than what you see on Star Trek, for instance. Our film, at its best, comes off as visually assured as  The Matrix."<br /><br />(http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2005_02_04_arch.php)<br /><br />Does anyone think the 'Big Ben' shot is even remotely that good?<br /><br />The whole problem I have with this movie is that Hines' claims and what we've actually been able to see from his PR machine are so totally at odds: and he doesn't seem to be making any attempt to explain why.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />What you have to realise is that Hines can't be expected to say anything else. He's trying to sell/hype his film, and he knows that if he doesn't get it out into the marketplace before the arrival of the Paramount/Spielberg/Cruise juggernaut, he's dead in the water.<br /><br />In these circumstances, he's hardly likely to say 'Well, the CGI hasn't turned out as well as I'd hoped", or "The rushes so far have been disappointing".<br /><br />I'm not particularly trying to defend Hines here, but to those in the movie industry, making grand, outrageous claims, intermixed with good old-fashioned BS, is not only standard business practice, but practically second nature.<br /><br />Alternatively, another explanation could be that Hines is just too close to the project to see it's flaws. Every new parent thinks their child is beautiful, even if the rest of us think it's as ugly as sin.<br /><br /> <br />


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:23 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
All too true!<br /><br />


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:30 am 
Super Member

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 241
Location: Manchester.UK
<!--QuoteBegin-The Massacre of Mankind+Mar 3 2005, 01:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Massacre of Mankind @ Mar 3 2005, 01:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, now, you're all just being far too serious over this - besides it is quite obvious that the clock flies way too far to hit Westminster bridge, therefore the only logical explaination is that the part of the scene being mistaken for the rest of the houses of parliment is actually all the other building inbetween parliment and the Savoy Hotel and that the clock is actually hitting Waterloo Bridge!<br /><br /> :D <br /><br />(Urm think what I'm trying to say is- just be greatful that it's Big Ben and Westminster in London and not The Empire State Building! and that it's in England and not Dizzney Land!!! and in Victorian times and not the present ot future.)<br /><br />Stop over analyzing everything and enjoy it for what it is. I bet if Speilberg were doing the same thing he wouldn't be getting half the scruttany or stick that Hines is getting because you'd have more faith and then he could get away with murder because you'd miss the obvious little details.<br /><br />I really think some of you want Hines to do a bad job just so that you can say I told you so which is very sad, especially considering this is a WOTW Fansite.<br /><br />Remember NOBODY SAID IT WOULD BE PERFECT - Even Hines Himself hasn't said that, all that has been said is that it will be a faithful to the book adaptation. So please just Calm down on the pointing out of what you believe to be wrong and just enjoy all the things about it that are so right.<br /><br />Thanks.  :)<br />[right][snapback]1684[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />Very well said.........its still victorian england(as it should be)its still london and the home counties.I'm sure most of us who come on this forum do love jeffs waynes wotw and we accept the subtle changes as regards carrie and beth etc but the true essense of the story has kept its integrity.Mr Hines film is as close as we are gonna<br />get our book so lets enjoy it .Believe you me my pedigree chums(as gavv8 would say or the nasty one in 'snatch' for that matter) by the time film makers get round<br />to doing WOTW again but exact to Mr Wells written words,all of us will either be buried or cremated.Don't forget...................its took these people 107 years so its the best we are gonna get <_< <br />


Bloody Martians nicked my bible..!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:39 am 
Super Member

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 241
Location: Manchester.UK
One thing as regards Big Ben getting destoyed that no-one has mentioned is that it would be interesting to see it coming down on a few members of the Labour cabinet.That way the destruction of London wouldn't have been without some kind of blessing. :lol:


Bloody Martians nicked my bible..!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:25 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 12
Quote:
He's trying to sell/hype his film
<br /><br />If he is, he's doing a lousy job. The trailers are weak, the 'high-res' stills are even worse, and his claims are clearly out of sync with the actual imagery that's been released. They don't even seem to be making any real attempt to connect with what fan-base there is for the movie. <br /><br />Frankly, as movie PR goes, saying they've been inept would probably be a compliment. I don't see how they could possibly release this movie on March 30th and get more than a dozen people in the cinema.<br />


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:31 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
i highly doubt its a finished shot. all trailers say they dont necessarily represent the finished product, and as you will remember they had to take the river scene at Weybridge and Shepperton out because seeing people suffering in water wasnt considered great taste a week or so after the tsunami disaster, evidently something else was needed quick.


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:07 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 12
Quote:
all trailers say they dont necessarily represent the finished product
<br /><br />So why didn't this one?<br /><br />I don't remember ever seeing a trailer with unfinished CG (or, at least, nothing that was obviously unfinished, it might have got a few tweaks before the release). Trailers are supposed to 'wow' people into watching your movie, you just don't release an unfinished trailer to a general audience unless you want to lose money.<br /><br />Equally, how can they expect to release a movie to cinemas in four weeks if the CG isn't finished? They probably needed at least 90% of it finished by the time the trailer was released to be able to meet that deadline... so if that shot just wasn't finished, why didn't they show us shots that were?<br /><br />Seriously, that shot is supposed to be an example of their awesome effects in their move: but it just came out looking laughable. Why would anyone with a clue about PR release that if they thought it was unfinished?<br />


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:52 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
1) read the rest of my post<br /><br />2) the trailer wasnt released 4 weeks before the release date, it was released before that<br /><br />3) it is the case with all trailers that they dont necessarily represent the end product, some cinemas display a notice to that effect, others do not, some film companies put that notice on their websites, others do not. Its not legally required, but it remains the case that no trailer can ever be taken as 100% representative of the movie until youve seen the full thing.


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:58 pm 
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 12
I did read the rest of your post. Nothing explained why anyone in their right mind would release a trailer with unfinished CG shots, particularly a trailer which didn't _explicitly_ say that the shots were unfinished: if I suggested that idea to people I know who do PR work for movies, I'm pretty sure they'd laugh at me. It's just not done.<br /><br />
Quote:
the trailer wasnt released 4 weeks before the release date, it was released before that
<br /><br />But not much before. They've supposedly been working on this movie for four years: are you seriously suggesting they waited until the last couple of months to do all the CG work?<br /><br />Even if the Tsunami excuse is true, any sane company would have said 'sorry, you'll have to wait a couple of weeks for the new trailer', not put out something that was unfinished.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:45 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
<!--QuoteBegin-MarkG+Mar 4 2005, 03:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkG @ Mar 4 2005, 03:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did read the rest of your post. Nothing explained why anyone in their right mind would release a trailer with unfinished CG shots, particularly a trailer which didn't _explicitly_ say that the shots were unfinished: if I suggested that idea to people I know who do PR work for movies, I'm pretty sure they'd laugh at me. It's just not done.<br />But not much before. They've supposedly been working on this movie for four years: are you seriously suggesting they waited until the last couple of months to do all the CG work?<br /><br />Even if the Tsunami excuse is true, any sane company would have said 'sorry, you'll have to wait a couple of weeks for the new trailer', not put out something that was unfinished.<br />[right][snapback]1762[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />yes, i am telling you theyve only been working on the special effects for a couple on months, because as was covered at the time, it is true. That was the previous thing the anti-Pendragon brigade rattled on about "oh theyll never get the money to do the special effects" etc etc then late last year work started on the special effects. In the mean time id like to know what inside source you have that says thats a finished shot. Im not claiming that i know the shots unfinished but since youre so certain id love to know what youre basing that on


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:33 am 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 3365
Location: N.Humberside.UK
But surely if this is an unfinished scene they had to put together in a hurry, its been out there for over two months now. they could and should have finished the CG and re-posted the finished scene, because at the moment it's not a good advert for the film.


Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DldFBFJgWmw&feature=player_embedded


Top
 Profile  
 
Search for:
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Home Page Home Page  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page
1, 2
 >> Next 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to:  

cron
Powered by Skin-Lab © Alpha Trion