If Paramount did have anything to do with stopping the release of this film in the cinemas, it was probably on humanitarian grounds. the suicide count is too horrific to imagine.
| Eve Of The War http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/ |
|
| Fan Q&A With Timothy Hines http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=667 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | eveofthewar [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Fan Q&A With Timothy Hines |
Timothy Hines answers fans' questions about Pendragon Pictures' H.G. WELLS' THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. These are exclusive to eveofthewar.co.uk CLICK HERE TO READ MORE |
|
| Author: | Loz [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What he has fans? It didn't get a theatrical release because people would be asking for their money back left right and center! |
|
| Author: | Lonesome Crow [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If Paramount did have anything to do with stopping the release of this film in the cinemas, it was probably on humanitarian grounds. the suicide count is too horrific to imagine.
|
|
| Author: | Loz [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A really bad film at the flicks, which is poor in production value, acting, special effects etc, and very boring will put people off from going again. Its like theatre, most people don't go to see plays because when they were kids they saw a really crap play and they think all plays are the same. So if anything the cinemas were protecting themselves. |
|
| Author: | Thunder Child [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's pretty unlikely that a three hour, no budget, shot on video science fiction movie that's being released by a company with no track record would be apt to get into many theaters these days. It's possible that Paramount may have had a campaign to discourage theaters from playing it, although I imagine it would have less to do with fears that it would be a runaway success and more to do with concerns that it would create ticket buyer confusion and generate negative publicity. If it wasn't for the fact that Hines hooked up with a DVD distribution company that specializes in buyer confusion and taking advantage of publicity generated by bigger films, he might have seen that it would've been better to spend more time polishing the film instead of trying to cash in. |
|
| Author: | Loz [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
you can put that on your bread and toast it folks. |
|
| Author: | McTodd [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thunder Child wrote: It's possible that Paramount may have had a campaign to discourage theaters from playing it, although I imagine it would have less to do with fears that it would be a runaway success and more to do with concerns that it would create ticket buyer confusion and generate negative publicity.
I think you're being overly generous to the Conspiracy Theorists there, TC... No cinema manager in his/her right mind would show a 3-hour film of such poor quality from an unknown. Even if it was a better film than it is, most cinemas won't touch 3-hour fillums with a s****y stick unless they're by a company with a track record and have been promoted by a publicity juggernaut. |
|
| Author: | Lonesome Crow [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thunder Child wrote: he might have seen that it would've been better to spend more time polishing the film instead of trying to cash in.
Polishing the film?, From what I heard you would need a Jackhammer and TNT to improve this film. 
|
|
| Author: | Thunder Child [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
By "Polishing" I mean reduce some of the overall crappiness. (To be fair, I still haven't seen it.) It's obvious from reviews that stuff got rushed. McTodd: The three hour thing was addressed in my first paragraph. My point was that It's not impossible that Paramount might've circulated something along the lines of "Don't fall for this crummy knockoff that may be offered to you. You don't want to confuse your patrons" Trust me, I'm not knee deep in the Hines Hoopla. You should read some of his more paranoid replies. (Like where he suggests that the Asylum movie got less hassle, in part, because C. Thomas Howell had previously worked with Speilberg and Cruise...20+ years ago.) |
|
| Author: | McTodd [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fair enough, didn't read your post properly. I wouldn't blame them if they did have a quiet word, though I don't think they would have needed to anyway! As for polishing, well, he could have spent years, but we all know how hard it is to polish a turd... 
Really, you should get it, it's hilarious! And yet, I still find myself strangely drawn to watching bits of it... |
|
| Author: | Loz [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thunder Child wrote: By "Polishing" I mean reduce some of the overall crappiness. (To be fair, I still haven't seen it.) It's obvious from reviews that stuff got rushed.
I think the problem with Hine's is that he thinks he's made an icredibley good film that doesn't need fixing. Its 3 hours for Rod's sake. |
|
| Author: | Lonesome Crow [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
 Who's Rod???????? 
|
|
| Author: | Alland [ Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the land battle sequences are the best part of the movie. The way the film's done, they look like old newsreel footage of some turn-of-the-century war, which is in keeping with the spirit of a film following Wells' original story line. |
|
| Author: | Loz [ Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hines might of been at the spirits when he made this film but none of Well's spirit is in this film. 
|
|
| Author: | Loz [ Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lonesome Crow wrote: :? Who's Rod????????
Rod Stewert. As you may know the John Lennon once said that the Beatles where bigger than Rod, which cause outrage, but it was true Rod Stewert didn't become big until years later. 
|
|
| Author: | Yuri2356 [ Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Frequently asked Question: "You have fans!? When did that happen?" |
|
| Author: | Loz [ Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have a fan for him. A big one with sharp blades. Come to me Hinesy! 
|
|
| Author: | oever532 [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
*takes cover* |
|
| Author: | Loz [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh yes the sh*t just hit the fan!
|
|
| Author: | oever532 [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Phew! 
|
|
| Author: | Loz [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shouldn't that be Pooh! |
|
| Author: | oever532 [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What? Are you saiying you're involving Winnie the Pooh too?
|
|
| Author: | Loz [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
*falls down anime style* 
|
|
| Author: | oever532 [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
|
| Author: | Loz [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry is that your catch frase?
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|