the other WAR OF THE WORLDS!

BlitzKrieg

oh god it looks rubbish


http://static.howstuffworks.com/quicktime/wowhires.mov

Anima

Jesus.

I could create better special effects in MS Paint than whats in that clip.

shuushh

this piece of trash probably doesnt deserve the publicity its getting although i do like the way its set in the 18th century and will probably become a bit of a cult classic

SoupyNorman

It looks like an episode of the fast show!

It better be a straight to dvd job.

Vokes

Must be set around 1901/02, when the book was written.

Agent Orange

The effects aren't that bad... they look okay in a Sky Captain sorta way. They certainly aren't up to the Spielberg film's standard but then again they didn't have 130-plus-million dollars to spend.

I'd be more worried about the dodgy acting and accents.

Capt'n Midnight

Surely you mean another WOTW

This is the one I know best http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046534/
effects aren't great for today but for 1953 it was amazing.

Love the footage of the YB 49 (flying wing) in it.

(still haven't seen the CGI one yet)

Kingp35

I gotta tell you after watching spielbergs one and seeing how many things he got so wrong I wouldnt mind watching this one.

People seem to look for special effects now to define a good movie. look at the the 1953 version that was an excellent movie.

With this one its set in the 19th century which is what speilberg should have done. It looks quite interesting if you can get your head around some of the very dodgy acting

Pigman II

I thought it looked quite good up until 0m40s. After that the trailer seems to go into a bit of a nosedive. The main actor seems to be a bit out of sorts and the CG spider in the 2nd half is woeful.

Still at least it isn't 'blizzard of odd' bad which I had honestly expected it to be.

aidan_walsh

Holy carp Batman, Little Britain's Emily Howard is the leading "lady"!

TerrorFirmer

Lets not kid ourselves.

This looks like the biggest pile of crap ever. I saw a trailer months ago, looked decent. This is just apalling seeing this trailer. Looking like a video sequence from the 1998 game blended in with crap acting. :rolleyes:

This DOES look blizzard of odd bad!

BlitzKrieg

People seem to look for special effects now to define a good movie. look at the the 1953 version that was an excellent movie.

its not the special effects that got me angry, its the poor cinemtography, the horrible acting and terrible terrible design in everyway.

You can have the greatest cgi in the world but if it looks crap in design then there is no hope. The Tripods in Speilbergs were not great cause of their CGI but because they were well designed, these ones are a mess. another example...episode 3 that goddamn lizard creature thing obi one rides? nothing wrong with the cgi, it just looked crap aestheticly.

Kingp35

BlitzKrieg wrote:

You can have the greatest cgi in the world but if it looks crap in design then there is no hope. The Tripods in Speilbergs were not great cause of their CGI but because they were well designed, these ones are a mess. another example...episode 3 that goddamn lizard creature thing obi one rides? nothing wrong with the cgi, it just looked crap aestheticly.

Thats a fair point I would agree with that. Im talking about the average punter though who doesnt really look at things like the cinematography. they seem to go for special effects above anything else these days. Its sad for the movie industry really with many films focusing on this and not writing a good story.

Anyway thats slightly off topic.

BlitzKrieg

well seeing as the us box office is in its worse state in 20 years (according to some news sources) maybe the special effects are not attracting as much as they use too?


(w00t linked to threads...)