|
|
Strings
Aug 27, 2007 20:57:01 GMT 1
Post by andy120290 on Aug 27, 2007 20:57:01 GMT 1
Anyone who has seen this film probably knows the strings holding the Martian war machines up are pretty obvious. But, if you could digitally edit them out, would you? Some people would rather leave the film as it is. However, I am sure the filmmakers never intended the strings to be so visible. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 12, 2007 0:11:16 GMT 1
Post by steann on Sept 12, 2007 0:11:16 GMT 1
i think leave them in...it all just adds to the film for me it's a classic  |
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 12, 2007 1:04:55 GMT 1
Post by poyks on Sept 12, 2007 1:04:55 GMT 1
It has to stay original, if it's tampered with, you may as well not count it as being the same movie.
It's a mark of respect to the film makers of the time to see how they coped with producing special effects.
|
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 12, 2007 2:33:25 GMT 1
Post by Scifishocks on Sept 12, 2007 2:33:25 GMT 1
I've just watched the complete original 'Captain Scarlet'. Yeah, you can see the strings in parts, but at the end of the day it was gripping viewing. Even now. So there. Leave the film alone! |
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 12, 2007 8:29:56 GMT 1
Post by malfunkshun on Sept 12, 2007 8:29:56 GMT 1
i'd rather digitally edit IN some tripod legs
|
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 13, 2007 11:43:40 GMT 1
Post by Luperis on Sept 13, 2007 11:43:40 GMT 1
I'd leave them in. After all, all the space ships of that era were 'string-powered'... it was the height of technology back then.  Plus, really easy to repair in a battle: "Oh no, we've been hit! Bring out the auxiliary strings!" XD |
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 13, 2007 11:59:14 GMT 1
Post by richardburton on Sept 13, 2007 11:59:14 GMT 1
lol I agree - leave well alone.
|
|
|
|
Strings
Sept 14, 2007 10:37:28 GMT 1
Post by mrgrotey on Sept 14, 2007 10:37:28 GMT 1
 i havent ever noticed the strings :s will have to watch that again. but yeah dont touch movie magic, just look what lucas did! he doesnt know when to stop tampering! maybe at the 17th special edition he'll stop |
|
Tripod
Trainee
''One gets to know that birds have shadows these days.''
Posts: 60
|
Post by Tripod on Oct 7, 2007 21:12:42 GMT 1
I'd rather edit it so that it shows Ann Robinson in a string. But that's just my perverted little mind. Seriously don't edit them out, that would be a waste. Tripod |
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Oct 8, 2007 0:32:45 GMT 1
As I said, thanks to a friend at the pub, I've been watching some of the old Gerry Anderson series (Captain Scarlet, Thunderbirds, etc). The great things about these things is that the stories are so great that you forget about the strings and such (this is another argument I have about the old 70's Dr Who series... the stories were great so the dodgy FX are instantly, to my mind, negated). Captain Scarlet deserves especial kudos for being darker and more realistic than anything Anderson had done before. I think that, from a movie from 1953, we can let them off a few strings. It's not even like the strings are that prominent. They did fine. And, despite the overt religious/ anti-red symbolism at the end, it is a classic. P.s. Shame they weren't tripods.... Tee hee. |
|
Reppu
Trainee
heatraying the crap out of mankind?cooollllaaaa!
Posts: 67
|
Post by Reppu on Oct 9, 2007 15:01:38 GMT 1
Oh, but they actually were tripods. Only the three legs were magnetic, you know I say leave the strings where they are. No need to mess with it. |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrotey on Oct 10, 2007 7:28:11 GMT 1
/extreme nerd mode can i just say that the definition of a tripod is something that has 3 LEGS not this magnetic field nonsense, actual legs. they werent seen or explained in the film (unless im mistaken) therefore they werent tripods, they were just big metallic croissants with a penchant for zapping the gullable |
|
|
|
Post by krakatoa on Oct 13, 2007 5:00:32 GMT 1
Leave it as it is, but it would have been nice if they where tripods.
Chantale, Krakatoa.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalegg on Nov 10, 2007 0:09:37 GMT 1
/extreme nerd mode can i just say that the definition of a tripod is something that has 3 LEGS not this magnetic field nonsense, actual legs. they werent seen or explained in the film (unless im mistaken) therefore they werent tripods, they were just big metallic croissants with a penchant for zapping the gullable The shimmery legs were seen in the film early on, but the special effect had the unfortunate result of setting fire to the set below and was abandoned in favor of showing only the sparking results of where the legs touched the ground. Dr. Forrester brings up the fact that the machines levitate on three "legs" of some kind of electro-magnetic energy. I think the odd method seems more alien, as humans with comparable technology would simply use supersonic flying craft to incinerate most ground targets in one day instead of seven. |
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Dec 7, 2007 1:17:59 GMT 1
Definitely edit out. I've been listening to the commentary with Forest J Ackerman and Joe Dante, and they interestingly point out that in the theatre screening and the VHS release the strings could not be seen as they were carefully worked to be invisible at that resolution, but since the DVD remaster due to the high definition they have become apparent. Therefore the strings should be edited out again to restore the effects to how they should look, and not force me to apologise and explain the above to every friend I get to watch it.
Thang yew.
|
|
i havent ever noticed the strings :s will have to watch that again. but yeah dont touch movie magic, just look what lucas did! he doesnt know when to stop tampering! maybe at the 17th special edition he'll stop 
