tech manual reviews

Hey group,
i would say that based on what i read about the tech manual, and how dissapointed people were with it.
its clear they will probably do the same with a movie re-do, cut corners and use to much computer effects, lets hope not..

scott...........  

> i would say that based on what i read about the tech manual, and how
> disapointed people were with it. its clear they will probably do the
> same with a movie re-do, cut corners and use to much computer
> effects, lets hope not.

I don't think that we can make any connection between the UFO
Tech Manual and the proposed UFO movie. The people involved with
the two projects are completely different. Plus, the movie will
have a much larger budget... :-)

Marc

Often when a movie is re-made or a TV show is made in movie form, I think there is a gap in ownership as the rights change hands and many sources release related products through this window.  This is probably the case with the technical manual.  Probably more a question of timing than any connection between the two.
Brian C.

--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] tech manual reviews
To: [hidden email]
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:09 PM


 



> i would say that based on what i read about the tech manual, and how
> disapointed people were with it. its clear they will probably do the
> same with a movie re-do, cut corners and use to much computer
> effects, lets hope not.

I don't think that we can make any connection between the UFO
Tech Manual and the proposed UFO movie. The people involved with
the two projects are completely different. Plus, the movie will
have a much larger budget... :-)

Marc















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's funny how CGI has gone from a "wow" big budget spectacular thing to a
cheaper option, down market thing.



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
scottboydo
Sent: 07 August 2009 07:28
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] tech manual reviews





Hey group,
i would say that based on what i read about the tech manual, and how
dissapointed people were with it.
its clear they will probably do the same with a movie re-do, cut corners and
use to much computer effects, lets hope not..

scott...........





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Because it's become ubiquitous and perceived as being "phony" and now
denigrated by ever-sophisticated viewers yearning for "keeping it real"?

Yo.

Using software models and making stuff seem realistic is now possible
for 13 year-olds noodling in their spare time to impress their Facebook
friends. Most critical viewers have already seen all the WOW! stuff.

It's a tough act to follow, I figure, unless of course a SF movie might
have to rely on a decent story line and character development and also
keep the key demographic paying for movie tickets.

Paul

PS Is anyone else annoyed with the term "backstory" being liberally
bandied about? It's as if suddenly everyone is clued-into cool
Hollywoodspeak and new insider terminology.

</curmudgeonry>


David Richards wrote:
> It's funny how CGI has gone from a "wow" big budget spectacular thing to a
> cheaper option, down market thing.

Newspeak jargon in the media on all subjects is nauseating



Yes - it would be nice to have some attention to story and characters, and
acting. not to mention ideas and challenging of current ethics or lack
thereof in society. (ie - a "message") for a change.



Something more than - ooh look at the pretty sfx and big big explosions and
the pretty girls/boys..



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul
Bowers
Sent: 07 August 2009 13:08
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] tech manual reviews





Because it's become ubiquitous and perceived as being "phony" and now
denigrated by ever-sophisticated viewers yearning for "keeping it real"?

Yo.

Using software models and making stuff seem realistic is now possible
for 13 year-olds noodling in their spare time to impress their Facebook
friends. Most critical viewers have already seen all the WOW! stuff.

It's a tough act to follow, I figure, unless of course a SF movie might
have to rely on a decent story line and character development and also
keep the key demographic paying for movie tickets.

Paul

PS Is anyone else annoyed with the term "backstory" being liberally
bandied about? It's as if suddenly everyone is clued-into cool
Hollywoodspeak and new insider terminology.

</curmudgeonry>

David Richards wrote:
> It's funny how CGI has gone from a "wow" big budget spectacular thing to a
> cheaper option, down market thing.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Often when a movie is re-made or a TV show is made in movie form, I think
> there is a gap in ownership as the rights change hands and many sources
> release related products through this window.  This is probably the case
> with the technical manual.

According to the press releases, it appears that ITV Global owns the rights
to both the original UFO TV series and the potential new UFO movie, so I don't
see any rights changing hands.

Marc