Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/War of the Worlds Plane Crash Set

War of the Worlds Plane Crash Set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2010 at 15:55:43 (UTC)

Original - For a scene in the 2005 film War of the Worlds that involved a crashed Boeing 747, the production crew bought an out-of-use airplane for $60,000, and, with transportation costs of $200,000 broke it into pieces and built houses around the wreckage.

Reason: This image shows the set of the crashed Boeing 747 that features in the 2005 film War of the Worlds. This set arguably plays host to one of the most iconic scenes in the film, featuring Tom Cruise walking through the wreckage. The image certainly has the 'stop, stare and click' factor, since it is quite visually shocking to see such a mess of an airplane that has been completely destroyed.
Articles in which this image appears

FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology
Creator: Miles Peterson

Support as nominator --WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The set at this point in the build (before the houses were built) was a busy pile of mess, and this photo of that portion depicts… a busy pile of mess. This would have been much more interesting of a picture, IMO, if the image comprised two pictures (above & below) whereby the other was from the exact same angle but after the houses were built. Thus, one could better see the development of set elements and compare the final image to the actual movie. Such a ‘before & after’ pair would help elicit a “stop, stare & click” reaction and would be better in keeping with the fact that Wikipedia is a place of learning. Greg L (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, that is the completed set. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken in 2007 and the film was filmed in 2005, so obviously this is either completed or slightly deconstructed. I believe from watching the special features on the dvd that the house was mostly built in CG and only parts of it was actually made practically on the set, no point in building a whole house for a few seconds in the film when you can build most of it in CG now a days. This is a tourist attraction, so the "busy pile of mess" is intended, thats how it appeared in the film, just lots more fire and some CG effects and night shot with good lighting and color shaping. In other-words, most of these disaster sets in daylight under closer examination look like a pile of crap, but on film they look much more disaster like. — raeky T 00:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No vote from you yet on the pile of crap? ;-) Greg L (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support The picture itself is fantastic and very thought provoking, but it does look a tad messy as per above. --Silvestra (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, EV and quality are there. Unusual subject matter. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]