War of the Worlds (NO SPOILERS, please!)

[Gorjirus]

This is a thread about Spielberg's upcoming movie, War of the Worlds.

A bit of info; this movie will beat out Titanic as the most expensive movie to make ever made.

[Jet Jaguar]

Then lets hope it makes the same kinda $$$ Titanic did

[Zigra]

The original War of the Worlds movie was so perfect that I'm not sure that I want to see some new WotW movie try to upstage it.........especially if it stars Tom Cruise.

[Gorjirus]

Yeah, but the original could of been longer and it could have had more scenes from the book in it. Or at least we could have seen the aliens and tentacles instead of shadows, which is what I remeber of the movie.

[King Gordy]

But we did see the aliens, remeber it looked like frog-like sorta thing with green, blue, and red lights in the middle of it's head. Even though in the book they were more like squids but both designs are cool. I wonder what they're going to look like this this new one.

[Showa Godzilla]

I hope this movie is more true to the movie than the first War of The worlds movie they made.The alien war machines looked a lot cooler than the saucers in the movie(yes I know the flying war machine appeared in the book but it wasn't that great).My older Brother read the book and thought it was great,but when he saw the movie he was dissapointed.He hated the alien designs,Hated the fact that the original war machines did not appear in the movie.

[Morgoth]

That would be the only way to go with this film, in my opinion. Set it in the late 1800's and keep it pretty faithful to the book. That said, as this is Spielberg we're talking about, I have serious doubts that the final film will be any good. The Spielberg who was a craftsman and took a great deal of time and care with his films doesn't exist anymore, if you ask me. His last films have been completely unwatchable, in fact, I can't think of one I've enjoyed since 'Saving Private Ryan' and even that movie had some horribly contrived sequences. Still, maybe the old Spielberg, the one who wasn't obsessed with slapping walkie talkies into the hands of Federal agents in ET, will come crawling out of his PC-riddled shell and we might see a decent movie. I just wouldn't put any money on that bet.

[Solar_Behemoth]

I really never liked the original War of the Worlds that much, but this is probably out of disappointment that it was barely based on H.G. Wells' classic novel. If Spielberg takes his time like he used to, makes it actually LIKE the book, then just maybe we'll have a classic in our hands.

And God I hope they don't use CGI to make the aleins come to life. Use some puppetry! CGI sucks! I would love to those original tentacled alien ships in action in a movie! See them destroying 19th century houses... ahhh.... :D

Spielberg better do it right this time and USE his talent.

[Zigra]

I don't know, the original WotW movie is one of those rare films that I happened to like better than the book it's based on. But, that's just me;)

[Roehm]

I am anger by the remake of this film. The original was so god-like, that I feel the sequeal will fall very short of the original.

[Zigra]

I am anger by the remake of this film. The original was so god-like, that I feel the sequeal will fall very short of the original.

This movie isn't a sequel. It's not even a remake, either. It's suppose to be a whole new take on the original novel, rather than the 50s movie.

[The Great MM]

One thing is for sure...

there is no alien invasion movie that has been made that out does the instint classic...

"MARS ATTACKS"

Maybe this will...

but Mars Attacks will be tough compitition...

[anguirus55]

I hope Spielberg is struck by a golden shaft of light and decides to make it a period piece...but it's so expensive already that I doubt it. In that case, I just hope they use the book-style war machines and Martians and have city-trashing to die for.

[Jet Jaguar]

I hope its as good as the Album by Jeff Wayne

[Silversearchlight]

I hope its as good as the Album by Jeff Wayne
Damn! JJ beat me to it! :cursing: Loved the book and movie. Anybody remember Wow: the Series? :mothra:

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

I've read on some other boards that this adaptation of the H.G. Wells classic that it will be set in modern times. Sorry to to bring some of you down.:(

Personally, I was sort of edging toward a flick set in 1938, the year Orsen Welles freaked everyone out with his radio broadcast of the invasion story due to the fact it was done in the format of a news broadcast. So people thought the Martians were actually invading. It was covered in the made for television flick, The Night That Panicked America.

Speaking of the George Pal directed classic,there was a sequel ,or follow up to it be more exact. There was a short lived syndicated War of The Worlds series that debuted in 1988 and lasted to 1990. In it the Martian corpses were stuffed into barrels after they died,dumped off at a variety of toxic waste dumps, and everyone just tried to bury the whole incident and forget it ever happened. Unfortunatly, the Martians didn't die, the bacteria they were infected with caused them to go into a state of dormancy. Then thanks to the antics of a domestic terrorist group siezing control of one of the dumps, a container of radioactive waste is damaged releasing its contents on a bunch of the notable barrels. The radioactivity kills the bacteria, causing the Martians to revive, and they promptly start crawling into the terrorists bodies and seeking the rest of thier kind, and thier war machines. There was a novelized adaptation to the miniseries which I picked up when it debuted in which I read all this. Was anyone else aware of this series, which I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up again either on the Sci-Fi Channel, or better yet on DVD.

[Jet Jaguar]

And a fun TV series it was!
I wish SciFi or somebody would rerun it

[Raptor]

WOTW lends itself to about any time period, I believe. A Victorian period "take" on it has a certain appeal IMO, going back to when things might have been simpler, yet posing a most interesting threat to humanity. How it is LOGICALLY handled would be the key.

The TV series (first season) set up an interesting premise, bringing the Martians "up to speed", you might say. The first episode is one of my favorites with many elements reflecting both "classic" and modern views on the WOTW story.
WITHOUT WARNING was a TV movie that handled it from the news media side. It had a rather "fun" ending, I think! :D

[Raptor]

The Cypress Family Twin Theatre in Central Orange County (Cypress, CA) will be screening the original “War Of The Worlds” with Ann Robinson on August 28th.
There will be a life size working diorama on site, courtesy of KNB FX GROUP's Greg Nicotero. The ship was cast off the original Wah Chang design.

MORE INFO (http://www.geocities.com/shocktheater2004/comingattractions.html)

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

I just heard today that The War of the Worlds will be debuting on Wednesday, July 27, of next year. The same date as the upcoming Fantastic Four flick.(Pleasure overload. :crazy: ) Also fresh from the rumor mill, Alexis Denisof(Wesley of ANGEL) has been cast in the flick.

Also on the subject of the short lived television series that followed up the original flick in the late eighties, early ninties. Here's a link to a site that covers mainly the program's first season, but its intresting nontheless. http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

This isn't the first remake (or new adaptation of the original) to to rear its tenticles. Back in 2001 a British studio called Pendragon Pictures was going about doing thier own take on the H.G. Wells classic. However, due to the incidents surrounding 9/11, they pulled the project because they figured no one would want to see cities getting wiped out. But apparently the studio has been quitely reworking the project in the intervening years ,and completing for a release by next year. For those of you disappointed about the Cruise/Spielburg flick being set in modern times, this version will be set in Victorian England:O like its source material. Heres an article covering the flick.http://www.chud.com/news/sept04/sept13warphp3

[Burkion]

Oh, goodie. I get to rant again if this movie turns into WINO*AKA; War of the Worlds in Name Only.* God damn you Steven! Why must you mess with just great classics???

[Raptor]

"CLASSIC" is so many ways!

Halloween is one of my favorite times of the year and WOTW is always a part of it. I just came across this STUDY GUIDE (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/warofworlds.html) which mentions a lot of great background we tend to overlook with the sheer enjoyment we've gotten from Orson Welles famed 1938 radio broadcast based on the novel that goes back to 1894, the various films, TV series and even TV movie adaptations.
The initial broadcast made the front page of the NEW YORK TIMES (http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/wotw.html), the script (http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/script.html) is available if you don't have the audio tapes and Grovers Mill, New Jersey (http://roadsideamerica.com/attract/NJGROufo.html) got on the map!
It may have caused a national panic but it's always great to get a glimpse of small town America, even if you sometimes have to put up with pesky Martians! :laugh:

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Just found this today. A official link to the remake's site. Not much else than some cool artwork, but its a start.http://www.waroftheworlds.com/ Also heres a photo from filming the flick.http://story.yahoo.com/news?g=events/en/120104waroftheworlds&a=tmpl=sl&ns=0&l=1&e=1&t=&prev=2

[Baran-no-goji]

[QUOTE=henry_venetta]I really never liked the original War of the Worlds that much, but this is probably out of disappointment that it was barely based on H.G. Wells' classic novel. If Spielberg takes his time like he used to, makes it actually LIKE the book, then just maybe we'll have a classic in our hands.

And God I hope they don't use CGI to make the aleins come to life. Use some puppetry! CGI sucks! I would love to those original tentacled alien ships in action in a movie! See them destroying 19th century houses... ahhh.... :D

Amen brother! Make it faithful and use the CGI VERY sparingly. I hope we get the old 70s-80s Spielberg style.

[Excelsior]

This isn't the first remake (or new adaptation of the original) to to rear its tenticles. Back in 2001 a British studio called Pendragon Pictures was going about doing thier own take on the H.G. Wells classic. However, due to the incidents surrounding 9/11, they pulled the project because they figured no one would want to see cities getting wiped out. But apparently the studio has been quitely reworking the project in the intervening years ,and completing for a release by next year. For those of you disappointed about the Cruise/Spielburg flick being set in modern times, this version will be set in Victorian England:O like its source material. Heres an article covering the flick.http://www.chud.com/news/sept04/sept13warphp3

http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html

BTW - Poster art is up at http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=5947.

[Pug Puppy]

Do it right: don't make it a gory, R-Rated POJ, like the 1982 remake of the "Thing".
Don't set it in the Old West. That is what messed up "Tremors 4".

[Excelsior]

Do it right: don't make it a gory, R-Rated POJ, like the 1982 remake of the "Thing".
Don't set it in the Old West. That is what messed up "Tremors 4".

You're one of the few people I've seen have a negative opinion on Carpenter's Thing (that sounded bad).

And the Old West? What's that got to do with anything?

[Gorjirus]

Sweet! It comes out on my Birthday! Oh yeah!

That is a weird poster though.

To bad they made it look like the Star Wars titles on that website.

But I am a huge HG Wells fan, and can't wait to see this movie. I loved the first one, though the aliens weren't like the book that much, IMO.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

The teaser for the remake has arrived. Supposedly it will be showing this weekend with OCEAN'S TWELVE. It does a really good take from the original novel's opening prolougue.Here it is:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/

[RobDowneyJr]

I just saw the preview for the upcoming War of the Worlds remake. The commercial did not give a whole lot away, but it did use the opening few paragraphs from Well's book and definately has me excited about this movie.

I am an HG Wells fan, and love the original War of the Worlds movie. I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on this upcoming release or about the War of the Worlds in general.

[RobDowneyJr]

I'm stupid I just started a thread on this topic before i found this.

By the way, i think the aliens will look very similar in design to the 50's, probably not as corny, but the promo pic, does show an alien had holing the world that closely resemble's the hand in the 50's version.

Wells forever!!!!!!!!!!

[RobDowneyJr]

It does a really good take from the original novel's opening prolougue.Here it is:

Don't you just love how you can change the date on the prolougue and it still applies. Well's was a genius, this could be one of the best movie's ever!!!!!!!!!

[kent]

I'm excited about it. That's all I have to say.

[Kiryu goji]

I hope its good, I could use another classic remake. I also pray that it (like the original film) is better than the book. I bought a copy of the book, and I hated it. Saw the movie, loved it. Just because a book's a classic doesn't mean it isn't bad. The only complaint I had about the movie was the bad looking aliens in one scene, but then the film makers probably knew they were bad and thus didn't use 'em much.
I think a remake would be teriffic. Any Idea when it comes out?

[Saruman]

I'm pretty excited about this as it is currently filming near where I live. I could have gone down to be an extra but I didn't get the chance to do that unfortunately. Would have been fun to just run around pretending to run from alien ships all day long, lol.

[RobDowneyJr]

Threads Merged!!!
Very Good. Should have been an extra. How can anybody not like this book??????

[Gorjirus]

Here's another poster that has come out. I can't wait to see this movie!

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/574/574594p1.html

[PyrasTerran]

Neither can I. I have lots of respect for Spieldberg and Cruise.

[Cookson]

I dont know how I missed this thread. The original "War of the Worlds" was a great movie and I think this one will be even better. Steven Spielberg hasn really done a great movie in awhile but now is his chance to redeem himself from the last couple of years. Cant wait.

Also hears the website http://waroftheworlds.com I dont know if anyone already posted the website.

[Excelsior]

Some sneaky set pics and info reported to AICN.

http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19027

[Studio Asperger]

Two War of the Worlds movies, both within a few months of each other... this could get very interesting indeed.

I personally am rooting for the period piece for a few reasons;

1) The period piece is being made by a British studio (hey, what's wrong with being patriotic?)

2) I'm not keen on Tom Cruise, and Spielberg's lost his way in recent times if you ask me.

3) By setting the film in modern times, the point of the original book - that the humans were completely powerless against the Martian's superior technology - may be lost. I hope Spielberg knows what he's doing with that decision to change the setting.

I'll see both films, just to see if either of them can pull off a decent War of the Worlds film. I love the original book, and despite a couple of dodgy moments I enjoyed the 50s film. It'll be interesting to see how both films shape up.

[Gojira2000]

I'm very happy about this movie being remade. I hope it stays true to the book, though, as always. I was disapointed in the original movie, though it could grow on me. But anyway, I can't wait to see this!!

[RobDowneyJr]

By setting the film in modern times, the point of the original book - that the humans were completely powerless against the Martian's superior technology - may be lost. I hope Spielberg knows what he's doing with that decision to change the setting.

I disagree. I think that the appeal of War of the Worlds is that the threat is real no madder were or when it happens. Setting the story in modern times adds to the realness of the danger. I think the purpose of the story is to humble mankind. In that sense it makes no difference how man's technology has developed, because the martians can simply be made more powerful to compensate.

I hope i didn't take what you said out of context.

[Studio Asperger]

I disagree. I think that the appeal of War of the Worlds is that the threat is real no madder were or when it happens. Setting the story in modern times adds to the realness of the danger. I think the purpose of the story is to humble mankind. In that sense it makes no difference how man's technology has developed, because the martians can simply be made more powerful to compensate.

I hope i didn't take what you said out of context.
Nah, don't worry about it. I remember in the 50s film they made the Fighting Machines capable of withstanding gunfire and even nukes. Spielberg'll probably do something similar here.

My real concern with the Spielberg version is that, well, I'm not confident that he'll be able to stay true to the book. Not so much in terms of setting, because WotW is one of those stories that could still work well in any time period.

What I mean is that the book has an extremely dark tone throughout, and judging by some of his most recent work I'm concerned that Spielberg may attempt to make it appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Case in point: Minority Report. This was supposed to be Spielberg's darkest film to date, but it was still too 'clean' in my opinion. Thus to make WotW appeal to a large audience he may skimp on the full horrors that the invasion was supposed to display.

I don't know, maybe I'm just concerned that a book that I love may get mistreated. I'll do my best to reserve judgement until I've seen the film, but I still have my concerns.

[RobDowneyJr]

I don't know, maybe I'm just concerned that a book that I love may get mistreated. I'll do my best to reserve judgement until I've seen the film, but I still have my concerns.[/QUOTE]
I definately agree with your concern. I hope Speilberg can put his artistic lisence on the back burner enough to let Well's talent's shine.

It is difficult in modern times to have this story because of modern science, i mean, we know pretty much that there is no life on Mars at this point. Maybe speilberg will take the responsibility of reminding us that we do not know everything.

The thing that really scares me is Tom Cruise. I don't know how big the actors in the 50's war of the worlds were at the time, but i'm hoping that the star power doesn't end up trying to replace a great story.

[Studio Asperger]

I definately agree with your concern. I hope Speilberg can put his artistic lisence on the back burner enough to let Well's talent's shine.

It is difficult in modern times to have this story because of modern science, i mean, we know pretty much that there is no life on Mars at this point. Maybe speilberg will take the responsibility of reminding us that we do not know everything.

The thing that really scares me is Tom Cruise. I don't know how big the actors in the 50's war of the worlds were at the time, but i'm hoping that the star power doesn't end up trying to replace a great story.[/QUOTE]That's another concern of mine. I don't rate Tom Cruise as an actor, and it seems this movie may end up largely relying on his name to sell tickets. I hope this isn't the case, but all these years of enduring lousy movies that have relied too much on star power have left me cynical as far as this sort of thing goes.

Going back to Spielberg's treatment of the film, I still have my doubts. To see how a book adaptation can go abysmally wrong, look no further than the recent version of The Time Machine, and that was done by Wells' great (or was it great-great?) grandson! I don't know if Spielberg would dare to mess up WotW THAT badly, but the possibility is still very real.

I mean, who knows? I may well be proven wrong. Spielberg's version could well turn out to be brilliant, and conversely the British film could turn out to be complete crud. Basically, I'm not going to get my hopes up too high for either film before I see them.

[Archaic_Avenger]

The thing that really scares me is Tom Cruise. I don't know how big the actors in the 50's war of the worlds were at the time, but i'm hoping that the star power doesn't end up trying to replace a great story.
well, Tom Cruise always scares me. never liked any of the Mission Impossibles because of him. but what with Tim Robbins, and Dakota Fannings (whose proven to do really well when matched with aliens, and Speilburg both) i am liking it.

Rodan2000

[RobDowneyJr]

Oh man, i completely blocked the Time Machine from memory, now i'm worried...


I'm just gonna hope for the best, Seilberg, don't let me down!!!!!!

[Archaic_Avenger]

i have to say, as 'm currently reading War of the Worlds, its much better than i expected. i've read the Time Machine and the Invisable Man, which i didnt like either one, but now i'm much more impressed with this book, so far, and hope the movie can do it justice.

Rodan2000

[Studio Asperger]

Just out of interest, the theatrical trailer for the Pendragon Pictures version can now be seen here - http://stuffo.howstuffworks.com/wotw-videos.htm

Some parts of the trailer aren't very clear to me - mostly because my sound card's bust - and it looks like it was knocked up before some of the special effects were fully tidied-up. Other than that, I like the look of it.

[Gorjirus]

Did anyone else see the WotW trailer last night during the Super Bowl? Man, I really want to see this movie. Even people at the party I was at who aren't that into Sci-Fi said that it looked awesome. I get goosebumps watching it. My wanting of seeing this movie grows everytime I think about it.

[BS Digital Q]

Didn't really peak my interest. I might rent it when it comes out on DVD.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Excellent preview. Although I had to wonder how come the people around Cruise's character seemed to be clueless to what was going on. Guess I'll have to wait to seethe final product to see what brought the characters to that point. Another wierd bugaboo I have with it , is the excellent shot of Dakota Fanning's "Oh **** !" expression when the attack comes. I was really thinking that in that moment that we'd hear the old heat ray sound from the original flick, but we didn't get that. Other than that, no problem.:thumbs:

[Megabyte]

That was one of the many highlights of the commericals, since many of em sucked this year. But seeing the preview got me all pysched up and I'm hoping that Spielberg will return to his former stats as a great storyteller. I'm also hoping for the tripod war machines which might be my only beef with the film thus far. Oh well, knowing me, I'll enjoy it anyway. Come on June 29th!

And surprisingly I'm not as scared of Cruise being in it since he did a very good job in Collateral.

[Gorjirus]

I think the reason we didn't get any of the heat ray sound is that Spielburg didn't want ANY of the aliens to be seen or heard just yet.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Note:I'm only the messenger, so don't take it out on me.

According to the fecalphilliacs over at Ain't It Cool News, one of thier informent learned from the artits on the film something about the aliens in the film ,and where they came from in a Q&A at the Wondercon. Apparently the aliens have been observing us not from Mars, but a parallel dimension, maybe even an alternate Earth:eyebrow: . This makes it all the more clear from the film's tagline "They're alredy here." . Meaning that in the film we'll be invaded by an alternate Earth.:cursing:

[Studio Asperger]

Note:I'm only the messenger, so don't take it out on me.

According to the fecalphilliacs over at Ain't It Cool News, one of thier informent learned from the artits on the film something about the aliens in the film ,and where they came from in a Q&A at the Wondercon. Apparently the aliens have been observing us not from Mars, but a parallel dimension, maybe even an alternate Earth:eyebrow: . This makes it all the more clear from the film's tagline "They're alredy here." . Meaning that in the film we'll be invaded by an alternate Earth.:cursing:

Yeah, well, as far as I'm concerned Ain't It Cool can be likened to the bottom of the Internet barrel... Actually, more like the bottom of the barrel had it's own barrel, which dripped into a rank sewer. I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt.

Then again, H.G. Wells' great-grandson royally f*cked up The Time Machine, so the chances of this happening might not actually be so impossible.

To be honest, the more I hear of this film the less faith I have in it. The main problem I have right now is the casting of Dakota Fanning. She may be a very talented kid for all I know - I've yet to see any film she's in - but it sounds to me that Spielberg's trying to manipulate our emotions by adding in a plot device as well worn-out as the 'kid in distress' one. I know it's extremely cynical, but that's the only possible conclusion I can reach.

I mean, come on, James Cameron already did this trick, and got it to work effectively, in Aliens. I mean, from the pictures I've seen Dakota Fanning even seems to be done up like Carrie Henn! A film can have emotional impact without being sentimental, why can't Spielberg see that lately?!

I don't know, I just don't see why Hollywood has to rely on such cynical emotional ploys and - much like the modern setting - pass it off as 'audience identification'. It strikes me as just adding in sentimentaility where it just doesn't belong. It's not adding emotional impact - it's just pandering to the masses.

I'll try and shove these thoughts out of my head and view the film through neutral eyes, but right now I don't have much hope.

[Melkor]

I agree with Asperger, the 'kid in distress' role has been rather overused lately, and it has, in my opinion, become a tired, worn-out plot device. Terror is an important part of this movie, but not every scene has to have a child in it. Anyway, the trailer looks nice, as does the whole movie so far. I just hope tghat tidbit TOAO mentioned never sees the light of day. . . That would be the worst 'surprise' I can expect from the movie, if indeed it comes true.



Peace,



Melkor



:darklord:

[Bagoth]

Maybe there is some hope, this is from the scifi wire.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=30445

[Bagoth]

Here is some more news.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=30449

[Studio Asperger]

Spielberg's surely not being serious about the 'aliens not from Mars' point?!:angry: Looks like Ain't It Cool was more accurate this time!

My faith in this film is now seriously disappearing. Getting the audience to identify with the film? I read that as 'obviously the book doesn't scare every braindead yokel on this planet who probably can't even read so we'll throw in so many tired and hackneyed plot elements to do so'. Not only that, he can't even stick to the f***ing story! What the f*** is he thinking with this whole 'not from Mars' cr*p?! The story worked perfectly well as it was - if the rumours are to be believed, this whole 'alternate Earth' stuff is true, why the hell does he feel the need to throw in such a stupid new element?! True, George Pal's film changed the setting, but at least it stuck to the fundamentals of the story (and attempted stabs at relevance, what with doubts about nuclear weaponry back then)!

Why the hell does Spielberg feel the need to throw in such stupid new elements to a story that worked perfectly well in the first place! I don't care about 'director's vision', this is just going too far. Spielberg's making the exact same mistakes Simon Wells did with The Time Machine - by attempting to get this film to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, he's now running a severe risk of wrecking everything that made the book unique and powerful in the first place.

The man really is fast losing any shred of credibility he had left in my eyes.

[Studio Asperger]

Ack! Dumb f***ing comp, made me double-post!

[Zigra]

I think Spielburg may have doomed the possibility of his movie being "more faithful" to the book when he decided to have it set in modern day. The thing is, if that's the case, then you'd have to alter the Martian war machines to some degree. Why? Because the war machines, while they may have seemed advanced back when Wells wrote the book in 1898, would be no match for our modern day military artilery (compare that to the war machines of the 50s movie which would be just as unstoppable to our military as they were to the military of the 50s).

[Studio Asperger]

I think Spielburg may have doomed the possibility of his movie being "more faithful" to the book when he decided to have it set in modern day. The thing is, if that's the case, then you'd have to alter the Martian war machines to some degree. Why? Because the war machines, while they may have seemed advanced back when Wells wrote the book in 1898, would be no match for our modern day military artilery (compare that to the war machines of the 50s movie which would be just as unstoppable to our military as they were to the military of the 50s).

Why do I get the feeling that Spielberg's not going to take that into account though? Why do I feel like he's going to do what I call 'pull an Emmerich' and not take basic military strategy into account?

I can see your point about changing the war machines to fit the modern setting, but judging from those interviews it seems they're going for the same machines as the book. All these producers and what-have-you are banging on about being faithful to the book - I feel like they're already shooting themselves in the foot.

[Morgoth]

I am so sick of these jack-*** directors taking a classic and then making a movie that has no resemblance whatsoever to what it is purportedly based on. Spielberg hasn't been worth two shits for years - he's abandoned any semblance of story telling for the most purile levels of sentimentalist claptrap. The Martians aren't from Mars? Then why the hell even still claim this thing has anything in common with the novel? Jack-***, pure and simple. It seems to be a contest between Stevie and Georgie who will release the more insulting sci-fi abomination this year... and of course it is the movie-going public who winds up paying the price, though it seems Hollywood's campaign to lower standards to such a ridiculously infantile level continues to cause even the most worthless of these abominations to turn some sort of profit.


Studio Asperger said it best, and all I can add is that I hope Spielberg realises he doesn't have it anymore and either starts having somebody talented looking over his shoulder and pointing out his mis-steps, or else simply gives up on movie-making. Really, the pompous ******* is now rewriting literary classics simply to screw with them. Not exactly slick, or intelligent.

[anguirus55]

Good God, people need to get a grip.

Anybody who has anything remotely resembling scientific knowledge of Mars in recent years knows that invaders aren't coming from there.

People who aren't entirely retarded yet not previously acquainted with War of the Worlds are likely to write the story off on that basis. So why appear ignorant (aliens on Mars) for no gain to the story?

Think about it. It sounds as if the war machines are much, much more faithful to the novel than the 1960s version. So the people whining about the whole plot of the film being changed because the invaders aren't from Mars (we don't even SEE Mars in any version of WotW, so what does it matter?) really ought to take a look at WHY they are fans of War of the Worlds.

It's not because of where the aliens COME FROM. It's because of the story.

[kent]

^ I totally agree. People are taking it way too hard. The original film wasn't even faithful to the book. You know how boring it would be if it purely based off the book? Yes, it would be a pile of crap. Speilberg knows how to entertain and to do it in style. The Lost World is a perfect example. The book was absolutely horrible! Hardly any dino action and the characters were just boring! He took a lousy book and turned that crud into gold! I have so much respect for Spielberg and his work. I plan on seeing this movie and plan on seeing it with an open mind. Which is something some of you don't seem to have.

[Zigra]

It's not because of where the aliens COME FROM. It's because of the story.

Wow, are you a spokesman for Devlin and Emmerich? You should be:Pj/k

If they change everything about who and what the aliens are, is it really possible for them to remain faithful to the story? Add to that the fact that the movie doesn't even take place in same time period.....

Sorry, but it is such elements as who and what the aliens are and even the story's setting, then the movie is going to be just another alien invasion flick that vainly uses the title "War of the Worlds". WotWINO if you will.

(we don't even SEE Mars in any version of WotW, so what does it matter?)

WRONG! We did see the Martians take off from Mars in the beginning of the novel (not to mention that we saw the Martians take off from Mars to colonize Venus after the Earth invasion failed at the novel's end).

The original film wasn't even faithful to the book.

But that's the problem. As good as it was in it's own right the 50s movie bore very little resemblence to the story it was based on. Why should Spielburg even bother to make another WotW movie at all if he's just going to do the exact same thing the 50s movie did? There's no point.

You know how boring it would be if it purely based off the book? Yes, it would be a pile of crap.

Your opinion, and your opinion alone, Kent. Most of us here obviously LOVED the book a great deal, and would much rather see a faithful adaption rather than a movie that uses the title "War of the Worlds" but bares no true resemblence to the story.

[Kaiju Fan]

^ I totally agree. People are taking it way too hard. The original film wasn't even faithful to the book. You know how boring it would be if it purely based off the book? Yes, it would be a pile of crap. Speilberg knows how to entertain and to do it in style. The Lost World is a perfect example. The book was absolutely horrible! Hardly any dino action and the characters were just boring! He took a lousy book and turned that crud into gold! I have so much respect for Spielberg and his work. I plan on seeing this movie and plan on seeing it with an open mind. Which is something some of you don't seem to have.

I have to disagree, if it was done right a film based purely off the book could be absolutely incredible if done right. I think this "parallel universe" thing is a little ridiculus when there are so many other options available i.e. have the invader's civilization be hidden deep inside Mars or something along those lines. By changing the time period that the movie is set and the origin of the invaders, a part of the book is lost, and to me this is starting to sound more and more like another alien invasion movie and less like WOTW. Oh, and IMO, the Lost World book was soooo much better than the movie, I thought Speilberg took a great book that continued the themes of the original novel and turned it into two hours of nothing but people getting chewed up by dinosaurs.

[Morgoth]

^ I totally agree. People are taking it way too hard. The original film wasn't even faithful to the book. You know how boring it would be if it purely based off the book? Yes, it would be a pile of crap. Speilberg knows how to entertain and to do it in style. The Lost World is a perfect example. The book was absolutely horrible! Hardly any dino action and the characters were just boring! He took a lousy book and turned that crud into gold! I have so much respect for Spielberg and his work. I plan on seeing this movie and plan on seeing it with an open mind. Which is something some of you don't seem to have.

Wrong! Spielberg turned a piece of **** book into a piece of **** movie with nice effects. I often have to ask myself which is worse - Crichton's novel or Spielberg's movie - and the only answer I can come up with is that they are both terrible, poorly written piles of crap! Spielberg gets one merit for his effects work, which is instantly taken away for the overt eco-terrorist theme (which the audience is expected to embrace and accept, by the way) that runs rampant through the book.

Hey! I know! Lets make a movie about WWII, but because everybody would already be expecting Germans, we'll have us fighting Brazilians - in Mexico. It'll be awesome! Or how about King Arthur fighting off the invasion fleet of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Face facts, ANY origin for aliens is going to be equally contrived and implausible - so why the hell not stick with the Martian origin that was a pretty integral part of the book? There is some evidence that there was life on Mars and may still be some living bacteria there (presence of methane in the atmosphere could indicate biological processes) - so the Martian angle is certainly no less plausible than 'an alternate earth' crap. Hell, if he'd put a bit more thought into it, he could even have them coming from Mars, but in a manner similar to Lovecraft's Great Race of Yith - transmitting themselves from the distant past of Mars across time and space to our own world. But, no, even such an obvious out is beyond somebody who obviously doesn't care about running rough-shod over a literary classic, one of the foundation stones of science fiction. Spielberg wants to change as much as he can so he can claim the finished work as his own creation - which begs the question of why he didn't just do something original to begin with rather than get H G Wells spinning in his coffin again. Oh, thats right! Because there are no original ideas in Hollywood, only crackpot notions on how to improve upon things that aren't broken to begin with.

Christopher Lee has often mentioned his inability to understand why movie makers feel the need to so completely adulterate a writer's work that the thing they foist upon the screen has absolutely nothing to do with what it is purportedly based upon. Why even bother usuing the title at all? Oh, thats right, because people are familiar with the book/comic/game in question and thats the only thing that will draw them into theatres. This WINO is no different from Uwe Boll's atrocities 'based on' video games, nor the 'Doom' movie that will be crapping into theatres all too soon - just a *******ization of a familiar title in order to sell extra tickets to something so flamboyantly lame it needed to rip-off a title to get any prodcution money allocated for it.

[Studio Asperger]

This whole debacle reminds me of a sketch from Monkey Dust (likely only familiar to the other Brits here). In one of their early sketches, they mused on what might happen if Hollywood took 'The Diary of Anne Frank' and turned it into a blockbuster. Here's some of the 'enhancements' Hollywood bunged in there;


- The Jews become the Irish and have parties in their hiding places.

- Anne Frank is now an adult bartender with a hunky American soldier boyfriend.

- The Nazis are now English and run over prams in their tanks.

- Berlin is now in England.

- Hitler lives in a Gothic castle on top of a lightning-strewn mountain.

- The Jews/Irish spout Braveheart-style sermons.

- In the end, the hunky American soldier boyfriend single-handedly wipes out the entire Nazi regime.

Given what those arseclowns in Hollywood do to classic, unbroken source material these days, I really wouldn't be surprised if that ***** appeared on our cinema screens one day.

Seriously, remember what happened to the Time Machine? What kind of total c*cksucker take great material from their dead ancestor and makes a film that bears no resemblence to it whatsoever?! I wouldn't be surprised if H.G. Wells was clawing at the inside of his coffin trying to escape and beat his snotty great-grandson to death.

Morgoth put it best when he paraphrased Christopher Lee there - if you're going to change so much of the source material, why not just make an original film in the first place? I reckon Spielberg's counting on the name and the star power to pull in the crowds, while figuring he can f*ck up the source material beyond repair.

Those who say we're overreacting really need to take a look at the long, sad history of adaptations. Directors have irreparably f*cked them up beyond all recognition almost every time, and I for one am sick of it. Now knowing that one of my favourite books is getting *******ised is just going too far.

[Cole Deschain]

... That's it. Spielburg needs to go back and watch Jaws again.

Yes, you heard me right.

Jaws.

[Studio Asperger]

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that overly-faithful adaptations always work. Indeed, on occassions a director's vision of the story can produce amazing work...

Take, for example, The Shining. I found Stephen King's book to actually be quite abysmal. I felt it was too pretentious and sometimes too downright silly to be scary, with a lame ending. However, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation I regard as a masterpiece of horror cinema. Kubrick changed a fair chunk about the film, but not so much that it would not be recognisably The Shining - he held onto the original concept, characters and setting, for example. However, the film overall was much tighter and better constructed than the book, and remains one of the few horror films to genuinely scare me.

It's pretty funny that King himself hated Kubrick's adaptation, then went on to film his own, fully faithful adaptation of the book, which turned out to be a load of complete crap.

I'm only bringing this point up in an attempt to add some balance to my views. However, this is War of the Worlds we're talking about here, and I'd prefer that an adaptation that at least remained faithful to the book was finally made. As I see it though, Spielberg is changing too much for this to truly be considered War of the Worlds. Everything that made the book itself unique or interesting is being taken out in favour of cheap emotional ploys, out-of-place settings and such a ridiculous new central concept for the aliens' origins. As a WotW adaptation, I really can't see it working at all.

I mean, what's coming next, eh? At the end, is Cruise going to go on a mad rampage, slaughtering every alien in sight before destroying their leader to single-handedly save Dakota Fanning and the entire world? Given the direction the film seems to be going in, I really wouldn't be surprised.

Oh, and to the guy who said a faithful adaptation of the book would suck - your opinion alone, but that still doesn't mean you're right.

[Type66maserraycannon]

Who's to say what lives BELOW the surface of Mars? What better reason to move, than that?

Or, even, take the one idea that I thought was SLIGHTLY clever at all from the War of the worlds TV show (sorry to bring THAT THING up ), the notion that we just thought they came from Mars, and really had no clue to WHERE they came from.

To do Well's story with tri-pod machines, you'd really have to either set it in it's original era, or at least set it as pre-WW2. The post A-bomb world is just too differant for it to work.

Too, bad Harryhausen didn't get to make his version, it looked as tho it would hold true to the book.

[Studio Asperger]

This is really why I'm hoping to God that the Pendragon Pictures version is good. I have my doubts, in fact I'm not even sure the film's gonna get a general release here (it's due out next month), but I hope the team there can do justice to the book and make a damn good film in their own right.

[kent]

I think too many people are afraid of change. It's gotta be a certain way or nothing at all. Which is just sad because it shows no one is willing to have an open mind about trying something new. Give the film a chance.
Some films based off of books need to be updated to suit the current audience's wants. Would you rather see the aliens destroy an early 1900s city or a vast city with great destruction like the ones we have now? Frankly I would prefer to see the latter. It needs to be updated so today's audience can relate to it and see just how it could happen in today's world. War of the Worlds deserves an update and I am glad it is getting one.

[Gorjirus]

This is one of those movies that, regardless of where the aliens come from or what time period the film is set in, I am going to see it. I will still hold out hope that it will be good in any respect.

[Cole Deschain]

I think too many people are afraid of change.

Afraid of? No. Incensed by the pointlessness of? Yes.

It's gotta be a certain way or nothing at all. Which is just sad because it shows no one is willing to have an open mind about trying something new. Give the film a chance.

We have a perfectly good story. If we are going to discard every aspect of it (the time period, the origin of the invaders, the passive role of Wells' hero), why not just come up with a new name, say "inspired by X," and get some credit for not cranking out a remake?

Some films based off of books need to be updated to suit the current audience's wants. Would you rather see the aliens destroy an early 1900s city or a vast city with great destruction like the ones we have now?

I've seen aliens decimate modern cities. In ID4. And In Battlefield Earth. Neither of which rank terribly high on my hit parade. The period piece can quite easily capture the terror and horror of utter human powerlessness far more personally than simply watching a nuke fail. When an alien war-machine is snagging people, and torching soldiers before your very eyes, and nothing you have can stop it? That, my friend, is visceral terror. When a nuke explodes, and the alien vessel emerges without a scratch? Well, so far, I've yet to see that done in a way that impressed me. Big boom. Woo-hoo.

[Type66maserraycannon]

Look at the Dai Majin series, their time frame is what sets them a part from all of the other kaiju films. Are they any less interesting than the more common present day theme films? I found their anti-kaiju methods to be interesting.

I've already seen aliens destroy modern cities. They did it in the first War of the worlds movie, with cooler looking war machines.(face it no will EVER top those!) And while it would be sort of cool to see M-1 Abrams vs war machines, I'm sure that Hollywood will screw even that up, as they have shown time and again that if there is a way to screw it up THEY WILL FIND IT!!!

A period piece would be interesting, where only feild artillery and Maxium machine guns were the state of the art.And battleships were the new super weapon.

What can the miltary of today do that the miltary of 1953 didn't do? Pretty much nothing differant at all, just drop the bomb. If anything I'll look for this version to have a less impressive miltary vs aliens scene, the first film had cooperation of the USMC for their scenes. All the tanks and artillery were real.Today all they can do is rent the mock up Abrams tanks,forget the artillery,and have bunches of rented HUMMVEEs. Unless they CGI it all.(I really hate CGI....)

[Morgoth]

I think too many people are afraid of change. It's gotta be a certain way or nothing at all. Which is just sad because it shows no one is willing to have an open mind about trying something new. Give the film a chance.
Some films based off of books need to be updated to suit the current audience's wants. Would you rather see the aliens destroy an early 1900s city or a vast city with great destruction like the ones we have now? Frankly I would prefer to see the latter. It needs to be updated so today's audience can relate to it and see just how it could happen in today's world. War of the Worlds deserves an update and I am glad it is getting one.

Here's the problem, Kent, we've already been BURNED by way too many of these 'lets do something completely new and totally wacky with this' ideas in the last few years. Take that abysmal 'Planet of the Apes' re-imagining. Absolute crap, and killed what could have been the return of the first of the mega-blockbuster sci-fi franchise empires. Take the 're-imagining' of 'Time Machine' a few years ago. A handful of good ideas, then absolute stupidity when he gets to the realm of the Eloi and Morlocks (and, sadly, how could they manage to completely miss what made Morlocks so scary - that they were still recognizable as human beings, not monkey monsters). The list goes on and on. Here, let me drive the stake home a bit - 'Van Helsing' and its reinvention of Abraham (dammit!) Van Helsing as some supernatural Vatican monster assassin, or Castle Dracula as a poor cousin to Isengard, the Frankenstein Monster as this whiney steam-powered twerp, nevermind Dracula himself. And speaking of Dracula, there's another good character to focus on for the 'going in a new direction' being something that can misfire so hideously as to destroy any semblance to what it is supposed to be based on. We've had Dracula as some poorly rendered changeling monster whose only character development is to learn swear words from Wesley Snipes, we've had Dracula as actually being Judas Iscariot (and killable only by hanging, no less), in fact, I'm surprised some moron hasn't decided to have Dracula as being Adolf Hitler in some crackpot drivel that Hollywood would probably happily send $30 million towards.

Look at what is happening with these video game movies. 'House of the Dead' bears no semblance at all to what it is purportedly based on, same with 'Alone in the Dark'. We have 'Doom' coming up, which is set on a distant alien planet (not Mars or its moons) and with a bio-toxic plague rather than demons. Change can be good, but there comes a point where so much is being altered that you have to stop and consider 'is this even what it is supposed to be any more?' At that point, they should have the decency to step back and either adjust their thinking or simply discard any connection to their supposed source material. But, of course, they won't do that because they want instant name recognition, no matter how deceptive it might be.

[Studio Asperger]

I think too many people are afraid of change. It's gotta be a certain way or nothing at all. Which is just sad because it shows no one is willing to have an open mind about trying something new. Give the film a chance.
Some films based off of books need to be updated to suit the current audience's wants. Would you rather see the aliens destroy an early 1900s city or a vast city with great destruction like the ones we have now? Frankly I would prefer to see the latter. It needs to be updated so today's audience can relate to it and see just how it could happen in today's world. War of the Worlds deserves an update and I am glad it is getting one.

You're completely missing the point. We're not scared of change - as I stated earlier, I actively prefer The Shining movie to the book, even though there are several differences between the two - it's just that in this case the changes are so pointless and downright stupid. Loads of other invasion films have been set in modern times (practically all of which, incidentally, have been complete tripe), Spielberg deciding to move the setting to modern times just smacks of unoriginality and downright laziness, not to mention suggesting that people will not identify with something unless it's got big shiny buildings in it.

Change isn't necessarily bad, it's just that nine times out of ten Hollywood has changed the source material beyond recognition, to the point where it can't be considered to be even related to the source material except in name. Morgoth cites some classic examples - the recent remake of The Time Machine, Van Helsing, Dracula, and more recently videogame adaptations like House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark, all of which have been subjected to ludicrous changes which have ruined the point of the original source material, removing everything that made them unique or interesting. When this happens, it's just nothing short of cynical cashing-in on classic properties, with no true relation to the original stories that people will pay to see because they believe otherwise. Hollywood has messed around with unbroken formulae to turn a profit, subjecting them to such clichéd and ill thought-out changes, and no doubt it will continue to do so, churning out films that are often devoid of merit and cashing in on peoples' fond memories of the source material.

It wouldn't be so bad if Spielberg was NOT claiming he was adapting WotW and was making his own film, but the fact that he's attaching the WotW name to this reeks of cash-in. As an adaptation, what Spielberg's doing to this film is quite frankly inexcusable. No doubt I'll wind up seeing this film, but my views are already so badly damaged by what I'm reading of this film that I cannot ever consider it a War of the Worlds movie.

[anguirus55]

Wow, are you a spokesman for Devlin and Emmerich? You should be:Pj/k

Ironically, they DIDN'T change where Godzilla came from...just the result. But they made Godzilla into a spineless piece of crap. Making your comment doubly irrelevant. :Pj/k

I do agree with many of you in that I wish Spielberg hadn't just written up his own characters, inserted them into the "War of the Worlds" scenario, and run from there. I think that he should have taken those characters and made a sequel to the original book, in which the Martians (or whatever) figured out their weakness and returned in the modern era, and then work in this supposed alt-Earth angle.

But if we can be outraged over this, why not get steamed over the Welles radio adaptation, or the original movie? Yeah, VERY faithful to the book, guys. I don't think I'm going to get too pissed at Spielberg for continuing the tradition of extremely liberal adaptations of WotW...and if his film has half the artistic merit of my previous two examples it should be worthwhile. Still, I have to say I'm looking forward to the Pendragon adaptation as well, and I plan to compare it to Spielberg's attempt.

Regardless, the aliens being from Mars in particular has so little relevance to the actual story that I'm simply amazed how much vitriol has been inspired by this alone.

[Raptor]

I do agree with many of you in that I wish Spielberg hadn't just written up his own characters, inserted them into the "War of the Worlds" scenario, and run from there. I think that he should have taken those characters and made a sequel to the original book, in which the Martians (or whatever) figured out their weakness and returned in the modern era, and then work in this supposed alt-Earth angle.

But if we can be outraged over this, why not get steamed over the Welles radio adaptation, or the original movie? Yeah, VERY faithful to the book, guys. I don't think I'm going to get too pissed at Spielberg for continuing the tradition of extremely liberal adaptations of WotW...and if his film has half the artistic merit of my previous two examples it should be worthwhile.
Regardless, the aliens being from Mars in particular has so little relevance to the actual story that I'm simply amazed how much vitriol has been inspired by this alone.

Morgoth and SA have cut to the core of things IMO, especially in the PLANET OF THE APES case. What ever happened to IMPACT like the scene at the end of the very first POTA or the radio broadcast of WAR OF THE WORLDS?
Despite its technical flaws, I like the UPDATE of KING KONG because that was the intent. At the same time, I'm looking forward to THE IDEA of a period piece WOTW. Why? Because sci fi film makers have been simply retelling the "modern version" endlessly, ID-4 being the latest (and worst, other than visuals). And they even wholesale ripped off about every CLASSIC all out alien invasion gimmick to fill up the required running time, including the TV series V.
Ang, the TV series WOTW explored the Martians "compensating" for their weaknesses rather nicely IMO until the show ran out of steam. ;) One thing it did do is take the WOTW concept and actually go in a new direction, with them at least being able to remain on Earth.
Sure, the excitement that was a big part of the thing with the radio broadcast won't be there (especially with the advent of the Internet! ;) ) and we'll probably know every little detail about what we're going to see. We're just not as "innocent" or able to suspend our disbelief anymore, which is why I feel producing an EXCITING film (which I'm thinking Peter Jackson's KING KONG will be) should be the goal of EVERY writer and director. I don't go to the movies to watch a virtual DEMONSTRATION of the latest CGI at the expense of story. Leave that to the video games! :p

[Studio Asperger]

Regardless, the aliens being from Mars in particular has so little relevance to the actual story that I'm simply amazed how much vitriol has been inspired by this alone.

It WAS relevant. The point that was being made was that very few humans ever considered the possibility of life on other planets before the events in the book - to be honest it wouldn't work if they came from any other planet in our particular solar system since no other world even has the narrow possibility of harbouring life.

Changing the origin of the aliens to some 'alternate Earth' crap is just Spielberg wanting to make us believe he's a genius for making a change that is just completely unnecessary.

That alone is not what annoys me though. It's a combination of a number of things that is getting me annoyed at this film.

I don't go to the movies to watch a virtual DEMONSTRATION of the latest CGI at the expense of story. Leave that to the video games! :p

Oi! Leave the videogames alone! j/k:p Then again, what I have to say on those is best saved for elsewhere.

[Morgoth]

Anybody remember how D&E were going to drop the nuclear bomb origins of Godzilla (which to be fair was also one of the big faults of the DeBont project as well)? That changes the character so damn much that it makes it unrecognisable. Doing the same with the Martians is just as ridiculous. It would be like having Superman as a mutant rather than a Kryptonian, or having Spiderman as an android instead of a kid who got bitten by a radioactive spider - you go screwing with what something is and it ceases to be what it should be. And, more often than not, such changes are simply to institute a cynical 'surprise the audience' bit, which comes off as less a surprise and more a 'wtf' type of moment. Spielberg is doing nothing different here, tossing in this cynical contrived BS to deceive the audience and manipulate them, just like all the sentimentalist nonsense I'm sure he's piled onto this film with a dump truck. Shame, he used to know how to make a good movie. I just wish audiences would stop looking at all the pretty visuals and raise their standards enough that they would stop seeing claptrap such as AI or Minority Report and force Spielberg to start making enjoyable, engaging movies again.

[Megabyte]

Wow.... is really all I can say about reading this topic :O but I'll attempt to throw in my two cents before I'm blasted to kingdom come bout my pety thoughts and opinions.

Wotw is a hard topic since the theme of intergalatic imperialism has been grossly overused in the 20th (and 21st) century, but the thing is that its something that can be adaptable for any time period. The original book was an overlook toward British imperialism while the 1950s film touched a bit on Cold War issues, so in either case both can be considered "time pieces".

Although there a films out there that no matter how hard any genious or hack director can try it HAS to stay within its time era. King Kong is the prime example and I thank God that Jackson understands that. Planet of the Apes is another, as well as many other films out there. But as much time pieces as there are out there, there are just as many films out there that can be adapted into present day settings if done right. Godzilla is one of them, although the nuclear theme maybe considered "irrelevent" these days (even though many nations out there still have the bomb and have suppostently tested them, but that's another issue), the fact of a God-like being that can not be put down by any sort of modern weaponary and throws an entire nation in a state of fear can work.

Okay, now I'm done :p

[Raptor]

Wotw is a hard topic since the theme of intergalatic imperialism has been grossly overused in the 20th (and 21st) century, but the thing is that its something that can be adaptable for any time period. The original book was an overlook toward British imperialism while the 1950s film touched a bit on Cold War issues, so in either case both can be considered "time pieces".
I also like to think of WOTW as we would the classic fairy tales that have a moral in there, often with a "big bad wolf" for the hero to overcome. They also play on basic ideas, like fear, especially of the unknown. Having the "bad guy" come from outer space gets "science" into the mix where it used to be we just had elves, goblins and "magic". When alien invaders really started getting some screen time in the '50s, we puny humans also had the power of the atom bomb at the back of our minds. Not a good thing for the American psyche so on the silver screen, "we" always prevailed against both earthbound and other threats to the national image. When the Martians or whatever can't be whupped by good 'ol American military might/technology/what-have-you, there is always the handy "plot device", everything from uploading Norton (shades of Kennys come to mind...) or the visitors aren't up on their shots. Some just "work" better than others. About the best seems to be an even more powerful "outside force" taking out the bad guy(s) but that makes us seem rather insignificant, doesn't it?
Although there a films out there that no matter how hard any genious or hack director can try it HAS to stay within its time era. I wish the present crop of hacks who were once noted for their "genius" would sit down and compare their past and present work, Spielberg in particular. There just isn't any "magic" anymore, I'm afraid. :hmmm:

[Saruman]

I am sort of in the middle on this issue, I would like to see them stick more to the book, but at the same time you really can't do that if your trying to update it for "modern" times. People are jumping on this move way to fast, why not just wait until it's released and see what it is actually like, it may just suprise you and even worse, you might actually like it.

People also have to remember something else as well, and this comes from our own genre. Why did Kaneko go with the "Fantasy" route instead of the SciFi route for GMK? Because it's much more difficult to get people to believe the SciFi part of movies today, which is very true. So when doing a movie like WOTW, if you don't update it and stick to the original story, sure the film might or might not be good technically, but it's most likely not going to leave a lasting impression because it just wont have the punch to it. Your almost forced to change the story because of the nature of the material, or audiences wont be impressed with it. This isn't something like "The Phantom of the Opera" which you can do over and over again and still have the same impact. It's not a drama that works no matter the time, it's a SciFi film and after a time, the story has to be updated to keep it viable. I love the book and always will, but watching WWI type artillery go up against Martian War Machines just doesn't impress me all that much anymore. I would much rather see an A1-Tank go up against a Martian War Machine and get waxed, that's just a much more impressive fight.

And Clint, they did make a MAJOR change to Spider-Man, he has no web shooters. But you don't hear people complaining about that. Why is that? The movies were both good. If the movie is good, then it is good, and the changes wont matter all that much to anyone.

[Megabyte]

. About the best seems to be an even more powerful "outside force" taking out the bad guy(s) but that makes us seem rather insignificant, doesn't it?
Well yeah, we Americans are the type to think that nothing can take down our forces. I mean why do you think almost all monsters from US films are killed at the end? And if I recall correctly, one of the theories for why the Martians are killed by bacteria (and they way they're designed) is a nod towards evolution. And hey, we were nothing more than "ants" against the Martian War Machines! ;)


I wish the present crop of hacks who were once noted for their "genius" would sit down and compare their past and present work, Spielberg in particular. There just isn't any "magic" anymore, I'm afraid. :hmmm:

Yeah, I mean it must be hard for him to make aliens the villians since he did make ET and Close Encounters. :sarcasm: The "nice" alien movies. Maybe it's just me but since AI he went downhill fast. Mr. Star Wars' films aren't top notach anymore since it appears that he didn't seem to plan everything out despite what he's says and Speilberg.... well I don't know where he went wrong.

[Cole Deschain]

I actually rather like the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen take on how the Martians were really stopped, myself.

Thank you, Doctor Moreau.

[Zigra]

I am sort of in the middle on this issue, I would like to see them stick more to the book, but at the same time you really can't do that if your trying to update it for "modern" times.

But, you're missing the point. Why should it even be updated for modern times at all? There is no point, I repeat, NO point in not making this movie a period piece set in the 1890s. Zip. Zero. You want it explained to you further? Try taking a closer look at what people have been saying in this thread.

People also have to remember something else as well, and this comes from our own genre. Why did Kaneko go with the "Fantasy" route instead of the SciFi route for GMK? Because it's much more difficult to get people to believe the SciFi part of movies today, which is very true.

And, you just happen to be talking to somebody who loathed much of GMK. Try again.


I love the book and always will, but watching WWI type artillery go up against Martian War Machines just doesn't impress me all that much anymore. I would much rather see an A1-Tank go up against a Martian War Machine and get waxed, that's just a much more impressive fight.

Again, we have a case of somebody who cares more about impressive SPFX than with story, drama, faithfulness to the source material, etc. Movies featuring modern day artilery going up against alien war machines has been done to death already. If the upcoming WoTW takes this route, all it will be is "just another" alien invasion movie that vainly attempts to use the WotW title.

And Clint, they did make a MAJOR change to Spider-Man, he has no web shooters. But you don't hear people complaining about that. Why is that? The movies were both good. If the movie is good, then it is good, and the changes wont matter all that much to anyone.

Eh, haven't seen the Spiderman movies all they way through, so unfortunetly I can't comment on them.

[Jeremy Sand]

Hmmmm, not going to get in a debate in this on one side or another, just don't care about this movie enough either way to take a side. But just a question. If the movie is having these invaders come from an alternate Earth, then why not an Alternate Mars? I mean, it solves one problem while rectifying another. Firstly, it solves the problem of people being skepticle as to life actually being on Mars with all we know about Mars now, even if this was set in the original time period ( If therer is no life there now, that means there was none back then either),
While on the other hands, keeps it true to the fact that the invaders are indeed from Mars. I mean, if we are expected to believe that these invaders came from an alternate dimension, and managed to cross it, however that works, then why can't thier alternate home be Mars instead of Earth? Maybe in this alternate world, it is Mars, not Earth, that is an inhabitable world, and when these warring martians sought new worlds to conquered, breaching even the walls of the dimensions to get thier, they saw that it was Earth that was the world to conquer in this dimension?
What do you think of that idea? An equally large stinkin piece of hooey?
Or could people accept this a little more if this was the oragin of the the invaders of the story?? Just curious, but is the actual news on this "Alternate Earth" or is it "alternate reality"? If this is the case, maybe they are invaders from Mars AND invaders from another dimension?
Ah, why do I even try.

[Saruman]

But, you're missing the point. Why should it even be updated for modern times at all? There is no point, I repeat, NO point in not making this movie a period piece set in the 1890s. Zip. Zero. You want it explained to you further? Try taking a closer look at what people have been saying in this thread.

Try listening to other people for once yourself. Why shouldn't it be updated? YOU haven't given any significant reason for it no to be done, other than YOU don't like the idea. Come up with something more than you just not liking the idea, and then you might have something.

And, you just happen to be talking to somebody who loathed much of GMK. Try again.

You might want to pay attention, I dislike GMK probably more than anyone, Clint can tell you that. But the point still stands and you have not done anything to counter that.

Again, we have a case of somebody who cares more about impressive SPFX than with story, drama, faithfulness to the source material, etc. Movies featuring modern day artilery going up against alien war machines has been done to death already. If the upcoming WoTW takes this route, all it will be is "just another" alien invasion movie that vainly attempts to use the WotW title.

Would you mind pointing out where I mentioned SPFX? Or is this simply you trying to put words into my mouth again and start something? Why dont you take your own advice and read what people are actually saying for once.

Eh, haven't seen the Spiderman movies all they way through, so unfortunetly I can't comment on them.

That's never stopped you before.

[Tomzilla]

I'm looking forward to this. I'm a fan of Steven Spielberg's work and I expect quite an entertaining ride. To me, I believe Tom Cruise has improved as an actor over the years, and I think he'll give a good performance. I enjoy seeing 'aliens vs. earth' type of movies, even though they tend to lose a sense of originality after a while.

I do have to agree with what Saruman is saying. To me, I see no problem in changing around the outline of the original plot just for the purpose of being showed to a new generation of viewers. Upgrades aren't always a bad idea. While new special effects and changing the plot we're all familiar with won't guarantee a better movie, but it also doesn't guarantee it'll be bad, even though the odds are those who immediately think the movie will be bad will likely keep that outlook. No big surprise, happens all the time.

We'll see what this shapes up into.

[Morgoth]

I do have to agree with what Saruman is saying. To me, I see no problem in changing around the outline of the original plot just for the purpose of being showed to a new generation of viewers. Upgrades aren't always a bad idea. While new special effects and changing the plot we're all familiar with won't guarantee a better movie, but it also doesn't guarantee it'll be bad, even though the odds are those who immediately think the movie will be bad will likely keep that outlook. No big surprise, happens all the time.
.

Me, I've tried that too many times, lowered my expectations to 'OK, I don't want a good movie, just please don't suck' and still been BURNED bad and big. 'Time Machine' leaps into mind, as does 'Van Helsing' (despite what Jeff says, I really did go in there praying for something that was at least mediocre, and Sommers proved he couldn't even manage to deliver mediocre). Sometimes, you can smell the carcass of one of these zombified atrocities from several months away - and I'll tell you that WINO is starting to smell. Besides, I just love the WINO acronym, so it'll really have to prove itself to get me to stop using it :darklord:

There have been times when my 'stinker flick' sense has been wrong, and I freely admit to those instances. 'Pirates of the Caribbean' is probably the most prominent example I can think of. I went in there expecting the biggest hunk of crap imaginable. Guess what, I was wrong and the damn thing is one of my favorite films. 'House on Haunted Hill' the remake was crap, pure and simple, with no redeeming qualities, yet the same crew managed to correct almost all the errors they made with that one and did a decent job with 'Thirteen Ghosts' the remake. You can go into a film with the most dour outlook possible - if it is a good film, that quality will impress itself on you despite any prejudgements you have. That is simply part of being a good movie, the ability to sway the cynics.

[Emperor Violenjiger]

Why does everyone fight? Who cares? The War of The Worlds from 1953 was a great movie, you'll always have that to look forward to and enjoy.;)

[Kaiser Kronos]

WOTW is not a film I'll be watching. I just wanna see Fantastic Four. I mean, the novel is better than the films and unfortunately, when it comes to keeping things true to the source material, Hollywood is not something you want to turn to. Spider-Man gains organic webshooters, X-Men (or Wolverine and his Amazing Friends) cannot stay true to the original costumes, Van Helsing I won't touch with a fifty-foot pole, and the only decent film in the last two years has been The Incredibles, and that was computer animated. Am I a fan of Hollywood? No I am not. Also, the Watchmen movie will be atrocious, and that will start me on a path to hatred of whoever directs that. End of rant.

[Denizen]

For everyone who is dreading Spelbirg's remake and enjoyed the original novel (myself included), like Cole said, read the Moore comic book "The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Vol. 2" in which Moore seamlessly intergrades Edgar Rice Burroughs's Mars with H.G Wells with the League, along with references to island of Dr. Morauu.

For a peak: http://www.grovel.org.uk/reviews/league02/league02.htm

[Studio Asperger]

Oh, don't get me wrong, it was a fun film. But TRUE TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL? Hell, no. As for X-Men, only good part of film was Magneto.

The changes to Spiderman? Most of them were so small not many people would be bothered by them. Hell, I certainly wasn't fussed about them, in fact I liked both films as they worked out.

The thing about the Spiderman films is that they were still recognisably Spiderman. As to WOTW though... To some, it may be a decent alien invasion flick, but to me it'll never be a WOTW movie. Change can be good, but in some cases change is just a really stupid and pointless idea, no matter which way you want to word it.

[Studio Asperger]

Meh, I'm not really a big comics fan, so stuff like that has just gone right over my head.;)

What I meant was that the Spiderman movies haven't been changed to the extent where they can't be considered Spiderman in any way, shape or form. Besides, the changes for me WORKED - they improved the pacing of the stories, fleshed out the characters further and kept the whole things much more focused than they would have been had they been 100% faithful.

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes changes work in an adaptation's favour. In the case of WOTW though, the story already worked how it was - it was tight, it gave you stuff to think about, and gave a genuine sense of hopelessness and palpable terror all the way through. To me, Spielberg's just wimping out by relying on modern imagery and dumb 'twists' to generate any sort of reaction.

Contrary to what some of you may believe, I don't set out to hate adaptations if they're not 100% faithful to the source material. It's just that sometimes changes work and sometimes they don't. I personally don't have faith that the changes to WOTW will work - I feel Spielberg's really lost his way in recent years, and this doesn't look set to be changing my opinions of the man.

[Tomzilla]

Morgoth-

Me, I've tried that too many times, lowered my expectations to 'OK, I don't want a good movie, just please don't suck' and still been BURNED bad and big.

Well, in my point of view, if you're saying you 'don't want a good movie', you're literally asking for a 'bad' movie that'll likely suck. I have two basic classifications when it comes to movies. They'll be placed under the 'Good' category, or the 'Bad' category. I don't have a variety, just two. I could bore you with what I consider to be 'Good' and 'Bad'. :)

'Time Machine' leaps into mind, as does 'Van Helsing' (despite what Jeff says, I really did go in there praying for something that was at least mediocre, and Sommers proved he couldn't even manage to deliver mediocre).

Do you mean the 'Time Machine' movie that was made a few years ago? I don't need to comment on Van Helsing, attempting to defend that movie against you would be pointless. ;)

Sometimes, you can smell the carcass of one of these zombified atrocities from several months away - and I'll tell you that WINO is starting to smell.

Either that or your sense of smell is more sensative than mine. I'll go with the latter. :p

Besides, I just love the WINO acronym, so it'll really have to prove itself to get me to stop using it

Well, in that case, I feel really sorry for Spielberg's War of the Worlds now, not only does it have to contend with die-hard fans of the book and original movie, but also Clint's 'high-expectations'. :laugh:

[Charles RB]

I didn't even know about this Pendragon WOTW film until now, but my GOD do I want to see this over the big-budget one. Why? The aliens stomp MY capital city into flaming rubble. The period piece stuff is just the icing on the cake.

While I think War Of The Worlds is one of those things that should really be kept in its original time and place, I don't mind the idea of it being set in modern times. As long as the main things remain- the Martians are unstoppable, steamroller every human military force with total ease, smash and incinerate and kill and cause terror while all the main character manages is to watch in awe from the sidelines... and then they are beaten not by us, but by a virus. That's the essence of it. That's what we need kept.

And if Speilberg dumps it- sod him. I'll watch Pendragon and buy that League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol.2 trade paperback (I've got three of the Vol.2 issues, could do with the rest).

[PyrasTerran]

Tom Cruise will awaken a hibernating race of dinosaurs, which are immune to Martian weapons. They destroy the Martians then return to the depths from whence they came. :O And Cruise flips the bird against an alien before shooting them to kingdom come with a shotgun.

[Charles RB]

And Cruise flips the bird against an alien before shooting them to kingdom come with a shotgun.

You've just given me the mental image of an Army Of Darkness/War Of The Worlds crossover, with Ash fighting the Martians. It's a GREAT image.

("The Evil Dead films aren't movies, they're an autobiography of Bruce Campbell's life," as a wise sci-fi society bloke once told me)

[BS Digital Q]

And Cruise flips the bird against an alien before shooting them to kingdom come with a shotgun.
Reminds me of the final confontation between MacReady and the Blair-thing in "The Thing."
"Yeah and f**k you too!"

[Raptor]

Tom Cruise will awaken a hibernating race of dinosaurs, which are immune to Martian weapons. They destroy the Martians then return to the depths from whence they came. :O And Cruise flips the bird against an alien before shooting them to kingdom come with a shotgun.
Pyras, don't go scaring people like that! ;) It could happen, ya know.
I'd sooner see the Martians giving US the bird but the American psyche couldn't handle that. Anyone ever see/read NO BLADE OF GRASS (http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev268.html)? ON THE BEACH (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004SGB5/103-7847416-2986246?v=glance) is all but forgotten until THE DAY AFTER hit TV and Lawrence, Kansas got nuked. RED DAWN and AMERIKA were a lot more upbeat, eh? ;) Oh well, Will Smith can always save the day (or Jeff Goldblum). Then there's Kobayashi (especially the way we write him in Roostville! :laugh: )

[Studio Asperger]

Tom Cruise will awaken a hibernating race of dinosaurs, which are immune to Martian weapons. They destroy the Martians then return to the depths from whence they came. :O And Cruise flips the bird against an alien before shooting them to kingdom come with a shotgun.

Jesus, no! Shut up! You don't know who might be reading this!:p

I suppose one argument you could put in Spielberg's defence is that if he tried to make it fully accurate to the book, then the mistakes would stick out even more. The Pendragon film could well come under fire for that very reason, you know what the full-blooded purists are like. The same thing happened to a certain extent with Lord of the Rings and Spiderman, where some people got wound-up because slight changes were made to the adaptations. Often these changes were so small that they wouldn't even bother most people, yet they still found reasons to complain.

However, unlike those aforementioned examples, I'm still convinced that Spielberg's just showing how lazy he is by not even trying to keep it faithful. I wouldn't mind the modern setting so much if it didn't look like Spielberg was tossing in other such needless and unnecessary changes, both to pander to the masses and give off the illusion that he's some kind of super-genius. A bit like *****' constant re-re-reimaginings of his accidental masterpiece, the changes are going from the tolerable to the downright pointless (and in *****' case, the just plain bizarre).

It's going to be hard for me to watch this film - or the Pendragon film, for that matter - without some level of preconceived notion about it. Lord knows I'll try my best to look with neutral eyes, but I still have a horrible gut feeling that, while it may be a reasonable alien invasion flick, it won't be a WOTW movie.

(Ah... I didn't know that mentioning that other director's name was banned here.)

[Dan]

Well, here's a new trailer for the movie.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/large_2.html


Extremely split, no, milisecond shot of what appears to be one of the tripods.. or something else large.

[RyougaSaotome]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/

Second teaser. Damn cool.

[Saruman]

Damn, I can't watch it while I'm at work, guess it will have to wait about 12 more hours to see it. :(

[RyougaSaotome]

Damn, I can't watch it while I'm at work, guess it will have to wait about 12 more hours to see it. :(

Look forward to it man, it's damn neat. I'm really looking forward to this. So many big names.

Edit: Btw, if a mod or admin sees fit to delete this topic, it's fine. I just discovered the war of the worlds thread below, and someone has also posted the teaser. though it may be alright to start a new thread since it becomes difficult for new readers to shuffle through eight pages of discussion. Sorry in advance.


-Ryo

[Goji Son]

Spiffy, easily one of the top films I want to see this summer, though I wish they would have stayed in the Victorian times like the book but adaptation can never be like the original. Looks awesome.

[Sauron]

I'm still sensing another bad movie of GINO magnitude to happen. The trailer actually reminds me alot of watching the early Godzilla 98 trailers, so yeah, I refuse to get even a little bit excited about this one.

[Solar_Behemoth]

^ Same here.
I really can't see anything special in this trailer at all.
The film just looks like Independence Day... it should have stayed to the classic book.
This will probably be better than the new Time Machine, at least. :crazy:

[RyougaSaotome]

To be honest, I have complete faith in this film. I love Tom Cruise for the most part, and Speilburg hasn't let me down yet. Yes, I loved AI, sue me.

These are only the teasers, and you can catch a bit of the warmachines in this latest teaser when it's trying to push over the boat.

[Saruman]

Ok, now that I have seen the new trailer, I can say that I am more impressed and looking forward to this movie now. The Alien War Machine looked pretty awesome as well.

[RyougaSaotome]

Ok, now that I have seen the new trailer, I can say that I am more impressed and looking forward to this movie now. The Alien War Machine looked pretty awesome as well.

Yeah, it's a quick shot, and I had to pause it so I could pick out the fine details. Looked pretty damn sweet.

[Kiryu goji]

Ok, now that I have seen the new trailer, I can say that I am more impressed and looking forward to this movie now. The Alien War Machine looked pretty awesome as well.

For the whole of .5 seconds it appeared in the trailer........

[SandwormPhish]

That's why the pause feature is liked so much :p

[PyrasTerran]

I agree with Ryouga, Cruise is far from a bad actor and I deeply respect Spieldberg. Looking way forward to this.

[Orga777]

I am impressed. I had my doughts about the film at first, but it is shaping up to be a very exciting movie. I will definatly see this in theaters.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Nice.:thumbs: It seems that WOTW 05' is incorporating all the previous incarnations of the previous adaptations of Wells groundbreaking novel. The story being set in Jersey(The radio broadcast), and the EMP(electromagnetic pulse) stopping Cruise''s watch like in the '53 version when the Martians started firing thier heat-ray. After seeing what beautiful music Cruise and Spielberg made together in Minority Report , I can't wait to see what the finished product of this production will be like. Although I bet there are a few people out there already trashing this flick on the split second glimpse of the alien war machine tipping the ferry over, that it doesn't look like a tripod as described in the book.:nonono2:

Also I just read over at Sci-Fi Wire that Sony Pictures is looking at doing a film version of the obscure Marvel Comic ,KILLRAVEN. The story of Killraven tells of the leader of a rebellion of Freemen who fight to overthrow the Martians of Wells' novel who conquered Earth in a second invasion in 2001. There was a Killraven one-shot a few years back written asnd drawn by Joesph Lensner, and six issue limited series written/drawn by X-Men artist Alan Davis. The character also showed up in the Marvel maxiseries Avengers Forever as a member of the Avengers fighting against the Martians.

[CBright7831]

For the whole of .5 seconds it appeared in the trailer........
Some needs to do a screen cap.

[CBright7831]

Wait! I think I found it. It in the part with the boat about to tip over, right?

[Saruman]

Wait! I think I found it. It in the part with the boat about to tip over, right?

That would be it.;)

[CBright7831]

I also found this:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/new_amiga/warofworlds/thiis.JPG

[Orga777]

Interesting. So mabye the ships are going to be like the ones described in the book. That is good news.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Here's the Japanese trailer to the flick. You'll find that it focuses on the human toll wrought by the invasion.http://www.dreamworksfansite.com/waroftheworlds/new_japanese_trailer_qt.php

[Gorjirus]

Time to Bump this thing...

Now the release is only one month away, and my fevor for this film grows. I have seen the new extended trailer, and it gives us new images to go on.We get to see the alien ship outlined in flames (which looks awesome), and the "searching" tentacle scene is also accounted for, and it looks like the alien does have tripod legs. It just looks great to me. I can't wait.

[SandwormPhish]

Best of all it looks like we might actually get to see some of the 'war' bits. In addition to the aerial attack seen in the newer trailer (an F-18 flashing over cruise's head and launching a missile) the latest Fangoria had some images from the movie that included what looked to be a group of armor and infantry (with AT weapons no less) fighting at night.

[SandwormPhish]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/theatrical_large.html

New theatrical trailer. Few more tripod glimpses, some battle glimpses.. shame that music in it is one of those trailer specific pieces that's a royal pain to get ahold of.

[Studio Asperger]

It's been a while since my previous rants on this film, which I don't plan on resurrecting.

Suffice to say, this is going to be the movie that either goes a little way to restoring my faith in Speilberg, or cements my belief that Hollywood should leave books alone.

[Spiral Fire]

Hmmmmm.... I have some very high hopes for this movie, and from what I've seen, it looks very promising. We can only hope its as good as it looks.
I hope this doesn't turn into another Alien Vs. Predator...

[Goji Son]

It's been a while since my previous rants on this film, which I don't plan on resurrecting.

Suffice to say, this is going to be the movie that either goes a little way to restoring my faith in Speilberg, or cements my belief that Hollywood should leave books alone.

I was kind of mad that they didn't make this into Welles' classic book but rather just use the name but still, books can never be fully adapted into film and the other way around.

[Saruman]

I was kind of mad that they didn't make this into Welles' classic book but rather just use the name but still, books can never be fully adapted into film and the other way around.

I think one of the things people are missing about this is that you simply can't make this movie without updating it, it won't have the terror or suspense that it needs to. If you do this movie as a period piece, your going to be sitting there watching jets and tanks battling the alien war machines and saying, "hmmm, wonder how they would stand up to an M1 Tank or maybe an F-16?" The suspense is going to be lacking because they would be using much older equipment than what we now have today.

By updating it, you can make it relate to people today and it's going to be a lot more intense if you see an Alien War Machine roll over a a whole bunch of M1's or take out a squad of F-16's with ease. Something like that is going to have more impact than a period piece simply because you can relate to it better.

I'm glad they are updating it because it's one of those movies that really does need to be updated to make it have a real impact on todays generation.

[Spiral Fire]

I think one of the things people are missing about this is that you simply can't make this movie without updating it, it won't have the terror or suspense that it needs to. If you do this movie as a period piece, your going to be sitting there watching jets and tanks battling the alien war machines and saying, "hmmm, wonder how they would stand up to an M1 Tank or maybe an F-16?" The suspense is going to be lacking because they would be using much older equipment than what we now have today.

By updating it, you can make it relate to people today and it's going to be a lot more intense if you see an Alien War Machine roll over a a whole bunch of M1's or take out a squad of F-16's with ease. Something like that is going to have more impact than a period piece simply because you can relate to it better.

I'm glad they are updating it because it's one of those movies that really does need to be updated to make it have a real impact on todays generation.

That's true, remakes are getting old. I mean, come on, a "Herbie" remake? Dear god...remaking War of the Worlds was a good idea, but tweaking it to modern times is also a plus.If you look at the older covers of the novel or old movie, it would be very awkward to see artillery and propeller fighters battling UFOs yet again.

[Charles RB]

Well, the third trailer on this page has me more optimistic. The principle of the aliens beating the crap out of Earth with no real resistance seems to be here, and I like the mass evacuation to the docks scene.

The suspense is going to be lacking because they would be using much older equipment than what we now have today.

How does that remove the suspense? They're using ancient artillery against alien invaders, that should heighten the suspense as there's evidently no chance they can win and you're going to witness a massacre.

I'm glad they are updating it because it's one of those movies that really does need to be updated to make it have a real impact on todays generation.

People being incinerated and snatched up by giant alien machines while total chaos breaks out is only going to have an impact if it's happening in modern day America? It's people being incinerated and snatched up and totally helpless against merciless alien hordes, you don't need to change the setting for that to make an impact on screen.

[Saruman]

How does that remove the suspense? They're using ancient artillery against alien invaders, that should heighten the suspense as there's evidently no chance they can win and you're going to witness a massacre.

How? Easy, because we have already seen it and read it and know it by heart. A period piece isn't going to have you on the edge of your seat. Most people will look at it and be unimpressed. Hell most people wont even know what most of the weapons and vehicles back then were actually capable of, which makes it less impressive. What do you think most people today will know more about, Tanks and Fighters from say WWII or from the war in Iraq? It's going to be the war in Iraq because people see this stuff on the news every day and they know what most of this stuff can actually do, so to see it useless against an Alien War Machine has a vastly greater effect.

People being incinerated and snatched up by giant alien machines while total chaos breaks out is only going to have an impact if it's happening in modern day America? It's people being incinerated and snatched up and totally helpless against merciless alien hordes, you don't need to change the setting for that to make an impact on screen.

You might want to actually comment on what I ACTUALLY SAID instead of making stuff up, or please point out where I said anything about humans being helpless in the film not having an impact.

It has nothing to do with the general populace, it's has everything to do with the weapons at our disposal. And as I said above, doing a period piece will lose most of the impact because people simply wont be impressed seeing Alien War Machines rolling over 70 year old military vehicles and equipment.

The original book and movie are great and they worked so well because they related to the times they were in. That is also why the radio brodcast was so successful.

What do you think is going to happen if you did that radio broadcast today? Absolutely NOTHING. Times have changed and it just isn't something you are going to pass off.

That is why you have to update this film if your going to do it, it isn't going to impress anyone if you don't. You could do a period piece and it could be the best movie ever made, but it's still only going to have a ho hum effect on todays movie goers.

[SandwormPhish]

Definite point there Saruman.. plus while a period piece would be nice a lot of the themes from WOTW (i.e. Colonialism) were a major issue back in the day. The sort of thing readers of Well's book would be seeing in the papers and hearing discussed.

Now though colonialism isn't much of a relavent issue.. it's dead at the moment so alluding to it isn't going to do much of anything for the average film-goer.

Of course I'm one of those people who thinks this can remain true to the idea of the book as long as we get the story of Cruise's character trying to survive while the martians kick seven kinds of crap out of the military.

Also, am I the only one getting sick of the ID4/WOTW comparisons? Quite frankly I don't see it beyond the general alien invasion theme..

[Studio Asperger]

You might want to actually comment on what I ACTUALLY SAID instead of making stuff up, or please point out where I said anything about humans being helpless in the film not having an impact.

It has nothing to do with the general populace, it's has everything to do with the weapons at our disposal. And as I said above, doing a period piece will lose most of the impact because people simply wont be impressed seeing Alien War Machines rolling over 70 year old military vehicles and equipment.

The original book and movie are great and they worked so well because they related to the times they were in. That is also why the radio brodcast was so successful.

What do you think is going to happen if you did that radio broadcast today? Absolutely NOTHING. Times have changed and it just isn't something you are going to pass off.

That is why you have to update this film if your going to do it, it isn't going to impress anyone if you don't. You could do a period piece and it could be the best movie ever made, but it's still only going to have a ho hum effect on todays movie goers.

*TWITCH*

You have summed up pretty much everything that is wrong with today's moviegoing populace - that they won't be interested in a film unless it has lots of big shiny toys in it.

The thing about setting the film in modern times is that it has been DONE TO SODDING DEATH already. I don't see why it's so impossible that a film can have emotional impact without sticking it in modern times, I really don't. As I have said before though, the modern setting's not my main problem with how the film's shaping up, it's everyone's reasons for defending it that are winding me up the wrong way now. So everybody's read the book, knows it by heart and thus knows what to expect, eh? Well, you could say that about the modern setting as well, so those who've read the book are not likely to be surprised by anything (aside from these 'wtf?' type moments Spielberg seems to be adding in there). Perhaps, to drag up an example from Morgoth, what's going to happen next? A WWII movie, only since everyone has read about and knows WWII by heart, we'll completely re-write it?! Granted, that's drastic, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it actually happened.

Maybe it's true that humans only care about their machines rather than themselves these days, which quite frankly is sad beyond belief.

[Morgoth]

[QUOTE=Saruman] The suspense is going to be lacking because they would be using much older equipment than what we now have today.QUOTE]


That has to be the single most insipid sentence I've ever seen from you. The suspense in any film derives from giving the audience an investment in the characters, not the trapings of technology which surround them. Or did you watch Braveheart and start thinking 'hey, all the Scots need are a few uzis and those Brits will get the hell off their land.' Nevermind for a moment that the book was set in the 1890's, so the jets and tanks bit wouldn't apply. Think howitzers and battleships.

Spielberg is missing a chance to invest a great deal of wonder into the film by having it set in a historic timeframe rather than trying to have something that is 'updated' for the sort of couch potato vermin who would probably watch paint dry if it was marketed properly (and then rant about how cool it was). 'Updating' the story is simply lazy and contrived, I'm surprised he wouldn't tackle the challenge of doing a faithful adaptation, since no one has been bold enough to do that before.

I still have severe reservations about this film, but I'm slightly more optomistic about it than either Batman Begins or Fantastic Four.

[Saruman]

[QUOTE=Saruman] The suspense is going to be lacking because they would be using much older equipment than what we now have today.QUOTE]


That has to be the single most insipid sentence I've ever seen from you. The suspense in any film derives from giving the audience an investment in the characters, not the trapings of technology which surround them. Or did you watch Braveheart and start thinking 'hey, all the Scots need are a few uzis and those Brits will get the hell off their land.' Nevermind for a moment that the book was set in the 1890's, so the jets and tanks bit wouldn't apply. Think howitzers and battleships.

Spielberg is missing a chance to invest a great deal of wonder into the film by having it set in a historic timeframe rather than trying to have something that is 'updated' for the sort of couch potato vermin who would probably watch paint dry if it was marketed properly (and then rant about how cool it was). 'Updating' the story is simply lazy and contrived, I'm surprised he wouldn't tackle the challenge of doing a faithful adaptation, since no one has been bold enough to do that before.

I still have severe reservations about this film, but I'm slightly more optomistic about it than either Batman Begins or Fantastic Four.

You not getting it, I can't wait for someone to develop my idea for a monitor so that I can reach through and ***** slap you.:p

Yes a period piece would be nice and interesting, I'm not saying that it wouldn't. I also never said that the actors/actresses wouldn't be good and not sell it, it has nothing to do with them. What it has to do with is technology, our Military Vs. the Alien War Machines.

What made the original WotW so great is that, and I will put this in caps for you so you don't miss it, it RELATED TO THE TIME it was set in.

As I asked Charles, and I will ask you the same thing. What is a person today going to be able to relate to more, an Alien War Machine trampling 70 year old technology or an Alien War Maching trampling todays technology? What is going to have the greater impact on them? What is going to make them sit on the edge of their seat? It's a pretty obvious answer, even you can figure that one out I would think and hope.

If your going to "RE-tell" this story, then you have to update it and make it relate to the times and people of today, because that was what the original did better than anything else, it related to the time it was in. That is what makes that story so great, it's not the writing or the characters, it's that you can change the time it takes place in and still have the exact same story with current technology, that was the true brilliance of the book. That you don't or aren't capable of understanding that is pretty mind boggling. This story works in ANY time frame with a simple facelift.

[Morgoth]

What you seem to be refusing to understand is that WE ALREADY HAVE SEEN THE MODERN WORLD BLASTED TO BITS BY XENO VERMIN! If Spielberg was going to do something new and original, then he'd have been better off taking the bold step of doing a faithful adaptation. As has been pointed out, the primitive technology of the 1890's would increase, not limit, the suspense, the knuckle-biting knowledge that all the soliders and military we see rushing about to defend the cities aren't going to do a damn thing. I simply think that Spielberg is just going for a quick and easy out by translating the story (or what little of it he's decided to retain) to a modern setting. You can't keep telling me people don't relate or become interested in films that take place in the past, because the biggest grosser of all time is Titanic (disgusting as that may be) and that is a film set in the past with a story everybody already knows - the ship sinks. Handled well, War of the Worlds would be the same way. Instead, we get another dose of 're-imagining' - and my opinion of that has been made vitriolic from crap like 'Planet of the Apes' and the ever popular GINO.

Can the story work in a different time-frame? Of course, and it already has, twice in exceedingly successful ways. This time, however, i think the bolder and more imaginative step would have been to go back to its roots, rather than turn it into something like an updated ID4 or, worse, Battlefield Earth. I have serious concerns that Spielberg is ****ing around with the story too much (the inclusion of Dakota Fanning leads me to believe he's yet again resorting to the 'slap a kid into this mess to manipulate the audience' trick yet again). Yes, I'm annoyed that it's not set in the 1890's, but that is actually one of my lesser concerns about what he's put on film.

And, here's a point, if this 'modern technology' crap is so important, then why is PJ taking the bold step of keeping Kong in his Depression era roots? There is a quote from a Toho exec, who I can't recall right now, who observed about GINO that Americans seem obsessed with their military weapons and can't abide something that pretty well ignores them. Seems perhaps you might share the fixation on technological junk rather than storytelling and characters - which is what will make or break this film and any other, not 'it's more relevant to today's video-game junkie geeks if it has F-18s and M-1s'.

Good thing you don't have that sort of monitor Saruman, cause I'd be introducing you to about 12" of Victorian Rhineland steel and see if the bayonet's antiquity made it 'less relevant'. (kidding of course, we still need you to harvest those design pics and finish a certain piece of fiction)

[Charles RB]

A period piece isn't going to have you on the edge of your seat.

You clearly watched a different opening to Saving Private Ryan than me then. :p

Screw modern tech, people dying on screen gets me on the edge of my screen and there's far more people dying on screen in nasty ways in a period piece.

What is a person today going to be able to relate to more, an Alien War Machine trampling 70 year old technology or an Alien War Maching trampling todays technology? What is going to have the greater impact on them? What is going to make them sit on the edge of their seat? It's a pretty obvious answer, even you can figure that one out I would think and hope.

Since the whole point of the military facing the Martians is the military loses- the 19th Century tech. Because you automatically know you're going to see everyone of those soldiers die because their guns won't work, and that's one damn powerful moment to see on screen.

And with 1890s tech, the soldiers won't be in tanks & choppers that are going to explode. They're going to all be out in the open getting incinerated. And people dying is more relatable than technology going boom and a lot more edge-of-your-seat.

Hell most people wont even know what most of the weapons and vehicles back then were actually capable of, which makes it less impressive.

Doesn't matter. They don't have to know. They just have to know the Martians are going to win.

people simply wont be impressed seeing Alien War Machines rolling over 70 year old military vehicles and equipment.

They will be impressed seeing Alien Tripods roll over 19th Century infantry, burning them in their hundreds and snatching them up w/ tendrils to feed off them while all the soldiers can do is run like **** & hope that saves them.

This story works in ANY time frame with a simple facelift.

It can, yes. But setting in the original time and place has never been done on screen before (well, except Pendragon's one). We've seen aliens blowing up the modern-day planet before loads of times- we haven't seen them nuke the 19th Century on the big screen. It's something new.

And while you can also move Frankenstein to any time frame if you want, most of the time nobody does. An alien invasion in the 19th Century can be relatable to a modern-audience if it's good.

[Charles RB]

There is a quote from a Toho exec, who I can't recall right now, who observed about GINO that Americans seem obsessed with their military weapons and can't abide something that pretty well ignores them.

That was Shusuke Kaneko, I think- "It seems the Americans can't accept something that can't be put down by their own arms".

[Raptor]

Yes a period piece would be nice and interesting, I'm not saying that it wouldn't. What it has to do with is technology, our Military Vs. the Alien War Machines.
What made the original WotW so great is that, and I will put this in caps for you so you don't miss it, it RELATED TO THE TIME it was set in. Morgoth mentioned BRAVEHEART as an example of where "updating" just isn't necessary, IMO. PASSION OF THE CHRIST, anyone? And what about Kong's upcoming film? Isn't everyone just simply ENCHANTED that it is going to be a period piece THIS TIME? Next thing you know, some turkey is going to want to "re-do" THE ALAMO with Santa Ana launching a Polaris missile at the defenders and Davy and the gang manning modern mortars on the ramparts. :angry: Actually, as far as military action goes, that is a prime example of classic warfare. Look at the number of troops involved. Those were infantry REGIMENTS, not a squadron of B-52s impersonally dropping bombs on a "target".
WOTW has had plenty of "contemporary" treatments since it was first broadcast by Orson Welles in 1938, culminating with the TV series and periodic TV movies, such as 1994's WITHOUT WARNING, co-starring journalist Sander Vanocur. There is also plenty debate whether or not ID-4 is yet another "rip-off". I personally believe so. Strange that an Earth virus that defeated earlier invaders is now simply a computer bug... :sarcasm: Then again, consider the lack of unoriginality found in about ANYTHING D&E are associated with...:hmmm:
What is a person today going to be able to relate to more, an Alien War Machine trampling 70 year old technology or an Alien War Maching trampling todays technology? What is going to have the greater impact on them? What is going to make them sit on the edge of their seat? It's a pretty obvious answer, even you can figure that one out I would think and hope. Look for folks wearing T-shirts saying, "I'M ONLY HERE FOR THE DESTRUCTION". :laugh: Someone had mentioned this in relation to JURASSIC PARK. I'm convinced the average moviegoer these days is only there for the SFX; forget things like acting, plot and story. Is it a generational/age thing as I believe Morgoth mentioned in a SW discussion? Quite possibly, but I will tell you all this: Those of us who can appreciate history in ANY aspect do have to go "back in time" in many instances via reference material to open this new "realm" where we can comprehend it. History can be a lot more than just a course you HAVE to study in school. What is so "wrong" about wanting to see WOTW in its proper context, namely when it was written? Would BEN-HUR be "better" if it was "updated"?
If your going to "RE-tell" this story, then you have to update it and make it relate to the times and people of today, because that was what the original did better than anything else, it related to the time it was in.I think the radio broadcast was especially timely and effective. The country was edgy, new technology (radio) was being introduced and the Mercury Players had a perfect opportunity to set America on its butt like never before. Look at the '50s sci fi films. The U.S. ALWAYS wins against Martians, monsters or whatever. Nothing to really think about here, maybe because the Cold War was already providing an overload? Such tender little psyches we seem to have, yet Uncle Sam and his spawn are supposed to be so "tough" ! :dozing: I hope we get scared out of our collective wits by this latest invasion force but bet it's going to fall flat psychologically. The TV series was an excellent sequel and update IMO, bringing in additional premises and giving the Martians a much more sinister character where they didn't have to rely on their massive machines to take over our planet. I personally find guerilla action a lot more scary and exciting than masses of troops and weapons squaring off against an enemy. It's just more personal that way, I believe. Besides, about any story focuses on a "hero" - the central character who has to deal with a challenge all by his lonesome. Yes, he'll get to see his hometown trashed and have to rough it for a bit on his own but that's what makes heroes, isn't it? Of course, another option would be to just have the Martians win for a change.

[Denizen]

Well, there is always Pendragon Pictures' version, also coming out this year, and it is a period piece.

[Saruman]

What you seem to be refusing to understand is that WE ALREADY HAVE SEEN THE MODERN WORLD BLASTED TO BITS BY XENO VERMIN!

So then you are considering ANY and ALL alien invasion movies the same as WOTW. Sorry Clint, but that is where your narrow minded view is wrong. If you consider ID4 to be a WOTW story then I would have to say you are insane because it isn't even close. Is it an alien invasion movie, sure, but it's not WOTW.

If Spielberg was going to do something new and original, then he'd have been better off taking the bold step of doing a faithful adaptation.

Then wouldn't you as a fantasy writer be better off just doing Tolkiens stories over and over again? They did create, shape and start the genre that you write in now. So by your thinking your stories are not even worth reading because I can go pull out "The Hobbit" and read it anytime I want. It's all just fantasy after all.

As has been pointed out, the primitive technology of the 1890's would increase, not limit, the suspense, the knuckle-biting knowledge that all the soliders and military we see rushing about to defend the cities aren't going to do a damn thing.

So you think it will have more of an impact on todays movie goers if they see 70 year old military vehicles getting trounced by Alien War Machines? Again, sorry but that isn't even in the realm of reality.

I simply think that Spielberg is just going for a quick and easy out by translating the story (or what little of it he's decided to retain) to a modern setting.

Maybe he is or maybe he just wants to tell the story HIS way. Just like Peter Jackson is telling Kong HIS way, and just like he told the LOTR HIS way. Are you going to say that PJ's LOTR movies sucked because he changed things or didn't include every little thing you wanted?

You can't keep telling me people don't relate or become interested in films that take place in the past,

Again you completely miss the point. WOTW worked so well because it reflected the people and happenings of the time, that was what made it so effective. By updating the story Speilberg can make it relate to us, the people of this time, which gives it much more impact to todays movie goer.

because the biggest grosser of all time is Titanic (disgusting as that may be) and that is a film set in the past with a story everybody already knows - the ship sinks.

Yeah the ship sinks, I guess the whole love story, which is what the movie was turned into had nothing to do with how well it sold the audience.:sarcasm: Please, your going to try and say that whole movie was completely accurate and faithful, again sorry, but I don't think so.

Handled well, War of the Worlds would be the same way. Instead, we get another dose of 're-imagining' - and my opinion of that has been made vitriolic from crap like 'Planet of the Apes' and the ever popular GINO.

Yada Yada Yada blah blah blah, I already know the speech you don't need to go over it again.

Can the story work in a different time-frame? Of course, and it already has, twice in exceedingly successful ways. This time, however, i think the bolder and more imaginative step would have been to go back to its roots, rather than turn it into something like an updated ID4 or, worse, Battlefield Earth.

For even mentioning BFE you should be soundly booted in the head. ID4 isn't WOTW, so why bring it up. There have been hundreds of alien invasion movies, but that doesn't make them all WOTW. By your reasoning Godzilla vs Gigan is WOTW because it has aliens trying to take over the earth.


I have serious concerns that Spielberg is ****ing around with the story too much (the inclusion of Dakota Fanning leads me to believe he's yet again resorting to the 'slap a kid into this mess to manipulate the audience' trick yet again).

Hey go figure our planet is being attacked and there are actually kids on the planet, OMG what shall we ever do. That's right we should just make a movie with no kids in it what so ever, that would be one of the things your version would have making it so accurate I guess.:sarcasm:

Yes, I'm annoyed that it's not set in the 1890's, but that is actually one of my lesser concerns about what he's put on film.

What I bolded is the key part, it's simply not what you want, which is fine. Don't go see the movie if it annoys you that much.

And, here's a point, if this 'modern technology' crap is so important, then why is PJ taking the bold step of keeping Kong in his Depression era roots?

Technology isn't an important aspect of the King Kong story. He's keeping the setting because PJ want's to do it HIS way, that is his choice, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Setting Kong in modern times isn't going to drasticaly change anything about that story other than he might be killed with missiles while tangled in bridge suspension cabels.

There is a quote from a Toho exec, who I can't recall right now, who observed about GINO that Americans seem obsessed with their military weapons and can't abide something that pretty well ignores them.

An exec who has made one of the worst Godzilla movies ever. Oh thats right you loved that one didn't you. But didn't that Exec also completely take Godzilla from a Sci-Fi creature and turn him into a Fantasy creature as well as KG, Mothra & Baragon? Wow Clint, he completely went in an opposite direction and you liked it. Maybe you should figure out whether you want things to stay the same or change since you don't seem to know what you really want.

Seems perhaps you might share the fixation on technological junk rather than storytelling and characters

That's right, making the story and technology relate to the people of today and this era's problems has nothing to do with storytelling. You sure that your a writer because I am questioning it right about now.:sarcasm:

which is what will make or break this film and any other, not 'it's more relevant to today's video-game junkie geeks if it has F-18s and M-1s'.

You saw SW Ep.3 didn't you and you even need to ask that question.

Good thing you don't have that sort of monitor Saruman, cause I'd be introducing you to about 12" of Victorian Rhineland steel and see if the bayonet's antiquity made it 'less relevant'.

Wonder how well you can use that bayonet while your dodging uzi fire, look technology wins again.:laugh:

(kidding of course, we still need you to harvest those design pics and finish a certain piece of fiction)

DUH!!!!! I already sent it to you, if you would ever read it over and get back to me maybe it would get finished sometime before next year, and here I though Alzheimer's only struck the old.

[Saruman]

You clearly watched a different opening to Saving Private Ryan than me then. :p

Slightly different case here. SPR is a WWII story, you can't tell it in a different setting because of that. You could possibably change the war it took place in but that would even be difficult to do. WOTW is a fantasy that can be easily adapted to any era.

Screw modern tech, people dying on screen gets me on the edge of my screen and there's far more people dying on screen in nasty ways in a period piece.

This makes absolutely no sense. There are more nasty ways to die in a period piece? Unless I have been missing something we not only have new weapons that they could have only dreamed of, but we have improved upon the ones they had available to them. So how are more people dying in nasty ways?

Since the whole point of the military facing the Martians is the military loses- the 19th Century tech. Because you automatically know you're going to see everyone of those soldiers die because their guns won't work, and that's one damn powerful moment to see on screen.

So it's better to know that everything we have is worthless and people will die because of old tech instead of using modern weapons and letting people think it may stand up to the Alien weapons? Ok, I see the logic there. I guess its better to know everyone is going to die instead of having a hint of doubt. Yeah that just adds so much to the suspense it's killing me.

And with 1890s tech, the soldiers won't be in tanks & choppers that are going to explode. They're going to all be out in the open getting incinerated. And people dying is more relatable than technology going boom and a lot more edge-of-your-seat.

Again this makes no sense. There is a difference in someone being instantly incinerated and a vehicle blowing up? Where is the difference, your not seeing anything more in one scene than the other. You seem to be under some misguided idea that this is going to be a graphic movie showing people slowly melt away which is never going to happen.

Oh and how does a 70 year old tank and a modern tank differ in how it is destroyed by the alien war machines? It's not going to be any different and your not going to see the people inside dying. So again your point here is useless and doesn't put you more on the edge of your seat.

Doesn't matter. They don't have to know. They just have to know the Martians are going to win.

They don't win though.;) And yes it will matter.

They will be impressed seeing Alien Tripods roll over 19th Century infantry, burning them in their hundreds and snatching them up w/ tendrils to feed off them while all the soldiers can do is run like **** & hope that saves them.

Somehow they wont be impressed with 21st century infantry getting rolled over by Alien War Machines? Again how is one so much more impressive or different than the other? Answer is it isn't, it's the same.

It can, yes. But setting in the original time and place has never been done on screen before (well, except Pendragon's one). We've seen aliens blowing up the modern-day planet before loads of times- we haven't seen them nuke the 19th Century on the big screen. It's something new.

You haven't? I seem to recall seeing alien ships in the Showa Godzilla movies destroying comparable machinery. Oh but wait, that was a Godzilla film so there couldn't have been an alien invasion attempt now could there.:sarcasm:

And while you can also move Frankenstein to any time frame if you want, most of the time nobody does. An alien invasion in the 19th Century can be relatable to a modern-audience if it's good.

It can't be relatable because you were never there to experience the events of that time. Can you relate to someone who fought in WWII? ABSOLUTELY NOT, because you weren't there. You can learn about WWII and what went on, but you can not relate to the actual events, only people that actually experienced it can relate to it. I can understand what effects the bombs dropped on Japan had, but I can't ever relate to the experience of those that suffered from it. Relating to something and just having knowledge of it are two completely different things.

[Saruman]

Morgoth mentioned BRAVEHEART as an example of where "updating" just isn't necessary, IMO. PASSION OF THE CHRIST, anyone? And what about Kong's upcoming film? Isn't everyone just simply ENCHANTED that it is going to be a period piece THIS TIME? Next thing you know, some turkey is going to want to "re-do" THE ALAMO with Santa Ana launching a Polaris missile at the defenders and Davy and the gang manning modern mortars on the ramparts. :angry: Actually, as far as military action goes, that is a prime example of classic warfare. Look at the number of troops involved. Those were infantry REGIMENTS, not a squadron of B-52s impersonally dropping bombs on a "target".
WOTW has had plenty of "contemporary" treatments since it was first broadcast by Orson Welles in 1938, culminating with the TV series and periodic TV movies, such as 1994's WITHOUT WARNING, co-starring journalist Sander Vanocur. There is also plenty debate whether or not ID-4 is yet another "rip-off". I personally believe so. Strange that an Earth virus that defeated earlier invaders is now simply a computer bug... :sarcasm: Then again, consider the lack of unoriginality found in about ANYTHING D&E are associated with...:hmmm:

Look for folks wearing T-shirts saying, "I'M ONLY HERE FOR THE DESTRUCTION". :laugh: Someone had mentioned this in relation to JURASSIC PARK. I'm convinced the average moviegoer these days is only there for the SFX; forget things like acting, plot and story. Is it a generational/age thing as I believe Morgoth mentioned in a SW discussion? Quite possibly, but I will tell you all this: Those of us who can appreciate history in ANY aspect do have to go "back in time" in many instances via reference material to open this new "realm" where we can comprehend it. History can be a lot more than just a course you HAVE to study in school. What is so "wrong" about wanting to see WOTW in its proper context, namely when it was written? Would BEN-HUR be "better" if it was "updated"?

I think the radio broadcast was especially timely and effective. The country was edgy, new technology (radio) was being introduced and the Mercury Players had a perfect opportunity to set America on its butt like never before. Look at the '50s sci fi films. The U.S. ALWAYS wins against Martians, monsters or whatever. Nothing to really think about here, maybe because the Cold War was already providing an overload? Such tender little psyches we seem to have, yet Uncle Sam and his spawn are supposed to be so "tough" ! :dozing: I hope we get scared out of our collective wits by this latest invasion force but bet it's going to fall flat psychologically. The TV series was an excellent sequel and update IMO, bringing in additional premises and giving the Martians a much more sinister character where they didn't have to rely on their massive machines to take over our planet. I personally find guerilla action a lot more scary and exciting than masses of troops and weapons squaring off against an enemy. It's just more personal that way, I believe. Besides, about any story focuses on a "hero" - the central character who has to deal with a challenge all by his lonesome. Yes, he'll get to see his hometown trashed and have to rough it for a bit on his own but that's what makes heroes, isn't it? Of course, another option would be to just have the Martians win for a change.

Yes there are movies that you simply can not update, such as a WWII movie or an Alamo movie because they are events that actually happened.

Look at the movie "The Patriot." How many people actually knew just how wrong the events in that movie were. The main character wasn't even close to the real person he portrayed. But yet you hear how great a movie it is when it's factually so far beyond wrong it isn't even funny.

There are just as many bad period pieces as there are updated movies. Just keeping something a period piece does not mean that it will be good or even accurate to the book/historical event it was based on.

What happens if the WOTW Pendragon film, which is a "Period Piece" takes place in the correct setting but just happens to have the aliens lose in a completely different manner? Is that ok because it's still the almighty "Period Piece?" No all of you would be crying like banshees about them screwing it up.

For some reason Clint and Charles think that the technology is such a key factor, it's not. It's a visual that people can look at and relate to because they see it on the news every day. They will see it and what will come to mind? Answer is Iraq. That gives the viewer not only a connection to the film, but it will relate the emotions they have about Iraq and the entire situation. Something they won't get out of a period piece because they can not directly relate to something that happened before they were born or to young to even remember it.

I think the radio broadcast was especially timely and effective. The country was edgy, new technology (radio) was being introduced and the Mercury Players had a perfect opportunity to set America on its butt like never before.

This is exactly my point. The radio broadcast was effective because it related to the times. Radio was still fairly new and they took advantage of that and the state of things OF THAT TIME.

Does anyone think that radio broadcast would work the same way today? Anyone that thinks it would is either a moron or in need of medication.

Do you think you can relate to the terror of the people that were effected by that radio broadcast? No you can't.

It works because it relates directly to the people of that era and just retelling it is not going to have the same type of effect on a much later generation.

[Raptor]

Yes there are movies that you simply can not update, such as a WWII movie or an Alamo movie because they are events that actually happened.This is a little tricky. TITANIC was mentioned as a real life boat sinking but look at the success of its latest movie version which basically did make it a "love story" rather than an "actioner". I use that term for the showcase effects of the sinking - the keystone of the story. As for THE ALAMO, I would not be the least bit surprised if someone didn't decide it needs a REMAKE with the latest crop of Hollywood "stars" filling the key roles. :sarcasm:
Look at the movie "The Patriot." How many people actually knew just how wrong the events in that movie were. The main character wasn't even close to the real person he portrayed. But yet you hear how great a movie it is when it's factually so far beyond wrong it isn't even funny.That's worse than claiming a story is supposed to be taking place in a certain location and is actually shot in Hollywood/Vancouver/wherever and folks from the actual place catch it right away. The SPIDERMAN 2 train scene, anyone? :laugh:

There are just as many bad period pieces as there are updated movies. Just keeping something a period piece does not mean that it will be good or even accurate to the book/historical event it was based on.

What happens if the WOTW Pendragon film, which is a "Period Piece" takes place in the correct setting but just happens to have the aliens lose in a completely different manner? Is that ok because it's still the almighty "Period Piece?" No all of you would be crying like banshees about them screwing it up. I believe Goji Son mentioned samurai films elsewhere but we can also look at what ELEMENTS fail to deliver, everything from miscast actors, inaccurate costumes and dialogue to "liberties" being taken with historical events. Something fictional like WOTW can provide a little slack, I think, IF IT IS AN ADAPTATION. This is what about all versions we're familiar with are, not what H.G. Wells intended.

For some reason Clint and Charles think that the technology is such a key factor, it's not. It's a visual that people can look at and relate to because they see it on the news every day. They will see it and what will come to mind? Answer is Iraq. That gives the viewer not only a connection to the film, but it will relate the emotions they have about Iraq and the entire situation. Something they won't get out of a period piece because they can not directly relate to something that happened before they were born or to young to even remember it. That is the key right there - THE AVERAGE MOVIEGOER! They are not capable of suspending their disbelief anymore IMO. Maybe my teachers made history "come alive" for me or something and it carries over to when I watch a period film or read a book set in a certain time frame. I also find those to be exciting times, moreso than now. Maybe it's the personal "been there, done that" aspect of a lot of stuff for some of us "elders". We're a more critical audience when it comes to "getting it right" (and believable). I find most SFX "overkill" in more ways than one, from certain muzzle flashes to rampant disregard of military and other specialized tactics but this is the kind of VISUALS that producers want to "sell" their films to the videogame generation that is supposed to be filling the seats.
The radio broadcast was effective because it related to the times. Radio was still fairly new and they took advantage of that and the state of things OF THAT TIME.

Does anyone think that radio broadcast would work the same way today? Anyone that thinks it would is either a moron or in need of medication.

Do you think you can relate to the terror of the people that were effected by that radio broadcast? No you can't.

It works because it relates directly to the people of that era and just retelling it is not going to have the same type of effect on a much later generation.The TV movie that told the story of the broadcast itself took a third party approach. I'd guess the average viewer was sitting there thinking, "Boy, what a bunch of wimps!" Same with reading about how audiences reacted to FRANKENSTEIN and KING KONG when they were first screened.
911 and such has set the stage for a great PSYCHOLOGICAL thriller (like the "24" TV mini series) but it would go right over the heads of the dadburned geekwad audiences without something getting blown up every 15 minutes. The 1800's? I bet half of them can't think of anything significant in the 1980-90's, other than their year of birth and that the characters "sure dress funny".
Too many people are not getting their $6.00 worth when they go to the movies IMO. It's a viscious circle, really, like TV which has also been "dumbed down". Hollywood figures certain stories won't sell and the audience won't/can't embrace them.
For some reason, I find myself blaming parents and the schools for the present state of the American moviegoer, like so many other woes... The "magic" just doesn't seem to be there very often like when we were kids and every weekend was an exciting "adventure" unfolding up there on the big screen, be it cheezy aliens or giant bugs badly matted against a cityscape. At least cowboys and Indians weren't CGI but they sure took some spectacular spills, providing us with true heartstopping action! No one seemed to miss flying body parts and gallons of blood on the sand because the ACTION and STORY was there. and we could get "into" it. Now, I just don't think the audience is really as attuned to what they are supposed to be there for and the studios have had to accept this sorry state of affairs. So who's the bigger cynic, me, Clint or the average moviegoer? ;) One thing for sure, we can have a good ol' time watching (and reading) about samurais, the Gold Rush, Civil and World War battles and black powder long guns defending the frontier AS WELL AS ray guns, lasers and rocket ships. It's like being able to venture past the city limit sign without getting hopelessly disoriented IMO.

[Goji Son]

I don't see what the big deal is, just because it does not stay within the Victorian Age does not automatically make this film junk. There are plenty of stories that can be adapted into any time frame whether it be modern or Renaissance and it could still be good. Look at Shakespeare's adaptations to the screen, or better yet look at Kurosawa's adaptations on Shakespeare, Throne of Blood (Macbeth), Ran (King Lear), The Bad Sleep Well (Hamlet). All of these films do not have a line of Shakespeares dialogue nor are they set in their respective settings to the original plays or even time frames. There wasn't not even a character named Macbeth, Lear, or Hamlet in any of these films yet Throne of Blood is considered one of the greatest adaptations of Shakespeare's work along with Ran. Why? Because Kurosawa still had the basic ideas and themes associated with the story that still makes it an adaptation. To me it's not about accuracy of the setting or dialogue and how much the story paraellel itself to the different mediums, it's about getting the point across.

If it were all about accuracy to the original book/play then LOTR would have been a piece of crap, hell basically any story adaptation would be considered junk but that's not the case. It's all about get the very basic ideas on the screen and showcasing them, there is no way to can accurately interpret a book on to the stage and/or film without having differences and vice versa. They are all very different artforms not to mention you have a different storyteller everytime.

Now with real life events like WW2 films and such, well that isn't fiction like WOTW so you just can't take your liberties with that or else you would be basically lying to the audience but once again you can't adapt a persons full life story in under 2 hours.

Now if Speilberg does take some liberties to the basic storylines (namely the ending) and themes then we have a problem. Then the film should not even be called WOTW.

[Charles RB]

So it's better to know that everything we have is worthless and people will die

Yes. Because we're talking about War Of The Worlds and that's what happens.

Again this makes no sense. There is a difference in someone being instantly incinerated and a vehicle blowing up?

Yes- one is a person and the other is a bit of machinery. There is a different between soldiers being incinerated in their thousands on-screen and a load of tanks being blown up on screen, and that difference is the former is humans being slaughtered.

Seriously, you don't see a difference between machinery exploding and people being burnt to ash? :\

Oh and how does a 70 year old tank and a modern tank differ in how it is destroyed by the alien war machines? It's not going to be any different and your not going to see the people inside dying.

...WHY do you keep saying "70 year old tank"? We're talking 1890s. Over a century ago. No tanks. What we do have is massive regiments of people marching into battle, with any artillery being openly commanded by people.

So again your point here is useless

Only because you're misreading it to be about 70-year-old tanks when I'm openly talking about 19th Century regiments. You're the only person to bring up 70-year-old tanks fighting Martian tripods.

Somehow they wont be impressed with 21st century infantry getting rolled over by Alien War Machines?

Not as much as they would be seeing large amounts of people being slaughtered by alien war machines. People dying trumps machinery exploding every time.

You haven't? I seem to recall seeing alien ships in the Showa Godzilla movies destroying comparable machinery.

OH gimme a break. When did you see alien ships in 1960s and 1970s films attacking the Victorian era? Really, I'd like to know because nobody else watching Showa Godzilla seems to have seen that film.

It can't be relatable because you were never there to experience the events of that time. Can you relate to someone who fought in WWII?

Yes. You do the story well enough, I can relate to lots of characters. It's called "good writing". Why aren't you able to relate to a character unless they're living exactly like you are?

Hell, your argument actually works against a modern-day WOTW- have you ever been in the middle of a destructive alien invasion? I know I haven't. Clearly you can't relate to the film characters then because you've never experienced what they're experiencing.

[Zigra]

You know, Saruman, one thing I wonder is, if the original "War of the Worlds" story is not something that audiences would have ever enjoyed or gotten excited over on the big screen, then how come Spielburg thinks he can even make any money off of a WotW movie? Why should anybody make a WotW movie at all if it's not what audiences will be interested in? Obviously, WotW must have some sort of fanbase or something about it that intrests people if Spielburg feels he can make money off using the title.

[Kaiser Kronos]

That is the key right there - THE AVERAGE MOVIEGOER! They are not capable of suspending their disbelief anymore IMO. Maybe my teachers made history "come alive" for me or something and it carries over to when I watch a period film or read a book set in a certain time frame. I also find those to be exciting times, moreso than now. Maybe it's the personal "been there, done that" aspect of a lot of stuff for some of us "elders". We're a more critical audience when it comes to "getting it right" (and believable). I find most SFX "overkill" in more ways than one, from certain muzzle flashes to rampant disregard of military and other specialized tactics but this is the kind of VISUALS that producers want to "sell" their films to the videogame generation that is supposed to be filling the seats.
The TV movie that told the story of the broadcast itself took a third party approach. I'd guess the average viewer was sitting there thinking, "Boy, what a bunch of wimps!" Same with reading about how audiences reacted to FRANKENSTEIN and KING KONG when they were first screened.
911 and such has set the stage for a great PSYCHOLOGICAL thriller (like the "24" TV mini series) but it would go right over the heads of the dadburned geekwad audiences without something getting blown up every 15 minutes. The 1800's? I bet half of them can't think of anything significant in the 1980-90's, other than their year of birth and that the characters "sure dress funny".
Too many people are not getting their $6.00 worth when they go to the movies IMO. It's a viscious circle, really, like TV which has also been "dumbed down". Hollywood figures certain stories won't sell and the audience won't/can't embrace them.
For some reason, I find myself blaming parents and the schools for the present state of the American moviegoer, like so many other woes... The "magic" just doesn't seem to be there very often like when we were kids and every weekend was an exciting "adventure" unfolding up there on the big screen, be it cheezy aliens or giant bugs badly matted against a cityscape. At least cowboys and Indians weren't CGI but they sure took some spectacular spills, providing us with true heartstopping action! No one seemed to miss flying body parts and gallons of blood on the sand because the ACTION and STORY was there. and we could get "into" it. Now, I just don't think the audience is really as attuned to what they are supposed to be there for and the studios have had to accept this sorry state of affairs. So who's the bigger cynic, me, Clint or the average moviegoer? ;) One thing for sure, we can have a good ol' time watching (and reading) about samurais, the Gold Rush, Civil and World War battles and black powder long guns defending the frontier AS WELL AS ray guns, lasers and rocket ships. It's like being able to venture past the city limit sign without getting hopelessly disoriented IMO.

Raptor, what makes a good movie? It's gotta include special effects in there somewhere. Nothenless, Van Helsing-style FX, that's not the way to go. The proper way to make an action film is an emphasis on story and special FX taking a background. How would you make WOTW? We would set it in modern times, but still keep the essence of the theme. Basically, modernizing the story but keeping the plot intact. So, that's how WE would make it.
(Diego and Tony.)

[Charles RB]

Raptor, what makes a good movie? It's gotta include special effects in there somewhere.

...You WHAT?

Please clarify that you're just talking about action-type movies here.

[Kaiser Kronos]

Yes, yes of course. Dramas and musicals never require any special effects.
(Tony Derouen.)

[Bagoth]

Check this out.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=31121

[anguirus55]

What I find interesting is that Ellison was apparently impressed by Temple of Doom, which I thought sucked.

Eh, Ellison is famously loudmouthed. He has talent, but is a rude so-and-so. You'll notice that the title is not, in fact, "Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds." And if he did call it "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds" and it wasn't exactly like the book, Ellison would blast him for that. Spielberg has also made no claim to matching Kurosawa. (I agree with Ellison that Kurosawa was amazing.)

He also doesn't blast the original movie of WotW in that article, which also did not have the author's name attached.

[Raptor]

KK, dramas and musicals HAVE used "special effects". A fade/transition from one scene to the other is often much more impressive than a straight cut. Filters can be put on the cameras to make for moody settings, snow, rain and wind added to the set or added as a "process". It may not be CGI but it's SFX. ;)
Bagoth, that is quite the link you've posted there and says SO MUCH! :thumbs: THANK YOU, MR. ELLISON!

[Kaiser Kronos]

Ahem. Ellison doesn't know what he's talking about. Talks about how Spielberg isn't a trendsetter, but he set the genre of "liEK OMG G1an7 animals are sceerY !!!1!" movies. Jaws also established the trend of summer blockbuster, hated as that may be. So, simple truth, Spielberg is a trendsetter. Too bad those trends aren't good trends.
(Walter Kovacs.)

[Goji Son]

To anyone to says that what makes a good action film you must incorporate special effects (ie CGI and stuff getting blown up for no reason) I advise them to rent or buy the following...

Seven Samurai
Lawerance of Arabia
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Yojimbo
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Wild Bunch

[anguirus55]

Yes, but a science fiction/fantasy film (as opposed to just straight action) doesn't exactly happen without SFX and VFX.

[Morgoth]

Now if Speilberg does take some liberties to the basic storylines (namely the ending) and themes then we have a problem. Then the film should not even be called WOTW.


That is why I have severe reservations and doubts about this film. Not being set in the victorian era is a HUGe disappointment, excessive liberties taken with the story is where this will go from a movie to an abomination, and the evidence is already there with Dakota Fanning and the heavy handed manner in which directors no longer try to evoke emotion but simply manipulate it.

[Raptor]

Ellison doesn't know what he's talking about. Talks about how Spielberg isn't a trendsetter, but he set the genre of "liEK OMG G1an7 animals are sceerY !!!1!" movies. Jaws also established the trend of summer blockbuster, hated as that may be. So, simple truth, Spielberg is a trendsetter. Too bad those trends aren't good trends.Spielberg DID make some great contibutions to film but it's the old "What are you going to do for an encore?" thing. JAWS was a "summer" movie, pure and simple; a "ride", if you will, like JURASSIC PARK, STAR WARS and E.T. There were some comments about how the kids were portrayed in E.T. as being a little too "realistic" in the way their homelife was established.
I like to think of Spielberg as wanting to bring wonder and magic to the filmgoing experience. JAWS was a great thriller. Stephen King also tries to take the familiar and look at it in new and different ways, like CHRISTINE.
Even if we are quite familiar with WOTW, I am HOPING it delivers on these levels. I can't help but want to compare the results with Jackson's KING KONG. This might seem hard to do because of their settings and subject matter but not really. It's basically, "Which film will best deliver what it sets out to do?" Will "Kennies" detract from a telling of WOTW? I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

[Kaiser Kronos]

To anyone to says that what makes a good action film you must incorporate special effects (ie CGI and stuff getting blown up for no reason) I advise them to rent or buy the following...

Seven Samurai
Lawerance of Arabia
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Yojimbo
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Wild Bunch
Ok. But when you have a science fiction film, how do you accomplish the aliens and the like without special effects? Only way I see is if your doing an alternate history film, eg a Turtledove adaptation.
(Calvin Carnick.)

[Aragorn_Strider22]

Hrmm, another monster we can thank the Futurians for indirectly creating.

[Saruman]

Yes. Because we're talking about War Of The Worlds and that's what happens.

So that can only happen in a "victorian setting?" Sorry, but it's going to be much more impressive to see todays better armed and equiped infantry being mowed down than it would be to see the ones from a period piece. The same goes for vehicles, a modern tank getting mowed over like nothing is much more impressive than somethhing so vastly older and weaker.

Yes- one is a person and the other is a bit of machinery. There is a different between soldiers being incinerated in their thousands on-screen and a load of tanks being blown up on screen, and that difference is the former is humans being slaughtered.

Seriously, you don't see a difference between machinery exploding and people being burnt to ash? :\

It's the same thing. Infantry is still infantry in either period, but which is going to be more impressive to see get wiped out,? The better equiped modern infantry. Again the same goes for the machines as well, modern machines will be more impressive to see getting mowed down than older ones.

...WHY do you keep saying "70 year old tank"? We're talking 1890s. Over a century ago. No tanks. What we do have is massive regiments of people marching into battle, with any artillery being openly commanded by people.

It's an EXAMPLE, you do comprehend what that is don't you, though obvisouly not since your asking this question, see the above comments for the answers.

Only because you're misreading it to be about 70-year-old tanks when I'm openly talking about 19th Century regiments. You're the only person to bring up 70-year-old tanks fighting Martian tripods.

You don't get it but by now that isn't suprising me, it's simply an example, the era doesn't matter it's just comparing something of modern times to something much older.

Not as much as they would be seeing large amounts of people being slaughtered by alien war machines. People dying trumps machinery exploding every time.

Where are you getting that people wont be dying? If you actually were paying attention you would figure out what I have been saying. I'm not comparing machines to humans. I am comparing modern infantry to older infantry, I am comparing modern machines to older machines. Your going off on this rant about people dying verses machines blowing up which isn't anything I have been talking about.

OH gimme a break. When did you see alien ships in 1960s and 1970s films attacking the Victorian era? Really, I'd like to know because nobody else watching Showa Godzilla seems to have seen that film.

You just can't even grasp the concept of an example can you.

Yes. You do the story well enough, I can relate to lots of characters. It's called "good writing". Why aren't you able to relate to a character unless they're living exactly like you are?

You can understand the characters NOT relate to them. Try telling my father that you can relate to his experiences in WWII taking a howitzer shell to his leg. Yeah I am really sure you can relate to that.:sarcasm: You don't even have the slightest inkling of what people actually went through in WWII, Vietnam or the Depression or anything else before you were ever born. To suggest that you could is simply ignorant and IMO insulting as hell to those people.

Hell, your argument actually works against a modern-day WOTW- have you ever been in the middle of a destructive alien invasion? I know I haven't. Clearly you can't relate to the film characters then because you've never experienced what they're experiencing.

It has nothing to do with the Aliens, that you don't get that I have been saying that is amazing. By putting it in a modern setting, people will FEEL more like they can understand what the people are going through because they are in the same time period. They can look up on the screen and find someone more like them than they could in a period piece, making them have more of an attachment to the people in the movie. Which in turn gives them a more powerful effect than they would get from a period piece which has people that they really would have nothing in common with.

[Saruman]

You know, Saruman, one thing I wonder is, if the original "War of the Worlds" story is not something that audiences would have ever enjoyed or gotten excited over on the big screen, then how come Spielburg thinks he can even make any money off of a WotW movie? Why should anybody make a WotW movie at all if it's not what audiences will be interested in? Obviously, WotW must have some sort of fanbase or something about it that intrests people if Spielburg feels he can make money off using the title.

Your not listening to what I have been saying. Of course it has a fanbase, I love the book and even more so the radio broadcast. Did I ever say that it didn't have a fanbase?

What made WOTW so effective was how it reflected the times it was set in. People lived the same way, the worked similar jobs, they had similar values, ect. they could understand the people in the story because they were similar to them.

THAT is what made WOTW so effective.

That is what you want todays audience to feel when they go to this movie. They want the viewers to "feel" like it could be them up there on the screen running for their lives. That is something your not going to get in a period piece, because people of today just can not relate to a time that they never experienced. That lessens the impact of the film on the audience.

Clint mentioned "Kaneko & GMK" earlier in the thread. WHY did Kaneko take the Sci-Fi element of Godzilla out of the movie and make it into a Fantasy Film? Because people today aren't impressed by Sci-Fi films, it's all been done, they don't have the same impact they did back int the 50's.

It's the same thing here, but in reverse. Here you move the setting to modern times so people can be impressed by the film. Modern troops and technology getting mowed down will be more impressive to audiences than Victorian Era infantry and machines getting mowed down.

Here's another example.

Take a TV show like "Leave it to Beaver" or any of that eras wholesome family unit shows. Put that on TV today as a brand new "Period Piece" show. What is going to happen?

[Saruman]

What I find interesting is that Ellison was apparently impressed by Temple of Doom, which I thought sucked.

Eh, Ellison is famously loudmouthed. He has talent, but is a rude so-and-so. You'll notice that the title is not, in fact, "Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds." And if he did call it "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds" and it wasn't exactly like the book, Ellison would blast him for that. Spielberg has also made no claim to matching Kurosawa. (I agree with Ellison that Kurosawa was amazing.)

He also doesn't blast the original movie of WotW in that article, which also did not have the author's name attached.

As Goji Son pointed out above, Ellison is also to freaking ignorant to realise that Kurosawa tapped Shakespear for some of his stories, but you don't see Shakespears name on them. Kurosawa told Shakespear in HIS way and made some of the greatest films of all time, but they are Kurosawa films and not Shakespear's.

[Saruman]

To anyone to says that what makes a good action film you must incorporate special effects (ie CGI and stuff getting blown up for no reason) I advise them to rent or buy the following...

Seven Samurai
Lawerance of Arabia
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Yojimbo
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Wild Bunch

All awesome films.:thumbs:

There are SPFX in those films though, EVERY film uses them. They may not be the type of SPFX that we are used to today, but they are still SPFX. The difference is that they used them properly and in moderation unlike todays movies.

But for something like WOTW you simply can not do it without SPFX and a lot of them.

[Saruman]

That is why I have severe reservations and doubts about this film. Not being set in the victorian era is a HUGe disappointment, excessive liberties taken with the story is where this will go from a movie to an abomination, and the evidence is already there with Dakota Fanning and the heavy handed manner in which directors no longer try to evoke emotion but simply manipulate it.

Why is it that every deviation from a book to movie simply makes it an abomination?

To quote Goji Son.........
There are plenty of stories that can be adapted into any time frame whether it be modern or Renaissance and it could still be good. Look at Shakespeare's adaptations to the screen, or better yet look at Kurosawa's adaptations on Shakespeare, Throne of Blood (Macbeth), Ran (King Lear), The Bad Sleep Well (Hamlet). All of these films do not have a line of Shakespeares dialogue nor are they set in their respective settings to the original plays or even time frames. There wasn't not even a character named Macbeth, Lear, or Hamlet in any of these films yet Throne of Blood is considered one of the greatest adaptations of Shakespeare's work along with Ran. Why? Because Kurosawa still had the basic ideas and themes associated with the story that still makes it an adaptation.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that those Kurosawa film are abominations because they don't stick to Shakespear accurately?

You don't have to copy the book down to the last detail to make it good or accurate, you can do it in you're own way and still be faithful to the material, Kurosawa proves that just as Peter Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy.

Could Speilberg screw it up, sure he could, but he could also royally screw up a period piece just as much if not more. As long as he keeps the basics of the book/story intact but tells it in his way, then he can move it to any time period and it will be just as effective as the original book.

If he strays to far from the book without care then that is what I will have the issue with, but we won't actually know that until the movie comes out.

[Goji Son]

And regarding Harlen Ellison, he is just a pompous prick who likes to take jabs at anyone who doesn't adapt his lame *** short stories and books. There is even a quote from Issac Asimov stating that Harlen was a short, arrogant, ******* and would say stuff just for the attention. And that ladies would throw themselves at them.

This is just Ellison way of showing everyone he hasn't died yet but he really should. And why the **** would he ever compare Temple of Doom to Kurosawa's filmography is beyond me. The man is just as clueless about film as he is with Science Fiction.

[Morgoth]

Dammit Jeff, do you even bother to READ what people write before launching one of your high hat responses? I said that, yes, the film could be good, but I highly doubt it because Spielburg has shown an exceedingly careless and slap-dash attitude toward film making in recent years, more concerned with special effects and audience manipulation than he is with storytelling and depth. I'd even make the argument that after the D-Day sequence Private Ryan is nothing more than a glorified episode of Combat, and the bit with a Tiger lunging up over a rise and surprising everybody exactly as if it is a T-Rex from Jurassic Park is simply groan inducing. From what little I have seen from the trailers, it looks like Spielburg is up to these sorts of tricks, manipulating rather than engaging the audience and that makes be both disturbed and disappointed. The wunderkind who gave us Jaws, it seems, is incapable of repeating the feat, lost in a world of two-dimensional stock characters that manifest in all these big-budget summer sci-fi prestige pictures.

Do you have to follow the letter of the book? No, of course not, but you damn well better retain its spirit! Or, as Christopher Lee always puts it - if you buy the rights to a story, why don't you use the story? Why don't you use what Bram Stoker has written? Why don't you employ one of Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu mysteries rather than having some screen-writer hack slap some shoddy doppleganger together? I think the biggest problem with Hollywood and film-makers is that they have this snide attitude that they can do it better than the authors, and in 90% of the cases, they are hideously wrong. From what I see, Spielburg isn't going to be able to maintain the dark, brooding sense of impending doom that was so integral to Well's novel, setting the arrogance of human pride and supremacy upon its ear. That would be much too downbeat for something being aimed at kids (hence Dakota Fanning, much like the brats in the JP films) and selling lots of toys.

This has all the ear-marks of simply another Hollywood half-*** title-lift, a bait-and-switch trick where they promise people one thing, and deliver a shoddy substitute that only their own chick-pea sized minds could consider an improvement. Or am I actually going to hear arguments on behalf of fiascos such as the Brando version of 'Island of Dr Moreau' or the insipid storyline that was employed for 'LXG' rather than the much richer one actually used in the comics? When movie-makers pay attention and take pains to ensure they remain faithful to their source material, fans respect it and appreciate it. 'Spiderman' is one recent example that springs to mind. 'Punisher' is a misfire that also displays the flipside. Right now, WINO looks to be in the Punisher camp.

[Raptor]

Morgoth strikes again but is anyone listening? I would say, "NO!" What I am thinking is that the average moviegoer (and TV viewer) is just not as discriminating as some of us are.
... Spielburg has shown an exceedingly careless and slap-dash attitude toward film making in recent years, more concerned with special effects and audience manipulation than he is with storytelling and depth... From what little I have seen from the trailers, it looks like Spielburg is up to these sorts of tricks, manipulating rather than engaging the audience and that makes be both disturbed and disappointed. The wunderkind who gave us Jaws, it seems, is incapable of repeating the feat, lost in a world of two-dimensional stock characters that manifest in all these big-budget summer sci-fi prestige pictures. I enjoyed his AMAZING STORIES on TV but I also agree that the "magic" seems to be gone, true entertainment replaced by commercialism (like with so many other things).

Do you have to follow the letter of the book? No, of course not, but you damn well better retain its spirit! Or, as Christopher Lee always puts it - if you buy the rights to a story, why don't you use the story? Why don't you use what Bram Stoker has written? Why don't you employ one of Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu mysteries rather than having some screen-writer hack slap some shoddy doppleganger together? I think the biggest problem with Hollywood and film-makers is that they have this snide attitude that they can do it better than the authors, and in 90% of the cases, they are hideously wrong. From what I see, Spielburg isn't going to be able to maintain the dark, brooding sense of impending doom that was so integral to Well's novel, setting the arrogance of human pride and supremacy upon its ear. That would be much too downbeat for something being aimed at kids (hence Dakota Fanning, much like the brats in the JP films) and selling lots of toys.Mentioning Stoker's DRACULA reminds me of Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN - Mel Brook's version. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was an excellent PARODY treatment that worked IMO. It accomplished what it set out to do - in spades. It was NOT Shelley's story and didn't pretend to be to draw/mislead the audience into thinking it was going to be the classic tale. VAN HELSING IMO is an abomination of the character. I have actually seen a better presentation of him in a local STAGE PLAY! The audience really got a look at this character, his part in the Dracula legend and was not overwhelmed by yet another TRITE SFX extravaganza.

Or am I actually going to hear arguments on behalf of fiascos such as the Brando version of 'Island of Dr Moreau' or the insipid storyline that was employed for 'LXG' rather than the much richer one actually used in the comics? When movie-makers pay attention and take pains to ensure they remain faithful to their source material, fans respect it and appreciate it. 'Spiderman' is one recent example that springs to mind. 'Punisher' is a misfire that also displays the flipside. Right now, WINO looks to be in the Punisher camp.The LEAGUE comic was most engrossing IMO. Compare it to what was said about the film right here in this forum.
When we see a title on a film, we expect a certain degree of faithfulness to the source material. The SPIDERMAN films truly captured the SPIRIT of the character. This is all too often tossed aside to "showcase" some current hunk-of-the-moment "star" or as Morgoth mentioned, MERCHANDIZING. Get a list of the license fees and stuff sold and see what those figures come to. Some mighty big numbers. Opening day figures are meaningless compared to the bottom line, which is where the studios are focused. I look at what comes up on that silver screen (or is likely to). Lately, there have been more disappointments than winners IMO and I find myself going to my personal collection of favorites (book or video). These are ENDURING or they wouldn't be on the shelf.
Even with all the hype in the world, if a movie sucks, word-of-mouth by the end of the first week is going to kill it quicker than Mr. Big Name Director did up front when he first felt the urge to make it and the money boys figured they could catch a ride on his fraying coat tails. They say you're only as good as your last movie and I think that should have applied here. In Spielberg's case, the "magic" is just not there anymore IMO and we will once again be treated to an overdose of cinematic pap.

[Saruman]

Dammit Jeff, do you even bother to READ what people write before launching one of your high hat responses?

Yes actually I do, but when your acting like a drama queen you get the response that you get.;)

I said that, yes, the film could be good,

What tiraid was that one in because from the moment you heard about this movie you were slamming it.:sarcasm:

but I highly doubt it because Spielburg has shown an exceedingly careless and slap-dash attitude toward film making in recent years,

Maybe he has, but even the best directors throw out some crap once in a while.

more concerned with special effects and audience manipulation than he is with storytelling and depth.

Audience manipulation is a bad thing? That is the purpose of storytelling, to manipulate the audience into beliving something or feeling something about what they are seeing or reading.

I'd even make the argument that after the D-Day sequence Private Ryan is nothing more than a glorified episode of Combat, and the bit with a Tiger lunging up over a rise and surprising everybody exactly as if it is a T-Rex from Jurassic Park is simply groan inducing.

That's your opinion, but then in every movie you can find things that resemble other films. Just like in writing you can find things that resemble another authors. It's the nature of the beast.

From what little I have seen from the trailers, it looks like Spielburg is up to these sorts of tricks, manipulating rather than engaging the audience and that makes be both disturbed and disappointed.

Wow you got all that from two trailers that show you absolutely nothing. You see the primary character actors a few explosions and what not and minor glimpses of the alien war machines almost to fast to even notice. Man you sure got more out of a couple minute or so long trailers, which really show nothing, than any person ever has. Guess there is absolutely no speculation there on your part, just cold hard facts.:sarcasm:

The wunderkind who gave us Jaws, it seems, is incapable of repeating the feat, lost in a world of two-dimensional stock characters that manifest in all these big-budget summer sci-fi prestige pictures.

I was never thrilled with Jaws so thats a lost argument on me.;)

Do you have to follow the letter of the book? No, of course not, but you damn well better retain its spirit! Or, as Christopher Lee always puts it - if you buy the rights to a story, why don't you use the story?

Who says he isn't using the story? He put it in modern times, suddenly that throws out everything about the story? Wow how the hell do you ever enjoy anything because every movie ever based on a book isn't letter perfect. You might want to stop writing your New Era stories then because you take so many liberties with stuff that it makes Speilberg tame by comparrison.

Why don't you use what Bram Stoker has written? Why don't you employ one of Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu mysteries rather than having some screen-writer hack slap some shoddy doppleganger together?

I'll pose the same question to you, why don't you simply stick with what Toho has done for your New Era stories? Or would you mind pointing out where I missed that Godzilla vs. Cthluhu movie? But that wouldn't be you taking liberties with two completely different franchises and twisting it and putting your own style on it now would it?:sarcasm:

I think the biggest problem with Hollywood and film-makers is that they have this snide attitude that they can do it better than the authors, and in 90% of the cases, they are hideously wrong.

Yes that's nothing like a snide author who thinks he can improve on everything is it? Or how about a chef who thinks he can improve on another chefs meal. Wow, look at that it happens in every form of business, not just movies/books.

From what I see, Spielburg isn't going to be able to maintain the dark, brooding sense of impending doom that was so integral to Well's novel, setting the arrogance of human pride and supremacy upon its ear.

How do you know this, you haven't seen anything more than a few little snips of film which tell you absolutely nothing. Somehow though you have the entire thing figured out to the last detail from those few clips, simply amazing.

That would be much too downbeat for something being aimed at kids (hence Dakota Fanning, much like the brats in the JP films) and selling lots of toys.

Oh thats right, Clints movie class 101, if any movie has a kid in it then it is automatically targeted at kids.:sarcasm:

This has all the ear-marks of simply another Hollywood half-*** title-lift, a bait-and-switch trick where they promise people one thing, and deliver a shoddy substitute that only their own chick-pea sized minds could consider an improvement.

I guess that any movie that has a high profile actor, known child actor, SPFX and based on an existing work is automatically shoddy, gee that goes for just about 97% of every movie ever made.

Or am I actually going to hear arguments on behalf of fiascos such as the Brando version of 'Island of Dr Moreau'

No that movie sucked.

or the insipid storyline that was employed for 'LXG' rather than the much richer one actually used in the comics?

I have no problem with the movie other than the inclusion of "Huck Finn." The comics are not the greatest thing going either. The concept was interesting, but they are only so so and are actually quite bland. He could have done so much better with them because he has the talent to. I was actually more disapointed with the comics than I was the movie because the comics should have been far better than they were.

When movie-makers pay attention and take pains to ensure they remain faithful to their source material, fans respect it and appreciate it. 'Spiderman' is one recent example that springs to mind.

Depends on what your calling remaining faithful. I wasn't happy to see them take away the web shooters because it doesn't allow the audience to see how gifted a scientist Peter actually is, which removes a huge element of his character. I also would have prefered to see the actual Green Goblin costume instead of the warped Jet Jaguar grinning Goblin we got.

'Punisher' is a misfire that also displays the flipside. Right now, WINO looks to be in the Punisher camp.

This you are completely and utterly wrong on. The new Punisher movie was not based on the original story, it was based on the more recent mini-series which re-imaged the character and gave him a new origin. This was what we got in the film and it was very accurate to the mini-series.

[Studio Asperger]

I would put forward my thoughts as well, but I'd just be repeating what myself, Morgoth and Raptor have already said on the subject.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why the f*** can't Hollywood understand that basic concept?! All these years of enduring lousy adaptations and remakes that Hollywood reckons improve on the originals have now left me with nothing but the upmost suspicion for any new 'adaptation'. It sickens me that so much of the film is now being filled with cheap emotional ploys and cynical manipulation because the book wasn't 'modern enough'.

I really don't see where you're coming from in your arguments to be honest, Saruman. Loss of life is loss of life, whether it's in the 19th, 21st or 31st centuries. Why should the level of technology make any difference if you know lives are being lost? The trouble is today's average movie-goer is not impressed unless their are big explosions and shiny things going boom every 5 minutes, and this sickens me to no end. So many adaptations that could have been amazing have been ruined because of this mentality, and it's time somebody put a stop to it. I mean, I'm not suggesting a modern adaptation couldn't work, but if such cynical and manipulative ploys are also being tossed into the mix I have to ask myself what is wrong with both directors and film audiences alike if they cannot decide that emotion can be evoked without being manipulated into it.

I'll wind up seeing the movie, one way or another, but Spielberg's going to have to pull off miracles if he wants to pierce my cynicism (which over the years has become so all-encompassing it now covers me like an exoskeleton).

[Zeptron]

Why don't you use what Bram Stoker has written?

Because Stoker, for all his renown, was a hack writer with no grasp of characterization whatsoever. There I said it.

[Saruman]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why the f*** can't Hollywood understand that basic concept?! All these years of enduring lousy adaptations and remakes that Hollywood reckons improve on the originals have now left me with nothing but the upmost suspicion for any new 'adaptation'. It sickens me that so much of the film is now being filled with cheap emotional ploys and cynical manipulation because the book wasn't 'modern enough'.

Shouldn't you actually see the movie before you make those claims? Sure I hated SW Ep.3, but I didn't comment on it until I actually saw the film, hell I completely avoided the SW threads just for that reason.

I really don't see where you're coming from in your arguments to be honest, Saruman.

That's quite obvious since you commented on something I didn't even say and wasn't part of the point.

Loss of life is loss of life, whether it's in the 19th, 21st or 31st centuries.

That's good, maybe you could go up a few posts and see that I have already stated this.

Why should the level of technology make any difference if you know lives are being lost? The trouble is today's average movie-goer is not impressed unless their are big explosions and shiny things going boom every 5 minutes, and this sickens me to no end. So many adaptations that could have been amazing have been ruined because of this mentality, and it's time somebody put a stop to it. I mean, I'm not suggesting a modern adaptation couldn't work, but if such cynical and manipulative ploys are also being tossed into the mix I have to ask myself what is wrong with both directors and film audiences alike if they cannot decide that emotion can be evoked without being manipulated into it.

Has anyone besides Goji Son actually read what I have been saying?

You guys are so focused on the "technology" that you are missing the damn point. It has nothing to do with SPFX or anything like that, try reading what I have been saying and you might actually see that.

WOTW was so effective because it reflected similar times that people were actually living in. The family unit was more tight knit than it is today, they had different values, ect. WOTW struck a chord that was very similar, which gave it great effect to the reader and even the people effected by the radio broadcast.

By moving it to a modern setting you are trying to make it have that same type of effect on todays audience. Making a period piece isn't going to strike people in the same way that a modern setting will today. People will understand the modern setting and the state of the world because that is where we are now. It will give you a different feeling that you simply wont get from a period piece. If you see a group of skyscrapers falling what is going to come to mind? 9/11. If you see modern infantry and tanks getting mowed down what is most likely going to surface? Feelings about Iraq and other deployments over the past few years. It creates a connection that you can't get from a period piece making the reaction to the film much stronger and personal.

That is all accomplished with simply moving the setting/time it takes place in. You don't have to completely revamp the story, sure you will need to make some changes to it, but the basics should be there intact. So unless Speilberg tells a completely different story, simply moving it to modern times isn't going to hurt it and can actually have a much more powerful effect than a period piece. If he changes it so that it doesn't even resemble the book in any way, then sure I will be pissed about that. But we won't actually know until the film is released.

[Raptor]

Audience manipulation is a bad thing? That is the purpose of storytelling, to manipulate the audience into beliving something or feeling something about what they are seeing or reading.Yes, that is what GOOD STORYTELLING is about. Here, I believe, we are referring to the Hollywood (and so many other area's) focus on simply grabbing our money and running, damned if we get any real bang for our bucks or not. Look what the black and white Univerisal classics were able to do with their cinematography! Even the matte shots in the WIZARD OF OZ had a believable "magic" to them, especially with the incorporation of color for the Oz locations. Simple by today's standards, of course but it worked, just like the radio broadcast of WOTW unintentionally did. Now THAT was not manipulation but the AUDIENCE using their imaginations. Of course, that isn't expected anymore. Could that also be why no one seems to read things called BOOKS anymore? This is how you can really get yourself into a story, be it on the screen, written or just via audio.
Why do some people listen to scanners? I'm guessing for the vicarious thrill they get from a police chase or fire/rescue units responding to a call. They at least go to the trouble to familiarize themselves with the local 10-codes and such so they can understand the "shorthand" these live action "adventures" come across in. On the big screen, the same scenario would no doubt have impossible stunts and exchanges of gunfire going on to "make it more interesting". Duh! :sarcasm: You want "interesting"? Get your own adrenalin pumping sometime. Having been lucky enough to be able to do just that real time and watching GOOD movies, why can't we still expect the same? That's what we're paying for, isn't it? Even if it isn't all action, SUSPENSE is a very important storytelling element. Build up to the appearance of the monster or whatever. Give us a "ride" for a change.

I was never thrilled with Jaws so thats a lost argument on me.;) What I think was neat about the JAWS experience was so many people being scared to go in the water (even fresh, inland bodies) after seeing this film. It was like how a bunch of us got scared out of our wits by INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN and taking a shortcut home through the woods.

You might want to stop writing your New Era stories then because you take so many liberties with stuff that it makes Speilberg tame by comparrison. You're comparing Morgoth with Spielburg? Stevie boy should take lessons from him! :laugh:

Yes that's nothing like a snide author who thinks he can improve on everything is it? Or how about a chef who thinks he can improve on another chefs meal. Wow, look at that it happens in every form of business, not just movies/books. SOMETIMES it succeeds. Don't we all have our favorite recipes for certain dishes? "Mamma's cooking is the best!", etc.? This is often ADDING TO the basic concept. I liked the original movie version of WOTW and consider those ships the DEFINITIVE Martian spacecraft, as well as the "death ray". That movie DELIVERED, pure and simple. At the same time, I can also listen to my audio tape of the original broadcast and IMAGINE the east coast in for some mighty big problems. You want "updates"? A high school drama class localized the script and did it over the PA system for a Halloween event. It was still WOTW as it was intended IMO because the SPIRIT was there.

Oh thats right, Clints movie class 101, if any movie has a kid in it then it is automatically targeted at kids.:sarcasm: I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they aren't tossing this "demographic" into the mix strictly for further return possibilities. I just don't think the muppet set can handle WOTW myself but that's me. Oh, how I hate statistics and those lemmings who become them. WOTW a "family" movie? Are they going to be dysfunctional so the audience can better "relate"? Why not take the high road for a change? I really didn't like the way the set-up was introduced in E.T. but at least the kids prevailed. Nowadays, I seriously have my doubts, what with everything from Barney to Child Protective Services having been thrown into the mix.

I guess that any movie that has a high profile actor, known child actor, SPFX and based on an existing work is automatically shoddy, gee that goes for just about 97% of every movie ever made. I'd say it's a good reason for a red flag to go up. ;)

Depends on what your calling remaining faithful. I wasn't happy to see them take away the web shooters because it doesn't allow the audience to see how gifted a scientist Peter actually is, which removes a huge element of his character. I also would have prefered to see the actual Green Goblin costume instead of the warped Jet Jaguar grinning Goblin we got. Spiderman is one of those rare COMPLICATED characters (due to excellent development over the years). There is only so much running time available to the film maker. Wouldn't this "genius" element taken away from Peter's very human doubts about his other predicaments? Maybe it can be incorprated on down the line in future films, which I'm hoping to see, PROVIDED they continue in the same degree of overall quality as the last one.
For many of us, we can't help but draw on past experiences, be they personal or what we've seen in the movies. I think the producers are simply looking at numbers, not CUSTOMERS. Look at the Disney legacy (or not, for that matter...) They don't share the same approach as FANS do and thereby can't (or won't) relate to us. It's "Here it is. That'll be $6.00." End of story.

[Saruman]

Morgoth strikes again but is anyone listening? I would say, "NO!"

Why is that Raptor, simply because I don't agree with Clint in this case, so I am not listening to him? From my POV both you and Clint aren't listening to anything I have been saying because your comments are completely missing what I have been saying. As I already said the only person that has actually grasped the concept of what I said was Goji Son

The LEAGUE comic was most engrossing IMO. Compare it to what was said about the film right here in this forum.

The comics weren't that great as I already said and yes I do have them. The concept was fine, but the execution could have been done so much better and should have been better from such a talented writer.

When we see a title on a film, we expect a certain degree of faithfulness to the source material. The SPIDERMAN films truly captured the SPIRIT of the character. This is all too often tossed aside to "showcase" some current hunk-of-the-moment "star" or as Morgoth mentioned, MERCHANDIZING. Get a list of the license fees and stuff sold and see what those figures come to. Some mighty big numbers. Opening day figures are meaningless compared to the bottom line, which is where the studios are focused.

Spiderman did capture the "spirit" of the character, but that doesn't mean that they didn't make changes that also hurt the character(s). I pointed out some of those above.

Clint mentioned the Punisher movie. Unless you knew what the film was based on you would probably have a problem with it like he did. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't very accurate to the character as it was and it did capture the "spirit" of the character.

DareDevil is another movie that many people didn't like. But was the movie unfaithful to the character, no it wasn't and it was actually much more accurate than people would like to admit and it captured the spirit of the character probably better than Spiderman did.

How about X-Men 1 & 2. If you think those are even remotely accurate then I would guess that you have never read the X-Men comics. But even though they are not very accurate they are still good films.

I look at what comes up on that silver screen (or is likely to). Lately, there have been more disappointments than winners IMO and I find myself going to my personal collection of favorites (book or video). These are ENDURING or they wouldn't be on the shelf.

There are always more disappointments than there are winners, not just in movies, but in everything.

Even with all the hype in the world, if a movie sucks, word-of-mouth by the end of the first week is going to kill it quicker than Mr. Big Name Director did up front when he first felt the urge to make it and the money boys figured they could catch a ride on his fraying coat tails.

This is hardly true, if it was then all three of the SW prequels would have flopped.

They say you're only as good as your last movie and I think that should have applied here. In Spielberg's case, the "magic" is just not there anymore IMO and we will once again be treated to an overdose of cinematic pap.

Again this also is a fallacy. If it wasn't then the LOTR trilogy would have been a disaster. GMK would have been the best Kaiju film ever made and it is hardly even close to that. GFW would have been a huge success instead of the major flop that it was.

[Saruman]

Yes, that is what GOOD STORYTELLING is about. Here, I believe, we are referring to the Hollywood (and so many other area's) focus on simply grabbing our money and running, damned if we get any real bang for our bucks or not. Look what the black and white Univerisal classics were able to do with their cinematography! Even the matte shots in the WIZARD OF OZ had a believable "magic" to them, especially with the incorporation of color for the Oz locations. Simple by today's standards, of course but it worked, just like the radio broadcast of WOTW unintentionally did.

Exactly it is good storytelling. The problem is that you, Clint and others have already decided that this film is a complete waste simply because Speilberg has made changes that YOU don't agree with. This is all before you have even seen the film to know if those changes have worked or not.

Now THAT was not manipulation but the AUDIENCE using their imaginations.

Sorry but that WAS manipulation, that whole broadcast was about manipulating people. The intent was to scare them which it clearly did and that is manipulation. They just didn't expect it to have the full blown effect that it did.

Of course, that isn't expected anymore. Could that also be why no one seems to read things called BOOKS anymore? This is how you can really get yourself into a story, be it on the screen, written or just via audio.

I don't know about where you are, but book stores in my area are always loaded with people. I think people read more today than they ever have. Just because they may not be seen reading a book doesn't mean they are not reading something worthwhile. A lot of people do read books and other things online now.

Why do some people listen to scanners? I'm guessing for the vicarious thrill they get from a police chase or fire/rescue units responding to a call. They at least go to the trouble to familiarize themselves with the local 10-codes and such so they can understand the "shorthand" these live action "adventures" come across in.

The main reason would be simple curiosity, then the thrill of it.

On the big screen, the same scenario would no doubt have impossible stunts and exchanges of gunfire going on to "make it more interesting". Duh! :sarcasm: You want "interesting"? Get your own adrenalin pumping sometime. Having been lucky enough to be able to do just that real time and watching GOOD movies, why can't we still expect the same? That's what we're paying for, isn't it? Even if it isn't all action, SUSPENSE is a very important storytelling element. Build up to the appearance of the monster or whatever. Give us a "ride" for a change.

How do you know this movie isn't going to give you just that? You haven't even seen it yet and everything you say about it is complete negativity. You have already convinced yourself that this movie isn't going to be any good, so why would you even bother spending the money to go see it, your just going to be disappointed no matter what.

What I think was neat about the JAWS experience was so many people being scared to go in the water (even fresh, inland bodies) after seeing this film.

No that was just stupidity, anyone that was afraid to go swimming in a lake because of Jaws should have been put in an institution.

It was like how a bunch of us got scared out of our wits by INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN and taking a shortcut home through the woods.

LOL

You're comparing Morgoth with Spielburg? Stevie boy should take lessons from him! :laugh:

Sure why not, that way I know he's read it.;) Besides if Stevie boy did that his next movie would be something like Jaws vs The Alien War Machine taking place in the Cthulhu setting.:laugh:

SOMETIMES it succeeds. Don't we all have our favorite recipes for certain dishes? "Mamma's cooking is the best!", etc.? This is often ADDING TO the basic concept. I liked the original movie version of WOTW and consider those ships the DEFINITIVE Martian spacecraft, as well as the "death ray". That movie DELIVERED, pure and simple. At the same time, I can also listen to my audio tape of the original broadcast and IMAGINE the east coast in for some mighty big problems. You want "updates"? A high school drama class localized the script and did it over the PA system for a Halloween event. It was still WOTW as it was intended IMO because the SPIRIT was there.

Exactly sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't. But to bash on it the way you guys are is simply sad. Do you go into a resturant and look over the menu and say a dish is bad simply because it's not made the way you like it? Because it's the same thing here, your already saying it's bad before you have even tasted it.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they aren't tossing this "demographic" into the mix strictly for further return possibilities. I just don't think the muppet set can handle WOTW myself but that's me. Oh, how I hate statistics and those lemmings who become them. WOTW a "family" movie? Are they going to be dysfunctional so the audience can better "relate"? Why not take the high road for a change? I really didn't like the way the set-up was introduced in E.T. but at least the kids prevailed. Nowadays, I seriously have my doubts, what with everything from Barney to Child Protective Services having been thrown into the mix.

I seriously don't think Dakota Fanning is going to have the teeny bopper crowd clammoring to see this movie. Hell most of them probably don't even know who she is.

I'd say it's a good reason for a red flag to go up.

I wouldn't say so because that is pretty much every movie. So in effect you are saying that every movie should be red flagged.

Spiderman is one of those rare COMPLICATED characters (due to excellent development over the years). There is only so much running time available to the film maker. Wouldn't this "genius" element taken away from Peter's very human doubts about his other predicaments? Maybe it can be incorprated on down the line in future films, which I'm hoping to see, PROVIDED they continue in the same degree of overall quality as the last one.

It can't be incorporated back in because his webbing is now a natural product produced by his body. He would have absolutely no reason to make his web shooters. Just because he is a complicated character doesn't mean that you can't add it in, especially when you will keep seeing Spidey movies for some time. It's like taking away Batmans utility belt and just giving him the abilities to use whenever he wants, it's just wrong.

For many of us, we can't help but draw on past experiences, be they personal or what we've seen in the movies. I think the producers are simply looking at numbers, not CUSTOMERS. Look at the Disney legacy (or not, for that matter...) They don't share the same approach as FANS do and thereby can't (or won't) relate to us. It's "Here it is. That'll be $6.00." End of story.

There is nothing wrong with using past experiences, but when you let them rule over you and make decisions for you, before you get the chance to see something and form an educated opinion, then that is more of a problem than the possibablity of a bad movie IMO.

$6.00 for a movie, are you sure your not in the Victorian era?:laugh:

[Raptor]

Why is that Raptor, simply because I don't agree with Clint in this case, so I am not listening to him?
From Morgoth's various posts in this topic. I realize how huge it is so I simply went back and grabbed some points I'm keying on:

That would be the only way to go with this film, in my opinion. Set it in the late 1800's and keep it pretty faithful to the book. That said, as this is Spielberg we're talking about, I have serious doubts that the final film will be any good. The Spielberg who was a craftsman and took a great deal of time and care with his films doesn't exist anymore, if you ask me... I can't think of one I've enjoyed since 'Saving Private Ryan' and even that movie had some horribly contrived sequences. Still, maybe the old Spielberg, the one who wasn't obsessed with slapping walkie talkies into the hands of Federal agents in ET, will come crawling out of his PC-riddled shell and we might see a decent movie.Personally, THIS is the setting I would like to have seen due to all the "modern" takes we already have. The old "variety" thing, if you will. But since that is not going to happen with this film, might as well analyze what we will no doubt be getting. Have several of us lost our "innocence" about movies over the years? Quite possibly. This is a MOVIE forum, after all, so we pretty much cut loose. No Eberts and all that, just week-enders out for (hopefully) a good show.

Originally Posted by kent I think too many people are afraid of change.
Some films based off of books need to be updated to suit the current audience's wants. Would you rather see the aliens destroy an early 1900s city or a vast city with great destruction like the ones we have now? It needs to be updated so today's audience can relate to it and see just how it could happen in today's world.

Here's the problem, Kent, we've already been BURNED by way too many of these 'lets do something completely new and totally wacky with this' ideas in the last few years. Take that abysmal 'Planet of the Apes' re-imagining. Take the 're-imagining' of 'Time Machine' a few years ago. A handful of good ideas, then absolute stupidity when he gets to the realm of the Eloi and Morlocks (and, sadly, how could they manage to completely miss what made Morlocks so scary - that they were still recognizable as human beings, not monkey monsters). Here, let me drive the stake home a bit - 'Van Helsing' and its reinvention of Abraham (dammit!) Van Helsing as some supernatural Vatican monster assassin, or Castle Dracula as a poor cousin to Isengard, the Frankenstein Monster as this whiney steam-powered twerp, nevermind Dracula himself. And speaking of Dracula, there's another good character to focus on for the 'going in a new direction' being something that can misfire so hideously as to destroy any semblance to what it is supposed to be based on. I'm surprised some moron hasn't decided to have Dracula as being Adolf Hitler in some crackpot drivel that Hollywood would probably happily send $30 million towards.

Change can be good, but there comes a point where so much is being altered that you have to stop and consider 'is this even what it is supposed to be any more?' At that point, they should have the decency to step back and either adjust their thinking or simply discard any connection to their supposed source material. What is Spielburg really ;)going to be ADDING to the WOTW story? I know what I want from a film and it may not be what the "majority" is looking for. Hollywood isn't that concerned with us minority "fuss budgets" and we realize it. We're the "MAYBE I'll check it out when it comes out on TV/video" crowd that all the hype just isn't going to impress but oh, well. There will be plenty butts filling the seats come opening night.
The suspense in any film derives from giving the audience an investment in the characters, not the trapings of technology which surround them.
Spielberg is missing a chance to invest a great deal of wonder into the film by having it set in a historic timeframe rather than trying to have something that is 'updated' for the sort of couch potato vermin who would probably watch paint dry if it was marketed properly (and then rant about how cool it was). Several of us participating in this discussion are just not "targetted". Maybe it's a generation thing but stick around a while and/or escape the 12-29 demographic. This is not by any means directed toward Saru or those members who do fall within that age group but just reminding everyone who the average Hollywood film is aimed at, for better or worse.
To this post, you replied:

What made the original WotW so great is that it RELATED TO THE TIME it was set in.

As I asked Charles, and I will ask you the same thing. What is a person today going to be able to relate to more, an Alien War Machine trampling 70 year old technology or an Alien War Maching trampling todays technology? What is going to have the greater impact on them? What is going to make them sit on the edge of their seat?

If your going to "RE-tell" this story, then you have to update it and make it relate to the times and people of today, because that was what the original did better than anything else, it related to the time it was in. That is what makes that story so great, it's not the writing or the characters, it's that you can change the time it takes place in and still have the exact same story with current technology, that was the true brilliance of the book. This story works in ANY time frame with a simple facelift.Maybe I am tired of today's technology. I want to see that, there's the evening news, the local armory and all kinds of military references to refer to. I want something different, pure and simple. I am a "today" person also, a minimum of 40 hours a week, etc. and have been for a while. Maybe that's the key right there; very simply put: BEEN THERE, DONE THAT and that goes for getting tired of the same old DULL, UNIMAGINATIVE moviemaking coming out of Hollywood. Thank goodness for kaiju eiga!
You wrote:
WOTW worked so well because it reflected the people and happenings of the time, that was what made it so effective. By updating the story Speilberg can make it relate to us, the people of this time, which gives it much more impact to todays movie goer. That is the key, the little lowest common denominator that has been targetted. I must initially disagree with you about Spielburg's ability to pull it off ON A PERSONAL LEVEL due to his previous track record and considering my own preferences. We will see when the film comes out.
Your post:
The radio broadcast was effective because it related to the times. Radio was still fairly new and they took advantage of that and the state of things OF THAT TIME.

Do you think you can relate to the terror of the people that were effected by that radio broadcast? It works because it relates directly to the people of that era and just retelling it is not going to have the same type of effect on a much later generation.I can relate to strictly audio information as we use two-way radios for communication on a daily basis. Along that line, look how much time people spend on cell phones. You would think the "audio input gene" would have been reactivated by now but I guess not. If it ain't on CNN, it ain't happening, right? ;) Observing and getting to know how people are likely to react to certain things is also part of the personal mix but I am a lousy SPECTATOR when it comes to movies I can't relate to due to improbable scenarios. I am not referring to the fantasy/fiction element so much as stupid dialogue and actors' responses. Tactical and technical gaffes? Oh, boy! :crazy: THIS is supposed to be part of the producer/director's job, not the audience's, BTW. You know what? When some of the folks on this very forum get so disgusted with current offerings and post, "I could do better than THAT!!!", I very often have to agree it's so bad.
Now for Goji Son's comments:
There are plenty of stories that can be adapted into any time frame whether it be modern or Renaissance and it could still be good. To me it's not about accuracy of the setting or dialogue and how much the story paraellel itself to the different mediums, it's about getting the point across.

It's all about get the very basic ideas on the screen and showcasing them, there is no way to can accurately interpret a book on to the stage and/or film without having differences and vice versa. They are all very different artforms not to mention you have a different storyteller everytime.

Now if Speilberg does take some liberties to the basic storylines (namely the ending) and themes then we have a problem. Then the film should not even be called WOTW. Yep. Here come the Martians! At least THAT will be there and should get sci fi fans into the theater. Now, we will have to see what Spielburg does with the rest of the running time. Oh, it's got a kid star in it. Junior and little Susie should like that. Everyone should be familiar with the basics, which is what the title should tell us. Should we not expect some big things from Spielburg, beyond the "basics"?
You posted:
What made WOTW so effective was how it reflected the times it was set in. People lived the same way, the worked similar jobs, they had similar values, ect. they could understand the people in the story because they were similar to them.

That is what you want todays audience to feel when they go to this movie. They want the viewers to "feel" like it could be them up there on the screen running for their lives. That is something your not going to get in a period piece, because people of today just can not relate to a time that they never experienced. That lessens the impact of the film on the audience. I just don't think films today make an effort to truly involve the audience. It ends up more the director's little trip than ours IMO, whoever "we" might happen to be.

The concept was fine, but the execution could have been done so much better and should have been better from such a talented writer. Again, great ideas and bad execution. It's like having to run a project through a committee rather than going with the initial prototype.

DareDevil is another movie that many people didn't like. But was the movie unfaithful to the character, no it wasn't and it was actually much more accurate than people would like to admit and it captured the spirit of the character probably better than Spiderman did.

How about X-Men 1 & 2. If you think those are even remotely accurate then I would guess that you have never read the X-Men comics. But even though they are not very accurate they are still good films.I never got into the Daredevil or X-Men comics myself by enjoyed the latter's cartoon. Of course, many of us associated the traditional costumes with them, just like the Green Goblin you mentioned. Did the new outfits work? I think so but I wasn't that impressed with the first X-Men movie. It also bothered me that a good friend who is a huge fan of them was so disappointed. Again, the overall package just not "working".


There are always more disappointments than there are winners, not just in movies, but in everything. Yes, that seems to be the case so we try to put the odds in our favor. It can be a pretty much hit-or-miss process but some of us do work at it more than others. Picky? Yep. Sorry about that. Take it or leave it.

Even with all the hype in the world, if a movie sucks, word-of-mouth by the end of the first week is going to kill it quicker than Mr. Big Name Director did up front when he first felt the urge to make it and the money boys figured they could catch a ride on his fraying coat tails.
This is hardly true, if it was then all three of the SW prequels would have flopped. I'm looking at a relatively small sample here of locals who expressed their opinions on them. Many of us who get together via work or otherwise are quite often in agreement on stuff. Naturally, we tend to have a lot of other things in common, no doubt including a certain degree of cynicism that comes with age, personal experience and other factors you won't find in the "average" moviegoer but hey, we're people too!

They say you're only as good as your last movie and I think that should have applied here. In Spielberg's case, the "magic" is just not there anymore IMO and we will once again be treated to an overdose of cinematic pap.
Again this also is a fallacy. If it wasn't then the LOTR trilogy would have been a disaster. GMK would have been the best Kaiju film ever made and it is hardly even close to that. GFW would have been a huge success instead of the major flop that it was.Focusing on Spielburg, I just cannot honestly simply rely on his "name" to convince me to get as excited about this film as I would like to. LOTR delivered. GMK, I believe, went over a lot of kaiju fans' heads, pure and simple, but that is my opinion. GFW I can only consider a MTV mish-mash. Did it go over MY head? Possibly, but I don't sit down to watch kaiju eiga trying to emulate "American" moviemaking". And THAT should bring us back to MY gripes with the whole thing! ;)

[Raptor]

The problem is that you, Clint and others have already decided that this film is a complete waste simply because Speilberg has made changes that YOU don't agree with. This is all before you have even seen the film to know if those changes have worked or not.Those red flags went up, all right. Now, we are at the stage of waiting for the early reviews but in the meanwhile, I can appreciate your defense/promotion of the film. I personally see no need to be first in line to see this or about ANY discretionary event that doesn't have limited access. Feedback will be duly considered and we will take it from there, no doubt.

Sorry but that WAS manipulation, that whole broadcast was about manipulating people. The intent was to scare them which it clearly did and that is manipulation. They just didn't expect it to have the full blown effect that it did. You had mentioned that such a thing couldn't happen nowadays. Iben "Wrong" Browning's earthquake "prediction" succeeded, DESPITE extensive "counter-programming", namely REPUTABLE sources trying to convince folks it was a bunch of BS. The media being a vector? Yes, it was with the broadcast. In "real time", be it back then or during the countdown to Browning's "event", the catalyst was PEOPLE: THEY fed the panic. With a film, it should be able to invoke emotion. Why are some of us dissing WOTW before seeing it? Past experience, and bad ones at that.

I don't know about where you are, but book stores in my area are always loaded with people. I think people read more today than they ever have. A lot of people do read books and other things online now. We have exactly one bookstore that I personally appreciate but I gather the number of people who read ANYTHING is declining. I quick run through Dogpile gives conflicting data which I won't bother to sort out. Let's just say that the local Literacy Council has its work cut out for it.

Exactly sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't. But to bash on it the way you guys are is simply sad. Do you go into a resturant and look over the menu and say a dish is bad simply because it's not made the way you like it? Because it's the same thing here, your already saying it's bad before you have even tasted it. If you don't like liver, you're sure not going to order it to begin with. Same with shellfish if you've discovered you're allergic to it. I'm sure most of us have a mental list of where to find the best versions of our favorite dishes. Experiment with new things? Sure! Everyone eaten a raw oyster, rattlesnake meat, mountain oyster, crawdad, sushi, etc. Now jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, I will draw the line! :laugh:
So in effect you are saying that every movie should be red flagged. Lately, that is pretty much the way it's looking, I'm afraid...

It can't be incorporated back in because his webbing is now a natural product produced by his body. He would have absolutely no reason to make his web shooters. Just because he is a complicated character doesn't mean that you can't add it in, especially when you will keep seeing Spidey movies for some time. I should have wrote, "Maybe his 'genius' element can be incorprated on down the line..." He also lost his powers for a bit so that could also provide an opportunity for him to hit the lab.

There is nothing wrong with using past experiences, but when you let them rule over you and make decisions for you, before you get the chance to see something and form an educated opinion, then that is more of a problem than the possibablity of a bad movie IMO. I see it (and about any decision making) as using whatever "tools" you have at your disposal; the "informed consumer" thing. Sidewinders bite. Stay away from the snake hole - that kind of thing. ;)

$6.00 for a movie, are you sure your not in the Victorian era?:laugh:MALCO THEATRES

Child Adult Senior
Matinee$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00
Evening$ 4.00$ 6.00$ 4.00

Hey, it used to be 25 cents!

[Charles RB]

It's an EXAMPLE, you do comprehend what that is don't you

Yes. But your example doesn't make sense. You're associating WW2-era tank regiments being destroyed as having the exact same effect as 19th century regiments made up of massive amounts of soldiers being mowed down on-screen. The two aren't the same. The example you keep bringing up doesn't work.

I'm not comparing machines to humans. I am comparing modern infantry to older infantry, I am comparing modern machines to older machines.

Which is flawed because in a WOTW period-piece, there wouldn't be older machines besides 19th Century artillery being wheeled into place- instead, the lack of mechanisation means more soldiers on screen to be killed. And humans being killed in large numbers is more impressive than tanks being destroyed in large numbers.

Plus I've seen modern tech and aliens (and giant monsters et al) blowing up snazzy looking tanks. I haven't seen 19th Century infantry being incinerated outside of LOEG Vol.2, and not even much in there. Gimme something new onscreen. Gimme some incineration!

You can understand the characters NOT relate to them.

What crappy historical fiction are you reading/watching that can't make you relate to the main character? That's the damn basics in storytelling.

By putting it in a modern setting, people will FEEL more like they can understand what the people are going through because they are in the same time period.

An alien invasion is an alien invasion whether it's set in the past or the present. It's not hard to understand what people being invaded by genocidal aliens are going to be going through when it's going to be on-screen.

I was never thrilled with Jaws

...Now I know there's something wrong with you. ;)

How do you know this, you haven't seen anything more than a few little snips of film which tell you absolutely nothing.

Those few snippets form the trailers which are meant to tell us what we can expect from the film and get our interest. If the trailer that's meant to represent the film to potential audiences isn't showing dark, brooding sense of impending doom, it's not entirely unreasonable to assume it won't be in the film either or is at least being downplayed in the film. If it's not... why wasn't that DBRiID in the trailer?

I guess that any movie that has a high profile actor, known child actor, SPFX and based on an existing work is automatically shoddy, gee that goes for just about 97% of every movie ever made.

And since it's a general rule of thumb that 90% of everything is bad... ;)

How do you know this movie isn't going to give you just that? You haven't even seen it yet and everything you say about it is complete negativity.

The trailer was underwhelming, with only that shot of the evacuation looking really interesting (how many extras did they hire?!). So while the movie could deliver, I'm not giving it the benefit of the doubt just yet.

Besides if Stevie boy did that his next movie would be something like Jaws vs The Alien War Machine taking place in the Cthulhu setting.

The Lost World would certainly have been more interesting... :D

[Saruman]

What is Spielburg really ;)going to be ADDING to the WOTW story? I know what I want from a film and it may not be what the "majority" is looking for. Hollywood isn't that concerned with us minority "fuss budgets" and we realize it. We're the "MAYBE I'll check it out when it comes out on TV/video" crowd that all the hype just isn't going to impress but oh, well. There will be plenty butts filling the seats come opening night.

That is the problem though, YOUR wants. You have already gotten it into your head that you don't want to like this movie because it didn't meet with your preconcieved idea as to what it should be. Even if this is a great film you are already hampering your ability to enjoy it and possibably like it simply because you don't want to.

Several of us participating in this discussion are just not "targetted". Maybe it's a generation thing but stick around a while and/or escape the 12-29 demographic. This is not by any means directed toward Saru or those members who do fall within that age group but just reminding everyone who the average Hollywood film is aimed at, for better or worse.
Do you think I am in that age group, ROFL :laugh: . Try again I am older than most of the members on this forum, including Clint & Brandon. but thanks for the compliment.;)

Maybe I am tired of today's technology. I want to see that, there's the evening news, the local armory and all kinds of military references to refer to. I want something different, pure and simple. I am a "today" person also, a minimum of 40 hours a week, etc. and have been for a while. Maybe that's the key right there; very simply put: BEEN THERE, DONE THAT and that goes for getting tired of the same old DULL, UNIMAGINATIVE moviemaking coming out of Hollywood. Thank goodness for kaiju eiga!

What is really funny about this, Read this comment you made, your talking about being unimaginative and doing the same old stuff and not taking chances. Doing WOTW like the book is exactly what you are saying you dislike. WOTW has been done before in every medium possible. So just making another cookie cutter WOTW story isn't anything special. Changing the setting does change it and put a new spin on it. Speilberg isn't giving you what you want because what you actually want has been done, he is giving you exactly what you are complaining isn't being done, making it different.

That is the key, the little lowest common denominator that has been targetted. I must initially disagree with you about Spielburg's ability to pull it off ON A PERSONAL LEVEL due to his previous track record and considering my own preferences. We will see when the film comes out.

His recent track record you mean. If you look at his entire film history he has much more impactful movies than not. Even you cited not wanting to go into the water after seeing Jaws. Just because he hasn't had great luck lately does not mean that he isn't capable of making an incredible movie anymore.

I can relate to strictly audio information as we use two-way radios for communication on a daily basis. Along that line, look how much time people spend on cell phones. You would think the "audio input gene" would have been reactivated by now but I guess not. If it ain't on CNN, it ain't happening, right? ;) Observing and getting to know how people are likely to react to certain things is also part of the personal mix but I am a lousy SPECTATOR when it comes to movies I can't relate to due to improbable scenarios. I am not referring to the fantasy/fiction element so much as stupid dialogue and actors' responses. Tactical and technical gaffes? Oh, boy! :crazy: THIS is supposed to be part of the producer/director's job, not the audience's, BTW. You know what? When some of the folks on this very forum get so disgusted with current offerings and post, "I could do better than THAT!!!", I very often have to agree it's so bad.

You didn't answer the question I posed, you went off in a totally different direction. The question though was this.... Would the WOTW radio broadcast work on todays populace like it did back then? (assuming of course that this was the first time it was ever broadcast)And why or why not?

It's a very simple and straight forward question that anyone should be able to answer directly.

Yep. Here come the Martians! At least THAT will be there and should get sci fi fans into the theater. Now, we will have to see what Spielburg does with the rest of the running time.

If the basics are there, then there shouldn't be any problem with the rest of it.

Oh, it's got a kid star in it. Junior and little Susie should like that.

So now every time a movie has a child actor in the film it's automatically a bad thing? Sorry but that line of thinking is pretty much out there with things like, "If it's not CGI it sucks."

Everyone should be familiar with the basics, which is what the title should tell us.

Doesn't it do that for you?

Should we not expect some big things from Spielburg, beyond the "basics"?

Sure, not that you guys are giving him even a chance though before jumping all over the movie because it isn't that precious "Period Piece."

I just don't think films today make an effort to truly involve the audience. It ends up more the director's little trip than ours IMO, whoever "we" might happen to be.

And a lot of movie goers don't give the films the opportunity to do that either. You yourself have already formed an opinion of the film without seeing it and seem more than determined to not like the movie even if it is good, simply because it didn't meet your expectations in the beginning.

Again, great ideas and bad execution. It's like having to run a project through a committee rather than going with the initial prototype.

Not really as that was his story, he had full control of it and it was him who sold the rights for it to be made into a movie. There was no committee just himself.

I never got into the Daredevil or X-Men comics myself by enjoyed the latter's cartoon. Of course, many of us associated the traditional costumes with them, just like the Green Goblin you mentioned. Did the new outfits work? I think so but I wasn't that impressed with the first X-Men movie. It also bothered me that a good friend who is a huge fan of them was so disappointed. Again, the overall package just not "working".

The X-Men outfits were fine, they were based on the newer comics which dropped most of the fancy costumes for a more militant look, so they actually were pretty close to accurate.

The point though is that they were both good movies even though they did stray quite alot from the comics. They pretty much forced 4-5 eras/generations of X-Men together in a blender and just started picking out pieces they wanted. Did this hurt the film, for someone like me that was a hardcore comic collector and has an exceptionally large X-men collection, yes it did, but I didn't let that ruin the film for me and I still see how good the movie was barring that.

Yes, that seems to be the case so we try to put the odds in our favor. It can be a pretty much hit-or-miss process but some of us do work at it more than others. Picky? Yep. Sorry about that. Take it or leave it.

Putting the odds in your favor is fine, but when you skew the odds so baddly before hand then you are just doing yourself a disservice.

I'm looking at a relatively small sample here of locals who expressed their opinions on them. Many of us who get together via work or otherwise are quite often in agreement on stuff. Naturally, we tend to have a lot of other things in common, no doubt including a certain degree of cynicism that comes with age, personal experience and other factors you won't find in the "average" moviegoer but hey, we're people too!
I hope your people as well, otherwise I will have to get a cold and kill you.;) But age isn't the issue, I know just as many stupid adults as I know stupid kids, I also know just as many smart kids as I know smart adults.

Focusing on Spielburg, I just cannot honestly simply rely on his "name" to convince me to get as excited about this film as I would like to. LOTR delivered. GMK, I believe, went over a lot of kaiju fans' heads, pure and simple, but that is my opinion. GFW I can only consider a MTV mish-mash. Did it go over MY head? Possibly, but I don't sit down to watch kaiju eiga trying to emulate "American" moviemaking". And THAT should bring us back to MY gripes with the whole thing! ;)

If your going to a movie just because of the director then I think something is wrong there. I could care less about who is making the movie, if it turns out good, awesome, if it turns out bad, then oh well. But it's the movie itself that is going to make me go see it, not the person behind the camera or sitting in the directors/producers chair.

That is something that a lot of people do today. They see a directors name and run off to see the film simply because he made a film they liked before. They could care less if the film itself is something they are interested in, they just go expecting great things. I like to think of this as the "GMK Effect" now.;)

[Saruman]

Those red flags went up, all right. Now, we are at the stage of waiting for the early reviews but in the meanwhile, I can appreciate your defense/promotion of the film. I personally see no need to be first in line to see this or about ANY discretionary event that doesn't have limited access. Feedback will be duly considered and we will take it from there, no doubt.

It has nothing to do with defending/promoting the film, I haven't made any decisions about it yet and wont until I see it. It's the attitude that "OMG THEY CHANGED SOMETHING FROM THE BOOK THIS WILL SUCK NOW" that is so grating it isn't even funny. Judge the film once you see it and can make an informed opinion. If you think it sucks then fine, but trying to tell people how bad its going to be before you have seen it is pretty pointless.

You had mentioned that such a thing couldn't happen nowadays. Iben "Wrong" Browning's earthquake "prediction" succeeded, DESPITE extensive "counter-programming", namely REPUTABLE sources trying to convince folks it was a bunch of BS. The media being a vector? Yes, it was with the broadcast. In "real time", be it back then or during the countdown to Browning's "event", the catalyst was PEOPLE: THEY fed the panic. With a film, it should be able to invoke emotion. Why are some of us dissing WOTW before seeing it? Past experience, and bad ones at that.

Slight difference here, earthquakes ARE REAL, aliens are Sci-Fi/Fantasy stuff. As I said in the previous post, you didn't answer the question you went in another direction just like you have again here.

We have exactly one bookstore that I personally appreciate but I gather the number of people who read ANYTHING is declining. I quick run through Dogpile gives conflicting data which I won't bother to sort out. Let's just say that the local Literacy Council has its work cut out for it.

Then I guess I can only conclude that you are in a very bad area, because I have so many bookstores around me it isn't even funny, and they are always loaded with people.

If you don't like liver, you're sure not going to order it to begin with. Same with shellfish if you've discovered you're allergic to it. I'm sure most of us have a mental list of where to find the best versions of our favorite dishes. Experiment with new things? Sure! Everyone eaten a raw oyster, rattlesnake meat, mountain oyster, crawdad, sushi, etc. Now jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, I will draw the line!

But you can't make an informed decision/opinion unless you actually give something a chance and try it now can you, and I don't see much of that happening here.

Lately, that is pretty much the way it's looking, I'm afraid...

I don't see it that way, the majority of films I choose to go see are films that I like quite a bit.

I should have wrote, "Maybe his 'genius' element can be incorprated on down the line..." He also lost his powers for a bit so that could also provide an opportunity for him to hit the lab.

It's still wouldn't be the same though, the web shooters are unique and have been such a part of the character for so long. To throw them in as an afterthought would simply be a waste at this point, the damage has already been done.

I see it (and about any decision making) as using whatever "tools" you have at your disposal; the "informed consumer" thing. Sidewinders bite. Stay away from the snake hole - that kind of thing.

Sidewinders also have a striking distance of 2/3 rds their length so you can stay out of their range and still enjoy seeing them. Not to mention that most snakes don't want to strike and will actually remain pretty docile if you observe them without threatening them. You don't have to "stay away" if your informed and show it some respect.;)

MALCO THEATRES

Child Adult Senior
Matinee$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00
Evening$ 4.00$ 6.00$ 4.00

Hey, it used to be 25 cents!

Do they have motorized projectors or ones with hand cranks, LOL.:laugh: Hell even our matinees are more than the price of your regular showings.

[Saruman]

Yes. But your example doesn't make sense. You're associating WW2-era tank regiments being destroyed as having the exact same effect as 19th century regiments made up of massive amounts of soldiers being mowed down on-screen. The two aren't the same. The example you keep bringing up doesn't work.

No, thats the way YOU are taking what I said. I can't do much about it if you take it differently then it was meant, and I explained it to you numerous times.

Which is flawed because in a WOTW period-piece, there wouldn't be older machines besides 19th Century artillery being wheeled into place- instead, the lack of mechanisation means more soldiers on screen to be killed. And humans being killed in large numbers is more impressive than tanks being destroyed in large numbers.

What is so hard for you to grasp here, its an example, simply comparing something older with something newer. I'm not trying to make it compare the machines in the book with what we have today. I'm just showing you a comparrison and how it can/can't work. You're taking it so litterly it isn't even funny, WWII is just an easy time to use because more people will know about that then 19th century stuff.

Plus I've seen modern tech and aliens (and giant monsters et al) blowing up snazzy looking tanks. I haven't seen 19th Century infantry being incinerated outside of LOEG Vol.2, and not even much in there. Gimme something new onscreen. Gimme some incineration!

This is something new, which is exactly what you are asking for. WOTW has been done in every format you can think of in its "Period Piece" format as you like to call it. WOTW in a modern setting has not been done before. Just because you want to believe crap like ID4 is WOTW doesn't make it so. The funny thing is you're complaining you want something different but that is exactly what you are getting. What you really want is the original WOTW format exactly like it's been done numerous times. Pretty ironic that you are saying you want change when you really don't.

What crappy historical fiction are you reading/watching that can't make you relate to the main character? That's the damn basics in storytelling.

You're concept of "relating" and "understanding" are really messed up. I already explained it to you quite indepth if you haven't gotten it by now you probably never will but I'll give it one more shot. Please explain to me how you can "relate" to someone being incinerated? How have you actually experienced that so you are able to relate to the pain and suffering the person feels? Answer is you can't, you can only understand what they are going through and try to imagine what it must be like, you can never relate to it unless you actually experience it.

An alien invasion is an alien invasion whether it's set in the past or the present. It's not hard to understand what people being invaded by genocidal aliens are going to be going through when it's going to be on-screen.

You still miss the point. It makes a huge difference because the times are so drastically different. How are you going to relate to the terror of a 19th century person seeing a Alien War Machine? 19th century people had different views, values, ethics and a completely different way of life than you have now. And no matter how much reading you do on it, you will never be able to relate to it, you can only try to understand it because you never experienced it and never will.

...Now I know there's something wrong with you.

Sorry shark movies don't do much for me. When they actually grow legs and walk onto land then maybe sharks will do more for me.

Those few snippets form the trailers which are meant to tell us what we can expect from the film and get our interest. If the trailer that's meant to represent the film to potential audiences isn't showing dark, brooding sense of impending doom, it's not entirely unreasonable to assume it won't be in the film either or is at least being downplayed in the film. If it's not... why wasn't that DBRiID in the trailer?

There to get intrest yes, but they aren't telling you anything. But since they have told you so much please explain to everyone what it is that the trailers told you exactly?

And since it's a general rule of thumb that 90% of everything is bad...

Only if you watch everything.;)

The trailer was underwhelming, with only that shot of the evacuation looking really interesting (how many extras did they hire?!). So while the movie could deliver, I'm not giving it the benefit of the doubt just yet.

Ok, so you have explaine that there is an evacuation going on from the trailer. Cool, you can continue with what else it told you?

The Lost World would certainly have been more interesting... :D

Wont argue with that because it was the worst of the three films.

[Raptor]

That is the problem though, YOUR wants. You have already gotten it into your head that you don't want to like this movie because it didn't meet with your preconcieved idea as to what it should be. Even if this is a great film you are already hampering your ability to enjoy it and possibably like it simply because you don't want to.I would say PREFERENCES. I wouldn't say I want to not like the film so much as it's simply leaning toward the red zone. Can I be pleasantly surprised? Possibly.
What is really funny about this, Read this comment you made, your talking about being unimaginative and doing the same old stuff and not taking chances. Doing WOTW like the book is exactly what you are saying you dislike.I would have PREFERRED a full blown period piece, yes. THAT would have been different. Yes, WOTW has been done in a bunch of different CONTEMPORARY ways. The only real change we'll be seeing is a 2005 setting vs. the 50s, updated SFX and a focus on a family unit instead of a rattled academic. "A new spin"? Not as much as the TV series took IMO.
If you look at his entire film history he has much more impactful movies than not. Even you cited not wanting to go into the water after seeing Jaws. Just because he hasn't had great luck lately does not mean that he isn't capable of making an incredible movie anymore. We will see, won't we? ;)
You didn't answer the question I posed, you went off in a totally different direction. The question though was this.... Would the WOTW radio broadcast work on todays populace like it did back then? (assuming of course that this was the first time it was ever broadcast)And why or why not?
The original question/post (I think it's this one):
The radio broadcast was effective because it related to the times. Radio was still fairly new and they took advantage of that and the state of things OF THAT TIME.

Does anyone think that radio broadcast would work the same way today?

Do you think you can relate to the terror of the people that were effected by that radio broadcast?

It works because it relates directly to the people of that era and just retelling it is not going to have the same type of effect on a much later generation.The radio play caused a panic in its time. Radio was the main media of instant communication back then. Now we have all kinds of options. I mentioned the EFFECT Iben Browning's "prediction" had, which was also spread far and wide by "the media". People panicked. Panic can be quite contagious; you can actually sense it about to set in in some instances. A more "realistic" scenario than Martians? Sure, but once again, people went off half cocked and the results were similar (unfortunately). It's going to take A LOT to impress SOME of us with this movie. Do I think it will have the impact of JAWS on the audience? No. Do I want that same tension the original WOTW movie had in the farmhouse? Definitely! THAT kind of scene makes the Martians a lot more personal and scary than the War Machines IMO. Yes, they lead off the invasion and are impressive in many ways but the STORY, no matter when it is set, focuses on humans, not the Martians. This is what made TITANTIC the hit it was; not the ship but the people on it.
So now every time a movie has a child actor in the film it's automatically a bad thing? Not necessarily. I just cannot see a properly "intense" film like this being something to bring younger kids to.
Should we not expect some big things from Spielburg, beyond the "basics"?
Sure, not that you guys are giving him even a chance though before jumping all over the movie because it isn't that precious "Period Piece."It isn't that issue (which is moot) as much as other concerns.
You yourself have already formed an opinion of the film without seeing it and seem more than determined to not like the movie even if it is good, simply because it didn't meet your expectations in the beginning. A PRELIMINARY opinion. Look at the developments unfolding with the just announced Gamera film. We're basically still getting everything sorted out, including the TITLE on that one! :laugh: WOTW isn't even rated yet. I don't know what my schedule will be around the 29th or when the press will get to first see it and we start considering what the critics have to say about it. Frankly, I find myself more often in agreement with Ken Jackson (a local friend and sci fi fan) than Ebert & Co. Maybe by then, we'll all get properly hopped up to go "hunting Martians" and apply ourselves to getting to the movie house. As it stands, I can't see anyone calling in sick or otherwise playing hooky to make the opening.

There was no committee just himself. This is what gets us focusing on Spielburg and those concerns that have been brought up.

They pretty much forced 4-5 eras/generations of X-Men together in a blender and just started picking out pieces they wanted. Did this hurt the film, for someone like me that was a hardcore comic collector and has an exceptionally large X-men collection, yes it did, but I didn't let that ruin the film for me and I still see how good the movie was barring that. You were able to find good things in it. That's the way it should be with about any film. Still, you yourself agree they "picked out the pieces they wanted." Spielburg no doubt did the same thing. We will soon see exactly WHAT he selected (and how he handles it). Will the film exceed our expectations? I hope so as it is a favorite story.
But age isn't the issue, I know just as many stupid adults as I know stupid kids, I also know just as many smart kids as I know smart adults. Same here. I would say VARYING EXPERIENCES are what we're dealing with, like you mention with the greater number of literary customers you see in your area.

If your going to a movie just because of the director then I think something is wrong there. I could care less about who is making the movie, if it turns out good, awesome, if it turns out bad, then oh well. But it's the movie itself that is going to make me go see it, not the person behind the camera or sitting in the directors/producers chair. Same here, and that goes for who's acting in it. Cruise, the "international superstar"? Woopey do! Actually, it might be fun seeing HIM running from a Martian... :laugh: Too bad you didn't get to be in it, tho. I believe THAT would have gotten about EVERY Rooster to the theater on opening night!

[Raptor]

It has nothing to do with defending/promoting the film, I haven't made any decisions about it yet and wont until I see it. It's the attitude that "OMG THEY CHANGED SOMETHING FROM THE BOOK THIS WILL SUCK NOW" that is so grating it isn't even funny. Judge the film once you see it and can make an informed opinion. If you think it sucks then fine, but trying to tell people how bad its going to be before you have seen it is pretty pointless.I don't believe I have declared WOTW a total loss, simply picking up on some items we have presently been made aware of. Can it all work afterall? Maybe.

But you can't make an informed decision/opinion unless you actually give something a chance and try it now can you, and I don't see much of that happening here. Not fully until we have seen it, no. NONE of us have seen it yet so discussion is purely speculative at this point. I am glad that it is taking place as it indicates a great amount of interest in the film among this group. A fitting tribute to the tale, IMO, regardless of how we might ultimately judge this latest version.

So in effect you are saying that every movie should be red flagged. Lately, that is pretty much the way it's looking, I'm afraid... I don't see it that way, the majority of films I choose to go see are films that I like quite a bit.There is a "Remake" topic I bumped up. That can signal a "warning". Why? Everything from "Lack of originality/new material" to "Just what is so 'bad' about the previous one?!" Yes, we choose to go see the films we believe we will like, just as we try to avoid "clunkers". I think the "Blockbuster" topic covers that.


Sidewinders also have a striking distance of 2/3 rds their length so you can stay out of their range and still enjoy seeing them. Not to mention that most snakes don't want to strike and will actually remain pretty docile if you observe them without threatening them. You don't have to "stay away" if your informed and show it some respect. "Keep your distance" would probably have been more accurate. Morgoth and Sauron can best continue with the rattlers. Water moccasins are more prevalent here. Somewhere among all the movie threads was mention of everything from hype to hyperventilating fanboys so yes, the old "Don't get snake bit" saw shows up. ;)
Do they have motorized projectors or ones with hand cranks, LOL.:laugh: Hell even our matinees are more than the price of your regular showings.Our Malco now has THREE SCREENS so there! :p That's when they finally got away from the gerbils. The furballs were taking too big a chunk out of the concession stock.

[Studio Asperger]

It's not so much the modern setting that's winding me up about this film. Hell, I wouldn't have a problem with the modern setting if the other elements that have cropped up in the trailers hadn't turned on my cynicism. The first trailer - with that re-interpretation of the book's opening - showed a ton of promise, but the trailers since then have lowered my expectations.

I'm not actively setting out to hate this film before I've even seen it, contrary to what my posts might suggest. I could end up being pleasantly surprised by it, but right now I'm not getting my hopes up.

Just one thing, though - where are all of these 'period pieces' you keep citing? I sure as hell can't find any - every adaptation I've noticed, whether it be radio or film, has been 'modern' in accordance with the time it was released in. As far as I'm aware a period piece adaptation has never been done before (though the Pendragon piece - if it ever gets released - looks like it might just rectify that). ID4 was little more than a modern WOTW (and a rather rubbish one at that), so I for one would've welcomed a period piece with open arms. I accept that I'm in the minority on this, but it would've made a nice change to not see modern gear get smashed. I can also understand how fully-faithful adaptations can go wrong, but I'm even more concerned with the amount of adaptations that have gone horribly wrong in the past because of Hollywood changing too many elements about it for the sake of 'marketablility'. Time will tell if Spielberg can reach a solid 'middle ground' with this movie, as LOTR and Spiderman managed.

At least with my unlimited card (I can watch as many movies as I want for a monthly fee) I won't feel like I've wasted money if the film turns out to be complete crud.

[Charles RB]

WOTW has been done in every format you can think of in its "Period Piece" format as you like to call it. WOTW in a modern setting has not been done before.

Wrong. The original WOTW film was doing the story in a modern-day setting (modern-day for the time of filming, anyway; ten years down the road, this WOTW film is going to be in the same dated boat). The infamous radio broadcast did the same thing, there was a comic series done a while back of the Martians invading again today, heard of a TV series doing the same...

I have not yet seen the Martians attack Victorian era on-screen. And while Speilberg's film could be a great WOTW film carrying the spirit of the books and all that good stuff, I'm still seeing the on-screen destruction of modern-day cities and I've seen that before. I don't mind seeing it again because destruction is fun, but on gut-reaction I'd rather have the film set in the 19th Century.

Plus when they change the setting, I get worried about what else will get changed. Like the way the Martians are beaten.

How are you going to relate to the terror of a 19th century person seeing a Alien War Machine?

Well, that's where acting, directing, background music and all that other good stuff come in.

There to get intrest yes, but they aren't telling you anything. But since they have told you so much please explain to everyone what it is that the trailers told you exactly?

They told me- here is the main character, here's his happy family, THEN SOMETHING BIG AND SCARY INVADED RAAAAARRRR and they're running away along with a lot of other people. Also a bridge or something (it wasn't that clear) full of people get tipped over and stuff gets smashed whilst a generic orchestral theme plays.

It didn't get me much of a sense of utter, unavoidable doom. Plus the strange manifestation that stops watches and comes out of the road didn't freak me out as much as something doing that should.

[Saruman]

I didn't think of this until I read Studio Asperger's last post. There were two WOTW licenses given out, one to Spielberg and one to Pendragon. It's possible that they were told that they both couldn't do "Period Pieces" and they both couldn't do "Modern Pieces." It would actually make sense for them to do that.

So if Pendragon got the license first, they may have been told they had to do a Period Piece. Then when they gave the license to Spielberg they might have told him he could only do a non Period Piece. That way the films don't actually compete against each other. It would be interesting to find out if something like that has actually happened with these two films.

[Saruman]

Wrong. The original WOTW film was doing the story in a modern-day setting (modern-day for the time of filming, anyway; ten years down the road, this WOTW film is going to be in the same dated boat). The infamous radio broadcast did the same thing, there was a comic series done a while back of the Martians invading again today, heard of a TV series doing the same...

I have not yet seen the Martians attack Victorian era on-screen. And while Speilberg's film could be a great WOTW film carrying the spirit of the books and all that good stuff, I'm still seeing the on-screen destruction of modern-day cities and I've seen that before. I don't mind seeing it again because destruction is fun, but on gut-reaction I'd rather have the film set in the 19th Century.

Yes that is true, I probably should have said it a little differently, they are all older adaptations but are not "modern" by todays standards. But you did just prove my point, that this story does infact work in any time setting.

Plus when they change the setting, I get worried about what else will get changed. Like the way the Martians are beaten.

I do to and I already stated a ways back that if they don't keep the basics of the story that you have to have that I would be pissed by that.

Well, that's where acting, directing, background music and all that other good stuff come in.

All that can make you FEEL for the characters, but that still doesn''t make you relate to them. You can feel and understand something all you want, but unless you have experienced it you can not relate to it.

Can you relate to the person in a shark movie that has just had their arm bitten off? No you never could unless it has happened to you. You can feel for them and try to understand what they are going through, but never actually relate to it unless it's happened to you.

They told me- here is the main character, here's his happy family, THEN SOMETHING BIG AND SCARY INVADED RAAAAARRRR and they're running away along with a lot of other people. Also a bridge or something (it wasn't that clear) full of people get tipped over and stuff gets smashed whilst a generic orchestral theme plays.

It didn't get me much of a sense of utter, unavoidable doom. Plus the strange manifestation that stops watches and comes out of the road didn't freak me out as much as something doing that should.

Basically they have told you nothing about this film. Just look at what you wrote here and you can clearly see that.

You saw the main character and his family, if you thought they were happy I wonder what you were looking at because they sure didn't seem all that happy to me. Then we MIGHT have a bridge getting destroyed, that's telling you a lot. Lot's of people running, ok, news breaker there. SOMETHING gets tipped over? Glad they pointed that one out to you. And there is some music playing, guess we have the entire story figured out right there don't we.:laugh:

[RobDowneyJr]

As long as Tom Cruise is in it it will be great!!!!

[Studio Asperger]

I didn't think of this until I read Studio Asperger's last post. There were two WOTW licenses given out, one to Spielberg and one to Pendragon. It's possible that they were told that they both couldn't do "Period Pieces" and they both couldn't do "Modern Pieces." It would actually make sense for them to do that.

So if Pendragon got the license first, they may have been told they had to do a Period Piece. Then when they gave the license to Spielberg they might have told him he could only do a non Period Piece. That way the films don't actually compete against each other. It would be interesting to find out if something like that has actually happened with these two films.

That does actually sound very likely. I remember reading that Pendragon were working on the film before 9/11, but after that incident they thought it would be a really bad time for such a film, so they put the project on the backburner until a couple of years later.

In any case it'd be interesting to see how both films turn out. I only hope the Pendragon version does eventually get a general release.

[SandwormPhish]

I can actually think of one 'period' version other than the Pendragon version and that's vol. 2 of the 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' which has the League combating the martians (who still proceed to curbstomp most everything).

[Kaiser Kronos]

As long as Tom Cruise is in it it will be great!!!!

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
(Irving Christoffels.)

[Saruman]

That does actually sound very likely. I remember reading that Pendragon were working on the film before 9/11, but after that incident they thought it would be a really bad time for such a film, so they put the project on the backburner until a couple of years later.

In any case it'd be interesting to see how both films turn out. I only hope the Pendragon version does eventually get a general release.

I hope they both get a general release as well. Nothing wrong with seeing Aliens stomp humans twice in one year on the big screen.;)

[Studio Asperger]

Well, if the reviews at Amazon.com are to be believed, seems a DVD version of the Pendragon film somehow found its way to Wal-Mart well before the release date. The reviews are not good...

[Saruman]

Well, if the reviews at Amazon.com are to be believed, seems a DVD version of the Pendragon film somehow found its way to Wal-Mart well before the release date. The reviews are not good...

WOW, just wow. Those reviews are really harsh and it's just one right after the other. I may still pick it up but it might be some time before I do. Heres the link to it on Amazon for people to see.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0009PW4D2/qid=1118429087/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2346022-7550356?v=glance&s=dvd

[SandwormPhish]

I snagged it last night. Those reviews are spot on. Do yourself a favor.. if you insist on spending the 8 bucks, just give it to someone and let them kick you in the groin for 3 hours. You'll have about as much fun (or better yet.. spend it buying a copy of the book or the musical instead).

The acting- awful. 'Film by Uwe Boll' awful.

The effects- They wish they were a sci-fi original picture. The Thunderchild sequence, one of my favorite bits in the book and the Jeff Wayne musical version is.. words can't describe how mind-numbingly awful it is. It's like calling Cthulhu 'scary'.. the english language is entirely inadequate to express the sheer sanity blasting horror presented to you.

Perfect example.. the artillery piece that brings down the first fighting machine. Doesn't even really fire.. instead we get a lens flare and some badly animated smoke to hide the fact the guys manning it are moving it. And the compositing on the shots.. UGH! You'll find better shot compositing in our beloved Godzilla films (yes, even G2K)

Continuity- What's that? The first time we see the heat ray used it takes a few minutes (or was it hours.. it's hard to tell with how bad it was) exposure to 'burn' (entirely unconvincingly) a few people down to skeletons.. yet it doens't ignite the grass around them. The next time we see it used it's taking down whole buildings and shattering stone bridges -_-

Then there's the scene mentioned in one of hte amazon reviews where a war machine goes down in a river, the still firing heat ray boiling the water and cooking everyone in it.. everyone except our main character who sits there treading water while everyone else thrashes and screams in the water.

Film quality- Never heard of it. Oh the image is clean enough but the filming is often jerky, like some insane film editor went into whatever scenes he felt like and started removing frames at random.

I actually thought House of the Dead was the worst movie that could be made.. boy was I wrong. At least HOTD didn't drag on for 3 hours.

[Zigra]

*sighs* Will we EVER get a truely faithful adaption of WotW? Even if Spielburg's movie turns out to be good (doubtful, considering what he's churned out recently), it's still going to leave me longing for WotW movie that is faithful to the book:(

[SandwormPhish]

Oh the pendragon one is a very faithful adaption.. it's just crap anyway.

[Zigra]

In that case, are we ever going to get a WotW movie that is both faithful and good?

[Saruman]

In that case, are we ever going to get a WotW movie that is both faithful and good?

Sorry but you only get one option, Faithful or Good, you can't have both, it's written in all the Hollywood contracts for films.;)

[Studio Asperger]

Sorry but you only get one option, Faithful or Good, you can't have both, it's written in all the Hollywood contracts for films.;)

:laugh: Ain't that the truth. Someday, when I get loads of money, I'm going to try to break that tradition.:p

Looking over the Amazon reviews again though, an interesting rumour seems to have come up. Some on there mention a new WotW, one that is an animated version of the Jeff Wayne musical.

I remember seeing footage of such a film years back, when the project was being worked on. That project seemed to have fallen through though, since I have seen neither hide nor hair from it since. If these comments are to be believed though, the project's being revived and is on course for a 2007 release.

I wonder if this is true, since it sounds like a very enticing project indeed...

[Raptor]

An animated musical sounds interesting! Anyone have the Wayne tape? The story really seems to work well with this orchestration. Think of "Night on Bald Mountain" for the feelings it can inspire.
I guess this brings us back to the setting: period piece or contemporary? I would lean toward the 1800's myself. Animation has a great deal of flexibiltiy when it comes to achieving a certain "look" to the project. Just initially imagining this, I'm thinking everything from Disney's FANTASIA for the most dramatic scenes to a simple 2-D approach (maybe with a sepia treatment) for the scene setting before things get "exciting".
WOTW just suggests a "classic" approach IMO, be it in visual or musical style. :)

[Zigra]

Sorry but you only get one option, Faithful or Good, you can't have both, it's written in all the Hollywood contracts for films.;)

I know. It's hard enough for them to do just one of those, why should I expect them to be able to do both at once?;)

[Gorjirus]

Well, I did pick up the Pendragon version, though I have yet to watch it. I expect it to be bad, but try it I shall. I mean, it CAN'T be as bad as when ever my sister used to force me to watch "Scruffy" all the time. Can it?

[Kaiser Kronos]

An animated musical sounds interesting! Anyone have the Wayne tape? The story really seems to work well with this orchestration. Think of "Night on Bald Mountain" for the feelings it can inspire.
I guess this brings us back to the setting: period piece or contemporary? I would lean toward the 1800's myself. Animation has a great deal of flexibiltiy when it comes to achieving a certain "look" to the project. Just initially imagining this, I'm thinking everything from Disney's FANTASIA for the most dramatic scenes to a simple 2-D approach (maybe with a sepia treatment) for the scene setting before things get "exciting".
WOTW just suggests a "classic" approach IMO, be it in visual or musical style. :)

Here's where I and KK differ. Tony thinks that the movie should be set in modern times, I don't. For those of you concerned about a debate between me and KK, rest assured, we'll keep it out of this topic. Or, WILL WE? ;)

[SandwormPhish]

An animated musical sounds interesting! Anyone have the Wayne tape? The story really seems to work well with this orchestration. Think of "Night on Bald Mountain" for the feelings it can inspire.
I guess this brings us back to the setting: period piece or contemporary? I would lean toward the 1800's myself. Animation has a great deal of flexibiltiy when it comes to achieving a certain "look" to the project. Just initially imagining this, I'm thinking everything from Disney's FANTASIA for the most dramatic scenes to a simple 2-D approach (maybe with a sepia treatment) for the scene setting before things get "exciting".
WOTW just suggests a "classic" approach IMO, be it in visual or musical style. :)

I've got the musical version on CD (snagged it at B&N a few years back).

A collector's edition just comes out soon IIRC.

[Gorjirus]

A little bit of rumor news from Digital Bits about a different, good ole version of War of the Worlds.

As we reported in the last Rumor Mill update, our sources have informed us that Paramount's classic War of the Worlds: Special Collector's Edition is tentatively expected to street on 11/1. The title had originally been set for a Summer 2005 release, but we've learned that director Steven Spielberg asked for it to be delayed until AFTER his re-imagined War of the Worlds arrived in theaters (on 6/27). Presumably, you can expect the revised street date to coincide with the DVD release of Spielberg's version of the alien invasion epic.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html#0613

You can read everything there.

[SandwormPhish]

Oh great now I know it's coming.. yet how can I possibly resist getting myself a copy of the edition that's already out? *shakes fist at gojirus*

On a side note you can see the heat ray in several of the newer TV ads as well as some more combatty bits (including a flight of Super Cobras launching a missile salvo), though so far ntohing more than the legs and maybe the occasional brief glimpse of some of the hood has been shown of the war machines.. a good move personally.. it's gonna be fun going into a movie near unspoiled for once.

[Gfantheheroman]

From the trailers i've seen on the TV, I can tell this one will be a very high grosser!

[RyougaSaotome]

Can it?



There are times I sit in my bed before I sleep, staring up at the cieling and wondering if I could just take away the pain from everyone else. Everyone else who will inevitably buy this dvd out of curiousity. "8 dollars?! What a bargain" they say, what they don't realize, is that those eight dollars is not in fact the price of the dvd, but the amount of money given to sell your soul away from you.


My thoughts on the Period Piece that is WoW.

[Gorjirus]

I finally watched the Pendragon film. And I could of swore that my soul was worth more than 8 dollars.

It SUCKED. It was horrible. It has literally almost made me sick to my stomach. The Special e.. No. It doesn't really have Special Effects. It just has Effects, and I refuse to call them "Special". The Horrible effects were just that. It looked like a film that a just graduated senior named Victor Harding (who directs his own films) would make. No, let me take that back. It was WORSE than a Victor Harding film. Serious, a high schooler's Special Effects were better than PWotW "Horrible" Effects.

And the coloring was even worse. It could have been daylight, but the people were so blue they looked like smurfs. That or the picture would be so yellow they looked covered in paint.

The music, while generic, was the best part of the film. Mainly, becuase it wasn't so horrible as the rest of the film.

The acting? Won't mention it.

The movie just plain stunk. The fact that some were looking more foward to this than Steven Spielburg's (which in no way can POSSSIBLY be worse than this) version makes me want to cry at how crushed your hopes must be.

I mean, I watched this right after watching Star Trek: Insurrection, and it made ST:I look like an emmy deserving film.

Can it?

Yes. It can. 100 fold.




*Paitently awaites Steven Spielburg's version and the Special Edition of the classic WotW film.*

[SandwormPhish]

See, I warned the lot of you, but does anyone listen to me? Nooooooo.. :p

[Gorjirus]

You warned to late. I didn't get to see that until the night AFTER I bought it. I had it, so I felt that I had to watch it. Hey, it made ST IX look good. I guess it served some purpose...

[Saruman]

See, I warned the lot of you, but does anyone listen to me? Nooooooo.. :p

I had it in my hand at Sam's Club the other day and I put it back. I really wanted to get it just to actually see how horrible it was, but then I thought about all the reviews and just said NO.:D

[RyougaSaotome]

I had it in my hand at Sam's Club the other day and I put it back. I really wanted to get it just to actually see how horrible it was, but then I thought about all the reviews and just said NO.:D



Lesson here guys.

Just. Say. No.

[PyrasTerran]

The funny thing is how so many folks aways back were boasting about how great it would be because it was true to the book.. :laugh:

'Makes one wonder how Pendragon could even consider putting it up in theatres.

[Solar_Behemoth]

I can't wait to see this film on June 29th. Besides King Kong, WOTW is really the only
2005 film I've been wanting to see in theaters. I have my fingers crossed that this will
be decent... I have faith in Speilberg...

[Spiral Fire]

Ah-HA! YES!!

I have seen the fighting machines! (or at least the general shape of one).

Go to www.waroftheworlds.com, go to "Media">"TV Spots">Trailer #12.
In the first few moments, the words "after the shock" will appear, and Cruise will say "We have to leave this house in sixty seconds", and then you get a shot of his son's face. Pause it right after that and, with the right timing, see the full silhouette of a fighting machine. Coupled with that sound effect, its actually pretty chilling.

The machines look true to the book. Very tall legs, oval head shape, tentacles radiating from the lower body. From what I've seen, their heat rays are coloured blue-white, not spark-red like the original movie or filaments of light like the book. It also appears that some tentacles have a camera on the end (or is that the heat ray?).

I have very high hopes for this move (hopefully I can see it opening day). The orginal movie (1953) was, in my opinion...stupid. The Martians were just really, really dumb, with the silly red-blue-green eyes and the corny heat ray.

I'm hoping THIS movie will be awesome, and from what I've seen of it , it will fulfill my hopes of a good movie.

It would be great if any clearer sightings of the fighting machines were posted.

[SandwormPhish]

I had it in my hand at Sam's Club the other day and I put it back. I really wanted to get it just to actually see how horrible it was, but then I thought about all the reviews and just said NO.:D

Good for you. That's three hours of your life that won't be wasted, and one of science fiction's greatest stories that won't be in the slightest bit tainted by this.. horror.

It's like I said in my original review, this is a film that WISHES it had the quality of your average sci-fi original picture.

[Spiral Fire]

SWEEEET the Martian fighting machines have been revealed! Be sure to check often, its a TV Trailer/Spot/Whatever.

[SandwormPhish]

The reviews are starting to come in:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worlds/

[Zigra]

The reviews so far are positive, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Though, I do have to wonder how many, if any at all, of those people have any familiarity with Wells' novel.

[SandwormPhish]

Remember, it doesn't have to be just like Wells' novel to be good. Lest we forget the lesson of the Pendragon release so soon. :P

Anyway that's a fun little tidbit.. all that dust you see on Cruise when he's looking in the mirror?

*teeny spoiler*



IT'S PEOPLE! /Charlton Heston

[Zigra]

Remember, it doesn't have to be just like Wells' novel to be good. Lest we forget the lesson of the Pendragon release so soon. :P

'Tis true. I'm simply hoping for a movie that's more than just a really well-made WWINO.

Anyway that's a fun little tidbit.. all that dust you see on Cruise when he's looking in the mirror?

*teeny spoiler*



IT'S PEOPLE! /Charlton Heston


Heh heh:D

[SandwormPhish]

'Tis true. I'm simply hoping for a movie that's more than just a really well-made WWINO.


It's not how many details they get right, it's which ones. That's the reason I don't consider ID4 a WOTW retelling like so many others do.. they miss the wrong details (like the main characters actually managing to help stop the invaders, or humanity managing to save itself).

As I recall the primary objections over GINO for instance have nothing to do with the setting change.

[Zigra]

My sentiments exactly. My biggest concern was never the setting of this WotW movie, but rather how the aliens are portrayed and how the story progresses. The fact that the aliens are no longer Martians (some reports claim that they are from a "parallel Earth"; I don't know if that's true or not) leaves me very concerned about just how faithful to the source material this movie will be.

[RyougaSaotome]

A lot of the reviews I've read have said the movie is surprisingly close to the novel in it's story progression, and that events are very close and sort of parallel each other, not to mention the Tripods etc are very close to the original sketches and stuff.

[Zigra]

Ah, then there may be hope yet. Too bad I'm not going to get to see this until at least Thursday.

[SandwormPhish]

My sentiments exactly. My biggest concern was never the setting of this WotW movie, but rather how the aliens are portrayed and how the story progresses. The fact that the aliens are no longer Martians (some reports claim that they are from a "parallel Earth"; I don't know if that's true or not) leaves me very concerned about just how faithful to the source material this movie will be.

All the reviews I've read that mention it say that the film is neutral. It doesn't say they are martians but it doesn't say that they aren't.

I've also seen it mentioned that it keeps it very close in with Cruise's character and his family.. we don't learn anything that they wouldn't.

[Gorjirus]

Today's the day that it comes out! I was hoping to see it today, but it doesn't look like I will. Perhaps sometime this weekend...

And I will be able to see the King Kong trailer that I missed Monday.

[Spiral Fire]

I'm seeing it today opening night, and I am officially the happiest person alive at this very moment. Im hoping that it's as good as it looks, but as they say, never judge a movie by it's trailer (The Village <_<).

From what I've seen of the cast, the only movie-book characters are Oglivy, many running, screaming people, and I think the man you so commonly see with a shotgun is perhaps the Curate in a less-crazed manor, or perhaps the Man on Putney Hill (the lost artilleryman).

[Solar_Behemoth]

Anyone see it yet? Anyone?

Was it good? Was it good? Was it good?

[Gorjirus]

Here is one review I found on Trek Web:

The Great 'War'
Steven Spielberg Re-Creates Classic For Our Times

By Stephen Hunter
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; C01

Excerpts:

Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" is a close encounter of the blurred kind, an orchestration of chaos and panic and destruction as visceral as it can get.

Despite occasional flaws and misjudgments, it's a brilliantly told tale. It really rips along; it seizes you in its first seconds, holds you spellbound for two short hours and expels you, breathless and spent. It's your best summertime movie rush in many years.

What one notices instantly is the absence of that '50s voice of military or scientific authority. In all the previous iterations of this story and its many derivatives, the hero was either a scientist (Gene Barry in Pal's variant) or a professional soldier (Ken Tobey in Howard Hawks's "The Thing," the same story told on a smaller scale in 1951).

Perhaps now it doesn't, when terrorists can take out a big chunk of the Manhattan skyline and detonate IEDs on Baghdad roadways seemingly at will. Our general apprehension might be summed up in the phrase "out of control," and Spielberg capitalizes on that fear, giving us an out-of-control world as viewed from the ground. He's not much interested here in larger entities like The Government or Science; he focuses instead on working man Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) and his two kids, Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and Rachel (the great Dakota Fanning), and dramatizes how the Ferrier family just barely copes with the coming of the things from another world.

We only glimpse soldiers, and one (brilliant) sequence shows them using Arabian desert tactics against the three-legged Martian fighting machines and perishing in a wall of fire for their impertinence. The government, the message runs, is powerless.

That makes the movie far more intense, by the way.

Spielberg, working from a script by Josh Friedman and David Koepp, establishes Ray as one of those child-men in whom adult responsibility never quite took root.

Spielberg has a special feel for family dynamics, as viewers of his more benign alien-contact films "E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" will remember. But this is a more hostile family. Cruise hasn't the warmth as an actor that Richard Dreyfuss brought to "Third Kind," being a tenser, vainer, more frightened personality; and the overall tone of the movie is far, far edgier than that exercise in basic goodness. "War" is an exercise in basic badness.

New wrinkle No. 2: How they get here. Hmmm, seems they were already here. If I understand it correctly, the machines have been buried for a million years.

What arrives to Earth aren't ships but energy storms -- Spielberg has always loved clouds, and now he fills them with jagged lightning strikes, like saber strokes -- whose bolts charge what lies beneath.

As storytelling, this is ingenious.

Instead, with brilliant (but understated) special effects, Spielberg breaks the mold by having his foes arrive from beneath, rising from the surface like breaching whales (indeed, the control node of the Martian fighting machines resembles Moby Dick's eye more than anything, a kind of cold malevolent glare at the soon-to-be destroyed).

The subtext to all this, neatly enough, is what might be called warriorhood. The movie is really about fighting -- not getting along. It pushes the idea, subtly, that Spielberg also pushed in "Private Ryan," one that he might not express publicly: the value, the necessity, of warriors. Ray is growing up under the pressure, going from feckless to furious.

The movie follows that line through to the end, though it falters when it momentarily diverts into a one-act play. Ray and Rachel take refuge in a farmhouse basement, where they encounter Tim Robbins, the film's only other recognizable actor. This seems like a weird bid to get Robbins an Oscar; he takes over the film, filling it with paranoia, irrationality and overacting. The sequence left an unpleasant taste in my mouth, and could have been left on the cutting-room floor.

Still, "War of the Worlds" will pretty much rise or fall on its spectacle, which means it should rise. Spielberg has always been a glib stager of action, finding ways to represent old sequences in completely fresh ways, as witness the extraordinary agility he brought to routine combat action in "Private Ryan."

But there's also an intellectual coherence to the film. What seems to hold it together is the concentration on blood. This extends from the initial idea of Mars as the "Red Planet" to the blood ties between Ray and his kids that turn out to be what gives them strength.

Spielberg is only marginally interested in what eventually overcomes the invaders. He cares more about human adhesion, the stuff that binds us together and that, it seems, makes us human to begin with, unlike the cold, distant intellects of Mars.

The idea seems to be: That was something they couldn't relate to, and in the end, that, as much as anything, dooms them. Our blood was thicker than theirs.


And here's a link to one on IGN:

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/629/629821p1.html



I can't wait to see it. I think I will like it.

[PyrasTerran]

The fact that the aliens are no longer Martians (some reports claim that they are from a "parallel Earth"; I don't know if that's true or not)

You're taking that out of context. Haven't you ever heard of the sci-fi mythos that Mars was once almost exactly like Earth in terms of habitat, etc.? I believe the movie Mission to Mars capitalized on this. They could very easily be martians and from a parallel earth at the same time because mars is often seen AS a parallel earth, or at least was one..

[Zigra]

You're taking that out of context. Haven't you ever heard of the sci-fi mythos that Mars was once almost exactly like Earth in terms of habitat, etc.? I believe the movie Mission to Mars capitalized on this. They could very easily be martians and from a parallel earth at the same time because mars is often seen AS a parallel earth, or at least was one..

:nonono2:

No, the report I remember seeing claimed that they came from Earth of a parallel universe. Thankfully, it looks like this was either untrue, or that Spielburg abandoned the idea.

[Spiral Fire]

So far the movie's getting good reviews, even those crazies in a certain newspaper which I shall not be naming, who have never given an action movie four stars since ColdPlay, just broke out of the mold and gave it four starts. It's currently in the high 70%s at RottenTomatoes.com.

Only Three-and-a-half more hours 'till I see it! I'll be sure to add my review afterwards A.S.A.P!

[Saruman]

I just got back from seeing it and I must say that I really enjoyed the movie.

I won't give anything away but the movie doesn't say where the aliens are actually from and they don't make any assumptions about it.

The biggest complaint that people are going to have about the film is that it follows Tom Cruise's character and his family and tells their story as the "War" is happening. I have seen some reviews complain that they stayed to much on that aspect instead of showing more of the war itself, but I think it worked pretty well. I think you will see a bunch of added footage of the war when this comes out on DVD.

As for how this film shows the impact and terror of the aliens, well lets just say this film is A LOT more graphic than I was actually expecting it to be.

Well I'll discuss it some more once more people have seen it, I did enjoy it though.

[Megabyte]

^ I would have to agree that the film was much better than I ever expected it to be. Furthermore I was shocked at how close it was to the original novel while making references/nods to Orsen Welles' radio adaption and the 1953 film. Many of the reviews I read complained mostly about the ending and the "origin" about the tripods. But I found many of the "updates" to work with the film. Furthermore, maybe its just me but I found Williams' score to be superb and the "foghorn" to be haunting and pretty dramatic.

I'd would probably give this film a... ah hell, it was pretty damn awesome. And not to mention seeing the Kong preview on the big screen was an added bonus ;)

[RyougaSaotome]

Yeah, WOTW was pretty hot. Acting, storytelling, visuals. A return to form for good ole Speilberg. Excellent flick.

[PyrasTerran]

It's movies like this that make me wanna tell some people out there to pull the sticks out of their asses and realize that just because something is mainstream doesn't mean it sucks.

WotW delivers.. so.. $%&#ing.. much..

My favorite invasion movie ever.

[Zigra]

It's movies like this that make me wanna tell some people out there to pull the sticks out of their asses and realize that just because something is mainstream doesn't mean it sucks.

That's true. It's just that most of the mainstream stuff happens to stink, especially nowadays. I'm having higher hopes for this movie, though.

[Tomzilla]

Curses...right now, I'd be addressing my opinions along with the rest of you, but I was unable to see the movie. My friends and I were on our way, but when we got to an intersection, the car in front of me slammed on its brakes - I likewise did so as well, and succeeded in stopping...the cars behind me did not. The one behind me barely hit me. But this van came in and crashed into the person behind me, pushing them into my car's rear even harder.

Luckily, everyone was alright. I guess I'll see War of the Worlds another day, you know before Earth is invaded.

[Saruman]

Curses...right now, I'd be addressing my opinions along with the rest of you, but I was unable to see the movie. My friends and I were on our way, but when we got to an intersection, the car in front of me slammed on its brakes - I likewise did so as well, and succeeded in stopping...the cars behind me did not. The one behind me barely hit me. But this van came in and crashed into the person behind me, pushing them into my car's rear even harder.

Luckily, everyone was alright. I guess I'll see War of the Worlds another day, you know before Earth is invaded.

Damn that sucks Tom, glad everyone was ok though. That's a bit more important than seeing any movie. Hope you can get your car fixed, it sucks not having wheels.