War of the Worlds (NO SPOILERS, please!)

[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]

Originally Posted by kent

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by anguirus55

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!

[Studio Asperger]

Originally Posted by anguirus55

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.

Originally Posted by Raptor

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!

Oi! Leave the videogames alone! j/k 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 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

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Megabyte

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Raptor

. 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!

Originally Posted by Raptor

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.

Yeah, I mean it must be hard for him to make aliens the villians since he did make ET and Close Encounters. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zigra

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]

Originally Posted by Tomzilla

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

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]

Originally Posted by BATTRARULES

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.