War of the Worlds (NO SPOILERS, please!)

[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.

Originally Posted by Morgoth

... 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]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

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]

Originally Posted by Studio Asperger

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]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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! 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!

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor

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! 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!

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.

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?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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.

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! 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.

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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!

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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...

[Saruman]

Originally Posted by Raptor

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 . 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! 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]

Originally Posted by Raptor

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. Hell even our matinees are more than the price of your regular showings.

[Saruman]

Originally Posted by Charles RB

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...

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

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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.

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! 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... 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]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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.

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. Hell even our matinees are more than the price of your regular showings.

Our Malco now has THREE SCREENS so there! 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]

Originally Posted by Saruman

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]

Originally Posted by Charles RB

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.

[RobDowneyJr]

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

[Studio Asperger]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RobDowneyJr

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]

Originally Posted by Studio Asperger

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.