War of the Worlds

[Prototype]

Originally posted by VANFLAMESFAN@Jun 30 2005, 07:26 PM
side note: ID4 was never an official name for the movie, just an easier way to say for some

I read on IMDB the other day that there was some legal issues with the producers calling the movie Independance Day. So it's name for a bit was ID4, and it stuck with the movie. I think thats how the story went.

If you want to know for sure, check out it's page and click on Trivia. I love checking out movie and actors/actresses bios/triva.

Regardless what you guys though, I'm still gonna check this flick out. Looks entertaining. Not expecting to be blown away like say Fight Club, or American Beauty, but it sounds like it's enjoyable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by VANFLAMESFAN+Jul 1 2005, 02:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VANFLAMESFAN @ Jul 1 2005, 02:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Jul 1 2005, 02:03 AM
It is Independence Day, but I don't understand why people call it "ID4".

i think they put the 4 in there because Independence Day is July 4th.....hence

Indepedence Day + July 4= ID4



side note: ID4 was never an official name for the movie, just an easier way to say for some [/b][/quote]
I get that, but it still doesn't really make sense. It would be like calling Christmas "C25" or Valentine's Day "VD14". It just doesn't seem intuitive to me.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 1 2005, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 1 2005, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

i think they put the 4 in there because Independence Day is July 4th.....hence

Indepedence Day + July 4= ID4



side note: ID4 was never an official name for the movie, just an easier way to say for some

I get that, but it still doesn't really make sense. It would be like calling Christmas "C25" or Valentine's Day "VD14". It just doesn't seem intuitive to me. [/b][/quote]
keep in mind that Independence day was a movie that had humans fly into outer space with the aliens ship and was somehow able to upload a computer virus into the alien system and that was the reason the humans were able to destroy the invaders.......so common sense and Indepenceday Day dont really go hand in hand



Oh.....this was also a movie in which the President of the US flew in a jet fighter and saved the day......now that is funny!! hahahha

[FlamesAddiction]

Very good points!

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 1 2005, 02:03 AM
It is Independence Day, but I don't understand why people call it "ID4".

Everyone I know calls it ID4. I don't get why we can't call it by a short form?

What's the big deal anyway of not calling a movie by it's full name? Is there a penalty we're unaware of for doing so?

Edit: The movie was also marketed as ID4. So calling it "ID4" is actually in agreement with the marketing campaign.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

What a piece of crap. Horrible ending. Horrible acting. Just plain bad all around. Some neat special effects but the ending with the son just being at the house which the rest of the family didn't evacuate for some reason as Boston was being destroyed around them. Just a lame movie.

ppfffffffff sound effect made me laugh everytime.

[habernac]

thanks for the spoiler, dumbass.

:angry:

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

You should be thanking me. it was just a baaad movie

What you thought that Tom Cruise would die in the movie

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by TheyCallMeBruce+Jul 1 2005, 06:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheyCallMeBruce @ Jul 1 2005, 06:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Jul 1 2005, 02:03 AM
It is Independence Day, but I don't understand why people call it "ID4".

Everyone I know calls it ID4. I don't get why we can't call it by a short form?

What's the big deal anyway of not calling a movie by it's full name? Is there a penalty we're unaware of for doing so?

Edit: The movie was also marketed as ID4. So calling it "ID4" is actually in agreement with the marketing campaign.
[/b][/quote]
I don't care if you or anyone (including the makers) call the movie by a short form. I'm just saying that this particular short form is stupid. Like I said, it would be like calling a movie called Christmas Day, "C25". Pretty dumb, no?

[moon]

Thanks.

I thought that it might be independence day, I just couoldn't figure out where the 4 came from.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 1 2005, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 1 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Everyone I know calls it ID4. I don't get why we can't call it by a short form?

What's the big deal anyway of not calling a movie by it's full name? Is there a penalty we're unaware of for doing so?

Edit: The movie was also marketed as ID4. So calling it "ID4" is actually in agreement with the marketing campaign.

I don't care if you or anyone (including the makers) call the movie by a short form. I'm just saying that this particular short form is stupid. Like I said, it would be like calling a movie called Christmas Day, "C25". Pretty dumb, no? [/b][/quote]
It's the name of the movie. The marketers market the movie to be called ID4. Christmas isn't a movie, nor is it being marketed as C25, nor will we call it that because we are familiar with the holiday season being called Christmas. I have no problems calling a movie ID4 because it's a "MOVIE." Do you follow?

Why do we call Montreal Canadians "Habs?" Why not Montreal Canadians, or Les Canadiens de Montreal? Habs was a nickname given to them by Madison Square Garden owner Tex Rickard. Don't you think it's pretty dumb that they're called Habs based on something made up by Tex Rickard?

Edit: I just realized I wrote a lot of stuff that shouldn't matter to you. Cause why would it? You think it's dumb, and you're entitled to that opinion. I obviously don't share the same opinion.

[Phanuthier]

SPOILER WARNING

Why did everyone hate the ending so much? (The ending being the common cold) It is a stereotypical, overused finish to most movies, but fitting.

Or is it going to Boston (which I don't really understand why they decided to make that the goal), the house being unscathed and the kid Robbie comeing back? That part I agree was very weak.

Couple other wonderings... the bloody veins/branches? What's the significance of that? And Japan had killed a couple of those things... how?

[Reaper]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jun 30 2005, 08:50 PM
I get that, but it still doesn't really make sense. It would be like calling Christmas "C25" or Valentine's Day "VD14". It just doesn't seem intuitive to me.

VD14 -> Sounds like some sort of virus that one can get from sleeping with skanky chicks without using a rubber...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Phanuthier@Jul 2 2005, 05:26 PM
SPOILER WARNING

Why did everyone hate the ending so much? (The ending being the common cold) It is a stereotypical, overused finish to most movies, but fitting.

Or is it going to Boston (which I don't really understand why they decided to make that the goal), the house being unscathed and the kid Robbie comeing back? That part I agree was very weak.

Couple other wonderings... the bloody veins/branches? What's the significance of that? And Japan had killed a couple of those things... how?

SPOILER WARNING:











If the ending has all the beasties dropping dead on their own just as they have mankind whupped, then it would be true to the 1898 ending written by HG Wells.

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 2 2005, 12:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 2 2005, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Phanuthier@Jul 2 2005, 05:26 PM
SPOILER WARNING

Why did everyone hate the ending so much? (The ending being the common cold) It is a stereotypical, overused finish to most movies, but fitting.

Or is it going to Boston (which I don't really understand why they decided to make that the goal), the house being unscathed and the kid Robbie comeing back? That part I agree was very weak.

Couple other wonderings... the bloody veins/branches? What's the significance of that? And Japan had killed a couple of those things... how?

SPOILER WARNING:











If the ending has all the beasties dropping dead on their own just as they have mankind whupped, then it would be true to the 1898 ending written by HG Wells.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
SPOILERS:





Not so much whupped, but on the run for sure...





The more I think about this movie, the more I think it really sucked. The ending was horrible. Maybe I'm just sick of the typical "aliens invade Earth, completely overwhelm our useless militaries and are swiftly beaten by a plot device like computer viruses, water or bacteria" model. Either have Earth lose outright, or win outright without a ridiculous plot device. Hollywood loves the social commentary, how about one about how humanity is so violent, our weapons are more deadly than aliens who are way more technologically advanced or something like that. I mean, it has the virtue of not being done over and over again...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Thunderball+Jul 2 2005, 09:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ Jul 2 2005, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

SPOILER WARNING:











If the ending has all the beasties dropping dead on their own just as they have mankind whupped, then it would be true to the 1898 ending written by HG Wells.

Cowperson

SPOILERS:





Not so much whupped, but on the run for sure...





The more I think about this movie, the more I think it really sucked. The ending was horrible. Either have Earth lose outright, or win outright without a ridiculous plot device. Hollywood loves the social commentary, how about one about how humanity is so violent, our weapons are more deadly than aliens who are way more technologically advanced or something like that. I mean, it has the virtue of not being done over and over again... [/b][/quote]
SPOILER WARNING









Maybe I'm just sick of the typical "aliens invade Earth, completely overwhelm our useless militaries and are swiftly beaten by a plot device like computer viruses, water or bacteria" model.

I found it funny you would say that and use the word "typical" since the "plot device" in this case was actually the ORIGINAL . . . . . the book itself was the first instance of such an ending and considered ground breaking in 1898.

This is, after all, merely a re-interpretation of that book.

If they make another Gone With The Wind, re-interpreting Margaret Mitchell's 1920 racist classic book, should the south win with Rhett Butler sailing back into Scarlett's arms instead of yanking her chain with "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

I haven't see War yet but I would be expecting the ending the way it was in the book but that's just me.

Then again, to be fair, when I read the 1898 book some moons ago and got to the end, I couldn't help but think: "What a lame ending."

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

yeah, it is loyal to the book, which features the lame ending... but I was saying that aside from War of the Worlds, it seems every recent Alien invasion movie follows that plot, like Independence Day and Signs.

[Prototype]

Seeing as how my previous post seemed to have gotten ignored... here's the deal on ID4.

The abbreviation "ID4" was invented due to undisclosed legal problems (long since resolved) with the title "Independence Day".

The final sentence of the President's speech was not in the original script and was added at the last minute for dramatic effect in an effort to convince 20th Century Fox not to avoid a legal battle to earn the right to name the film "Independence Day."

What the legal battle was... I don't know. But they went with ID4 until they could get approval on the title we know it as now, Independence Day. Couldn't find anything else on it. But there you go... it's all about money.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Prottotype@Jul 3 2005, 04:18 PM
What the legal battle was... I don't know. But they went with ID4 until they could get approval on the title we know it as now, Independence Day. Couldn't find anything else on it. But there you go... it's all about money.

when is it not aboot money?

these major studios have been in business, some of them since the 1920s. they take a lot of flack but they have made major advances in the film industry. sure, that alone doesn't make me sit through the large majority of their tripe, but i applaud their ingenuity. studios like MGM, paramount, etc. have been on the edge of bankruptcy before and know what makes money.

movies like 'war of the worlds', 'independence day', are not too different than the oldies, and if they screw with the formula then you get what happened with the first brosnan bond film - old-time geek-boy fans p*ssed at you for NOT adhering to some EXACT formula.

for the most part the studios now toady to the online warriors, take a look at the recent rash of comic book films, and how accurate they are to the source material. comic book hero movies had been tried in the past, but they didn't realize what was required - putting exactly what everyone expects to see into a movie.

there was a flick made a while ago called 'the kid stays in the picture' - robert evans and his career. interesting stuff. he was a guy that changed things a bit, made movies that were successes but not the same old trash.

it's not that studios don't try to branch out, they just know where to place their big bucks - and the smart money's on another sequel to 'bad boys'.

[bonnakins]

Yeah, just what we need - more bad movies based on formula or better yet, more bad formula remake movies. Was disappointed with "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the 70s version of "Dune" by David Lynch, and yes, even "X Men" and "X Men 2". If you are going to make a movie based on a great book, (or comic book series), it should reflect the spirit of the origional. The first "Batman" with Micheal Keaton came close, though it was not as dark as the comic, and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was brilliant. I am not a geek - I did not make public protest about Jessica Simpson not wearing nylons as Daisy Duke in "The Dukes of Hazzard". "War of the Worlds" could have been done better. I'd like to see David Cronenburg tackle it.