War of the Worlds

[octothorp]

Yeah, the ending was true to the book. But the question is, should it have been? The whole point of Wells' approach to science fiction was to come up with these fantastic ideas that had never been thought of before. For Spielberg to simply regurgitate the original War of the World ideas -- even if they were Wells' ideas -- is completely against the spirit of the book, and in my mind complete ruins the film... You're telling me that this alien race has all this advanced biotechnological machinery, but they don't understand virology? That they have these fantastic telescopic arms on their robots, but they didn't bother to give them heat sensors? Every science-fiction book (especially those that are heavy on the science) knows that it will likely become outdated at some point. That's the nature of the genre, and it makes true remakes almost an impossible endeavour. I would have been far happier if they had taken the general theme of an alien invasion and made a story that fits with what we know right now, rather than trying to pass off century-old ideas as still being accurate and relevant.

[Looger]

Originally posted by bonnakins@Jul 3 2005, 08:57 PM
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.

i'm with you on the cronnenberg idea, i think that the wackier directors take their own spin and run with it. sometimes it works (tim burton, batman), other times it does not (michael mann, the keep).

for the record i'm a fan of the Dune books and i LOVED the lynch movie, many pseudo-fans will tell you ad nauseum that it didn't explain as much as the book - i think if anything the book was more ambiguous than the movie!

the book referenced things like the bene gesserit school, the butlerian jihad, etc. that were grazed over in the glossary but never actually explained.

the movie had that same feel, a bunch of interesting stuff that made you wonder, and fill in the gaps by yourself.

by contrast the mini-series i found lifeless, soulless, badly cast, and stuck way too hard to the source material.

the lynch movie had strange unexplained stuff that let you get sucked into the legend... it was a tad brave to ever be a big hit.

[snowdude]

The movie was *Yawn*


The 1930's radio play....now that was classic

[HelloHockeyFans]

I liked it.

[Phanuthier]

Originally posted by bonnakins@Jul 3 2005, 08:57 PM
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.

Just directing this to comments like these... what do you expect? Every single movie has the same template. Minority Report and that one with the clues in the summer of 2003 (or 04?). Collateral and Training Day (in a way). Even i Robot and the Terminator (in a way).

Sometimes, you just gotta turn your brain off. You get an origanal here and there (Italian Job, Ocean's 11, LOTR, Matrix) that make it unique, but those are rare.

[TARR]

Originally posted by Phanuthier@Jul 3 2005, 05:46 PM
Sometimes, you just gotta turn your brain off. You get an origanal here and there (Italian Job, Ocean's 11, LOTR, Matrix) that make it unique, but those are rare.

Uhhh, original and oceans 11 and the Italian job don't really go together, unless you're talking about the first ones

[CaramonLS]

I hate these kind of PURE suspense films. I dunno, I guess I'm just weak like that, but I and the 4 other people I was with found it pretty damned scary.

Glad I saw the late show... I wont be sleeping tonight.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

wow, a buncg of whiners here.......If Spielberg had made up a new ending that wasnt true to the book, everyone would be whinin about that.........I liked it a lot, I thought it was very well done and like I said earlier, I liked how we didnt have a boatload of different characters like other disaster flicks and how we got the whole alien experience from the one main character.......my only critism was the basement scene just dragged on a lil

[bonnakins]

I'll give "Dune" another chance Looger. Thanks. You made some good points.

[Phanuthier]

For all the money people pay to watch these movies, you'd think they'd try and enjoy it rather then find all the negatives of that movie. :P

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by TheyCallMeBruce+Jul 2 2005, 02:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheyCallMeBruce @ Jul 2 2005, 02:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='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?

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. [/b][/quote]
I don't have anything against nicknames or shortforms like "Habs". Again, and hopefully for the last time, I just think the particular short form of "ID4" is stupid. It's not the fact that it is a short form or nickname.

Is that perfectly clear?

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 4 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 4 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='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.

I don't have anything against nicknames or shortforms like "Habs". Again, and hopefully for the last time, I just think the particular short form of "ID4" is stupid. It's not the fact that it is a short form or nickname.

Is that perfectly clear? [/b][/quote]
Again, I'm here to tell you I DON'T think it is stupid based on my reasoning. To me, your reasoning is may be clear to yourself, but I find it moot. Then again, you're entitled to that opinion, no matter how non sensical it is to me. Is that perfectly clear to you?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by TheyCallMeBruce@Jul 4 2005, 11:30 PM

Again, I'm here to tell you I DON'T think it is stupid based on my reasoning. To me, your reasoning is may be clear to yourself, but I find it moot. Then again, you're entitled to that opinion, no matter how non sensical it is to me. Is that perfectly clear to you?

It would be a lot more perfectly clear if you didn't respond so fiercly to my opinion if I am entitled to it.

So what is your reasoning for not thinking it is stupid?

My reasoning is simple: Everyone knows Independence Day is on the 4th of July. It is the same every year, so why, if they are making a "short-form", would they feel the need to put a "4" at the end? Why not just "ID", or "I-Day". Why not use the month? That would make a lot more sense since it is the 4th of July - not the 4th of Independence Day.

I just find it annoying. It sounds too much like an attempt to be trendy (like saying E-Town when talking about Edmonton). Same sort of tackiness.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

I'm not being "fierce." Annoyance is a more correct response, simply because you have chose to ignore my reasoning after I've explained it. Time and time again you have asked me to respond to your reasoning...

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?

I don't have anything against nicknames or shortforms like "Habs". Again, and hopefully for the last time, I just think the particular short form of "ID4" is stupid. It's not the fact that it is a short form or nickname.

Is that perfectly clear?

I am responding to you, for the third time...

My reasoning: It's a damn movie. Let it be called ID10W40 for all I care. I could care less if someone starts calling Edmonton or Calgary E-town or C-town. They want to short form it, I have no problems with it. We're always shortening words or things just to make it easier to say or remember. I don't have a problem with it. If it sticks, then so be it. As a matter of fact, I think nicknames and shortened titles aren't too dissimilar from each other.

[Agamemnon]

My review of the Movie:

10 for special effects

2 for plot/storyline

2 for characters

Basically, what I expected (mostly from reading this thread before I went).

If you want a totally blue-collar main character, why pick Maverick as the guy? The casting in this movie wasn't great, and the ending totally sucked. I understand wanting to remain true to the actual 'story', but still, I was shocked at the weakness of it.

[JD]

I really enjoyed the movie. It was suspenseful, exciting, and everyone's favourite Scientologist even did a decent job of making me believe he was concerned for his children.

I liked the ending. Not only is it true to the original story, but it evokes some sort of reassuring emotion in me that humans have earned their spot on earth and hence the universe through our evolution. It is an interesting paradox, to me, that right on the verge of destruction, Mother Nature steps in and saves us. Maybe some of you were expecting our hero to step in and save the day with some zany plan (like uploading a virus onto a spaceship)... oh, right, you didn't want formulaic outcomes.

As Cowperson mentions, this IS the original storyline. If you find it formulaic, well, that's probably because it is the one all others are based upon. Maybe our society's tolerance to these types of stories has also evolved. Next time aliens invade, maybe we'll just make 'em watch a Cruise movie.

[Language]

Well, I saw the movie today. I thought the movie was well done. I had never read the HG Wells book, although I've always been interested in reading it and I probably will sooner than later, but the ending that alot of you guys are bitching about goes along with the book. Like someone said earlier, if Speilberg changed the ending and people didn't like it, they'd be whining about how he didn't follow the book and it's original ending.

Not knowing the ending before the movie started, I see nothing wrong now with the movie ending the way it did, by human's and Earth's greatest threat - mother nature (except for maybe us ourselves). I would rather have mother nature save the day than some elaborate plot thought up by the US government that in turn translates into some giant patriotic film about the military and its capabilities.

Regarding the storyline and the characters, I thought the development was pretty well done, and that Cruise played his part very well as the blue collar trying to be good father.

I don't normally walk out of theatres thinking about the negatives of a movie, unless it's really really bad, and I don't think War of the Worlds was a bad movie by any stretch.

[Faid1]

Originally posted by JD@Jul 5 2005, 09:36 PM
I liked the ending. Not only is it true to the original story, but it evokes some sort of reassuring emotion in me that humans have earned their spot on earth and hence the universe through our evolution.

Then the same could be true of any animal living and surviving on Earth.

[JD]

Originally posted by Faid1+Jul 11 2005, 07:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faid1 @ Jul 11 2005, 07:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JD@Jul 5 2005, 09:36 PM
I liked the ending. Not only is it true to the original story, but it evokes some sort of reassuring emotion in me that humans have earned their spot on earth and hence the universe through our evolution.

Then the same could be true of any animal living and surviving on Earth.
[/b][/quote]
Well, if another earthen being such as mankind wipes 'em out, then their spot wasn't well-earned, I guess.