We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Cosmic Dec 13, 2004 - 08:04 pm

I just saw the trailer for this movie. Spielberg is directing and Tom Cruise is starring. Has anyone heard anything else (good or bad) about this movie?

http://waroftheworlds.com/

Posted By: Altayr Dec 13, 2004 - 08:13 pm

I also saw the trailer, and I was excited to hear that the voice-over used nearly the exact same words as the opening of the novel...except that it skipped the amazing last line about "the great disillusionment." However, it's hard to tell anything concrete about the film from the trailer, except that it takes place in contemporary times, and something vague about them "already being here." I hope that doesn't mean a COVERT invasion story! WotW is all about OVERT invasion in big cooling walking machines with lasers and poison gas! The contemporary setting worries me. I believe this is a huge mistake, since setting it in 1900 Britain would give it a more intersting feel, whereas in a modern setting it will feel like ID2 Part Two. The "competing" War of the Worlds film, which will probably never see light of day, was going to stay close to Wells's novel. This film was greenlit abruptly and shot in a hurry (originally planned for release in 2007), shooting only seven months before its premiere -- I don't think that's a good sign, but we'll see.

Posted By: Nomad Dec 14, 2004 - 03:39 pm

I didn't even know they were doing another WotW. Might just work with Tom Cruise. We shall see.

Posted By: Magus Dec 14, 2004 - 04:07 pm

COOL! I guess I have o read the book now, won't I?

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 16, 2004 - 07:08 am

Greetings everyone, been a little busy the past few weeks and I haven't post much.

I wish they would have kept the story in the late 1890's early 1900's just like the book. I feel it would have made a much better impact.

Or how about in the same fashion as the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Early 1900's but with some interesting little gadgets. Actualy the second volume of LXG is actualy about the martian invasion. Might have been fun to see that on screen.

Posted By: Magus Dec 16, 2004 - 02:00 pm

Welcome back Pat0214!

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 17, 2004 - 05:32 am

Thanks Magus, it's good to be back..back home as well...left Chicago behind me.

Anyone here think that this new version might not be as interesting as the 1950's version? It's a little dated now but I still find that movie fun to watch. I even own it on DVD :-) Not much of a reference when calculating how many DVD's a buy every week. ;-)

Posted By: Sindatur Dec 17, 2004 - 06:55 am

I'm a little concerned about it.

1. It was fast tracked (IE: They rushed it through for a quicker opening)
2. Tom Cruise, I only like his movies occasionally. Something like this I think would work better with a no-name who doesn't have a history.
3. The main character apparently has a cute child.

I will most likely watch it, but probably not until it hits video, and I'm not investing too much hope in it.

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 17, 2004 - 07:19 am

I am worried because Spielberg last two movies in the realm of scifi were anything but good.

I.A. & Minority Report were not great movies, far from it. Maybe he's losing touch with scifi?

Posted By: Gnollslayer Dec 17, 2004 - 12:02 pm

I liked Minority Report. I thought it went fairly in-depth on one possible course the future could take, and the characters were portrayed very well.

A.I. on the other hand, did not impress me. I could see how the groundwork for a good movie was there, but it was just so boring and there were some obvious plot contrivances.

I don't know what to expect from War of the Worlds though, since it looks like it's been changed so much from the book.

Posted By: Sindatur Dec 17, 2004 - 12:33 pm

I too liked Minority Report, despite Tom Cruise being the star.

Posted By: Magus Dec 17, 2004 - 01:31 pm

I loved Minority report. It was an awsome movie, methinks.

A.I.? I saw it in theaters. It was O.K., but by far my favorite work of his. Speculative, but not overly entertaining.

As for Tom Cruise, I think he's an excellent actor. He may not be overly diverse, but it's there. You see his diversity in films such as Collateral, Interview With the Vampire, The Color of Money A Few Good Men, Rainman, Cocktail and Jerry Mcguire.

And he's an excellent actor in simple action/sci-fi/thriller movies such as The Last Samurai, The Firm, The Outsiders, Top Gun an even in Mission Impossable.

He's not my favorite actor, but he is one of the better ones out there, in my opinion.

So, Pat0214, what's wrong with Chicago?

Posted By: Nomad Dec 17, 2004 - 07:04 pm

The original War of the worlds held a great charm of the era. It had a passion to it. A Drama. Perhaps a little too over dramatic, but thats its charm.

I aexpect a more action packed movie, to be sure, but if it is done tastefully with the attention to the characters that they deserved, like in the old movie, then it may work out.

Posted By: Magus Dec 18, 2004 - 06:55 am

I think I'll have to rent the origional, and read the book, before I watch this remake that's coming out next year.

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 20, 2004 - 12:36 pm

The original story is quite interesting to read. Keeping in mind it was written in 1893 or 95 (unsure of the exact date)

The 1953 movie is still quite a lot of fun to watch (it's a bit dated now of course) The FX were actualy well made for the time.

Posted By: Magus Dec 20, 2004 - 08:29 pm

I was renting movies the other day and saw it. I would have rented it, but got I, Robot and The Terminal instead. I'll get it next time.

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 21, 2004 - 06:54 am

WOndering how was I Robot....I was so disapointed by the previews I saw...Look nothing at all like the original Isaac Asimov story.
Was it any good?

Posted By: Magus Dec 21, 2004 - 07:31 am

I didn't read the origional story, but I plan on it. The previews did misrepresent the movie, I believe.

I personally loved it. It was a solid two abd a half, three star movie. It held iitself very well. It retained wonderful mystery and drama and delighted the eye with so much candy... as in action. It was no mere "action" flick". It held a message that rang clear.

Reminds me a little bit of the projects we had to do last year on the Russian Revolution, actually.