|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 18, 2005 0:32:05 GMT
So, what is this movie trying to tell (or sell)?
There are terrorist sleeper cells that can attack without warning and kill a lot of people?
When such attack occures, only mind your own family, forget about all the other people?
Don't count on Europe to help out the US of A?
American locomotives will keep running no matter what happens to them?
Join the army to fight back? And you will live?
The US army will prevail in the end?
Come on! If this movie was to deal with the troubles of our time (Bin f*cking Laden, the f*cking Iraq war), it could have been dealt with a kazillion times better than this sorry excuse for a movie.
I really hoped this movie would make us think about what it is to wage war on another country (the last war on Earth), and why locals would blow up American/invading soldiers. But I guess Spielberg is to conservative to tackle that. Instead, what we get, is a movie running for about 2 hours, aimed at showing Cruise his muck all the time possible. Dog gammit Spielberg! How the f*ck did you miss this oppurtunity to touch on some really important issues of today? It looks like you need to shift political sides. Have lunch with Jon Stewart, will ya?
-Gnorn
|
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jul 18, 2005 2:48:12 GMT
Well I have to say that this movie certainly didn't generate the massive income that they were predicting. While not a flop by any measure, they didn't break any records (as far as I know) and it certainly wasn't movie of the decade.
I do think that the Spielberg of today is not the same Spielberg who created Close Encounters or ET. As much as I did like his War of the Worlds, I do agree that this is not the movie it could so easily have been. It seems that as he got older he is now more interested in fattening his retirement portfolio than taking risks. If he was truly a H.G.Wells fan then why did he bury the reference to the author deep within the ending credits!
It seems that *all* the war of the worlds movies so far have failed us in different ways and hopefully Jeff Wayne may be our saviour. Sadly it will be a CGI movie, which as a matter of personal preference I have never found the same as good as live action. Of course I base this opinion on such movies as final fantasy, but who knows, maybe Jeff Wayne will be the one to change that opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by RickyB on Jul 18, 2005 8:30:39 GMT
Begs the question then timeship....what WOULD have made a good movie. It's a book and we all have imaginations. Would an exact copy of the book done it for you? I'm not having a pop, I'm just curious what elements you would liked preserved that was missing in all previous films, or what combination of elements would be best from previous films?
R
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 18, 2005 12:37:58 GMT
The message of the movie lies in the title - War Of The Worlds.
Anyone who has done there homework will now that its is the story that created todays sci-fi, makes us curious of its modern day approach and thats what brings in the punters.
|
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jul 18, 2005 14:55:09 GMT
Begs the question then timeship....what WOULD have made a good movie. It's a book and we all have imaginations. Would an exact copy of the book done it for you? I'm not having a pop, I'm just curious what elements you would liked preserved that was missing in all previous films, or what combination of elements would be best from previous films? R If you have read my postings you'll know that I like the movie a lot and it will be going in my DVD collection as soon as it is released, but I still think the movie is not what it could have been. Why is it, that when people find fault with a movie it is automatically assumed they want an EXACT copy of the book? Believe me Rickyb, compared to some, I'm a complete leftie relatively speaking with my criticisms of the movie. I enjoyed it a lot, but I am also not blind to its faults. He could have easily made it so much more. He only loosely followed the book and many scenes such as the cylinder landings were missed out completely and the substitutes, were more for dramatic effect than what made sense. The Ferry scene was ok but not Thunderchild and also the Aliens were a big letdown to be honest. He had the power to make them so much better and scarier. I have to agree with a colleague at work that the original 1953 martians were 'scarier' and more fitting with what you might expect although even those were not anything like the book. If you took away the Tripod effects then I have to agree with people, that the 1953 movie was better more rounded movie and believe me it pains me to say this, since the Tripods in this movie are so much better than the swan necked saucers. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jul 18, 2005 16:43:10 GMT
we have an almost exact copyof the film
No one liked that either, so the messege of the film is... no one's ever satisfied *sigh*
human nature gets to repetative at times, and is very predictable
|
|
|
|
Post by RickyB on Jul 18, 2005 17:35:58 GMT
I agree with you Timeship. The aliens were rubbish, the tripods coming out the ground were cool but the entire thing looked rushed and the ending was too quick. I also felt that it was not as good as it could have been. I was just wondering where it could have been better. I think that the aliens should have been only partially seen and they should have looked more like HG Wells' idea. I do think they had a lip-less mouth that was pointed, but I'll have to see it again this week. In fact, maybe I should post what I think after that. I did see all four films (1953, Paramount 2005, Asylum and Hines' film). Of all of them I wrote the longest review for Hines' film - being as positive as I could as I think I slated the Asylum movie. Curious I liked the Hines film better - probably because I had no expectation at all and bought it for a laugh. And laugh I did! However, the asylum film looked more professional and I thought that it could have been better.
However, my current fav list for WOTW films goes...
1953, Paramount 2005, Ayslum, Hines.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jul 18, 2005 17:51:51 GMT
After a couple of viewings. I'd say that the movie isn't perfect, by any means. I'll agree with that. I agree that it could have been better and does feel rushed at times. But, the messages in the film are, I thought, pretty obvious.. it's a warning against complacency, just like the book. The message is put across both in the opening narration and within the story. Having said that, perhpas it isn't as clear as it could have been (except perhaps to people familiar with the story) but, short of clubbing moviegoers over the head with it, I'm not really sure how Spielberg could have made it plainer. It's also an invasion story from one man's perspective.. just like in the book. Spielberg has just given the man a family who are with him throughout the movie. He has also inserted what is something of a trademark for him.. dysfunctionalism of that family. I expected that anyway... anyone who knows Spielberg's movies should. I also expected some sort of an act of heroism on Ray's part.. that maybe because that is what the studio probably think that most ordinary moviegoers want to see. The basket scene was a little contrived, I admit, but it served it's purpose. if that was the case. I think, overall, that this movie is mostly a case of the people involved in a movie misjudging the audience a little. Whilst it's not a particularly a dumb movie, it could have been more intelligent in it's outlook and I think it would have been a bigger success. What I mean is, they have made a movie which has a brain and real messages to put forth but it's done in that, typical Hollywood 'the audience are all f*ckwits' dumbed down way. I think this was a mistake. It's sort of like a brain surgeon pretending to be a chav.... It doesn't work. I also think that there may be missing scenes.. I know others would agree with this. I have a sneaking suspicion that it could be a case of the old cherry that has dogged some pretty good movies in the past.. the studio imposed running time limit. Remember how much better was and how much more sense the 'Aliens' special edition made compared to the theatrical cut? I hope this film will get a special edition/director's cut too. I think Spielberg's heart was in the right place with this one but it could have been done better. The reasoning behind the mistakes is as yet unclear. Maybe we'll find out some day. You gotta love the Tripods though.  |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 18, 2005 19:38:56 GMT
Well I have to say that this movie certainly didn't generate the massive income that they were predicting. While not a flop by any measure, they didn't break any records (as far as I know) and it certainly wasn't movie of the decade. I do think that the Spielberg of today is not the same Spielberg who created Close Encounters or ET. As much as I did like his War of the Worlds, I do agree that this is not the movie it could so easily have been. It seems that as he got older he is now more interested in fattening his retirement portfolio than taking risks. If he was truly a H.G.Wells fan then why did he bury the reference to the author deep within the ending credits! It seems that *all* the war of the worlds movies so far have failed us in different ways and hopefully Jeff Wayne may be our saviour. Sadly it will be a CGI movie, which as a matter of personal preference I have never found the same as good as live action. Of course I base this opinion on such movies as final fantasy, but who knows, maybe Jeff Wayne will be the one to change that opinion? I couldn't agree more though I'm less charitable when it comes to Spielbergs film. I thought this would happen from the start - instead of one great movie we get 3 totally have baked [ or worse ] films and the only shining light is J.Wayne. Good point about HG Wells name being buried in the end credits where virtually no one will see it. Shows how much respect Spielberg has for him. |
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 18, 2005 21:48:40 GMT
It seems that everyone has switched veiws. I hated this movie when I heard it was set in america in 2005, hust seemed wrong. Then slowly thought I would give it a chance, now I love it!
Saw it for the second time tonight and still love it, and god there is some much that proves he likes the book and I think/hope the reason it is not a copy is the book is a bit dated (look at the pendragon version, nothing but walking) there are some bits I think, big poo to such as areoplanes and grenades, but save for that I love it.
Why does every film have to have some social meaning or relfex upon the time it is set/made. Plus legally if they change enough of the story they dont even have to credit where it came from. I bet that if they have giving the film the title "They are already here" and never once mentioned WOTW, please would go round saying how like WOTW it is, so fo those who think it has no relivance to the book you should watch the movie again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 18, 2005 21:52:25 GMT
I agree with Nerfy that a special edition of the film could improve it 10 fold. More character development, scenes of the martians ruling the planet. My main problem was the later half of the film, and this appears to be the half with the most stuff missing, ergo, special edition could make it a lot better for me.
I'll just have to over look the Lightning riders.
-LOL-.
|
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 18, 2005 21:58:12 GMT
I suppose they did that so you didnt have a slow start to the movie before little human scum start to die by big tripods! plus they kind of made the referance to cylinders with the lightening rideing
|
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 18, 2005 22:21:42 GMT
It seems that everyone has switched veiws. I hated this movie when I heard it was set in america in 2005, hust seemed wrong. Then slowly thought I would give it a chance, now I love it! Saw it for the second time tonight and still love it, and god there is some much that proves he likes the book and I think/hope the reason it is not a copy is the book is a bit dated (look at the pendragon version, nothing but walking) there are some bits I think, big poo to such as areoplanes and grenades, but save for that I love it. Why does every film have to have some social meaning or relfex upon the time it is set/made. Plus legally if they change enough of the story they dont even have to credit where it came from. I bet that if they have giving the film the title "They are already here" and never once mentioned WOTW, please would go round saying how like WOTW it is, so fo those who think it has no relivance to the book you should watch the movie again! I don't think everyone has switched views at all. There's plenty of people who like it yes but there's also plenty who think it's a real missed opportunity and nothing special. It's a million miles from a masterpiece or film of the decade. Just because Pendragon gave us a disaster doesn't mean that some other film maker couldn't do the book right and this film will date far quicker than a period version anyday. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 20, 2005 14:14:52 GMT
No one is safe anymore, no matter where they are. Not the full message obviously but thats a feature that I noticed and it ties in with current events.
|
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 20, 2005 14:36:28 GMT
I thought the message was this, if the Earth gets invaded by aliens pray for a fluke because there is no way we would ever stand even a remote chance.
Also I disagree that Spielburgs War of the Worlds is a film for the common guy, the Chav (my enemies) as it were because they just wouldn't get any of it, even if there are dumbed down elements.
Also Hi Refugee, I actually go to the University at Sheffield so I know Aston quite well as I got friends there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 20, 2005 14:45:15 GMT
No one is safe anymore, no matter where they are. Not the full message obviously but thats a feature that I noticed and it ties in with current events. I see what you mean. With all the threath of terrorists and US presidents... I'm just saddent that 1) the movie sucked (but I'm not going there again) and 2) the movie was promoted as the last war on Earth, so I basically thought it was to be an anti-(Iraq-)war movie (as SPR is in a way) but I didn't get that out of the movie. -Gnorn |
|
Watto
Full Member
Self Proclaimed King of Spam
Posts: 71
|
Post by Watto on Jul 20, 2005 15:12:53 GMT
Message of the movie?
"Don't fu*k with Mars."
|
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 20, 2005 15:59:51 GMT
"Also Hi Refugee, I actually go to the University at Sheffield so I know Aston quite well as I got friends there."
Your the second person on this site to say that today, or something similar anyway. So...any of your friends in the 6th form of Aston Comp?
Sorry to go off topic but I am intregued.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 20, 2005 17:18:06 GMT
I saw this bit on Fox News today: Movie More Than Meets the Eye?
Actor Tom Cruise might not have known it, but in his new movie "War of the Worlds" he's playing someone that the film's screenwriter thinks represents the Iraqi insurgents. Screenwriter David Koepp, quoted by the Canadian magazine Rue Morgue, said, "…the Martians [in the movie] ... represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext." And, in an interview with USA Weekend, Koepp said, "You can read our movie several ways. It could be 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."[/b] www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163019,00.html |
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 20, 2005 17:32:59 GMT
Personally I don't think people should keep reflecting the Movie on the whole 9/11 or iraq issues wether it's meant to or not. Furthermore I don't think it should be and its not fair on H.G Wells.
The film should just be about his story and about the Martian invasion without all the unneccesary hidden themes. that way any generation will be able to enjoy it
|
|
