|
Post by Gerkinman on Feb 13, 2005 11:36:01 GMT
whats a Bug Wars?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 13, 2005 11:39:24 GMT
Crap compared to hollywood budget but bug wars seems to have had a decent review. Yes emphisize the word A which means 1 decent review, and the reviewer worked for a company i have never heard of.
|
|
|
Post by Gerkinman on Feb 13, 2005 11:45:50 GMT
Bug Wars on of hines older films? and would you loook at that, ive stopped writing hines with a capital H...must be loosing respect lol
|
|
|
Post by Flynn77 on Feb 13, 2005 17:03:28 GMT
There's a definate misunderstanding here of the film process. You can't claim that a producer has a direct reponsibilty for a directors actions and final result. Yes they have sway, but sometimes it's a lot more distant than you would think. Yes Jurassic Park was a good movie, removed from the book totaly. But still good none the less, and I might add, still Jurassic Park. I think the Spielberg bashing has gone on long enough, it just sounds infantile and silly. One could also argue that the bashing is a result of the bashing of the PP movie! Me, well I'm looking forward to eventually seeing both. But I'm not going to piss on Pendragon anymore till I see more product, and I'm certainly not going to tear Spielberg apart for a magazine interview. Drop the Spielberg bashing, it just makes you people look narrow minded and stupid. Stick to discussing the facts, it's more interesting reading!
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 13, 2005 20:12:48 GMT
one mans bashing is another mans debate. if you don't like it don't read it.
|
|
|
Post by phillev on Feb 13, 2005 21:13:29 GMT
Yeah and if you dont like it dont watch it also applies.Sorry to be so blunt but if people dont like how Spiellberg's adaptation is sounding then thats the simple answer it may well p-ss of all the die hard WOTW fans because it does not follow the book to the letter but as I have said befoe its pure fiction here and not a real war thats being altered so who cares lets just enjoy it for what it is pure escapism.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 13, 2005 21:29:27 GMT
i already said that i don't think the SS version will be pure tripe, many times i've mentioned on these boards that i'm excited about it and will go see it... but mainly for the effects.
when something as major as "there will be no martians in our WOTW movie" gets announced, its naturally gonna spark up some debate. again i reiterate... if people don't want to participate in the debate, they don't have to. regardless of what i say about SS or PP, what opinions i give about either movie, i enjoy talking about them with people of differing opinions than mine. otherwise these boards would be very boring.
|
|
|
Post by Gerkinman on Feb 13, 2005 21:48:33 GMT
it could be wrse, he could have announced that the tripods were Independant machines invading earth and there was going to be no alien or martian life at all...
|
|
|
Post by I own a cylinder on Feb 13, 2005 22:18:04 GMT
I think the problem is that Lord of the Rings has proved the diffinative way to adapt a book to the screen and make it work. There really isn't that much excuse anymore.
Everyone said LOTR had its relivence to evil and terrorism. Not a modern thing in sight (yes i know its fantasy)
For me, there is no need to update WOTW to modern times at all. The fundimental ideas of the book 'occupation and such' function just as good regardless of the setting. What we're talking about is relating to the material. I'm not sure about everyone else but i can just as easily relate to a Victorian setting as a Modern one.
But if people can't relate to Victoriana and have to have everything updated for relation sakes then all those dramas on T.V. and all the past literacy works that are classics are screwed. might as well bin em and start again.
But this is gunna be an interesting movie to watch.
|
|
|
Post by phillev on Feb 13, 2005 22:32:08 GMT
I can see both sides of the argument to a degree but I am still really looking forward to this adatation even if it does deviate from the original and I will say no more on the matter ;D.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 14, 2005 9:53:54 GMT
A lot of people seems to be saying that it doesn't matter that the aliens are not martians. However, if Spielberg wants to stay true to the THEMES and ideas of the book they HAVE to be martians.
The analogy of the Martians and Mars is that they are our planetary neighbors. Wells was parallelling this concept with the way the British Empire was treating it's neighbors. If the aliens are not martians, then you have lost one of the major themes of the book.
Also, the idea of "we know too much about Mars these days" doesn't hold water - it's a FILM, not fact! After all, Spielberg made Jurassic Park, and we KNOW you can't clone dinosaurs from amberfied DNA. Didn't stop him using that concept did it!! There are all sorts of workaround for Mars, after all - there are conspiracy theories that our Probes have never reached Mars & are wiped out before getting there, That the Face on Mars is (or was) a martian city.
I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for such a poor revision to the whole basis of the book.
HTT
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 14, 2005 10:26:29 GMT
still, it be the best on offer though under the curcumstances.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 11:03:50 GMT
I agree with you there Rusti,
The martians (or aliens) may be from another solar system but they may launch their attack from mars, even if they dont you can still draw the modern analogy, after all America is nowhere near Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 11:11:15 GMT
It is the best on offer considering Waynes movie isnt actualy on offer yet and PP's effort is way way below standard even for a low budget indie film, just because its an "authentic" WOTW wont make up for it being just plain bad. Cheap and nasty is cheap and nasty even with WOTW stamped on the side.
Oh hang on where did that post go I was replying to....?
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 14, 2005 11:15:22 GMT
True, America is nowhere near Iraq, but then Mars is nowhere near Earth.
The point is that in the modern world, globalization has made the world smaller, and almost anywhere can be classed as a "neighbor". Why would "aliens" use a "staging post" why not terraform and colonize the "staging post" planet without the hassle of an invasion? Or choose a suitable planet closer to home? If they were running low on resources, would they deplete them travelling outside their solar system to try and find some - then waste more in a invasion?
A staging post scenario doesn't really make sense. Only Mars fits the requirements of the core themes.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 14, 2005 11:20:52 GMT
Sorry, t'other post I deleted when the other reply to the Martian/Alien argument was posted, and I felt it was a bit harsh!!
My argument (for those that missed it!) was that Spielbergs cannot be the best on offer, as we have Pendragons Authentic version, and Jeffs semi authentic version, whereas Spielberg is ditching core elements of the themes. That doesn't make it the best on offer.
The point I made was that it is supposed to be Stevens SwanSong, and the most expensive film ever. I believe he's making changes simply to justify the huge budget and getting the recognition for the most expensive film ever.
I agree with some of the comments regarding Pendragon, but not with the film potentially being "just plain bad". Still, if we all had the same views it would be a very dull forum!!!
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 11:25:03 GMT
LOL you are contradicting yourself there...
"The analogy of the Martians and Mars is that they are our planetary neighbors. Wells was parallelling this concept with the way the British Empire was treating it's neighbors. If the aliens are not martians, then you have lost one of the major themes of the book."
but then you say...
"True, America is nowhere near Iraq, but then Mars is nowhere near Earth. "
So what difference does it make if they are from another planet?
|
|
|
Post by Flynn77 on Feb 14, 2005 12:39:24 GMT
Isn't the point here that it still remains to be seen if the aliens come from mars or not. It all seems a bit suspect at the moment! Both cruise and spielberg seem very false and robotic in some answers. It's been quoted that they had exactly the same words to say during intervies on set. So it could be a white wash, and certainly one to stir up debate. My point before Malf, was that this is a thread for discussing the 'no martian' aspect. Not for ripping into spielberg for films he sometimes didn't even direct. He is a class filmaker, and pretty much one of the most solid deliverers of quality. Simply to say 'it's crap because it's spielberg and I don't like his films' is silly. Just as I guess, it is to argue against Hines's film. Which nobody has seen. But at least there we have an idea of quality from Spielbergs past films. I coould go into why it is stupid that the 'martians' come from mars in the first place. But hey, it was a book based on false knowledge in that area. It can't be true to the book right from the off. As, surley the whole point is that even though it is a fantastic story, it has to remain grounded in reality to actually be scary.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 14, 2005 12:50:47 GMT
I agree totaly with that, except the Hines part as its difficult not to judge his work on what we have seen so far which has been pretty dire, but you are spot on about Spielberg and the martians/aliens.
That said all the evidence does point to mars, the red planet in the first trailer, the red planet on the website, the red planet on the first poster and SS & Cruise both being quoted as calling the aliens "martians", either way I bet they are cool.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 14, 2005 13:27:07 GMT
Hmmm! Well, I don't THINK I'm contradicting myself here!! But there is a major difference between using Mars and another planet.
OK, I pointed out that the Mars/Earth relationship was a parallel of 'neighborly' wars on Earth. I took your counter argument to mean that an off-Mars scenario met the modern analogy as America is nowhere near Iraq. So, to counter that, I was clumsily trying to point out that Although America and Iraq are far apart, so Mars and Earth are also. HOWEVER, Mars and Earth are still classed as'neighbors'. Take the source off Mars, and you do not meet the modern analogy. After all, the Martians settled for another neighboring planet in the end - any outsiders would simply colonize the nearest planet and terraform.
It's the closeness of Mars that is also part of the uneasiness of the book. It's very near, watching us, building their forces against us. Any old galaxy can produce a superior force, but that fact that it's so close to home that is part of the terror. That we can observe it, know it, but be unaware of the doom forthcoming from it. With that in mind, I could perhaps accept an invasion from a planet within our solar system...or a nearby undiscovered planet, but nothing too far out (I can't remember what planets are nearest to us, but one of them would do).
|
|