|
Post by richardburton on Feb 7, 2006 9:10:18 GMT
Damn good point lol
|
|
loz
Junior Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by loz on Feb 27, 2006 9:25:44 GMT
erm...sorry to dig this up, but i cant see what the problem is with either praising or criticising a WOTW adaptation on a WOTW forum, no matter how many months ago it was released. Another board i post on we discuss films from 30 years ago and are still able to have heated (though interesting) discussions ablout films without people getting all defensive and sh*tty over peoples comments or without it turning into a slanging match. That kind of cr*p should be left to the IMDB boards. And why is it "silly" to want to comment on a film which is six months old? The book was written over 100 years ago!
Anyway...
Tripod, in response to Rustiswordz initial post you said:
"He did a new take on the story by setting it in our time and reflecting some of our fears that we have lived with since 9/11. And I respect that, War of the Worlds is a story that can be adapted to fit in almost every situation in time."
All that is true yes, but it doesnt answer any the criticism of the film. Criticism such as its over sentamental nature, it's lack of scenes where soldiers are killed, the cartoon characters, the unnecessary omissions or additions to the storyline...
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 28, 2006 21:32:30 GMT
The problem isn't how old the film is. The problem is when the same few people keep making the same points over and over again. Some forum members-- perhaps most of us-- get tired of it after awhile. If someone hates something so much, why keep focusing on it and why keep going on and on about it? They-- or actually I should say "we"; no doubt I've been guilty of this at times myself. We should get it off our chest and then move on to something else!
That doesn't mean we're not willing to revisit the same points with a *new* member of the forum like you, Loz.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Mar 5, 2006 21:48:22 GMT
The problem isn't how old the film is. The problem is when the same few people keep making the same points over and over again. Some forum members-- perhaps most of us-- get tired of it after awhile. If someone hates something so much, why keep focusing on it and why keep going on and on about it? They-- or actually I should say "we"; no doubt I've been guilty of this at times myself. We should get it off our chest and then move on to something else! Well lensman if you dont like it. a) dont read the thread. b) dont read the thread or funnily enough c) dont read the thread. I'll use the forum my way, you use it in yours. Its called freedom of speech, i know the powers that be in the Uk are trying to stifle it but i hope it hasnt extended to forums such as this just yet. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 11, 2006 14:45:30 GMT
It's only natural to rant, everyone does it, its in our genes. Your not human if you don't.
Why many hate this film is because its WOTW. We are all too familiar with the novel. I would guess that many who like this film have never read the novel and see the film as just a good sci-fi movie. The 'rant' only comes into practice if you care about the original source - i:e the book. This film though good in some ways unfortunatly has the good ways outweighed by bad. Those that were bought upon the book from either an early or later stage look upon it as the best - which it is and that will never change. But once you have read the book you will always compare it with any adaptation that will follow. . . It's the way of life, we do it because we care - though others may look upon it as were simply complaining.
For me, the biggest problem with the film (incidently I like the film - but as a sci-fi film) is that Spielberg, regarded as a master (or should I say "once a master") had the perfect oppourtunity to make something special - but let his feelings get in the way - again. His WOTW had $$$$ millions thrown into it, had the worlds best FX studio involved, but the end result was (in my opinion) lame. The Tripods are (in my opinion) are breathtaking and still give me that rush each time I see them - but as a fan of the original story goes, this is all that I can say is good about the film - the Tripods. I still watch the film, but wonder where all the money went when you consider films produced at the same time have endless FX sequences.
It has been pointed out before, we dont get many shots of the machines, we dont see them that much, most of the time its a dark backdrop and the machines are obscured by darkness - maybe they lied about exactly how much this film cost, maybe it never cost all those tens of $$$$$ millions reported, maybe this film was just a side project for Spielberg, a gap filler so to speak, tie him over till the next film, just another film notch on his film bed post. . . Its a lot better to have written in your film bio - "films I have made" than having "films I almost made".
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Mar 11, 2006 20:34:15 GMT
Great to have you back Horsell!
One thing I don't understand is your statement about why some of us don't like the film.
We are all too familiar with the novel. I would guess that many who like this film have never read the novel and see the film as just a good sci-fi movie. The 'rant' only comes into practice if you care about the original source - i:e the book.
I'm a great fan of the book, I must have read it a thousand times. You've got a point if you say Spielberg should've made a Victorian true-to-the-book version, because that's something I too have been hoping for. Spielberg's WotW worked for me as a modern re-telling of the book. One of Wells' goals was to make people think about politics through a exciting tale, so did Spielberg maybe less than Wells but he did. Spielberg wanted, maybe indirectly, us to think about the world and the fearful climate we now live in.
Another thing, I've been a long time Spielberg-fan as well. I can remember seeing Jurassic Park in theaters and all, he, as a director, holds a special place for me. To see him 'join arms' with a work by my favorite author H.G.Wells was a dream come true.
Tripod
|
|
Graz
Junior Member
I bring Sutekh's gift of death, to all humanity!
Posts: 43
|
Post by Graz on Mar 11, 2006 22:06:36 GMT
I love the book, but still find room in my heart for George Pal's film and the TV series. Still think the Speilberg production is lousy though. But hey, nice tripods in it!
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 12, 2006 17:21:19 GMT
It's only natural to rant, everyone does it, its in our genes. Your not human if you don't. Why many hate this film is because its WOTW. We are all too familiar with the novel. I would guess that many who like this film have never read the novel and see the film as just a good sci-fi movie. The 'rant' only comes into practice if you care about the original source - i:e the book. This film though good in some ways unfortunatly has the good ways outweighed by bad. Those that were bought upon the book from either an early or later stage look upon it as the best - which it is and that will never change. But once you have read the book you will always compare it with any adaptation that will follow. . . It's the way of life, we do it because we care - though others may look upon it as were simply complaining. For me, the biggest problem with the film (incidently I like the film - but as a sci-fi film) is that Spielberg, regarded as a master (or should I say "once a master") had the perfect oppourtunity to make something special - but let his feelings get in the way - again. His WOTW had $$$$ millions thrown into it, had the worlds best FX studio involved, but the end result was (in my opinion) lame. The Tripods are (in my opinion) are breathtaking and still give me that rush each time I see them - but as a fan of the original story goes, this is all that I can say is good about the film - the Tripods. I still watch the film, but wonder where all the money went when you consider films produced at the same time have endless FX sequences. It has been pointed out before, we dont get many shots of the machines, we dont see them that much, most of the time its a dark backdrop and the machines are obscured by darkness - maybe they lied about exactly how much this film cost, maybe it never cost all those tens of $$$$$ millions reported, maybe this film was just a side project for Spielberg, a gap filler so to speak, tie him over till the next film, just another film notch on his film bed post. . . Its a lot better to have written in your film bio - "films I have made" than having "films I almost made". It certainly seems like a side project or gap filler for Spielberg. I think the film he was itching to make was Munich and most of the money went on Cruise's paycheque.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 12, 2006 17:32:45 GMT
Great to have you back Horsell! One thing I don't understand is your statement about why some of us don't like the film. We are all too familiar with the novel. I would guess that many who like this film have never read the novel and see the film as just a good sci-fi movie. The 'rant' only comes into practice if you care about the original source - i:e the book.I'm a great fan of the book, I must have read it a thousand times. You've got a point if you say Spielberg should've made a Victorian true-to-the-book version, because that's something I too have been hoping for. Spielberg's WotW worked for me as a modern re-telling of the book. One of Wells' goals was to make people think about politics through a exciting tale, so did Spielberg maybe less than Wells but he did. Spielberg wanted, maybe indirectly, us to think about the world and the fearful climate we now live in. Another thing, I've been a long time Spielberg-fan as well. I can remember seeing Jurassic Park in theaters and all, he, as a director, holds a special place for me. To see him 'join arms' with a work by my favorite author H.G.Wells was a dream come true. Tripod Years ago I would have been ecstatic if Spielberg announced he was making an adaptation of Wells book - as I was quite a fan of some of his other films [ still am ]. But over the past decade or more I've come to the conclusion that he's one of the worst directors to take on the job of adapting Wells book - as the film would end up Hollywoodised, Americanised and would no doubt have the usual family/kids routine in it. Not too mention someone like Cruise in it aswell.
|
|
|
Post by papacavy on May 16, 2006 15:52:20 GMT
Y'know, I really don't see why everyone HATES this film. I've seen the George Pal version (would have loved to see a Cecil B. DeMille and Alfred Hitchcock version, if I could find an alternate univers), the Asylum and the Pendragon versions. I think Spielberg's take on it is the second best of the bunch! I like they way he seemed to blend elements of the original novel, the 1953 film and the radio broadcast into one entity and then added his own flavor. While, I'm not a big Cruise fan, I thought he portrayed a loser who finds himself and his courage rather well. Sure, the film has its faults, but is it enough to HATE? Now, you're all entitled to your opinion, but I still can't figure out why this film is so dispised. I shall go back through and read all the rants again. Maybe I'm missing something, but maybe I didn't expect that much from it to begin with.
Having said all that, I feel that the Pendragon movie, while noble in its effort, is a terrible film and only worthy of keeping for it being the only Victorian-era film. The Asylum video is absolute garbage. I'm sorry I spent $20+ on it and waited so long for it to be shipped! I felt that one was not a smooth flowing story, the special effects were mediocre, the acting was stiff and unispired and the script was, well, awful. The sound from my DVD left a lot to be desired, but that could be that my DVD player is old. I was thoroughly disappointed with the design of the Martians (even though you hardly saw them and I liked Spielberg's aliens better) and the ending was tepid.
So, maybe I'm the dissenting voice in the wilderness, but I don't think Speilberg's efforts were too bad and I look forward to seeing his remake of When Worlds Collide.
Ok, NOW you can shoot at me!
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by papacavy on May 16, 2006 15:59:22 GMT
I also want to point out that I have read everything Wells has wrote and read War of the Worlds once every few years. I've collected just about everything I can on this novel and its derivatives and have been doing so since about 1963. WotW still, and always will be, my absolute favorite novel. I've read just about every spin-off and sequel (loved Sean McMullen's 'magical' spin-off/derivative VOIDFARER) and find fault with all of them, but enjoy them just the same. I'm trying to get an affordable copy of Edison's Conquest of Mars (HINT: if anyone has a copy, a PDF scan would be appreciated by millions) and will continue to be a big H.G. Wells fan until I start picking turnips with a step ladder (assume room temperature; shuffle of my mortal coil; have the prairie dogs deliver my mail).
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 17, 2006 3:53:11 GMT
Y'know, I really don't see why everyone HATES this film. I've seen the George Pal version (would have loved to see a Cecil B. DeMille and Alfred Hitchcock version, if I could find an alternate univers), the Asylum and the Pendragon versions. I think Spielberg's take on it is the second best of the bunch! I like they way he seemed to blend elements of the original novel, the 1953 film and the radio broadcast into one entity and then added his own flavor. While, I'm not a big Cruise fan, I thought he portrayed a loser who finds himself and his courage rather well. Sure, the film has its faults, but is it enough to HATE? Now, you're all entitled to your opinion, but I still can't figure out why this film is so dispised. I shall go back through and read all the rants again. Maybe I'm missing something, but maybe I didn't expect that much from it to begin with. Having said all that, I feel that the Pendragon movie, while noble in its effort, is a terrible film and only worthy of keeping for it being the only Victorian-era film. The Asylum video is absolute garbage. I'm sorry I spent $20+ on it and waited so long for it to be shipped! I felt that one was not a smooth flowing story, the special effects were mediocre, the acting was stiff and unispired and the script was, well, awful. The sound from my DVD left a lot to be desired, but that could be that my DVD player is old. I was thoroughly disappointed with the design of the Martians (even though you hardly saw them and I liked Spielberg's aliens better) and the ending was tepid. So, maybe I'm the dissenting voice in the wilderness, but I don't think Speilberg's efforts were too bad and I look forward to seeing his remake of When Worlds Collide. Ok, NOW you can shoot at me! Chuck Missed opportunity - in fact - quite possibly the greatest missed opportunity in cinema history. Cruise is an egotistical knob-end on screen and in real life - couldn't Spielberg at least have chosen someone who's known as a decent actor, it's an uncomfortable mess of different WOTW's, huge plot holes, whiney brats - just a watchable summer blockbuster at best - rubbish WOTW adaptation at worst...............Don't worry you won't be shot though!
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on May 17, 2006 4:11:29 GMT
spielberg and cruise loved to kiss eachothers asses. i saw an interview with both of them before the movie was released, and each one was just fawning over the other like they had both given eachother an orgasm. it was pretty sickening watching these two trade compliments and pretend to be modest.
thats why spielberg chose tom cruise, they both have overinflated egos that complimented eachother well
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 17, 2006 16:27:11 GMT
And Cruise hardly talked about the film at all when he was supposed to be promoting it - it was all about his marriage to Katy Wotserface. He'll be starring in When Worlds Collide next.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 17, 2006 16:55:27 GMT
War of the Worlds was used as a throwaway cheap thrill (minus 75% of those thrills in the book) just to get Cruise and SS popularity back up because their careers were on a bit of a downturn at that point. They needed to do something to boost it again. everyone knows WOTW so they decided to remake it.
There was no interest to honour the book in their decition.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 18, 2006 12:29:01 GMT
I must be complimented, i havent said "I told you so" yet, Rusti But like Micky I have come up with this wonderful "I told you ss" dance I could show you later
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 18, 2006 15:47:04 GMT
I must be complimented, i havent said "I told you so" yet, Rusti But like Micky I have come up with this wonderful "I told you ss" dance I could show you later ?
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on May 18, 2006 16:46:04 GMT
But like Micky I have come up with this wonderful "I told you ss" dance I could show you later Oh no.. it's not the Shakira one is it?
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 18, 2006 19:07:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 18, 2006 19:43:38 GMT
im totally lost as to the whole i told you so thing, explain please.
|
|