finally got a copy

[theredweed]

i finally got a copy, bought it on ebay it should be coming in the next few days

[Thunder Child]

Yep, I've got a copy too. I'm going to watch it this evening.

By the way: the title of the film is "H.G.Wells The Worlds In War" here in The Netherlands...

Johan

[Balrog]

The posts in the DVD?

[FALLINGSTAR]

Good luck to you guys watching yet another WOTW travesty. I'll have an ambulance waiting just in case the film makes you feel ill.

HG Wells The Worlds in War! The mind boggles. Quick call an ambulance for me too!

[Thunder Child]

I've seen some scenes already, just because I was curious. The aliens themselves are just awfull! Nothing like the Wellsian Martians. But the Fighting Machine effects are better than the PP movie as far as I have seen so far...

My full thoughts about this film, tomorrow!

Johan

[FALLINGSTAR]

And let's face it. It's not hard to beat Pendragons effects. The actual effects look better produced but the problem is they aren't tripods and the rest of the film looks poop anyway! It's enuff to make yer weep!

[theredweed]

some of the effects were a bit naffy and they even used a few of them twice in the movie, which stank!

There was some ok acting in it and the characters were made believable. nice little twists with the aliens being able to burn people with spit, he he. the aliens were nuts.

the fighting machines were a good design and the heat ray was shown really well. Overall though the movie failed to hit what is was ment to and for effort they get 8/10 but for performance they get 4/10.

it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be but it was pretty poor. my main cause for discomfort was jake busey, he is a good actor in starship troopers but was utter wank in this!

[FALLINGSTAR]

Yuk, sounds horrid!

[maniacs]

Being fair. This modernised version was quite faithful to the book in several ways and only cost a million to make.

However of ALL versions I prefer PP's.

[ArmoredTrackLayer]

fallingstar said:

Yuk, sounds horrid!

Wait...you havent even seen it yet?

Then whats with you calling it a travesty?

[EvilNerfherder]

It's amazing how many people feel able to write this off even when they haven't seen it.
I was pleasantly surprised (as I've said before) by how close to the novel this was.. and slagging off the FX is just plain wrong when you look at what they achieved, they didn't have a Spielberg sized budget after all. The FX were much better than they could have been.
Some of the smartass comments on here are both uninformed and ignorant.
Frankly, I'm gettting a bit bored of people scoffing at things they have no idea about. Get over yourselves, for god's sakes.
The film doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't, it just tells the story in a modern setting.
It's low budget, but it's pretty damn close to the story and the people behind it really are fans. anyone who has watched it will realise that.

[FALLINGSTAR]

armoredtracklayer said:

fallingstar said:

Yuk, sounds horrid!

Wait...you havent even seen it yet?

Then whats with you calling it a travesty?

Since when did I say that I had seen it? I've pointed out [ based on observations from fairly reliable sources ] that I think that it does look like a travesty. I'm being perfectly honest about the fact that I haven't seen it YET!

Sometimes [ not always ] you don't have to see something to be fairly sure that it's not very good. For a start what Thunder Child and redweed said about it is enough to put me off. I'm not saying it's a totally awful movie without any merit but this is supposed to be based upon a classic novel - but is nothing more than cheap straight to dvd schlock.

Obviously Armoured you don't think 6 legged fighting machines is a teeny weeny bit stupid - seeing as Wells book is known for it's tripods. Not forgetting the tacky dvd cover which is a direct rip off of the Independence Day posters.

[FALLINGSTAR]

nerfherder said:

It's amazing how many people feel able to write this off even when they haven't seen it.
I was pleasantly surprised (as I've said before) by how close to the novel this was.. and slagging off the FX is just plain wrong when you look at what they achieved, they didn't have a Spielberg sized budget after all. The FX were much better than they could have been.
Some of the smartass comments on here are both uninformed and ignorant.
Frankly, I'm gettting a bit bored of people scoffing at things they have no idea about. Get over yourselves, for god's sakes.
The film doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't, it just tells the story in a modern setting.
It's low budget, but it's pretty damn close to the story and the people behind it really are fans. anyone who has watched it will realise that.

This film IS pretending to be something it isn't. It's pretending to be H.G. WELLS WAR OF THE WORLDS. Only the 'THE' is missing from the title. It may be close to the story in parts but in other parts it's far from close. As I've said - 6 legged fighting machines.

I thought they were tripods in the book!

It might just aswell be called ATTACK OF THE GIANT INSECT MACHINES. And I don't believe for one minute the makers of this are fans. This is a cheap cash in - just like their cheap cash in of King Kong. King of the Lost World - but at least they aren't calling that MERIAN C COOPERS KING KONG or something which is virtually the same title.

I think a lot of fans are pig sick of seeing their favourite books turned into films and butchered by people who haven't got a clue or are just out to make cash at the stories expense.

If film makers are going to call these bastardizations the same thing [ or virtually the same thing ] as the book then don't be surprised if you get a lot of stick from the fans. If Jackson had used the title LOTR, set the story in Outer Mongolia and had changed the Hobbits into 6 feet tall demons he would have quite rightly been given sh*tloads of flak from fans. This is 2005 and people have much higher expectations of things now.

Especially when no film maker has even attempted to do a live action version of the story properly. I don't think they deserve any excuses. If you're going to adapt a famous novel and change things radically - then call it something else. That way the fans won't give you so much stick.

[EvilNerfherder]

You really need to see the movies you are talking about before you come out with some of this stuff, Fallingstar.
The Asylum WotW may be 'cheap' but it isn't a cash-in. I've spoken to David Latt many times and he IS a fan. He pops up regularly on various WotW sites and he obviously knows his stuff. If you'd actually seen the movie you would realise that the script is surprisingly respectful and close to the source material. So what if he has 6 legged machines? The story is pretty much intact and I think that is much more important than a few aesthetic details. Maybe you'd like to debate how much of a fan he is with him personally.. I'm sure he'd be up for that.
Likewise, King of the Lost World isn't a cash in on King Kong. It's an adaption of 'The Lost world'. The giant ape is in it for about 3 minutes of the 85 minute running time. It is played up a bit in the advertising, but references to King Kong certainly will help shift a few copies.. so you can't blame him for using that,he'd be daft not to.
How can you speak with so much apparent authority about things you obviously know nothing about.. except what you have been told?
See the films, then maybe we can debate them properly rather than continually relying on hearsay.

[ArmoredTrackLayer]

fallingstar said:

armoredtracklayer said:

Wait...you havent even seen it yet?

Then whats with you calling it a travesty?

Since when did I say that I had seen it? I've pointed out [ based on observations from fairly reliable sources ] that I think that it does look like a travesty. I'm being perfectly honest about the fact that I haven't seen it YET!

Sometimes [ not always ] you don't have to see something to be fairly sure that it's not very good. For a start what Thunder Child and redweed said about it is enough to put me off. I'm not saying it's a totally awful movie without any merit but this is supposed to be based upon a classic novel - but is nothing more than cheap straight to dvd schlock.

Obviously Armoured you don't think 6 legged fighting machines is a teeny weeny bit stupid - seeing as Wells book is known for it's tripods. Not forgetting the tacky dvd cover which is a direct rip off of the Independence Day posters.

I never said I didnt think it was going to be a cheese fest. Or that it I thought it was going to be devoted to the book.

But that doesnt make it a travesty.

Pentimbo Im looking at ya.

[FALLINGSTAR]

nerfherder said:

You really need to see the movies you are talking about before you come out with some of this stuff, Fallingstar.
The Asylum WotW may be 'cheap' but it isn't a cash-in. I've spoken to David Latt many times and he IS a fan. He pops up regularly on various WotW sites and he obviously knows his stuff. If you'd actually seen the movie you would realise that the script is surprisingly respectful and close to the source material. So what if he has 6 legged machines? The story is pretty much intact and I think that is much more important than a few aesthetic details. Maybe you'd like to debate how much of a fan he is with him personally.. I'm sure he'd be up for that.
Likewise, King of the Lost World isn't a cash in on King Kong. It's an adaption of 'The Lost world'. The giant ape is in it for about 3 minutes of the 85 minute running time. It is played up a bit in the advertising, but references to King Kong certainly will help shift a few copies.. so you can't blame him for using that,he'd be daft not to.
How can you speak with so much apparent authority about things you obviously know nothing about.. except what you have been told?
See the films, then maybe we can debate them properly rather than continually relying on hearsay.

Ok, my mistake was saying - "good luck to you guys watching yet another WOTW travesty".

What I should have said was - "good luck to you guys watching yet another 'potential' WOTW travesty".

Again I've never claimed that I've seen it but even though you do make a fair point - I'm still entitled to say that from what I've seen and heard - it 'looks' like a 'potential' travesty and I still think it 'looks' naff and I still think it's pretending to be something it isn't as it's using HG WELLS WOTW as it's title.

As soon as the title of a classic book is used - people usually expect something special - and this doesn't look very special at all to me. In fact quite the opposite!

[EvilNerfherder]

Well, fair enough, FS. Yes, you can say what you like here, but don't expect not to be questioned at times. That's what debate is all about, right? While you're saying it 'looks' like a travesty, those of us who have seen it (no matter what our opinions) will take what you say for what it is. Uninformed and unfair.
If you do seen it (if you can get past your prejudices and give it a shot like you did the far worse PP flick), I for one will take what you say more seriously. You are always saying what a travesty it is no matter whether that's what you mean or not. Perhaps you should word your posts better or something. Anyway, if you do see it I will know that, if you dislike it, you dislike it for a reason.
I have never said it was the perfect WotW film, or even that it is perfect in itself, but it's a damn good stab at an adaption. I knew it was cheap and a modern adaption, but I gave it a go. I was surprised (in a good way). I, like you, would like to see a good adaption of Wells' book. In the absence of that I think it's an idea to try and look at the good points (and, yes, the bad) of what we DO have.
You probably will hate Asylum's film, though... you seem to have already decided that. It's just a pity you won't watch it and gain an informed opinion.
At the end of the day, I'm not trying to change your mind about the film. But it's tough to talk about something with someone who knows little about the subject. It's all a bit pointless, you just end up going round and round in circles.. kind of like we are now.
I think I'll tell Jeff Wayne that if his film doesn't up to scratch, I shall be sending a bill to him for the therapy I'll need if people kick off over that.

[FALLINGSTAR]

nerfherder said:

Well, fair enough, FS. Yes, you can say what you like here, but don't expect not to be questioned at times. That's what debate is all about, right? While you're saying it 'looks' like a travesty, those of us who have seen it (no matter what our opinions) will take what you say for what it is. Uninformed and unfair.
If you do seen it (if you can get past your prejudices and give it a shot like you did the far worse PP flick), I for one will take what you say more seriously. You are always saying what a travesty it is no matter whether that's what you mean or not. Perhaps you should word your posts better or something. Anyway, if you do see it I will know that, if you dislike it, you dislike it for a reason.
I have never said it was the perfect WotW film, or even that it is perfect in itself, but it's a damn good stab at an adaption. I knew it was cheap and a modern adaption, but I gave it a go. I was surprised (in a good way). I, like you, would like to see a good adaption of Wells' book. In the absence of that I think it's an idea to try and look at the good points (and, yes, the bad) of what we DO have.
You probably will hate Asylum's film, though... you seem to have already decided that. It's just a pity you won't watch it and gain an informed opinion.
At the end of the day, I'm not trying to change your mind about the film. But it's tough to talk about something with someone who knows little about the subject. It's all a bit pointless, you just end up going round and round in circles.. kind of like we are now.
I think I'll tell Jeff Wayne that if his film doesn't up to scratch, I shall be sending a bill to him for the therapy I'll need if people kick off over that.

Well, I've had plenty of long debates on here as you'll know, with people disagreeing with me - so I don't expect not to be questioned at times - far from it. As you say that's what debate's all about!

Some might say that the very fact this film is called HG WELLS WAR OF THE WORLDS and there aren't any tripods in it [ that's one thing that I do know for certain ] - immediately makes this adaptation a travesty.

I don't think that's just an aesthetic detail - I think if you're going to call a film HGWTWOTW then it should at least have tripods - not 6 legged walking machines that could just aswell have come from any other sci fi film - AT-TE from ATTACK OF THE CLONES for instance.

But fair enough - I won't make anymore comments until I've seen it.

[EvilNerfherder]

I kind of agree with you on the tripods.. although it didn't ruin the film for me. The story was well adapted and that was a major plus for me. David Latt said he wanted the FX people to design a terrifying machine and the came up with the walkers. Although he didn't state why he discarded tripods. I may well ask him..
I'm not saying you have no right talk about the film, FS.. my point was that 'travesty' and all those words you use seem, to me, a little harsh considering you haven't seen it. That's all.

[the Donal]

Well- I've been away from the forums for a while but not much has changed!

Still- at least the Asylum film has got some gratuitous (if brief) knocker action! I didn't think it was very good at all, but didn't hate the movie or have any real expectations from it....

Hello again by the way! 's bin awhile! How's you all doing?