|
Post by Lensman on Jul 24, 2006 7:30:40 GMT
Topaz, you're not alone-- I've never heard the JW version either.
But I'd certainly rate the Australian film as superior to the Asylum or (especially) Pendragon versions.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jul 24, 2006 14:03:03 GMT
Yeah, I think the fact that it's a musical is what's been putting me off. There's just no part of the story where I can see anyone breaking into song....
I'm sure I'm not doing the thing justice with that sentiment. It seems to be fairly universally well-liked.
I'm trying to figure out whether I've seen the Asylum version or not. I wasn't even aware there was another, Australian, version as well.
There was a (probably made-for-TV) version on Sci-Fi sometime around the release of the Spielberg/Cruise movie. It was set modern-time and in the U.S., but held reasonably close to the original plotlines. All I recall is that the protagonist was searching for his daughter throughout the film, and that most of the major characters were identifiable.
Anyone have an idea which version I'm talking about? Is it the Asylum or Australian film?
'53 George Pal movie aside, I've not been impressed with the movie versions I've seen to date. Some will recall that I was holding out high hopes for the Pendragon film prior to its release. I was very disappointed, to the point that while I own the DVD, I've yet to watch it all the way through.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jul 24, 2006 14:32:53 GMT
There was a (probably made-for-TV) version on Sci-Fi sometime around the release of the Spielberg/Cruise movie. It was set modern-time ...and that most of the major characters were identifiable. Anyone have an idea which version I'm talking about? Is it the Asylum or Australian film? Okay, I just did a quick search and, indeed, the movie I saw on Sci-Fi was the Asylum version. (I remembered that the Artilleryman-esque character was played by Jake Busey, and IMDB took care of the rest.) Lensman, could you point me to some information on the 'Australian' film you spoke of? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jul 24, 2006 14:47:18 GMT
My list would go 1- The Book 2- Jeff Wayne 3- Pal Version 4- Radio Broadcast (The New York bit is so cool) 5- Spielberg (awesome tripods) 6- Asylum 7- Pendragon
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 25, 2006 0:51:59 GMT
Okay, I just did a quick search and, indeed, the movie I saw on Sci-Fi was the Asylum version. (I remembered that the Artilleryman-esque character was played by Jake Busey, and IMDB took care of the rest.) That's right. I was chatting with someone in my chat room and they talked about seeing it on the Sci-Fi Channel, altho the Sci-Fi Channel censored out the best part... the "naked bosum" shot at the very beginning of the film. Frankly I found it quite forgettable (no, the movie, not the naked bosum!). ;D About average for a low-budget, straight-to-video production. Judged by that standard it's not bad... but I like *good* movies. I admit to being boggled by anyone rating the Asylum version over the Spielberg version. I realize some people are annoyed by Tom Cruise's offscreen antics, but allowing an annoyance to affect one's judgement to such an extreme is absurd. Spielberg's WotW was a very good movie. In fact, it only misses being an excellent movie because of some serious flaws. I saw it again on cable TV and it was just as good as I remembered it being the first time I saw it. It just wasn't Wells' story, and it's too bad two or three very vocal members here can't overlook that. Lensman, could you point me to some information on the 'Australian' film you spoke of? Admittedly that isn't really a full-length film. Several scenes from the novel were filmed. It has voice-over narration linking those scenes, accompanied by montages of period photos. Wisely, the Thunder Child battle is described that way. As the Pendragon version demonstrated, it's better not to try to portray that at all if you can't do at least a halfway decent job of it. Anyway, here's the website for the Aussie version: www.visageentertainment.com/warofworlds.htmThis video isn't available from any normal source. Possibly Wells' copyright is still in effect in Australia, as it is in the U.K.? . However, I've noted sales on e-bay from the same e-mail address as the one given for ordering the video from that website. So it would appear they are willing to sell a copy to anyone, not just to schools as the website claims. Note the best scenes from the Australian version are contained in the wonderful, highly recommended documentary "Great Books: War of the Worlds" which unfortunately isn't available on DVD, but can be ordered on VHS here: tinyurl.com/jsfymNote this is *not* an e-bay auction; that's a flat fee and so far as I can tell it's always available there.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 25, 2006 1:04:41 GMT
As far as "rating" the versions: As I haven't heard the JW album I can't compare. And I wouldn't venture to compare the Pal version to the Spielberg one. Pal's film was a then-modern retelling of Wells' story, whereas Spielberg's is a very different story using some elements from Wells' story and some elements from the Pal version. I personally prefer the Pal version, but that's only because I grew up with it being one of the very best SF movies, in the pre-Star Wars era. Objectively, I suppose the Spielberg version is better-- it certainly has better acting, suspense and special effects. However, Wells' novel is the true classic and even the best adaptations or "re-imaginings" are at best pale imitations.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 25, 2006 2:28:35 GMT
Okay, I just did a quick search and, indeed, the movie I saw on Sci-Fi was the Asylum version. (I remembered that the Artilleryman-esque character was played by Jake Busey, and IMDB took care of the rest.) That's right. I was chatting with someone in my chat room and they talked about seeing it on the Sci-Fi Channel, altho the Sci-Fi Channel censored out the best part... the "naked bosum" shot at the very beginning of the film. Frankly I found it quite forgettable (no, the movie, not the naked bosum!). ;D About average for a low-budget, straight-to-video production. Judged by that standard it's not bad... but I like *good* movies. I admit to being boggled by anyone rating the Asylum version over the Spielberg version. I realize some people are annoyed by Tom Cruise's offscreen antics, but allowing an annoyance to affect one's judgement to such an extreme is absurd. Spielberg's WotW was a very good movie. In fact, it only misses being an excellent movie because of some serious flaws. I saw it again on cable TV and it was just as good as I remembered it being the first time I saw it. It just wasn't Wells' story, and it's too bad two or three very vocal members here can't overlook that. Lensman, could you point me to some information on the 'Australian' film you spoke of? Admittedly that isn't really a full-length film. Several scenes from the novel were filmed. It has voice-over narration linking those scenes, accompanied by montages of period photos. Wisely, the Thunder Child battle is described that way. As the Pendragon version demonstrated, it's better not to try to portray that at all if you can't do at least a halfway decent job of it. Anyway, here's the website for the Aussie version: www.visageentertainment.com/warofworlds.htmThis video isn't available from any normal source. Possibly Wells' copyright is still in effect in Australia, as it is in the U.K.? . However, I've noted sales on e-bay from the same e-mail address as the one given for ordering the video from that website. So it would appear they are willing to sell a copy to anyone, not just to schools as the website claims. Note the best scenes from the Australian version are contained in the wonderful, highly recommended documentary "Great Books: War of the Worlds" which unfortunately isn't available on DVD, but can be ordered on VHS here: tinyurl.com/jsfymNote this is *not* an e-bay auction; that's a flat fee and so far as I can tell it's always available there. Cruise's off screen antics are annoying yes but his on screen antics are just as bad - so let's not pretend that people don't like the film just because he's a bit of a pratt in real life. If Spielberg had any credibility with this type of project any more he would have at least picked someone who's known as a good actor and not gone for a dumbed down star in a dumbed down blockbuster. And you're right - the movie does have some serious flaws. Cruise is one of em.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 25, 2006 3:35:11 GMT
If Spielberg had any credibility with this type of project any more he would have at least picked someone who's known as a good actor He did. Cruise has demonstrated in films such as "Born on the Fourth of July", "Vanilla Sky" and "Collateral" that he's an excellent actor. He usually chooses more action-oriented roles, giving him less chance to show off his acting chops. Even so, in "Minority Report" (for example) some critics pointed out he did an excellent job of acting, even though it was overshadowed by the action and the FX in that movie. Tom Cruise's acting talents shine forth in Spielberg's WotW, perhaps most clearly in the "peanut butter scene" and in the scene where he is forced to kill Ogilvy. At least those were the two scenes where I *really* noticed how great Cruise's acting was. Perhaps it was as good elsewhere but was overshadowed by the surrounding events. Cruise has great talent, and if someone can't allow themselves to see it, it is *they* who are the poorer for it-- not Tom Cruise.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jul 25, 2006 4:53:45 GMT
That's right. I was chatting with someone in my chat room and they talked about seeing it on the Sci-Fi Channel, altho the Sci-Fi Channel censored out the best part... the "naked bosum" shot ... Damn. ;D About average for a low-budget, straight-to-video production. Judged by that standard it's not bad... but I like *good* movies. Yeah, that was my impression as well. Decent acting and direction as I rather vaguely recall, but they really seem to have farmed the CGI out to the very lowest bidder. Common for 'those' sorts of movies, but as we've seen with other productions, the effects can't possibly hide in the background with this story. I liked that it largely preserved the major themes of the book. Overall, I was glad I watched it, but didn't feel any impulse to try and find it on DVD. I admit to being boggled by anyone rating the Asylum version over the Spielberg version. I realize some people are annoyed by Tom Cruise's offscreen antics, ...It just wasn't Wells' story, and it's too bad two or three very vocal members here can't overlook that. Well, I didn't really care whether Cruise was in it or not, myself. I wouldn't care to have lunch with the guy, but IMHO it seems awfully fashionable these days to bash his acting. He works well in some roles, not so well in others. I had more problem with the way his WOTW character was written then how he played the part. I certainly wouldn't rate the Asylum version above Spielberg's, myself, but I'm a not-so-vocal part of the "not to my taste" crowd on the latter, precisely because the book's themes were pushed to the background. The tripods and the mood of several scenes were just about perfect, but by and large I found the new 'family' storyline a distraction rather than a welcome addition. By contrast, for me, the '53 version radically changed the time and place of the story but kept the book's themes completely intact. I'm not terribly 'vocal' about my views because I can see how people such as yourself could quite legitimately like the thing. Taken completely on its own merits, it a pretty decent 'Spielberg' sort of story - it's just not WOTW. Hey, it works for you and not for me. That's life in a nutshell, eh? Ah, thank you. I'll check that out.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Jul 25, 2006 10:20:30 GMT
I have changed my order after re-watching the Asylum version to- 1)Book 2)Spielberg 3)Online Comic 4)Wayne 5)Hines 6)Asylum 7)Pal There are no doubt going to be some that disagree, but remember- we all are entitled to our opinion. I have moved the Asylum version down the list as I didn't seem to enjoy it as much when I watched it last time. I certainly enjoyed watching Hines version more, even though that was partly down to unintentional comedy. Either way, the film was more entertaining for me. And I definately had to move the album higher as even though I am not so keen on the second half, the first part, although repetitive, is superb. That's it now, I am not changing it again- not until the CG film comes out. Promise
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 25, 2006 15:03:51 GMT
If Spielberg had any credibility with this type of project any more he would have at least picked someone who's known as a good actor He did. Cruise has demonstrated in films such as "Born on the Fourth of July", "Vanilla Sky" and "Collateral" that he's an excellent actor. He usually chooses more action-oriented roles, giving him less chance to show off his acting chops. Even so, in "Minority Report" (for example) some critics pointed out he did an excellent job of acting, even though it was overshadowed by the action and the FX in that movie. Tom Cruise's acting talents shine forth in Spielberg's WotW, perhaps most clearly in the "peanut butter scene" and in the scene where he is forced to kill Ogilvy. At least those were the two scenes where I *really* noticed how great Cruise's acting was. Perhaps it was as good elsewhere but was overshadowed by the surrounding events. Cruise has great talent, and if someone can't allow themselves to see it, it is *they* who are the poorer for it-- not Tom Cruise. In your opinion he has great talent and I'm certainly no poorer for thinking he hasn't got great talent. I know I've said it before but I think the only reason he's become famous is because of his popularity with female admirers - not because of his acting. He's a hearthrob action hero star in most of his movies and in WOTW he's no different. He's mediocre, bland and one dimensional. Not the type of actor who should have been the starring role in a fim supposedly based on Wells book. Spielberg only picked Cruise as he's big chums with him. Mind you, Spielberg must take most of the blame for this movie.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Jul 25, 2006 15:54:45 GMT
"He's mediocre, bland and one dimensional. Not the type of actor who should have been the starring role in a fim supposedly based on Wells book" Two points- 1) I must stick up for Cruise and agree with Lensman- I thought he was superb in WotW. The scene that really stands out for me was when he was asked to sing a lullabyby Rachel and he didn't know any so had to sing something else- very emotional for me. But.... 2) If this really is going to be a discussion on if Cruise is any good or not, I would rather you carry on in another thread, as this one is supposed to be about ALL versions, and which one you'd pick/ what order you rate them- not just Spielbergs. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 26, 2006 0:08:31 GMT
Well, I didn't really care whether Cruise was in it or not, myself. I wouldn't care to have lunch with the guy, but IMHO it seems awfully fashionable these days to bash his acting. He works well in some roles, not so well in others. I had more problem with the way his WOTW character was written then how he played the part. Exactly. Cruise played the part he was given, and the part was not a very likable character. Cruise isn't to blame for that-- the writers and director are. Ditto for Dakota Fanning's character. Many have dismissed her as "the shrieker". Well that was the way her character was written-- blaming the actress for that is silly. ~~~~~~~~~~ Going back over this thread, I think I've misinterpreted the rankings. The original question posed was which version forum members *liked* best, not which they thought were the "best" version. And with that criteria, I can certainly see how someone might say they *like* the Asylum version better than the Spielberg version. I was misinterpreting the ranking as stating the Asylum version was actually *better* than the Spielberg version-- my bad! Based on personal likes and dislikes, definitely I *like* the Pal version more than the Spielberg one. Spielberg didn't make a likable movie-- or a fun one. As I've said before, it was remarkable how quiet the audience was upon leaving the theatre after the Spielberg film. A sobering and frightening film-- certainly not a "likable" one! George Pal OTOH gave us a grand, entertaining spectacle.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jul 26, 2006 0:55:15 GMT
I thought the topic was best adaption, overall and taking into account all the elements (entertainment value and so on), in people's opinion. The audience was quiet after the showing of the SS film I went to because there were only two other people in there. And this was three days after the opening. Seriously. Or it may have been that those poor two were baffled by the rushed ending. Who knows? Before anyone starts, I don't hate the movie. It was good in a summer blockbuster type of way. But fairly disappointing as The War of The Worlds. This kind of discussion is always subjective. To avoid further confusion, perhaps clearer perameters could be laid down with such questions... i.e - 'Which did you think was the best WotW adaption' or 'which did you enjoy most as a movie' and so on. I say this because, like it or loathe it, the PP film was, without doubt, the 'best' adaption because it encompassed the most story elements and was more faithful by far than any other to the novel. But it was certainly not the most enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 26, 2006 19:32:28 GMT
Sorry I am guilty of starting the ranking thingy
Actually am not sorry, I am proud that something I did was taken notice and used as a template so ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ok I've had my moment *crawls back under his rock*
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jul 26, 2006 23:35:34 GMT
*Shakes fist* Why I oughta... !
|
|
|
Post by wotwfan48 on Jul 27, 2006 3:42:05 GMT
I know i am gonna look like a retarded, I have read the book, I saw 1953 movie, and ss. that's it. so. 1. book 2. SS 3. 1953 The 1st i was introduce was 1953, i liked and still do. SS is second due to the tripods. Guys i just realise my signature looks like, i saw everything, oups. I should change it for, Fan of what i saw or read from wotw. sorry guys. Chantale
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Aug 1, 2006 8:25:14 GMT
I can't believe how many people haven't heard Jeff Wayne's album! It's a tough one, but I think JW is top of my list.
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Aug 1, 2006 12:03:35 GMT
1: The book.
Why?:
A masterpiece of sci-fi and attempts something that has never been done before. Kick-started both the serious adult sci-fi trend, and the fun alien invasion trend. Still remains the most chilling and thought provoking of all the works.
2: Steven Spielberg version
Why?:
Although not perfect, the first half has come the closest any film has so far to the horror of an alien invasion. Some sci-fi films are better (Stalker, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Close Encounters) but this one is the most frightening and in the first half of the movie, shows all film-makers what apocolyptic sci-fi horror can achieve. The second half while a little lacklustre doesn't detract from what up to that point had been one of the most amazing experiences I'd ever had in the cinema.
3: George Pal version
Why?:
Inspired most of today's genre directors, and is a fast paced fun film which retains some seriously good and creepy special effects and sound design. Lots of charm, and an under-rated script. Also my fave film when I was little and peeking from between the cushions. Bless. Makes me laugh every time the General says, "All we know is that once they start moving, no more news comes out of that area." The camera holds, he slowly takes a sip of coffee. Stares into camera. For five seconds. I laugh.
4: Orson Welles version
Why?:
Started something new, the fake documentary stylee. Excellent use of sound, some chilling scenes and Welles' wonderful laconic yet oddly urgent drawl. Only marred by the 'live' stuff now-a-days obviously been fake due to forced fast pace of cutting from scene to scene.
5: Jeff Wayne's version
Why?:
Loved it as a kid, but now I find it hard to listen to. There's some bits that are still catchy and fun, like the the Heat Ray, Thunderchild, and Spirit of Man, and I love Richard Burton - but now I find it all a bit cheesy and wikka-wakka "taking it all the way back to 1899 with a disco dancing martian from the futuuuuure". Plus although I like the art itself, I really, really, really hate the bug-eyed tripod designs and get oddly fecked off every time I see them. There's no 'dance off' in it either.
6: Asylum's version:
Why?:
Haven't actually seen it yet. But I arrogantly presume it's better than the Pendragon one. And also because I like C T Howell.
7: Pendragon version
Why?:
Yes. Why? WHY GOD WHY? WHY?!? (Bursts into hysterical sobbing)
I wish I could include 'Leage of Extraordinary Gentleman: Volume Two' by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neil, which has Quartermain, Hyde, Ms Murray and Nemo deal with a superbly rendered martian invasion with some of the best tripods and martians I've ever seen illustrated. But it deviates too far from the story, absorbing Dr Moreau stuff in its wake. However, I seriously implore you to check it out, as it is a wonderful comic horror that - even though the Dark Horse version is more faithful - is better than it for wit, humour, horror, writing and artwork.
Nemo: "Hyde! He's just a child!"
Hyde: "I know what children are like, Nemo. I've scraped enough of them off my boots."
Genius.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 2, 2006 8:52:19 GMT
All right, I can no longer resist jumping on the bandwagon. The following ranking is in order of what versions I *like*, not what I think is best:
1. H.G. Wells' classic novel 2. George Pal movie 3. Dark Horse graphic novel 4. Australian film 5. Spielberg film 6. Orson Welles radio play 7. Classics Illustrated adaptation 8. Asylum film 9. Marvel Comics adaptation 12. that movie Timbo cries about every day
If you're wondering what happened to #10 & #11, I haven't heard the Jeff Wayne album nor seen his stage play, but I refuse to rank Pendragon's "instant masterpiece" above them!
|
|