|
Post by Charles on Feb 7, 2005 17:13:14 GMT
Sign(s) of the times?
- 1898: The Narrator hires a dog cart to take his wife and servant to Leatherhead. - 2005: Auto enthusiast Tom “Ray” Cruise (sans wife) attempts to steal a minivan and make a narrow escape with his daughter.
- 1898: “I’ll give you a pound…and I’ll bring it back by midnight.” - 2005: “Get in unless you want to die.”
Yup, if that doesn’t capture the “spirit” of the original novel and translate it for our dimwitted-but-lovable average Joe neighbors, I don’t know what will.
And I thought they were going to completely ignore the original text. Silly me.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 7, 2005 17:22:14 GMT
How very cynical of you Charles I would point out that the world has changed a lot since victorian times, after all a hundred years has passed and the world has grown up a lot through mass media and the internet, a lot of water has gone under the bridge and a lot of the romantic sentament has gone from our lingo.
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 7, 2005 17:36:03 GMT
Wether you were being serious or not charles i think you actually brought up a valid point. The world has changed, so changes are going to have to be made to the orginal text. Cmon, who in today's society is going to believe, as a massive attack is ripping through their neighborhood, "I'll bring the car back by midnight and I'll give you fifty bucks" Thats just not going to cut it in today's world. I think the fact that we can look at this scene and go "Oh, thats like the scene on Mayburry hill" is reassuring enough.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 7, 2005 17:52:54 GMT
Now THATS a fair point.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 7, 2005 18:21:50 GMT
Wether you were being serious or not charles i think you actually brought up a valid point. I mean every word of it.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 7, 2005 20:09:00 GMT
what is it with all the dissing of tom cruises acting? personally i'm kind of dissappointed that tom cruise will be in this movie, but why does everybody keep saying he's a horrible actor? i've heard this a lot in other threads. he's definitely not a horrible actor. anybody ever seen magnolia? a few good men? born on the fourth of july? even if you don't like those movies, or any movie he's in, saying he's a horrible actor just makes no sense. jackie chan... there's a horrible actor. great stuntman, but horrible actor. anybody notice a relative difference? is this just a prejudice against tom cruise because he saturates the market? because he's into that wierd scientology because he's so good looking? is it just jealousy at a guy who's rich and good looking and famous and gets hot chicks? he's definitely not my favorite actor, but saying the guy just flat out can't act... thats like saying neil young can't play the piano. He can act a bit I suppose but let's face it he's got where he is because of his heart throb image and not because of his acting [ or over acting ]. Just like that other over rated, over acting pratt - John Travolta.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 7, 2005 20:27:44 GMT
Yeah Cage realy showed him up in Faceoff
|
|
|
Post by VES on Feb 7, 2005 21:58:03 GMT
Yeah Cage realy showed him up in Faceoff *Chuckles* No, no; Cage is now going to be Ghost Rider, Didn't ya know? (no Joke, really....he is.) As for Cruise....I've seen much, much worse. As for this film.........I can't help but expect another slightly shallow blockbuster. It's what we've been force fed for years. This won't be ID4, but I'm a bit concerned it'll be close. I really, really hope I'm wrong, and that this is basically an updated adaption of the original story witht the same themes, events, etc, just different enviroment and characters. We'll see. That's all we really can do. Now gimmie some popcorn mate; and some cherry Coke. ;D
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 7, 2005 22:19:33 GMT
and some toffee poppets.....
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 7, 2005 23:14:28 GMT
I mean every word of it.
Cant be too careful with all those cynics out there
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 8, 2005 0:25:56 GMT
I think its perfect for the modern setting.
Back in the Victorian times the United Kingdom was the most powerful nation on Earth, our Empire stretched 1/2rds of the globe. We were a decadent society oblivious to the fact that we were drunk on the arrogance of our sucesses.
100 years later its now the Americans turn to be the worlds no1 and the worlds no1 target for all the worlds faults. The US is drunk on its own power, its influence if felt worldwide.
yup there are similarities alright. And thats why the theme works in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 8, 2005 0:32:01 GMT
I think its perfect for the modern setting. Back in the Victorian times the United Kingdom was the most powerful nation on Earth, our Empire stretched 1/2rds of the globe. We were a decadent society oblivious to the fact that we were drunk on the arrogance of our sucesses. 100 years later its now the Americans turn to be the worlds no1 and the worlds no1 target for all the worlds faults. The US is drunk on its own power, its influence if felt worldwide. yup there are similarities alright. And thats why the theme works in the 21st century. I agree on the 'America = world dominator today' issue. But I doubt Paramount and Spielberg will play this out to certain degree. They are not Michael Moore. They need to think about the common devidor of movie-goers, movie-critics and movie-producers (equals money). I personally can't see Spielberg making a movie critisizing US policy abroad. -Gnorn#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 8, 2005 0:38:24 GMT
He doesnt need to really, may be suggest that despite their power the US is unable to stop the invaders. The story and idea will handle the rest.
I dare say the SFX will simulate the 'shock and awe' footage we saw in Iraq and the collateral damage of the people.
Plus the WOTW dabbles with weapons of mass destuction: namly gas/chemicals which the Martians use.
SS says the martians will use gas weapons in the film.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 8, 2005 0:54:46 GMT
He doesnt need to really, may be suggest that despite their power the US is unable to stop the invaders. The story and idea will handle the rest. I dare say the SFX will simulate the 'shock and awe' footage we saw in Iraq and the collateral damage of the people. Plus the WOTW dabbles with weapons of mass destuction: namly gas/chemicals which the Martians use. SS says the martians will use gas weapons in the film. Maybe I take a completly wrong view at Spielberg's movie, but comparing it to Wells' novel, I would guess in this updated version the Martians are the US, and the US is Afghanistan/Iraq. That would - in MY view - mean that we have to feel sympathetic towards the Afghani/Iraqi people, suddenly attacked by the US, bearing down ther War on Terrorism, and making the world democratic. I don't see this happen. The only road I CAN see this will take, is Spielberg making an anti-war movie (like Saving Private Ryan), not a comment against US foreign policy. But then again, I would agree on anti-war. I hate war! -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 8, 2005 1:09:15 GMT
SS said The martys will use gas? Cool where did you read that? Makes my hope meter jump up a notch!
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 8, 2005 1:42:39 GMT
SS said The martys will use gas? Cool where did you read that? Makes my hope meter jump up a notch! In the hudson reporter Al Johnson a reporter for the paper wrote about his visit to a set, he also told about drums of stuff labled "black smoke/fog" when he asked what this was he was told by one of the effects team he met that it was for an effects sequence but most of the smoke effects would be CG, Al asked further and was told it was used by the "bad guys" thats about all he got from them. Hes the guy who got the first pictures of the red weed. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 8, 2005 1:42:50 GMT
ages ago dude. dont know where but according to some extras they had to act as if they were choking to death.
Gas perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 8, 2005 1:50:06 GMT
Maybe I take a completly wrong view at Spielberg's movie, but comparing it to Wells' novel, I would guess in this updated version the Martians are the US, and the US is Afghanistan/Iraq. That would - in MY view - mean that we have to feel sympathetic towards the Afghani/Iraqi people, suddenly attacked by the US, bearing down ther War on Terrorism, and making the world democratic. I don't see this happen. The only road I CAN see this will take, is Spielberg making an anti-war movie (like Saving Private Ryan), not a comment against US foreign policy. But then again, I would agree on anti-war. I hate war! -Gnorn You know I have read the book now 27 times in my life, I read it once or twice a year, mostly in the summer sitting in my garden. I have never read it for its messages about imperialism or any of that stuff. I read it because its a kick ass sci-fi yarn about invaders who want us in battery farms like chickens waiting to be drained of blood, and they have kick ass fighting machines with some of the coolest mental imagery ever puy into words like tripod fighting machines and the thunderchild and the martians themselves. My point? try not to draw distintions between real life and Spielbergs WOTW, its such a cliche and detracts from the main theme which is sci-fi horror, Spielberg wants to make this his last, his best, his master piece before he hangs up his guns. Enjoy it for what it is, not what it may or may not symbolise.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 8, 2005 11:38:41 GMT
"...try not to draw distintions between real life and Spielbergs WOTW..."
Unfortunately - you have to draw parallels between the two if Spielly is, as stated, sticking to the themes and concepts of the book. This means a modern version of colonialization, with superior forces wiping out indigenous life. What Spielly should be doing is showing us the invasion, as a kick ass movie, but also shoving in our face the fact that what the Martians are doing America is what America did to Iraq, The White Man to the Redskins, The British colony to India, etc...
If Spielberg delivers a film that does not address these aspects, then he will not have delivered War of the World, but a remake of ID4.
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Feb 8, 2005 12:39:01 GMT
If Spielberg delivers a film that does not address these aspects, then he will not have delivered War of the World, but a remake of ID4. Yep. Otherwise, the movie isn't about anything other than making $$$. Starting a franchise--which might happen anyway. Let the sequels begin: SPIELBERG-----------------------------------CRUISE WOTW III: REVENGE OF THE VACCINATED MARTIANS SUMMER 08 AT A THEATER NEAR YOU
|
|