|
Post by Necronmaniac on Feb 8, 2005 12:55:01 GMT
Well
I just watched the ET footage and i think this film is shaping up to be a very good adaption of the book. Obviously we wont know for sure till we see the finished product, but the ferry scene is there (which suggests sum kind of thunderchild scene will be there too).
Also in much the same way as the narrator spends virtually the entire of the book on the move from the advancing martians, so too in every still and clip ive seen from this film have i seen cruise's character always on the run, driving away from the bridge int he van, fleeing with the rest of the civilians, being herded away in the crowds, never have i seen a image in which cruise looks anything less than desperate, ragged, tired, I certainly dont think he will be taking on any of the martians as some of the sceptics believed.
|
|
|
Post by Rust on Feb 8, 2005 13:05:50 GMT
I havent seen the ET-footage yet, which sounds pretty detalied... damn... But I'll probably only be more hyped about it afterwards. This is definitely shaping up to be the dark nightmarish rollercoaster-ride of a Spielberg-movie that I dreamed about. Looks like it's got the ingredients I was hoping for. Alien invasion done like never before(the dark intense side of CE3K), dark atmosphere, hefty innovative visuals, actionpackiness, hopefully over-the-top gruesome designs and alien visuals, good acting, strong sense of drama and interacting, the tone of the original, a real sense of futility and doom and horror, horror, HORROR!!!
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Feb 8, 2005 13:18:18 GMT
After my intial doubt's about the worth of this adaptation and it's america centric storyline, i,m quite looking forward to seeing it, after all it's... WAR OF THE WORLDSAin't it. D.F.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 8, 2005 13:42:46 GMT
That's the problem Dave, the TITLE's War Of The Worlds, but unil we see the movie there's lots of room for healthy debate on the matter!!
Remember, Roland Emmerich wanted to do WOTW, but couldn't get any rights to it. So he modernised it and called it ID4.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 8, 2005 18:29:43 GMT
That's the problem Dave, the TITLE's War Of The Worlds, but unil we see the movie there's lots of room for healthy debate on the matter!! Remember, Roland Emmerich wanted to do WOTW, but couldn't get any rights to it. So he modernised it and called it ID4. No thats not true at all, Dean Devlin and Roland Emerick were talking about ideas one day when they started to discuss WOTW, Dean Devlin mentioned V the mini series, Emmerick said wouldnt it be great to combine the two, imagine if you woke up one morning to find these huge craft over every major city in the world but instead of being nazi type bad guys in V they just wanted to kill everthing with they're heat guns like in WOTW? ID4 was born, it had nothing to do with rights to WOTW and to be fair it did give us some of the greatest visuals ever seen. All of this is absolute fact. I actuay watched the interview with Dean Devlin, (It may even be on the DVD extras...I will have to look...)
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 8, 2005 18:32:26 GMT
I havent seen the ET-footage yet, which sounds pretty detalied... damn... But I'll probably only be more hyped about it afterwards. This is definitely shaping up to be the dark nightmarish rollercoaster-ride of a Spielberg-movie that I dreamed about. Looks like it's got the ingredients I was hoping for. Alien invasion done like never before(the dark intense side of CE3K), dark atmosphere, hefty innovative visuals, actionpackiness, hopefully over-the-top gruesome designs and alien visuals, good acting, strong sense of drama and interacting, the tone of the original, a real sense of futility and doom and horror, horror, HORROR!!! In the Entertainment Tonight footage Spielberg says that this isnt one of his sweet alien storys hes known for, its the first time he has ever made a sci-fi horror and hes jumping in with both feet. Judging by some of that footage it looks far from being a suger coated family movie.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 9, 2005 10:07:31 GMT
I too have read 2 interviews with Roland, and seen another where he talks about being unable to get the rights, and ID4 is WOTW.
Both stories probably contain elements of truth, and are equally valid.
** UPDATED: I've taken out a comment I had added in the heat of the moment when having a bad day (see apology below).
|
|
|
Post by D.A.V.E on Feb 9, 2005 22:56:45 GMT
I was a little skeptical when I heard they were planning a new version of WOTW. I think the word "remake" is a bit of an exaggeration. And I don't think the word adaptation *really* suits it either. However, saying that: the TV spot did get me quite excited. If we aren't guaranteed a decent adaptation of WOTW, we will at least have a big budget blockbuster that will be entertaining nonetheless. Although I would probably demand they renamed it to "Independence day II" or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 9, 2005 23:12:10 GMT
Well no matter how much Spielberg follows the book it's still not going to be the Victorian faithful film most of us W.O.T.WORLDS fans want.
Until someone does the book full justice most fans are going to say - "Yeh that's good - now give us the real deal".
And it's still got Tom "I'm determined to have my name and face everywhere" Cruise in it.
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Feb 9, 2005 23:19:50 GMT
And it's still got Tom "I'm determined to have my name and face everywhere" Cruise in it. Yeah, I would have preffered a faithful version too. But all of my nightmares are up to date versions, so it's a little more faithful than it might be for others. As for Tom Cruise, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? He gets offered roles, he accepts them, lots of people go to see him. He's not in my top ten of actors by a long shot, but he's competent and can offer good turns. And true, he is unbalanced enough to follow the whacked out religion of scientology, but I haven't seen him taunt me in any adverts or cheesy cameos. At least he keeps his delusions and ego quiet. And he seems a nice chap. Though I would have preffered William H Macy. Or Sam Rockwell. Or Damian Lewis. Or some actor who was a little more earthy. Pete
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 10, 2005 0:26:12 GMT
As for Tom Cruise, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? He gets offered roles, he accepts them, lots of people go to see him. He's not in my top ten of actors by a long shot, but he's competent and can offer good turns. And true, he is unbalanced enough to follow the whacked out religion of scientology, but I haven't seen him taunt me in any adverts or cheesy cameos. At least he keeps his delusions and ego quiet. And he seems a nice chap. Pete In good spirit, Pete, let me go back and forth with you. I do, of course, refer you back to the Buffalo Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America. Cruise is no. 39, scoring higher than Ann Coulter and Laura Bush. While taste is, as always, a relative thing, I gotta confess that my reactions to Cruise are completely mechanical - I literally squirm when I see him acting because it makes me so uncomfortable. To develop this point, let me provide one concrete example (sorry, I don't mean to bludgeon you with this, it's just for the sake of artistic argument). It's rather well acknowledged, for intance, that the great Stanley K. (as Terry Southern called him) deliberately cast Cruise in the brilliant _Eyes Wide Shut_ simply because Cruise _couldn't_ act and Kubrick desperately wanted a male actor to play an early 21st-century typical male who is totally clueless about everything, especially their sexuality and their relations with women. In this case, Kubrick used Cruise's poor acting skills to try and show how men are faking their way through their gender relations now and [we] really haven't a clue how to act. Anyway, this is what the people close to Kubrick say and what film historians/critics have also suggested. The debate rages simply because Cruise has no credibility as an actor and there was widespread astonishment that a great director like Kubrick would have included Cruise in such a serious film. I feel much the same way about Cruise so I was terribly disappointed to see him in the lead role for _The War of the Worlds_. It makes me very reticent to see the film. But I say this with the utmost respect and friendliness and a simple love for passionate debate about literature, film, and art. Obviously, in the big scheme of things, these are unimportant issues. On the other hand, one might say that art is the only thing worth arguing about! In any case, this is a good year for War of the Worlds fans - but inevitably, our collective hopes will end in disappointment. Wells's great piece lives in the life of the mind and any attempt of visualising it on the medium of film will end in obvious disappointments and frustrations. The fact that we're all disappointed with the previous art - Correa, Gobles, and even the Deans (no matter how cool) don't do justice to our mind's eye - should give us a clue as to how we'll react to the upcoming films. In the end - and we should probably all admit this ourselves - we'll go to Spielberg and Hines simply to see what they did with the tripods. I mean, I gotta be honest on that point. What's the point otherwise? We'll then critique, nit-pick, and express general disillusionment and frustration and unfulfilled expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Feb 10, 2005 1:37:53 GMT
In any case, this is a good year for War of the Worlds fans - but inevitably, our collective hopes will end in disappointment. The glass is always half empty isn't it, Quadbike?
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 10, 2005 1:55:07 GMT
The glass is always half empty isn't it, Quadbike? Quadbike? Ma c'รจ non vero... I'm resigned and realistic, bordering on the cynical....
|
|
|
Post by Demon Angel on Feb 10, 2005 7:22:53 GMT
Cruise... STEEL 'Look at my flashing fx' BURG and Dakota 'Just another excuse to scream' Fanning... I think that's enough said...
<--- I think I shall need these to stop the shinning of Cruises teeth blinding me...
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 10, 2005 20:41:24 GMT
Cruise... STEEL 'Look at my flashing fx' BURG and Dakota 'Just another excuse to scream' Fanning... I think that's enough said...
<--- I think I shall need these to stop the shinning of Cruises teeth blinding me... God elp us all! Wunder if she'll do a sickly sweet cutesy voiceover like in TAKEN.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 10, 2005 22:09:17 GMT
"No thats not true at all"..."All of this is absolute fact"... Can't you ever be wrong, or open to debate Motile? I too have read 2 interviews with Roland, and seen another where he talks about being unable to get the rights, and ID4 is WOTW. Both stories probably contain elements of truth, and are equally valid. No need to be childish dude, I can only go off what ive seen with my own eyes, you know that so why make harsh comments? You know im open minded and open to debate and we can ALL be wrong, in this case as you say we may both be right, but I have seen the interview with Dean Devlin and have never heard of them seeking the rights to WOTW so to me it wasnt true, so thats what I said, you say different so thats fair enough, you could have just corrected me without the jibe. All that said I thank my lucky stars that they never got the rights, that would have been a visualy stunning travesty to end all travestys.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 10, 2005 22:21:12 GMT
In any case, this is a good year for War of the Worlds fans - but inevitably, our collective hopes will end in disappointment. In the end - and we should probably all admit this ourselves - we'll go to Spielberg and Hines simply to see what they did with the tripods. I mean, I gotta be honest on that point. What's the point otherwise? We'll then critique, nit-pick, and express general disillusionment and frustration and unfulfilled expectations. Holy cow dude are you feeling a little down dude? Cheer up! Come on who realy thinks Spielbergs WOTW will be anything but ace? Alright so Hines may have not made the best of his chances up to now but hey we cant have it all! Im happy with whats coming from paramount at the moment, its all looking nice and dark with stunning visuals, not over the top visuals but stunning, realistic, and the more realistic the visuals the more emersive the movie will be. Add to that the Jeff Wayne production and you have a WOTW buffet like never before. Tom Cruise. Now I know there are mixed feelings about our Tom but I got to say that some of his films have been ace, he plays the stressed out "in a jam" desperate roles the best, he actualy suits dark rings around his eyes! He was ace in collateral he was ace in the firm the list goes on, but hang on there im not a fan of his but im not going to rip into him just because hes a half-pint heart-throb. Be happy, maybe after the smoke has cleared some big shot (Riddley Scott?) director may in fact make the authentic version we all want.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 11, 2005 10:15:56 GMT
Sorry Motile! I didn't mean to have a go! I'd just had one of those days, and everything was going wrong & I was mega stressed. For some reason the "absolute fact" comment was the last straw and I lost the plot!!
I know you're open to debate, and you do have a lot of good counter arguments.
So, I offer a sincere apology. It was wrong of me to jump in feet first.
|
|
|
Post by Demon Angel on Feb 11, 2005 10:45:13 GMT
|
|
SudsoneUK
Full Member
'No one would have believed...'
Posts: 60
|
Post by SudsoneUK on Feb 11, 2005 15:11:45 GMT
Looking forward to it to be honest... really excited by the clips I have seen so far and think it will be a very dark and desperate film... if it makes me feel like I did when I first watched George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, then I will love it! ;D
|
|