War of the Worlds
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
From: California
War of the Worlds
Now I havent seen the movie yet, and I know most people (including critics) say it sucks and that I shouldnt waste my money but luckily I dont have to pay for movies. However I did read the spoiler of it and I have to say I was disapointed.
I read the book and seen the first movie (my dad was always into SCI-FI so Ive seen my share of cheesy movies,Earth vrs the Flying Saucer, Forbiden Planet ect). We also have the record of the musical. I have to say I think the musical is the best. The songs and the sound effects plus the narrator just make is spooky, a lot like to original broadcast.
So the point of this thread is this (this isnt a spoiler so dont worry):
Spielberg doesnt include the Thunderchild! It would have been so easy to put it in. They have a ferry scene in it. But no Thunderchild. That was always my favorite part, I dont think I can see the movie anymore.
Does anyone here even know what I am talking about or should I just shut up? Anyway it will be a month till I can see it so let me know what you all think about it.
31C
I read the book and seen the first movie (my dad was always into SCI-FI so Ive seen my share of cheesy movies,Earth vrs the Flying Saucer, Forbiden Planet ect). We also have the record of the musical. I have to say I think the musical is the best. The songs and the sound effects plus the narrator just make is spooky, a lot like to original broadcast.
So the point of this thread is this (this isnt a spoiler so dont worry):
Spielberg doesnt include the Thunderchild! It would have been so easy to put it in. They have a ferry scene in it. But no Thunderchild. That was always my favorite part, I dont think I can see the movie anymore.
Does anyone here even know what I am talking about or should I just shut up? Anyway it will be a month till I can see it so let me know what you all think about it.
31C
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: Somewhere in the EU
Even if you don't have to pay for movies, don't waste your time. There are better things you can do with two hours. Quite frankly, I want those two hours of my life back.
Without offering any spoilers, here's the reader's digest condensed version of what I thought about it (since you asked).
Is Spielberg and excellent craftsman? Yup
Can he compose shots like no one else? Yup
Is the movie BIG? Yup
Are the F/X good? Yup
. . . but so what.
Yeah, it looks great, but there's nothing behind it. It has absolutely no substance. It's two hours of stuff being blown up and people panicking, which, quite frankly, gets boring after about 5 minutes.
You can't get emotionally attached to any of the characters because they are totally empty. Since you have nothing to care about, what's the point?
Sure, the tri-pods look great, but that's about it. Instead, go to the official web-site, view some of the stills of the action scenes, and you've got the best parts of the entire experience in a nutshell.
Just because it looks good, doesn't make it a good movie. You kind of need a story and characters you care about. Otherwise....ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As for faithfulness to the H.G.Wells novel....look, WOTW has always been a metaphor for the perceived threat of the time. Wells feared industrialization. Orsen Wells' radio show was in '38, just before WWII, Haskin's film in 53 . . . cold war and communism. This film...terrorism and fear in the U.S. I had no problem with it's modern adaptation, and remakes of anything are usually going to take license with stuff. If you're looking for it to be faithful to Wells novel in terms of time and such, you're going to be unhappy. The aliens are not even Martians...at least in terms of being identified, they're just aliens...a force from somewhere else. (Actually, they're the Americans invading Iraq and we're supposed to see what it's like being in the invaded country's shoes). If you see it, you will like the tripods, but then you've got to tolerate the other 115 minutes as the price of seeing that.
It's empty, it's boring, it has no substance, it caters to the brain-dead video game crowd who like things that go "boom" and have no other criteria of content.
Without offering any spoilers, here's the reader's digest condensed version of what I thought about it (since you asked).
Is Spielberg and excellent craftsman? Yup
Can he compose shots like no one else? Yup
Is the movie BIG? Yup
Are the F/X good? Yup
. . . but so what.
Yeah, it looks great, but there's nothing behind it. It has absolutely no substance. It's two hours of stuff being blown up and people panicking, which, quite frankly, gets boring after about 5 minutes.
You can't get emotionally attached to any of the characters because they are totally empty. Since you have nothing to care about, what's the point?
Sure, the tri-pods look great, but that's about it. Instead, go to the official web-site, view some of the stills of the action scenes, and you've got the best parts of the entire experience in a nutshell.
Just because it looks good, doesn't make it a good movie. You kind of need a story and characters you care about. Otherwise....ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As for faithfulness to the H.G.Wells novel....look, WOTW has always been a metaphor for the perceived threat of the time. Wells feared industrialization. Orsen Wells' radio show was in '38, just before WWII, Haskin's film in 53 . . . cold war and communism. This film...terrorism and fear in the U.S. I had no problem with it's modern adaptation, and remakes of anything are usually going to take license with stuff. If you're looking for it to be faithful to Wells novel in terms of time and such, you're going to be unhappy. The aliens are not even Martians...at least in terms of being identified, they're just aliens...a force from somewhere else. (Actually, they're the Americans invading Iraq and we're supposed to see what it's like being in the invaded country's shoes). If you see it, you will like the tripods, but then you've got to tolerate the other 115 minutes as the price of seeing that.
It's empty, it's boring, it has no substance, it caters to the brain-dead video game crowd who like things that go "boom" and have no other criteria of content.
Last edited by kobiashi; Jun 30, 2005 at 04:16 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
From: California
Originally Posted by kobiashi
, it caters to the brain-dead video game crowd who like things that go "boom" and have no other criteria of content.
31C
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,316
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by kobiashi
Yeah, it looks great, but there's nothing behind it. It has absolutely no substance. It's two hours of stuff being blown up and people panicking, which, quite frankly, gets boring after about 5 minutes.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 0
From: Titusville, FL
Originally Posted by kobiashi
Even if you don't have to pay for movies, don't waste your time. There are better things you can do with two hours. Quite frankly, I want those two hours of my life back.
Without offering any spoilers, here's the reader's digest condensed version of what I thought about it (since you asked).
Is Spielberg and excellent craftsman? Yup Can he compose shots like no one else? Yup Is the movie BIG? Yep Are the F/X good? Yup . . . but so what.
Yeah, it looks great, but there's nothing behind it. It has absolutely no substance. It's two hours of stuff being blown up and people panicking, which, quite frankly, gets boring after about 5 minutes.
You can't get emotionally attached to any of the characters because they are totally empty. Since you have nothing to care about, what's the point?
Sure, the tri-pods look great, but that's about it. Instead, go to the official web-site, view some of the stills of the action scenes, and you've got the best parts of the entire experience in a nutshell.
Just because it looks good, doesn't make it a good movie. You kind of need a story and characters you care about. Otherwise....ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As for faithfulness to the H.G.Wells novel....look, WOTW has always been a metaphor for the perceived threat of the time. Wells feared industrialization. Orsen Wells' radio show was in '38, just before WWII, Haskin's film in 53 . . . cold war and communism. This film...terrorism and fear in the U.S. I had no problem with it's modern adaptation, and remakes of anything are usually going to take license with stuff. If you're looking for it to be faithful to Wells novel in terms of time and such, you're going to be unhappy. The aliens are not even Martians...at least in terms of being identified, they're just aliens...a force from somewhere else. (Actually, they're the Americans invading Iraq and we're supposed to see what it's like being in the invaded country's shoes). If you see it, you will like the tripods, but then you've got to tolerate the other 115 minutes as the price of seeing that.
It's empty, it's boring, it has no substance, it caters to the brain-dead video game crowd who like things that go "boom" and have no other criteria of content.
Without offering any spoilers, here's the reader's digest condensed version of what I thought about it (since you asked).
Is Spielberg and excellent craftsman? Yup Can he compose shots like no one else? Yup Is the movie BIG? Yep Are the F/X good? Yup . . . but so what.
Yeah, it looks great, but there's nothing behind it. It has absolutely no substance. It's two hours of stuff being blown up and people panicking, which, quite frankly, gets boring after about 5 minutes.
You can't get emotionally attached to any of the characters because they are totally empty. Since you have nothing to care about, what's the point?
Sure, the tri-pods look great, but that's about it. Instead, go to the official web-site, view some of the stills of the action scenes, and you've got the best parts of the entire experience in a nutshell.
Just because it looks good, doesn't make it a good movie. You kind of need a story and characters you care about. Otherwise....ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As for faithfulness to the H.G.Wells novel....look, WOTW has always been a metaphor for the perceived threat of the time. Wells feared industrialization. Orsen Wells' radio show was in '38, just before WWII, Haskin's film in 53 . . . cold war and communism. This film...terrorism and fear in the U.S. I had no problem with it's modern adaptation, and remakes of anything are usually going to take license with stuff. If you're looking for it to be faithful to Wells novel in terms of time and such, you're going to be unhappy. The aliens are not even Martians...at least in terms of being identified, they're just aliens...a force from somewhere else. (Actually, they're the Americans invading Iraq and we're supposed to see what it's like being in the invaded country's shoes). If you see it, you will like the tripods, but then you've got to tolerate the other 115 minutes as the price of seeing that.
It's empty, it's boring, it has no substance, it caters to the brain-dead video game crowd who like things that go "boom" and have no other criteria of content.
I found myself laughing at the most serious points in the movie. Not a spoiler just something you'll know when you see the movie:
When the little girl is trying to go pee at the river bed, and the first body floats by and then the rest of the bodies floated by, I laughed at the fact that the little girl will be tramatized.
Then when he throws the peanut butter bread at the window and it sticks, funny. I know it was supposed to be serious, but I couldn't keep myself from laughing.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
From: Westminster, CO
Originally Posted by lifeguardjoe
When the little girl is trying to go pee at the river bed, and the first body floats by and then the rest of the bodies floated by, I laughed at the fact that the little girl will be tramatized..
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: Somewhere in the EU
Originally Posted by J-150
just go rent the Will Smith version and save a few bucks.
Actually, it says a lot when Independence Day is a better film than WotW.
I guess if that doesn't dissuade you, nothing will.
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
I don't want to see it.
Wanna know why? Because Tommie boy Cruise can't take a joke.
The friggin, pusssbag, sissy, biatch!
Wanna know why? Because Tommie boy Cruise can't take a joke.
The friggin, pusssbag, sissy, biatch!
Last edited by jamzwayne; Jun 30, 2005 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Damn typo's
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: Tampa Bay
I won't pay to see it because Tom Cruise is a scientologist, and where I live in Clearwater Florida, I have watched that cult take over downtown, and brainwash lots of people. At first it sounds like the church of common sense, but it is really a cult. http://www.xenu.net/
