HG Wells turning in his grave...

[Hikuro]

What I mean to say is, only the first 20 minutes of the movie, where they're invading Normandy, the start of D Day, that's based on factual events....but than the movie pretty much just spans off to it's own little way. I know Spielbergs history of loving to do WWII movies and he's done them before before he even really became a director, when he was a kid doing mini movies with friends with his fathers camera and such.

But once you get past the invasion scene, it just doesn't seem as good as you would have thought during the fight in Normandy....that's my problem.

And yes I do know that Jaws and Close Encounters are not related, except when it comes to Dryfess being part of the movies....

But yes, let the whiney fanboy have his moment its the MW way, I backed up AVP, and I sorta sorry I did.....DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AS I!!!! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

[KingNor]

What I mean to say is, only the first 20 minutes of the movie, where they're invading Normandy, the start of D Day, that's based on factual events....but than the movie pretty much just spans off to it's own little way. I know Spielbergs history of loving to do WWII movies and he's done them before before he even really became a director, when he was a kid doing mini movies with friends with his fathers camera and such.

But once you get past the invasion scene, it just doesn't seem as good as you would have thought during the fight in Normandy....that's my problem.

And yes I do know that Jaws and Close Encounters are not related, except when it comes to Dryfess being part of the movies....

But yes, let the whiney fanboy have his moment its the MW way, I backed up AVP, and I sorta sorry I did.....DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AS I!!!! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

i have to agree with his comments on private ryan.

i'm a huge WW2 buff so i really wanted to like this one. but it just seemed a tad rambo-ish near the end. there's definately something that doesn't seem right to me about how the movie progressed but i'm not sure what. i think it's lots of little things i'd have to go back and watch it again to find them

[EXO]

haha... poor guy. He's basing his whole moviegoing experienced based on 2 words... cool and sucks.

You were 4 when you saw Indy? What, did you rent it last year for the first time?

[eugimon]

I completely agree with the saving private ryan assessment as well.. I mean, just because there were tons of actual WWII vets coming out in favour of the movie, saying how true to life it was, how finally a WWII film showed the tragedy and loss in a realistic manner... I mean, what do they know?

I vote with the kids, yeah, history teachers know nuthin! I bet your teacher was all confused how bubba gump could fight in WWII and then in the vietnam war!

Man, I totally love the: if stuff isn't blowing up every five seconds I'm bored and the movie totally sucks! school of movie making!

micahel bay rules!!!

:barf:

[That NOS Guy]

If we could dynamos to th spinning corpse we could half the energy needs of the North American continent, simply because all the bad movies keep him going at a constant rate.

Of course, this movie does look promising for a change.

[Hikuro]

Now just in case, I'm not bad mouthing WWII...its just....you know, in my schools it was all they could teach you cause there were SO MANY movies out based around WWII, even loosely.....it was cheap....not too mention the guy who was my history teacher was a dick.....he would eat pizza, wait no SHOVE IT in his fat mouth while watching a movie while we were taking a test. If we asked him to either stop being annoying, turn down the volume or to stop slopping grease on his face he'd go "THATS IT ESSAY! YOU FAILED THE TEST GET OUT!" ................lucky for me........I never liked him, nor did he like me, and my folks hated him, along with all the other kids at school who didn't rank up to the annoying chart like he did and he got canned....last I heard he was teaching elementary.....*cough* fired *cough*

I got the indiana jones movies from some promotional deal Mcdonalds did like a decade ago....but I use to watch movies when I was just a baby, hell I remember going to see Predator in a drive in threater and still practically a toddler holding a little stereo thinking it was BLASTOR from Transformers......or was it Soundwave......it was one or the other.

But I still remember seeing Indiana Jones as a little kid, yes basing my opinions on "cool" and "sucks" cause that's all that mattered at the time.........now it's just....."Hmmmmmm...........didn't get it but it was still good"

But my main point is, its a remake.....it's not an update it's a friggin remake....and to say its gonna be based around the book is almost a slap on the face to me.....if you wanna make it close to the book get new actors, someone we don't know so we don't go "OH CRAP! They're gonna use strange futurisitic weapons and hot chicks to kill the aliens!"............cause that's what Tom Cruise is all about......you get a big named star who does ALOT of hero like action flicks......and you get junk.......in every movie I've seen him do except for Eyes Wide Shut which made NO SENSE, he's some sorta big hero holding all the cards waitin for you to call his bluff. Sorry I just can't watch a Tom Cruise movie without saying the family phrase "Sonavabitch....."

[Sundown]

While Private Ryan was "historically accurate" only in the beginning scenes (it wasn't, exactly, since the actual Normandy beach assault took much longer than it seemed to portray), the rest of the movie is simply a hypothetical "what if", based on policies the US Army had at the time, and based on certain figures with similar situations. If you were looking for a movie that was a strict historical account of WWII, SPR isn't that movie. That, however, doesn't make it a bad one... even in the eyes of vets who actually lived all that before them onscreen.

Regardless of whether the actual mission was plausible, the movie still executed it with moderate believability. If you want something more genuine, I'd recommend Band of Brothers. Amongst the best if not the best WWII portrayals in quality and magnitude. But then again it might not be up your alley, since Spielberg oddly, again had a little something to do with it.

But my main point is, its a remake.....it's not an update it's a friggin remake....and to say its gonna be based around the book is almost a slap on the face to me.....if you wanna make it close to the book get new actors, someone we don't know so we don't go "OH CRAP! They're gonna use strange futurisitic weapons and hot chicks to kill the aliens!"............cause that's what Tom Cruise is all about...

Yeah, common mistake here... Tom Cruise does bear uncanny resemblance to Will Smith. They do both have two eyes, two arms, and have acheived bipedal mobility.

Wait... oh yeah, I remember all those futuristic weapons in Last Samurai. And the hot chicks! And man, you'd be surprised how hi-techly armed sports agents, 19th century boxers, bartenders, and pool sharks are.

Assumptions, especially wacky ones, are the fault of the one assuming. Spielberg might actually do the book vague justice, and Cruise is skilled enough to pull it off. Whether one personally likes Cruise or Spielberg is a totally different matter. And if both turn WotW into something moderately different from the original book, I don't care, as long as the movie is in itself good.

But yes, let the whiney fanboy have his moment its the MW way, I backed up AVP, and I sorta sorry I did.....DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AS I!!!! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

You... backed a movie directed by Paul Anderson. Enough said. It's not possible to make remotely the same mistake, unless WotW was being directed by him. That's like laying a turd and putting it in your mouth, then warning folks about the dangers of eating.

-Al

Edited August 19, 2004 by Sundown

[GobotFool]

in every movie I've seen him do except for Eyes Wide Shut which made NO SENSE, he's some sorta big hero holding all the cards waitin for you to call his bluff. Sorry I just can't watch a Tom Cruise movie without saying the family phrase "Sonavabitch....."

you have not seen collateral yet have you?

[eugimon]

in every movie I've seen him do except for Eyes Wide Shut which made NO SENSE, he's some sorta big hero holding all the cards waitin for you to call his bluff.  Sorry I just can't watch a Tom Cruise movie without saying the family phrase "Sonavabitch....."

you have not seen collateral yet have you?

eh, leave him alone, he's obviously going to warp whatever he sees to fit his own personal tastes.

[Hikuro]

damn straight

[That NOS Guy]

damn straight

What a lovely viewpoint on the Cinema.

[KingNor]

tom cruize was brilliant in "a few good men" the guy can act... he just needs a director that won't give into his crap about being in every scene.

cruize: "and when ever i'm not on screne all the other characters should be saying 'where's poochie??' "

speilberg: ""

[Ladic]

Cruise was also great in Borth on the 4th of July.

The guy is a great actor.

[Sundown]

And in Rainman. His problem is that all his characters seem a little too similar, and he doesn't have much range. But his performances are entertaining to watch, if you can stand him. He's no Edward Norton.

-Al

[mikeszekely]

I'm telling you, MW is the most pessimistic board around.

I mean, the movie is just into production. None of us have seen it, as it isn't even done yet. And we already have a thread to bash it? Come on!

[Max Jenius]

I'm telling you, MW is the most pessimistic board around.

I mean, the movie is just into production. None of us have seen it, as it isn't even done yet. And we already have a thread to bash it? Come on!

Yep... I think there's worse out there tho.

If anyone could do WotW well, its SS.

[Ladic]

tom cruize was brilliant in "a few good men" the guy can act... he just needs a director that won't give into his crap about being in every scene.

cruize: "and when ever i'm not on screne all the other characters should be saying 'where's poochie??' "

speilberg: ""

he was great in Magnolia.

[Gui]

After having seen Minority Report, I think this WotW project can turn great

W8 and see

[KingNor]

And in Rainman. His problem is that all his characters seem a little too similar, and he doesn't have much range. But his performances are entertaining to watch, if you can stand him. He's no Edward Norton.

-Al

nothing wrong with type casting. so long as the actor is good at what he's cast at.

he tends to play the egotistical bad boy who's super good at what he does, just a little too wild. usually a woman comes, and around the same time he looses what he's good at. then he regains both for the big fanalie and is better than ever, but now with dicipline/caring/ or what ever character flaw needed mending.

all except for Legend... those are some disturbingly smooth legs mr cruiz

[Graham]

Here's links to pics and info on Pendragon Pictures rival version of War of the Worlds.

No sign of the Martians yet but seems pretty authentic - the time period, hiding in the river from the Heat Ray, Woking railway station being evacuated etc.

It must be a lower budget version than Speilbergs. However, if it gets released first it may well do well. It looks very true to the novel going by the pics.

http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/sfnews2/04_sept/news0904_9.shtml

http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWpic3.html

Graham

[Skull00]

I hope they remake War Games. The kid could have Imacs in his room now instead of Commodore 64s.

[Greyryder]

I hope they remake War Games. The kid could have Imacs in his room now instead of Commodore 64s.

Except that computer geeks tend to shy away from Macs. They like to tinker with the innards, and run operating systems that don't work on Macs. (BSD Most Linux distros)

But yeah, a War Games remake would be pretty cool, if they did it right. Unfortunately they'd probably want to dress it up with overdone explosions, and needless computer graphics, trying to make it the next Terminator.

[Gui]

Let War Games rest in peace: there's no need to remake every cool movie around...

[SupremeKaioshin]

How can anybody say "Saving Private Ryan" sucked?

I've watch hundreds of war movies from the 1940's to now, and that film is up there with the best.

"Turn it off after 20 minutes"....puhleeez.

Think before you post

[SupremeKaioshin]

I hope they remake War Games. The kid could have Imacs in his room now instead of Commodore 64s.

Imacs? hell no!

It should be Windows, so we can all identify with it.

[Dangard Ace]

I hope they remake War Games. The kid could have Imacs in his room now instead of Commodore 64s.

Imacs? hell no!

It should be Windows, so we can all identify with it.

That's fine. iMacs can run WinXP (as well as RedHat, Yellow Dog, BSD, SuSe....etc. You just need to know how). Says so on Microsoft's Mactopia homepage.

(and that's as far as I'm going in the PC/Mac debate. Stay on topic people.)

But I agree with GUI. Wargames is fine as is. Today's ADD kids probably wouldn't know what chess is anyways.

Oh, and I can't wait to see the Pendragon release of WOTW. Looks really interesting with them deciding to do a straight adaption instead of updating it. Let's hope it blows the Cruise/Speilberg version out of the water. Go underdog (Pendragon)!!! :P

[Knight26]

Despite the lower budget I am looking more forward to the Pendragon release now that I know about it. If it really is a faithful adaptatation I am so behind it. THis kind of reminds me of when the two TOmbstone movies came out around the same time. I would laugh my arse off if Pendragon's does better at a lower production cost, and then they release on DVD just as the Spielberg (updated) version comes out in theatres, just like TOmbstone did to Costner's Wyatt Earp movie. Man Tombstone was far superior to the Costner movie, I mean for one thing the actors looked like the people they were portraying, Kurt Russel was a dead ringer for Wyatt Earp.

[Blaine23]

I hope they remake War Games. The kid could have Imacs in his room now instead of Commodore 64s.

Imacs? hell no!

It should be Windows, so we can all identify with it.

That's fine. iMacs can run WinXP (as well as RedHat, Yellow Dog, BSD, SuSe....etc. You just need to know how). Says so on Microsoft's Mactopia homepage.

(and that's as far as I'm going in the PC/Mac debate. Stay on topic people.)

Heh... and besides, we all know the only computer allowed in Movies or TV are Apple anyway.

Besides, any kid that can hack into NORAD really ought to be cross-platform, like this sexual tyrannasaurus, Blaine23.

Now, to be back on topic - anybody revise their opinions on Tom Cruise after The Last Samurai and Collateral? He seems like he's on a pretty good streak.

Edited September 15, 2004 by Blaine23

[Mercurial Morpheus]

I had heard about this the other night, and I can't say I didn't have misgivings. I loved the 53 WotWs as an entertaining with well-done(for it's time) special effects. It's one of my favorite 50s Sci-Fi films. I hated ID4 because it was a rip-off of it and an all around terrible film. As for this version, I'm not that big on Tom Cruise. I haven't really bothered with his films and only really enjoyed his work in "Interview With the Vampire". I also liked "The Last Samurai" and am considering seiing "Colateral". In Spielbergs case, he is all he's cracked up to be. My favorite films of his has to be the Indiana Jones series, Jurassic Park, ET, so on. I haven't been very fond of his recent work though. Especially, SPR. I saw it in theatres, enjoyed it, then afterwards, it just wore off, for lack of a better term. I got tired of all the "Spielberg can do no wrong" when it comes to these things, found parts to be a bit contradictory, and all around only really remember the veteren sitting next to me. That, and my dad annoyed the hell out of me about it. It's not about lack of action(I actually didn't like the first 20 minutes, accurate or not, it's overkill, and no other director would have gotten away with it). It just lacked lasting impact, so I'm not interested in Band of Brothers either(dad yet again). Personally, my favorite WWII film is "Memphis Belle" which probably has to do with my grandfather serving in the Army Air Corp.

I'll watch this with interest, and am glad his going with the book this time around,

[ewilen]

Let's not forget that MacOS X is itself a version of Unix.

Anyway, personally, I'm also not a big fan of Spielberg, especially in his more recent works. He's often overly sentimental, unsubtle, and comic-book-y. After the first 20 minutes, SPR does show many of these faults. (And Tom Hanks, who although a fine actor also has maudlin tendencies, only exacerbates the problem.) That isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film, but I often found myself gritting my teeth while being hammered with big, obvious messages.

I didn't particularly care for Jurassic Park or the Lost World. Minority Report was okay. The Indiana Jones sequels were also okay, though annoying at points. Empire of the Sun was quite good, though again with a few of those Spielbergian touches that show he doesn't really trust the audience to get the theme. I preferred the somewhat similar Hope and Glory, directed by John Boorman.

Of his movies, the only ones I've seen which IMO don't suffer from his heavy hand are Raiders of the Lost Ark (which benefits from the comic-book treatment and bits of cuteness), ET (the sentimentality works in this film), Jaws, Duel (both of these are fairly gritty), and Close Encounters (where he leaves a great deal to the imagination, at least in the original non-FX-ed-up cut). All of these are from early in his career. I don't think I've seen any of his other movies.

This Pendragon version sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to the day when computing power is cheap enough that independents can make FX-heavy films--not because I need explosions to keep my attention, but so that modern scifi of all sorts can credibly be done outside of Hollywood.

Edited September 15, 2004 by ewilen

[JELEINEN]

Here's links to pics and info on Pendragon Pictures rival version of War of the Worlds.

No sign of the Martians yet but seems pretty authentic - the time period, hiding in the river from the Heat Ray, Woking railway station being evacuated etc.

It must be a lower budget version than Speilbergs. However, if it gets released first it may well do well. It looks very true to the novel going by the pics.

http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/sfnews2/04_sept/news0904_9.shtml

http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWpic3.html

Graham

Thanks for the links. I'm definitely looking forward to this. The Spielburg film I might watch. Can't stand Cruise though, so I probably won't.

[MSW]

The martian war machine...erm...my rough interpretation of it...come on Spielburg call me already

[Blaine23]

Let's not forget that MacOS X is itself a version of Unix.

Anyway, personally, I'm also not a big fan of Spielberg, especially in his more recent works. He's often overly sentimental, unsubtle, and comic-book-y. After the first 20 minutes, SPR does show many of these faults. (And Tom Hanks, who although a fine actor also has maudlin tendencies, only exacerbates the problem.) That isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film, but I often found myself gritting my teeth while being hammered with big, obvious messages.

I didn't particularly care for Jurassic Park or the Lost World. Minority Report was okay. The Indiana Jones sequels were also okay, though annoying at points. Empire of the Sun was quite good, though again with a few of those Spielbergian touches that show he doesn't really trust the audience to get the theme. I preferred the somewhat similar Hope and Glory, directed by John Boorman.

Of his movies, the only ones I've seen which IMO don't suffer from his heavy hand are Raiders of the Lost Ark (which benefits from the comic-book treatment and bits of cuteness), ET (the sentimentality works in this film), Jaws, Duel (both of these are fairly gritty), and Close Encounters (where he leaves a great deal to the imagination, at least in the original non-FX-ed-up cut). All of these are from early in his career. I don't think I've seen any of his other movies.

This Pendragon version sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to the day when computing power is cheap enough that independents can make FX-heavy films--not because I need explosions to keep my attention, but so that modern scifi of all sorts can credibly be done outside of Hollywood.

Man, I do love Hope & Glory - I'm glad you made me remember that one.

But I am curious - you seem to have your faults with Spielberg - but they're mostly in regard to him being a bit too obvious/preachy, or indulging in Americana or the forced ooey feel-good moments. I totally agree with you, as those are the things I find fault with in his films too.

But then I remember that we're talking about War of the Worlds, folks. HG Wells was a great writer with a terrific imagination... but this isn't Faulkner or Hemingway. WotW is a fairly straightforward piece, no matter whether you're talking about the book or previous adaptions. There's not a ton of subtlety to be had in such a venture.

Maybe I'm just stumped here, but I cannot really imagine any other way to present this particular material than in a manner like Spielberg's. Can any of you guys name a better director for such a story? I mean, the very title of the story alone implies a huge special effects budget... and despite his faults, I can't name too many directors that could match Spielberg in that arena. Sure, he can be obvious or forced, but I actually think that should work in his favor when presenting a story like this one.

[MSW]

Can any of you guys name a better director for such a story?

M. Night Shamalumland ... or however it's spelled...the guy that gave us sixth sense, signs, and all that...

But before you all jump down my throat, hear me out (yeah signs sucked in the end too, that I agree with)

WOTW isn't a war story about big huge epic battles...in fact there is very little in the book that approches such imaginary action...it's a horror story concerning man being ineffectual against the invaders...which is why the main character is little more then a bystander through out the story...we can't stop them, or even barely slow them down, we are powerless against them...

To do a WOTW film right, you don't need any huge budget for effects...heck you can get by with only a few scenes showing the martians...it needs to be scarey with a otherworldly creepy feel and M. Night can do that quite well IMHO...he just needs a script that isn't so scientificly and logicaly flawed...no need for big name actors either...the more believeable that the film takes place in the 1890's the better...not need for big action scenes involveing tons of effects...it's better to show the wake of the martians advance...the results of the chemical weapons, the shock of invisable heat rays burning things...then to show every mechanical step the machines take...

I think Spielburg can do a pretty decent version...but he isn't perfect for the material...it's a horror story, not a war story concerned with tactics and battle scenarios.

[ewilen]

Well, in this particular case I can't really speak to the "spinning in his grave" issue, since I never read much of the original novel, and I've only even seen the 1950's movie once. My post was more in a general anti-anti-anti-Spielberg vein, since a number of people have made fun of Hikuro's posts.

Spielberg may be perfectly adequate directing an adaptation of WotW; on the other hand, a director can be expected to leave a personal mark on a film, regardless of whether it's a faithful adaptation or an original work. For me, because of my experience with all but his earliest films, the fact that Spielberg will direct isn't a selling point.