War of the Worlds 2005

IlMrm · Post by **IlMrm** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:55 pm

I haven't seen the official theater trailer for this movie, but yesterday I finally saw a commercial where there are fighters/helicopters launching missiles, instead of the other commercials where it's just Tom Cruise and that little girl running around.

I am excited abut this movie, but it looks like it's gonna be focused more on Cruise's character, and his struggles to get his family somewhere, instead of downright over the top action like in Independence Day.

I hope there's one huge scene involving hundreds of aircrafts in a huge dog fight, but I don't know if the War of the World aliens ships carry fighters.

And please let the ending be more believable than the original.

roushimsx · Post by **roushimsx** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:48 pm

Look, I don't want to sound gay or anything, but I'll watch anything with Tom Cruise. I love Tom Cruise. I haven't met the guy, so I'm not sure I'd convert to scientology for him, but my god, I would have watched and loved battlefield earth if he was in it. Tom Cruise is a seal of quality that's unparalleled. yes, I liked Mission Impossible 2.

the trailers for the movie look amazing, and I love how they show little ittsy bitsy pieces of the aliens. I don't think the movie will really focus purely on Tom Cruise's character..it seems it'll focus a lot more on the mass global destruction and how it impacts his family directly and whatnot.

anyway, I'm hot and bothered for Tom Cruise. Awesome awesome actor.

plus he nailed nicole kidman, penelope cruz, and he's going to deflower Katie Holmes. he's the man.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:07 pm

And I, on the other end of the spectrum, can't stand Tom Cruise.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:19 pm

sethsez wrote:And I, on the other end of the spectrum, can't stand Tom Cruise.

Same.
The idea of going to a cinema and seeing his bloody grin 7 foot wide across the cinema screen just makes me feel sick.
I also think it would be nice to see a proper version of War Of The Worlds, which should be set in the Victorian era, just like H.G. Wells wrote, or even like "The League Of Extrodianary Gentlemen Vol 2" comic. To me this just seems too much like "Independance Day", which is one of my the worst movies ever.
IMO of course.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:55 pm

What would be the point of going to see it if I already read the book, and know how the movie will end? Signs by Shyamalan blows this out of the water, IMHO.

jp · Post by jp » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:03 pm

*wonders if he's the only person here who actually saw the original movie*

It was ace. I doubt this one will be as good.

roushimsx · Post by **roushimsx** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:07 pm

jp wrote:*wonders if he's the only person here who actually saw the original movie*

Of course you aren't. It's funny that you implied that you were.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:09 pm

jp wrote:*wonders if he's the only person here who actually saw the original movie*

It was ace. I doubt this one will be as good.

You mean the 50's one where the machines looked like desk lamps? Yes i saw that and it was quite good fun. I believe it won an oscar for its effects at the time.
Did anyone see the TV show in the late 80s early 90s? I vaguely remember it being a direct sequel to the 50s movie.
Give me Victorians with handlebar mustaches and huge tri-pod war machines I say!

jp · Post by jp » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:11 pm

roushimsx wrote:
jp wrote:*wonders if he's the only person here who actually saw the original movie*
Of course you aren't. It's funny that you implied that you were.

Well... no one else was mentioning it... and I was finding it odd...

Mind you, how many people today have seen much from the 50s anyways? Isn't the average age here early-mid 20s?

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:17 pm

Why would people mention the movie when the original book is far more well-known, and the radio show is far more infamous? The original movie adaptation is by far the least essential of the classic iterations of the story.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:21 pm

sethsez wrote:Why would people mention the movie when the original book is far more well-known, and the radio show is far more infamous? The original movie adaptation is by far the least essential of the classic iterations of the story.

Yknow I think I might have a recording of that Orsen Wells recording in the house here. Hell it's probably next to the "Jeff Wayne War Of The World Musical" album.

jp · Post by jp » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:26 pm

sethsez wrote:Why would people mention the movie when the original book is far more well-known, and the radio show is far more infamous? The original movie adaptation is by far the least essential of the classic iterations of the story.

Because we're talking about yet another movie? I don't know, comparison of similar format seems to be logical to me, as comparing a book to a movie typically yields "Oh the book was better."

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:32 pm

jp wrote:Because we're talking about yet another movie?

Right, but it's another adaptation of the book, rather than a remake of the movie. Kind of like the upcoming Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, which has nothing to do with the Willy Wonka movie.

roushimsx · Post by **roushimsx** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:33 pm

jp wrote: Well... no one else was mentioning it... and I was finding it odd...

I'm going to guess that no one was mentioning it because no one cares how closely it follows the original movie. What's the point in remaking a movie if you're just going to do the same movie? They tried that with Psycho and it just didn't work. There's no suspense, no tension, no surprises, etc.

The remake looks to be a big budget modern US alien invasion film just like the original was a big budget 50's US alien invasion film. This actually somewhat relates back to the anti-mainstream gaming threads, which I find funny. Just because something is popular, new, and american does not mean that it sucks. 50 years from now the movie will probably be remade again. Hell, the rate Hollywood is going, it'll probably be remade within a decade.

They'll probably call it Signs 2.

jp wrote:Mind you, how many people today have seen much from the 50s anyways? Isn't the average age here early-mid 20s?

That's the age group you fall into, which I guess is why you feel so special and unique for being the first person to bring up the topic of the original movie. Good for you for being exposed to 50's sci fi at an early age (or a late age, I don't know when you first saw the movie). I applaud you for actually taking the time to watch something that came out before 1977 and I wish more people would explore movies from the 30s-50s.

On a tangent, I hope the original movie gets a better DVD release

sethsez wrote:and the radio show is far more infamous?

\m/ Orsen Wells \m/

jp · Post by jp » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:38 pm

roushimsx wrote:That's the age group you fall into, which I guess is why you feel so special and unique for being the first person to bring up the topic of the original movie. Good for you for being exposed to 50's sci fi at an early age (or a late age, I don't know when you first saw the movie). I applaud you for actually taking the time to watch something that came out before 1977 and I wish more people would explore movies from the 30s-50s.

*shrugs*

My Dad showed it to me when I was young, and it stuck. I felt like bringing it up since I enjoy it even today.

Andi · Post by **Andi** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:56 pm

I heard that Tom Cruise actually dies in the first minutes and all advertising mentions him as sort of a red herring.

The movie actually stars Macaully Culkin.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:10 pm

Andi wrote:I heard that Tom Cruise actually dies in the first minutes and all advertising mentions him as sort of a red herring.

The movie actually stars Macaully Culkin.

I wish!

SheSaidDutch · Post by **SheSaidDutch** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:12 pm

[quote="Andi"The movie actually stars Macaully Culkin.[/quote]

Scary *Shudders*

Sly Cherry Chunks · Post by **Sly Cherry Chunks** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:25 pm

Supposedly theres four adaptations due. The Speilberg one, the Pendragon films version based more closely on the book and set in the 19th century, an all CGI movie set to the Jeff Wayne and now some new DVD I read about.

I do prefer the book because it's actually about a war with losses on both sides rather than 90 minutes of Martian pwnage followed by them all catching the flu and dropping dead in the last five minutes.

Who remembers the TV series?

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:26 pm

Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:
Who remembers the TV series?

I do. About 12 posts up.

Sly Cherry Chunks · Post by **Sly Cherry Chunks** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:33 pm

^Sorry.

Okay, who remembers Tripods?

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:39 pm

Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:^Sorry.

Okay, who remembers Tripods?

Yep!

Saturday afternoon at tea time. Great stuff!

Dylan1CC · Post by **Dylan1CC** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:39 pm

First off, I have to say this: Herbert George Well's War of the World's is an amazing book. To think he wrote both that book, and his other novel The Time Machine over 107 years ago, long before any aircraft even.

Secondly, WoTW is my most anticipated summer movie, almost tied with Revenge of the Sith. Sure, Cruise may have a goofy grin, be a little spazzy over Katie Holms and the scientoligy stuff, but the man can act. And best of all, the movie marks Steven Spielberg's return to his "working man" themed movies which is a theme he hasn't visited since Jaws and Close Encounters. Also, I was a bit bummed it wasn't set in Victorian England, however the movie looks to mirror the Orson Welle's radio play adaptation and the 1953 George Pal/Gene Barry movie (which I finally watched for the first time 4 months ago and I was impressed at how good it was for such an old sci fi movie). Also, the aliens and ships are being made to look a lot like the ships and creatures from the '53 flick but are being given new polish by former SW prequel artist Doug Chiang.

I think Spielberg has what it takes to finally erase the AWFUL aftertaste of ID4 (and to think that was my favorite movie when I was 16, YOWZA)

And random fun fact, Gene Barry's character in the '53 movie Dr. Clayton Forrester...where do ya think MST3K got the name for their doctor?

Barry is also going to have a cameo in the new film.

Episode III, WoTW and a new darker Batman...regardless of how you view 'em after you see 'em, you gotta admit this summer has great selection to choose from.

Dylan1CC · Post by **Dylan1CC** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:21 am

A new TV trailer here with a ton of excellent new shots of the aliens/tech (semi-spoilers if you have never read the book or seen the '53 movie):

http://media.themoviebox.net/player/War ... ts/?play=9

FatCobra · Post by **FatCobra** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:26 am

Speaking of Tom Cruise.....

If you watch Top Gun and Days of Thunder back-to-back, then you'll realize that they are THE SAME FUCKING MOVIE.

In both, you've got the hotshot rookie, the asshole rival, cheesy 80's music, and plenty of close calls. Except one's about the Navy and the other's Nascar.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:28 am

I was pretty cynical about this movie but the trailers have me excited enough to at least go see it. I hope to hell this is way better than Independence Day, c'mon, it is by a real director, not the dude that did 8 legged freaks and that fake godzilla movie.

roushimsx · Post by **roushimsx** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:24 am

FatCobra wrote:If you watch Top Gun and Days of Thunder back-to-back, then you'll realize that they are THE SAME FUCKING MOVIE.

It's funny, because my wife and I actually did that a few months ago (she's almost as ga ga about Tom Cruise as I am

). What do you expect from a Bruckheimer production?

Days of Thunder had a hell of a lot less homosexuality (hot stripper cops and Nicole Kidman a-hoy!) and the race scenes were far more intense than the laughable flight sequences in Top Gun, though.

Still love watching Top Gun for the MST3K value and pre-Return to Poo Corner Kenny Loggins. I think having served in the military helps highlight all of the awesomely major logic faults in it too, which only further bumps up the entertainment value.

Post by **system11** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:55 am

The film looks like it will be utterly dire - a slap in the face to the original story. Modern day? PLEASE - one of the main points of the original story was just how primitive our defenses were.

I'm with Roushin on Tom Cruise though - he may star in a bunch of dumb flicks and have the whole smooth grin thing going on - but watch his performance in interview with the vampire, and you realise he's actually a very accomplished actor - he certainly carried Brad Pitt in that movie.

And anyone able to net Nicole Kidman has got to score points on the coolness scale. Lucky lucky bastard.

IlMrm · Post by **IlMrm** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:36 am

They'll probably nuke the aliens. I wonder which unlucky city it will be.

Off topic: In Top Gun, for a big budget extravaganza, is it that hard to put together some Mig models, instead of using F-5s and calling them Migs?

FRO · Post by **FRO** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:28 pm

roushimsx wrote:I would have watched and loved battlefield earth if he was in it.

Why do people berate this movie so? I'm not some SciFi fanboy who blindly watches and enjoys anything remotely SciFi, but I rather enjoyed this movie. I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's so awful.