Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Most people hate the Tom Cruise one. Looking forward to this one. I still love the 1953 movie (and the 80's tv series sequel) even though the story was greatly changed from the novel. I always wanted a remake of the 1953 movie using the same war machines but that wont happen. We only saw them once more, briefly in the first episode of the tv series. Beautiful design along with the sound effects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
Originally this was going to air before the end of LAST year, 2018. Still not holding my breath we'll see it before Christmas although they say it will be out in your Fall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
Originally this was going to air before the end of LAST year, 2018. Still not holding my breath we'll see it before Christmas although they say it will be out in your Fall.
That's the way it is with BBC stuff, they even did a joke about it on the TV show The Good Place, "It ran for 16 years on the BBC; they did nearly 30 episodes". :laugh:

The trailer does give some hope that it will be faithful to the book, the recent mediocre movie Annihilation showed the effects that could be done with the terraforming aspect of the book and I'd love to see that.

If anyone hasn't read the book all H.G. Wells's stuff is in the public domain so grab a free digital copy of it somewhere. It's a relatively short read.
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,623 Posts
The BBC has produced a new version of War of the World, set in the book's time period.
BTW: Extra points for using the lesser known version of the word, adaptation. :thumbsup: I've always thought adaptation had one too many syllables. I much prefer adaption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
BTW: Extra points for using the lesser known version of the word, adaptation. :thumbsup: I've always thought adaptation had one too many syllables. I much prefer adaption.
Actually I tried to correct it, but apparently you can't edit titles.

I really don't understand the hatred of the Spielberg/Cruise version. It is certainly better than the version from the fifties. George Pal was a pioneer in filmed science fiction, but he was a mediocre filmmaker. The story has been reduced to Classics Illustrated simplicity. And the acting, especially Ann Robinson's performance, is at times painful to watch. The 2005 was at least made by talented people who understood the source material.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,368 Posts
In regards to the title (which I shortend), you do have a small window as the OP to fix a title now. This wasnt possible before. If you do miss the window though you can always ask to have it changed by myself or by KITT - just send us a pm about it. :cheers2:

(BTW adaption and adaptation both mean the same thing and I can change it back to the more common useage today of adaptation if desired.)
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,623 Posts
(BTW adaption and adaptation both mean the same thing and I can change it back to the more common useage today of adaptation if desired.)
Oh, no! PLEASE keep adaption. It rolls off the tongue much better. :thumbsup:
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,623 Posts
I really don't understand the hatred of the Spielberg/Cruise version. It is certainly better than the version from the fifties. George Pal was a pioneer in filmed science fiction, but he was a mediocre filmmaker. The story has been reduced to Classics Illustrated simplicity. And the acting, especially Ann Robinson's performance, is at times painful to watch. The 2005 was at least made by talented people who understood the source material.
All I can do is speak from personal experience but it seems to me that the George Pal version was much more "easily digestible." I could watch it and found it entertaining and it grabbed my attention despite the flaws. The Tom Cruise version didn't really grab me. I never really got into it. There's not necessarily anything inherently bad about the Tom Cruise version. The production values were certainly top notch. I found that it didn't add anything interesting to the story since, for one, it obviously was not trying to be faithful to the original for a change. It was just another sci-fi popcorn action flick/Tom Cruise vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,142 Posts
Fortunately, it's not an either/or proposition. I love the George Pal WotW as well as the Spielberg version. They are quite different and the Spielberg version sticks closer the novel. 50's sci-fi needs to be viewed in context. The Pal films were among the best of that decade. Destination Moon, Conquest of Space, When Worlds Collide and The Time Machine are all favorites of this old fan. :grin2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Actually I tried to correct it, but apparently you can't edit titles.

I really don't understand the hatred of the Spielberg/Cruise version. It is certainly better than the version from the fifties. George Pal was a pioneer in filmed science fiction, but he was a mediocre filmmaker. The story has been reduced to Classics Illustrated simplicity. And the acting, especially Ann Robinson's performance, is at times painful to watch. The 2005 was at least made by talented people who understood the source material.
Blasphemy! >:)
I grew up watching the 1953 George Pal version many times. It's one of my favourite sci-fi movies. When the Spielberg/Cruise movie was released, I've heard that it was closer to the novel. When I went to the theater to see it, I didn't NOT see the "WAR" of the worlds, I saw Tom Cruise (the dad) running around trying to find his kids, and to make that interesting, you know, they just throw the pesky alien invasion in the background for fun and excitement!! See dad run over here, no, the kids are not here. See the dad run over there, no, the kids are not here either. Where are those damn kids! I got to FIND them. It was the classic bait and switch.

Then to pour salt in the wound, we're told how crafty and sneaky those aliens were by planning the invasion in advanced, like ONE MILLION YEARS in advance. They did this by burying their war machines deep underground and then wait ONE MILLION YEARS later, and on invasion day, we can see these cool energy bolts coming down from the sky (those crafty aliens) teleporting down into their buried war machines and then dig their way to the surface. How COOL is that!!:grin2:

We waited, how many years for a remake? And that's what we got. :mad: Yes, it had a big budget and high production values. Yes, it was 'closer' to the novel and the war machines were closer to what HG Wells had (however you can't beat the '53 design - a mantra ray with a cobra head). BUT the story stank to high heaven. I'm been wondering if the script was written by a 13-year old. Sorry about the rant but that's how I feel about the Spielberg/Cruise movie.

After seeing this trailer for the new version, looks good and I can't wait to watch it. Could be the best version and the closet to the novel. But the kid in me WANTS the 1953 war machine! :grin2:
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,623 Posts
Blasphemy! >:)
I grew up watching the 1953 George Pal version many times. It's one of my favourite sci-fi movies. When the Spielberg/Cruise movie was released, I've heard that it was closer to the novel. When I went to the theater to see it, I didn't NOT see the "WAR" of the worlds, I saw Tom Cruise (the dad) running around trying to find his kids, and to make that interesting, you know, they just throw the pesky alien invasion in the background for fun and excitement!! See dad run over here, no, the kids are not here. See the dad run over there, no, the kids are not here either. Where are those damn kids! I got to FIND them. It was the classic bait and switch.

Then to pour salt in the wound, we're told how crafty and sneaky those aliens were by planning the invasion in advanced, like ONE MILLION YEARS in advance. They did this by burying their war machines deep underground and then wait ONE MILLION YEARS later, and on invasion day, we can see these cool energy bolts coming down from the sky (those crafty aliens) teleporting down into their buried war machines and then dig their way to the surface. How COOL is that!!:grin2:

We waited, how many years for a remake? And that's what we got. :mad: Yes, it had a big budget and high production values. Yes, it was 'closer' to the novel and the war machines were closer to what HG Wells had (however you can't beat the '53 design - a mantra ray with a cobra head). BUT the story stank to high heaven. I'm been wondering if the script was written by a 13-year old. Sorry about the rant but that's how I feel about the Spielberg/Cruise movie.

After seeing this trailer for the new version, looks good and I can't wait to watch it. Could be the best version and the closet to the novel. But the kid in me WANTS the 1953 war machine! :grin2:
NAILED IT! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
According to the episode guide:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8001226/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1

It's 3 episodes and episode 2 should have just aired with episode 3 next week. I've seen episode 1 and I liked it. I can't remember if I have read the novel (if I did, it was back in the 70's and I've forgotten it.) I only remember a couple of scenes, one being the trapped in the house part and other was that the martians were terraforming the Earth and the main character was founding these weird plants that were growing everywhere. The first episode sees the arrival of the first machine followed by more. At a certain point (the second half of episode 1 I think) they started flashing forward a few times to after the war. I can't wait to see episodes 2 and 3.

Thirty years ago, back around 1988, they announced the tv series War Of The Worlds which was a sequel to the 1953 movie. The world was devastated from the war and they had 30 years to rebuild and the world should still need work to bring back to that level before the war. I was surprised that the show's producers just had a 'normal' 1988 world with no trace of any devastation and most of the population 'forgot' that a world wide alien invasion had taken place. They rebooted the second season and had a corrected fallen civilization world still rebuilding but the aliens were changed and they got rid of half of the cast. The second season wasn't that great and the show was cancelled but at least they ended the war.

The brief flash forwards show a devastated world recovering (or just starting to rebuild) after the invasion and that would also be interesting to see. Way better than the Spielberg/Cruise movie. :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
I hated the second season of that TV series- it was like they just spliced another show into the timeslot and kept the name.

The new BBC version has been getting some poor reviews elsewhere online- apparently they short changed any of the battle footage in favor of some story of infidelity and personal drama. like the Spielberg film, most of the conflict is off camera.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Well the bit about most of the battles happening off camera is to be expected. It's a tv mini-series not a big budget movie that can show massive battle scenes. That is some of the juicey stuff that we like to see but unfortunately with telling a story in the time frame that you got (and with the budget that you got) you have to make some compromises. The personal drama part between 3 of the characters is also sort of being expected as they usually do that as well. I felt that they did that in order to bridge the 2 different time frames, you have the start of the alien invasion (and the announcement that she's pregnant) with the fast forwards after the invasion and a fallen civilization and she is raising her son who lives in this new world (and will probably will never know what life was like in the 'old' world). It's different and I can understand why some don't like it. Would I like it if they cut down on the personal drama and show more of the battle scenes? Yes, but realistically I knew that wouldn't happen. In the end, I liked it, it could have been better but I still like it.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top