WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion [Archive]

View Full Version : WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Andrew Joe

12-02-2004, 07:36 PM

http://chud.com/nextraimages/waroworlds.jpg

I never read the book, so why is the tagline "They're already here?"

Nice artwork.

Greg Clark

12-02-2004, 07:59 PM

Well, the book plays out in almost complete real-time, so I have no clue.

Then agian, the book takes place in the 1890's, so my guess is that it'll keep the basic concept and run with it.

Or maybe it just means that they'll already be on the ground before we know they're comin'. In the book, they landed in the form of meteors, and no one knew what was happening until the huge machines sprang up and started blowing shit up.

Ade Brooks

12-02-2004, 09:53 PM

I think it's going to be hard to pull off a sneak arrival in the modern era. Unless it's some kind of "cloaking" system the Martians use. How will Spielberg get past the fact of all the probes to Mars have revealed no sign of any civilization? Underground dwellers perhaps?

I'm looking forward to hearing more about this movie & its storyline, the Wells book is one I re-read every year or so & I still like the 1953 movie version. I hope I won't be disappointed next July but I have faith in Spielberg.

Jason P. Thompson

12-02-2004, 10:26 PM

I still listen to the radio broadcasts occasionally on a late drive home.

Andrew Joe

12-02-2004, 11:42 PM

Exactly how much will this retain? The transition from countries...but also time periods has gotta throw some kinks into the whole adaption phase, probably be "Inspired/based" or something........

We all know Tom Cruise is gonna dodge a giant fireball/laserball during the film, that's what it's all about, that and shots of the creatures ships floating into view........

Spoiler

Master Chief comes and saves us all, hooray!

Ade Brooks

12-02-2004, 11:49 PM

Please have someone in there twatting Martians with a cricket bat !!!!

Ken Savage

12-03-2004, 07:15 AM

Prehaps there working on the premis that the book (set in the 1800's) happend and was hushed up? So some of the blighters survived?

Geoff Foster

12-03-2004, 07:42 AM

Prehaps there working on the premis that the book (set in the 1800's) happend and was hushed up? So some of the blighters survived?

I'm not sure how they could even begin to "hush up" half of England smoked to a cinder by an army of giant, clanking tripods wielding death rays.

That type of news tends to make the front pages.

Ken Savage

12-03-2004, 08:26 AM

I'm not sure how they could even begin to "hush up" half of England smoked to a cinder by an army of giant, clanking tripods wielding death rays.

Sorry i should have been clearer, what i meant was prehaps they hushed up a smaller attack in the 1800 only some survived. Paying some kind of lip service to the orginal book, but ensuring you could have the big fight present day.

I have to admit though as much as i have faith in speilberg im dissapointed he didnt make it a period piece.

Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film

12-03-2004, 08:32 AM

Isn't that part of the plot for Independence Day ?

It's Spielberg. It's huge. It's sci fi. It has Tom Cruise in it. I don't see how it won't be pretty solid entertainment.

Concept art look a little Mars Attacks!-hokey though. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It ain't Chekov and I'm glad they know it.

Ken Savage

12-03-2004, 08:41 AM

Im not saying it wont be great (although it isnt even filmed yet so how can we know).

Just a big part of me wants a war of the worlds film set in the time of the book. Where the whole concept of an alien invasion would have been so much more freekish to the inhabitants of earth.

Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film

12-03-2004, 09:04 AM

Yah, but how many cars and trucks and things filled with petrol (excepting vagrants) were there to blow up in the stupid olden days ? Huh ?

Ken Savage

12-03-2004, 09:32 AM

Well i suppose there is that, wanton destructon on a global scale is always good.

OhioJones

12-07-2004, 04:36 PM

this is just a theory, but their new tagline "they're already here" and the image of the hand looks almost like roots of some kind. I wonder if the catch is that they are here and have been growing underground or something...

billylove

12-07-2004, 04:41 PM

Wolfwood

12-07-2004, 11:15 PM

OhioJones

12-08-2004, 08:30 AM

I can't imagine they'd try and do something like Body Snatchers.
It just looks like a root or something.

Andrew Joe

12-10-2004, 03:37 AM

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds

In summer of 2005 EXPLOSIONS will occur.

OhioJones

12-10-2004, 12:36 PM

great teaser. I'm really looking forward to this one.

ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE EXPLOSIONS CAME FROM THE TREES?
(see me theory above)

ALIENinfluence

12-10-2004, 01:29 PM

It'll suck balls. Spielberg is over the hill and Tom Cruise has only two modes of 'acting', blandness and being a spaz. Plenty of nerds will pack into the theaters for it to make a mint though.

Electrichead

12-13-2004, 12:00 PM

great teaser. I'm really looking forward to this one.

ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE EXPLOSIONS CAME FROM THE TREES?
(see me theory above)

I don't know if the explosions came from the trees, it just looks like the trees were hit when everything went to shit. It makes it look like just a big wave of destruction coming over the hill there.

As to the tagline, it does give me a Body Snatchers vibe. Maybe there were some deep insertion teams that came in to do recon. Maybe he's taking a page out of V also, or They Live.

evyled

12-13-2004, 12:20 PM

I would love to see it set in 1800's as well, that would be sweet! But alas instead we get to see Independence Day Part 2.

Andrew Clarke

12-13-2004, 12:30 PM

If the method of attack is different (something to do with the roots perhaps?) and the reaction of the populace is different then the film could be very different from Independence day, especially in the last hour.
It would be difficult for the set up not to be very similar, but it could quite easily become very different as the humans react in different ways. remove the military triumphalism, add one or two acutal characters and anything could happen.
it is, of course, impossible to discern thematics from a teaser trailer, but notions of collapse, of fear, of human arrogance, of facing defeat - interesting stuff if it happens.

it could just be two hours of shit blowing up of course.

OhioJones

12-13-2004, 12:54 PM

that's also a good possibility...the V or They Live angle. I just have to imagine they'd come up with something totally different than anyone previously thought - otherwise us sci-fi fans wouldn't be all that impressed (and I expect good things from steve and tom on this one).
If they decided to stick with the original story then it would be a simple invasion like ID4, in which case everyone would compare it and blah, blah, blah...
I'm stickin with the shrubbery angle in some way.

Electrichead

12-13-2004, 01:08 PM

I'm stickin with the shrubbery angle in some way.

Isn't that Day of the Triffids? Never seen it, but that's what it sound like. Space plants tearing shit up.

OhioJones

12-13-2004, 01:11 PM

Isn't that Day of the Triffids? Never seen it, but that's what it sound like. Space plants tearing shit up.

Never saw it either. May have to make an effort and watch it before next summer.

Andrew Clarke

12-13-2004, 01:12 PM

I'm stickin with the shrubbery angle in some way.

So the aliens would attack through mother nature? mother nature becomes our enemy and humans are powerless to stop her...until they are defeated by walmart, who concretes over the entire planet.

Ken Savage

12-15-2004, 10:07 AM

If they do go down the v or body snatcher angle then in a way it ceases to become War of the Worlds.
Much as i trust Mr S im not sure what he is doing here but i have faith.......i have faith.

Parker

12-15-2004, 11:24 AM

The tagline makes me think this is going to be a post 9/11 action movie...with the aliens representing terrorists.

Geoff Foster

12-17-2004, 04:12 PM

Isn't that Day of the Triffids? Never seen it, ...

If you are going to watch it, try and get hold of the BBC's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081850/)adaptation. Hollywood's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055894/) take on it is absolutely dreadful.

Werewolf Girl

12-18-2004, 11:33 AM

This has a 70's Spielberb vibe to it. It looks like Stephen is getting back to his roots.

YeLLoWsAmUeL

12-18-2004, 12:26 PM

If you're trying to find it, the BBC's Day of the Triffids is out on DVD in 2005. (http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcdvd1452)

YeLLoWsAmUeL

12-18-2004, 12:35 PM

Oh, and there's already a faithful, period-set adaption of the book. It's in post production now and was made in England, somebody linked it further up. It's not Steven Speilberg, but at least it's better than nothing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/

Could be good, interesting to see both movies coming out at a similar time. I wonder which version will be embraced by the fans?

VTRan

12-18-2004, 07:09 PM

maybe the martians are really Red Lectroids from Planet 10 by way of the 8th dimension.
:)

Casey Moore

12-18-2004, 08:26 PM

Fuck that. I don't want a re-make. I want my Buckaroo Banzai vs the World Crime League like I was promised all those years ago.

It should be fun to see how and where Spielberg takes this adaptation.

OhioJones

12-20-2004, 02:05 PM

Astromarine

12-20-2004, 03:58 PM

Call me crazy, but wasn't there a WotW TV show years back where the aliens WERE actually body-snatchers? I sure hope they aren't mining that TV show for material...

AHA! Found it. Crazily enough, the tagline for the show is "They never left!" http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-4495/War_of_the_Worlds/

OhioJones

12-27-2004, 09:33 AM

Don't know if anyone has seen this yet but here's a link to an article on AICN about some of the shooting for WOTW. It took place in the woods and the scooper snagged some shots.

Now giving its source this could be B.S. but who knows....
Whatever it is it certainly gives credit to the whole idea that trees/roots/mother nature is involved in some way.

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19027

dudalb

12-27-2004, 06:18 PM

"I wonder which version will be embraced by the fans?"
Unfortunately, the quality of the period WOTW does not seem to be high from the clips they have up at their website.. It looks like a made for cable TV movie or "B" theartrical movie.in terms of quality. Professional level but not anywhere near the polish of a major motion picture. It's a small budget indie trying to do a large budget subject matter.
I don't know about the fans, but considering that Speilberg will be able to spend One hundred dollars in marketing and advertising for every dollar that Pendragon (The company making the other WOTW) can spend, I know which one is going to win at the box office.
Pendragon is apparently having problems finding a distributor for their WOTW.
It looks to me like they are trying to do a film on a shoestring budget that requires a large or at least medium scale budget to bring off. The quality of the acting in the clips I have seen leaves a lot to be desired also.
I respect what Pendragon is trying to do, and I would love to see an Edwardian period WOTW done right, but the Pendragon film does not appear to be it.
And that this is the first feature film for the writers,producers, and directors, is not promising either. It's a huge leap from doing commericials and industrial films to doing a feature film on the scale of this.

dudalb

12-27-2004, 06:28 PM

"It's in post production now and was made in England, "....
That's not quite the case. It is set in England but the film itself was mainly shot in Washington State. They might have sent a couple of people over to the UK for some second unit "Atmospheric shots" but almost all the main footage was shot in the American Northwest. Not a biggie but for the producers to give the impression that the bulk of the film was made in the UK is disingenious.

Lee

01-24-2005, 06:12 PM

Re: They're already here tagline, I thought that it could be like Quatermass and the Pit style invasion. The pods from mars arrived an awful long while ago and have been uncovered in the modern time unleashing some grouchy Martians, pissed at being woken up after a 2000 year lay in.

Still that said they did that with Reign of Fire and that was shit!

As far as the setting / time frame is concerned, I'm not too worried because as the Orson Wells radio play proved, the story can be set in any time frame. It becomes even more relevent in someways because our tech is so much more advanced than the victorian era, yet even with nukes, stealth planes, laser guided shit and chemical weapons we still can't beat the Martians and in the end the only thing that does kill them is the one thing we still cant get rid of ourself even with all our knowlege.... The common cold.

In the end its a morality tale about the over reliance on technology....

BTW I watched 20 seconds of the Pendragon Pictures trailer and while I admire their attempts, it just screams fan film.....

Andrew Clarke

01-24-2005, 06:38 PM

But will it be the cold?

it is one of the interesting mysteries of this film to know what will defeat them. or whether, in spielberg's post-AI phase, he's going to pull some sort of last 20 minute twist where they win...

yes. unlikely. but the morality play part of it will be mostly in how it turns out. i guess we wait and see, unless someone has the final shooting script.

unless it plays as a dark and ambiguous movie then cops out in the last 20 minutes like minority report (yes, i'm in that camp) with a happy ending.

discuss: are the happy endings of minority report and total recall supposed to be taken at face value, or can they still be legitimately be seen as possibly just dreams...

Lee

01-24-2005, 07:05 PM

discuss: are the happy endings of minority report and total recall supposed to be taken at face value, or can they still be legitimately be seen as possibly just dreams...

I think Total Recall's ending is deliberately ambiguous (SP?) and a lot of clues at the start of the film, such as the tech at Recall strapping Arnie in to his chair while mentioning the sim was called "blue sky over mars" kinda throws you towards the whole thing being in his head. Especially the desolve to white at the end showing you nothing after, what you would guess is the end of the simulation..... so I would say that you still can take total recalls ending either way...

Nothing like that can be applied to Minority Report really.

Re: The Cold killing martians, I think it has to be that because frankly to do anything else would draw unfavorable comparisons with Independance Day's own version of giving the aliens a cold or rather a Virus.

Andrew Clarke

01-24-2005, 07:32 PM

Lee

01-24-2005, 07:50 PM

As the virus in independance day was a nod to WOTW in the first place it might be difficult to get away from.

so we shall see how much Spielberg takes Independance Day into account because, whether he likes it or not (and whther we like it or not) this is an 'aien invasion!' movie post-ID4.

Especially so because Emmerich is seen by us terribly clever internet folks as such a Spielberg rip-off.

Welcome to the boards by the way, Lee.

This is true, I suppose theres no real way to avoid a comparison with IQ4 *ahem* I mean ID4 and thats sad because you just know that some twat who knows nothing about War of the worlds will pop up here or elsewhere on the net and review War of the worlds as "A rip off of Independance Day"

BTW I heard a rumor the other day that because Pendragon Pictures got the rights to War of the worlds first and started making a film based on the book, that, thats the reason that Spielberg & co had to set the film in a different era with different characters..... still that sounds like total BS to me but I thought I'd mention it incase it turns out to be true one day....

And thanks for the welcome... this is a cool forum to hang out in.... :)

Andrew Clarke

01-24-2005, 08:05 PM

that rumour is...unlikely. Spielberg is like Godzilla compared to pendragon's Godzuki. money solves everything.

Oh, and this is just a bugbear of mine, deliberately mispelling things is one of the worst traits on the internet - Micro$oft, Lucass, IQ4. it's cheap.

and anyway, you need an IQ in at least the mid teens to get ID4.

Charlie Brigden

01-24-2005, 08:21 PM

ID4 was a rip-off of V and a dozen other movies anyway.

OhioJones

01-26-2005, 04:37 PM

Well, as you all probably know - there will be a 30 second teaser/trailer debuting during the Super Bowl. This is supposed to include actual footage from the movie. Maybe we'll learn a little more about the direction Spielberg is taking this thing and if the aliens are anything like what has been theorized and what we have seen before. I doubt we'll see any actual aliens but there may be a hint or two at how they arrived and what exactly they want.

devincf

01-26-2005, 04:38 PM

http://chud.com/news/1327

Andrew Clarke

01-26-2005, 04:57 PM

I see that Tom Cruise is going to act the aliens to death.

Dan Whitehead

01-26-2005, 05:02 PM

There's a few trailers for the Pendragon version linked from their site. It looks cheap, obviously, but you get a glimpse of one of the martian machines - and Big Ben gets blown to bits.

I think it looks...interesting, and you've got to admire their sheer big shiny brass balls for even attempting it.

Clarence Beaks

01-26-2005, 05:49 PM

Other films advertising at this year's Superbowl include The Pacifier (I cannot believe they're spending Superbowl money on this one)

You don't want to make an enemy of me. Or Vin. Or the duck.

Andrew Joe

01-26-2005, 06:09 PM

Speaking of Vin, apparently they just decided to kill of the character Xander Cage from xXx for the sequel, to explain why they went with the Grimace ........fitting end to the "next generation of action hero"

I only wish they sent him out with Vin as a cameo and he gets knocked off ala Sean Connery doppleganger in the Scorpio episode of Simpsons.........

"You expect me to talk?"
"[i]No I only expect you to die and have a lousy funeral"

*gets machine gunned to oblivion*

but ummmm........yeah...War of the Worlds....wonder how much of it they have completed, seeing how Spielberg is moving at a fast pace........gotta fix that broken link at the top of the page.

Johnny Daywalker

01-26-2005, 07:46 PM

For the first time I have fears for this movie. I hope Speilberg doesn't get too fuzzy with this one.

Not sure why but I have a bad feeling about this one now.

Actually I think I know why perhaps because Cruise is producing and Spielberg's last flick (The Terminal) was so bad. Still i'm curious about this one as I liked Minority Report.

Dan Whitehead

01-27-2005, 04:23 AM

Ken Savage

01-27-2005, 08:18 AM

OhioJones

01-27-2005, 12:27 PM

I think he does, i dont think he will deviate to much from the end of the book. I think he has reached the stage of his carreer where he can do whatever he likes and the studio execs will go "sure here is some more money".

I agree. I don't expect Mr. Speilberg to try and throw a new twist onto the ending of the original. Although it certainly seems like he is messing around the aliens somewhat. The whole reason this thread was started was to figure out the meaning of "They're alrady here." So he is obviously adding something to the story.

Andrew Clarke

01-27-2005, 12:59 PM

"they're already here" could mean nothing more than that he is skipping the first act of most alien invasion movies.
the first scene could be everyone waking up to find the aliens are already fortified, rather than 30 odd minutes of normality while things very slowly become strange. that would speed things up a bit. characters would be introduced while already under duress rather than reading the morning paper.

that's probably just wishful thinking. So 'no-one knows' is probably the answer, or perhaps 'it's just marketing'.

JuddL

01-27-2005, 02:22 PM

Don't you think aliens intelligent enough to come to earth would be intelligent enough to protect themselves against earthly microorganisms?

Do you think we would just go to another, life-sustaining, planet and assume that everything is a-ok?

That ending may have been ok for Wells, way back when the story was originally written, I do not think it would be ok today; unless, of course, there's more to it than that.

Andrew Clarke

01-27-2005, 02:30 PM

That ending may have been ok for Wells, way back when the story was originally written, I do not think it would be ok today; unless, of course, there's more to it than that.

Because we are smarter now than we were back then?

JuddL

01-27-2005, 02:33 PM

Because we are smarter now than we were back then?

ummm, because it was published in 1898, and I think it stands to reason that our knowledge of microorganisms has substantially increased since then.

Charlie Brigden

01-27-2005, 03:15 PM

People are stupid. Look at Iraq. We're supposed to be the smartest animals on this planet, yet we've let all of that go to shit. We're also dead arrogant.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch.

I mean, that's the whole point. It's not whether they are intelligent to check. It's whether they bother. As in 'WE'RE SO STRONG, THE HUMANS ARE ON THE RUN, LET'S GET OUT AND BREATH THE FRESH AIR OF VIC-ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

NEED LOCKETS.'

devincf

01-27-2005, 03:19 PM

Since I keep hearing they have no ending yet, I think Spielberg is struggling with just this question.

JuddL

01-27-2005, 05:19 PM

Since I keep hearing they have no ending yet, I think Spielberg is struggling with just this question.

Why, oh why did he have to rush this one?

Sua-hua chi

01-27-2005, 09:14 PM

http://chud.com/nextraimages/waroworlds.jpg

I never read the book, so why is the tagline "They're already here?"

Nice artwork.

It is definatly on my top prioritys the check this one out.

OhioJones

01-28-2005, 10:52 AM

dudalb

01-28-2005, 06:49 PM

"BTW I heard a rumor the other day that because Pendragon Pictures got the rights to War of the worlds first and started making a film based on the book, that, thats the reason that Spielberg & co had to set the film in a different era with different characters..... still that sounds like total BS to me but I thought I'd mention it incase it turns out to be true one day...."

That is pure bullshit and exceptionally stupid bullshit at that.. The book is in the public domain, has been for a bout 50 years, it's has no copyright protection anymore, and anybody who wants can make a film of it. People really should do a little research before they start dumbass rumors like that. Any knowledge of copyright laws would have told you that WOTW is no longer protected. Btw this is not aimed at the poster, but at the people who started the rumor he mentions.

" think it looks...interesting, and you've got to admire their sheer big shiny brass balls for even attempting it."
I do admire Pendragon's balls, but from the clips the film looks like a low grade TV movie..the acting in particular.
And "Gorgo" has a must better destruction of Westminster Hall then the clip from the Pendragon WOTW.....

But I really have problems with what Speilberg can do with a modern day Alien Invasion film that has no already been done a dozen times before.

dudalb

01-28-2005, 06:51 PM

BTW the Grasping Alien hand in the poster looks just like the hands of the Martians in the 1953 George Pal WOTW.

Masked Muppet

01-30-2005, 09:35 AM

Red vines....red vines....I remember something about red vines and martian invasions....

Ah yes, not just candy. Red weed.

Google search revealed:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/asullivan00/worlds21.html

(Contains minor spoilers about The Red Weed)

OhioJones

02-03-2005, 09:15 AM

SUPER BOWL TEASER!!!

http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2005/paramount/wotw/30tvsbspot.htm

EDIT: For some reason that link isn't working. Go to LatinoReview.com and you can find it from there. MovieBox also has it.

Spike Marshall

02-03-2005, 10:20 AM

Am I the only here getting a feeling of the 'War of the Worlds' musical by Jeff Wayne.... I don't know why I just can't get some of the songs out of my head whenever I read information about this movie.

Nice to see they are sticking to the original story, it will be cool if the martians still have their tripods of death as well.

Masked Muppet

02-03-2005, 10:31 AM

So what's the addy to moviebox? www.moviebox.com (http://www.moviebox.com) takes you somewhere else.

Right now, if you go to www.latinoreview.com (http://www.latinoreview.com), it's at the top.

Jason P. Thompson

02-03-2005, 10:38 AM

No sound at work, but the visuals of the interstate flying up into the air are pretty spectacular.

Greg Clark

02-03-2005, 11:29 AM

Here's a direct link to the page:

Here ya go (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/STUVWXYZ/War-of-the-Worlds/trailer.php)

I got it loaded with no lag, but who knows how many people have found this link since then.

Nick Hexum

02-03-2005, 11:44 AM

No Longer Available!?!?!

Greg Clark

02-03-2005, 12:14 PM

Here's a yousendit link for those who want to see it bad enough to download it:

Click-click (http://s28.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=15WGBK8S8RUC61O8Z07I0EZ9YS)

OhioJones

02-03-2005, 12:59 PM

No sound at work, but the visuals of the interstate flying up into the air are pretty spectacular.

I agree. Awesome effects. Although I bet those aren't finished - The way the bridge was braking apart makes me thing in the final movie we'll see some explosions or alien ships there.

Jason P. Thompson

02-03-2005, 01:01 PM

I don't know why, but I don't think we will be seeing alien ships. Possibly more explosions, but an unseen enemy can be just a frightening.

11thIndian

02-03-2005, 01:44 PM

I agree. Awesome effects. Although I bet those aren't finished - The way the bridge was braking apart makes me thing in the final movie we'll see some explosions or alien ships there.

Perhaps not. It looks like the bridge is being torn apart by an invisible force, and not explosions per-se. I'd like to see alien weapons that aren't big lasers. Perhaps something sonic, magnetic, or gravity based would be an interesting change from the standard destructive visuals. Sure, there'd be explosions as gas lines or tanker trucks went up, but I think the destruction looks pretty convincing as it is...

JuddL

02-03-2005, 03:10 PM

Any, more recent links?

Andrew Clarke

02-03-2005, 03:20 PM

Perhaps this is one of the ways Spielberg is going to distinguish this film from ID4. the giant fireball of destruction is now a cliche. if it's invisible, then we don't know what's going to get destroyed next and it will instill a sense of terror again.
like in Saving Private Ryan, when death could happen to anyone at anytime.

might be good.

the trailer did have the old cliche of the 'hero' being the only one who knows what's happening and the only one doing the sensible thing. do we know who Cruise's character is that he would be ahead of everyone else.
I saw die hard 2 recently (mistake!) and EVERYONE else is a giant moron and Bruce Willis seems to know almost supernaturally exactly what the terrorists are going to do next. Let's hope this film isn't as dumb.

11thIndian

02-03-2005, 03:33 PM

After doing a bit of reading, it seems Cruises character is very middle class. He's living a very ordinary, perhaps lower middle-class life, dealing with all his regular shit, when aliens invade. This is another distinct variation from ID4, where are principal cast is made up of fighter pilots, the president, and scientists. People who seeming can impact what's happening. In the scenario Spielberg seems to be presenting, Cruises character wouldnt seem to have any control over this worldwide disaster. Making his role mostly reactionary; trying to keep his family just ahead the clutches of evil alien death! Very cool.

OhioJones

02-03-2005, 04:31 PM

Perhaps not. It looks like the bridge is being torn apart by an invisible force, and not explosions per-se. I'd like to see alien weapons that aren't big lasers. Perhaps something sonic, magnetic, or gravity based would be an interesting change from the standard destructive visuals. Sure, there'd be explosions as gas lines or tanker trucks went up, but I think the destruction looks pretty convincing as it is...

Oh the destruction looks great, but it doesn't seem to be coming from anywhere. I thought of the teaser for ID4 when the White House gets blasted. If you remember, the teaser didn't have the helicopter. But in the movie, one of the helicopters.....blah blah blah, you've all seen it...

JUDDL - no, all the links have been taken down. Latino Review and The Movie Box were the only ones I knew of that had it. It'll probably be up late Sunday or Monday morning everywhere, though.

JuddL

02-03-2005, 04:47 PM

Doug Graham put up a working link in the "Superbowl TV spot" thread, so I finally caught it.

Decent looking special effects aside, this teaser does not have me pumped. Mini-van outrunning a trail of explosions is kind of over the top in my book, and why does that guy care if Cruise stays or not?

11thIndian

02-03-2005, 04:50 PM

I like that idea. If a battleship out at sea were to have fired at the bridge, there wouldn't be any kind of warning- the bridge would just explode out of nowhere. Sound may play some part here, but who knows...

OhioJones

02-03-2005, 05:06 PM

You know JUDDL I thought about that too. It was kind of stupid. The only thing I could think - and it really doesn't matter, is that they got in his truck as an act of simply trying to get away and the dude came out of the store or something and, not knowing what's going on yet - hence Tom's "get in or you're going to die" speech, thought they were trying to steal it.

You all keep hoping that there's going to be some new twist to the alien invasion thing with sound waves, magnetic fields, or whatever. While that is cool (and I still think trees are involved) it wouldn't be the summer movie it will be without some big fucking explosions. Besides, lasers or whatever is so much simpler to exlpain to the John/Jane Doe audience than having to add dialogue explaining that the aliens are using "an advanced weapon capable of narrowing the magnetic field and directing it" or some shit like that.

Oh, I know..they'll have Tom running down the street and his daughter will look at him and say "how are they doing this daddy?" and he'll say "I don't know honey, they must be using sound waves or something." End of explanation.

Andrew Joe

02-03-2005, 05:30 PM

You have to wonder how Tom "Thing from Mapother World" Cruise is going to stop the alien invasion single handedly............

Ok, in reality he won't, it'll probably be like the book, or a newer variation on it.

I'm a little fuzzy on the details, don't the aliens have deathrays that SkeleRon anyone in sight? What do these tripods look like?

http://img216.exs.cx/img216/2363/Mapother.jpg

"I had to use this little girl as a humanshield to
defend my good looks from those flippin' aliens!!"

OhioJones

02-03-2005, 05:40 PM

I don't think anyone knows for sure yet what they look like but I came across this a while back - it's only concept art but it's still pretty cool lookin.

matches

02-03-2005, 11:05 PM

http://chud.com/nextraimages/waroworlds.jpg

I never read the book, so why is the tagline "They're already here?"

Nice artwork.

The Martians fingers look like they have suction cups on them. How can I be scared of something that I may see stuck to the back of someone's windshield next to Garfield?

dudalb

02-04-2005, 04:22 PM

I repeat that the poster hands are too much like the Martian hands in the 1953 Pal Film to be a coincidence.
I fully expect Grover's Mill, New Jersey to make an apppreance or get a mention in the film as well.

dudalb

02-04-2005, 04:26 PM

It seems as though Speilberg is trying to combine the Everyman during the Alien Invasion viewpoint a la "Signs" with the spectacular/massive destruction appeal of ID4. How well he suceeds in combining these two remains to be seen.
BTW, I think that Jeff Wayne is postponing his Animated version of his musical WOTW until 2007...

cognizant

02-05-2005, 07:12 AM

That Superbowl trailer was badly edited or something, maybe it was the music badly edited, or something, but it just felt very rushed together. The music itself was awesome, from Immediate Music I think. Anyway, point of this post: You think a few effects were rubbed out from this teaser or they're still not completed? Because I couldnt tell why that freeway was being destroyed, I went frame by frame and saw tiny bits of light shining on the surface before they erupted, but thats not good enough is it!?

OhioJones

02-06-2005, 10:46 AM

Andrew Clarke

02-06-2005, 11:01 AM

cognizant

02-06-2005, 11:51 AM

but do you not think that having the souce of destruction be invisible might be an interesting cinematic conceit? And do you not think that, since AI and his dalliance with Kubrick, Spielberg has very self-consciously been trying to do different things with the thriller and sci-fi genre? Do you not think that this would be a very Speilbergian way to mix the visual language of Sci-fi destruction up a little bit - that taking away stuff might actually give us more? Specifically taking away the audience's safety of knowing what's going to get hit next?

Nope, lol. Honestly, you can see shiny light before each hit, so thats not really invisible is it?

I agree that Speilberg's been trying new things, I'm in the minority that actually liked A.I, but I think this movie is inevitabely going to draw (admittedly lazy) comparisons with ID4, even though that was more or less a remake or riff of the original War of the Worlds too.

I'm digging the tree theory, but we'll see like you say.

OhioJones

02-06-2005, 04:04 PM

So we have two teaser trailers both showing destruction happening by surprise, with no visual precursor, with no warning. yet you still believe that it's only because they have yet to add some whizzy laser death rays to the shots?

I guess we will all find out in a few months, but do you not think that having the souce of destruction be invisible might be an interesting cinematic conceit? And do you not think that, since AI and his dalliance with Kubrick, Spielberg has very self-consciously been trying to do different things with the thriller and sci-fi genre? Do you not think that this would be a very Speilbergian way to mix the visual language of Sci-fi destruction up a little bit - that taking away stuff might actually give us more? Specifically taking away the audience's safety of knowing what's going to get hit next?

Just an idea. We don't have that long to wait.

I think you're giving him too much credit. He's not going to try and "mix it up a bit" in an effort to be like the late great Kubrick. (I don't remember AI being a huge hit, do you?) You think he'd fuck around with your standard invasion story with a huge star like Tom Cruise for a "new idea"? Doubt it. This movie was made to make a ton of money, and that's what it's going to do. It's a summer movie; a tent pole popcorn picture and that's what he's going to deliver.

I first heard about this movie at the end of last summer. Then over Christmas we hear filming is completed. Then a teaer. Now this. And the movie comes out in a few months? That's pretty fuckin fast. Especially for one as big as this. That's why I figured we're getting these unfinished shots.

But who knows?! Maybe he's not going to show an alien at all until the movie comes out. How's that for original? All we see from now until summer is destruction and Tom Cruise looking at something. We have to go see the movie to see what's different about these aliens. That would be an interesting cinematic conceit.

Andrew Clarke

02-06-2005, 05:15 PM

Well we'll find out in a few months. Then one of us can come back here and gloat immaturely.

LlamaRama

02-07-2005, 01:11 AM

I don't know about the rest of you, but a seemingly invisible, insanely powerful force capable of tossing an entire interstate into the air without warning is far more disturbing to me than a giant explosion. It's the same sort of fear that pervaded the first teaser... foreboding followed by a powerful and unexplainable destruction.

Someone is making sure this things have some consistency. I guess it could be the trailer editors, but its an unusally risky and effective concept, and that makes me think Spielberg.

LlamaRama

02-07-2005, 01:16 AM

I think you're giving him too much credit. He's not going to try and "mix it up a bit" in an effort to be like the late great Kubrick. (I don't remember AI being a huge hit, do you?) You think he'd fuck around with your standard invasion story with a huge star like Tom Cruise for a "new idea"? Doubt it. This movie was made to make a ton of money, and that's what it's going to do. It's a summer movie; a tent pole popcorn picture and that's what he's going to deliver.

This is just silly. It's Steven Spielberg. Say what you will about the man, but if he has an idea for something that's a little unusual, he, probably more than anyone on the planet, can afford to pursue that idea. Yes, even in a summer Tom Cruise vehicle.

dudalb

02-07-2005, 06:58 PM

After seeing the super trailer, with it's wave of destruction, My though was "Did'nt we see this film a few years ago but it was called Independence Day?"
Sorry, but whether the cause of the wave of destruction is visible or not is really quibbling. We saw it in ID4, and my hopes of a halfway original take on an Alien Invasion has just got down.Just too similiar, Steve, just too similiar.

Jason P. Thompson

02-07-2005, 07:06 PM

dudalb

02-07-2005, 07:50 PM

You are probably right, and I will still go to see it.
But from a marketing standpoint, you do not want this film to look like ID4 redux, and and I am afrad that the effects in the Superbowl ad did just that. I think they have to emphasize what is different about this WOTW from all the other Alien Invasion ficks if they want this one to become a really big blockbuster, perticually since the competition will be stiff this summer.

JuddL

02-07-2005, 09:48 PM

How many ways can you approach the destruction of civilization by alien armies?

They would blow shit up, lots of shit.

Yando

02-07-2005, 10:03 PM

P.S. Guys, they're still shooting this movie. When OhioJones mentioned that he heard it wrapped over Christmas, that was just the New York section of the shoot, as far as I know.

OhioJones

02-08-2005, 08:48 AM

No matter what they do it'll be compared to ID4. The only way it'll stand out is how the aliens actually attack. I seriously doubt they'll show up in big ships and then waste everything.
Something is obviously different ("They're already here.") in the way he plans to introduce these aliens. They may have a completely different method of attacking if they're already here and part of the environment in some way.

Just came across this behind the scenes segment which aired on ET. No earth shattering news but some good footage from behind the scenes and small interview with Steven.
The Movie Box ET footage (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/STUVWXYZ/War-of-the-Worlds/footage/)

Masked Muppet

02-08-2005, 09:15 AM

...and only ET can bring you the behind the scenes news. Only us. Us. Us. Oh, look, we're out of footage. Us. Watch us, no one else. No one else has the superhuman ability to bring you sexy footage from this movie. Oh, here's what everyone else saw yesterday.

Seriously, though, thanks for the link.

Johnny Daywalker

02-08-2005, 09:45 AM

I hate ET MM good stuff.

cognizant

02-08-2005, 01:44 PM

It would be interesting if Speilberg's ultimate 'twist' on the story is that the aliens arent the bad guys, we are. Hence, fooling everyone who thought he suddenly decided to change his outlook on aliens. (he's an alien-lover, you know it)

Andrew Clarke

02-08-2005, 01:54 PM

Or the aliens win after half an hour and the rest of the film is like an alien 'Animal House'.

Seriously though, the voice-over on the teaser, straight from the original book, makes 'good aliens' highly unlikely.

while we're on the subject of 'ways spielberg is going to make it different to ID4', How's this for a horrible thought: Tom teams up with a lone, dissenting, 'sympathetic' alien who nobly sacrifices itself towards the end?

other twists:
- survivors get captured and are taken to Mars as slave labour. the final half hour is a slaves revolt.
- the aliens win but right at the end they get blowd up by the sudden arrival of some even bigger aliens.
- during the climax the film suddenly jumps a few hundred years into the future where Tom is allowed to spend one whole day with L Ron Hubbard.

Doug

02-08-2005, 01:58 PM

-Tom Cruise defeats aliens by giving them the AIDS.

Brad Millette

02-08-2005, 02:01 PM

Or the aliens win after half an hour and the rest of the film is like an alien 'Animal House'.

Glorbnax House is on double secret probation.

dudalb

02-08-2005, 02:57 PM

"Tom Cruise defeats aliens by giving them the AIDS."
Well, it's a virus...
Seriously, I think Speilberg is going to keep the Aliens kick mankind's butt but then they die of germs plotline; that is too much a part of the original WOTW for him to drop it.

dudalb

02-08-2005, 03:00 PM

My point was that the "wave of Destruction" in the trailer was too much like ID4,particularly in the way it was photographed.. The final film might well be different, but I still maintain they are going to have to sell people on the idea this is NOT a ID4 clone to make it the huge blockbuster everyone is expecting.

cognizant

02-08-2005, 03:01 PM

Seriously though, the voice-over on the teaser, straight from the original book, makes 'good aliens' highly unlikely.

One word: Propoganda.

But, yeah, I know its very unlikely we're the bad guys, but it would be fun if Speilberg fooled everyone into thinking he hate aliens now.

But, the film's called 'War of the Worlds', so humans win after a long protracted action scene lasting most of an hour. It really is ID4 but with a different director to be honest, different action scenes, different aliens, maybe different method of killing them, but ultimately via a 'virus' of some sort. I'm really suspecting a patriotic post 9/11 vibe to all this too, this smells of war time Capra-esque propoganda filmmaking, though I hope I'm wrong.

Doug

02-08-2005, 03:17 PM

You do realize that ID4 was riffing on War of The Worlds, Earth Versus The Flying Saucers, and the Mars Attacks card series, right? With a dash of V.

cognizant

02-08-2005, 03:33 PM

Of course, but ID4 wasnt set in the period the novel was set, and neither is this movie, and you'll notice the world now doesnt look that different from when ID4 was filmed, hence the comparisons. Would have been much more interesting in Victorian or Edwardian times or something.

Doug

02-08-2005, 03:38 PM

ArizonaElvis

02-08-2005, 03:54 PM

New to this but I have a question. Was I smoking something when I heard that WOTW was going to be a trilogy? It doesn't sound like it and I just wanted to be sure.

Andrew Clarke

02-08-2005, 04:00 PM

You might be thinking of 'the tripods'.

OhioJones

02-08-2005, 04:12 PM

I can't wait till this fucking movie comes out so we can all look back through this thread and laugh.

ArizonaElvis

02-08-2005, 04:29 PM

I don't know how I could get those mixed up but thanks. The effects look good and I excited to see any twists on the original. In between beers on sunday I watched the preview and tivo was very helpful when my vision started to get blurry but I am very much looking forward to this movie. I even think I can get over Maverick being in it.

cognizant

02-08-2005, 05:03 PM

Nobody wants to watch that period shit. That's why Sky Captain flopped.
I think there have been enough earth battles aliens stories to keep people from linking this to ID4.
And even if they do, come on. It's not like it has big shoes to fill. ID4 was crap.

Nobody wants to watch that kind of thing because nobodys been able to direct it properly, I'm getting horrible flashbacks of Wild Wild West right now. But face it, so far this is looking like ID4 Reloaded.

What I wouldnt have minded seeing was Cruise as a dodgy chancer on the streets of London, who gets mixed up with a runaway kid (Fanning), and they both try to survive the onslaught of an alien race who have technology better than what we have today, the story becomes a straight thriller, a race against time in ye olde England as they try to survive as long as they can, until finally the aliens are defeated by the common cold. Maybe the attack starts a week before autumn or something, heh. Think Oliver! meets Terminator.

But dont get me wrong, I'm not completely bashing Speilberg or the movie, he's more than earned my respect for what he's accomplished in his career, I'm willing to go along for this ride. I just hope I wont be complaining afterwards and going "I told you so! Where's Emmerich, I know he was involved somehow!"

Kreeper

02-08-2005, 08:57 PM

Here's some stuff from my buddy at ILM who's working on WOW (and Episode III):

SPOILERS REMOVED BY NICK.

Hair-Metal Hero

02-08-2005, 10:08 PM

I hate the fucking original ending, Aliens leave ships, get sick, die, threat over. If they have that much advanced technology, I'm sure they can innoculate themselves to cope with our atmosphere, or make spacesuits of some kind to wear around. I'm psyched for anything Spielberg does, but I hope he dumps that ending, Joe 6-Pack will be throwing shit at the screen left and right if that's how it ends. Call me retarded, but that ending is just so lame.

11thIndian

02-08-2005, 11:39 PM

uh, that's the whole point of the story. The human race is overpowered, only to be saved by what amounts to natural selection. A brilliant "Twilight Zone" style ending to a great movie.

With Cruises character being Mr. Joe Average, I'd be highly doubtful of him motivating the conclusion. He's meerly our window into humanity's near-extermination.

Hair-Metal Hero

02-08-2005, 11:47 PM

Any species that is capable of Interplanetary travel is going to be smart enough not to just strut around on an alien landscape without testing it first, that for me, is a HELL of a stretch. If they somehow engineer a virus or chemical weapon to take out the aliens, fine, I'm cool with that, but personally, I'll be dissapointed with that type of DEUS EX MACHINA ending for this thing. Regardless, they still will get my 9.50 because I'm a huge post Saving Private Ryan Spielberg whore.

11thIndian

02-09-2005, 12:02 AM

Who says they didn't test it? You can only test for that which you know to look for.

Ultimately, it's a causionary tale. Technology can't win against nature. As far as we've come since Wells wrote the book over 100 years ago, we still can't prevent natural disasters.

Whether Spielberg decides to go with exactly what is written remains to be seen, but if Aliens are defeated by human means- THAT will be retarded...

And SPR is ALL DEUS EX MACHINA. So what are you talking about?!

Hair-Metal Hero

02-09-2005, 12:09 AM

Saving Private Ryan had a lot of random chance in it, but it was a war picture, and crazy shit happens in war. I didn't say I'm anti Deus EX completely, but its like the Novel/Movie HOLES, that whole premise is predicated upon a ridiculous amount of coincidences. Never ask an audience to accept more than 1 or 2 fantastic ideas in a story. Aliens whooping our ass with advanced technology, cool, I can accept that, accepting that aliens with death rays and shit have no scientific minded thoughts and are a bunch of brainless fucktards, that's just too much.

11thIndian

02-09-2005, 12:22 AM

JuddL

02-09-2005, 12:48 AM

Ok, well. Perhaps this mode of storytelling isn't for you, but I would put a point forward.

Not having read the novel in a while, I can't give an exact time frame, but by the time the aliens were subdued by virus, bacteria, whatever you want to call it, they had been here for months. By your rational, how is it that present-day medications make it to market- only to end up having long term side effects? Science is cable of failure to whatever degree the mind that makes it will allow.

Just because a species is capable of interplanetary travel (especially if it's only from Mars to Earth) doesn't automatically make them omnipitant. We could travel to Mars today, but I still forget to charge my cel phone!

And don't forget that the Martians didn't have the luxury of infinite time. Their planet was dying...

I've said it before, I'll say it again, merely having a virus/bacteria end the invasion is just plain stupid.

If we ever master interplanetary travel, and I'm not talking going to Mars, I'm talking traveling light-years away, which is what it would take to find a habitable planet (if there is one), the first thing we would do is protect ourselves against alien virii. THE FIRST THING.

You realize that we take extreme preventative measures to ensure that microorganisms from are own planet aren't brought to other planets when we crash our probes on them? So why would we neglect to protect ourselves from microorganims which may already be there?

By 1898 logic, it was clever, by present day logic I just cannot accept it, unless there's a damn good reason for it; which I cannot currently see.

11thIndian

02-09-2005, 01:15 AM

Oh, absolutely. We do everything within our power to prevent planetary contamination, but who's to say that what's within our means is enough? Who's to say we haven't contaminated Mars, or Titan?

If you're going to assume that an alien race that can invade our planet is infallible on that kind of level, then there'd be no way to defeat them. They'd have planned for every possibility and course of human action. We're dead. Then end.

The point of the story is one of humility. With all that's going on in the world today I'd say that message is more important now than ever. Suggesting that the solution must be a human-made one only emphasises how full of ourselves we, as a race, are. I'll take a obscure but pointed conclusion over the "mankind kicks ass" alternative any day. Maybe the exact cause of the alien downfall won't even be spelled out. What it is exactly isn't the point, as far as I'm concerned. The story is what happens to humanity on the way down, how we react and how easily things can turn us around that are totall beyond our control.

The more you rely on technology, the more it will fuck you in the ass!

JuddL

02-09-2005, 01:38 AM

flint

02-09-2005, 04:10 AM

Audiences accepted that Jeff Goldblum could write a virus that could interface (and disable) an alien computer network. Never overestimate the thinking power of the average audience... ;)

That said I think the concept of a passive victory, in which the human race plays no part, will not sit well with the blockbuster audience. At a minimum, Dakota Fanning will have to sneeze on an alien or something!

cognizant

02-09-2005, 07:46 AM

If Matrix Revolutions can get away with no side beating the other, i.e - PEACE. I'm sure WotW can get away with nature doing away with the aliens. But I've never really seen a 'cerebral' film from Spielberg, if he's trying to be clever, he usually likes to literally spell shit out to the audience, he unfortunately did it alot in A.I which harmed the film for me. It would be cool if this movie had an ambigious end for the aliens, so the audience can leave the cinema discussing how/why the humans survived.

Or something.

Andrew Clarke

02-09-2005, 08:02 AM

The more you rely on technology, the more it will fuck you in the ass!

Send that to the marketing department. Now!

mastronikolas

02-09-2005, 09:32 AM

cognizant

02-09-2005, 11:05 AM

[QUOTE=cognizant] But I've never really seen a 'cerebral' film from Spielberg, if he's trying to be clever, he usually likes to literally spell shit out to the audience, he unfortunately did it alot in A.I which harmed the film for me. [\QUOTE]

For the last time, AI's final act was in the original Kubrick script.

For the last time I'm of the few who liked A.I, but having characters explain the themes of the film to me is pedantic and not needed.

OhioJones

02-09-2005, 11:55 AM

Why do you all think he has so many blockbusters? He has the art of movie making down to a science. He knows how to pull the audience's strings and give them what they want. He seems to choose just the right topic at just the right time and sets the standard in many ways - usually visually (A.I., Jurassic Park). He can't afford to have an ambiguos ending or attempt to put too dramatic a spin on the alien invasion theme. If he does try something new, you can bet it will be literally explained to the audience so as not to lose or confuse anyone.

Hair-Metal Hero

02-09-2005, 02:38 PM

I don't think the end of AI was spelled out, everyone I know thinks the beings at the end are Aliens, not robots, so how's that for ambiguity, or maybe I'm wrong and everyone else is right.

Editing to say I'm not pissing on this film, I haven't seen it yet, but I really want it to succeed in a glorious way, as this kind of story is right up Spielberg's alley, and I want to see how he tackles EVIL aliens for a change. I'm sure the family stuff in it will be perfect, as well as the awe and rage mankind will display as they get fucked up royally by superior forces, I just don't want him to drop the ball at the end.

Charlie Brigden

02-09-2005, 02:43 PM

No. They're robots. Uber-mecha.

Hair-Metal Hero

02-09-2005, 02:47 PM

Thanks Charles, I'll have tp print out a couple of responses in this thread to prove my points to some people. Especially the last act being in Kubrick's screenplay, one of my friends refuses to believe that Kubrick would end his story like that.

bigbrother

02-09-2005, 03:16 PM

I really don't understand why people think having nature defeat the aliens in the end will not sit well with an audience.The Martians arrogence and overconfidence in not preparing for that type of thing parallels humanity's arrogence and overconfidence in ourselves and our technology. I guess the average movie watcher wouldn't get the irony. Do we really have to be the ones that are always responsible for victory in these types of movies?

dudalb

02-09-2005, 05:02 PM

"I just don't want him to drop the ball at the end.
If it was good enough for HG Welles and Orson Welles, I think it's good enough for Spielberg
Spielberg is not doing a original story, he is doing a modernized version of one of the foundational books of Science Fiction. Every Alien invasion story owes a big debt to HG Welles, he originated the concept. I think that Speilberg is aware of this, and he has shown he has a lot of respect when he adapts a book. I am willing to bet that the germs will kill the Aliens. There are ways you can do this even assuming the Aliens have taken precautions Hint:No precaution is perfect.
It's one of the classic endings of Science Fiction literature, and I think Spielberg is smart enough to keep it in, and audiences will have no problem accepting it. Even most geeks will have no problems accepting it.

"That said I think the concept of a passive victory, in which the human race plays no part, will not sit well with the blockbuster audience."
I don't know; the 1953 version was a huge hit and it has the passive victory ending. I think at times we geeks really do get a little on the high horse with our contempt for the average movie goer. It all depends on how it is written and presented.
If anything, it't the SFX "you got to have a big battle at the ending" fanboy element I think will have problems with the passive ending.

cognizant

02-09-2005, 05:27 PM

I don't think the end of AI was spelled out, everyone I know thinks the beings at the end are Aliens, not robots, so how's that for ambiguity, or maybe I'm wrong and everyone else is right.

I have more of a problem with the beginning than the ending, they might as well have got Hurt to look at the camera and say "This is a film that should make you think about the ethics involved in artificial evidence, here let me define these concepts for you in 5 minutes so you can understand the rest of the film". And then I'm sure Spielberg does it again in Minority Report with Cruise and Farrel basically explaining to the audience how/what they should be thinking about. Its highly irritating, what he should do is show us a story about characters doing things in a movie universe all the while oblivious to us, the viewer. We should discover themes ourselves and debate amongst ourselves once the film finishes, not have characters do it for us.

Just reminds me of a passage I read in a book about book to screen adaptation;

"The moment you place social pronouncements in the mouths of your characters, the theme will dominate the problem – your characters will be reflecting what is on your mind instead of what is on their minds. What should be on their minds is a problem, not a theme.

Dialogue is genuine only when it grows out of the emotions of the character. The audience is more interested in the character than it is in the situation itself. In short, the dialogue should present not the situation itself, but rather the situation as it is felt by the characters who are experiencing it.

The essence of drama is drawn from the fact that audiences care more for the human being trapped in a situation than they do for the situation itself.

But now I've gone horribly off topic.

I'm looking forward to seeing WotW. That is all.

Hair-Metal Hero

02-09-2005, 07:16 PM

I hope this thread is still jumping after the next trailer and after the release of the film, some good civil discussion going on here, hope it continues. Needless to say, everyone is wicked jazzed to see this puppy.

dudalb

02-09-2005, 07:23 PM

I still have a few reservations, but I am always up for a good Alien Invasion....
BTW the Pendragon version seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. Their website was down for a few days, and there is no way in hell the film will be out by March 30th as they were claiming. IT seems to be becoming the cinematic equivilant of vaporware.
But the designs for the CGI version of Jeff Wayne's Rock Version look sweet, though....
If you are interested in following the latest info,and wildass rumors about all three film versions
www.waroftheworldsonline.com should tell you more then, at times, you really want to know.

OhioJones

02-10-2005, 10:57 AM

sweaterbydarwin

02-10-2005, 12:51 PM

[QUOTE=Hair-Metal Hero]I don't think the end of AI was spelled out, everyone I know thinks the beings at the end are Aliens, not robots, so how's that for ambiguity, or maybe I'm wrong and everyone else is right.
QUOTE]

Aliens? I never thought that for a second. It's been a while since I've seen it, but didn't they actually say that they were robots? The last reminants of humanity's genius? Or something like that...

I think they were referring to HJO's character, the last remnants of humanity's genious. I'm pretty sure that the things at the end were aliens or the future human race or combination thereof. They were excavating/exploring the planet in an archealogical sense, I think.

**edited to add, I guess they could be future robots though. I really enjoyed AI regardless and often wonder what it would have been if Kubrik had completed it instead.

Grofield

02-11-2005, 10:38 AM

First Brian Aldiss, then Philip K. Dick, now H.G. Wells...

Who will Spielberg go to next? Harlan Ellison? Robert Heinlein? Fredric Brown? Jules Verne?

And I'm sick of seeing remakes of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU and THE INVISIBLE MAN. How about IN THE DAYS OF THE COMET, THE FIRST MEN IN THE MOON, or FOOD OF THE GODS? (In regard to the latter novel, I'm ignoring Bert I. Gordon's two "adaptations," VILLAGE OF THE GIANTS and FOOD OF THE GODS, as well as GNAW: FOOD OF THE GODS II. These were all crap and had little to do with the novel. Kind of like the vibe I'm getting from Spielberg's newest.)

LinusUK

02-11-2005, 11:41 AM

Grofield,
you're comparing a mere Spielberg movie to the utter genius of Gnaw: Food of the Gods II?
Sacrelige.

(Heavy sarcasm there)

Put another vote for the 'passive'ending. Speilberg can change anything he wants but not that.
As a side, has any material released actually confirmed that trhe aliens are from Mars?

Dan Whitehead

02-11-2005, 11:50 AM

As a side, has any material released actually confirmed that trhe aliens are from Mars?

Kathleen Kennedy confirmed today on Dark Horizons that the aliens are NOT martians.

"No they're not Martians. The feeling was that we know so much about Mars now that doesn't really fall into the realm of realistic expectations."

Which kinda sucks. There's a lot of talk of being true to the "spirit" of the book, which usually means "we've changed lots of stuff".

Werbal_Kint

02-11-2005, 11:55 AM

What's the point of trying to make a alien invasion movie meet realistic expectations?

Frankly I think it'd be more interesting if they were from our own solar system.

Grofield

02-11-2005, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=LinusUK]Grofield,
you're comparing a mere Spielberg movie to the utter genius of Gnaw: Food of the Gods II?
Sacrelige.

(Heavy sarcasm there)

Ah, a GNAW fan comes out of the closet! As much as I hate the film, I have more respect for you than for the ALWAYS or HOOK admirer!

(no sarcasm there)

OhioJones

02-11-2005, 01:11 PM

Kathleen Kennedy confirmed today on Dark Horizons that the aliens are NOT martians.

"No they're not Martians. The feeling was that we know so much about Mars now that doesn't really fall into the realm of realistic expectations."

Which kinda sucks. There's a lot of talk of being true to the "spirit" of the book, which usually means "we've changed lots of stuff".

"They're already here." Hmmmmm...Not martians. THE TREES! THE TREES!

Charlie Brigden

02-11-2005, 01:15 PM

dudalb

02-11-2005, 01:20 PM

"What's the point of trying to make a alien invasion movie meet realistic expectations?"
Not so much meet realistic expectations, but not strain peoples suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point. It seems to me that Kennedy's point that we know to much about Mars is a good point.
An Invasion from the planet we saw a probe running about on a little over a year ago is just a little too jarring. It's the small things like this, not things like the concept of an alien invasion that trip you up and cause audiences to say "Wait a Minute", which is a sure sci fi or Fantasy film is in trouble. I simply think a Martian invasion is too hard a sell for a 2005 audience. Faster then Light is a lot easier to beleive then that.
I think you get actually could get away with an invasion from Mars in a film set in 1898, but not 2005.

""we've changed lots of stuff"."
I would say the moving the time from 1898 to 2005 is a huge change. ANybody expecting a faithful adaptation after that leaked out is living in la la land.Of course this has been done with every adaption of WOTW from the Orson Welles broadcast on.
I never knew there were so many HG Wells purists out there....Of course on some websites this has taken a nasty UK vs the US tone.
Look, I wish that Speilberg had the guts to do it in 1898 and keep the English setting. But we have to judges the film on it's own virtues.
And now we are going to get , no doubt into a debate about being faithful to the spirit as opposed to being faithful to the letter just the like that kind that has been discussed ad fucking infinitum on the Tolkien pages.

BTW its kind of amusing to hear some people on the WOTW websites talking about how the Pendragon version is going to steal the thunder away from the Speilberg version. Give me a break. The Pendragon version looks like crap. It's a shame, because no one would like to see a good period version of WOTW more then I, but Pendragon has not done it. Let's hope the Jeff Wayne does better with his CGI anitmated version.

OhioJones

02-11-2005, 01:36 PM

But... Mars is in the trailer, right?

No. Mars is not specifically mentioned in the trailer. Only an "intelligence" that is much more sophisticated is referenced. The only thing alluding to Mars at all is the first few seconds when we see that red dot that turns out to be a stop light.

dudalb

02-11-2005, 02:14 PM

Actually for me the Speilberg interview made me more hopeful, since he has addressed my concern about
"ID4 Pt.2" and ....
THERE WILL BE TRIPODS!

Masked Muppet

02-11-2005, 02:45 PM

"They're already here." Hmmmmm...Not martians. THE TREES! THE TREES!

Maybe not the trees. Maybe fungus...mushrooms and the like are very different from plants and animals, and have been theorized to have exterterstrial origin, long ago.

Charlie Brigden

02-11-2005, 02:56 PM

No. Mars is not specifically mentioned in the trailer. Only an "intelligence" that is much more sophisticated is referenced. The only thing alluding to Mars at all is the first few seconds when we see that red dot that turns out to be a stop light.

Well, yeah. I assumed that to be Mars, seeing how we see it suspiciously hovering just past Earth.

OhioJones

02-11-2005, 03:02 PM

Maybe not the trees. Maybe fungus...mushrooms and the like are very different from plants and animals, and have been theorized to have exterterstrial origin, long ago.

Yeah, you're probably right. The Kathleen Kennedy interview referenced above at Dark Horizons mentions on numerous occasions some sort of red vines or something. I don't recall any red vines in the old movie and its been a long,long while since I read the book so who knows.

She was also asked but avoided answering the issue of additinal effects being added to the Super Bowl teaser.

There will be aliens and there will be giant machines so shit will blow up. I'm cool with that.

Geoff Foster

02-11-2005, 04:01 PM

I'm curious as to how they're going to end the movie, as the notion of the invaders being killed off by Earth-bound bacteria is central to the message that Wells wanted to get across - that even the mightiest conquering force can be stopped in its tracks if they succumb to arrogance and force of arms alone. It was Wells' comment on the British Empire.

It’s worth pointing out that, after publication, Wells was absolutely slated by the critics for using what they felt was a shockingly bad deus-ex-machina to wrap up the story.

Ironically, microbiologists now seem to agree that Wells was (once again) right all along. Like us, alien beings would be products of their own, distinct “biological soup” (laden with pathogens, viruses and other assorted microscopic nasties), and it is unlikely that we’ll ever be able to share the same space, unprotected, for risk of deadly cross-contamination.

Empirical evidence certainly backs this claim up. There are some good historical examples from our own planet where animals (and people) have been introduced into a new environment from which they have previously been geographically excluded and then either fallen foul of some horrendous disease that is not a major pathogen in the new area, or introduced some disease that is innocuous in their original environment, but totally devastating in the new one.

These examples make most minds expect that this will be a general observation when two independent geographically-separated populations come into contact, and that if any alien contact takes place it will also bring the same consequences.

Wells was a prophetic genius.

Masked Muppet

02-12-2005, 09:17 AM

The vines are in the book, refered to as The Red Weed...essentially, the Martians brought along their own plants to 'terraform' along with the violent conquest.

OhioJones

02-12-2005, 07:59 PM

The vines are in the book, refered to as The Red Weed...essentially, the Martians brought along their own plants to 'terraform' along with the violent conquest.

Thanks. That explains a lot then.
I'm going to have to read that again soon.

Graham

02-14-2005, 09:41 AM

Nice set visit Kevin.

STEVEN SPIELBERG: "It’s nothing you really…describe. The whole thing is very explorential. The point of view is very personal. Everybody, I think, will relate to the point of view. Because it’s about the family trying to survive and stay together and live through the most epically horrendous event you can possibly imagine."

............. explorential?

Brad Millette

02-14-2005, 10:02 AM

Spielberg's earned the right to make up words if he wants to.

Andrew Clarke

02-14-2005, 10:09 AM

Charlie Brigden

02-14-2005, 10:11 AM

Confirmed tripods! Woo hoo!

Geoff Foster

02-14-2005, 10:27 AM

I won't be happy unless Roy Thinnes gets a cameo.

That's if he's alive.

Richard Dickson

02-14-2005, 11:02 AM

Wait a minute -- Spielberg and Cruise doing a Western?

I am so there.

Geoff Foster

02-14-2005, 11:29 AM

I have doubts about whether Cruise could leap onto the back of a mighty steed and gallop off into battle.

Perhaps a Shetland Pony?

OhioJones

02-14-2005, 11:38 AM

http://chud.com/interviews/1524

Spielberg and Cruise are PROFESSIONALS. All that talk and they said almost nothing. They are GOOD. I like how they managed to keep emphasising how it would be different from all the other alien invasion films (and especially ID4) though not actually saying how.
It's a nice thought to think of the two of them trawling the internet late at night saying 'oh no! half a dozen people on CHUD are worried the film won't do anything to distinguish itself from ID4! quick, call a press conference!'

Funny, I thought the same thing. Wondering if they happen to be following this thread and giggling to themselves as they read through all the conjecture. HEY STEVEN or TOM - if you're reading this throw us a bone!
It's worth a try.

Ade Brooks

02-14-2005, 12:30 PM

So pleased to hear the confirmation of tripods in the movie. Now I'm looking forward to the next set visit to see what else turns up. Good report.

Ade Brooks

02-14-2005, 12:42 PM

I'm pretty sure someone has already mentioned this site http://www.waroftheworldsonline.com/ but I've only just stumbled onto it. There is some test footage there of Martian technology for Jeff Wayne's version, and I have to say the Fighting Machine looks damn nice! Hell, I am so glad he's finally gonna get a movie version of his musical. Now I just wish I still had my copy of the PC game !

Andrew Clarke

02-14-2005, 01:56 PM

Gosh, Scratch Lightning certainly has our number, doesn't he boys? We should certainly stop picking the flies out each other's hair and go to kindergarten right away. It's better late than never.

A quite spectacularly prickish post, Scratch. try leaving this thread alone.

edit: what charles b says, right below. also spelling.

Charlie Brigden

02-14-2005, 01:59 PM

Because the book JAWS and the movie are page by page exactly the same, right?

Graham

02-14-2005, 02:03 PM

Dear GOD!!!...that Pendragon Film looks like shit!! I was originally rooting for Pendragon, but ohmy Christ, they can't even pull off the accents, the SFX look sub- Ed Wood (if Wood had access to crap CGI)...and from what i can see in the trailer, they're going for some cheeseball, sub PAL FLAVOUR...not so mUch an homage to the films of those decades, but a complete mockery!!!

Fuck me, Freddy!

Masked Muppet

02-14-2005, 02:04 PM

Thank god, no...the whole wifey cold fish thing would have ground the movie to a halt.

Graham

02-14-2005, 02:09 PM

Thank god, no...the whole wifey cold fish thing would have ground the movie to a halt.

...But Hooper would have gotten his jollies...Christ, can you imagine if the Jaws phenomena came out now, what we would of had to endure in it?

(shudders)

cognizant

02-14-2005, 02:13 PM

I was under the assumption nearly everyone in this thread has already read the source material and everyone knows that this is a Hollywood remake that is not even set in the same time period, so it makes more sense to focus more on the marketing and production of the film, than the book to look for clues of the potential twist Speilberg has put on his take of the story.

dudalb

02-14-2005, 02:44 PM

"I was originally rooting for Pendragon, but ohmy Christ, they can't even pull off the accents, the SFX look sub- Ed Wood "
I agree. The SFX look silly, and the accents scream" Renassaince Fair"I all over them. I love the way Pendragon claims the film was shot in the UK when the pricipal photography was near Seattle...
I think they started out with good intentions, but got in over their heads. It is a huge leap from doing commericals and industrial films to feature films.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting out in commericials...a great many film makers have stated the they learend more from spending 6 months shooting commericials then they did in four years in film school....But to go from that to a SFX heavy feature length film is a gigantic step to make.
Not to mention they still are maintaining a March 30th 2005, release date which nobody in their right minds believes. Hell, You can't set up a distribtuion that quickly, and i have a feeling the film is nowhere near complete.
But the Jeff Wayne version looks interesting. I have a feeling this might be the period version that I have wanted for some time.
"I was under the assumption nearly everyone in this thread has already read the source material "
Never make that assumption. It is amazing how many people will talk about books without having actually read them....
BTW both Gene Barry and Ann Robinson the stars of the Pal Version, have cameos in Speilbergs WOTW.

OhioJones

02-14-2005, 02:46 PM

Just read this entire thread, and I can't say it fills me with hope for mankind when the aliens do finally show up.

There are people here who have spent their time examining a 10-second SuperBowl teaser, frame-by-fucking-frame, to figure out if the red weed in the teaser poster hints at the aliens turning the Earth's trees against humanity. These are the same people who will spend the next few months furiously searching through every web site available for the tiniest scrap of information on a summer blockbuster movie starring Tom Cruise.

Heaven forbid you read a fucking book for once in your life.

Most movie websites and discussion boards I've seen and looked through - with plenty being on this website alone, are for movie buffs willing, at times, to get a little stupid and excited for upcoming and previously released movies. Hell take a look at AICN. You'd have a heart attack reading that site.

It's an opportunity like this to have fun and discuss an upcoming film like WOTW that has sci-fi fans debating the mundane details of a 10 second trailer. Sure, in hindsight and well after the movie is released I may think back and say that I went a little overboard, but for now it's fun.

Anyway, whether we focus on the marketing and advertising, source material and/or theories of where Spielberg will take this remake please remember it's all in fun. If you can't, then fuck off.

dudalb

02-14-2005, 03:03 PM

AICN Talkbacks can cause brain damage, as many of the participants show...

dudalb

02-14-2005, 03:28 PM

Speilberg and Cruise have a standard interview in place since a lot of what they told the CHUD reporter is the same as they told "Dark Horizons" on Thursday.. This is SOP in the PR business.
The Tripod confirmation came out in the "Dark Horizons" interview also, and was noted here on Friday.
They seem to be doing a good job on not really revealing much while giving the geeks enough to keep them excited.
"As long as you don't get too defensive when I point out the inherent absurdity behind some of these posts.'
You think these are bad, look at the ones over at www.waroftheworldsonline.com . They are reaching www.theforce.net in silliness. The ones who still have endless faith in the Pendragon production are particularly amusing.

dudalb

02-14-2005, 03:44 PM

"It looks like a high school play."
Hey, when I was a techie in my High School Drama Depatment, the actors had much better British accents
when they did Shakespeare then the actors in the clips from the Pendragon film.

Geoff Foster

02-14-2005, 04:25 PM

Because the book JAWS and the movie are page by page exactly the same, right?

Indeed.

Although I’d guard against drawing too many more parallels between a classic work of fiction and a turd wrapped in paper, lest I come after you with a butcher knife and intent. <g>

Fat Dragon

02-14-2005, 10:11 PM

it makes more sense to focus more on the marketing and production of the film, than the book to look for clues of the potential twist Speilberg has put on his take of the story.

Um,hello?We are talking about Mister..........Steven...........Spielberg!

Your post should read like this"the potential twist Spielberg has put on His take of the story."

Graham

02-15-2005, 05:46 AM

Sounds like the 'Thunderchild', or other vessel, could be in the movie judging from the second part of report!!
The ferry is straight from the book!!

Andrew Joe

02-20-2005, 01:55 AM

just got home from Wondercon and thought I might share what may or may not be a spoiler regarding War of the Worlds. On the panel were a couple of of artists including Doug Chiang and some other guy.

In the discussion of the aliens they were both quite tight lipped but the second man said at one point that this was a full on invasion picture and that we were being watched from a parallel dimension. Now with that nugget and the trailer saying they are alreday here it makes me think that the aliens are coming from another version of earth.

Who knows?

General public + parallel dimension = Mass head scratching and complaining on imdb [Read: Clusterfuck]

I'll continue to wait for a full theatrical trailer, i'm still sure this'll be good. Really...it's Spielberg, fucking shit up with aliens, taking out families in droves.........and apparently, Tripod machines.

Suck? No.

Clarence Beaks

02-20-2005, 02:12 AM

I cannot adequately convey to you the sheer confidence being exuded by all involved w/ this film. They think they've got *the* movie of the summer (ROTS included). I'm inclined to believe them.

Matt Goldberg

02-20-2005, 02:15 AM

It's easy for me to believe they can beat ROTS, but THE movie of the summer? Dem's fightin' words.

Charlie Brigden

02-20-2005, 02:53 AM

I cannot adequately convey to you the sheer confidence being exuded by all involved w/ this film. They think they've got *the* movie of the summer (ROTS included). I'm inclined to believe them.

I can understand Steve and Tom being enthusiastic, but not even they can stand up to the awesome box office power of Wat "Had To Take A Court Order Out Against Matchstick" Tambor.

Andrew Joe

02-20-2005, 04:33 PM

Makes me wonder if Spielberg and Liucas have a bet going like they did when Episode I was released.......

and when did Wat Tambor become such a beloved reference? [Wat Lies Beneath]

Charlie Brigden

02-20-2005, 04:36 PM

and when did Wat Tambor become such a beloved reference? [Wat Lies Beneath]

Summer, 2002. When he appeared and FM radioed his way into our hearts.

cognizant

02-20-2005, 05:03 PM

I think people that were disappointed with Signs will get what they want with this film. Seems to be following the same format of experiencing a global alien invasion through a limited pair of characters, though instead of a farm and aliens that inexplicably dont like water, it'll encompass the east coast and....[insert answer here please Steven, thanks]

And I also think this movie will be a serious contender for king of the box office summer 2005, I mean its Speilberg, the guy's a master at the event blockbuster movie, though you never know who might steal the show.

Also: A couple nights ago, I read the interview with the cast and crew of this film, on the front page of chud before going to bed, and I had numerous dreams where I watched the film (while somehow inside it) and it was very action packed, creepy and good fun. I cant remember any plot points unfortunately, all I remember is being in a car with Cruise and driving away from the aliens. (oO)

EDIT:

AICN has a small story about a potential spoiler regarding the origin of the aliens in Speilberg's WotW:

Spoiler? (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19454)

jrdavis82

02-21-2005, 01:34 AM

i'm just not sure about this, i don't want it turning in to some disaster movie, or some idependance day movie, but it is speilberg so i bet there is something more to this, some kind of twist ending or something, it would have to be cause we've already seen the technologically superior aliens defeat the humans until the humans find a weakness and unit under a world banner to defeat the aliens kind of movie...i mean come on that's so 1996.

OhioJones

02-21-2005, 09:59 AM

Parallel dimension, eh? Sounds pretty interesting.
They go from one version of Earth to another using up all the resources and then move to the next. Jet Li has a cameo.

Geoff Foster

02-21-2005, 10:08 AM

Parallel dimension, eh? Sounds pretty interesting.

It certainly adds a touch of irony to the film's title.

Andrew Clarke

02-21-2005, 10:17 AM

Right at the end of the second act they gather around a tv to hear an address by the president stating that the US de facto does not exist anymore and everyone should try and seek safety as best they can. the twist is...the president is John Kerry! This parallel world is being invaded by a world where George W Bush is president.

Geoff Foster

02-21-2005, 10:22 AM

cognizant

02-21-2005, 11:42 AM

Japanese TV spot with new footage (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19468)

Like the Scanner Darkly trailer, I cant see shit.

OhioJones

02-21-2005, 02:02 PM

Here is the Japanese trailer in Quicktime.
The Movie Box link (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/STUVWXYZ/War-of-the-Worlds/trailer.php)

No new effects shots. Same destruction sequence but more people featured running, looking up and one or two evacuation scenes.

dudalb

02-21-2005, 03:35 PM

There is no such thing in Show Biz as a sure fire hit..but WOTW seems as close as you are going to get.
ROTS is the only film I can see competing with it at this point.
"Batman Begins" will do very well but it certainly has not gained the publciity and buzz with the general public that WOTW has.
BTW the whole parellel universe thing sounds like something that Spielberg would never do and real too complex for a Invasion flick.
And don't forget the source: An anyonymous email to AICN to Harry, Mr. Gullibility himself when it comes to rumors. You have to do better then that before I take it seriously....

OhioJones

02-21-2005, 03:59 PM

WOTW will be a hit. But how big? And how quickly? I wonder if this could beat Spiderman's 3 day take of $114 million?

matches

02-21-2005, 04:33 PM

I doubt it will beat Spider-Man because it doesn't have the little kid draw that Spidey has.

Charlie Brigden

02-21-2005, 04:38 PM

But in Cruise and Spielberg, it has the audience that won't go to see Spidey, which is more than you'd think.

Geoff Foster

02-21-2005, 04:39 PM

At this point the cynics hypothesize that details of the aliens’ true nature remain elusive because Spielberg and company aren’t entirely happy with the premise themselves.

OhioJones

02-21-2005, 05:15 PM

At this point the cynics hypothesize that details of the aliens’ true nature remain elusive because Spielberg and company aren’t entirely happy with the premise themselves.

What a retarded hypothesis. With filmmakers such as Cruise and Speilberg, who put so much effort in planning, researching (if applicable) and dedication to their individual projects (let alone when they've paired up), the aliens true nature or origin would be the FIRST concept discussed.

Their arguement doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't begin shooting a $150 million alien invasion movie without first deciding how they invaded, from where and why.

Geoff Foster

02-21-2005, 05:43 PM

What a retarded hypothesis. With filmmakers such as Cruise and Speilberg, who put so much effort in planning, researching (if applicable) and dedication to their individual projects (let alone when they've paired up), the aliens true nature or origin would be the FIRST concept discussed.

Their arguement doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't begin shooting a $150 million alien invasion movie without first deciding how they invaded, from where and why.

I agree that it is unlikely. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if this issue caused a lot of headaches for the production team in the early stages of development.

cognizant

02-21-2005, 06:11 PM

Stranger things have happened in Hollywood guys, but I agree its unlikely.

In other news...Mars pictures reveal frozen sea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4285119.stm)

ShortRound

02-24-2005, 10:30 AM

Scifi.com has an interview up with the production designer, talking about how the aliens in War of the Worlds are going to look and feel, saying they are trying to stay as true to H.G. Wells descriptions of the aliens as possible.

Read it: Here (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30445)

dudalb

02-24-2005, 04:01 PM

The CHUD main page has a photo of the Red Weed. I am glad they are sticking with concept from the Wells novel which no film has done before.
The Red Weed looks nice, though.
"That said, it wouldn't surprise me if this issue caused a lot of headaches for the production team in the early stages of development."
I am sure it did.
I think they knew that "WOTW" and "Martians" went together in the popular mind, but it is going to be very hard to sell modern audiences on a invasion from a planet were we saw robotic dune buggies running around and transmitting live video from last year.
You could either come up with some really iffy "The Martian Civilization is Underground" theory or just bite the bullet and make them Aliens from another Part of the Galaxy. they chose, probably wisely, the latter.
You could also do a "they are from another Solar System but are using Mars as a staging point" but once again that is convuluted as hell, and probably not very workable. I think, given the realities of the situation, they probably made the right choice.
BTW over at www.waroftheworldsonline.com there are still a few crazed fanboy talkng about how the more more and looking like it going to end up going straight to DVD Pendragon version is going to whip the Speilberg's version ass .

Ralphiemeatball

02-24-2005, 04:24 PM

http://chud.com/nextraimages/waroworlds.jpg

I never read the book, so why is the tagline "They're already here?"

Nice artwork.

I'm remembering back to the old syndicated TV show in the late '80s or early '90s. Weren't the aliens in some type of barrells or containers frozen and someone let them out?

I think that happened, I may be wrong.

dudalb

02-24-2005, 05:02 PM

You are right, In the very short lived TV series the Martians came alive in a Area 51 type situation.
BUt the series was a total disaster that everybody involved with would probably like to forget happened.
TV Sci Fi at it's very worst. Stupid concepts, Stupid writing, Stupid everything. Nothing made sense. And the massive mental truama excuse they used as to why nobody remembered the Martian Invasion gets my award as the lamest explanation in FIlm or TV History.

Geoff Foster

02-24-2005, 05:13 PM

I'm remembering back to the old syndicated TV show in the late '80s or early '90s.

Curious you should mention that show. I was speaking to friend about it this afternoon and we both agreed that it is without doubt one of the bleakest SF series we've seen on TV. That said, we both liked it.

cognizant

02-25-2005, 10:49 AM

Look, I'm telling you life exists on Mars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4295475.stm)!!!

Rather than take the 'lets make Signs on a bigger scale' scenario, I would love to see a 'lets make The Thing on a bigger scale', with freaky ass parasite monsters wrecking havoc on a paranoid USA, let the political parallells begin!!!

Ralphiemeatball

02-25-2005, 12:37 PM

Curious you should mention that show. I was speaking to friend about it this afternoon and we both agreed that it is without doubt one of the bleakest SF series we've seen on TV. That said, we both liked it.

I think I was maybe ten or twelve at the time. I was way into it, watched it every saturday. I think it was on prior to the old Friday the 13th Series.

At any rate, I am really looking forward to the new one.

Ralphiemeatball

02-25-2005, 12:41 PM

Just to wrap it up...

They never left!
"In 1953, Earth experienced a War of the Worlds. Common bacteria stopped the aliens, but it didn't kill them. Instead, the aliens lapsed into a state of deep hibernation. Now the aliens have been resurrected, more terrifying than before. In 1953, aliens started taking over the world. Today, they're taking over our bodies!"

They're We're Alive!

This time, the aliens are ready...

Show Information

Also known as: War of the Worlds: The Second Invasion (Season 2 title)
Krieg der Welten: Die zweite Generation (German Season 2 title)
First Aired October 1988
Last Aired May 1990
Status Canceled/Ended
Running Time 60 min
Country United States
Network Syndicated

Show Stars

Jared Martin - Harrison Blackwood
Lynda Mason Green - Suzanne McCullough
Philip Akin - Norton Drake (Season 1)
Richard Chaves - Lt. Col. Paul Ironhorse (Season 1)
Adrian Paul - John Kincaid (Season 2)

Show Crew

Greg Strangis - Executive Producer (Season 1)
Sam Strangis - Executive Producer (Season 1)
Frank Mancuso Jr. - Executive Producer (Season 2)
Greg Strangis - Creator

OhioJones

02-25-2005, 01:11 PM

I remember this show. I used to watch it. It would be interesting to see it again for the sake of pure nostaglia, but I doubt it will ever see the light of living rooms again. I don't even think the new WOTW movie would generate enough excitement to re-release that shite on DVD.

dudalb

02-25-2005, 03:55 PM

"I don't even think the new WOTW movie would generate enough excitement to re-release that shite on DVD."
The WOTW series is pure shit, but I am sure there are enough foolish fanboys who will buy ANYTHING sci fi releated that a DVD company could make money off a release.

OhioJones

02-25-2005, 05:03 PM

Geoff Foster

02-25-2005, 05:53 PM

dudalb

02-25-2005, 07:41 PM

"You're probably right. So let me know when you buy it so I can borrow it."
I will buy the WOTW TV series on DVD in celebration of Uwe Boll's Oscar win.

"Fella, your negativity is giving me an ulcer."
Hey,Moriarity, stop making with the negqtive waves.....

flint

02-26-2005, 07:37 AM

My sister was a massive fan of that series. I remember Season 1 and Season 2 were like vastly different shows, both terrible, but one was post apocalyptic. Either way, it made no sense from start to finish, truly terrible.

However, when the original WOTW movie was remastered onto DVD for the 50th anniversary (?), the 8 disc box set of the TV show was also released, so the DVD Company execs are already way ahead of you guys! Desperate fanboys can find copies on Ebay. Aforementioned sister has a copy, but she's not giving it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if we all get a chance to get a "Special Edition" boxed set release for the new movie, along with "Cast Reunions" and "Where are they now?" featurettes (hell... where were they THEN?), and directors commentarys. :D

dudalb

03-01-2005, 08:43 PM

God knows Jeffrey Welles is not the most reliable source of info in the world, and Welles is often full of shit....but I think this artical pretty muchs nails the lid in the coffin of the Pendragon period version of "World Of the Wars".

Strange Invaders

There’s no telling how good or even credible Timothy Hines' screen adaptation of H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds will be, but it’s hard not to sympathize with any David facing a Goliath...especially when the kid with the slingshot got rolling on his project first.

Hines' film cost $12 million and apparently has no formal distributor, but will open, it is being claimed, seven and a half weeks from now -- on Wednesday, March 30 -- in five major cities on a four-wall basis...or so I've been told. (Hines is claiming he has a distributor, although he won't identify it.)

Paramount Pictures War of the Worlds (6.29), which is costing at least $150 million to produce, boasts the talents of director Steven Spielberg, star Tom Cruise and screenwriter David Koepp. Nonetheless, it will open about three months after the indie upstart.

No one thinks this will have even a slight effect upon the grosses of the Spielberg film, but the timing of the release of Hines' film could work in his favor.

The notion of a Seattle-based, hip-pocket filmmaker beating Spielberg, Cruise and Paramount Pictures to the Martian punch is, at the very least, intriguing.

As Hines told me yesterday over the phone, "I’m not doing this on the coattails of Spielberg. I’ve been working on this film for seven years. We almost made it two years ago but 9/11 forced us to rewrite it and start over. In any event we’re not selling sizzle -- we actually have the steak."

And yet there are issues about the Hines project that are giving me concern.

For one thing, the 44 year-old Hines (House of the Rising, A Midsummer Night's Dream) won’t tell me who his financial backers are, except to describe them as "computer industry people, and I’m not talking about Paul Allen or Bill Gates." He said one of the individuals behind the project is "one of the largest venture capitalists in the world."

Then there's the issue of Hines declining to tell me who his distributor is. I was told Friday morning that he doesn't actually have one -- he and his partners are going to self-distribute (i.e., "four wall") by booking screens outright, paying for their own advertising, etc. Hines has since declared this is "not true," although he wouldn't cough up specifics.

The one-sheet for Hines' film looks half-classy, half-exploitation...passable but a little bit cheesy-looking. It's not the sort of movie poster, I would think, that a savvy, hard-core distribution marketer would necessarily use to sell a movie with. Is this reflective in some way of the film itself?

Hines, the head of a Seattle-based company called Pendragon Pictures, has been doing a fairly skillful job of promoting his film on at least two websites aimed at sci-fi geeks, but it bothers me that the trailer won’t play, and is viewable only via Windows Media.

(Hines wrote me after this article posted on Friday and insisted "the trailers on howstuffworks.com are perfectly downloadable and have been downloaded by millions." Good to hear...but I couldn't download them, and a screenwriter friend who lives in New York had the same experience.)

Hines' feature, an apparently faithful adaptation of Wells novel that’s set in 1900 England, cost a reported $20 million, although $8 million of this was sunk into an earlier version that was going to be set in the present day, but was abandoned after the 9.11 tragedy. (It was decided that a modern-day film about invading destructive Martians would seem exploitive.)

H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds, the official title of Hines' project, may turn out to be a half-decent low-budgeter, a surprisingly inventive film or a grade-Z stinker, but come hell or high water it is apparently set to open in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco on 3.30.

A follow-up DVD release is set for 6.15 -- two weeks before the Spielberg-Cruise flick hits screens.

Whatever else it may turn out to be, the Spielberg-Cruise War of the Worlds is expected to be an all-out, go-for-broke CG extravaganza. It’s a modern-day spin on Wells' allegorical tale of alien invaders (i.e., it was meant as a metaphor for British colonialism, and was actually a kind of protest about the Boer War), and will be set largely in and around Hoboken, New Jersey, with Cruise apparently playing a longshoreman.

It wouldn't be totally out of line in a present-day context to call the Spielberg-Cruise flick a metaphor about U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- just think of U.S. forces as the Martians and the Iraqis as Hoboken natives.

I called around yesterday (i.e., Thursday) and found it hard to find anyone in the indie distribution community who’s seen Hines' film, or has spoken to anyone who’s seen it.

Hines told me a story about the film’s release strategy and financial backing was expected to break in Forbes on 2.11, but I checked about this on Friday morning and it appears that the story may be delayed.

I asked Hines why his pre-release strategy didn't involve a trade story or two in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. He didn’t have much of a response other than to air a suspicion that trade magazine reporters are too caught up in catering to powerful Hollywood distributor-advertisers to deliver an unbiased report about a small-time producer going up against the big guys.

I asked Hines two or three times about when the film would be shown to critics, and each time he gave what sounded to me like an evasive answer. He later told me he'll let me have an exclusive peek sometime in early March.

Here's some verbatim excerpts from what Hines told me. I’m just running the quotes undoctored, not having time to double-check everything before my scheduled return to Santa Barbara early this afternoon:

“I’ve been wanting to make War of the Worlds since I was ten years old. We were going to make a present-day version but we had to abandon our plan after 9/11."

[Note: I don't know for a fact that Hines began his film in '98, but he took out a trade ad announcing his project in the 5.7.01 issue of Daily Variety, timed for appearance during the Cannes Film Festival.]

"I’m a small independent coming out of nowhere. We’re clearly not part of the Hollywood machine. Obviously, Steven Spielberg doesn’t want to be seen as trailing in our footsteps. This is the first time ever in history in which a major studio, big-budget film will be following a smaller indie version of the same thing into the marketplace.

“We’re expecting to be trashed by critics, but my film is gorgeous. I cry every day at how well it’s coming together.

“We’re following the Wells book very closely, which partly involves using an old-fashioned idea know as story tension. The book begins with the initial landings, but the Martians don’t really show their hand until one third of the way in...but you know all the while that they're going to emerge and start attacking, and that’s where the tension lies."

Timothy Hines, apparently. (I haven't met the guy or taken his photo personally.)

"I didn’t make it as an analogy to the Iraqi War, although, yes, it’s about occupiers and hubris. All through history invaders and conquerors have fallen prey to their own hubris. You see it again and again and again. Wells was protesting the Boer War with his book. He was saying Britain is going to fall one day, and it did...it was beaten by a little brown man wearing a loincloth.

"Paramount is trying to get people to compare our film with theirs on the basis of budget and special effects alone, but a satisfying film is about more than just that.

"That said, our effects are going to look as good as if not better than what you see on Star Trek, for instance. Our film, at its best, comes off as visually assured as The Matrix."

The shitty footage I saw at the Pendragon site is as good as the effects in "The Matrix".?

I am going to fucking die laughing.
Hines is coming off with Ed Wood level delusions of his skills as a filmaker.

I love a David vs Goliath story but from what I have seen this David does not know how to aim a slingshot.
Too bad, I would love to see a good period version of WOTW but this piece of shit aint' gonna be it.

Geoff Foster

03-02-2005, 04:31 AM

“We’re expecting to be trashed by critics, but my film is gorgeous. I cry every day at how well it’s coming together."

I like a man who puts heart and soul into his work.

lisa_simpson

03-02-2005, 01:40 PM

I think that I saw the trailer for this one -- looks terrible. I think I'll pass. Seriously.

I liked the japanese trailer for the paramount version though.

Charlie Brigden

03-02-2005, 01:49 PM

I love that he's facetiously talking about tension... to Spielberg, the guy who made JAWS for chrissakes.

dudalb

03-02-2005, 01:56 PM

"I like a man who puts heart and soul into his work."
Yes, but you have a little talent also.
Tim Hines in that interview sounds like Uwe Boll.
And I can easily see Johnny Depp saying some of those lines a certain Tim Burton film...

lisa_simpson

03-06-2005, 01:16 PM

I love that he's facetiously talking about tension... to Spielberg, the guy who made JAWS for chrissakes.

True -- Speilberg is the master of tension, if nothing else.

Looking forward to the second teaser March 18th (woot woot).

ShortRound

03-06-2005, 05:08 PM

A new teaser on March 18th? **Ears perk up**

That's awesome, I'm still loving the bridge being ripped up in the first one, I hope they have some footage for this next one that knocks my socks off. Is it going to be available on-line?

imported_T_M

03-06-2005, 06:15 PM

I'd love a trailer but then again, that'd probably spoil everything. I like the way they're marketing this film.

ShortRound

03-11-2005, 04:08 PM

I like the way they're marketing this film so far. First the teaser then the Super Bowl spot, both made you really intrigued to learn more because they didn't reveal too much. So it will be interesting to see if even for a full-length trailer they try and keep an air of mystery too it.

dudalb

03-13-2005, 07:28 PM

This article from the highly respected "Forbes" magazine puts the Nail in the Coffin of the Pendragon attemp to do a period version of the film as far as theatrical release goes.

"War of the War of the Worlds
Stephane Fitch and Evan Hessel, 03.28.05

A clever DVD distributor aims to invade Paramount's summer blockbuster.

Paramount Pictures' new War of the Worlds has the makings of a summer blockbuster. The remake, set in present-day America, has a $130 million production budget, dazzling special effects, director Steven Spielberg and star Tom Cruise. Paramount is set to unwrap the flick in time for the big July 4 weekend.

But to the dismay of the Viacom-owned studio, another War of the Worlds could come out weeks before the Spielbergian version hits theaters. An obscure distributor of DVDs called UAV (formerly United American Video) plans to ship its own adaptation of the H.G. Wells classic about a Martian invasion in Victorian England. UAV's movie would go to 60,000 retail outlets around the U.S. in mid-June, right when Paramount is ramping up its marketing for Worlds.

The low-budget DVDdoppelgänger was shot by an obscure Seattle filmmaker named Timothy Hines, whose previous film was Bug Wars, a lesbian-exploitation sci-fi turkey that got shown in one theater in 1997. For his Worlds Hines used no-name actors and did the special effects on desktop computers, setting the film in the novel's Olde England and sticking closely to the original plot. "It's Independence Day meets A Room With a View," he says, honing the perfect Hollywood pitch.

It also is the riskiest move UAV and its chief executive, William Offenberg, have ever tried to make. Founded in 1985 and purchased for $50 million by Cleveland buyout firm Morgenthaler Partners in 2002, UAV is in two businesses. To the big studios it's a rack jobber that distributes DVDs to thousands of drugstores and convenience chains. But it has been doubling sales annually, luring new retailers with a side business that accounts for 20% of its $175 million in annual sales. UAV trolls back catalogs for old or independently produced movies that ride the coattails of big-studio releases, sharing a star or a theme. Then it sells those movies to retailers to push alongside the Hollywood material.

Last year UAV licensed the 1990 clunker Prisoners of the Sun, in which actor Russell Crowe had a bit part. UAV slapped the newly hot actor's mug on the DVD box, then distributed it when Twentieth Century Fox released its DVD of Crowe's Master & Commander. UAV also has hawked amateurish animated films that play off such Disney fare as The Lion King (Kimba the Lion Prince) and Hercules (The Amazing Feats of Young Hercules).

Invading Paramount's sum-mer plans has triggered the studio's wrath, but not much else. H.G. Wells published the novel in 1898, and 40 years later Orson Welles scared the bejabbers out of radio listeners in a dramatization that ignited a panic among thousands who believed their planet was under attack. Wells' novel lost copyright protection in the U.S. in 1954, giving Paramount little recourse. Its lawyers have warned the producers of the UAV version that the big studio will sue if the two-bit rival version makes it to Europe or Asia, where Worlds still retains its copyright. In those places Paramount has held the licensed rights since it shot its first Worlds in 1953.

UAV risks losing its distribution of Paramount DVDs, but Offenberg argues that inexpensive indie movies do not compete with the studio releases. A Paramount spokesman doubts UAV's Worlds will dent ticket sales of Spielberg's film, though he still laments that some fans may buy the wrong flick. "

I have nothing agianst a honest cheap explotation film maker, but i can't stand the aritistic pretensions that Hines apparently has.
It's has been pretty apparent this is where the Pendragon fiasco has been going for some time.

imported_T_M

03-13-2005, 07:41 PM

The low-budget DVD doppelgänger was shot by an obscure Seattle filmmaker named Timothy Hines, whose previous film was Bug Wars, a lesbian-exploitation sci-fi turkey that got shown in one theater in 1997.

What the - ?

Anyway, the more interesting aspects of that article more or less involves UAV releasing movies that play off actual theatrical releases. Stupid, but then again, there will always be fools who will buy them.

OhioJones

03-14-2005, 09:53 AM

Unfortunately we have companies such as this who capitalize on other people's hard work and original ideas to develop and market cheaply made and second-rate movies. They take advantage of what is popular and lure uninformed (or just plain stupid) consumers into purchasing movies they think feature their favorite actor or story. Unfortunately every business has its bottom feeders.

As for Paramount's concern for someone buying the wrong version; anyone who picks up Hines' version thinking they've purchased the new one deserves what they get. Even non-hardcore moviegoers know who Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg are. They are probably two of the most recognized names in show business.

Instead of Paramount even commenting on Hines' film, they should avoid addressing it as much as possible. All that's happening is Hines is getting some free publicity out of this. This is in no way a contest between the two films and whoever suggests as much is a complete idiot. Instead, Paramount should be feeling confident about their movie and saying as such. Their official comment should be: "We are aware of the Hines' production of War of the Worlds, and we wish them the best of luck. The two films, while based on the same material, are vastly different and approach the same ideas in different ways, including the timeline of when the events occur. Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise are two of the film industries biggest stars, and we have the utmost confidence in their abilities to produce and exciting and enthralling film."

thecallahan

03-14-2005, 02:44 PM

UAV also has hawked amateurish animated films that play off such Disney fare as The Lion King (Kimba the Lion Prince) and Hercules (The Amazing Feats of Young Hercules).

Forget about the fact that Kimba the Lion prince was a bad movie, stating that it was a plays off the Lion King is just freaking funny considering how much older Kimba is than the Lion King

dudalb

03-14-2005, 02:52 PM

". This is in no way a contest between the two films and whoever suggests as much is a complete idiot."
Over at www. waroftheworldsonline.com there are lots of such idiots who treat everything Hines says as gospel truth.
It's sad, really,because I would love to see a version of World Of The Worlds in the original Victorian setting, but the Hines film looks like shit, and it will ball up any future efforts to do a live action period WOTW.
I have a feeling that Paramount is less concerned about the Hines DVD impacting the Speilberg movie then they are about it impacting the sales of the special edition of the 1953 George Pal WOTW which is scheduled for a mid June release.
I think that Jeff Wayne is very smart to put off his CGI animated version of his WOTW Rock Opera until 2007,so as not to go head to head agianst the Spielberg film.

dudalb

03-14-2005, 03:00 PM

Forget about the fact that Kimba the Lion prince was a bad movie, stating that it was a plays off the Lion King is just freaking funny considering how much older Kimba is than the Lion King

Actually Forbes magazine is not saying the film was made to play off "The Lion King", they are saying that the UAV DVD release was timed to cash in on "The Lion King" release.
It's not unusual for cheesy DVD companies to find an film that has been rotting away in a vault somewhere and release it to try to cash in on a current sucess.
A similiar gimmick is mentioned in the Forbes artical: Find a movie in which a big name star had a small role early in his career and release it with a campaign that claims that the big name star is "starring" in the film despite the fact he might have a look fast or you will miss it 2 or 3 line bit part in the film.

Andrew Clarke

03-14-2005, 05:14 PM

Dubalb, why do you mention Jeff Wayne's musical in every post on this thread?

dudalb

03-14-2005, 06:36 PM

I checked my last ten posts, and did not mention the Jeff Wayne musical once,though I do not deny I am a fan of the Wayne CD's.
I do talk about the Hines fiasco a lot , simply because at several sites some Hines Fanboys were pimping it as the "real" version (The AICN WOTW threads, for example), and I want to destory any notion that the Pendragon version would be anything but shit. If somebody is too stupid or wearing too big a pair of fan blinders to see that "Straight to DVD" is an almost sure sign of a shitty film, then it really useless trying to reach them.
Besides, Hines has an Ed Wood style eagerness to portray his crappy little fillm as a masterpiece I find amusing.
BTW the more I read about the Speilberg film, the more I think people are going to be suprised by how much of the Wells novel he is going to keep his version.

ShortRound

03-15-2005, 06:16 PM

dudalb

03-15-2005, 07:05 PM

Anyone who paid attention to the development of the Pendragon version had to know it was going to crash and burn. I'm not at all surprised it's heading straight to DVD. Somehow I doubt that people will confuse the two versions once the Spielberg version hits DVD. That won't be until Christmas, and I'm sure it will have been so succesful in the theaters that people will be well aware of it.

Go to www.waroftheworldsonline.com and go to the Pendragon section and you will find some true believers in the Hines version.
Hines, if nothing else, has learned to play the hard core Wells fanatics like a violin. He has been playing the "I am making the authentic version while Speilberg is raping the text" song for some time, and a few fanboys are still buying into it. Sad.

OhioJones

03-15-2005, 08:14 PM

Go to www.waroftheworldsonline.com and go to the Pendragon section and you will find some true believers in the Hines version.
Hines, if nothing else, has learned to play the hard core Wells fanatics like a violin. He has been playing the "I am making the authentic version while Speilberg is raping the text" song for some time, and a few fanboys are still buying into it. Sad.

Well, at least he'll be able to make about a few hundred bucks out of it.

SomeInsaniac

03-15-2005, 09:49 PM

Heads up, guys.

The second teaser trailer for "War of the Worlds" debuts at 12:01 A.M. Eastern Time on Friday, March 18th.

ShortRound

03-17-2005, 06:33 PM

I've heard the new trailer is going to be available only at apple.com.....don't know how long that will last, but for starters that is going to be the only place you can see it.

Greg Clark

03-18-2005, 02:33 AM

I've heard the new trailer is going to be available only at apple.com.....don't know how long that will last, but for starters that is going to be the only place you can see it.

Well, it's not like Apple makes you pay to see the trailer or anything, so I don't see how that's a problem.

Ade Brooks

03-18-2005, 02:52 AM

I like the new trailer. Seems like Spielberg is not going to give us any spoilers on this one regarding the aliens. The "cracked ground after several lightning strikes" seems a little odd. All the people looking into a small hole in the ground? Not too scary to me.

I'm thinking we might be getting one of the best sci-fi movies ever, or, one of the biggest disappointments. I don't think there will be an in between on this one.

OhioJones

03-18-2005, 08:27 AM

Very cool. Hoping for a better look at the machines but this is only another teaser after all. I'm sure we'll have a nice, full-length trailer in May featuring a lot more footage. I only hope they keep most of it as a surpirse instead of showing all the best parts.

I think we got a glimpse of an alien machine tipping the boat, though. Effects look incredible and I like the gritty, earthen look. I disagree that this in any way has the potential to disappoint. I have the utmost faith in Speilberg and ILM to deliver a hell of a movie this summer.

Bemis

03-18-2005, 08:55 AM

Looks great. My girlfriend and I were extras in this last year when it was filming near Albany, so we were just freaking out when we saw that our scene (the tripods attacking the ferry landing) hadn't been cut. I'm really rooting for this, for selfish reasons; it would be great to say I was in Spielberg's latest Close Encounters, but not so much if it's Spielberg's latest 1941.