War of the Worlds

[JingleBells]

As well as the main blockbuster film being released, an eComic is being done of the War of the Worlds story, it looks rather nice, and I'm intrigued what the martian craft will look like.

 

[Deebs]

Still waiting for the 5.1 remix of WotW

 

[moomin]

haha I remember u having that on deebsfm or whatever, class

 

[Brynn]

I remember that too actually.

 

[JingleBells]

Its out now - http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...744630/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/202-4817834-7809449 I might get it, a great album.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooolommmmmmmmm

 

[Chilly]

ohhh, 5.1 rmx of wotw, that's gonna be 1970s synth-tastic in all its crazy surround glorey!

 

[Ch3tan]

but dont pay amazon prices http://www.woolworths.co.uk/wwstore/product.jhtml?product=50427317&op=details

 

[Opt1]

Shame they completely changed the story from 1920s Britain to contemporary USA mind... :x

Steven "I can change whatever I want!!!!!!111" Spielberg for you :touch:

 

[Turamber]

Shame they completely changed the story from 1920s Britain to contemporary USA mind... :x

Steven "I can change whatever I want!!!!!!111" Spielberg for you :touch:

Ehh? 1920's? I think you will find the book was set firmly in Victorian England of the late 19th century. But, yes, changing the complete plot put me off seeing the film. Plus you just know that it will be microbe size Tom Cruise that will beat the dastardly martians, and not the infinitely cooler ending of the book. Now if only the martians had access to a squeezy bottle of water they might have stood a chance...

 

[Tom]

Here we go again, major slagging of a film that nobody has yet seen......

 

[DaGaffer]

The Orson Welles radio broadcast changed the plot to contemporary New Jersey, the George Pal film changed it to America (and HG's family were enthusaistic supporters of it). There's nothing new about this, and given that the story was supposed to be an allegory about the hubris of empire, its entirely appropriate to relocate a modern version to the US. Not that anyone will get the subtext of course.

 

[Draylor]

Here we go again, major slagging of a film that nobody has yet seen......

Its a remake starring Tom Cruise. Theres enough history to backup the assumption that it'll be bollocks

 

[dysfunction]

Its a remake starring Tom Cruise. Theres enough history to backup the assumption that it'll be bollocks

Um no there isnt...

 

[Draylor]

Vanilla Sky uke:

Basically every other Hollywood "reimagining" in recent years uke:

This starts off assumed to be shit till proven otherwise im my eyes

 

[Tom]

Its a remake starring Tom Cruise. Theres enough history to backup the assumption that it'll be bollocks

What, like Stephen Spielberg always directing crap films?

 

[Turamber]

Here we go again, major slagging of a film that nobody has yet seen......

Well, I don't see it that way. People have seen the adverts - some are looking forward to it and express that; others see it for another 'US of A saving the day for mankind kind of film' and run a mile.

The only way in which DeGaffer's comments concerning hubris and empire would hold true is if Tom Cruise doesn't save the day, and that's as likely as his future wife being shorter than him.

 

[Athan]

...given that the story was supposed to be an allegory about the hubris of empire...

Go on, find me a cite of H.G. Wells himself actually saying this.

Sorry, but I find 'literary' people don't half talk some bollocks about what was "meant" by a work at times.

-Ath

 

[Deebs]

5.1 mix ordered, amp is being prepped for some mighty pissing off the neighbours mode.

Personally I will watch the Cruise/Speilberk remake. Obv it will be shit without the Wayne theme tune

I know it will not be a patch on the original book, isn't this ID4 btw?

 

[.Wilier.]

It might be a good idea to ignore the fact that its a remake of a classic, and just judge it on its own merrit? or is that too revolutionary?

Ive seen a bunch of trailers and, imho, it looks quite good.

 

[xane]

Sorry, but I find 'literary' people don't half talk some bollocks about what was "meant" by a work at times.

You mean people like Isaac Asimov ?

 

[DaGaffer]

Go on, find me a cite of H.G. Wells himself actually saying this.

Sorry, but I find 'literary' people don't half talk some bollocks about what was "meant" by a work at times.

-Ath

I'm trying to find the quote, but Wells himself said one of the influences for the book was a conversation with his brother Frank about the fate that had befell the Tasmanian peoples when they were discovered by the Europeans.

The other influence was a near pass of Mars that been observed by telescope at the time and made Mars a vogue news item.

 

[Guest]

why do you have jackpotjoy as your url gaffer?

 

[nath]

why do you have jackpotjoy as your url gaffer?

Bizarre - never heard of jackpotjoy but yesterday I apply for a job there and today I hear about them here. ooooOOOOOOooooo

 

[DaGaffer]

why do you have jackpotjoy as your url gaffer?

I'm the Commercial Director.

 

[Ormorof]

town i live in gets destroyed in book... doesnt in movie, movie suuuuuuucks we wanted tom cruise to come visit

 

[nath]

I'm the Commercial Director.

Ooo, you can sort me out a job then

 

[DaGaffer]

Ooo, you can sort me out a job then

*ppft* you spend far too much time posting on here to earn a living

 

[nath]

If only - need money = need job unfortunately :/

 

[Draylor]

What, like Stephen Spielberg always directing crap films?

Well attaching his name to a project is hardly a guarantee of quality: especially in recent years.

Time will tell: but attaching names to a film doesnt make me assume it'll be any good.

 

[dysfunction]

Time will tell: but attaching names to a film doesnt make me assume it'll be any good.

That makes me laugh that does.

You'll assume its crap cos its a remake rather than judge it on its merits and yet you wont assume it would be good based on a one of the best Directors in Hollywood...