War of the Worlds

[Talos]

Hey Folks,

just had to do a thread about the ultimate summer movie: "The War of the Worlds". At least i think there is huge potential for it to be an over the top blockbuster. Anyone who has read the book knows what i mean. recently there was a new trailer released which shows some cool scenes!
To those who didn't know anything about the movie i recommend checking out this trailer gem:
Wor of the Worlds - Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/large_2.html)

There is also a War of the Worlds Movie coming from Pendragon Pictures which follows the exact timeline of the book and even takes place at the edge of the 19th century.

I think both movies look very promising - For every WotW fan this year will be THE year http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Mountain Man]

I didn't know there were two War of the Worlds movies coming out!

I like the sounds of that second one. I was a bit disappointed to discover that Spielberg was contemporizing the story. While his will no doubt be a slick blockbuster spectacle of a movie, I actually think the second has the potential to be the better film.

[NutWrench]

IS there more that one? The first WOTW trailer I saw several months ago seemed to be taking place in modern suburban America. Now it seems that it's taking place in 19th century England, again. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Soilwork]

Looks killer!

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Beelze]

Well, it's a shame that Spielberg chose to move the story, time-wise. The charm with the original story, for me, is that today it would be about an alien invasion taking place in an alternate past. Most stories featuring alien invasions usually take place in the present or the future.

[Nacho]

I still have hope that it will still follow the story and be a good movie even if the time is different.

[gamejunkie]

I saw the TV ad a few minutes ago, and now the trailer. This movie looks pretty cool, I might actually go see it

[Talos]

NutWrench said:
IS there more that one? The first WOTW trailer I saw several months ago seemed to be taking place in modern suburban America. Now it seems that it's taking place in 19th century England, again. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif



There are two movies coming up - the Spielberg WotW takes place in our time and the one from Pendragon Pictures in the 19th century:

Offical Pendragon WotW site: here (http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html)
Pendragon's WotW Theatrical Trailer: here (http://stuffo.howstuffworks.com/wotw-videos.htm)

[Paroxysm]

This movie has a 95% chance of being a steaming piece of shit. But hey, it'll still make a ****load at the box office.

[Simon Charles]

Paroxysm said:
This movie has a 95% chance of being a steaming piece of shit.



And you base this statement on very solid, what, voodoo magic?

[Paroxysm]

The speilberg factor.

[Simon Charles]

Paroxysm said:
The speilberg factor.



You mean the guy who's regarded by fans, critics and other directors as the best in the business? Yeah, that means the movie's gonna suck. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[Paroxysm]

Simon Charles said:

Paroxysm said:
The speilberg factor.



You mean the guy who's regarded by fans, critics and other directors as the best in the business? Yeah, that means the movie's gonna suck. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif



Speilberg is the master of the generic. His films are never bad but they're never great either. He is respected by critics and directors, but he would rarely appear as one of their favourites though. He makes solid films with horrible ***** endings. And of course his fans like his shit, they're fans.

[Dogy]

Pendragon > DreamWorks

I'm seeing the traditional one (Sticks to the book.)

[Usurper]

Dang, I liked the book, but that Pendragon trailer was complete B-grade-looking shit. I don't think I'd watch it for free.

S & C did okay with Minority Report, despite the clichéd Touch of Evil ending, so I'll take my chances with them.

[Boo Boo Juice]

Man, that pendragon one looks weak to me. I'll stick with Spielberg. I like him, but I don't think he is the best in the business. My personal favorite living american director is Scorsese, but they do such different movies and have such different styles. I guess I could toss Spielberg up there with Scorsese.

[Marty]

actually this may be a good trailer becuase it managed to reveal absolutely nothing besides the fact Tom Cruise is in it and alot of shit happens

[Dogy]

Marty said:
actually this may be a good trailer becuase it managed to reveal absolutely nothing besides the fact Tom Cruise is in it and alot of shit happens




That's what I was thinking: Bring in a famous actor/actress, watch the cash roll in.

And today, I got the book http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dukefan]

Paroxysm said:

Simon Charles said:

Paroxysm said:
The speilberg factor.



You mean the guy who's regarded by fans, critics and other directors as the best in the business? Yeah, that means the movie's gonna suck. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif



Speilberg is the master of the generic. His films are never bad but they're never great either. He is respected by critics and directors, but he would rarely appear as one of their favourites though. He makes solid films with horrible ***** endings. And of course his fans like his shit, they're fans.



Well, that's of course all just opinion. I think many of his films are quite exceptional, except for the endings, which usually suck. And I don't see how you can call A.I. generic. Love it or hate it, but it wasn't generic.

[John]

Well, technically Spielberg is so respected because of what he achieved in the 1970s. ET was a big deal; one of the, if not THE, biggest movie openings ever.

[GodBlitZor]

Thats a big piece of shit based 2% on the book. I read the book not even a week ago, just learned about this movie now, and I thought of how (if I was a director) could recreate this in modern times. Spielburg is gonna make a shitty money machine and thats all. A) - Aliens came in like rockets/meotorite type things. B) - There were no big explosions. C) - They had LARGE craters with LARGE metal objects that had a top that would spin and pop open. D) - The heat ray burned everything to shit, why were the ruins unburned/uncharred? Spielburg prolly didnt even read the book, the words were to big for him.

[Paroxysm]

John said:
Well, technically Spielberg is so respected because of what he achieved in the 1970s. ET was a big deal; one of the, if not THE, biggest movie openings ever.



Actually Spielbergs biggest film really was JAW's. It totally changed the hollywood system of distribution, for the worst of course. Wide distributions gauged by opening weekend gross totally ***** everything.

[dudetheman19]

Hey did anyone see the original "War of the worlds" movie? It was pretty lame :-P We cannot beat the aliens, but then our germs kill them in the end. Why make a big movie about that!!! Hated the ending, and when everyone know it, why see the new movie? More of the same, just prettier. They should rather make "The da vinti code" into a movie :-)

[Beelze]

The thing is, not everyone may know it (so you could've used the board's spoiler tag, just out of courtesy). http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Simon Charles]

dudetheman19 said:
Hey did anyone see the original "War of the worlds" movie? It was pretty lame :-P We cannot beat the aliens, but then our germs kill them in the end. Why make a big movie about that!!! Hated the ending, and when everyone know it, why see the new movie? More of the same, just prettier. They should rather make "The da vinti code" into a movie :-)



Well, the war of the world was written in what? The 50s? Back then, such an ending was acceptable. It's called "deus ex machina" which is some sort of miracle intervention that solves everything quickly.

Today, deus ex machina is often used in writing to define a problem common to many beginner writers, when they wrap up a story quickly through a rapid, unexpected intervention because they haven't worked out the resolution well enough. This often leaves the reader robbed of something and must be avoided.

It's also why the game Deus Ex was named that way. Denton *is* the "deus ex machina". Throughout the story and to its conclusion, he embodied the unexpected solution that ends and solves everything.

Okay, back on topic. War of the World is the classic "deus ex machina" ending, and we can forgive it for that, probably because it was one of the first.

[Mountain Man]

Dukefan said:
I don't see how you can call A.I. generic. Love it or hate it, but it wasn't generic.


I like A.I. The biggest complaint I hear is that it has a sappy ending, but if you pay attention, you realize that it's actually a pretty sad and tragic ending.

[KillerByte]

dudetheman19 said:
They should rather make "The da vinti code" into a movie :-)



They are. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/)

[Mountain Man]

Simon Charles said:
Well, the war of the world was written in what? The 50s?


1898, actually. And the ending was, I think, a little more profound than simply being a deus ex machina. It's rather ironic that the best of man's might was insufficient to stop the invasion while a simple germ stopped it cold.

[Talos]

GodBlitZor said:
...
A) - Aliens came in like rockets/meotorite type things.
B) - There were no big explosions.
C) - They had LARGE craters with LARGE metal objects that had a top that would spin and pop open.
D) - The heat ray burned everything to shit, why were the ruins unburned/uncharred? Spielburg prolly didnt even read the book, the words were to big for him.



A question to you: Have you already seen the Spielberg movie yet???

A) Both teaser trailers showed off some scenes which were like exactly out of book! For example the sky before the night of the first "falling star" - I think there will be meteorite type of things!

B) there were a ton of big explosions in the book especially in the "war machines vs. canons" battle scenes!

C) In the second Teaser Trailer we see a big crater in the middle of street with a lot of people standing around (Horsell ranch anyone?!)....

D) You saw like 2 seconds of the ruins...http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I don't think Spielberg will mess this one up at least the trailers look like a really cool modern version of the 1898 story.

[Dukefan]

1898, actually. And the ending was, I think, a little more profound than simply being a deus ex machina. It's rather ironic that the best of man's might was insufficient to stop the invasion while a simple germ stopped it cold.



This is a bit off-topic, but I've always hated the complaints about M. Night's Shyamalan's "Signs" that it made no sense for the aliens to come to a world covered with water, since the exact same criticism could be leveled against "The War of the Worlds." (In fact, the endings of both are so alike that "Signs" might have been an homage.) Both criticisms make an assumption that isn't justified, namely that the aliens know what their weakness is. H.G. Wells' aliens had probably never encountered virii before, so they had no reason to be afraid of virii when coming to Earth--they probably didn't even know that virii existed, much less that it was their main weakness. Likewise, the aliens in "Signs" had almost certainly never encountered water before, so how could they have known that it would be their death blow on Earth?

[Dukefan]

Well, the war of the world was written in what? The 50s? Back then, such an ending was acceptable. It's called "deus ex machina" which is some sort of miracle intervention that solves everything quickly.


Um, the deus ex machina has been frowned upon in drama ever since the Greeks invented it. (Well, they used it literally, with a God coming down to end conflicts, so it was OK with them. But after that it's been frowned upon, since it's always subsequently been used figuratively.) It most certainly was not acceptable in the 1950s; off the top of my head, the most successful novels then were Asimov's Foundation and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, all of which have conclusions which come full circle. (That decade was the golden age of science-fiction, which prided itself on logical endings.) I might be wrong, as I'm not an expert on literature, but what leads you to the conclusion that it was ever acceptable?


It's also why the game Deus Ex was named that way. Denton *is* the "deus ex machina". Throughout the story and to its conclusion, he embodied the unexpected solution that ends and solves everything.


I don't know where you got that horsecrap; Warren Spector said in an interview (which I read a while ago, so I don't think I can find it again) that the title referred to the variations in the endings of the game, especially the Helios ending. Denton is no more an unexpected solution to the problem than the protagonist of every computer game, and I would argue that it's never unexpected that Denton solves his mission objectives, since he was a specially engineered agent designed just for that purpose, and he's certainly not so implausible as to kill suspension of disbelief, which is what deus ex machina usually implies.

I think your understanding of the term is too broad. It literally means "machine from God," and it's not so much an unexpected turn of events as it's an unexpected and wholly implausible or improbable turn of events (which usually kills suspension of disbelief). The virus attack in War of the Worlds is perfectly plausible scientifically--an extraterrestrial organism is placed in a foreign environment and exposed to microorganisms which its immune system has not adapted; this is perfectly sound science, and I think one might actually expect it to happen of any alien race that were to visit Earth, although it might not react so greatly as to exterminate them all.


War of the World is the classic "deus ex machina" ending, and we can forgive it for that, probably because it was one of the first.


You're kidding, right? And you also through the novel was written in the 1950s? Have you never heard of Sophocles?

[Beelze]

Mountain Man said:
And the ending was, I think, a little more profound than simply being a deus ex machina. It's rather ironic that the best of man's might was insufficient to stop the invasion while a simple germ stopped it cold.


The irony is what made it a good ending.

[Simon Charles]

Dukefan said:
Denton is no more an unexpected solution to the problem than the protagonist of every computer game



The bad guys in the game thought Denton would not interfere, because he was engineered by them. Contrary to what they thought, the unexpected came, at the end, the deus ex machina appeared, and wrapped up the story.







I think your understanding of the term is too broad. It literally means "machine from God," and it's not so much an unexpected turn of events as it's an unexpected and wholly implausible or improbable turn of events (which usually kills suspension of disbelief).



And I think your understanding is too narrow.









The virus attack in War of the Worlds is perfectly plausible scientifically--an extraterrestrial organism is placed in a foreign environment and exposed to microorganisms which its immune system has not adapted; this is perfectly sound science, and I think one might actually expect it to happen of any alien race that were to visit Earth, although it might not react so greatly as to exterminate them all.



I never questionned the plausability of the ending.






War of the World is the classic "deus ex machina" ending, and we can forgive it for that, probably because it was one of the first.



You're kidding, right? And you also through the novel was written in the 1950s? Have you never heard of Sophocles?





I have. And I'll recognize being wrong about the 50s, and how deus ex machina endings were already not acceptable when the war of the worlds was written. I knew the book was older; I read myself again and I can't begin to understand what made me write 1950. But my point remains : that novel is perhaps one of the most well-known, classic definition of Deus Ex Machina.

[0marTheZealot]

Dukefan said:

1898, actually. And the ending was, I think, a little more profound than simply being a deus ex machina. It's rather ironic that the best of man's might was insufficient to stop the invasion while a simple germ stopped it cold.



This is a bit off-topic, but I've always hated the complaints about M. Night's Shyamalan's "Signs" that it made no sense for the aliens to come to a world covered with water, since the exact same criticism could be leveled against "The War of the Worlds." (In fact, the endings of both are so alike that "Signs" might have been an homage.) Both criticisms make an assumption that isn't justified, namely that the aliens know what their weakness is. H.G. Wells' aliens had probably never encountered virii before, so they had no reason to be afraid of virii when coming to Earth--they probably didn't even know that virii existed, much less that it was their main weakness. Likewise, the aliens in "Signs" had almost certainly never encountered water before, so how could they have known that it would be their death blow on Earth?



Not finding a lethal virus is one thing, not noticing that the planet is covered in over 75% of something that will kill you is another. The aliens in Signs came from across the galaxy, constructed technology that are millenia away for us but they've never encountered H2O?

[Mountain Man]

0marTheZealot said:
Not finding a lethal virus is one thing, not noticing that the planet is covered in over 75% of something that will kill you is another. The aliens in Signs came from across the galaxy, constructed technology that are millenia away for us but they've never encountered H2O?


How about this then: The aliens underestimated the threat, or perhaps they thought they could conquer the earth before humans could find let alone take advantage of their weakness.

The most interesting thing about Signs is that the main event takes place entirely off camera. You only hear about it afterwards, yet it remains an amazingly compelling film.

I sincerely doubt Spielberg's The War of the Worlds will contain such subtlety.

[Simon Charles]

Not finding a lethal virus is one thing, not noticing that the planet is covered in over 75% of something that will kill you is another. The aliens in Signs came from across the galaxy, constructed technology that are millenia away for us but they've never encountered H2O?



And the aliens in war of the worlds came from across the galaxy, constructed technology that are millenia away from us but they've never encountered germs?

[Claws]

dudetheman19 said:
Hey did anyone see the original "War of the worlds" movie? It was pretty lame :-P We cannot beat the aliens, but then our germs kill them in the end. Why make a big movie about that!!! Hated the ending, and when everyone know it, why see the new movie? More of the same, just prettier. They should rather make "The da vinti code" into a movie :-)



Oh you *****.

[Dukefan]

Simon Charles said:

Dukefan said:
Denton is no more an unexpected solution to the problem than the protagonist of every computer game



The bad guys in the game thought Denton would not interfere, because he was engineered by them. Contrary to what they thought, the unexpected came, at the end, the deus ex machina appeared, and wrapped up the story.


Um, no. "Deus ex machina" refers to the ending of a story, nothing more. It cannot refer merely to a character within the story, unless that character unexpectedly appears or resurfaces at the end, which is absolutely not the case with Denton, as he is present the entire game (that would be the definition of a protagonist). And since he's the player, it's completely expected that he's the one who wraps up the story!

Using your flawed definition, Luke Skywalker was a deus ex machina for being the one to blow up the Death Star, because Vader never saw him coming. Gollum/Frodo were deus ex machinas for being responsible for the Ring falling in, becaue Sauron didn't see them coming. Taking this to its logical conclusion, every protagonist that successfully defeats the antagonist is a deus ex machina just because the bad guy didn't see them coming. That's an awful lot of classic literature to associate with a very unforgivable device that often kills suspension of disbelif.

But go ahead and ignore Spector's own words that "Deus Ex" literally referred to the endings, namely the Helios ending (think back to what that ending is: "machine from God," no?), but not a metaphorical reference to anything, especially not Denton.



I think your understanding of the term is too broad. It literally means "machine from God," and it's not so much an unexpected turn of events as it's an unexpected and wholly implausible or improbable turn of events (which usually kills suspension of disbelief).



And I think your understanding is too narrow.


*snort* OK, fine ignore Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_Machina) definition: "any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief, and presumably allows the author to end it in the way he or she wanted." Or Google's (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define:deus+ex+machina) various definitions, which all say that the character or device unexpectedly comes from outside the main story, which a protagonist can never do. Or Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deus%20ex%20machina) which says it must be both sudden and implausible.

The problem is that you're confusing the audience that deus ex machina refers to. A deus ex machina by definition is unexpected and sudden to the reader or audience. Stories where that happens are generally thought to be poor, because the reader should be able to figure out how the events logically and consistently led to the conclusion. If the ending comes from out of the blue from the audience's perspective, that's a deus ex machina. It does not refer to an ending that is unexpected by the antagonist for the simple reason that every successful conclusion to every story is unexpected by the antagonist. If the bad guy was expecting it, he would have been able to prevent it! It would be a huge leap of logic for the bad guy to be expecting the ending, but not to be able to escape it. Thus, by your definition, every story where the good guy defeats the bad guy has a deus ex machina. That's patently absurd to anyone who has studied any amount of literature.



The virus attack in War of the Worlds is perfectly plausible scientifically--an extraterrestrial organism is placed in a foreign environment and exposed to microorganisms which its immune system has not adapted; this is perfectly sound science, and I think one might actually expect it to happen of any alien race that were to visit Earth, although it might not react so greatly as to exterminate them all.



I never questionned the plausability of the ending.


By calling it a deus ex machina, yes you did.

[Simon Charles]

Dukefan said:


The virus attack in War of the Worlds is perfectly plausible scientifically--an extraterrestrial organism is placed in a foreign environment and exposed to microorganisms which its immune system has not adapted; this is perfectly sound science, and I think one might actually expect it to happen of any alien race that were to visit Earth, although it might not react so greatly as to exterminate them all.



I never questionned the plausability of the ending.


By calling it a deus ex machina, yes you did.



No, questionning its ending would have been saying "War of the worlds' ending makes no sense from a scientific point of view".

And it is a deus ex machina because the problem was not solved by the characters but by something else. That's a deus ex machina. You can contest Denton all you want, okay, that was a bad example on my part. But not the war of the worlds. It's the very definition of a deus ex machina = an ending/problem that was wrapped up, unexpectedly, without the active participation of the main characters.

I'm not contesting your definitions, they're okay. But they encompass the war of the worlds. Nothing the characters did solved their problems. Suddently, something else, out of the blue, solved their crisis for them. It's a fundamental flaw in writing. I'm not bashing the book, I loved it. I'm just saying it's an ending that would not be acceptable today.

[Dukefan]

0marTheZealot said:
Not finding a lethal virus is one thing, not noticing that the planet is covered in over 75% of something that will kill you is another.


How could they have known that it would kill them?!

Moreover, how could the aliens have known that the Earth was 75% covered by water? Even if they knew what water was, how were they supposed to know why the Earth looks so blue just from looking at it? Neptune is pretty blue as well, think it might be covered by water? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif The only way to tell what's on a planet is to actually go there or to send something there for you. There's no evidence the aliens did either of those things before reaching Earth.


The aliens in Signs came from across the galaxy, constructed technology that are millenia away for us but they've never encountered H2O?


The only planets we know for sure water existed on are Earth and Mars. Period. What the hell makes you sure that water can be found on any other planet in any other galaxy? Last I checked, water was one of the most rare substances in the universe.

[Dukefan]

Simon Charles said:

And it is a deus ex machina because the problem was not solved by the characters but by something else. ... It's the very definition of a deus ex machina = an ending/problem that was wrapped up, unexpectedly, without the active participation of the main characters.



You may notice that I never contested your reference to War of the Worlds, just all the other absurd examples you used. So thanks for conceding all the arguments I did actually make to me.


It's a fundamental flaw in writing. I'm not bashing the book, I loved it.


Anyone else see the contradiction? How is calling a piece of writing flawed not bashing it? Unless you're saying it was so bad it was good?


I'm just saying it's an ending that would not be acceptable today.


You overestimate today's audiences. Did you not notice how Independence Day was a thinly-veiled ripoff of War of the Worlds, with an even less plausible "virus" used in the end?

[Simon Charles]

Dukefan said:

It's a fundamental flaw in writing. I'm not bashing the book, I loved it.


Anyone else see the contradiction? How is calling a piece of writing flawed not bashing it? Unless you're saying it was so bad it was good?



This definately deserves the http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif greamlin. Surely I can like something and yet admit it has flaws? Puh-lease.

This thread is getting dangerously out of hand, mostly my fault. Let's drop this and get back on-topic of the movies.

[GodBlitZor]

A question to you: Have you already seen the Spielberg movie yet???

A) Both teaser trailers showed off some scenes which were like exactly out of book! For example the sky before the night of the first "falling star" - I think there will be meteorite type of things!

Then he doesnt act like it.


B) there were a ton of big explosions in the book especially in the "war machines vs. canons" battle scenes!

There wasnt EXPLOSIONS but there was fire and bullets and flamewaves NOT like rockets and things.

C) In the second Teaser Trailer we see a big crater in the middle of street with a lot of people standing around (Horsell ranch anyone?!)....

That crater is small as shit.

D) You saw like 2 seconds of the ruins...

So?

I don't think Spielberg will mess this one up at least the trailers look like a really cool modern version of the 1898 story.

Pshhhh

[Synti]

GodBlitZor said:
There wasnt EXPLOSIONS but there was fire and bullets and flamewaves NOT like rockets and things.




As the original book takes place about hundred years ago of course there wasn't many explosions. But as the movie happens today in a major CITY there is so much stuff to explode! Of course alot of shit will be blown to smitherines if space monsters come down reigning fire and holocaust. Use your head.



That crater is small as shit.



In the trailer we really don't see the size of the crater. When the people are looking into it, they might be inside the crater just watching the small hole where the actual thing is.

[EDIT] Just watched and does indeed seem like the whole crater is shown. Which is a bit weak. But it would kinda kill the suspension if it would create craters like in the book. That destruction would blow so much shit up that it would start the action too early. So I can understand Spielbergs choice on this. Plus does it make it a bad movie if it has small craters? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


D) You saw like 2 seconds of the ruins...

So?



Well, it's not even 2 seconds. It's about ½second AND the ruins ARE burned and charred! Everything is smoking and there is fires everywhere. Did you even watch the trailer? It can't be ashes and few burning piles of wood because it's a city. Cities are made of asphalt, metal, glass etc.

[Daveman]

So it'll be a butchering of the film classic which was a butchering of the literary masterpiece? Wonderful.

[GrkFire611]

Simon Charles said:
And the aliens in war of the worlds came from across the galaxy, constructed technology that are millenia away from us but they've never encountered germs?



Actually, the aliens in [u]War of the Worlds</u> came from Mars.

There was already a thread about the Spielberg movie, and I posted a pretty long explanation in it with my thoughts on the film. Here's an edited repost:

...From that trailer, it seems like the film and book share nothing besides a bit from the first chapter of the story.

I guess I'm not really surprised that the film is being set in the early 21st century as opposed to the early 20th, and I guess I'm also not surprised that they decided to move the setting from London to the United States. That doesn't mean I'm happy with either change, though. One of the major things H.G. Wells was trying to do in his novel was show British citizens how they looked through the other end of the telescope. In Wells' time, European nations controlled almost all of Africa and parts of Asia. The British dominated the people in their colonies as the Martians dominated the Earthmen in the novel and felt justified in doing so as the Martians did. Think about it -- why else would Wells focus the entire severity of the invasion on England? The second part of the book is even entitled "The Earth Under the Martians," when, in fact, no other country has been touched. Considering that the film trailer shows multiple nations, including France, the U.S., Great Britain, and Asian and Arabic nations that were indistinct to me, it's a pretty safe bet that the film will have the Martian invasion span the entire globe. That just doesn't sit well with me at all. It's a major thing to just arbitrarily change. Maybe Hollywood wanted it to be more action-packed, or something. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Furthermore, setting the film in the 21st century leads to a lot of technology that we humans have at our disposal. In the actual story, the weapons that the Martians have are terrifying, from their towering, tripodal walking machines and "heat-rays" to their equivalent of chemical weaponry. The only weapons that the humans have to fight with are bulky, inaccurate artillery pieces. Isaac Asimov likened this to "an army of men with machine guns battling an army of apes throwing rocks" in an introduction he wrote for the book. If the ratio of weaponry is consistent in this film to the novel, then it would retain the original feel of the novel. Even if, miraculously, that is the case, I doubt the ending will be the same. In the novel, the Martian's defeat is not through anything man does, but rather through what our "microscopic allies," as H.G. Wells put it, do. The Martians die from our germs, because they have no putrefactive bacteria on their planet and, thusly, no immune system to counteract them. Wells avoids the ridiculous nature of a victory of the rock-throwing apes over the gun-toting humans in this way, by adding in a sort of invisible comrade of Mankind that had been helping unnoticed since the Martians landed. Call it a deus ex machina if you want, but I find it to be the perfect ironic way to end the book. I will place money on the table right now that this is not how the Martians are defeated in the film. Tom Cruise will likely hop into a military jet and go on a joy-ride of alien-smashing. It's really kind of annoying.

I guess I'm only annoyed this much because I grew up reading H.G. Wells. His books still rank among my favorite science fiction novels, even though the scientific theories in them have mostly been proven wrong.Put simply, it is because I enjoyed reading [u]The War of the Worlds</u> so much that it irks me to find that Hollywood is aiming to bastardize it. Like I said earlier, I'm not surprised; rather, I'm simply disappointed. But who knows? I could be completely wrong in my predictions. I'll certainly go and see it before making any final judgements, but I do feel strongly enough for my predictions to have gone off on that bit of a tirade above (hey, I'm bored out of my mind because I've been sick all weekend!). Sorry if it was a bit rant-and-rave. For all I know, this version of the story could be equivalent to Orson Welles' modernization in 1938 that sent hundreds of people fleeing for their lives due to the story's realism. If such is the case, I'll gladly eat my hat. As it stands, however, I'm not holding my breath. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinyted.gif...

Yup.

[Usurper]

The aliens simply HAVE to die by human diseases or it isn't War of the Worlds anymore at all. That's probably the only thing they can't change and still claim some resemblence to the original work. I'd be very surprised if they messed with that.

[GodBlitZor]

^Explained what I meant. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

[Karthik]

The entire globe thingy sound very "Independence Day"!

[Marcos_Edson]

Karthik said:
The entire globe thingy sound very "Independence Day"!



Actually, "Independence Day" sounds very like a rip off of the 1950's "War of the Worlds" movie: aliens all over the planet, ships protected by a force field that can resist a nuclear warhead, a virus (ok, it's a computer one...) defeats them...

[Talos]

Karthik said:
The entire globe thingy sound very "Independence Day"!



Thats actually the reason why Steven Spielberg didn't start the production on the wotw earlier, since it would have looked like he was jumping on the "alien-invasion-train". He stated that somewhere, dunno where though.

Cool fact: The Spielberg movie will feature the mars leaves just like in the novel! Did anyone knew that?

EDIT: hmmm.. one could assume that it would feature the red weed if you look closer at the teaser posters http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

Pic:
http://home.arcor.de/berni2k1/dnf/wotw1.jpg