The War of the Worlds
discussion
Who else hated the movie?
date
newest »
newest »
I thought it was decent except for the false-feeling "happy ending."
Neither movie is really very true to the book. (If you haven't seen it yet, check out the 50s version with Gene Barry.) But I enjoyed both movies anyway. Each movies is an interesting commentary on the times when it was done, more than on the book itself. I think Wells would have been interested.
There was too much Tom Cruise in it for me, which coincidently is a problem with all of Cruise's films. I don't think there is enough in Well's War of the Worlds to interest Hollywood. There isn't enough sappy sentementalism or needless explosions. The movie industry is more interested in sensationalism and Wells tried to write about unconvential concepts (invisble men, alien attacks etc), but in a rather realistic way.
Joel wrote: "I loved the book, but I never thought it should've ever been adapted (it only works as a book). I think nobody can recreate/adapt anything from the book. This adaptation (the one I'm talking about ..."I totally agree with Joel on this. The movie missed too many of the important plot points. Wells was trying to tell a very different story then the one the movie conveyed. Too many of the vital characters and their interactions were missing.
I may be eviscerated for this opinion, but I liked the movie. I don't think a true-to-the-novel adaptation of The War of the Worlds would really work, so I appreciated how that film dealt with the subject matter. Visually, it was stunning.
My one major complaint was the suggestion that the Martians had been planning the invasion for over millennia; that's just stupid.
For what it's worth, I just listened to Orson Welles' radio adaptation, and it is fantastic, definitely more frightening than the movie.
My one major complaint was the suggestion that the Martians had been planning the invasion for over millennia; that's just stupid.
For what it's worth, I just listened to Orson Welles' radio adaptation, and it is fantastic, definitely more frightening than the movie.
Spielberg's movie took the basic plot points from the book, but it wasn't about the same thing. The book looked at how fragile human life can be. Wells compared us to ants and looked at things like Materialism and Social Darwinism. Spielberg focused on family and special obligations to children. This is why in the movie our main character has a family, which he didn't in the book, and his children accompany him on his journey instead of taking it alone. It may have been a decent movie on it's own, but I was disappointed in it simply because it was about something completely different than the book.
Wells looked at the human race and society. Spielberg looked at family dynamics. Tom Cruise's need to redeem himself as a deadbeat father took away from the larger philosophical themes I loved the book for. Even though it ends the same with the Martians being defeated by something as simple as bacteria, the point felt somewhat lost in the film.
That's my take on it anyway.
I've read the novel a couple of times, as Wells is one of my favorite authors. The Spielberg flick is good in itself, but not terribly close to the book as an adaptation. To his credit, he stated up front that it would be a reimagining of the book. What he did get right was bringing the tripods to life in spectacular fashion, getting the instant collapse of society and the ensuing panic right, and the demise of the aliens being caused by the simplest organisms, rather than by us. That last bit was a key to the philosophy of the book, giving the humans a little comeuppance.
The Gene Barry version was one of the first movies my dad took us to see. As such, it holds a great deal of sentimental value for me. The only unfortunate thing about that movie is it ended the way many of them did in those days, i.e., Them, Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. Lots of stock footage of the Army fighting the enemy. The scene at the end, however, is very good for a 1954 film as were the sound effects.
Poop. Both hack attempts. Poop.A big budget effects version with *real* actors that followed the book religiously would be award winning.
Cruise...Dakota Fanzine....Speigelnegger.........
Poop.
I refuse to watch anything with Tom Cruise or Matt Damon in it unless they are killed off immediately and gruesomely at the very beginning of the movie.
One of the worst movies ever. In fact, Tom Cruise only has 3 good movies and they are in his early career. The rest is just rubbish.
I must have missed all these deeper meanings in the novel that you guys are mentioning. I'll admit though that I try to read most books for their entertainment value rather than to analyze them. Haven't seen the movie.
Chris wrote: "I must have missed all these deeper meanings in the novel that you guys are mentioning. I'll admit though that I try to read most books for their entertainment value rather than to analyze them. H..."
It's mainly about the devolution of society and a satire of it. It's really what makes WotW my favorite Wells book.
Chris wrote: "I must have missed all these deeper meanings in the novel that you guys are mentioning. I'll admit though that I try to read most books for their entertainment value rather than to analyze them. H..."
Ignore the idea of a deeper meaning. More important is that HG Wells War of the Worlds is a far better story than any of the subsequent attempts. Especially the most recent film which felt like it took HG Wells work, got rid of anything original or interesting and shat out something that Hollywood thought was digestible for the masses.
I didn't like the film. I found two interesting interpretations and they are Jeff Wayne's 1978 musical, and Orson Welles famous 1933 radio play, which I believe is the best adaptation of the book to date and recommend to all fans of the novel.
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
What are your thoughts?