Yes, there's a "rival" production of The War of the Worlds, apparently shot in both Seattle and the UK. I saw it on DVD, for less than nine bucks, at the local Wally-World. I'll be picking it up. I have to honest: The trailer displays some questionable production values--the budget is around $20 million. But, hey, for nine bucks, I'll buy it.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/quicktime/wowhires.mov

http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html

Uh-huh. I bought. The movie . . . well, I never thought that I'd watch something that would make Plan 9 From Outer Space look like a Kurosawa Akira film.

Questionable production values? Amateurish, at best. Sloppy CGI, the acting is bad; the Martians look cartoonish, yet their war mecha are the dole highlight of the film . . . which isn't saying much. Plus, the movie is nearly three hours long.

I have to say that it's an earnest attempt at making a faithful adaptation of HG Wells' novel . . . but it's now fodder for Mystery Science Theater 3000 . . . .

Is it definately the Pendragon one you have? There are three War Of The Worlds films this summer.

I've had my eye on it for a while. Sadly, it does indeed look really poor. I was hoping it would be a lot better than it seems to be, as I harbour serious reservations about the Spielberg/Cruise film.

Sounds like it might have gone straight to DVD then, they had said it might. I'll still buy it, if I ever find it, for the novelty and curiousity value it holds.

The original War of the Worlds movie in 1953 is still one of my favorites. I watch it everytime it is on tv.
I have seen prevues of the Tom Cruise/Spielberg version and I think I will pass. It seems to be just another special effects blow up everything in sight mass confusion drill.

When will hollywood learn that having a big name star doesn't automatically mean it will be a quality film?

It's because they have learned that a movie doesn't have to be a quality film in order for it to make a huge load of money. :wink:

That, the Tom Cruise vehicle--and the third one on PBS?

Well, that is sad. I was really looking forward to different versions of the same story. Like a song done by different bands.

We could have several more versions:
Will SMith version
Quentin Tarrantino version.
Disney version (the young Martian's mother is killed in a saucer fire)
War of the Worlds - the musical

I saw the previews tonight for the new "War of the Worlds" film, and the first thing I said was, "Looks like just another destruction movie." Lots of buildings collapsing, things blowing up--you're probably right. What a disappointment, I had hopes, but we'll see. Otoh, I thought the new Pink Panther might be disappointing, but it looks funny (ok non-scifi movie). :P

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

Very disappointing.

Wow, the intelligent, thoughtful debaters of BABB have really gone all-out to judge this particular book by its cover!

Has no one noticed how often a preview has little to do with the actual movie it is promoting? I just dug-out my DVD of the 1953 version and watched its trailer: It's a destructo-fest, full of near-hysterical hyperbolic narration. The trailer for Casablanca is incredibly cheesy, with none of the witty dialogue or emotion that makes it such a classic. In more recent times, the teaser for The Incredibles reflects none of the visual exhuberance, and little of the fun or the family character issues that are at its heart. Heck, in the winter of '76-'77, I saw a preview for yet another cheap sci-fi flick called Star Wars, and was totally unimpressed (within a year, I'd seen it more than 20 times). On the flip side of the coin are countless previews that make god-awful movies look great (A.I., anyone? The Phantom Menace?).

The whole purpose of a preview is to generate interest within a target audience. For a big-budget movie, the studios have an understandable interest in getting their [huge] investment back, so they will accentuate the wizz-bang aspects aspects to draw in as large a crowd as possible. Adaptations of Jane Austin novels cost 1/20th as much to make, so the studios can afford to market them to much smaller target groups, using wit and romance as key selling points.

What strikes me about the current WotW previews is not the action (which actually makes up a very small (albeit spectacular) fraction of each trailer I've seen), but rather how much it seems to capture the feel of the H.G. Wells novel. Remember that the central characters in the book are basically nobodies - common citizens who are observers caught-up in initially mysterious, but ultimately enormous events. Both the 1938 radio play and (in particular) the 1953 movie deviate from this by making the central character someone to whom others refer for knowledge and guidance. From all I have seen, the Tom Cruise character is Joe Blow, who is simply trying to understand what's going on, and get those he cares about to safety. In this, it seems, Spielberg is closer to the source material than the other adaptations.

It may be that this approach doesn't work, dramatically, or is muddied by compromise with the standard cliches of action movies. In other words, it might suck, or it might rock, or it might miss its full potential by landing somewhere in between; but my enthusiasm or disappointment will be based upon the finished product, not on a studio hype-clip that may or may not have been targetted at me in the first place.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

What really got me was the fact that (at least in the preview), the movie catches the panic of the populace perfectly. No heroes here. Just an evacuation. It has potential.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Lol, I had a feeling someone would say that! You're right, but sometimes the trailers show the best parts of a movie, especially with comedies. I've been sucked in before by trailers, and I'm sure it will happen again. Case in point: "The Day After Tomorrow," my #1 worst movie pic of 2004. It just looks to me like it will be the same over-done destruction, but I'll give it a chance anyway. The original War of the Worlds, which I have on tape, has an endearing cheesiness and sign 'o the times feel to it, plus what I thought was pretty good FX for that time; but you also are not constantly barraged with huge, explosive action as I felt with Revenge of the Sith last night...you can watch only so many building collapse, you know? I don't know, we'll see...maybe it will have more story to it. :-k

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

Oh, I was going to add, the War of the Worlds TV movie shown in the 70's...Spielberg may be trying to do something more like that, which was about the average citizens' experiences. At least, as a kid, that movie had an effect on me.

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

I don't understand what you are expecting. I mean the title is War of the Worlds, that doesn't make me think the worlds are going to whip out a game of chess, it makes me believe that they are probably going to try to destroy each other.

__________________
www.csphysmath.com
BAUT Team Stats

Lol! I don't know, whip out a game of Scrabble and see how they argue over the dictionary, things could get violent.

Seriously, think of all the best war movies: do they have 2 hours of constant killing of each other without any good story or character development? No, they don't. One of my favorite war movies is "Das Boot," and most of that is in the sub and is just a lot of tension. So, I call "destruction movies" as those that are just weak in plot, character development, story interest and lots and lots of collapsing buildings. If one likes watching 2 or so hours of a movie where the most interesting thing is a ship sailing down a New York street with wolves aboard, then fine. I'm hoping that this new one isn't that kind of movie. We'll see.

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

I get what you mean, I just found it funny that people were criticizing this particular movie for having lots of destruction. Sorry, I've never seen Das Boot and don't remind me about that movie that we don't speak of.

__________________
www.csphysmath.com
BAUT Team Stats

Funny - I never explained why I have these reservations. Aren't you judging my views by their cover? Long before any preview clips or trailers were made, I had these reservations.

Here's the other War of the Worlds film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449040/

This one is an American update, filmed in Southern California.

Actually, my intent was to show how that comment seemed to be the pebble that started an avalanch of distain. Sorry for the confusion.

I know what you mean; I have "serious reservations" about Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. I am also well aware that Spielberg is capable of producing dreck; but my point stands that I won't be letting pre-release hype sway my decision whether to see movies or not.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery