the WAR OF THE WORLDS are just about to begin

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#61 Post by Eric W. »

MarkB wrote:
I don't understand people who seem to be rooting for this to fail creatively as well as financially.
This statement doesn't make sense. How can people root for it to fail creatively or not? It's either well made and well executed when it hits the screens or it isn't.

The only thing we can root for is financial success or failure. After seeing it, I'm rooting for it to fail financially to really send a big message to Hollywood.
That seems rather hypocritical, especially when one complains in the same breath about the "crap" Hollywood is always producing.

Mark
I'm rooting for bad films to do badly. I always have, and I always will. On the other hand, I always root for good films to do very well.

The only way Hollywood gets the message is like so many other venues: When you vote with your wallet.

But there's a cycle that's been happening for years that people, by large, are finally becoming privy to. It goes something like this:
"Go to movie theater, get ripped off, deal with rude people, cellphones, brats, see a polished turd, repeat."


People are getting more into home theater setups, even humble ones, vs. facing the above cycle and the 19 weekends in a row of steady decline at the box office continue to tell the tale.

When you combine a lackluster product with increasing prices at the theater, it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why theaters are really starting to feel some serious heat and the box office numbers continue their steady decline.

Frankly, it's about time!
MarkB wrote:
I don't understand people who seem to be rooting for this to fail creatively as well as financially. That seems rather hypocritical, especially when one complains in the same breath about the "crap" Hollywood is always producing.

Mark
Your confusion stems from your misinterpretation and deliberate spin job, as consequence. Hopefully I'm clearing that up for you right now.

WOTW 2005 can be added to that list of crap.

I, for one, never "root" for a film to do badly, but I wasn't impressed with this polished turd and apparently a lot of other people aren't, either.

You'll be seeing more in the coming weeks when the fallout from this takes place and people realize just what a joke this thing is, especially considering the names attached to it.



I was just reading in the paper again yet again today the continued concerns about overall box office decline and how this film already is not delivering the kind of pay dirt they were hoping for.

As you say, this movie will probably be "the biggest one of the summer" but let me tell you: That's not saying much these days and the numbers are going to reflect that. And if this is the best we're going to see this summer, then it truly is one of the worst summers for films I've seen in quite some time. (Although I have to give some credit to the escapist fun that was Mr. and Mrs. Smith. ;) )

In fact, they said "Were it not for the FLUKE hit that Mel Gibson's "Passionof Christ" film, bringing out lots of people that usually don't go to the theaters, this problem really goes back a lot further."

The theaters are suffering because of the overall dreck Hollywood continues to crank out, and polished turds like WOTW just continue to propogate that cycle.

To make up the loss, the theaters had to start airing commercials like we see on TV and raise prices to outright "gouge" status. God forbid you want to eat or drink something as well.

In a way, the theaters are victims as well. It's a vicious cycle that starts and ends in Hollywood.

Vote with your wallets, people!


I, for one, am encouraged that people are becoming less forgiving and more discerning, especially when they go to the theater and sit through a bunch of commercials, garbage, and get ripped off. It's about time!

It's well documented that Spielberg and Cruise had a narrow schedule from which to join forces and rush this thing together. And that's exactly what they did. This movie screams "rush job" in as large and extravagant a manner as only a George Lucas or a Steven Spielberg would be allowed to get away with.

Aside from some very impressive visuals on occasions, the writing couldn't scream rush job more obviously, to me.

There are so many logic holes in this thing that it really had me laughing in the theater several times, out loud.

To say that the characters in this were "cardboard cutouts" would be an understatement. Cruise's "character" is just downright unplausible and he literally changes on a dime from "selfish bastard" to "awesome, caring father" at the snap of the fingers. It "only" takes the threat of outright world annihilation to make this happen, right? :lol:

Sad to say, but ID4, for all its flaws, was more fully developed and coherent than this thing was at times. At least ID4 had some real characters with some track of development that made a modicum of sense.

And, unlike this, ID4 never tried to take itself too seriously and it delivered on what it promised. WOTW does not and it should have.

I really wish they'd taken some more time, serious time, to do this thing RIGHT. Several more months, at least.

So, this is yet another film I can look back on now and wonder about "what could have been."

It certainly doesn't inspire much confidence in me to see what Spielberg does with Transformers next year, either. That's something that's very personal and dear to me, after 20 years since the last movie.

WOTW 2005 is a big, polished turd. End of story.
Last edited by Eric W. on Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#62 Post by AndyDursin »

But there's a cycle that's been happening for years that people, by large, are finally becoming privy to. It goes something like this:
"Go to movie theater, get ripped off, deal with rude people, cellphones, brats, see a polished turd, repeat."
When I saw the movie the other night, some woman's cell phone went off right near the end, saying "GRANDMA! PICK UP! GRANDMA! PICK UP! GRANDMA PICK UP!"

Needless to say people were annoyed -- but the best part was when the credits rolled, the lights came on, and ALL the people sitting around this woman got up and looked at her...and then started yelling "GRANDMA! PICK UP! GRANDMA PICK UP!" I think MAYBE she got the message by that point :) (Of course, it's entirely possible she doesn't know how to use the cell phone...which also brings with it the question of why she has one to begin with).

Eric you make some good points, but I think MarkB didn't care for the movie either.

As far as the issue of cost goes, I have to admit -- even in Rhode Island it's $9.75 for a ticket (I pick up my tickets through AAA, so they're roughly $6.25 per ticket). That's OBSCENE when you consider you'll be able to buy the DVD of that same film in a couple of months for just a little bit more. Factor in having a family for some people and the movies are an expense that just aren't worth it...never mind concession stand prices!

We're nearing a crossroads in terms of how our entertainment is delivered to us. The multiplex HAS to become a better deal or else it will continue to slump. One theory I have is lowering ticket prices by offering a "multi use pass" -- like spend $50 get into 5 movies over the next 6 months or something like that....I can't see them changing the DVD market (they make too much money off it), so doing something to encourage people to go back to the theater would help.

Of course, it may just be making better movies as well! :)

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#63 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:
When I saw the movie the other night, some woman's cell phone went off right near the end, saying "GRANDMA! PICK UP! GRANDMA! PICK UP! GRANDMA PICK UP!"
I know they've tried this in select parts of California, but I really think some legislation should be passed that makes mandatory an outright dampening field of some sort that makes all cellphones inoperable in any place like a theater, concert hall, church (sad but true), and so on. It really needs to be stopped and put down, because there's just too many selfish and inconsiderate people out there that simply don't give a damn.

Needless to say people were annoyed -- but the best part was when the credits rolled, the lights came on, and ALL the people sitting around this woman got up and looked at her...and then started yelling "GRANDMA! PICK UP! GRANDMA PICK UP!"
Great! Good for them! :lol:
I think MAYBE she got the message by that point :) (Of course, it's entirely possible she doesn't know how to use the cell phone...which also brings with it the question of why she has one to begin with).
I'm still trying to figure out why I see 5th graders en masse with their own cellphones. :roll:

As far as the issue of cost goes, I have to admit -- even in Rhode Island it's $9.75 for a ticket (I pick up my tickets through AAA, so they're roughly $6.25 per ticket). That's OBSCENE when you consider you'll be able to buy the DVD of that same film in a couple of months for just a little bit more. Factor in having a family for some people and the movies are an expense that just aren't worth it...never mind concession stand prices!
The last movie that I went to see in the theater where I walked out and felt like I'd seen something special and got my money's worth?: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

I barely ever go to the theater anymore myself and the savings has been phenomenal. I've been able to invest in a fairly nice home theater setup by now that, frankly, beats out just about movie theater, huge screen notwithstanding, of course. ;)



We're nearing a crossroads in terms of how our entertainment is delivered to us. The multiplex HAS to become a better deal or else it will continue to slump. One theory I have is lowering ticket prices by offering a "multi use pass" -- like spend $50 get into 5 movies over the next 6 months or something like that....I can't see them changing the DVD market (they make too much money off it), so doing something to encourage people to go back to the theater would help.
The other thing I'm hearing more about is a new kind of PPV system that allows first run films that come out in the theater to also come out AT THE SAME TIME on a special PPV system that you pay x amount of dollars for to view the movie at home.

I think if THAT system happens, and the price is reasonable (even $7 a pop)...the theaters are going to be really feeling the pain.

Of course, it may just be making better movies as well! :)
Make the good movies, and they shall come... ;)
Last edited by Eric W. on Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarkB
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:11 am

#64 Post by MarkB »

Eric, what bothers me is the way people on the Internet these days are out to trash a movie before it opens -- heck, often before it even begins filming. This was a prime example. There were people predicting it would suck and bomb at the box office before there was ANY basis for that prediction, especially with the talent involved. I think it's incredibly cynical. Some people think it's cool to say, "It's going to SUCK!" before they have a shred of evidence to back them up.

Personally, I withhold my judgement until I have something to support it.

Heck, somebody on this board (sorry, I forgot who) was so eager to gloat over a bad review of Spielberg's WOTW that they didn't even bother to notice the review was referring to a completely different movie!

You seem to be delighted that this movie is "a polished turd." (A term that I find rather extreme -- the movie was diappointing, but I couldn't honestly call it outright bad, let alone a "turd." There are far worse films out there deserving of that appellation.) I simply don't understand that mentality. Myself, I'm disappointed. When I go to the theater, I'm always hoping the movie is going to be good. Did you come out of the theater pumping your fist in the air and exulting, "YES, it's just as bad as I hoped it would be!"? Because that's how you come across here.

I agree with many of your other points above, but I don't think a time crunch was the problem with this movie. While it did have a compressed production and post-production period, the script and pre-production had been in the works for years. Most of the logic problems I noticed were obvious and should have been caught on the set, if not worked out before that. So I don't know who to blame there.

Mark

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#65 Post by Eric W. »

MarkB wrote:Eric, what bothers me is the way people on the Internet these days are out to trash a movie before it opens -- heck, often before it even begins filming. This was a prime example. There were people predicting it would suck and bomb at the box office before there was ANY basis for that prediction, especially with the talent involved. I think it's incredibly cynical. Some people think it's cool to say, "It's going to SUCK!" before they have a shred of evidence to back them up.
I totally understand and agree with you on this. If that's the impression I put forth, then I'll apologize, because I certainly try to not put forth judgement on something until I see it.

On the other hand, I do tend to go into things with certain expectations. For example, I'd read enough and seen the trailers on WOTW 2005 that my expectations really weren't that high, but...that's happened to me before and then I come away pleasantly surprised. :)

Sadly, this did not happen here. :(

Heck, somebody on this board (sorry, I forgot who) was so eager to gloat over a bad review of Spielberg's WOTW that they didn't even bother to notice the review was referring to a completely different movie!
:lol:

You seem to be delighted that this movie is "a polished turd." (A term that I find rather extreme -- the movie was diappointing, but I couldn't honestly call it outright bad, let alone a "turd." There are far worse films out there deserving of that appellation.)
Oh yes! Certainly I've seen far worse films, but I think I'll stand by my "polished turd" description. ;)
I simply don't understand that mentality. Myself, I'm disappointed. When I go to the theater, I'm always hoping the movie is going to be good. Did you come out of the theater pumping your fist in the air and exulting, "YES, it's just as bad as I hoped it would be!"? Because that's how you come across here.
:lol:

Ok. No I didn't walk out triumphant about the film being bad. I walked out angry, sad, and disappointed, especially given the caliber of talent behind this thing.

I WANTED this thing to be good. Really. I always go into a movie to make up MY OWN MIND.

I love sci-fi and I've been STARVING for something good and new on that front!


Let me tell you about what happened with me very recently, to set up the context of my mindset going into WOTW 2005:

King Arthur. This thing was TRASHED up and down by tons of people. I hadn't seen in the theater because I simply wasn't compelled and was busy with other things.

On a whim, I finally bought the Director's Cut of the DVD of this film because I'm interested in the subject material and I like the talent that was behind making the film.

I was just so intruiged I finally said "the heck with it" and finally made my move.

Guess what? I loved the thing! I had a ball with it! It wasn't Braveheart or even Gladiator, but I loved the thing! :lol:

So...that's what I was hoping would happen to me when I went to WOTW 2005. Again, sadly, it did not.
I agree with many of your other points above, but I don't think a time crunch was the problem with this movie. While it did have a compressed production and post-production period, the script and pre-production had been in the works for years.
That's pathetic. THIS is the best they could come up with after working on that script for YEARS?! I really wish you hadn't told me that. ;)
Most of the logic problems I noticed were obvious and should have been caught on the set, if not worked out before that. So I don't know who to blame there.

Mark
Plenty of blame to go all around! ;)

MarkB
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:11 am

#66 Post by MarkB »

Thanks for the follow-up, Eric. I think we're more or less on the same page. :D

I guess the main reason I'm disappointed with WOTW is that it's problems were so easy to fix. I think Spielberg's approach works on a conceptual level. There's nothing that the addition or subtraction of a line of dialogue here and there, or the restaging of some action, couldn't have fixed. I think there's a genuinely good movie hidden just below the surface, which is why I feel more let down than if it had been outright bad.

Mark

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#67 Post by Eric W. »

MarkB wrote:Thanks for the follow-up, Eric. I think we're more or less on the same page. :D
:D Sorry for the lengthy posts, but I felt like I needed to clear the air here. :)

I guess the main reason I'm disappointed with WOTW is that it's problems were so easy to fix. I think Spielberg's approach works on a conceptual level. There's nothing that the addition or subtraction of a line of dialogue here and there, or the restaging of some action, couldn't have fixed. I think there's a genuinely good movie hidden just below the surface, which is why I feel more let down than if it had been outright bad.

Mark
100 percent agreed!

Maybe if we're lucky, we'll see Spielberg splurge and give us the "Expanded Director's Cut" on DVD or something like that. :)

Post Reply