the WAR OF THE WORLDS are just about to begin
the WAR OF THE WORLDS are just about to begin
a site has been created.. only the official art so far, but looks good.. though the tagline is weak... "They're already here".. what is that going to mean? Hopefully not that the aliens are already among us, hidden in human form... does anybody remember that awful TV-series? I want big cranky, rusty tripods shooting and stomping everything in their path... not a body-snatchers rip off! Besides, isn't another remake of BODY SNATCHERS in the works???
okok, I know I'm probably the only one who liked LXG... I admit that it had many flaws, but in the audio commentary the makers for a change were honest about that, admit their mistakes and all that and were trying to make a superior sequel... the Second Book of LXG was in fact the WAR OF THE WORLDS story and they really wanted to do that (as the story of the first book was not allowed to be transferred to the screen due legal problems with the character of Fu Manchu).. but now with Spielbergs' movie this won't be happening at all anymore... (ok, the mediocre b.o. of LXG may not have warranted a sequel anyway)... but still, I liked LXG's comic apporach to the story and that would have made a great movie.. Tripods stomping through a 19th Century world... battling Mr. Hyde, the invisible Man (who in the book made a pact with the truly disgusting Martians) and Dr. Moreau thrown into the mix...
now we have a strange cast in the present time and maybe even some boring body-snatcher rip-off... all in all ending up as an ID4-version nobody needs probably...
still, an action-horror-score by John Williams makes at least the summer-scores look great already...
now we have a strange cast in the present time and maybe even some boring body-snatcher rip-off... all in all ending up as an ID4-version nobody needs probably...
still, an action-horror-score by John Williams makes at least the summer-scores look great already...
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34273
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Here's a pic of Dakota Fanning running around:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=even ... &t=&prev=2
At least they're doing a lot of outdoor, more rural location shooting (upstate NY, Shenandoah Valley in Va., etc.), so it sounds like it might avoid the metropolitan focal point of ID4 and other films. (Though they've also been to Brooklyn and Newark, NJ -- but at least they're out of L.A.).
The problem this movie is of course going to have is that we've seen it all before. From the '50s WAR to the '90s ID4, this is one genre that has been pretty well covered over the years, and now we're getting another version. I agree the "they're already here" line has me concerned -- if this is a BODY SNATCHERS-like twist, it's going to be pretty sad. My big hope for the movie is that it has the scale of the original tale and some damn fine FX work, not to mention a sweet Williams score. But this is modern Spielberg, not the "old Spielberg," and I'm not at all convinced this project is as sure a thing as it might have been 25 years or so.
Still, I have more hopes for WAR than KING KONG -- you know exactly what you're going to get before you go into the theater (does anyone WANT yet another version of "King Kong"?). You know what Howard Shore's music is going to sound like (let me guess -- low-register, blaring "Two Towers"-like cues?), you have an idea how Kong will look like CGI or whatever Peter Jackson is going to do (there are only so many ways a giant ape will look). It's a movie that had a sequel, that was remade, that had a sequel of its own, that spawned an entire series of giant monster imitators around the world for decades....I just don't get it. It's a pre-fab blockbuster, and I'd much rather see something ORIGINAL being undertaken than just another remake. Yet its success will convince everyone that Peter Jackson has just reinvented the wheel
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=even ... &t=&prev=2
At least they're doing a lot of outdoor, more rural location shooting (upstate NY, Shenandoah Valley in Va., etc.), so it sounds like it might avoid the metropolitan focal point of ID4 and other films. (Though they've also been to Brooklyn and Newark, NJ -- but at least they're out of L.A.).
The problem this movie is of course going to have is that we've seen it all before. From the '50s WAR to the '90s ID4, this is one genre that has been pretty well covered over the years, and now we're getting another version. I agree the "they're already here" line has me concerned -- if this is a BODY SNATCHERS-like twist, it's going to be pretty sad. My big hope for the movie is that it has the scale of the original tale and some damn fine FX work, not to mention a sweet Williams score. But this is modern Spielberg, not the "old Spielberg," and I'm not at all convinced this project is as sure a thing as it might have been 25 years or so.
Still, I have more hopes for WAR than KING KONG -- you know exactly what you're going to get before you go into the theater (does anyone WANT yet another version of "King Kong"?). You know what Howard Shore's music is going to sound like (let me guess -- low-register, blaring "Two Towers"-like cues?), you have an idea how Kong will look like CGI or whatever Peter Jackson is going to do (there are only so many ways a giant ape will look). It's a movie that had a sequel, that was remade, that had a sequel of its own, that spawned an entire series of giant monster imitators around the world for decades....I just don't get it. It's a pre-fab blockbuster, and I'd much rather see something ORIGINAL being undertaken than just another remake. Yet its success will convince everyone that Peter Jackson has just reinvented the wheel
yeah... as nice as some artwork for KING KONG looks, it is still a giant ape running around. How can anyone seriously get excited about that? I recently watched the original KING KONG again and I have to say, that besides the movie being horribly repetitive (Kong fights a t.Rex, Kong fights a Triceratops, Kong fights Pterarodon, Kong fights a giant snake... yawn)... it must still have been on of the most frightening movies at that time and long after it. The movie is really graphic, a constant assault on your sense and not much story after all. I can't see any love story in it between the ape and the scream queen of the century (what serious actress is attracted to such a role nowadays?)... hm, hasn't much changed I guess in the last 70 years...
still, if they keep the action and the horror it can be a fun, exciting movie, but if they seriously want to recreate the "love" story.... I dunno.. I mean we had that in the 70ies version and that movie was boring beyond belief. And again, I don't see any "Love"-story at all in the original... so what can we expect? Good looking photography, great FX, but a story that is hardly involving... but if they try to recreate the pure horror of the original, with all those evil dinosaurs (and the cut scene of the insects the canyons) then this could become a great horror movie and maybe something different.
And anyone who expects Shore to write a Max-Steiner-score... I bet on what Andy said...
what else is by the way coming up next year? Oh well, Bay's new masterpiece THE ISLAND, scored by ubertalent Steve Jablonsky...
still, if they keep the action and the horror it can be a fun, exciting movie, but if they seriously want to recreate the "love" story.... I dunno.. I mean we had that in the 70ies version and that movie was boring beyond belief. And again, I don't see any "Love"-story at all in the original... so what can we expect? Good looking photography, great FX, but a story that is hardly involving... but if they try to recreate the pure horror of the original, with all those evil dinosaurs (and the cut scene of the insects the canyons) then this could become a great horror movie and maybe something different.
And anyone who expects Shore to write a Max-Steiner-score... I bet on what Andy said...
what else is by the way coming up next year? Oh well, Bay's new masterpiece THE ISLAND, scored by ubertalent Steve Jablonsky...
It seems like it's going to take place in many areas outside of NYC, like how the books takes place in a bunch of areas around and right by London. Thematically, it would be pretty cool if they're consistent with that approach.
King Kong can potentially be amazing, though I doubt I'll enjoy it as much as I do the original. There's a really visceral violence to those claymation fights that I just KNOW they won't be able to put in a big budget film made today.
The T-Rex fight, as an example, Kong wins that fight because after the T-Rex bites on his hand, Kong, while visibly in pain, jams his other hand into the T-Rex's mouth and then literally tears his jaw and head apart. Then you see the T-Rex struggle and limp around bleeding with a ripped apart head before collapsing.
For the time it was insanely ambitious and, even today, choreography that has that much of a realistically brutal edge to it rarely makes it into a major film. It will be interesting to see if Peter Jackson keeps this level of violence intact, though I don't think it would be possible to do without it being laughable given the current quality of CGI they would invariably have to use (not that I hate CGI, but for a situation like that it would just look bad no matter what). I really doubt we'll see Kong crushing people under his feet, eating villagers, etc. unless its done in the campy way seen in the Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange/Charles Grodin remake.
So I agree with romanD completely, at the time of its release King Kong had a little bit of everything, I hope this remake is able to preserve the horror aspects of it accurately.
At worst, it won't be as bad as King Kong Lives with Linda Hamilton.
But this is modern Spielberg, not the "old Spielberg," and I'm not at all convinced this project is as sure a thing as it might have been 25 years or so.
Amen. He still makes really good movies, but sometimes I have trouble believing he's the same person that made Duel and Jaws.
It is a shame how often some huge movie is seen as super original simply because it got popular. I'm not one that hates popular stuff but I do get annoyed sometimes that people act like Fellowship was the first fantasy movie ever made when stuff like Conan the Barbarian, Dragonslayer, etc. have always existed (and much further back masterpieces like Die Nibelungen, all the billions of Faust and Golem movies, etc.).
King Kong can potentially be amazing, though I doubt I'll enjoy it as much as I do the original. There's a really visceral violence to those claymation fights that I just KNOW they won't be able to put in a big budget film made today.
The T-Rex fight, as an example, Kong wins that fight because after the T-Rex bites on his hand, Kong, while visibly in pain, jams his other hand into the T-Rex's mouth and then literally tears his jaw and head apart. Then you see the T-Rex struggle and limp around bleeding with a ripped apart head before collapsing.
For the time it was insanely ambitious and, even today, choreography that has that much of a realistically brutal edge to it rarely makes it into a major film. It will be interesting to see if Peter Jackson keeps this level of violence intact, though I don't think it would be possible to do without it being laughable given the current quality of CGI they would invariably have to use (not that I hate CGI, but for a situation like that it would just look bad no matter what). I really doubt we'll see Kong crushing people under his feet, eating villagers, etc. unless its done in the campy way seen in the Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange/Charles Grodin remake.
So I agree with romanD completely, at the time of its release King Kong had a little bit of everything, I hope this remake is able to preserve the horror aspects of it accurately.
At worst, it won't be as bad as King Kong Lives with Linda Hamilton.
But this is modern Spielberg, not the "old Spielberg," and I'm not at all convinced this project is as sure a thing as it might have been 25 years or so.
Amen. He still makes really good movies, but sometimes I have trouble believing he's the same person that made Duel and Jaws.
It is a shame how often some huge movie is seen as super original simply because it got popular. I'm not one that hates popular stuff but I do get annoyed sometimes that people act like Fellowship was the first fantasy movie ever made when stuff like Conan the Barbarian, Dragonslayer, etc. have always existed (and much further back masterpieces like Die Nibelungen, all the billions of Faust and Golem movies, etc.).
Wait, anyone remember the War of the Worlds tv series? It had the aliens beginning to disguise themselves as humans to infiltrate us ("They're already here"). And the end of the title sequence for it has a shot that's exactly like that official art of the alien hand on the earth. The artwork is almost identical actually.
Coincidence? I wonder if the treatment for this remake is much, much older than we think.
Coincidence? I wonder if the treatment for this remake is much, much older than we think.
yeah.. that TVshow was horrible... did we ever see the aliens in it actually? I just remember the human aliens to melt when they were killed and you could sometimes see a hand melt into the martian hand... and they had the flying spaceships from the 50ies movie... so the TV show was an indirect sequel to that, am I right?
But maybe Spielberg is fooling us all like he did with A BOY's LIFE
I think the only reason why they set the WOTW in the present time is to make the humans more active. In the original story and just given the fact that there wasn't much technolgy 100 years ago all the humans do is fleeing. So, that makes a very passive hero role for Tom Cruise and such, so in the present time they all can fight back much better.
But maybe Spielberg is fooling us all like he did with A BOY's LIFE
I think the only reason why they set the WOTW in the present time is to make the humans more active. In the original story and just given the fact that there wasn't much technolgy 100 years ago all the humans do is fleeing. So, that makes a very passive hero role for Tom Cruise and such, so in the present time they all can fight back much better.
closer examination of the poster artwork shows, that at least they have that red stuff kept... as fas I remember (and what is featured in the LXG book) they aliens come with a red "plant" which grows like S*** everywhere and "turns" the oceans in a solid mass and just starts to covers everything which thick layers of brushes with big thorns... well, that can look cool and maybe is one of the reasons for a 200 million dollar budget. Just having aliens hiding in human form doesn't really sound like it needs such a big budget... so I keep my fingers crossed that the tagline is nonsense...
I like LXG. Unashamedly. You watch that movie and you just see untapped potential all over it and that makes it frustrating, but it has a lot of good things going for it, and I think it's going to have a much better existence on DVD than it ever did in the theaters. Worth checking out! And Trevor Jones, as usual, offered a nice, solid score.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34273
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I also enjoyed LXG. My problem with the movie was that the script could have been so good (and clever!), but it ultimately wasn't as sharp and amusing as it might have been. The American lead was bad, but I liked Peta Wilson's vampiress and the Dr. Jekyll character. Stephen Norrington might be an ******* but he knows how to put a movie together visually. BLADE, the original anyway, rocked pretty hard!I like LXG. Unashamedly. You watch that movie and you just see untapped potential all over it and that makes it frustrating, but it has a lot of good things going for it, and I think it's going to have a much better existence on DVD than it ever did in the theaters. Worth checking out! And Trevor Jones, as usual, offered a nice, solid score.
romanD you're correct. The tv series was meant to be a continuation of the fifties movie. I don't know what to think about the red stuff, the way it's matted around the alien's hand, hopefully it's not a human disguise like in The Arrival (though I really like that movie). I just hope they aren't doing so much with special effects in general that the aliens themselves are shortchanged.
Man I love the original Blade, especially the first half. That's one great looking and sounding movie (not just the music, the sound effects and everything in general I found really impressive). Blade II is fun, and I have trouble comparing the two because their visual styles are so totally different.
I wish I thought of the Blade movies in my earlier post about the violence in King Kong. Blade's a franchise that doesn't shy away from that stuff and at the same time edits it all so perfectly. It's a shame Blade II got more and more ludicrous as it went on because I love the beginning parts, and Ron Pearlman and Snipes are both great to watch as always. Overall I think they share a lot of the strengths of the Terminator movies (regardless of what you think of those overall) in that they don't let you forget that there are characters with super strength and other abilities. They actually use the abilities instead of having cliched plot reasons weaken them (Terminator 2's "I swear I will not kill anyone" excepted).
Blade III I might wait til it's out on video, they were originally going to have that whole "Road Warrior but with Vampires" thing going on but not anymore. Maybe I'll catch a showing in a cheap theater. If R-rated Marvel movies make enough money maybe we'll get to see Deathlok: The Demolisher on the big screen.
Man I love the original Blade, especially the first half. That's one great looking and sounding movie (not just the music, the sound effects and everything in general I found really impressive). Blade II is fun, and I have trouble comparing the two because their visual styles are so totally different.
I wish I thought of the Blade movies in my earlier post about the violence in King Kong. Blade's a franchise that doesn't shy away from that stuff and at the same time edits it all so perfectly. It's a shame Blade II got more and more ludicrous as it went on because I love the beginning parts, and Ron Pearlman and Snipes are both great to watch as always. Overall I think they share a lot of the strengths of the Terminator movies (regardless of what you think of those overall) in that they don't let you forget that there are characters with super strength and other abilities. They actually use the abilities instead of having cliched plot reasons weaken them (Terminator 2's "I swear I will not kill anyone" excepted).
Blade III I might wait til it's out on video, they were originally going to have that whole "Road Warrior but with Vampires" thing going on but not anymore. Maybe I'll catch a showing in a cheap theater. If R-rated Marvel movies make enough money maybe we'll get to see Deathlok: The Demolisher on the big screen.
as I said, the red stuff around the martians hand is kind of a plant, which grows into gigantic proportions and begins to cover the world for the Martians. That can look really cool and you could have Humans trapped between the brushes and all that, though I guess the movie will be PG-13, so there won't be much real harm or danger, at least none they show...