Spielberg & Cruise Team Up Again for "War of the Worlds"
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by paratize
As much as I love Spielberg and Cruise (and I really do), I think the whole alien-invasion thing has really been done over one too many times already, don't you?
Maybe if they were going to set the story in H.G. Wells' time (Victorian England) then it might give the film an interesting twist, but since they aren't doing that I can't see how they can make it into something new and different.
As much as I love Spielberg and Cruise (and I really do), I think the whole alien-invasion thing has really been done over one too many times already, don't you?
Maybe if they were going to set the story in H.G. Wells' time (Victorian England) then it might give the film an interesting twist, but since they aren't doing that I can't see how they can make it into something new and different.
New and different doesn't normally mean you can't have a great great film.
Example, Cops and Robbers film, the story has been done to death, but how MICHAEL MANN TURNED HEAT WITH PACINO AND DE NIRO and everything else he did with the film, the slick touches of character, tension, action, make you realise, the execution of the film with a few things changed, still lead to a great film.
Cape Fear-remake with a sense of evil-directors touch.
John Carpenters The Thing, he just changed the thing to be anybody, simple change, being apart of great execution.
Some people menstion Independence Day, the one scene in that film in New York, empire state building etc, really was the highlight, it didin't really go fullblast, that film just came out earlier, but I don't think it really went full throttle in its execution, turned into Will Smith's wise cracks later.
Last edited by SeanValen; 12-04-04 at 07:35 PM.
#127
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Independence Day is the reason why i dont like the idea of the movie being in a modern setting...really really sort of "been there done that" kind of thing.
Plus, and i know i have said this before, I really enjoyed the book because of the sense that defeating the martians was totally impossible (sort of like trying to destroy a tank by throwing rocks at it)
I never got the "oh boy, we're screwed" feeling from either ID4 or the 1950's version because in those films we had weapons that could take out the invaders but we just couldnt use them properly.
The ending sorta has more imapct when you don't have a supply of laser-guided heat seeking missles to volley at a martian ship.
Hopefully the other movie being made goes for the Victorian setting.
Plus, and i know i have said this before, I really enjoyed the book because of the sense that defeating the martians was totally impossible (sort of like trying to destroy a tank by throwing rocks at it)
I never got the "oh boy, we're screwed" feeling from either ID4 or the 1950's version because in those films we had weapons that could take out the invaders but we just couldnt use them properly.
The ending sorta has more imapct when you don't have a supply of laser-guided heat seeking missles to volley at a martian ship.
Hopefully the other movie being made goes for the Victorian setting.
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A teaser trailer will debut on the official site Monday Morning ( 10 of dec.)
Pretty quick! I don't think we can expect to see a lot of footage in that trailer, how much can they have filmed!
Pretty quick! I don't think we can expect to see a lot of footage in that trailer, how much can they have filmed!
#129
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mdc3000
Both of these guys have been doing great work lately and hopefully they can put an interesting spin on a classic story.
'If if ain't broke, don't fix it'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#130
Moderator
Originally Posted by Fartface
You're joking right? Spillberg has done anything since 'Schindler's List' and Cruise since 'Rain Man'. Hardly what I would call a good track record.
Looking forward to the teaser.
#131
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fryinpan1
Paramount confirms ‘War’ budget
I’ve been saying it all along: Steven Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds” will not be the “most expensive movie” of all time as the majority of the press covering the film have baldly stated (see our August 18 archived news for confirmation of my nah, nah told you so attitude.) Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article about the film’s Bayonne production claiming the film would cost $200 million (The Times apparently bought into rumors that everyone else had, rumors originated in a less-than-reliable UK press source.)
Today, the Times corrected their error (the first mainstream source to break the line of incorrect reportage since the announcement of the film), and here’s confirmation of the fact that “The War of the Worlds” will not be the “most expensive movie” ever: a Paramount spokesperson corrected the error by giving the correct figure of the film’s budget, $128 million, a far cry from being a film that will topple all records of unnecessary expenditures in Hollywood history.
The thing that’s always bothered me about the rumors of the film’s “spare no expense” approach (some sources actually quoted this “spare no expense” tripe to Spielberg personally!) is the fact that Steven Spielberg has been one of the most fiscally responsible filmmakers working (with four very notable exceptions). You would think the mainstream press could research their stories out of respect for this fact alone instead of trying to make headlines with false claims of out-sized budgets.
Source: The New York Times
I’ve been saying it all along: Steven Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds” will not be the “most expensive movie” of all time as the majority of the press covering the film have baldly stated (see our August 18 archived news for confirmation of my nah, nah told you so attitude.) Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article about the film’s Bayonne production claiming the film would cost $200 million (The Times apparently bought into rumors that everyone else had, rumors originated in a less-than-reliable UK press source.)
Today, the Times corrected their error (the first mainstream source to break the line of incorrect reportage since the announcement of the film), and here’s confirmation of the fact that “The War of the Worlds” will not be the “most expensive movie” ever: a Paramount spokesperson corrected the error by giving the correct figure of the film’s budget, $128 million, a far cry from being a film that will topple all records of unnecessary expenditures in Hollywood history.
The thing that’s always bothered me about the rumors of the film’s “spare no expense” approach (some sources actually quoted this “spare no expense” tripe to Spielberg personally!) is the fact that Steven Spielberg has been one of the most fiscally responsible filmmakers working (with four very notable exceptions). You would think the mainstream press could research their stories out of respect for this fact alone instead of trying to make headlines with false claims of out-sized budgets.
Source: The New York Times
#132
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: howell nj
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
War of the world trailor is up....
not much though.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...lds/large.html
not much though.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...lds/large.html