War of the Worlds Set in 1900s Trailer Up

And we’ve got tripods! The trailer’s pretty short and the effects aren’t exactly the highest quality, but it still looks pretty danged cool to me.

That shot of Big Ben being taken out was pretty dope. Looks like a promising movie.

Looks like this year’s Armagedon!

Jump back. Are there TWO of these coming out? I thought I saw a trailer for one of these starring Cruise set in modern day.

Yes. There are two.

There’s the Spielberg/Cruise/Robbins version, and this one, with nobody I’ve heard of. This one claims authenticity, which would be interesting, but based on that trailer it has “straight to video” written all over it. No-name cast, very poor special effects (the flame effect, and the terribly unconvincing shot of Big Ben) and a dismal trailer - far too much of a focus on the singer, stock documentary footage, and a few seconds of random, out-of-order cuts.

Of course, maybe Spielberg’s version will be worse, but at least they know how to stir a little interest.

Yes, there are two “War of the Worlds” movies this year. The one set in the same time period as the book, and the Spielberg / Cruise one.

Altho the latter is modern day, it seems it will incorporate elements in the book that (never? rarely?) shown up in WoW movies (red vines for ecxample)

Brian

The “Not Tom Cruise” version has been in production for a while. It started just before 9/11 and after that, the producers wondered about even making the film. They went ahead with it but did it under a different title to keep it a secret. I guess they thought it may upset people. Anyway, Speilberg and company decided to make their, not knowing this other one was being made. I think the other production is now counting a little accidental crossplugging from the big hollywood version.

OH and I can’t get the trailer to play.

Goddamnit – why didn’t Spielberg set his movie in 1900? He’s got the clout and connections to do what he wants; of course, he also knows dick about science fiction (remember “Amazing Stories”?).

There’s a trailer up for the Spielberg version over at IMDb.

I dread Spielberg’s take. I am certain his film will be dominated by screaming, imperiled children (as are most of Spielberg’s films). And sure enough, in viewing the IMDb entry for Spielberg’s movie I see that he has cast Dakota Fanning as his screaming, imperiled child du jour.

I hope Spielberg proves me wrong.

If not, I hope the Hines version turns out well.

I would say Close Encounters and A.I. resoundingly refute your Amazing Stories “argument” (which was more fantasy than sci-fi anyway, and which he mostly produced, not wrote and directed)

Here’s a bit more on the Hines version of the film.

huh. I had no idea that there are going to be two of these movies. This one sounds interesting but the effects are just horrible. If you can’t do them right, don’t do them at all.

Spielberg’s version looks decent but I am so tired of Dakota Fanning. Give this girl a rest.

Are either of these behind the Latin phrase (“omnium finis imminet”) that has been popping up on television lately?

No

From ArchiveGuy’s link:

Excellent. I shall try to find it (if it does show here) and report back with my review.

I don’t know if we’re offering opinions here, but the trailer for the turn of the century version looks absolutely horrible!

I’ve seen fanfic films with better effects.

So, did anyone else crack up laughing at the shot of Big Ben being hit?

I dunno. They look pretty good considering the budget of that version.

Anyway, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the special effects, as long as the filmmakers do a good job telling a story. Give me good dialogue, a well-constructed plot and slowly-building tension over FX any day.

The shot of Big Ben being cut down reminded me eerily of Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion destruction of the Washington Monument for Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers.

I’m not sure if that’s spectacularly cool or just sad.

:smiley:

Amen! Too many movies look pretty, but have no substance to them.