[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Turnsky
hear that "whirring" sound?. that's H.G Wells, Spinning in his grave.

hehe, Dilbert.

[diamondgeezer]

Spielberg and Cruise just made the List™

[Petrarch of the VBB]

First time I clicked on the "View Trailer" link, my machine spontaneously reset, giving me reason to hate the film before I'd even seen any of it.

Second time I actually managed to watch it.

[karajorma]

Did you prefer the reset?

[Corhellion]

Ugh...So it's not EXACTLY like how the invasion was like in the novel...

...Have you read the HP books and seen the Movies? There are differences...but some of them make the story better!

I for one think the Teaser Trailer is awesome! It's exactly what you'd expect from a movie that isn't even half way done.

Just wait and see...

...either that or go watch the PP movie...

[Aggressor_Squad]

so...is tom cruise gonna end up like will smith did on ID4?

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Black?

[Corhellion]

...uh...ok...that'd be one thing that'd really bork the movie over big time...and looking at the trailer we can venture a guess that the martians are pretty much indestructable...cause the only sounds you hear in that big 'battle' sequence is human things being blown up (you can hear a plane crashing near the beginning of that part of the Trailer)

...so I can only hope that Speilberg does the right thing and make the humans suck...

[Lynx]

My guess is that Cruise will be some sort of scientist that develops that bacteria that kills of the  Martians. In the novel it was natural, but maybe they speculate that the audience would feel inadequate if they weren't defeated by human cause or soume bullcrap like that.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Corhellion
Ugh...So it's not EXACTLY like how the invasion was like in the novel...

My problem is not with it being different from the book. My problem is if it is so different from the book as to be a completely different story with no relation to the book.

There are problems inherant with setting the movie in the any time after the victorian age. In the book the Martians were killable. It just took a lot of work or a lot of luck.

What are they going to do when everyone just starts to wonder why we just don't nuke the bastards? Sure you can make it so that they are immune to nuke like the 50's version and ID4 did but then you lose a hell of a lot of what made the book so interesting.

Originally posted by Corhellion
...Have you read the HP books and seen the Movies? There are differences...but some of them make the story better!

Yep I have. I honestly don't mind the 50's movie either. I think it's a pretty good version of the story. My problem with this version is that I really don't see what difference they'll be between this and ID4 seeing as how ID4 was a modern day version of WotW in everything but name.

[Corhellion]

...Here's a reason why the most likely won't nuke them...They're going to be attacking POPULATED AREAS...which is worse...having a bunch of cities being burned to cinders and having roughly half the population from them live...or nuke the cities...killing a bunch of civies and later on finding out that Nukes don't do crap to the martians...

...If you choose B...I hope martians aren't real and I hope you don't control thr government when that time comes...

[Corhellion]

...But it's a movie and therefore anything's possible!

[Flipside]

Didn't stop the in ID4 iirc?

Oh, and Martians aren't real, I promise

I don't mind if the story is different, as long as the name 'H.G.Wells' does not appear on the poster. Because if Mr Spielberg and Co. are trying to convince the next generation that this is a 'true' representation of the book then he is lying to them.

As I've said before, why should I care about stories set in America if America cannot give a **** about stories set in the UK?

It's like 'The Few' the story of an American pilot who died without shooting down a single German plane during WWII. Or even I Robot, which wasn't written by Asimov.

There are perfectly good factual stories out there, why ruin them?

[aldo_14]

OR Braveheart, where they not only made up the battles (it was the Battle of Striling Bridge - Bridge! for ****s sake.....), but transformed 2 Scottish heroes (Robert the Bruce and Andrew de Moray) into out and out traitors (the latter actually died from gangrene after the BoSB).

Oh, and made up the Wallace shagging the Frence queen/pricess substory, too.... it's a pain in the arse because people abroad actually believe it.  Plus... I remember being in Florida when an American couple approached and talked to my parents; when they noticed were Scottish, they asked "oh, don't you hate the English?".

Yep, they'd seen Braveheart.

[Flipside]

Thing is that got me is that they forgot the bit just afterwards, where, having pushed back the English, Robert the Bruce and his army went rampaging all over Northern England burning, raping and pillaging, made a pact with the Irish, which he then broke and left them to starve (for the second time, the English did it first, you begin to see why Ireland have good reason to be irked).

Now, England were no better to Scotland, I'll admit, but I hate it when moviemakers use their powers to try and present a one-sided view of history like that

[Petrarch of the VBB]

And they had Wallace sacking York, when in reality it was Carlisle. Of course, most Merkins will never have heard of Carlisle...

[aldo_14]

Bruce != Wallace.  There's not been a Bruce film made AFAIK (and the bit at the end of Braveheart about that was wrong, too; it was a cold day & IIRC snowing at times at Bannockburn).

[Flipside]

Yes, I know Robert the Bruce isn't Sir Wallace, but from what I recall, Wallaces' uprising was one of the key factors in bringing the final showdown between Bruce and King Edward at Brannockburn in 1314?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, I know Robert the Bruce isn't Sir Wallace, but from what I recall, Wallaces' uprising was one of the key factors in bringing the final showdown between Bruce and King Edward at Brannockburn in 1314?

Not really; there was something like a 14 year gap between battles (IIRC Falkirk was about 1298 & Bannockburn was 1314).... plus it was between Bruce and Edward II (who was completely inept as a commanded... IIRC a party of Scottish knights nearly caught and captured him during his retreat).

But Bannockburn was really part of the long rebellion against the English, and very unusual in that Bruce had been fighting with guerilla tactics (the beseiging of Stirling was his brother Edwards - the one who ended up in Ireland as king - idea, I believe).   I guess you could say Wallace lit up the sparks of it, but his role was still just part of a long war.

EDIT; Edward (I) captured all of Scotland after the Siege of Stirling castle in 1304.... the 'Bruce rebellion' only really began after Bruce crowned himself king in 1306.

[Flipside]

Ahhhhhhh.. Yes, I've been checking my facts, I got the strange idea that Wallace was one of Bruces commanders, but it appears the two rarely, if ever met

I suppose the thing is though, Is that it get's to feel like the only time Hollywood set movies in other countries, it's to either stereotype or insult the natives...

Speaking of which, on the subject of ID4, theres one thing that always made me wonder.....

At the end of the movie, there are scenes from various countries of the UFO's in flames (I will skip over the whole 'world waiting on the US part of the movie). However, one of these scenes is set in Africa.... with thousands of cheering tribespeople....holding spears......

Now, ignoring the stereotype, that's a movie I want to see, I mean, what did they do? Build an enormous human pyramid or something?