Badmovies.org Forum

Oh yeah!
This is gonna be so cool!
Word has it that Tom Cruise has temporarily turned down the role for the next "Mission Impossible 3" film due to problems with finding the right director.
Instead, he has signed on to star in the remake of "War of the Worlds" and Steven Spielberg is directing!

(http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/tickermaster/images/waroftheworlds.jpg)

Here's a brief text taken from boxofficeprophets.com:

""Ladies and gentlemen, here is the latest bulletin from the Intercontinental Radio News. Toronto, Canada: Professor Morse of McMillan University reports observing a total of three explosions on the planet Mars, between the hours of 7:45 p.m. and 9:20 p.m., eastern standard time. This confirms earlier reports received from American observatories.

"Now, nearer home, comes a special bulletin from Trenton, New Jersey. It is reported that at 8:50 p.m. a huge, flaming object, believed to be a meteorite, fell on a farm in the neighborhood of Grovers Mill, New Jersey, twenty-two miles from Trenton.

"The flash in the sky was visible within a radius of several hundred miles and the noise of the impact was heard as far north as Elizabeth.

"We have dispatched a special mobile unit to the scene, and will have our commentator, Carl Phillips, give you a word picture of the scene as soon as he can reach there from Princeton.

"In the meantime, we take you to the Hotel Martinet in Brooklyn, where Bobby Millette and his orchestra are offering a program of dance music..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With these simple words, an entire nation was sent into a panic. The ever inventive Orson Welles, created such a realistic radio portrayal of the events that took place in sci-fi pioneer H.G. Wells' War of the World that listeners didn't even realize it was fiction.

Now, the granddaddy of all alien invasion tales will be adapted for a second big-screen treatment (the first was in 1953, starring Les Tremayne and Gene Barry). And who better than to put his name on a big-budget special effects extravaganza than the master himself, Steven Spielberg?

The eminent director of such modern classics as Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report will team with Really Big Star Tom Cruise to bring the film to the big screen. Currently, Spielberg is expected to join Cruise in producing the film. It is anticipated that Cruise will also take the starring role. The two will be expected to settle on a production start date once screenwriter David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spider-Man, Secret Window) delivers an acceptable script.

Given the high profile of both the story and the talent involed, War of the Worlds will be a project that will merit a lot of attention as it proceeds through the development phase. It's an adaptation that has been tossed around for many years -- a quarter of a century ago, A Clockwork Orange novelist Anthony Burgess had been tapped to write a screenplay. Count on Spielberg to make sure it's done right rather than cheesy. (Kim Hollis/BOP)"

I totally agree that Spielberg is the only one to do this.
I am so there opening weekend!

What do you think?
Can Spielberg pull it off and will you go see it?



Post Edited (08-12-04 23:00)

Here's some more info I found:

Movie News for
War of the Worlds
Release Date: TBA 2005
August 12, 2004

War of the Worlds and M:I3 switch spots

"After two days of frantic negotiating, War of the Worlds, which stars Tom Cruise and is being directed by Steven Spielberg, has been fast-tracked. Yesterday, it was reported that Spielberg's 1972 Munich Olympics film had been pushed back due to the need for a rewrite of the screenplay. With newly-hired helmer J.J. Abrams still working on his rewrite of the Mission: Impossible 3 script so that he can begin production, Paramount decided to flip-flop the two tentpole projects. War of the Worlds will now see release in 2005, while Mission: Impossible 3 will be pushed from Summer 2005 to 2006. DreamWorks is actually co-financing War of the Worlds with Paramount, while Paramount is handling M:I3 on its own. Sources speculate that budgets for both films are probably in excess of $100 million.
Source: Variety "



Post Edited (08-12-04 22:59)

I hope he can pull it off, it would be great to see War of the Worlds with the kind of special effects available today. Ill definately go see it.
Im not too sure about Tom Cruise though. Im not a big Tom Cruise fan.

> What do you think?
> Can Spielberg pull it off and will you go see it?

If this was 25 years ago I'd day YES indeedy Spielberg could pull it off.

But sadly not now, his sensibilities have changed & he's not the film maker he once was.

And with Cruise staring & the reported updated/contempary setting, ie not in Victorian England, I may give this one a miss.

I'm hopeful . . . but let's wait and see.

I thought when they first started talking about this it would be set in Victorian England like the book. I don't like a lot of these modern retellings.

I did think that the 50's version with Gene Barry captured some of the panic of the book. This has been one of my favorite books since childhood and I am hoping they do it justice.

Wow.  Words cannot express my excitement.  When it comes to TV, assuming there's nothing else on that night, maybe I'll check it out.

I'd like to know a little bit about what they're planning to do with the Martians. With modern special effects, they could be made a little more true to the book than the 50s version. I'd like to see them go for the walking machines instead of the floating ships. They'd look pretty cool ripping through a city, although they might need to be bigger and have a few more tricks to be formidable in our time. And the original idea of the Martians themselves as just grotesque heads, essentially helpless outside their machines, was pretty cool. A race totally evolved to depend on technology.

I love the 50s WOTW, but it was turned more or less into another flying saucer movie. They need to go back to the book for this one, and keep more of what made it special.

I'm excited about this flick, but then again I am not.  I loved the book and although it's been many years since I have read it, I still have fond memories of it.

Yes I can see Tom Cruise doing this film.

Yes I can see Speilberg directing.

Will it be good?  I have no idea.  I guess we will have to wait and see.  I do hope that the film is not an all out FX fest as was I Robot.  I hope they stick to a more basic film without the huge special effects..

There was a truly wonderful remake of the radio play, using the original Howard Koch script, on NPR back in'88.  It's available on cassette/CD from Lodestone Audio.
Jason Robards, Steve Allen, Phil Proctor & a bunch of old-time radio folk.  Sound and recording at Skywalker Ranch.  Directed by David Ossman, who also did the voice of the announcer quoted in the blurbs above.
Set in New Jersey, just like Orson Welles' production.
Seek it out -- it may be freely available at your local library.
peter johnson/denny crane
PS:  I liked the Gene Barry version also.

This is one that is definately meant for the big screen and look forward to seeing it.  This is just the type and style of movie that made Spielberg the powerful and respected man he is today.  I do hope he can still work that magic I grew up with as a kid.

As for Tom cruise, I don't care for him, don't like him, but as an actor he has talent, so I can tolerate him.

I also agree with Andy C and hope they stay closer to the book...not making this a flying saucer film.  I am very curious and will definately see this one on the big screen!

This movie sounds interesting, except for Tom Cruise. I haven't liked him in anything since Risky Business. Unlike some actors, he never really blends into the character he's playing. In every single film, he still has a lot of the same mannerisms that he had in Risky Business. I'm afraid his name and personality will overshadow the story. Then there's the fact that I don't like him personally. It's hard to like someone who can be so easily suckered into a scam like scientology. (before anyone asks, I'm not real crazy about John Travolta either, but at least his characters don't all seem like the same person).

>With modern special effects, they could be made a little more true to the book
>than the 50s version. I'd like to see them go for the walking machines instead of
>the floating ships.

I'd like to see that as well, but I predict that it won't happen. Just like every other remake, they'll feel the need to modernize it to appeal to kids today. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the alien ships are more like fighters, and the aliens use little floating scouting orbs to spy on the humans. The aliens will probably be more like soldiers, leaving their ships and hunting down the humans while wearing high-tech body armor. Maybe at some point they'll even make contact with the aliens through some kind of electronic translator or some humans will be captured by them and held prisoner.

The very best modern treatment of this is in the second volume of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -- love when Hyde dines on the roasted corpse of the Martian . . .
I for one would dearly dearly love to see this done as a period piece, with the high celluloid collars & Maxim guns, etc. etc.
Who knows?
peter johnson/denny crane

AndyC wrote:

> I'd like to know a little bit about what they're planning to do
> with the Martians. With modern special effects, they could be
> made a little more true to the book than the 50s version. I'd
> like to see them go for the walking machines instead of the
> floating ships. They'd look pretty cool ripping through a city,
> although they might need to be bigger and have a few more
> tricks to be formidable in our time. And the original idea of
> the Martians themselves as just grotesque heads, essentially
> helpless outside their machines, was pretty cool. A race
> totally evolved to depend on technology.
>
> I love the 50s WOTW, but it was turned more or less into
> another flying saucer movie. They need to go back to the book
> for this one, and keep more of what made it special.

Reminds me of a B&W Indy Comic treatment of that same idea.
Tripods with fire wepons, red weed that ate people, humans occasionaly killing Martians, that kind of stuff.
Humm...anyone else see this one?

Here comes another independence day!

I personally don't think a period piece would be my favourite way to go, I actually don't mind it being set in more of a contempory timeframe, although this movie will only be great if they have the tripods and the red weed.  Recreating the panic from the invasion is the main crux of the piece.  If you add flying saucers and big action scenes, this will cheapen it slightly.

I also have found a copy of the original radio broadcast, and thought it was fantastic.  I love War of the Worlds, so I hope the movie is done well.  

Maybe Tom Cruise will be playing the martians! :-P Then it would truly be an evil mind invading the Earth.

I'm not sure... one of the things I love about the first one is the cheesy special effects.  I think that if the new one was riddled with obvious CGI (ala SW Episodes 1 & 2, Hulk), it'll really take away from it.  Also, having a "big name" action star like Tom Cruise will distract from the story and add an element of crap.

We'll see, though.  It wouldn't be fair of me to judge it before it's out.

cheesy special effects????

dean wrote:
> Maybe Tom Cruise will be playing the martians! :-P Then it
> would truly be an evil mind invading the Earth.

It wouldn't take much makeup to make an alien out of him.

Really, the only thing that scares me, that convinces me that this story is going to be butchered, is Tom Cruise. With him in the lead, I see it turning into exactly what JohnL described.

Then again, Cruise might be trying to change his image, going for something a bit more mature. Notice the grey hair in his latest flick. Would be a good idea, considering he doesn't look much different than he did in the 80s, and he's not taken much more seriously as an actor.

If he's looking to grow up, this could be a decent movie.

Yeah, but maybe "outdated" is a better term.  I'm just saying that I would take outdated OR cheesy special effects over crappy CGI.  CGI can be awesome, but in movies like "Hulk" and some of the "Lord of the Rings" scenes, it gets too cartoon-like.

Just read at Dark Horizons that the budget for this movie will exceed the $200 million mark.   Speilberg Mounts Expensive War (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040818g.php)

A budget that high isn't putting my mind at ease. Quite the contrary. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I'm thinking old H.G. is going to be turning over in his grave by the time this one is in the can.

I notice that article says that Cruise and Spielberg chose to get a 20% cut of the takings instead of an upfront payment.

Wouldn't it be really funny then if the film bombs and they get nothing.  Not that I want that to happen to War of the Worlds, but I havnet harboured that much of a love for Speilberg and Cruise [despite Minority Report being one of my favourite movies that came out that year]

I wonder if that is a combined total, or they get 20% each?  I doubt it's combined but just imagine, the studio's must think that the film will be huge to allow them that percentage anyway.

dean wrote:

> I wonder if that is a combined total, or they get 20% each?  I
> doubt it's combined but just imagine, the studio's must think
> that the film will be huge to allow them that percentage
> anyway.


Oh believe me, War of the Worlds will be huge!
I predict that it Spielberg's remake will end up as one of the top grossing films of that year.
I think it will rake in as much cash as Spiderman or The Matrix Reloaded if not more.

Considering Hollywood accounting, both Cruise & Spielberg will make money on their 20%, even if it tanks -- in the US, in theater release (you still have worldwide box office, plus tv, plus dvd.)

With a budget that high, I am highly skeptical.  I don't want more whiz-bang special effects, I don't want more explosions per frame than any other movie.  I want a good story with real characters.  F/X are not a substitute for those.

For just once, it would be interesting to see a sci-fi literary classic  brought to the screen "intact".  I realize this is asking quite a bit...but what if Brooklyn Films produced War of the Worlds, as a "period piece", in the style they've employed in "Sky Captain..."?  That would nail it, for me...

Nonetheless...I will definitely see this remake.

Keen anticipation is my immediate re-action to the announcement of a `New`
version of `War of the Worlds`.  BUT  Tom Cruise as the`hero`..never.The man
is half dimensional and is no doubt scheduled to exterminate the martians
in his usual one arm behind back,don`t disturb the hair style,I think I`ve got
them sussed and I`m the worlds leading computer/weapons nerd.
      As one of  Spielbergs many admirers I feel he could set a new trend by simply adapting the script from the original H.G.W. tale with settings and locations as described by the `storyteller`.Bearing in mind that victory over the aliens was not
achived with weaponry one hopes that this line as in the 1950`s classic will be
closely adhered to.
      We have had many excellent movies set in medieval style and with Dreamworks talent pool a tale of a `star war` set in the late 19th century would be
imaginative and entertaining and the` characters` featured in the original tale
offer great opportunities for some of  the better actors of our time.

Hopefully Spielberg himself has read this board and gets a good idea of what the fans really want.

I don't think setting War of the Worlds as a period piece is essential for the remake.  I think the general panic and dissillusionment that was captured in the book is the most important thing.

That can be done even better set in contemporary time: just imagine the population of New York CIty running from the tripods on foot.  Great panic ensues.  Could be quite good.

The only problem with contemporary setting is the whole advanced weaponry thing.  That could be a bit tricky to navigate.

One thing is for sure: it's gonna clean up big time.

I was just having a chuckle to myself thinking how amusing it would be if the film tanked.  Just imagine all the sad studio execs!

Dean wrote:
> The only problem with contemporary setting is the whole
> advanced weaponry thing.  That could be a bit tricky to
> navigate.

I had the same thought. It could be done, but the tripods would probably have to be bigger and more heavily armed. Probably a good idea to borrow the forcefield from the 50s version too.

That's one of the reasons a period piece might be better for keeping the book intact. Earth's defenses could be beaten by a less formidable machine. Also, if the setting is a little bit further from our own reality, audiences might be more accepting of other elements that are kind of hard to believe. For one, the aliens arriving in meteors rather than in ships that would have so many more advantages.

Still, with Cruise in the lead, I don't think there is much hope that the story will be told as Wells wrote it. Can't see old Tom being the anonymous storyteller who goes throught the story witnessing things and meeting more interesting characters than himself. Unless he's really trying to broaden himself as an actor, he's in this as an action hero.



Post Edited (08-24-04 09:17)

Oh, yeah....forgot about the "Narrator thingy."
Hummm....

In the book, the army gets luckey, and gets a "headshot" that kills a tripod. Could have something like that here. Also, the Ironclad Thunderchild rams a tripod, and goes down with a kill, also.
The idea of the aliens beingkillable, but hard to kill, makes more sense. Particulary when you know the books final victory over the Martians. It amazes me...so smart, and they never conciter "Air filters!"
Put me down for a period piece. At least it would avoid an obvious ID4 expectation.

What role is cruise playing in the film? He could be anybody, really.  I can actually see him playing the part of the Artilleryman, a nice intertextual reference to his action star status.

Is it just me or does the idea of tom cruise starring in this movie sound awful.  I excited about the idea of remaking the movie but Tom Cruise.  Barf.

Just a thought.

As long as he doesn't get to mellow and/or cheesy, I think Spielberg is the right man for the job. Especially if he has learnt anything from taking over directing from Kubrick's A.I.

A remake might actually work for WAR OF THE WORLDS. I liked the original, but it was missing something for me.

I think going back to the period piece after the radio and 50s version updated it would be bad. War of the Worlds is one of two stories that the film updates to modern times and it still worked. The other was Heart of the Darkness which was filmed as Apocalypse Now. A few years back TNT made a version of Heart of Darkness in the Victorian setting. It sucked. I believe once you've moved away from the Victorian setting successfully it is impossible to go back.

My question is will they try to use the names from the novel or the 50s movie. It they use the ones from the 50s movie they are going to get some laughs when Tom Cruise introduces himself as DR. CLAYTON FORRESTER.

Skeptical, sums it up for me. I kind of get the impression that Spielberg has this hope that he'll be able to recapture those long lost days when he didn't suck.

Tom Cruise - why?

Ozzy: I think that just means you really liked Apocalypse Now. I consider that to be different enough from Heart Of Darkness for the TNT movie to be the first HOD movie, rather than a remake of AN, and I done digged it big time.

I just felt the TNT movie moved really slow. The problem many people have with AN is they can't separate the setting from the text of the film. I had to read HOD as part of my English degree. I recently re-read the book and then watched AN. I had seen AN when it was first shown on TV in the 80s. After reading HOD I was amazed at how much it follows the themes of the HOD. It isn't about Vietnam, it just takes place there. Most people haven't read HOD so they don't understand it. To them it's another movie about Vietnam.

Maybe if I saw the TNT movie again, I would like it better after re-reading HOD.

They already did this in 1996.  It was called Independence Day.

Pointless.

Okay..A word from overseas then...

When I first read the news about this remake, my heart skipped a beat. I am a huge fan of this story since childhood and didn't really like the Gene Berry-version of 'War...'. I could not understand why Hollywood didn't pick up this story for a remake, because with CGI-technology nowadays it's one of the best stories to capture on film. I disagree with people who don't take trust in either Spielberg as a director or CGI to be satisfying for this project. Mr. Spielberg has proven to be the right man to handle CGI because his Jurassic Park-trilogy is still the best example of what CGI can do. It didn't look fake like 'Hulk' or 'Flubber'. (Why did I ome up with that last example...beats me ;-)
All in all...this is gonnan be something to look forward to. Spielberg is a actor's director, so if the script is right and written in the right setting, like the novel, chances are that this could be up with classics like '2001..', '2010..' and 'Star Wars'. Hell...I think I'll send Uncle Steve an email to put me up as an 'assistent-to-the-assistent-gaffer-runner-cable boy'...or something!

'All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy'...Steven King

Doc Rogers, Delft, The Netherlands

  To be even slightly worthwhile, the film HAS to follow the book, and very closely.  Ozzymandias is wrong to say you can't revisit it after updating it.  Ever read the book old son? Frankly someone needs to make amends for the travesty of the '50s version!
  I just hope to the holy lord above that this film won't turn out like the Time Machine (either of the versions.)

I heard Spielberg promises to be truthful to the spirit of the book. I never like hearing this crap, it usually doesn't bode well.  

I agree with blink, if done right this could work well and probably best as a period piece.  I have always wanted to see the part when the narrator and the curate are stuck in the house under the crashed cylinder.  Wells did an excellent job of portraying the madness and mayhem that would occur if such a thing actually happend.


This could be a very chilling movie if they can manage to do it right.  If they don't , it will just be a better made version of Independence Day.

Your signature.."All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Is not originally from Stephen King's The Shinning.  I KNOW I saw that quote from a much earlier film and said to myself, "That's where he got it from!". but now for the life of me I can't think of the movie it really came from!

If you know, please ease my curious mind, otherwise I wil be doing some serious IMDB searching. :(

That cannot be attributed to Stephen King, it is an old saying that has been around forever.

If they don't , it will just be a better made version of Independence Day.

Which could be a good thing in it's own right...

trek_geezer wrote:
> If they don't , it will just be a better made version
> of Independence Day.

Which was pretty much a remake of the 1953 version.

Check out what might have been:

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/judidench/584/warworlds.html

Anyone here read the Harlan Ellison story "Jefty Is Five"?

Thanks for the explanation on that liner. I didn't know even Steven had 'borrowed' this one for The Shining. But to be frank, I have no idea what other movie it must have come from. Good luck plowing thru the internet!

Not a movie line, but an old proverb.

Now it's being reported that War of the Worlds is now Out of the Night;

http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=6333

Anyone still think this is going to be in any way a faithful adaption of the book?

JohnL wrote:

> Now it's being reported that War of the Worlds is now Out of
> the Night;
>
> http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=6333
>
> Anyone still think this is going to be in any way a faithful
> adaption of the book?


What bothers me is what they wrote on that website:

"Dutch distributor UIP is reporting that the anticipated Paramount adaptation of H.G. Well's 1989 novel, The War of the Worlds"

Notice something wrong there?

Does anyone remember the War of the Worlds rock opera with Richard Burton and some other British art rockers of the 70s? The opening theme is cool but then it becomes boring. After you've heard the Orsen Welles radio show, a musical doesn't work.

Of course I remember the Rock Opera!  People used to play that constantly in my dorm at college -- Rick Wakeman & other art-rockers of the day all contributed to it, though it was spearheaded by a guy from The Moody Blues, whose name escapes me.  Wakeman also did a Rock Opera version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth".
I love the Ellison story, "Jeffty is Five".  Ellison really gets the spirit of imagination of the radio audience correct.  Ellison does a lot of things very very well.
What a goddamn shame that Speilberg ain't gonna do "War" right!  "Spirit" my ass!  Oh, well, I'll still give it a chance . . .
peter johnson/denny crane

There starting to film War of the worlds 13 blocks from where I live it's going to be very exciting there building a gas station here in Bayonne, NJ on the city's little league field and there using it for some key shots's then their gonna blow it up. It's gonna be great !!!

An earlier message of yours indicated the NPR broadcast of War of the Worlds from 1988.  I have been trying to find this on CD for many years.  I checked at Lodestone Audio and could not find it.  Any more information as to where I could obtain a copy?

Well, I went to the website for Lodestone & found, in disbelief, that it is indeed out-of-print, but an old-time radio site says it may be back in print again soon.  Hope so.  
In the meantime, try contacting the Producer directly:  Judit Walcutt at OtherWorld Media, PO Box 566, Freeland, WA  98249, and/or oworld@whidbey.com
She's the wife of the great David Ossman, of Firesign Theatre fame.
Tell 'em Peter sentcha!
Barring that, I guess e-bay's your next bet.
Damn shame it's not still widely available.  Try contacting your local PRI/NPR affiliate(s) & see if they can run you off a copy.
peter johnson/denny crane

I agree. Cheesey special effects??????   The 1953 special effects were great.  I do have a feeling that the remake will fall short of the original, but if it is true to H.G.Welles' novel it will be great.

3 things:

1. They dont change the date. The movie should be set in the 1800s same as the book.

2. they dont change the location to be america. sorry americans but I'm really tired of America being the centre every alien invasion. London and the surrounding heaths were a great setting for the book and England was great for the PC game (I'm not english by the way).

3. That this be a remake of the BOOK and not Orson Well's radio broadcast.

however, this would require Spielberg not producing drivel to please the masses, Tom Cruise being able to act and Hollywood writers not having their heads firmle ensconced where the sun dont shine ao I am pretty sure my dreams will end unfulfilled

:)

I am a massive fan of the Jeff Wayne musical version of War of the Worlds, fantastic stuff.  I liked it so much so I actually remixed it, though it's not soo good. :-)  

But I don't like it enough to make War of the Worlds, an actual film musical...as funny as that would be!

I don't get it, but I don't see why people are getting so upset about whether the film should stick to the novel, and keep it exact and to-the-letter.

I mean, the original welles radio broadcast was fantastic, and updated the story not only to another country, but in time as well.  I understand the concerns, especially from fans of the novel, but by updating the story line, in my opinion anyway, will give it more authenticity: when we watch people running in panic, we can think that it could happen to us.

I am a bit concerned with how the treatment of the human response is: the nuclear bomb bit makes it a bit tricky.  I think one effective thing about the novel is the fact that the aliens weren't seemingly invulnerable like in independence day.  So this is a bit  of a tricky plot point indeed.

The only thing worth worrying about is the fact that the key to this movie is the sense of hopelessness by the population.  It ain't War of the worlds without the mass dissillusionment.

A few rules of my own for a time-updated version:

Don't focus on the big-wigs of the government and how they are dealing with the threat, focus on the little guys, much like the book: not knowing what's going on helps with the panic.

You must have a similar scene when the main character gets trapped with the Curate.  That part of the book would make for quite an eerie and terrifying scene.

It doesn't really matter where it is set; America or London, or other, just as long as it includes a city in which millions are running for their lives in panic.

Orson welles' broadcast CAN be drawn upon, it was fantastic and very well made, but you must certainly base it on the novel

the feel of the novel is the most important thing, especially if it is an updated version, so if Speilberg at least gets that right, the picture isn't ruined.

That's about it really...

I love the late 1900s setting for a few reasons:
1) HG Wells foresaw chemical warfare and exposed the helplessness of the military
2) The martians could not adapt to earth's gravity and had to use machinery
3) They martians used shields to avoid the military barriages
4) They used an overwelming firepower and machines (can't wait to see the tripods instead of the cheesy hovering 1953 shielded ones)
5) Military technology was good enough to hurt them, but the martians could dodge cannonballs
6) This is very important: News traveled so slowly back then that London almost did not get a chance to evacuate...and the early reports were almost rumors. Communication also hurt the military while the martians were able to communicate with each other.
7) The lost hope of mankind and a changed world (they could avoid the red weed since we know for a fact that is not what gives Mars its color).

Write me back your thoughts...later,

They will have a hard time making a screenplay that works though.

For example, aliens are attacking us.  Why?  

Who or how will they communicate with us?  

Take for example, The Day After Tommorrow.  Where the lead characters easily know EXACTLY what's going on and their the only one's in the loop.  What a coincidence!  I wanted to leave watching that crappy movie.  The premise and special effects were cool.

You can't let the gigantic scope of the story overshadow the back story of it.  It's hard to do especially when dealing with such an imense issue like an alien invasion.

The way i figure it, any movie like this is the story of the people who do know what's going on, so I don't really worry about the fact that they may be the only ones in the loop.  But if they do this for War of the Worlds I am going to need alot of convincing that it was worth it, since the whole point is that everyone is panicking because they don't know what's going on.

Oh, yeah, more sucky CGI ! Just what we need! Not!

I personally am hoping the Pendragon  Pictures (http://www.pendragonpictures.com/), true to the book version gets some kind of wide release.  It doesn't have the  budget that Spielberg and Cruise have but I wanted to see a nicely done period piece done right.

Lucky stiffs that live in Washington state will be able to see it at  Paul Allen's Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame  (http://www.sciencefictionexperience.com/) along with an exhibit  of props,miniatures, and artwork  used in the production.

Has anyone checked out:

http://www.waroftheworldsfilm.com

Some of the extras from the film are talking in their forums and they mentioned that the aliens will be TRIPODS. Is that awesome or what???

Well of course they are going to be tripods, it aint worth a grain of salt if it aint tripods! [yes i know the other version had wierd floaty things, but come on!!]

I am a huge  fan of both Speilberg and Tom Cruise so I'm sure they won't disappoint this movie goer. If they do, it will definitely be a first.