|
|
Post by bradhig on Sept 1, 2008 5:46:19 GMT 1
Seems no one like the 1953 movie. Rarely seen any spoofs or fan made videos of it. Always Jeff Wayne this Jeff Wayne that. The George Pal martians and their manta ray ship were terrorizing people long before those green eyed Ulla yelling tripods showed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bagnew on Sept 1, 2008 7:15:36 GMT 1
Yes they were. Unfortunately for our Pal George, Jeff Wayne's version is better, according to most of the people you ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrgrotey on Sept 1, 2008 7:20:11 GMT 1
Just because it was done before doesn't mean it was better or even definitive. It takes more than that. The effects haven't aged well at all and the story wasnt as thrue to the book from what I can remember. And it was american and they always screw it up  After all they werent even tripods. and dont try to tell me about 3 magnetic-field legs, thats just the kind of made-up-afterwards-to-get-out-of-trouble rubbish I dont like  |
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Sept 1, 2008 9:50:38 GMT 1
I like the Pal film for what it is. But, to me, first don't necessarily mean best.
I actually like the 1938 broadcast better, of the two. That would have made a pretty good movie, I think.
The '53 film is ok but flawed, not least in that it has aged very badly and that semi-religious feel to the ending is at odds with Wells' ideas.
It does have a certain charm and there are parts I like alot. But it is what it is.
They should maybe have let Harryhausen do his version...
We all have our favourite incarnations. I think perhaps some of it can also be put down to which one you were exposed to first.
I'm one of those Wayne fans... for two reasons.
1) It's what got me into the story in the first place. I love the book because I sought it out after hearing the album.
2) It's far more faithful to the book than any other adaption (asides from the film that should not be mentioned... and we all know about that).
|
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Sept 1, 2008 13:05:37 GMT 1
I love the 53 version it was my introduction to H.G.Wells way back when i was a mere lad (  ) Far better than Disco Wayne's Disco Balls version, the only other version that comes close is Speliburgs (rusti baiting post No.234245) D.F. |
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Oct 28, 2008 18:15:45 GMT 1
I agree with DF above, the 53 version despite its obvious flaws is very good. An atypical 50's B-Movie and it worked. The SFX although basic by today eclipses some productions of today. The Manta Ray machines scared me as a kid.
The sound though set it apart, NO WOTW production, thats NO production has got the sound right. The Heat Ray sound of the 53 machines scared the shit out of me and still gives me the creeps.
Jeff Wayns version was good if only for the music and the fantastic artwork. However as my musical tasts changed over the years i found i can take it or leave it.
As for Spielshit. Well he tan take that Scientology promotional video of his and stick it up Tom Cruises arse.
|
|
Tripod
Trainee
''One gets to know that birds have shadows these days.''
Posts: 60
|
Post by Tripod on Feb 4, 2009 16:18:48 GMT 1
As for Spielshit. Well he tan take that Scientology promotional video of his and stick it up Tom Cruises arse. Rusti, you haven't changed a bit. But back on topic. I love George Pal and Byron Haskin's adaption of the novel. It's a real product of its time and it scared me to death when I first saw it. And that wasn't such a long time ago it must have been 200 or 2001. Back then I'd already been exposed to a good deal of scary flicks. I'd seen 'Independence Day' but even the 'alien autopsy'-scene in that film didn't scare me as much as Otto did in the 1953 version. I have the same love for Orson Welles his historic broadcast, Jeff Wayne's musical and Steven Spielberg's amazing* film from 2005. *That one's for you, Rusti! |
|
|
|
Post by Relyt on Feb 4, 2009 23:47:59 GMT 1
I like the SS film, despite the inaccuracies in it. That's because the American public wants modern American settings in almost every film, not 19th century Britain. Spielburg didn't have much of a choice since he wanted to make money off of this film, as do all American directors. If it was in 19th century Britain, it would in fact be better for Wells fans such as ourselves, but the general American public, who love action in America above all else, would have hated an accurate version of the book in film form. It was the SS film that brought me to the book, and ultimately to this forum.
|
|
FALLINGSTAR
Been Here a while!
Zippy, George, Geoff and Bungle....Hey everyone...it's RAINBOW!
Posts: 222
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 12, 2009 1:16:41 GMT 1
The 53 film was good for it's time but it's quite dated now whereas the novel is pretty much timeless.
|
|
FALLINGSTAR
Been Here a while!
Zippy, George, Geoff and Bungle....Hey everyone...it's RAINBOW!
Posts: 222
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 24, 2009 23:46:06 GMT 1
I like the SS film, despite the inaccuracies in it. That's because the American public wants modern American settings in almost every film, not 19th century Britain. Spielburg didn't have much of a choice since he wanted to make money off of this film, as do all American directors. If it was in 19th century Britain, it would in fact be better for Wells fans such as ourselves, but the general American public, who love action in America above all else, would have hated an accurate version of the book in film form. It was the SS film that brought me to the book, and ultimately to this forum. Spielberg's so powerful in Hollywood he could easily have done WOTW in the correct setting if he'd wanted too and other films have been successful without an American setting . I think he was more a fan of the 53 film than the book. I bet he hasn't even read the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Notumyoaliketroftdonhere on Jun 23, 2009 8:23:17 GMT 1
Sod em both i say,If it dont involve the yanks then they dont want to know do they.Jeff Wayne is a honourable man coz he kept it in England.I have no love for either film coz they aint nothing to do with 'war of the worlds ' ive read.They dont have much of a history so they re-write every other buggers story to fit round the American public.Talk about gaul.Balless sad sacks with no honour for our great story..................If i could get mi hands on Frank Wells for flogging the rights he'd get the sharp end of my tongue the bloody idiot even though it was 'the rendering of his idea'.Pal and Spielberg..............Fancy some cheese anyone
|
|
|
|
Post by krakatoa on Aug 20, 2009 17:10:51 GMT 1
I bought the movie 1953 on friday, and on the same DVD was When Worlds collide,
it has been 5 years that i did not see the movie, and i saw it maybe 3 times in my life, i discovered that there was some similiratys with the one 2005, in talking and people being reduce in ash by the heat ray.
I liked it, i have to admit.
I know that the story did not generated in America, given the fact I read the book, i know the the movies are not exactly as the book, i also know you like Jeff Wayne Version i saw some of it on U Tube and what i saw was awsome,
But none of the less i like the 1953 Movie and the tripods of 2005 movie.
I started to read the book before i went to see the movie 2005, and finish the book after the movie, so the book helped me anderstand some things in the movie like the red weed for exemple.
There was no such things like red weed in the 1953 film, About the religion side of the movie at the time, it was normal. So i was not to surprised about this.
I am happy i bought the 1953 movie.
Chantale
|
|
After all they werent even tripods. and dont try to tell me about 3 magnetic-field legs, thats just the kind of made-up-afterwards-to-get-out-of-trouble rubbish I dont like 
)
Prepare For The Future
