Mole 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 From 411 Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg will make Hollywood history with War of the Worlds. The film's budget will make it the most expensive film ever made. Even more expensive than the $198 million Titanic. Cruise will pocket a fifth of the box office profit from the film. War of the Worlds is based on the H.G. Wells story about Martian invaders. My guess is that this movie is going to be good because it has Cruise and Speilberg on it. It better be good or the movie studio is fucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodSpikeJenkins 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Its about Martians? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Man, they had better not fuck this up. Not because the loss would be huge (they can cover it), but because I'm VERY adamant about HG Wells stories being accurate when they're adapted for film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DMann2003 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Man, they had better not fuck this up. Not because the loss would be huge (they can cover it), but because I'm VERY adamant about HG Wells stories being accurate when they're adapted for film. I heard somewhere they were gonna do it as an adaptation or Orson Welles radio broadcast version from 1938. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Man, they had better not fuck this up. Not because the loss would be huge (they can cover it), but because I'm VERY adamant about HG Wells stories being accurate when they're adapted for film. Atleast it's in the hands of Speilberg, who might not be my favorite director or the best like a lot of people rave, but he is a damn good film maker. Since Wells' work is so damn respected, I am sure he won't kill his book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Meh. Not a Cruise fan, not a Spielberg fan, and knowing Spielberg? This movie will end with the martians dying off because of bacteria... ...until the human give them antibiotics and we all live happily ever after. That's one of the things I hate about recent Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan not included): happy bullshit "fuck you" endings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 To be fair, the mass audience doesn't want depressing, "artistic" endings all the time. There's a time and a place for it, but one of the most basic rules of storytelling is satsify your audience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Well to have Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg on board is a good start, but is it just me or does this film seemed rushed. I mean, Cruise was getting ready to start MI:3 and then one day he decides to do this first. Now, filming starts in November and it should be out next summer. But Cruise is an excellent actor, Spielberg is an excellent director, so i'll have faith in the project. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackFlagg 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Just saw this on 411, interesting, will definately be checking things out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 To be fair, the mass audience doesn't want depressing, "artistic" endings all the time. There's a time and a place for it, but one of the most basic rules of storytelling is satsify your audience. True, you can satisfy your audience all you want...but make it a part of the story and not a stupid afterthought. Minority Report would have had a much better ending had it not been made to seem as if Cruise being lowered into the prison thing wasn't the END of the movie. They could have gone with Cruise not killing the man pretending to be the murderer of his son, and instead just emptying the rounds into the wall or the window and then leaving to find who was behind it all, but no. Had to trick me. Oh well. I'll be suckered into seeing this on HBO too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest syncer55 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 This sounds awesome. Hope they don't mess it up with too much CGI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Well to have Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg on board is a good start, but is it just me or does this film seemed rushed. I mean, Cruise was getting ready to start MI:3 and then one day he decides to do this first. Now, filming starts in November and it should be out next summer. But Cruise is an excellent actor, Spielberg is an excellent director, so i'll have faith in the project. MI:3 got pushed back because of this movie. I am not sure when MI:3 will be made now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 I know it got pushed back, but this movie wasn't even suppose to start filming till at least 2006, now here it is. BTW, MI:3 got pushed back to next summer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 That means there won't be another blockbuster to take away from Serenity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted August 19, 2004 To be fair, the mass audience doesn't want depressing, "artistic" endings all the time. There's a time and a place for it... ...like when you're adapting a novel that has such an ending. The original War of the Worlds took two years to make. I can only hope this follows suit. And dare I ask what Serenity is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tawren 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 And dare I ask what Serenity is? Firefly movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Meh. Not a Cruise fan, not a Spielberg fan, and knowing Spielberg? This movie will end with the martians dying off because of bacteria... ...until the human give them antibiotics and we all live happily ever after. That's one of the things I hate about recent Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan not included): happy bullshit "fuck you" endings. Saving Private Ryan is the worst Spielberg movie I've ever seen. There, I've said it. Worse than Hook, worse than The Lost World. And I, like many others I am sure, left Schindler's List with a huge smile on my face. What a nice happy ending that was. My heart was warmed. Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Jaws, Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, ET. Those, along with Schindler's List, are among the greatest movies ever made. I'm hardly a huge fan of Spielberg, but when he is awesome he is one of the five best in the world. And they don't all have happy sappy endings. This movie: it could suck, it could be awesome. Spielberg tends to go either way. I think it does have a fair amount of potential, and it will probably be huge. If he sticks to the Welles version then I can't see it being terrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 To be fair, the mass audience doesn't want depressing, "artistic" endings all the time. There's a time and a place for it... ...like when you're adapting a novel that has such an ending. The original War of the Worlds took two years to make. I can only hope this follows suit. And dare I ask what Serenity is? I wasn't neccessarily talking just about War of the Worlds, Flo. I want Spielberg to stick to the source material as closely as he can. I meant in general. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Use Your Illusion 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 I fucking hate Tom Cruise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Meh. Not a Cruise fan, not a Spielberg fan, and knowing Spielberg? This movie will end with the martians dying off because of bacteria. No, they'll get killed by American walkie talkies... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted August 19, 2004 I'm sure walkie talkies would be covered in bacteria...so uh yeah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 The last Spielberg movie that I liked was 1941. The last Cruise movie that I liked was Risky Business. I don't foresee this big budget debacle knocking either of those off their top-spot. Survey says: nl5 will never see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pochorenella 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Didn't Spider-Man 2 have a $200 million budget? That's higher than Titanic's (non-inflation adjusted, mind you), so why do they keep saying Titanic is the most expensive? Isn't Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra recognized as THE most expensive movie ever (inflation adjusted) or is there another one I'm missing? Back on topic, Cruise + Spielberg again should be good. Minority Report had a bad ending but that doesn't mean the movie wasn't terrific. WOTW could be another big hit in the right hands, so fuck MI3 (although I was looking forward to Scarlett Johanson as a sexy spy.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Isn't the budget for War Of The Worlds about $190 million ? Spider-Man 2's budget was $200 million plus another 50 for promotion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 I fucking hate Tom Cruise. May I ask why? He's a great actor who has terrific range and he always gets me caring about what happens to him in any movie he's in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted August 19, 2004 I wouldn't call Cruise a great actor, but much like Val Kilmer he can be really good when he wants to be or when he has good material and a good director to work with. I like Cruise when he's being a good actor, but I dislike Cruise when he sleepwalks in his insanely smiling "hey look at me, I'm pretty" mode. I also dislike Cruise in interviews, I can't tell if he's being incredibly phony or if he's just a goofy bastard with a terrible laugh and annoying smile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 The last Spielberg movie that I liked was 1941. You didn't like Schindler's List? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DMann2003 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Meh. Not a Cruise fan, not a Spielberg fan, and knowing Spielberg? This movie will end with the martians dying off because of bacteria... ...until the human give them antibiotics and we all live happily ever after. That's one of the things I hate about recent Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan not included): happy bullshit "fuck you" endings. This is something I don't understand. The idea that Spielberg isn't good because he prefers happy endings, and his films aren't gritty and real. If we are to believe in the auteur theory that a filmmaker must make films that are honest to his feelings, and having seen several interviews with Spielberg I can safely say the man is an optomist. He grew up in suburbia, and like many dealt with a painful divorce growing up. Therefore he wants to hope that things will get better. And if it's the guy's belief that life is good and there is a hope, why should we complain about his 'happy' endings. Wouldn't his films be false if he was dark and 'real'. Disagree with his filmmaking because you don't agree with his ideology or his manipulative form of filmmaking (of which he is guilty as was Hitchock). I'm just tired of people complaining about Spielberg because his works aren't 'real' (whatever that means) or end with a happy ending (How is Minority Report happy? Because Anderton lived? His entire worldview became shattered so he has to rebuild, the ending is optomistic but I wouldn't say it's 'happy' and for me what's most important is that the ending doesn't feel fake or forced). If Speilberg believes in an optomistic and uplifting film experience, he's being true to his vision when his films end as such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 I wouldn't call Cruise a great actor, but much like Val Kilmer he can be really good when he wants to be or when he has good material and a good director to work with. I like Cruise when he's being a good actor, but I dislike Cruise when he sleepwalks in his insanely smiling "hey look at me, I'm pretty" mode. I also dislike Cruise in interviews, I can't tell if he's being incredibly phony or if he's just a goofy bastard with a terrible laugh and annoying smile. I have yrouble distinguishing that as well. I want to believe he's just really goofy. I've heard crew members tend to think of him as pretty genuine and nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted August 20, 2004 I have problems understanding the reasoning for the Spielberg dislike as well... the man is a genius! Sure, his movies LATELY haven't been all that great, but how could anyone dislike the man that gave us Raiders?! His movies are stylish and beautiful... and I for one admire the fact that he's sticks with the traditional style of movie making Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
