War of the worlds quality (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

I will never understand how people let what the actors do in their own lives that have no effect on ours, dictate whether or not you watch his films.

Scientology practices organized fraud and promotes quack medical beliefs. The problem many have with Cruise's affiliation with Scientology is precisely that it isn't just a private belief that isn't harming anyone else; rather, it's a dangerous organization that is doing tangible harm to people.

 

[TonyD]

It doesn't harm me, just like those who choose not to support Cruise through his movies doesn't affect me either. I just find it curious is all.

 

[Richard--W]

You find it curious? Would you still find it curious if you witnessed their activities or if a loved one fell into their hands? I don't thinks so. Scientology does a lot of harm and injury, from extortion of estates and money from senior citizens to brainwashing and kidnapping. You should witness how they stalk teens in downtown Hollywood, especially the green and naive kids who get off the Greyhound bus with very little money in their pocket and big dreams of making it in Hollywood. Their "church" status is a front for criminal operations which have grown and branched out into financing since "A" list movie stars emerged from their ranks in the early 1980s. Their practices are known and they are barred in some countries like Germany. Many professionals in the industry take a moral position to not deal with them, but others, like TonyD, don't care so long as the DVD is fun to watch.

 

[TonyD]

You got that right. I even have the nerve to buy a Blu-ray with a flawed transfer and enjoy it. The nerve of some people.

 

[Richard--W]

You're welcome, Matt! One point to consider concerning the wires. All prints and elements struck on this film for the past 40 years have been too light. I have an original 1953 35mm Technicolor trailer with one brief shot of the war machines. The picture is considerably darker than all other printings and the wires are MUCH less noticeable. Bob

Bob hit's the nail on the head. Along with re-release prints being timed lighter, the 2nd remastered DVD release made considerable timing adjustments to the feature. Notably when the Martian war machines first begin to rise out of the crater. In the original DVD and laserdisc release, it still looked somewhat like nighttime. In the remastered DVD version, not so much.

Damn. Since there is no Blu-ray in sight, now I'll have to buy the original DVD. Thanks for this information. I've seen War of the Worlds projected a few times. First time was in 1972. Last time was in 2002. on the big screen it still has the power to enthrall an audience. The remake is such utter garbage I don't even consider it War of the Worlds.

 

[cafink]

It doesn't harm me, just like those who choose not to support Cruise through his movies doesn't affect me either. I just find it curious is all.

Because Scientology has not harmed you personally, you don't care about the harm it has inflicted on others? You find it curious that other people do care about that harm, even if they themselves are not directly affected?

 

[TonyD]

No I don't care and I find your continued harping on it no different than people trying to impose their religious beliefs onto me. So can you stop now since this isn't supposed to be discussed on HTF anyway.

 

[cafink]

Sorry, I didn't think two posts constituted "harping." I'm not trying to impose any belief onto you, I'm just somewhat flummoxed by your statement, "I don't care about harm inflicted upon others and I find it curious that some people do." You wanted to know why some people allow that sort of thing to influence their consumer decisions, I provided what I thought was a correct and reasonable answer. Sorry if it's not what you wanted to hear.

 

[TonyD]

Well I said I don't understand it and I find it curious. Didn't say I wanted to know why.

 

[TravisR]

Isn't the discussion of religion supposed to be verboten here? I'm no fan of Scientology but it means something to someone so it should be treated as much off-limits as Christianity or Judaism or Islam, etc. is.

 

[TonyD]

It is. Unfortunately everytime Cruise is brought up someone has to lecture on why he is evil and no one should watch his movies.

 

[Doug Otte]

Ditto here. As for the AMC HD telecast, they've cropped it top and bottom to fit the HD screen. The transfer seems soft. I was noting early on when we see Clayton Forester with a day-old beard stubble. Even in closeups, you don't see the hairs. Just that his face is colored by the beard. Was the DVD like that? I don't remember.

I have the 2nd DVD, and recorded the HD version last night. I hope to have time this weekend to compare the two, and will report back. Doug

 

[cafink]

Well I said I don't understand it and I find it curious. Didn't say I wanted to know why.

Why proclaim in a discussion forum that you don't understand something, if you don't actually want to discuss the subject or even hear about it? I don't agree with Richard 100% (I am a fan of Spielberg' s War of the Worlds and own the Blu-ray), but the idea that some people don't want to financially support people whose worldview is in deep conflict with their own is hardly some kind of huge mystery. Scientology's crimes and abuses are well-documented and widely-known. What kind of response did you expect?

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I disagree about keeping the original ending in the remake -- it wasn't appropriate for the updated setting and story. (IMO a better twist on the ending would have involved the aliens being defeated by *intentional* biological warfare. Not only would it have made for a better story, it would have opened the door to interesting ethical questions.)

 

[KMR]

Just be glad he stuck with Wells' ending, a decision that got him ripped by a lot of reviewers. Otherwise, you'd have had Independence Day, which is War of the Worlds with a stupid ending.

Love it! I was very pleased with the Blu-ray presentation of War of the Worlds; it actually looked better to me than the 35mm print I saw in initial release. And the sound--wow!! My only gripe is that is has all of the extras from the 2-disc DVD except for the production notes (text). So I still have to hang onto that set. (Wait a minute, I do have another gripe: the packaging for the 2-disc DVD was gorgeous; the packaging for the Blu-ray is very blah.)

 

[Johnny Angell]

Love it! I was very pleased with the Blu-ray presentation of War of the Worlds; it actually looked better to me than the 35mm print I saw in initial release. And the sound--wow!! My only gripe is that is has all of the extras from the 2-disc DVD except for the production notes (text). So I still have to hang onto that set. (Wait a minute, I do have another gripe: the packaging for the 2-disc DVD was gorgeous; the packaging for the Blu-ray is very blah.)

Aw, come on. Production notes? For production notes you have to keep the DVD? Is there really info there not covered elsewhere? Photograph them and print them out, if you've gotta have them.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I disagree about keeping the original ending in the remake -- it wasn't appropriate for the updated setting and story. (IMO a better twist on the ending would have involved the aliens being defeated by *intentional* biological warfare. Not only would it have made for a better story, it would have opened the door to interesting ethical questions.)

Now you really ARE ripping the guts out of Wells' book. Wells' point was that man is not as all-powerful as he thinks he is. What's more, using some super-bug makes it yet another Vietnam allegory. Never mind that we had to kill thousands or millions of humans who also have no resistance to this new bug: We had to destroy the village to save it. P.S. I don't watch sci-fi to ponder "interesting ethical questions."

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Aside from having alien invaders and the title, what did the movie have to do with the book at all? Having germs kill all the invaders is fine for the 19th Century; in the 21st, it's kind of anachronistic. Man *does* have that power now. I'm sorry if you don't like movies that contain interesting things to think about. I don't like movies that resolve their plots via deus ex machina. And. . .Vietnam allegory? Really? Where did you pull that out of?

 

[Rick Thompson]

Aside from having alien invaders and the title, what did the movie have to do with the book at all? Having germs kill all the invaders is fine for the 19th Century; in the 21st, it's kind of anachronistic. Man *does* have that power now. I'm sorry if you don't like movies that contain interesting things to think about. I don't like movies that resolve their plots via deus ex machina. And. . .Vietnam allegory? Really? Where did you pull that out of?

Unless you're ready to say that thousands or millions wouldn't die from this super bug -- and how would THAT happen? -- what is it but "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"? If you're going to go by specific plotlines, neither Spielberg's nor Pal/Haskins has much to do with the book. Wells had the aliens take everything out on Britain alone; people escaped to the European continent (remember the Thunder Child incident?), where no aliens were present. There were no aircraft and no atomic bombs. Not much in the way of generals or world coordination, either. Wells did have human blood as the plant food, which Pal/Haskins does not and Spielberg does. Spielberg also follows closely the blood harvesting process (to state it somewhat antiseptically) in the book. Pal/Haskins ignores the "red weed" of Wells' book; Spielberg doesn't. This could go on and on. The point is that neither film was true to the book's plot details. They were true to its spirit and theme. They were very different, though equally valid, approaches to the material. To suddenly have man defeat the aliens by using some technology or super man-made germ that somehow won't affect anyone but the aliens, goes against the whole theme of Wells' book: "Martians -- dead -- slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth." Worse, it turns War of the Worlds into Independence Day.

 

[KMR]

Aw, come on. Production notes? For production notes you have to keep the DVD? Is there really info there not covered elsewhere? Photograph them and print them out, if you've gotta have them.

Well, thank YOU.