War of the Worlds SE on 11/1/05 (1 Viewer)

[RickHeart]

I'm really surprised with some of the bitter comments on this thread about Spielberg. So what if this title is delayed a few months on DVD? You think this is the first marketing decision made in connection w/ the release of a DVD? And some of you act like it's the end of the world (no pun intended). Let's say it's all true...Spielberg used his clout at Paramount to delay the release of this title. So what? Does the public someone have an inherent right to this film in June rather than November?

Some of you are hangin' on too tight, man.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I say yes.

 

[FrancisP]

The marketing decision was to release the original in the time frame of the remake. Bewitched season 1 coincides with the movie. A set of Fantastic Four cartoons are being released in conjunction with the movie. The original King
Kong with the remake.

The November date is only tentative just as the June date was. So if Spielberg decides he doesn't want the DVD release of his remake to share the spotlight with the original then it okay for Spielberg to delay its release another five mmonths? It's one thing for a release to be held up due to technical reasons but its a shame it gets delayed because a director gets paranoid about perceived
competition.

 

[Thomas T]

Spielberg worried about competition from the 1953 film? LOL ... I seriously doubt if the majority of the contemporary film going public even knows it's a remake! It's to Paramount's advantage to have the 1953 film come out simultaneously with the Spielberg on DVD. Those going to pick up the Spielberg version might also check out the George Pal version.

However, I must confess the perverse evil imp in me would love to see an announcement in November that the 1953 WOTW will be delayed for another 6 months at Spielberg's request just to see another exercise in hysterical neuroticism!

 

[Jay E]

 

[DaViD Boulet]

So what's the latest...we're waiting until Nov? Any official word? Really want the remastered 1953 version after seeing the 2005 version in the theater last night...

dave

 

[Scott Kimball]

The only comment I've received from Paramount sources is, "late fall."

-Scott

 

[Scott Kimball]

Official: Street date: November 1.

It will, in fact, feature a commentary by Ann Robinson and Gene Barry. Also included will be featurettes on the making of the film and on author H.G. Wells. Orson Welles' Mercury Theater radio production is also to be included.

 

[Ron-P]

At least it is finally coming. Although I did enjoy the remake I doubt I'll purchase it, the original though, that's a must have.

 

[Bradley-E]

According to The Digital Bits, The Remake will be released on 11/15 through Dreamworks not Paramount.

 

[FrancisP]

I will be purchasing the original only. In my opinion, the original is the hands down winner and the remake overhyped.

 

[Kevin M]

You see, every time I see this word used for mainstream films I don't understand the exact purpose behind it.
Overhyped in what way? In a different way than any other summer popcorn blockbuster? By the people who enjoyed it? By the advertising firm hired to promote it?

I honestly want to understand. Overhyped how?

 

[Cory H.]

I couldn't care less if it's delayed. The original, and unquestionably superior incarnation of the film is still on schedule.

 

[Cory H.]

Spielberg's WOTW was touted in most circles as being THEE Sci Fi event. Period, exclamation mark. It ended up serving as a personal politcal agenda vehicle, and a horrible relegation of an otherwise incredible young actress to a role totally uncharacteristic and unflattering of her abilities.

It was a very underwhelming film to a lot of hardcore Sci Fi fans, myself included. It's not necessarily overrated, because critics weren't all over it to begin with, but overhyped, I'd agree with, just because it didn't quite live up to the buzz, IMHO.

But, I digress. Glad to see that George Pal's version is getting an upgrade. I'd like to catch the specs on both versions.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" wasn't anywhere NEAR overhyped. Hell, it was overshadowed by it's leading man slowly going insane in public. If you saw it being touted as THE Sci-Fi event, you weren't visiting most of the same circles as the general public. Especially since to most people, STAR WARS was the Sci-Fi event this year, and box office reflects that. Of course, to most hardcore cinephiles, people know Star Wars isn't really Sci-Fi, but the number of people who care to make that distinction is pretty small in comparison to the General Public.

War of The Worlds was pretty MODESTLY marketed, I thought. Especially for a Spielberg Movie Starring Tom Cruise. But like I said, Tom Cruise being a nutjob sorta overshadowed all that.

And I always thought the original was pretty corny, even when it wasn't so dated. But it's fun to watch, still. Spielberg's version, even though it sorta shits the bed in the last 15 minutes, is a little more powerful, to me. But I bet I buy both of em

 

[Cory H.]

"Star Wars" is a cinematic mutt, granted, but it had a couple of years, neigh, decades to build on for its conclusion. Realistically, the 3 years between Episode 2 and 3, which was more than enough. When rumours surfaced of both Cruise and Spielberg deferring their paydays up front, opting to take cuts AFTER the film ran its course, we, like they, expected big, big things. His promotional campaign was the ultimate compliment to the scheme. Show as little as possible to drive people to the theatre to see it for themselvesandlinehispockets..first hand.

Haskins/Pal's "WOTW" took HUGE risks, featured the most innovative special effects this side of Harryhausen, and set the bar for so many Sci Fi films to follow. SS's seemed too personal, and it felt like too much was sacrificed from the source material. Namely, the non-sensical plot device that aliens were implanted long before humans, which begs the question, why didn't they "keep" Earth before hand? A straight up invasion with no hint of pre-meditation is way more effective.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Yeaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh but I'm not buying it. I mean, you explained WHY Star Wars was the most THE Sci-Fi big ticket for the year for me. Star Wars was also considerably marketed much more heavily than War of the Worlds. You can't say "But it's Star Wars" and then excuse it from the competition just cause it's Star Wars

It sounds more like what you're meaning to say was for YOU, the expectations were pretty high. But I'm not entirely sure that to the general public a) War of the Worlds was this summer's must see or that b) People were expecting huge things. If anything, Cruise's insanity and the fact that Minority Report had underperformed considerably (although I liked Minority Report more than War of the Worlds) were much bigger topics of conversation, along with "Spielberg's doing 'Bad E.T.' this time." which was played from a couple angles--"Spielberg's going to kick ass" or "Spielberg's gotten cynical and mean." Neither of which are all THAT inclusive.

But then again, you did qualify your statement earlier with "Hardcore Sci-Fi Fans," so maybe that explains the shift in perception. But if you felt it was "overhyped" I think maybe your own expectations helped feed into that.

 

[Cory H.]

Personally, I didn't expect anything. I was led to believe it had to be "seen to believed", with the "less is more" kind of approach. Maybe I shouldn't have been so naive at first to assume that Steven was keeping a low profile in the promotional campaign for something other than personal gain. (You know, like, a good movie? )

My expectations for the film being overhyped through really had little to do with my stance. Like I mentioned before, I bought into the reverse psychology, being the LACK of promotion for a Summer blockbuster, coupled with Hollywood reports making it out to be bigger than it was. Never again, man.

"Star Wars" has always had an unnecessary media blitz, right down to the movies which seem to be created soley to sell toys, given the story has been old news for almost 30 years now.

 

[JackKay]

Both versions have their merits. I personally love the George Pal version because I was a kid back then and impression it left on me still lingers. As with Pal's Time Machine, love it.

Steven Spielberg's was a wonderful update of the original story and will, with the first movie, stand up to the test of time with the concerns and worries of Their time. The fear of the Red Invasion of the first and Terrorist Attacks of the more recent.


Everybody just quit you bitch'in and enjoy both movies and thank the maker for DVDs. The Studios have finally realized they have gold in the vaults and are preserving our beloved classics.

 

[Daniel Bakken]

Any word on the Pal version having a stereo or 5.1 track? My LD with stereo track is great! If it really doesn't have it I'll be very sad.