QUOTE(Tony @ Feb 4 2008, 06:47 PM) [snapback]569421[/snapback]
QUOTE(AFTERSHOCK @ Feb 4 2008, 04:19 PM) [snapback]569365[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Feb 4 2008, 06:13 PM) [snapback]569344[/snapback]
The first half of WOTW was great filmmaking don't you think?
I wouldn't know. It has 4 strikes against it which prevent me from spending any amount of time watching it:
1. Tom Cruise
2. Steven Spielberg
3. Re-make
4.
Minority Report.

1. Who cares about actors?
2. You watch all sorts of TV schlock but won't watch a film by a master filmmaker?
3. No it isn't. It's another version of the novel. Is every film of Hamlet after the first a remake?
4. Has nothing to do with WOTW
Here we go...
1. If an actor's work in a role fails to convince me, I can't get into the story. If they consistently fail to engage me in additional projects (like Mr. Cruise) I won't waste any additional time in anything they're attached to.
2a. Spielberg may be a master filmmaker (and I do enjoy some of his movies, to be sure) but much of his later work strikes me as over-produced in regards to visuals & sound (ie: too slick) with spotty character development and glaring holes in the story arcs. Which would be just fine if the films weren't so p.r.o.fessionally done. You'd think someone with his attention to detail (and resources) would be able to balance out style-vs-substance a bit more often.
2b. Plus when your only TV time is after work around 6am, shlocky TV is the perfect thing to conk out with. The production & acting might be weak, but there's often some pretty damn fresh story ideas floating around the occasional snatch of clever dialogue. And besides, I hate falling asleep to something that genuinely entertains me on numerous levels, simply because I'm far too tired to appreciate all the nuances (sigh... I miss having days off.) So - another round of
Garth Marenghi's DARKPLACE, anyone?
3. Yes, it's a remake simply because the medium is the same as an Established Classic (gotta love those George Pal effects - wires and all). We all know there's one Established Classic written version of the story: the original novel (which I'd be willing to bet wasn't the first time mankind looked at Mars and thought, "hmmmm"). Now, I can see the attraction to adapting a story from one medium to the next, but why do we need
multiple versions - especially if one attempt has already become a cultural icon? (
Wizard of Oz fans take note: yeah, we all know the original story was so much darker than the Established Classic movie [which also wasn't the the first attempt to translate the text to film] but it's useless to reinvent the idea of translating it into yet another film once a particular version has been stamped into our culture as THE MOVIE regardless of how much it connects or deviates from the original text. But there's nothing stopping you from translating it to a new, different medium - right? How about a virtual reality version? Or a holographic one? That'd be totally cool.) Besides - why do we need more adaptations of the same basic story anyway? Why can't we just create new stories? This sort of thing irritates me because it seems like we're intentionally crippling our cultural development by simply repeating ourselves. And spending an awful lotta money & time doing so, to boot.
And we ain't talkin'
Hamlet comparisons simply because Shakespeare's fantasies will always be associated with more highbrow audiences than Wells's Martian invaders. Sci-fi just doesn't get quite the style of respect as ol' Will, but whatyagonnado?
4.
Minority Report = Tom Cruise + Steven Spielberg + sci-fi + point #2a above =
War of the Worlds.