PDA

View Full Version : War Of The Worlds Superbowl Trailer!!!


Lord3d2
02-03-2005, 03:13 PM
Check out this scoop of the War of the Worlds Superbowl trailer that will appear on TV this Sunday during the Superbowl


http://www.iesb.net/movies2/movie020305.php (http://iesb.net/movies2/wotwsbtrailer.php)

Direct Link:

http://iesb.net/video/wotwsb.mov


From IESB.net (http://www.iesb.net)

DePingus
02-03-2005, 04:27 PM
Is this the actual trailer thats going to appear during the superbowl or a teaser of the trailer thats going to appear? Either way...thats some nice destruction going on there.

Lord3d2
02-03-2005, 04:40 PM
It is the trailer that will be shown during the Superbowl

vfx
02-03-2005, 07:37 PM
Um not working!

jussing
02-03-2005, 07:40 PM
Um not working!
It's being taken down everywhere.... dernit. Oh well, we'll get to see it soon enough. :shrug:

- Jonas

Lord3d2
02-03-2005, 08:08 PM
Sorry guys and gals, Paramount told IESB to take it down, wasnt supposed to be available.

Will be available after it premiers during the Superbowl.

Pics here though

http://public.fotki.com/Cosmo1/wotw/

PS: Trying to find a mirror and will post a link to it

pgp_protector
02-03-2005, 10:56 PM
Well at least we get to see em :)

http://images8.fotki.com/v154/free/c16ad/7/76394/1810318/w10-vi.jpg

At least that looks like em

Lord3d2
02-03-2005, 11:03 PM
If I cant put up a mirror, it will be shown during the Superbowl and on Sunday night on the official site

AWAKE
02-03-2005, 11:44 PM
That mirror doesnt quite look like a commercial.

jussing
02-04-2005, 06:42 AM
If I cant put up a mirror, it will be shown during the Superbowl and on Sunday night on the official site
Thanks for the mirror, you rock!

- Jonas

Signal2Noise
02-04-2005, 06:52 AM
Oooh, cool!

Maybe Tom will have a "wardrobe malfunction" in it! :D

Darknon
02-04-2005, 09:58 AM
That trailer isn't telling anything about the movie... :(

vfx
02-04-2005, 10:07 AM
Well as usual it is up else where, and its damn impressive - that fly-over exploding is almighty fx work! Does anyone know whose in charge? Is it ILM?

Edit: Thanks to JOblo forum, someones posted other links on the net where its still living...

http://iesb.net/video/wotwsb.mov (http://iesb.net/video/wotwsb.mov)

Its just public knowledge - Stduios stupid fault for releasing and then changingh their minds!

You can see a gif of the fly-over action on joblo's forum too right here...

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=87931

brisck1
02-04-2005, 10:29 AM
still no sign of the martians though :(

Darknon
02-04-2005, 10:35 AM
hmm... i must have seen and old teaser, the one where ppl just stares at the sky...

just saw the new on.. that is some serious action going in there

angel
02-04-2005, 12:32 PM
still no sign of the martians though :(

You aren't expecting to see that in a teaser, right?

I just hope that this film live up to the expectations.

pogonip
02-04-2005, 12:37 PM
Thats going to be an awesome popcorn movie !!! Im looking forward to it ...maybe it'll have a good story also ?? :shrug:The 70's version is a decent story and even to this day the FX in the movie dont look totally horride ... I hope this is the version that does it perfect :)

WillRyan
02-04-2005, 01:39 PM
Dakota Fanning reminds me of an ET-era Drew Barrymore in that shot in the car where she looks terrified. I hope this is finally a return to form for Spielberg. Nobody can touch him when he's motivated and hungry to make exciting films. Which hasn't been for a long time.

malducin
02-04-2005, 04:33 PM
Does anyone know whose in charge? Is it ILM?

Yes ILM is the main provider of VFX. Dennis Muren and Pablo Helman are supervising. Randy Dutra is animation supervisor.

hmm... i must have seen and old teaser, the one where ppl just stares at the sky...

The first teaser (which premiered in front of many copis of Ocean's Eleven) does not contain actual footage from the film. Cruise and Wagner paid for it out of their own money to have something to promote the film during the Holidays. At that time their were still mid principal photography.

The 70's version is a decent story and even to this day the FX in the movie dont look totally horride

What 70s version? Was it for TV? The George Pal version was in 1953 and is a classic. The later TV series was in the late 80s.

Lord3d2
02-06-2005, 10:23 PM
Its up again

Daniel-B
02-07-2005, 02:26 AM
You can view it at the official site now...

www.waroftheworlds.com (http://www.waroftheworlds.com)

You boys from ILM, I must say, good job.

RobertoOrtiz
02-07-2005, 04:04 AM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/medium_sb.html

CaptainJackSparrow
02-07-2005, 04:23 AM
Watched the superball ad, wow, lameo-matic to the factor of 10 plus one, are exploding buildings/bridges whatever still meant to be impressive??? Is this 1997? Is this meant to be an effective hook? It's so lame and unoriginal, I mean hello!!! ID4, Mars Attacks, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Day after Tomorrow, we've seen all this before.

Sigh, this looks like just being another long showreel for ILM, but that's probably enough to satisfy most ppl here I'd imagine. 2hrs of stuff blowing up and the world getting shot to pieces with Tom Cruise running about like a headless chicken.

Hope I'm wrong though but I doubt, Spielberg is well and truly spent by the looks of it.

WhiteRabbitObj
02-07-2005, 04:31 AM
I agree with CaptainJackSparrow generally here. I was totally pumped to finally be seeing a new trailer for this film but I was left totally disappointed. It was pathetically short and had very little interesting stuff in it. The bridge destruction looked good but the next shot after it, featuring some flipping vehicles, looked like something straight out of the Terminator 3 truck chase sequence, which had some really CG-looking shots and was not photo-real at the least. At least these shots are probably not finals. Regardless, I'm still pumped about this film, but only based upon my expectations that are residual from Minority Report (which I enjoyed a great deal) and not from any of the lackluster advertising for WotW so far.

DorkmanScott
02-07-2005, 05:05 AM
Watched the superball ad, wow, lameo-matic to the factor of 10 plus one, are exploding buildings/bridges whatever still meant to be impressive??? Is this 1997? Is this meant to be an effective hook? It's so lame and unoriginal, I mean hello!!! ID4, Mars Attacks, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Day after Tomorrow, we've seen all this before.

I think that might be part of the strategy. Showing this kind of imagery clearly communicates what kind of movie this is, without having to tip the film's hand too much. Which one of those had buildings appearing to destroy themselves from the inside, with no apparent motivator, BTW? You say we've seen it all before but I never have, and there's only so many ways you can express an alien attack intent on destroying mankind. Sooner or later you have to destroy what man has built.

Also, ID4 was essentially a loose adaptation of WOTW.

Hope I'm wrong though but I doubt, Spielberg is well and truly spent by the looks of it.

"The looks of" what? You're making this statement based on less than thirty seconds of footage from a ~two hour movie. You have seen approximately 0.4% of the film, and out of context, how can you possibly judge it at this point?

I agree with CaptainJackSparrow generally here. I was totally pumped to finally be seeing a new trailer for this film but I was left totally disappointed. It was pathetically short and had very little interesting stuff in it. The bridge destruction looked good but the next shot after it, featuring some flipping vehicles, looked like something straight out of the Terminator 3 truck chase sequence, which had some really CG-looking shots and was not photo-real at the least. At least these shots are probably not finals. Regardless, I'm still pumped about this film, but only based upon my expectations that are residual from Minority Report (which I enjoyed a great deal) and not from any of the lackluster advertising for WotW so far.

1) It was a Superbowl ad. It was constrained to 30 seconds. No more, no less.
2) Of course they're not going to show all the coolest stuff. It's still a teaser, and I refer you also to point number one.

You call the advertising "lackluster", I think it's a blessing. Spielberg, Cruise, and the title are all you need to sell this movie, and I prefer this to having a movie hyped to death and all the really cool stuff blown for me before I've bought my ticket.

Especially with SIX MONTHS TO GO.

I don't hear any complaints that advertising for the next Star Wars is lackluster, we've had one incoherent trailer and the film is less than four months away.

Give it time and the film will gain more exposure. Hell, I don't work at ILM but it's entirely possible that they don't have much else of the film ready to show yet.

I do think ILM plays favorites though a bit. The CG in this movie and a film like Van Helsing appear worlds apart in quality, just from that shot of the exploding freeway, and I wonder if it's because they like Spielberg, since his stuff always turns out pretty nice.

Then again, maybe ILM does what the director asks for and Spielberg just asks for more.

M. Scott

WhiteRabbitObj
02-07-2005, 06:01 AM
It could also be because of the specific supervisor attached to the film, the previs, and the artist teams. I do think it has especially to do with the director though. I heard some bad things about the Van Helsing production and the director meddling too much. But that's all hearsay.

I do think you're right that ILM probably doesn't have a lot to show for a trailer yet, with 6 more months to go. Though generally there is the "trailer rush" to finalize a series of shots specifically for a trailer.

The idea of "Spielberg, Cruise, and the title are all you need to sell this movie" is really disturbing though. Big names and a big license don't equal a good movie in any sense. There is no director or actor, or teaming therein, that will make me go see a movie simply because of who is involved. Trailers form a large part of drumming up interest, for better or worse. I was just having a conversation the other day that today's trailers seem to be that the worse the trailer is, the better the movie will be, and vise versa. But this trailer really didn't show much of anything. The 30 seconds seemed to be taken up by 20 seconds of filler. The EPIII trailer may have had little narrative structure to it (as good trailers do, IMO, otherwise they give away plot, which is bad [see Swimfan]) but it was chock full of crazy interesting shots that piqued the viewers' interest wondering what else was in store and in what context those shots were. I do suppose this WotW trailer did that slightly. I really wonder what context the bridge explosion scene is, since from what I saw on the TV (I haven't watched it on the net again), I couldn't figure out what was destroying the bridge. Certainly, the Martians didn't have any weapon that could have done such a thing. But since this adaptation is set in modern times, I imagine they'll have to update the weapons as well, since the original novel didn't have airplanes or bombs or missiles or anything like that.

Will be interesting to see how things progress. I hope they have a traditional 2:30 or 3 minute trailer soon, I really want to see more and see how badly mangled the story will be or if it's going to kick some serious butt.

Pyke
02-07-2005, 06:18 AM
WOW! (excuse the pun...)

I think that this teaser was fantastic. Didnt give away anything of the movie (which is good...I DESPISE trailers that give away movie plots).

The one think I am a little bit...critical about, is the slow motion shots. It seems that they are just normal filmed scenes, with slow motion applied, making them rather 'choppy', like there are several frames missing. I thought that things like teasers and trailers were planned months ahead, so that those shots would be put high on the 'things to do list'. Surely they would know if a shot was gonna be in slow-motion, and thus film is at a higher frame rate? Its a minor gripe tho. Perhaps its just a style thing.

As for the bridge blowing up...everybody loves it when stuff blows up!

Pyke
02-07-2005, 06:22 AM
The idea of "Spielberg, Cruise, and the title are all you need to sell this movie" is really disturbing though. Big names and a big license don't equal a good movie in any sense. There is no director or actor, or teaming therein, that will make me go see a movie simply because of who is involved.

Just a little addition, there are several directors who's movies ill go and see just cos they directed it. Call it a love of their style. Burton, Cameron, Spielberg, and Jackson.

Are you excited to see Kong? I know I am, and I can tell you that I would be less excited if 'Dr' Boll was directing it.

darktding
02-07-2005, 06:27 AM
I loved the small teaser, I dont think I would call it a trailer... I would say it was STILL a SNEAK PEAK...

DorkmanScott
02-07-2005, 06:51 AM
The idea of "Spielberg, Cruise, and the title are all you need to sell this movie" is really disturbing though. Big names and a big license don't equal a good movie in any sense. There is no director or actor, or teaming therein, that will make me go see a movie simply because of who is involved. Trailers form a large part of drumming up interest, for better or worse.

Well, that's kind of my point. Six months out, little to show, at this point I would say the most you need to do is make people aware that the movie exists, and that talented people are on it.

A director or actor or team may not be the SOLE reason to go see a film, but speaking for myself, I'll go see a movie by Peter Jackson or Jim Cameron or Pixar even if the subject matter doesn't appear to be something that interests me particularly. Because of who is making a film, I'm more willing to give it the benefit of a doubt sometimes, and I think the trailer people bank on that. It may not work for YOU, but think about the population at large; they see Spielberg's name on it -- one of the few household names in directing, arguably the most famous in the world -- they'll go.

But I agree, big names and big license are never a sure thing for a great movie. I'd give an example but I'm sure both of us could make a list a mile long.

I hope they have a traditional 2:30 or 3 minute trailer soon, I really want to see more and see how badly mangled the story will be or if it's going to kick some serious butt.

On this I agree. I'm wondering what they'll do to update it for the modern age without making it ID4. I wonder how many people would accept the ending, with bacteria bringing down the Martians (the book's been in print over a century, I don't consider this a spoiler), and what they might have replaced it with in case they think the number potentially too small.

I want this to be great, but we'll see.

By the way, does anyone else enjoy the irony of Steven "E.T. and Close Encounters" Spielberg making a movie that essentially says "Okay, I admit, the aliens ARE trying to kill us"? :p

M. Scott

malducin
02-07-2005, 07:05 AM
t's so lame and unoriginal, I mean hello!!! ID4, Mars Attacks, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Day after Tomorrow, we've seen all this before.

Why watch movies then? I mean by those standards we've seen it before in films like Earthqueake, Towering Inferno, Gone with the Wind, The Rains Came, Tora Tora Tora, Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, etc. Ever since we had movies we had disaster type films seeing the destruction of cities and the like.

Sigh, this looks like just being another long showreel for ILM, but that's probably enough to satisfy most ppl here I'd imagine.

Like most big Summer films couldn't be construed as VFX reels by narrow definitions?

At least these shots are probably not finals. ... I couldn't figure out what was destroying the bridge.

Remember this film was fast tracked at the last moment. Principal photography started November and location shooting finished just like 3 weeks ago. There is still some studio shooting last I heard. The indication these are not finals is using just flashes to indicate hits from the Martian weapons.

But this trailer really didn't show much of anything. The 30 seconds seemed to be taken up by 20 seconds of filler.

Most SB trailers are like that. Remeber the ID4 one? It just one quick shot of the wall of flames engulfing the cars. It's also considered one of the most effective SB movie teasers ever. Many have shown less.

I do think it has especially to do with the director though.

In the end the director has to sign off on everything. Some meddle more than others. In the case of Stephen Sommers he enjoys a lot of over the top things but is also quite involved.

I thought that things like teasers and trailers were planned months ahead, so that those shots would be put high on the 'things to do list'.

Not always. Actually there are many examples where trailers are set up last minute and sometimes used temp shots, shots only for the trailer or even studio tests. Examples include Twister, Perfect Storm, MIB and Hulk.

DorkmanScott
02-07-2005, 07:16 AM
Malducin! Glad to see a familiar face here!

I've seen PixelMagic around too. Feels like home already. ;)

M. Scott

L.Rawlins
02-07-2005, 08:12 AM
Looks like good fun. :thumbsup:

Swizzle
02-07-2005, 07:23 PM
I dunno about anybody else, but I thought it was pretty neat. I don't think those effects shots were final (take a look at those cars), and if they were they could use something (like debris or something showing what's killing the bridge, maybe?). I think they did the houses getting smashed really well, even at this fairly early stage. I wonder what they're going to have the Martians look like?

leigh
02-07-2005, 07:38 PM
Well it may have been short and it didn't show all that much but it left my skin crawling. This film scared me witless when I was 6 years old and gave me nightmares for years. To this day I have the most unbelievable phobia of alien invasions (laugh at me all you want!) and so this film will most likely terrify me again...

... I can't wait! :D

KevinKraeer
02-07-2005, 08:19 PM
Looking forward to this one, that's for sure. I think the trailer did a great job, I mean before I saw that I wasn't sure what Spielberg's 'take' on it was going to be, but that gave me a better idea. Seems like it might be a little dark.

Anyway, I'm excited :).

jussing
02-07-2005, 08:28 PM
One thing that strikes me as cool is that we don't see the red laser bolts fly through the air, just the hits. First of all, that makes it a tad more original than what we usually see, getting rid of the biggest sci-fi cliche ever - and second, I think it makes it more scary that we don't know where the shots are coming from.

One thing I'm curious about though, is the story take (that was NOT a cue to spoilers, thank you ;) ) -Which "angle" is it going to be?

ID-4 style:
We follow a small band of guys who fight off an entire alien fleet because they get "the idea".
Signs-style:
We don't follow the greater perspective, US Presidents and all that, we just follow a family and their experience.
The "Deux ex machina" cop-out of the original WOW:
After all the running and screaming, an earth virus like the cold takes out the alien invaders.
Watcha think? NO QUALIFIED inside knowledge or AICN spoilers, please, just theories! :D (wanna post spoilers, make a seperate thread)

Cheers,
- Jonas

KevinKraeer
02-07-2005, 08:41 PM
Good question. Judging from what we've seen so far, with Cruise and the little girl figuring so prominently in the pre-release stuff, I'm guessing we'll follow them around quite a bit.

The original was just on AMC a few weeks ago, and that's kind of what they did in that version; they followed the physicist (?) and that random lady around during the chaos...clearly, though, some changes to the orginal movie have been made.

I think victory will be won by a less obvious method than the virus thing. Plus, the virus thing was just done relatively recently with ID4. I liked ID4 because it was a popcorn-summer-fun kind of flick, but I think this is going to be a little more involved than that movie was. Meh, I could be wrong too... It might simply be an even more stylized, serious version.

It's really all a guessing game until it hits the screens. But out of your three options, I'm guessing we'll follow Cruise and family around for the majority of the movie.

Dirtystimpy
02-07-2005, 08:50 PM
good post up there Malducin, people will complain about everything.

I worked on the movie at the beginning stages, but man oh man, I know the movie will be goooooooooood.

malducin
02-08-2005, 06:22 AM
Dorkman, you know me, stirring trouble here and there ;-).

Well as I sometimes say trailers are no way to judge the final quality of the VFX or for that matter movies. There are just too many examples.

What I find totally mind boggling is that as far as the movie trailers were concerned, Hitch was the highest rated and Batman Begins was the lowest rated. Excuse me but let me do a double take, WHAT!!! A trailer that basically just showed an extended version of one sequence already shown on all previous trailers and TV spots was the best rated?!?!?! I guess that's one reason I'm not in advertising (maybe we should do the same as in Golgafrincham ;-).

As far as the movie speculation it'll mostly follow one average American family (played by Cruise, Fanning and Miranda Otto). Tim Robbins does play a professor so it'll be interesting to see how they make him cross path with Cruise's character. It'll probably be a combination of points 2 and 3 jussing.

CaptainJackSparrow
02-08-2005, 09:43 AM
malducin, you say why watch movies then if you're not impressed by the WoW trailer, well for starters I'd prefers something with a.)characters b.)story c.)plot. d.)a higher original concept. I am not very interested in a rehash of past ideas with a twist of Spielberg's so called 'genius'.

Disaster films are by and large lousy, because by and large they rely on visuals and spectacle with is really only skin deep. To be honest there is nothing in the way of VFX that ILM could do to impress me because VFX by themselves are useless eyecandy, in ten minutes you forgot about them, need I mention Phantom Menace.

Story and characters are king, everything else is ancillary.

I want an engaging story, with interesting characters, then sure add the effects, then they can enhance what is there, but this does not look like that. This looks like all concept and forget about the story telling, ala Day after Tomorrow. I can't say for sure, I haven't seen it but that's the impression from the stuff so far or at least what they're marketing it as ID4-2.

I can almost guarantee you this film will have a weak plot but will be good in the traditional spielberg strengths of set pieces and special effects. Some people love that but for me JP, LW etc etc were all crap films, Indy was good, but Indy had a decent plot and story and character, this does not because that's not the focus, the focus is blowing stuff up and that's hardly great entertainment.

And of course, it's got an annoying kid in it!:P

Solothores
02-08-2005, 09:55 AM
One thing that strikes me as cool is that we don't see the red laser bolts fly through the air, just the hits. First of all, that makes it a tad more original than what we usually see, getting rid of the biggest sci-fi cliche ever - and second, I think it makes it more scary that we don't know where the shots are coming from.


Hm, there were no bolts like in most other scifi movies, agree, but I could make out some ray before the impact. Or have I had too much tea? It was kinda subtile, but there once you watched it in slowmo.

Cheers
Solo

mushroomgod
02-08-2005, 10:07 AM
One thing that strikes me as cool is that we don't see the red laser bolts fly through the air, just the hits. First of all, that makes it a tad more original than what we usually see, getting rid of the biggest sci-fi cliche ever - and second, I think it makes it more scary that we don't know where the shots are coming from.- Jonas

in the book i belive that the rays/lasers where described as "invisible heat rays". Maybe thats why we dont see anything hit the bridge when it blows up :)

jussing
02-08-2005, 12:12 PM
Hm, there were no bolts like in most other scifi movies, agree, but I could make out some ray before the impact. Or have I had too much tea? It was kinda subtile, but there once you watched it in slowmo.

I interpreted it only as impact flashes when I watched the trailer, but I agree, if you watch it frame by frame you can make out a direction. Hm.

- Jonas

Emmanuel
02-08-2005, 04:41 PM
All I can say is this: it comes down to how the movie ends, and so I pray: please god, not something like "we could use a computer virus to shut their systems down, then the marines can move in and do the rest"
And also, please let the Aliens have a believable reason for attacking or just leave everything concerning them in the dark, up for speculation.

Daniel-B
02-08-2005, 05:16 PM
Hey, Dorkman. Good to see you around.

thethule
02-08-2005, 05:40 PM
Man! I thought that was a great great trailer. Short and sweet and very very eery. The little girls reaction as shes turning around made my skin crawl. I love the way Tom says "get in the car or you will die", not yelling it, just saying it matter of factly. Cant wait to see this. And the graphics are definately temp, the cars look very rough.

I dont think that this film will be bad like ID4 or Armageddon (2 films that insulted my intelligence as well as any country that isnt the U.S of A). It might not be Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind, but then its not pretending to be.




Marc

DorkmanScott
02-08-2005, 06:50 PM
malducin, you say why watch movies then if you're not impressed by the WoW trailer, well for starters I'd prefers something with a.)characters b.)story c.)plot. d.)a higher original concept. I am not very interested in a rehash of past ideas with a twist of Spielberg's so called 'genius'.

Disaster films are by and large lousy, because by and large they rely on visuals and spectacle with is really only skin deep. To be honest there is nothing in the way of VFX that ILM could do to impress me because VFX by themselves are useless eyecandy, in ten minutes you forgot about them, need I mention Phantom Menace.

Story and characters are king, everything else is ancillary.

I want an engaging story, with interesting characters, then sure add the effects, then they can enhance what is there, but this does not look like that. This looks like all concept and forget about the story telling, ala Day after Tomorrow. I can't say for sure, I haven't seen it but that's the impression from the stuff so far or at least what they're marketing it as ID4-2.

I can almost guarantee you this film will have a weak plot but will be good in the traditional spielberg strengths of set pieces and special effects. Some people love that but for me JP, LW etc etc were all crap films, Indy was good, but Indy had a decent plot and story and character, this does not because that's not the focus, the focus is blowing stuff up and that's hardly great entertainment.

And of course, it's got an annoying kid in it!:P

CJS, it's not that I disagree with you in principle. There are two people who showed up right in this thread that can vouch for my exalting the story over all other things. But your argument makes no sense.

I do agree that perhaps these things have been done before, but when they have they've been based, more often than not, on the storyline of WOTW. This is exactly the reason Neuromancer will probably never be made into a film -- people will decry it as a Matrix ripoff, even though if anything it's the other way around.

Additionally, when based on a novel that has been in print continuously for over 100 years, and adapted by David Koepp (who I personally think did a more than competent job with the Spiderman films), and directed by Spielberg who has always been more concerned with the story than the FX -- say what you will about his recent fare (Catch Me if You Can, The Terminal), but they haven't been FX films. I think he's proven himself to be a director who uses FX when they serve the story. Then again I thought Jurassic Park had a great storyline (I heartily dislike Lost World though).

The point is that Spielberg has always been more driven by story than FX. That's why he chooses the projects he does. And having seen less that 30 seconds of footage from the film is hardly enough to judge the quality of the storyline, especially when it's a teaser for the Superbowl, in which case of course they're going to show action.

I agree that story is always paramount (or should be), but I disagree with your assertions that WOTW is obviously vacuous.

M. Scott

slaughters
02-08-2005, 07:47 PM
..., well for starters I'd prefers something with a.)characters b.)story c.)plot. d.)a higher original concept. I am not very interested in a rehash of past ideas...HEH. So, what you're saying is that you hate all Anime :)

malducin
02-08-2005, 09:54 PM
you say why watch movies then if you're not impressed by the WoW trailer, well for starters I'd prefers something with a.)characters b.)story c.)plot. d.)a higher original concept. I am not very interested in a rehash of past ideas with a twist of Spielberg's so called 'genius'.

No, no, no. That's not what I meant, either you misunderstood me, or more likely I didn't explain myself correctly.

You are more than welcome to not like WotW or the trailer (although trailers are now way to judge a film, just a way to see if it MIGHT be appealing). What I have a problem with is overly broad generalizations and comparisions on superficial things and lack of overall context.

By the overall broad generalization that WotW is/will be bad because we have seen it before we could reach some, IMHO, ridiculous statements. The overall conclussion of your statement is that there should never be any alien invasion film ever, because we have seen it all before. To boot there's the superficial comparison and supporting evidence of having seen city wide destructions even if the context is different: ID4 was alien invasion, Mars Attacks was as well but that was a spoof, Armageddon and Deep Impact meteor/comet, while Day After Tomorrow was rapid climatic change. By that extension why not include other things, from T2's nuclear blast, and since we have seen it before what about lots of war films as well. You see we quickly descend into having seen everything.

Point of time is arbitrary. Rhetorically speaking to anyone, why watch ID4 when we have Harryhausen classic Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. Why watch Deep Impact when we had Meteor.

And it could be extended to all sort of films in all sorts of ways, even some highly liked ones here. Why watch the Matrix when we had Total Recall and Dark City? Why watch Lord of the Rings when we had Dragonslayer and Willow, why watch Spider-Man when we had the TV series, Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers when we had The Longest Day, etc. Heck why have And inversely you could have it in dramatic (though a bit tougher), why have films of love triangles, crippled people succeding against imposibilities, couples surviving their own neurosis, people against the system (and in those general terms I probably described all Oscar nominees this year ;-). It's like taking David Spade's Hollywood Minute to the extreme (even though you and him do have a valid point).

You even mention "past ideas". So I guess in that view movies based on historical events or other media (say novels) should never be done at all, only totally new ideas.

Just because most disaster films are "crap", doesn't mean all of them are. Sure the percentage is not good and plays in favor of your argument but there is still a chance this will be good. Just change the argument that all "western", scifi, police dramas or horror films are "crap" by definition. Would things like Unforgiven, 12 Monkeys or Blade Runner, L.A. Confidential or Carpenter's The Thing are bad?

To me the most aggravating aspect is when the generalization are done also for the VFX. Oh it looks like something before, even though the context in how it fits the film, the techniques and artistry involve are specific. Why nominate I, Robot when we've seen good and bad robots before (Robby, C3PO, the WOPR, etc.), Spider-Man 2 (let me see when we saw the "similar thing" in the TV series and previous movie) or Harry Potter 3 (the 2 previous films plus stuff like Poltergeist, etc.). Why nominate for VFX any movie with spaceships, even Ed Wood did it in Plan 9 From Outer Space ;-).

To me the devil is in the details, not in the general. Sure you might see things that overall have the same theme or characteristics but what makes me like it is the details, the specific take or angle of the director, the subtleties of the story and performances, etc.

Story and characters are king, everything else is ancillary.

And I agree completely, at the end of the year what I remember are those films that had a good story, but...

because VFX by themselves are useless eyecandy, in ten minutes you forgot about them, need I mention Phantom Menace.

In my particular case I'm also a "scholar" (very loosely used) of VFX. In a whole movie, sure they MIGHT be eyecandy. But in themeselves VFX are an art and science to be appreciated, analyzed and watched. Or do you think VXF are "done by soulless computers" or that Harryhausen was not an artist. In fact to me the opposite is true, the VFX can be the only thing worthwhile in most movies, they are not eyecandy, but the soul of a movie because the story, characters and direction are fluff.

I can almost guarantee you this film will have a weak plot but will be good in the traditional spielberg strengths of set pieces and special effects. Some people love that but for me JP, LW etc etc were all crap films, Indy was good, but Indy had a decent plot and story and character, this does not because that's not the focus, the focus is blowing stuff up and that's hardly great entertainment.

That's just speculation with no basis whatsoever. It could be an adaptation that still keeps the core of the novel. Heck, despite all the action in Minority Report, Spielberg still managed to capture some of the concepts Philip K. Dick liked to use. Some might call it a scifi-action movie, but there's certainly a deeper story going on.

And aren't you contradicting yourself??? After all Indy was a "modern" take on the old serial adventure movies, and is filled wall to wall with action and special effects. And the story is about a guy battling baddies to get a treasure in braod strokes. It should be crap since it was a "rehash" of old ideas ;-).

I love Indy, the devil is in the details, not that it was similar to serial B-films from the 40s.

And of course, it's got an annoying kid in it!:P

Well I happen to like Dakota Fanning so it's a matter of tastes.

Wiro
02-08-2005, 10:49 PM
Maybe Captain Jack Sparrow has seen it all and is so jaded that nothing more excites him? Pity us fools who can still enjoy a movie with crumbling buildings and invading aliens ;)

Wiro

DorkmanScott
02-09-2005, 06:18 AM
And it could be extended to all sort of films in all sorts of ways, even some highly liked ones here. Why watch the Matrix when we had Total Recall and Dark City?

Kung fu.

Between the two though, I LOVE Dark City. I think part of the appeal is that so few people know about it, it's like I know a secret. :D

Also, The Thirteenth Floor was another film with the same high concept.

M. Scott

Creed
02-09-2005, 11:09 PM
Well, if Spielburg is doing more aliens stuff, I hope it's better than his SciFi Taken series.
That mini-series was kind of dry and drawn out. Not too exciting, at least to me.

Solothores
02-21-2005, 11:02 AM
japanese trailer version can be found here:
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19468

features a bit new footage, however pretty similar to superbowl version.

Furthermore, it seems that they won't originate from mars like in wells original:

Heya Harry.

I just got home from Wondercon and thought I might share what may or may not be a spoiler regarding War of the Worlds. On the panel were a couple of of artists including Doug Chiang and some other guy.

In the discussion of the aliens they were both quite tight lipped but the second man said at one point that this was a full on invasion picture and that we were being watched from a parallel dimension. Now with that nugget and the trailer saying they are alreday here it makes me think that the aliens are coming from another version of earth.

Who knows?


Source: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19454

As always providing the usual grain of salt.

Cheers
Solo

jussing
02-21-2005, 12:05 PM
Gaaaaaaaaaawd, I am always surprised just how much Streaming Windows Media blows. I'm on a 2mb line, streaming Quicktime always works like a charm, and RealVideo and Windows Media always give me a series of still pictures, with skipping audio and long waits throughout the whole thing. Why, why, why, why do anyone put stuff online in those formats???

I've gone through the Japanese trailer three times now, and all I've seen is three title cards, and two still pictures from the trailer. If they'd use Quicktime, the trailer might take just as long to cache, but at least it could be viewed without a flaw once it was cached. Grr!

OK, end rant! :D

- Jonas

CGTalk Moderation
02-21-2006, 01:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.