Eve Of The War
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/

Which is closer to book 53 or 05???
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=735
Page 2 of 3

Author:  oever532 [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:25 am ]
Post subject: 

He is eager to join the army and fight the Martians though, but his father (Ray) resists, and his sister Rachel also doen't want him to go.

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

oever532 wrote:
He is eager to join the army and fight the Martians though, but his father (Ray) resists, and his sister Rachel also doen't want him to go.


I don't think its an intentional connection. Robbie doesnt have any traits, characteristics or dialogue in common with the artillaryman. Its a threadbare connection at best and really I dont think its substantial enough to be considered as a reference to the book. Also what has his families resistance to Robbie's departure got to do with anything from the book?

Author:  oever532 [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'd say nothing. It's probably something of Spielberg. The Spielberg movie is now topping the Dutch Cinema list for 3 - 4 weeks on end...

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Speilberg and Cruise in "their name attracts people to cinemas for about the millionth time" shock :D

Author:  oever532 [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

So you see the movie does it very good at all!

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Leper Messiah wrote:
I don't think its an intentional connection. Robbie doesnt have any traits, characteristics or dialogue in common with the artillaryman. Its a threadbare connection at best and really I dont think its substantial enough to be considered as a reference to the book. Also what has his families resistance to Robbie's departure got to do with anything from the book?

I don't see Robbie as the artillaryman :? He is more like the narrator's wife, She was feared dead when Leatherhead was destroyed, only to turn up, alive and well, at the end of the book.

Author:  Yuri2356 [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lonesome Crow wrote:
I don't see Robbie as the artillaryman :? He is more like the narrator's wife, She was feared dead when Leatherhead was destroyed, only to turn up, alive and well, at the end of the book.

One would kind of think that the Narrator's wife was... well... Ray's wife.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

But you weren't left, feeling Ray's wife was dead. I don't think gender is important here, it's just a missing family member.
there is even a passage in the book where the narrator says "I remember feeling angry with my wife" very much like Ray's and Robbie's conflict.

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:21 am ]
Post subject: 

again, dubious at best. I dont see either of Ray's children as having any connection to the book whatsoever. The only way they can be assosiated with anything in the book is in only the most general terms. The Narrators anger with his wife is a passing thing and their relationship as a whole bears no similarity at all to the Ray/Robbie storyline. The children in 05 are a big falling down point for the film precisely because they have nothing to do with the source material.

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:27 am ]
Post subject: 

I mentioned the red weed being in the new film and the book, also we see the red weed dieing before we see the martians dieing. Another point to 05.

Author:  oever532 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:37 am ]
Post subject: 

And what about that man being drained, while Cruise and co hid by that Ogilvy character?

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think I mentioned that they feed on us/sort of/anyway. But the situation in which it is seen is also the same.

Author:  oever532 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

So the movie of 2005 is more faithfullier to the book?

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

So far it is.

Author:  oever532 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

That's then probably settled, then, or are there more points to add to either movie. :-k

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

the 2005 WOTW carries more direct book stuff but that doesnt mean its more faithfull to the story. The 1953 film as ive attempted to explain but not really succeeded, has the War Of The Worlds atmosphere, the 2005 one doesnt in my opinion. It has an atmosphere to be sure but not the one of our story, in spite of the stuff it does use from the book. Also the 53 film has a lot of stuff that is adapted but is essentially still there. The atom bomb/thunderchild connection is a good example to point out. In my view, 53 is the superior adaptation.

Author:  oever532 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

What was the Thunder Child reference in the 2005 movie? :-k

Author:  Yuri2356 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

We didn't get one. The closest that '05 comes to a Thunder Child sequence is that huge battle on the other side of the Hill that we don't get to see. (Which is realy much closer to the first fights on Horsell Common, or at Wheybridge and Shepperton)

I've heard that there may have been something planned for the movie where it splits into two plots, one following Robbie after he runs off, where we would have seen his travels with the army and a Thuderchild-esque battle. (Like how the book has parts that focus on the narrator's brother in London)

Author:  oever532 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

So we get some add-ons? They obviously must have been either deleted scenes or something else...

Author:  Yuri2356 [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

oever532 wrote:
So we get some add-ons? They obviously must have been either deleted scenes or something else...

If the scene were actually shot, then they'll probably be on the DVD.

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

It was far from perfect. But as an adaption in a modern setting of WOTW then it was very good. We all want to see the book done as close to the book filming will allow, but as a make do, it does.

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Loz wrote:
It was far from perfect. But as an adaption in a modern setting of WOTW then it was very good. We all want to see the book done as close to the book filming will allow, but as a make do, it does.


and there dear Loz, we disagree :a037:

Author:  oever532 [ Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:01 am ]
Post subject: 

At what point? :-s

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

well Loz says its a good adaptation of WOTW and that it is passable as a version close to the book, thats the point we disagree at :D

Author:  Loz [ Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:29 am ]
Post subject: 

I didn't say it was passable as a version close to the book.

Its an adaptition set now, with major changes to the characters involved. But I can except that for a film set in Modern America. Just like the 53 film. I can except it and enjoy it, but it is far from the book.
For me the big thing that makes me enjoy this film is the fact that the Tripods are so well designed and realized on screen. I enjoy Justice League cartoons with Tripods in.
If Asylum had created Tripods instead of Hexapods, then I would have enjoyed it more.
I enjoyed the sense of fear and opression that ran through the film, I enjoyed the little nods to the book, film and radio play.
I think a modern setting in America means you can't go on that same journey as in the book. The character has to change for it to work.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/