The big screen and the small screen... together at last! Hurrah!
Topic locked

Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:10 pm

Fiddelysquat wrote:
Igg wrote:I don't think it's that so much as he was actively trying to make someone come off prescribed anti-depressants when it's a) none of his business and b) he has no medical background.

Better not get into a debate.


Frankly, depression or no, Tom Cruise has no right to tell ANYBODY what to think. The man can't even separate fantasy from reality. He goes about dating all of his co-stars!

/ getting engaged.

When they have films about to be released. Funny old world.

Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:58 pm

Chanel wrote:Here are my gripes with this movie:

1. Why didn't the aliens research our current world better before invading?

2. How did the alien "things" remain buried and undiscovered all this time with our technology?

3. The alien tripods were... eh. While their design remain faithful to the original, placed in the current world setting they just seem like some bad 50s movie set piece.

Now if the movie was set, say, in the 1940s then maybe the tripods would seem more plausible as an effective alien invasion tool. But then you'd DEFINITELY have to re-cast Cruise. Tom + 1940s = does not work.

Like others have said before, read the book, and listen to the original radio play if you can find it.


You sound exactly like Ebert's review on the movie.
I can see the points though but it's just best to not think about all that stuff when watching these movies. :P

Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:12 am

I saw it 2day.....WORST ENDING EVER....i found it very disappointing

Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:23 pm

Uchiha-Itachi wrote:I saw it 2day.....WORST ENDING EVER....i found it very disappointing


Really? I thought that ending made sense. I never expected it at all.

Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:07 pm

Uchiha-Itachi wrote:I saw it 2day.....WORST ENDING EVER....i found it very disappointing


Yes but considering that the book was written in 1898 and the first antibiotics were made in around 1914, its a bit more plausible.

Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:32 pm

Just a few days ago I was listening to a version I have on a two-disc CD set. It's taken from the original text, just with a small love-interest. I found that version really good, so if the movie is anything like it, I'll see it. But, it doesn't look like it, so I think I'll stay away.

Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:39 pm

If I really had much interest in watching Dakota Fanning scream for two hours, I'd... do something witty-sounding that I can't think of right now.

Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:52 pm

Bangel wrote:If I really had much interest in watching Dakota Fanning scream for two hours, I'd... do something witty-sounding that I can't think of right now.

Watch Dakota Fanning scream for 2 hours?

Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:17 pm

Skullsplitter wrote:
Uchiha-Itachi wrote:I saw it 2day.....WORST ENDING EVER....i found it very disappointing


Yes but considering that the book was written in 1898 and the first antibiotics were made in around 1914, its a bit more plausible.

not to mention the numerous Virie that we cant stop.
and the ones we have naturally adapted too (bless the K-9 drug, showing us all the weird and explosive things we're lucky to have adapted too)

Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:41 pm

Shollia wrote:
Chanel wrote:Here are my gripes with this movie:

1. Why didn't the aliens research our current world better before invading?

2. How did the alien "things" remain buried and undiscovered all this time with our technology?

3. The alien tripods were... eh. While their design remain faithful to the original, placed in the current world setting they just seem like some bad 50s movie set piece.

Now if the movie was set, say, in the 1940s then maybe the tripods would seem more plausible as an effective alien invasion tool. But then you'd DEFINITELY have to re-cast Cruise. Tom + 1940s = does not work.

Like others have said before, read the book, and listen to the original radio play if you can find it.


You sound exactly like Ebert's review on the movie.
I can see the points though but it's just best to not think about all that stuff when watching these movies. :P


And now to quote Franken-Vader:

"NOOOOOOOOO!"

ew. I hate sounding like Ebert ><

Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:17 am

Setekh wrote:
Skullsplitter wrote:
Uchiha-Itachi wrote:I saw it 2day.....WORST ENDING EVER....i found it very disappointing


Yes but considering that the book was written in 1898 and the first antibiotics were made in around 1914, its a bit more plausible.

not to mention the numerous Virie that we cant stop.
and the ones we have naturally adapted too (bless the K-9 drug, showing us all the weird and explosive things we're lucky to have adapted too)


Have you ever read the andromeda strain?

Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:07 pm

yes.
and i have also read the reports on said drug (it is real by the by)

Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:15 am

Skullsplitter wrote:
Setekh wrote:
Skullsplitter wrote:
Uchiha-Itachi wrote:I saw it 2day.....WORST ENDING EVER....i found it very disappointing


Yes but considering that the book was written in 1898 and the first antibiotics were made in around 1914, its a bit more plausible.

not to mention the numerous Virie that we cant stop.
and the ones we have naturally adapted too (bless the K-9 drug, showing us all the weird and explosive things we're lucky to have adapted too)


Have you ever read the andromeda strain?


nah sorry I havent..is it related to war of the worlds or something like it

Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:39 pm

nope, the K-9 drug is refferenced in the Andromeda strain, its a drug that destroys all microbes within the body.
including the immune system unfortunetly.

edit: though i dont remember if it destroys virie.

Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:42 pm

Setekh wrote:nope, the K-9 drug is refferenced in the Andromeda strain, its a drug that destroys all microbes within the body.
including the immune system unfortunetly.

edit: though i dont remember if it destroys virie.


I seem to remember that it does. Some of the diseases described are pretty nauseating.
Topic locked