• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Great Martian War 1913 -1917.

Wait, what? The 2005 movie was about martians? All I remember was the screaming girl portrayed by Dakota Fanning :p

True, many of the scenes are mirrored from the novel, but I find it was terribly executed to the point that the movie is hardly recognizable as the same story. The similar scenes seem tacked on to the point of serving as a reminder of what they were remaking.
 
Wait, what? The 2005 movie was about martians? All I remember was the screaming girl portrayed by Dakota Fanning :p

True, many of the scenes are mirrored from the novel, but I find it was terribly executed to the point that the movie is hardly recognizable as the same story. The similar scenes seem tacked on to the point of serving as a reminder of what they were remaking.
You might not have liked the film, but it is closer to the original book than the 1953 version. And the 2005 film doesn't mention Martians, and that's a good thing because what we know of Mars doesn't support the idea of an alien race originating from there.
 
Accurate doesn't always mean best. The 1953 version is often considered the best one even though it's not a copy of the book, because as a movie, it's simply executed better. If you want accurate, check out the Pendagron Pictures version, already mentioned in this thread, which follows the novel literally word for word and scene for scene, although, as was already mentioned, it's not at a great movie as it's in dire need of editing. Still, I enjoyed it better than the Tom Cruise movie.
 
The two films are different perspectives of an alien invasion. The 2005 film does make some changes to update the story, but its heart is the original novel. The main character of the book is a civilian shmuck just trying to stay alive and the 2005 film does the same thing only updating the character to someone more recognizably contemporary.
That's a good point. The 50s version did make it more of a Scientist Hero movie, of the type that was popular at the time.

You might not have liked the film, but it is closer to the original book than the 1953 version. And the 2005 film doesn't mention Martians, and that's a good thing because what we know of Mars doesn't support the idea of an alien race originating from there.
What some writers have done to get around that is to say that the aliens used Mars as a staging area for the invasion.

It aired on History Channel, so check your On Demand Menu, or if they have streaming, check their site
They did finally air it here? Crap. I should have paid closer attention.
 
Accurate doesn't always mean best. The 1953 version is often considered the best one even though it's not a copy of the book, because as a movie, it's simply executed better. If you want accurate, check out the Pendagron Pictures version, already mentioned in this thread, which follows the novel literally word for word and scene for scene, although, as was already mentioned, it's not at a great movie as it's in dire need of editing. Still, I enjoyed it better than the Tom Cruise movie.
All I know is as I read the book the 1953 film certainly didn't come to mind, but the 2005 version certainly did. As a comparison I'd cite the Bourne films which certainly depart from the original source material, but have a sensibility to them that feels similar to the originals.

I don't share the general criticism of the 2005 film. I don't think it's better or worse than the 1953 version, but just different.
 
Accurate doesn't always mean best. The 1953 version is often considered the best one even though it's not a copy of the book, because as a movie, it's simply executed better. If you want accurate, check out the Pendagron Pictures version, already mentioned in this thread, which follows the novel literally word for word and scene for scene, although, as was already mentioned, it's not at a great movie as it's in dire need of editing. Still, I enjoyed it better than the Tom Cruise movie.
Pendragon Pictures Version? is that the C. Thomas Howell one? I've been meaning to check it out. It's got a Sequel, too, I believe.
 
Pendragon Pictures Version? is that the C. Thomas Howell one? I've been meaning to check it out. It's got a Sequel, too, I believe.

No, the Pendragon Pictures film is the period adaptation.

C. Thomas Howell's War of the Worlds was an Asylum film.
 
Yeah, and they both came out at the same time, trying to take advantage of the publicity surrounding the Tom Cruise version.

All I know is as I read the book the 1953 film certainly didn't come to mind, but the 2005 version certainly did. As a comparison I'd cite the Bourne films which certainly depart from the original source material, but have a sensibility to them that feels similar to the originals.

I don't share the general criticism of the 2005 film. I don't think it's better or worse than the 1953 version, but just different.

Well, I do admit that it's closer to the original novel, but not by much. Some of the key scenes from the novel are in there, but as I said, they feel tacked on rather than well-integrated, which make them feel more like tribute pieces. The mood of the thing also feels rather off.
 
The Great Martian War is finally coming to US television on August 2 on BBCAmerica! I can't wait to finally see this!
 
I just got round to watching it a couple of weeks ago - it's really good, probably the best screen take on War Of The Worlds.
 
I tried watching a bit of this, but I just have a hard time taking these fake documentary shows even remotely seriously (not to mention that it just seemed vaguely offensive somehow to twist WWI into becoming this alternate War of the Worlds invasion story).

I will say the alien tripod designs were pretty cool though.
 
Now what they called liquid metal--was that some type of worm gear or double helical gear (herringbone)?
 
I recorded it last night and watched it late this afternoon. The "Alice Hale" character, presented as the last surviving witness to the London encounter was a trip! To see this "dear old lady" blurt out "bastard" in the midst of her "interview" with no suggestion of embarrassment made me pull a double take. The actress Hazel Douglas really put her "all" into the role. According to IMDb, she's steadily worked in television since 1952. But she's also had a few movie roles, including one in Part 1 of the Harry Potter Deathly Hallows film.

Sincerely,

Bill
 
I saw it. For a fictional docu-drama it was good. It takes one whopper of a suspension of disbelief for anyone to believe that early 20th century weaponry could successfully repel aliens who had mastered interstellar travel. Shit most scientists today think our modern military would be crushed by invading aliens.


Oh and the magic metal liquid which they reverse engineer at a time when electricity was barely available to the general public - forget the name - plus infected horses wins the war. [roll eyes]

Outside of that, was OK.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top