• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Which film version of War of the Worlds did you prefer?

Mr Allen

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
The 1953 version or the 2005 one with Tom Cruise, directed by Steven Spielberg?

To be honest I thought the 2005 remake was crap, even though it featured the Tripods it didn't really follow the book at all, but then neither did the original 1953 version, which was set in California, not Woking, Surrey like the book.

So how about you lot?
 
I enjoyed them both. The first as a "classic" and the remake with a decent "scare factor". Other remakes of this story have seemed pretty lame though...like the ones on the SyFy Channel.

Small wonder I own both on DVD.
 
I enjoyed them both. The first as a "classic" and the remake with a decent "scare factor". Other remakes of this story have seemed pretty lame though...like the ones on the SyFy Channel.

Small wonder I own both on DVD.

I actually prefer the Jeff Wayne musical, the original not the pants "New Generation" with Liam Neeson.
 
I prefer the first one, personally. The second one had some good CGI and some nice updates (as well as following the story closer in places, such as having the red weeds and that guy who was deluded into thinking that humanity could rebuild underground), but I just couldn't get into it; the bit about Martians storing their machines underground on Earth centuries before their invasion was a plot point that kept bothering me.

Since we're on the subject, here's some interesting trivia:
1. The original film adaption actually had a 'sequel' in 1988 in the form of a TV series.
2. The Spielberg adaption in 2005 was one of Three adaptions of War of the Worlds that came out that year and all in June. I am not kidding!

Here's a video that explains in more detail: http://cinemassacre.com/2009/01/19/alien-invaders-part-2/
 
Last edited:
Ah yes...the tv series. It's been a while. Looking back it didn't strike me as the kind of story that could go over well over multiple episodes. Of course as a tv series, it didn't, having been cancelled after a little more than a year and a half in prime time.
 
Ah yes...the tv series. It's been a while. Looking back it didn't strike me as the kind of story that could go over well over multiple episodes. Of course as a tv series, it didn't, having been cancelled after a little more than a year and a half in prime time.

The series was recently repeated on the Horror Channel, not too bad considering it was late 80s.
 
the bit about Martians storing their machines underground on Earth centuries before their invasion was a plot point that kept bothering me.

That was definitely one of the weakest parts of the remake, IMO. I never could wrap my head around that part of the story. It made no sense, especially given how the story ultimately ends.

Other than to lament that it may have simply boiled down to way of explaining prioritized special effects. That they made the story to fit the production rather than the other way around. :rolleyes:

Yet I did enjoy seeing Tom Cruise play an unsympathetic schmuck as a divorced father. He didn't save the planet or win the pretty girl in this one. He just tried to save his two children. Very refreshing. :p
 
Top Bottom