Do you prefer the Original War of the Worlds on Channel 5 now, of cruise speilbergs version?

Question

and why?

dont say book or radio announcements

Answer 1

Spielbergs version is the worse film I have ever seen apart from Pearl Harbour.

Answer 2

The original was entertaining when I was a kid, but bears very little resemblance to the original novel. The preacher is a hero in the movie, in the book he was a demented idiot (H.G. Wells was a way-over-the-top atheist, which is why I love him so much).

Also, the book was set in London, England but no film has ever been made in that setting - maybe we should do it.

the Spielberg version is a pile of horse-manure (just like most everything he does - yeah, even ET).

If you want to do yourself a real favour, get a copy of Jeff Wayne's "musical interpretation of the War of the Worlds".

You need to get the full version narrated by Richard Burton, not the highlights. The full version is a double CD, the highlights single CD. You'll be surprised at how much of the music makes you say to yourself: "yeah, I've heard that before", most obviously "Forever Autumn". You'll also be amazed by the cast, if you're old enough to remember them:
David Essex,
Phil Lynott (Thin Lizzie)
Julie Covington (Evita, Only Women Bleed)
and lots more..........

Come on Thunderchild.
(Ullaaaah) (this is not a mis-spelling of a deity, before I get flamed by moslems all over the world)

Answer 3

original..I'm afraid the remake was not a spot on the original..sorry Mr Spielberg..I'm a big fan of your work..but this one just didn't do it for me.yep the original...(it lacked the oomph factor .unlike the movie Independence Day )...based on the fact that they are both si fi.and it wasn't so disjointed and needed better sfx,sorry to the guys..ultimately im sure you want the movie to be a blockbuster...and win Oscars....but if it ain't got the scene,it ain't going to win. by that i mean if the film is one of the future classics(like ET although it is a classic already in my book) then people will want to buy the DVD..after seeing it at the pictures....this is the way collections are built..i have a great collection and they include..Battle of Britain,Saving Private Ryan..When We Were Soldiers,The Green Berets, withJohn Wayne,(definitely a classic up there with..) the Great Escape,The Guns of Navarone,The Dam Busters,the sea shall not have them The Desert Fox(James Mason)..Bridge over the River Kwai Schindler's List,and one of my favourites Empire of the Sun, and finally my no1 favourite(don't you dare make a remake of this one Hollywood.!!). Reach for the Sky (based on the book by Paul Brickhill about sir Douglas Bader)and besides you would probably have America winning the Battle of Britain..so there you have it..lock stock and two smoking barrels..yep another one!!

Answer 4

I like both for different reasons.

The new version really looks like the end of the world. I particularly liked the bit where Tom Cruise kills the guy in the bunker to save his daughter. That was so real.

The original has the old-movie charm of post war sci-fi movies, which you're either a fan of or not.

Answer 5

I prefer Jeff Wayne's musical. It's brilliant!

The original film though is waaaay better than the Spielberg remake.

Answer 6

Original because it actually scared people when it was done, it was way ahead of it's time. I didn't even bother to go see Cruise attempting to act in the new one.

Answer 7

original 1 is best watching now on 5 still gr8 film some1 should make 1 with the album soundtrack on no 1 would have believed. ;)

Answer 8

I think the new version - It annoys me that it is in USA rather than England, like the book. However, the Origional really bugs me as they do not have the machines as Tripods.

Answer 9

i much prefer the audio version by jeff wayne. Spielbergs version is awful, altho the tripods look cool.

Answer 10

Definately the old one because its closer to the book (sorry was I allowed to say that?)

Also just a little bit innocent and nice!