Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Mariner

Yes, the 2005 Spielberg / Cruise version is superior to the 1953 George Pal / Barré Lyndon / Byron Haskin / Gene Barry version in several ways:

— It’s closer to the book.
— It has better acting.
— It has better special effects.

And yet I still prefer the 1953 version by a wide margin.


15 posted on 05/14/2015 2:52:07 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: EveningStar

The 1953 movie War of the Worlds has the Flying Wing!


17 posted on 05/14/2015 3:14:26 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll Onward! Ride to the sound of the guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

To me, the more modern takes on these kind of stories, even if well done, usually miss the mark. I think it’s because the stories themselves were suited to a certain era, so it might be better to see them in black and white, or grainy, than high definition with all the modern bells and whistles.

For example, take “King Kong”. Just the nature of that story, a giant ape coming to gleaming New York City and wrecking it, it’s not a “modern” story. It reflects the subconscious of it’s time, just like “Godzilla”’s radioactive monsters reflected the subconscious of Japan after a humiliating defeat and nuclear attacks. So, even though I like Jackson’s remake of Kong, it is missing something, despite being set in the same era, and having most of the shots intentionally duplicated. It’s a nostalgic piece now, but that wasn’t true for the original.


23 posted on 05/14/2015 6:21:56 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson