News from The Digital Bits (thedigitalbits.com): Paramount has revealed that in addition to The  War of the Worlds (1953): Special Collector's Edition  they have planned for release on 11/1, you can look for the first  season of the 1988 War of the Worlds  TV series on that day as well.

Quote: Originally posted by Aaron Schneiderman
Aren't we all reading this website?Touche'

Quote: Originally posted by Jonny "Me You"
what is this crazy "book" thing you speak of? hehehe
...I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW...and run off into the hills, or wherever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

Quote: Originally posted by Josh F
ah man! I saw this and thought it was the remake. I got all excited. Then I saw the 1953 at the end. Daaaaamn!!!
Yeah, I'm definately getting the remake when it comes out on DVD. It was definately my favorite film of the summer.

Put aside the "remake"...... .....and enjoy this movie. Who gives a $^% if its a "rethinking", a "remake" or whatever. I wish they would drop the crappy cover art, and do what WB has been doing: Promote the original look of the movie. I hope Paramount got the stereo mix of this movie, like on the laserdisc!

Seems like I'm the only one who misses the banner on all of Paramount's DVD's.

If you're referring to the Pendragon version, it was actually filmed in Washington state.
It was, of course, an amateur production and thus a great disappointment.

ANSWER: The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Thing from Another World, all the Ray Harryhausen films, the original Star Trek series, and the original version of War of the Worlds.

QUESTION: What were the most rockin' ass Sci-Fi influences on your childhood?

Classics, All.

Nice features but.... The original DVD release of this film co-incided with the theatrical release of ID4 and so they made the cover art similar in style and it sucked.

Now we get a new release (at least this time with some decent goodies on it) and the artwork blows even worse, likely to capitalize on Spielberg's version. GAH!!!

What the hell is wrong with digging up the orginal classic poster art? Looked great on Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Forbidden Planet, etc, etc.

I hate it when they try to contemporize a classic film by giving it slick, flashy, poorly photoshoped artwork. Honor the film and the fans and give us the classic artwork!

Please Paramount! There's still plenty of time, CHANGE THE COVER ART!!

Quote: Originally posted by Aaron Schneiderman
...(the new Spielberg film) doesn't detract one bit from the original's status as a classic motion picture (wires and all).
Totally agree...after The Thing From Another World, this is my favorite classic sci-fi film, although Forbidden Planet runs an awfully close third. And those special effects that some have been dogging won the film an Academy Award and were the benchmark for special effects until Forbidden Planet came along about three years later.

The original novel took place in the late 1800's, and all the action took place in a small british village...
Juste like in the OTHER WotW movie of 2005: a (now duh!) smaller english picture who was supposed to be release this summer... I wonder what appened to this movie and why (!!!). As for the Spielberg version (and not remake), if the first hour is great (the tension, the highway sequence, the SFX...) the second is rubish, to say the least. The girl, who might be the greatest children-actress today, only do two things in the movie : screaming and beeing anoying (1/4 hour into the film I already wanted the alien to kill her, so she would SHUT UP!). And the ending is totaly ridiculous (the happy hending). The only good thing about the ending is that the grand-mother and father of the children are played by the actor and actress heroes of the 53's version!.

I love George Pal's 1953 version of "War of the Worlds." However, I believe Steven Spielberg loved that film as well. If you are going to criticize anyone, you should criticize the makers of "Independence Day." Even though its an enjoyable popcorn flick, it was an obvious rip-off of the 1953 film without proper credit given to the story that inspired it. Steven Spielberg had the good sense to focus the attention from the hackneyed military and scientist plotline to the harrowing experience of one family caught up in the carnage (much like M. Night Shyamalan's, Signs). I thought the remake was one of the best films this summer. That doesn't detract one bit from the original's status as a classic motion picture (wires and all).

Cool. Haven't seen it but sence I saw War of the Worlds last June I've been lookin forward to seein this.

This original movie is awesome. I love this cover art also. I think Paramount did a great job for once. The remake is a great movie as well. Can't wait for this S.E.!

1953 or 2005? Well, I have seen both and you can't really compare them. First of all, the 2005 Spielberg version is NOT a remake of the 1953 version, which is NOT a faithful adaptation of the HG Wells novel.

I much prefer the 1953 version. Not because I am a cinema snob, but because it is clearly a better movie. The Spielberg version may have fantastic special effects, it still has a very weak script and an even weaker ending. The movie would actually have been a lot better if the little girl had sneezed on the Martians and given them the flu!

War of the World 2005 has been a very disappointing movie indeed.

not needed...

wait for the remake on dvd

Im fairly certain that all those of you who are making the claim that the 1953 version is superior are simply cinema snobs who hate anything made in hollywood in the last 30 years. Do you hate the spielberg film because it has CGI as opposed to crappy little ships on strings? The tripods didnt even use ships in the book, they used the gigantic walkers from the remake, so you obviously arent making the arguement based on accuracy of adherence to the source material...You just hate anything with flashy effects, even though there is a much more intimate thriller about how a family would survive an invasion underneath the special effects (although i will admit, it sucked that Boston was such a safe-haven at the end...but the rest of the movie was good dammit!)

I agree, Johnny Sorry, but the '53 version wipes the floor with that half-baked Spielberg version. And who cares if you can see the wires on the ships?

For Christ's sake people, this was made in the 50s. How are the effects supposed to compete with a multi-million dollar movie (which isn't a remake) released in 2005?

THE WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953) I actually perfer the remake, everything about that was thrilling and brillent. But if only this had better effects is would be a lot easier to take. But I guess the crappy effects is part of its charm.