Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (The Asylum film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not Spielberg

Oh damn. I thought this was supposed to refer to the Spielberg movie, and edited part of it because I thought that it had wrong info.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord of Light (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 December 2005.

It's not really a problem. I simply reverted your edits. --Bacteria 21:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two links with the same theme

This and H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film) should be combined somehow.

Don't be silly. Optimus Sledge 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 WotWs film out in 2005 The War of the Worlds (film) but there is no reason they should be merged (it would make things messier and would probably add to the confusion). It might be that we have to do something to make it clearer which are which but I hope the film disambiguation page will sort out most confusion on that front. It'd be worth checking that the incoming links are all pointing to the right entries. While we were disambiguating the various WotW entries we have been through incoming links and checking that everything was OK but it pays to doublecheck. (Emperor 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I want to first note that original (unsigned) post is a just over a year old. It appears dead-on to this request (whether they're the same can only assumed because the history for that talk page is lost). As it's been stated, these are two films similar in titles and source material, but have different casts, crews, and setting both in time and location. I'm pretty sure you won't find a single wikipedia policy that will agree with merging these two. --Bacteria 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mockbuster

Three adaptions were in the production at the same time. Just because one was a big budget one does not make the other two mockbusters. Get your facts right boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.87.50 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No references given

No sources, no inline citations, no parenthetical citations. This article is extremely vulnerable to speedy deletion. --Lexein (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Educational Opportunity?

This straight-to-dvd version of 'War of the Worlds" seems to have been produced for one reason only: to be released in the same month as Spielberg's version and thereby cash in on the popularity of Spielberg's version through Blockbuster and elsewhere only for the purpose of making money off of those who purchase it in the mistaken belief (without reading the cover details) that is is somehow the Spielberg version....or just as good....or worth renting because the title is so popular and so heavily advertised in that month?  It seems the main point of interest in the article is not addressed: WHY would anyone want to produce such a low-to-no-budget version of a title when the blockbuster version of the same title is so much better and in theaters at exactly the same time? ... it would be instructive for cinemaphiles to know the answer - just in case they are interested in understanding how the movie-making biz sometimes works from a purely business standpoint.  While the dvd might be seen as a psychological study of humans facing 'the end' it is a bit slow and tedious and if the business motivation is understood, that might help us understand and appreciate something about the movie business that may not be clear to many of us.  The dvd would be worth the time just to see how this business goal is achieved in the cinema marketplace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyzngalz (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) → H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film) – year does not appear to be needed. Alternatively War of the Worlds (Asylum film) could also work, we could move War of the Worlds (2005 film) to War of the Worlds (Dreammax film) to turn its former location into a disambig. 64.228.88.108 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's also a third 2005 film, H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not forgetting the The War of the Worlds (1953 film) either -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCF. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCF. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current proposal of removing the year per WP:NCF#Between films of the same name: "add the year of its first verifiable release". In fact, the titles "The War of the Worlds" and "H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds" commonly refer to the same material, so I must insist that the year be included so it is definitely more clear. I would instead propose the following: War of the Worlds (2005 film) to War of the Worlds (2005 Dreamworks film), H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) to H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 The Asylum film), H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film) to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 Pendragon Pictures film), and keep the 1953 film at its current title. My second choice would be to put the directors' names (Steven Spielberg, David Michael Latt, and Timothy Hines) instead of the distributor/production company on the three 2005 films. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explanation of apparent conflict: The aliens buried their capsules "a very long time ago" according to the story line - yes to the earth they seemed to have done just that, but to the aliens it was just a year or so before! Remember, they can travel at light speed (remember the lighting bolts they ride down to their tripods) and so by leaving earth and immediately returning to earth, all at light speed, they experienced the "twin paradox" of the theory of Relativity! To the aliens the time elapsed between when they left earth after burying their capsules and returning to man them was quite short, to earth the time elapsed was very long indeed! 2606:6000:CAC1:F000:6233:4BFF:FE04:8D59 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110233428/http://www.egs.edu/library/herbert-george-wells/biography/ to http://www.egs.edu/library/herbert-george-wells/biography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to ? (kidding). See general agreement below to rename to a different qualifier; however, see only some agreement here and there on how to qualify this title. So I get to choose! The new title and qualifier will be H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (The Asylum film). While the possessive, "Wells's", is usually supported by the MoS, this is the "official name" of the film. The official name includes Wells's name but does not include the second "s", and it does not include the def. article "The", nor should Wikipedia. Since there is no particular consensus below for my choice of parenthetical disambiguator, then in accord with closing instructions, "while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place." Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film) be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film) → ? – H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film) is also a "2005 direct-to-video film." © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film) → H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Latt film). The form of the main title header H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Latt film) would be analogous to that of the other such title mentioned above, H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom/Roman. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suggested and propose production company instead - H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (The Asylum film). I think from the examples I remembered seeing, we tend to go with the production company, which also is a more valid choice, as a film is not seen anymore as a "director's film". In the case of the Hines' film it was an independent production so he is the production, but in case of this one, it is The Asylum so it would be H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (The Asylum film). See Aladdin (1992 Disney film) and Aladdin (1992 Golden Films film). --Gonnym (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussion above, one proposal (at 05:13, 27 July 2015) was to disambiguate both films by production companies — H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 The Asylum film) and H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 Pendragon Pictures film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed that the Hinn film was produced by Pendragon Pictures as I was scanning the infobox and couldn't find it there. So yes, that film should aslo be changed to use the production company. --Gonnym (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support either disambiguation by director (as proposed above) or production company but without the year, since this would be redundant. PC78 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed this earlier, but concensus in 2016 was to disambiguate both films by director: see Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film)#Requested move 2 July 2016. I'm happy to go the other way, but both articles should be treated the same way, so move this to H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (The Asylum film) and the other to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film). PC78 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 The Asylum film) – no one will know who the director is, but The Asylum is infamous for their films, so that is far more recognizable disambiguation... As I result, I have no objection to moving the other one to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 Pendragon Pictures film). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (The Asylum film); per Gonnym, using the production company is more appropriate than the director. By that same logic, I'd suggest we change H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film) to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film) as well, per Roman Spinner's suggestion. Once those changes are made, there would be no need to keep the year 2005 in the titles... unless those same production companies made additional War of the Worlds films that same year that I'm unaware of. lol — Hunter Kahn 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's contrary to the Aladdin (1992 Disney film) and Aladdin (1992 Golden Films film) example. Also, under WP:NCFILM, we disambiguate by year first, and then by something else second. So the year should remain in the disambiguation, as per my !vote... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose that's in keeping with WP:NCFILM, but I just don't see the need to include the year as well as the production company if there is only one film of that name by the production company. In that situation, including the year in addition to the company just adds unnecessary length to the article title. Perhaps WP:NCFILM should be changed... — Hunter Ka hn 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disney have made more than one Aladdin film, so in that case the year is a necessary part of the disambiguation. But we shouldn't add the year if it doesn't help to disambiguate between two topics. There's nothing in WP:NCFILM that says we must do this, but in any case a guideline does not trump a common sense application of WP:IAR. There is no benefit to adding the year in this case, unless either The Asylum or Pendragon Pictures have made more than one War of the Worlds film. PC78 (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disagree – year is pretty much the first way to differentiate films, after the title. Thus, including the year is an important part of the disambiguation here. And it does help to disambiguate – from all the other War of the Worlds films made over the years. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is and should be the first way to differentiate. But if the year alone isn't enough to differentiate them, like in this case, why keep the year in the title in addition to the second differentiator? It doesn't make sense. Calling it H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 The Asylum film), for example, seems to imply there is another War of the Worlds Asylum film from a different year. There isn't, so the 2005 is not only unnecessary in the title, but is actually potentially confusing to readers. But I understand this is a matter of discussion about WP:NCFILM, not this article, and I'm probably fighting a losing battle here anyway, so I won't press the matter anymore. — Hunter Ka hn 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's something we should discuss here. As said, unless The Asylum or Pendragon Pictures have made more than one War of the Worlds film this is perfectly sufficient to disambiguate with any other film. Adding the year is entirely redundant. But I'll let the point rest. PC78 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the MoS applies also to the formatting of article titles, in either case the article title needs amending to “H.G. Wells’s......” MapReader (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.