|
Post by Lensman on Sept 7, 2005 23:29:52 GMT
It's become clear to me that there is a lot of interest in an authentic period production; BBC and Hallmark Hall of Fame both wanted to do mini-series, but Paramount put a stop to those. It seems likely that eventually it will happen, but I have no idea how long Paramount can tie up the rights. The Spielberg production will likely deter any other big-budget feature for 15-20 years, but I'd still like to see a BBC-type production.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 8, 2005 0:50:43 GMT
That's the BIG problem. Spielberg has effectively put the boot in for a big screen live action adaptation. And this film as most of us know should be as big as Titanic [ but done a million times better] or another LOTR. I know TWOTW doesn't have the scope of LOTR [ endless characters, landscapes etc, etc ] but it should be a approached in a very similar way - like we've all discussed before.
This should be on the big screen and it will take someone who's extremely talented to keep it faithful to the book but at the same time have the vision and imagination to expand on what's great about the book. Especially with the little things which can make a huge difference.
The only problem is though Spielberg and Paramount won't be too happy with a big screen 'live action' FAITHFUL version so fans of the book are effectively stuffed - good and proper.
Even if Paramount do commission a tv series - you can bet that it will be done on as small a budget as possible, it won't happen for a very long time and it will most probably be called something other than The War of the Worlds too!
|
|
george
Junior Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by george on Sept 8, 2005 2:06:06 GMT
I was let down. It was only bits and pieces of the book. The tripod first appearing was the whole movie to me. The audience I was with laughed outloud several times during the film. It wasn't nervous laughter either, but belly laughs. When Tom Cruise crawled up into the anus of the tripod a group of teenagers in the audience made several very loud, rude jokes.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Sept 8, 2005 6:07:10 GMT
In my opinion, Spielberg has effectively neutered any other major live action versons for the foreseable future. In fact, I think after Jeff Waynes production, I'm willing to bet it will be a lot more than 20 years before we see another worthy version. The reason being is that he took one of core features of the novell ie the Tripods and made an incredible job of them. This leaves the problem that it's going to be difficult to make another movie with Tripods as spectacular as these without either infringing the copyright or having to completely alter the design with a somewhat less then spectacular result. Like it or not, people will use Spielbergs Tripods as the benchmark from now on.
I know the movie is more than just the tripods, but at the end of the day, they were what made H.G.wells story unique.
As fallingstar said in another post, this is what makes this doubly aggravating, in that he made such a good job of the Tripods yet didn't bother with the rest of the movie. He knew the part of the novell that captivated people the most were the fighting machines and tried to captilize on them alone to carry the movie.
I think if he had been truer to the novell, I suspect most would have been more willing to forgive him the location change to the USA, if somewhat begrudgingly!
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 8, 2005 20:33:52 GMT
Aggravating is the word. Just as I thought - Instead of one great film we've ended up with 3 adaptations [ travesties more like ] so far - all of them seriously lacking in so many areas.
I just hope that any true Wells fan who sticks up for these 3 big and small screen nasties realises that we've been well and truly shafted by Spielberg and co, and the dream of seeing Wells book brought to life on the big screen as live action - with faithful spectacular looking tripods is virtually over....................or for a very, very long time at least!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 8, 2005 21:11:43 GMT
Spielberg <snip> took one of core features of the novell ie the Tripods and made an incredible job of them. This leaves the problem that it's going to be difficult to make another movie with Tripods as spectacular as these without either infringing the copyright or having to completely alter the design with a somewhat less then spectacular result. Absolutely, and I'm quite surprised that this point has not been emphasized on this forum before. I think it's quite possible to have a distinctly different design-- after all, Spielberg's Tripods don't really *look* bio-mechanical, although their *movements* are-- but the power and menace of his Tripods will be hard to match, let alone top.
|
|
|
Post by Victorian Squid on Sept 8, 2005 21:21:17 GMT
After about eight or nine viewings I still think it's great, but then I think Spielberg's a (by and large) terrific film-maker and that Tom Cruise is actually a pretty good actor, if a bit of a freak in real life! The disappointments for me remain the same as they were the day I saw it for the first time : 1. The ending's rushed and needed five minutes of "Dead London" style wandering between the escape from the basket and the scene where they find the dead weed and the wrecked machine - deserted streets, helpless drunks, some looters in the distance, dead bodies, buildings on fire etc etc; 2. The Ogilvy character is a little confused (no pun intended) - he should have been either more cocky and gung-ho a la the Artilleryman or more pathetic and selfish like the curate ... I think I'd have preferred it if they hadn't tried to shoe-horn the two characters from the book into one and just settled on one or the other. Maybe it would have been good if, when they first chat (and he gives him the schnapps) he was a lot more friendly, like in the scene where the Artilleryman is telling the Narrator about the drunks being caught out in Piccadilly - y'know, that he was driving his ambulance, it was chaos, how he went awol, wandered around the city then legged it for the sticks? Maybe the two of them should have sat playing cards - Ray's a bit of a lad after all and Ogilvy would be the bad influence, what with Ray's daughter being there. I'm surprised Spielberg missed that trick really - Rachel having a go at her Dad for neglecting her, highlighting the fact that a ten year old girl has a better handle on the situation that he does. The alien camera coming along would have been a nice wake up call to his real responsibilities, mirroring the scene on the roof where the Narrator realises he's being irresponsible ... 3. The soundtrack is a little pedestrian in places - sounds like Williams knocked it out in a couple of afternoons. Otherwise I can't fault it. The tripods are terrific - they couldn't have done better. The aliens are alright - a little derivative but not annoyingly so; the acting (other than Tim Robbins who just didn't have a clearly defined character to play) is fine, the ending no different from the book for me. I mean, in the book the narrator's wife faints into his arms - how Hollywood is that!? Nah, it's pretty good and damned exciting. Sure, it's different from the book, but what the hell, I can read the book anytime I like. It's not going anywhere. Perhaps in lusting after a pure adaptation were being no different from when you try and force your favourite album on your uninterested mates? Mr and Mrs Scragg don't really give a (cheerful) hoot about the book, but if they enjoy the film then job's-a-goodun - they're basically appreciating the same story that Wells wrote - aliens arrive, they're unstoppable, the world's ending and a bloke just wants to reach the ones he loves but not before being trapped for days in a house with a nutter. I too would love a "BBC type" adaptation along the lines of Day of the Triffids or The Invisible Man, but I reckon JW's film will satisfy our lust for a "purist" adaptation. We'll have the best of both worlds really - the big budget, liberty taking horror show and the carefully constructed faithful version. As they say 'round my way, I'm well happy! VSx
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 8, 2005 22:12:24 GMT
The movie was rushed, and indeed several of the flaws you mention are almost certainly the result of that.
I do wonder about the missed opportunities to explore the characters. Certainly-- obviously-- Spielberg was concentrating *outwardly* from Ray; what Ray saw and experienced; not *inwardly* on Ray and his family as characters. But I think the film would have been much better if the viewpoint characters had been more sympathetic, something the audience could have identified with better.
So why *did* Spielberg make Ray so unsympathetic? I think he was imitating the character of Wells' narrator, who was to a great extent selfish and opportunistic, and certainly no hero. This works quite well in Wells' novel with the Narrator being a transparent window for the reader to "see" what's going on. It does *not* work nearly as well when Spielberg saddles him with a family to take care of on his wanderings and experiences. I think this was a mistake on Spielberg's part in the process of grafting the "American refugee experience" onto the film. In that respect it's quite appropriate to show a *family* of refugees, but Spielberg apparently overlooked the fact that if the main character is to be a patriarch figure, he needs to be a responsible parent figure.
Perhaps it was Spielberg's intention to have Ray grow into the person he should have been during the course of the movie, but if so then the growth of Ray's character seems to have been one of the things which got lost in the rush to complete the film quickly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I knew going into the film that it was radically different from Wells' novel. If I hadn't known that, I would have been bitterly dissapointed and would likely have had a much lower opinion of the film. As it is, I see it as a film with great strengths, which could have been a Great Film but misses this mark because of some serious flaws.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 8, 2005 22:16:45 GMT
After about eight or nine viewings I still think it's great, but then I think Spielberg's a (by and large) terrific film-maker and that Tom Cruise is actually a pretty good actor, if a bit of a freak in real life! The disappointments for me remain the same as they were the day I saw it for the first time : 1. The ending's rushed and needed five minutes of "Dead London" style wandering between the escape from the basket and the scene where they find the dead weed and the wrecked machine - deserted streets, helpless drunks, some looters in the distance, dead bodies, buildings on fire etc etc; 2. The Ogilvy character is a little confused (no pun intended) - he should have been either more cocky and gung-ho a la the Artilleryman or more pathetic and selfish like the curate ... I think I'd have preferred it if they hadn't tried to shoe-horn the two characters from the book into one and just settled on one or the other. Maybe it would have been good if, when they first chat (and he gives him the schnapps) he was a lot more friendly, like in the scene where the Artilleryman is telling the Narrator about the drunks being caught out in Piccadilly - y'know, that he was driving his ambulance, it was chaos, how he went awol, wandered around the city then legged it for the sticks? Maybe the two of them should have sat playing cards - Ray's a bit of a lad after all and Ogilvy would be the bad influence, what with Ray's daughter being there. I'm surprised Spielberg missed that trick really - Rachel having a go at her Dad for neglecting her, highlighting the fact that a ten year old girl has a better handle on the situation that he does. The alien camera coming along would have been a nice wake up call to his real responsibilities, mirroring the scene on the roof where the Narrator realises he's being irresponsible ... 3. The soundtrack is a little pedestrian in places - sounds like Williams knocked it out in a couple of afternoons. Otherwise I can't fault it. The tripods are terrific - they couldn't have done better. The aliens are alright - a little derivative but not annoyingly so; the acting (other than Tim Robbins who just didn't have a clearly defined character to play) is fine, the ending no different from the book for me. I mean, in the book the narrator's wife faints into his arms - how Hollywood is that!? Nah, it's pretty good and damned exciting. Sure, it's different from the book, but what the hell, I can read the book anytime I like. It's not going anywhere. Perhaps in lusting after a pure adaptation were being no different from when you try and force your favourite album on your uninterested mates? Mr and Mrs Scragg don't really give a (cheerful) hoot about the book, but if they enjoy the film then job's-a-goodun - they're basically appreciating the same story that Wells wrote - aliens arrive, they're unstoppable, the world's ending and a bloke just wants to reach the ones he loves but not before being trapped for days in a house with a nutter. I too would love a "BBC type" adaptation along the lines of Day of the Triffids or The Invisible Man, but I reckon JW's film will satisfy our lust for a "purist" adaptation. We'll have the best of both worlds really - the big budget, liberty taking horror show and the carefully constructed faithful version. As they say 'round my way, I'm well happy! VSx Eight or nine viewings squid............................and Cruise a pretty good actor! I know this great psychiatrist who deals with this type of thing. She ain't cheap but she's very good looking!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 8, 2005 22:31:26 GMT
Yes, Cruise is a very good actor. His work in such films as "The Firm", "Minority Report" and this film are often overlooked because they are to a great extent action films, and not looked at as dramatic roles. I *was* gratified to see a few reviewers take note of Cruise's fine performance in "Minority Report", however.
Fallingstar: Speaking of people who appear to need the help of a psychiatrist, just why are you so obsessed with Cruise, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 9, 2005 0:28:38 GMT
Looks like we're both obsessed with Cruise there Lensman. Me - by how did such a mediocre actor ever become so famous - and you - by thinking the sun shines out of his *~??!
My psychiatrist friend says she can help you for your Cruise obsession - for a small fee!
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Sept 9, 2005 0:31:10 GMT
I dont like it now, i got swept up by the hype of it all. But its just a shameful shallow piece of american crap that has utterly missed the point of the book totally.
1)It focuses too much on Cruise who although acts well is really the wrong choice of actor. 2)his kids are hateful little sh*ts, 3)spielberg denies us any decent fighting scenes, (despite the fact the book is FULL of cool battle scenes) 4) its not gory/violent/scary yet the book is. 5) It doesnt explore the colapse of civilisation, which is the real meaning behind the book. 6) it totally dodges all the gritty elements of the book which what makes the book what it is.
a sorry misjudged cash in. nothing more or less.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 9, 2005 0:32:23 GMT
Quite accurate there Rusti!
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 9, 2005 11:21:20 GMT
Valid comments there Rusti. The film did miss a lot of points from the book and '53 film.
Having had time to reflect on the film...
The tripod special effect at the beginning was just amazing - but the rest was just poor. From the red weed part - the finale to the film just felt rushed. The people I was with at the cinema also felt it was rushed and not as good as the old '53 version.
Perhaps they should have just remade the '53 version with tripods.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Sept 9, 2005 13:38:04 GMT
It's almost as if both Spielberg's and Pendragons movies were rushed unfinished projects. The only difference being that with Spielberg, what he did have was at least finished professionally unlike Pendragon! The fact that the Spielberg movie didn't set any records and the comments from friends and colleagues suggest that maybe the general public was also expecting a more authentic War of the Worlds.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Sept 9, 2005 16:56:15 GMT
Id like to have seen a modern WOTW made by those brit guys who made dog soldiers and 28 days later.
|
|
george
Junior Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by george on Sept 9, 2005 19:07:50 GMT
As I said, the Spielberg movie was a let down. With the dust settling, it seems most feel that way. As someone stated above, pretty much the only thing from the book was the tripods. And those we can thank George Lucas and ILM. And even though the tripods were by no means cutting edge special effects, if we had seen the tripods on screen for longer than a total of about 1 minute, the movie might have been passible. But as it is, it is a bit of a rushed mess. But some will always like it. Some like blood sausage.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 9, 2005 19:46:47 GMT
And some like black pudding. God...........how can people eat that! Fried pigs blood. Yuuuuuuukkkkkkk!!!!!! I feel ill even thinking about it!
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Sept 9, 2005 20:36:38 GMT
And some like black pudding. God...........how can people eat that! Fried pigs blood. Yuuuuuuukkkkkkk!!!!!! I feel ill even thinking about it! You see...! Old Timmy could have saved himself a few s'quid on CGI effects and cooked himself up some black pudd'n for his martian creatures... "Help, help..there's black pudding emerging from that giant Yorkshire pud!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 10, 2005 1:55:15 GMT
Now that's scary!
|
|