Peter Jackson- Not the one for WotW

[EvilNerfherder]

I keep seeing people suggesting that Peter Jackson would have done a good period War of The Worlds. I thought so too at the beginning. Now, however, I don't agree. Let's look at the evidence..
PROS
-Makes some good entertaining movies.
-Could raise the budget required for such a film on his name alone.
-Has a very sharp eye for detail.
-The CGI would be spectacular.

CONS
-I loved the LotR trilogy but he made a mistake in sometimes making Gimli a figure of fun and featuring 'comedy' moments where there were none in the book. What would he do with WotW... introduce a comedy Martian who keeps steering his tripod into things?
-The films missed out huge chunks of the book and changed others.. this was out of neccessity I know, but I was a little surprised when I read somewhere that he'd said that the parts excised were 'probably superfluous'. Is any of H.G's work superfluous? No. Axing parts (or virtually all in some cases) of the novel seems to be the norm in WotW adaptions. We don't need another one like that.
-LotR is not a period film so saying he would get the detail right is a little uncertain. King Kong is a period piece but we haven't really seen how well that works yet. Could he reproduce turn-of-the-century London in New Zealand (he never seems to film anywhere else.. I suspect he has a deal with the NZ tourist board)?
-He makes some unfortunate casting decisions. Jack Black as the lead in a spectacular fantasy story? Again, we haven't seen the film yet but that's one of the things that gives me serious reservations about it. That's, to me, a bit like casting Benny Hill as H.G. Wells' narrator (I get visions of him being chased around by Martians in bikinis.. need to cut down on the coffee, I think).
-He only gets involved in projects he is passionate about. Has anyone ever heard him mention being a fan of WotW? I certainly haven't. We really need someone who is a passionate fan of the novel and doesn't care about the money.

So, I have a lot of time for PJ and what he has achieved.. but, all things considered, I don't think he's the man to direct a WotW movie.

[RustiSwordz]

Ridley Scott, Ridley Scott, Ridley Scott...

[Peter]

rustiswordz said:

Ridley Scott, Ridley Scott, Ridley Scott...

Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins director). Either would have made it bleak and dark to convey the story better.

[Marcus]

You raise some interesting points there Nerfy, but if I can reiterate on some of the cons -

"I loved the LotR trilogy but he made a mistake in sometimes making Gimli a figure of fun and featuring 'comedy' moments where there were none in the book. What would he do with WotW... introduce a comedy Martian who keeps steering his tripod into things?"

There is a difference between making one character humourous, and making slapsticks moments. Obviously I realise you where going for an exageratted version of what might transpire, but I thought I would mention that anyway. Also, The Lord of the Rings was dark where nessecary, and light where nessecary. Im sure that the War of the Worlds would mimic this, and not go for a sudden moment of comedy in the middle of humans being burnt alive.

"The films missed out huge chunks of the book and changed others.. this was out of neccessity I know, but I was a little surprised when I read somewhere that he'd said that the parts excised were 'probably superfluous'. Is any of H.G's work superfluous? No. Axing parts (or virtually all in some cases) of the novel seems to be the norm in WotW adaptions. We don't need another one like that."

To be fair, I believe Peter was right, most of the chunks he missed out are not pivotal to the story, but are infact just fillers for some details, or characters. Would the film be better with them? Probally not. But with War of the Worlds, every event, in some way, is a major plot device, and drives on the narrative. Would the film be better with them? Yes, and I think Peter is the kind of guy who knows this. Also, lets not forget that Lord of the Rings is a trilogy, their is more room for adaptating the story to fit the screen, as you have more running time to fit those adaptions into, and still craft the main story successful. The War of the Worlds on the other hand would be one film, and thus, their would be no need for any real adaptations to take place, apart from some minor altering to some scenes, which could not be filmed, or explained in full without character interaction.

"LotR is not a period film so saying he would get the detail right is a little uncertain. King Kong is a period piece but we haven't really seen how well that works yet. Could he reproduce turn-of-the-century London in New Zealand (he never seems to film anywhere else.. I suspect he has a deal with the NZ tourist board)?"

Peter Jackson was going to film King Kong somewhere else, but the boxing day tidal waves knocked the schedulle off, and thus they were forced to relocate. The major reasons though that Jackson films in New Zealand are simple, its cheap, he knows the location, and it fits the stories he wants to tell. It looks like Middle Earth. It looks like Skull Island. Also, with Lord of the Rings he achieved something that is, in many ways, incredibly harder than making a period piece - he created a whole new world, from words alone. Middle Earth is a completely new world, with new armour and weapons, creatures and archetecture, sure, Tolkien described it, but Jackson brought it to life, along with Weta. If he can do this, Im sure he could handle a period film.

"He makes some unfortunate casting decisions. Jack Black as the lead in a spectacular fantasy story? Again, we haven't seen the film yet but that's one of the things that gives me serious reservations about it. That's, to me, a bit like casting Benny Hill as H.G. Wells' narrator (I get visions of him being chased around by Martians in bikinis.. need to cut down on the coffee, I think)."

Again, I realise this is an exageratted version of what you really expect, but lets be clear, Jack Black is not the lead. Adrien Brody is the lead, but currently lacks the pulling power needed to turn over a big revenue, so, while he (Apart from Kong) is the main character, he is not the main advertised character. Jack Black meanwhile plays the director, a risk taking, carreer saving man who will do anything to get Kong, including taking a young girl to the island as lure. Jack Black is almost perfect for the stage presence demanded by such a character, especially in the closing scenes, where Kong is on stage. But, this is all just my opinion on the character, and Black.

"He only gets involved in projects he is passionate about. Has anyone ever heard him mention being a fan of WotW? I certainly haven't. We really need someone who is a passionate fan of the novel and doesn't care about the money."

A good point, and one I cant arguee against, although, having said that, until he was linked to the project, I never new he was a passionate Halo fan, so, their is hope.


Also, I think their is another point to be made about Jackson, and that is his favourable history with adaptations. He stuck nearly one hundred percent pure to the main story line of Lord of the Rings, and has even pushed so far as to make King Kong a period piece, all in the spirit of staying true to the originals, unlike previous remakes/representations of both, that have been atrocius at worst, and medicore at best.

I really cant see any other director tackling this project with a degree of success that Peter Jackson could get from it. I also believe hes the only person in Hollywood, bar Speilberg, who even has a chance of gaining the nessecary funding.

I must admit though, I do find the idea of Ridley Scott taking the project on board intriguing, and can see it working out. But, out of curiosity, why do you think he would do so well Rusti?

I agree the results of his participation could be something to behold though.

[Anthony]

Yeah The Lord of the Rings was a great adaptation of the material. What was cut and changed seemed right as not everything from word works theatrically. Also i dont think PJ would hold back with the DVD ;D Early words on Kong seem to very good. NBC Newsweek who gave the first words on The Return of the King reviewed Kong, and it was practically all praise.

As for casting i think PJ would of brought up a good esemble. His esemble for The Lord of the Rings trilogy was fantastic with all around good and fitting performances.

I dont know about anyone else but i think Ridley Scotts direction in his most of his recent movies seems a bit too commercial for The War of the Worlds. Too Hollywood.

[RossH]

While we could all debate whether Peter Jackson woul d be the best person to direct WotW, the fact that he's treated both LOTR and KK with the respect it deserves certainly puts him way higher on the list than Spielberg/Cruise. He certainly didn't feel the remake of KK required setting it in modern times.

Having said all that, let's be honest- the Paramount WotW is exactly that... a remake of the Paramount '53 movie, not an adaption of the book. The only reason there were no tripods in the original film was because they couldn't figure out a good wat to achieve it.

[FALLINGSTAR]

nerfherder said:

I keep seeing people suggesting that Peter Jackson would have done a good period War of The Worlds. I thought so too at the beginning. Now, however, I don't agree. Let's look at the evidence..
PROS
-Makes some good entertaining movies.
-Could raise the budget required for such a film on his name alone.
-Has a very sharp eye for detail.
-The CGI would be spectacular.

CONS
-I loved the LotR trilogy but he made a mistake in sometimes making Gimli a figure of fun and featuring 'comedy' moments where there were none in the book. What would he do with WotW... introduce a comedy Martian who keeps steering his tripod into things?
-The films missed out huge chunks of the book and changed others.. this was out of neccessity I know, but I was a little surprised when I read somewhere that he'd said that the parts excised were 'probably superfluous'. Is any of H.G's work superfluous? No. Axing parts (or virtually all in some cases) of the novel seems to be the norm in WotW adaptions. We don't need another one like that.
-LotR is not a period film so saying he would get the detail right is a little uncertain. King Kong is a period piece but we haven't really seen how well that works yet. Could he reproduce turn-of-the-century London in New Zealand (he never seems to film anywhere else.. I suspect he has a deal with the NZ tourist board)?
-He makes some unfortunate casting decisions. Jack Black as the lead in a spectacular fantasy story? Again, we haven't seen the film yet but that's one of the things that gives me serious reservations about it. That's, to me, a bit like casting Benny Hill as H.G. Wells' narrator (I get visions of him being chased around by Martians in bikinis.. need to cut down on the coffee, I think).
-He only gets involved in projects he is passionate about. Has anyone ever heard him mention being a fan of WotW? I certainly haven't. We really need someone who is a passionate fan of the novel and doesn't care about the money.

So, I have a lot of time for PJ and what he has achieved.. but, all things considered, I don't think he's the man to direct a WotW movie.

Good points but I agree with what Marcus says. The only parts with Gimli I really didn't like were the bits at Helms Deep which spoiled the tension of the upcoming battle. Other than that I didn't think Gimli was that bad.
And don't forget the actual book of LOTR was sort of humourous in parts [ unlike WOTW ] and a character which a lot of Rings fans didn't like - singing Tom Bombadil was thankfully some might say - not included.

I was disappointed that he wasn't included personally as that meant Old Man Willow wasn't in the film too.
But overall, Jackson was very faithful to the books and I don't think anyone expected the films to be as good as they were. Most people thought they were unfilmable.

[EvilNerfherder]

All good points made but I'm still not convinced that Peter Jackson could (or indeed would even try to) make a WotW film that would please the fans. Not that I think the fans are pleasable anyway. Directors have tried and all have failed to please everybody (or hardly anybody in one or two cases), as we all know.
I saw a trailer for King Kong earlier and, I must admit, it does look good. Even Jack Black might be passable. Maybe. Adrian Brody will probably a bit harder to swallow. In his role, I mean . I never understood his appeal.
I am steadfast about a PJ/WotW project. Even if it happens. Which it won't, I'm sure.
He made a great job, considering the challenges he faced, on LotR, I agree. But WotW? No.
Apart from the Wayne movie, I'd be surprised if WotW gets filmed again for a while now. The thing has been pretty much saturated this year, for better or worse. As WotW fans we have been both spoiled and disappointed. Plenty to talk about but, sadly, not enough of a positive nature.
Still.. I think it's been, ultimately, better than nothing. Maybe in a year or two someone else will pick the idea of a WotW adaption up again and, hopefully, they will read comments on sites such as this and learn from others mistakes. Fingers crossed, everyone.

[FALLINGSTAR]

Well the jurys out on whether Jackson would or could attempt a version of WOTW and obviously if he's not a fan of the book - then the chances of him doing it are slim anyway but I'm convinced he would make a great version of it if he tried. Ridley Scott could most probably have made a good version when he was in his prime but could he still do the same now. Mind you Gladiator was by and large very good so maybe.

From what I've seen of Kong so far it looks absolutely stunning but there again I never try to get my hopes to high for things these days. One thing of note I read about Kong is that Jackson wanted to be faithful to the original Kong down to the extent that the Tyrannosaurus Rex from the original film is now called a V Rex.

What you say, but that's not being faithful is it?

Well actually the reason he did this is so instead of using a scientifically accurate up to date rendition of a T Rex with the usual 2 fingered arms - he's using a dinosaur that has evolved over millions of years from a T Rex but which looks accurate to the one used in the 1933 film - that has 3 fingers. It's that attention to detail and faithfulness that sets Jackson apart from most directors.

[Anthony]

If no one would of adapted The War of the Worlds to a movie in 2005 i probably would of had Spielberg as one of my top choices, but now i sure wouldn't. I'm not saying Spielbergs WOTW was bad, it just wasn't everything we wanted.

Anthony

[jeffwaynefan]

In this real world, any film director could do a authentic adaptation if they were given the chance and the right budget to pull it off. But at the moment with Paramount having their grubby mits on the film rights were all just pi**ing in the wind. The 53 and 2005 film version are making them money, are they going to give that up.

[FALLINGSTAR]

That's the BIG problem.

[uuulllaaa]

The biggest problem as horsell rightly pointed out is that it was done by PARAMOUNT and they wanted to take as little chances as they could unlike NEWLINE who insisted peter jackson do it as close as he could eg 3 movies when he was going to do it as 2.If peter jackson loved the book then he would be perfect as he would do it and lose none of the spirit and feel af the book im sure.Yes there was changes in lord of the rings BUT every lord of the rings fan i know loved his movies and he never went for big name actors ,people who were right for the role.The biggest problem for me in spielburgs war of the worlds it all started and was over too quickly should have taken place as it should over weeks not a couple of days.

[marciano]

Peter Jackson is simply BETTER than Steven Spielberg: I prefer 10000 times a WOTW film by PJ... ¡Battles! ¡¡19th Century!! ¡¡¡NO KIDS!!! ¡¡¡¡DESTRUCTION!!!!

[Killraven]

Well why not let the Brits have a go??? After all its our book! ;D

I reckon John Boorman would have made a good effort - his wartime epics were pretty accurate.

Plus what would have happened if the Ken Branagh backed version mooted in the 90's had got off the ground??

KR

[Anim8tr]

jazzyjeff said:

Well why not let the Brits have a go??? After all its our book! ;D

Killraven, I think you've hit the nail on the head. A proven, skilled British director needs to do this film. One who really respects not just the text but the era as well.

Consider.... Alien. Bladerunner. Black Hawk Down. Gladiator. Rusti may rant, but he knows his stuff. Ridley Scott is a badass. And I worship Ryan Church.

Even "Legend" did fairly well. (Guess who "starred" in that?)
The "real actor" that made the movie? In my opinion it was Tim Curry! A Brit!

Be it Pal, Hines, Asylum, or Spielberg. Not a single American director has done this epic story in the manner in which it deserves. As a highly financed period piece with the latest in SFX. And that irks me especially with Spielberg, because he can do great period pieces. But on this one he didn't. That pisses me to no end.

250 million, 2 hrs, 45 minutes, and a British director.
That might just do it. I always remain hopeful.

[marciano]

Who is the director of 24 days later? Is a great british sci-fi movie

[EvilNerfherder]

'28 Days Later' you mean? That was Danny Boyle. Good movie.

[marciano]

Danny Boyle can amke a WOTW

[Anthony]

Scorcesee recently said he would like to do a science fiction movie. If he did The War of the Worlds, that would be, well... interesting.

Anthony