|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 12, 2005 21:46:42 GMT
After reading the Dark Horizons interview I'm more convinced than ever that Spielberg doesn't have much respect for the book by his quote "I have great respect for the book but not to the extent that I would set it in 1898". BALLS!
If Spielberg and Cruise had any respect for the book they wouldn't be changing it around so much.
Putting a few tripods and a bit of black smoke here and there does not make it W.O.T.WORLDS.
|
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 12, 2005 21:49:33 GMT
i agree 100%. motile and I have been pretty much hogging this debate in the other threads, other people should chime in and not be put off by our back and forths. this seems like a good thread for it
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 12, 2005 21:50:21 GMT
I have complete respect for Mr. Spielberg and believe he will come up with a good modern day adaptation.
It would be stupid releasing to 2 same wotw's in the same year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 12, 2005 22:26:03 GMT
Spielberg should have stuck with the title Out of the Night if he is not making WOTW.
This is like making a WW2 movie, only replacing Hitler and the Nazi's with Osama and terrorist, because those are of our time.
Spielberg probably screws the way the Martians - excuse me - aliens die as well. Maybe Cruise kills them with the shine of his pearly whites. And once again, the go' ol' US of A prevails!
-Gnorn
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 12, 2005 22:36:57 GMT
Spielberg should have stuck with the title Out of the Night if he is not making WOTW. This is like making a WW2 movie, only replacing Hitler and the Nazi's with Osama and terrorist, because those are of our time. Spielberg probably screws the way the Martians - excuse me - aliens die as well. Maybe Cruise kills them with the shine of his pearly whites. And once again, the go' ol' US of A prevails! -Gnorn No its not. There is a difference, and the big difference is that WW2 is fact and WotW is fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 22:39:30 GMT
Out of the Night was the working title, like PP's the great boer war.
|
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 12, 2005 22:44:31 GMT
i'm not so sure about Out of the Night, but The Great Boer War was not a working title, it was meant to throw off anyone from knowing what they were actually filming.
Like when Return of the Jedi was filmed... they were telling everybody it was a horror flick called Blue Harvest. Not a working title, but meant to hide what they were actually doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 22:48:51 GMT
i'm not so sure about Out of the Night, but The Great Boer War was not a working title, it was meant to throw off anyone from knowing what they were actually filming. Like when Return of the Jedi was filmed... they were telling everybody it was a horror flick called Blue Harvest. Not a working title, but meant to hide what they were actually doing. That is what I meant, Hines himself called it a 'working title' quoted from the interview on howstuffworks.com. A working title is the title under which a movie works while under production to secure secrecy. |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 12, 2005 22:51:08 GMT
it was meant to throw off anyone from knowing what they were actually filming. Like when Return of the Jedi was filmed... they were telling everybody it was a horror flick called Blue Harvest. Not a working title, but meant to hide what they were actually doing. Which is a working title  |
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 13, 2005 0:47:21 GMT
Lets not make excuses for Tim Hinds who has made a %100 screw the pooch job of it thus far... (im sure this quote will piss off the 'ill accept the shoddy version no matter how crap it is just because its set in the victorian period version.)
I say the SS version has 100% relevance to the modern age with 'american' imperialism dominating the globe just as British colonialism dominated the world 107 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 13, 2005 1:02:13 GMT
Which is a working title is nobody getting my point here, that there are obvious differences between using a title as a temporary name, and using one as a deceptive device for crissake? good grief. anyway, the question is, was SS using Out of the Night as a deceptive title, like PP was using The Great Boer War? or were they actually thinking about calling it that? |
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 13, 2005 1:57:17 GMT
And the Great Board Civil War began, and it was a bloody and terrible war indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 13, 2005 2:59:56 GMT
Lets not make excuses for Tim Hinds who has made a %100 screw the pooch job of it thus far... (im sure this quote will piss off the 'ill accept the shoddy version no matter how crap it is just because its set in the victorian period version.) I say the SS version has 100% relevance to the modern age with 'american' imperialism dominating the globe just as British colonialism dominated the world 107 years ago. I'm certainly not going to make excuses for Hines if the film he produces is shoddy or amateurish and I've said this on numerous occasions. I'll also be the first in line to criticise if it is. That's unacceptable to me, but we'll obviously have to wait and see what that's like. W.O.T.WORLDS is the type of thing that can be adapted for the modern age but until someone gives us a definitive version of the book [ which is what Spielberg or one of the large studios should have done instead of their usual crap - with all the usual excuses ] then I think fans have every right to feel aggrieved. I know some will disagree but I think they should call it something else if they're going to toss most of the book out of the window. Spielberg doesn't need to call this W.O.T.WORLDS for it to be a success. The very fact that Spielberg and Cruise have put their names to a big alien invasion film would guarantee it's success. That way they wouldn't p*** the fans off. What Spielberg, Cruise and that Koepp character seem to be doing is the usual crappy Hollywood reimagining. Pretending to be respective of the source material but in reality treating it with contempt. Again, usual excuses! |
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 13, 2005 3:31:18 GMT
funny that i would do exactly the same as SS simply because WOTW is the perfect story to afapt to the modern age.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 13, 2005 5:07:40 GMT
is nobody getting my point here, that there are obvious differences between using a title as a temporary name, and using one as a deceptive device for crissake? good grief. anyway, the question is, was SS using Out of the Night as a deceptive title, like PP was using The Great Boer War? or were they actually thinking about calling it that? The title "Out of the night" comes from a flyer handed out to the residents of Beyonne telling them a movie was being shot in their area, the title WOTW was already in use but in order not to attract too much attention they used a working title, however this was futile as a local paper had an article about paramount and war of the worlds, the residents put 2 and 2 together and the 'secret' was out, by this time it was too late the word had spread about the title, even the european offices of paramount were getting calls asking had SS changed the title, they knew nothing about it as it was a local decision to use the working title for safety reasons. So to rap up "Out of the night" was never actualy used it was just on the notice flyer before filming started in an attempt to stop the hoards of WOTW fans descending on Bayonne. |
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Feb 13, 2005 6:52:09 GMT
Reminds me of "Blue Harvest", the fake title that George Lucas used when filming "Return of the Jedi" in Arizona and Northren California because if he used the real title the location would be overran by the "Star Wars" fans.....
"im sure this quote will piss off the 'ill accept the shoddy version no matter how crap it is just because its set in the victorian period version.)"
I despertaly want a good Victorian version of WOTW, but am not willing to accept a crappy film just because it has that setting...
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamworksfansite on Feb 13, 2005 7:44:31 GMT
Granted its not going to be true to the book but at least Spielberg admitted that. Not many directors would. Besides...at the end of day I am sure he won't be able to please everyone:) but from those interviews it definitely seems like he is going to make this very creative..shooting it documentary style. That's like Private Ryan Jawad Mir Owner & Senior Editor DreamWorks SKG Fansite Network www.dreamworksfansite.comanimation.dreamworksfansite.com |
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 13, 2005 12:45:03 GMT
For christ sake, come on and give Speilberg a chance. I don't see Speilberg getting on the phone telling you how to do your jobs. He is a professional and much loved director, he's not new to the scene, he's been doing this longer than most out there so he knows the score.
So you feel it's NOT WOTW. Well it has some of the aspects of the story, what else do we call it 'The Day Some Horrible Things Fell From Space And Attacked Us In Machine Similar To H.G. Wells The War Of The Worlds - But We Can't Call It That Out Of Respect'. You would be the first to comment if Speilberg decided to pull the plug - possibly saying 'he never gave that a chance'. What would you prefere to see, a film based around the WOTW or NOTHING at all.
I feel your condemming the man before the crime is commited, if it is considered a crime to make a film based around a famous book.
Im glad Speilberg is taking on a job of this scale and basing it on TWOTW. If Pendragon release there film which if you have not forgotten is set in Victorian England - then it's clear that Speilberg is letting them carry on and wishing NOT to associate his work with there work.
If all 3 films are not up to standards of a personal nature, if all 3 films never get released, if all 3 films are differant - so what, at least they are made through respect and recogntion of the great writter H.G WELLS who gave all 3 projects there starting point, and all 3 were given that chance to impress.
Guys, just sit back and enjoy the ride, your never getting another year like this.
H_C
|
|
rec
Junior Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by rec on Feb 13, 2005 14:51:31 GMT
Lets not make excuses for Tim Hinds who has made a %100 screw the pooch job of it thus far... (im sure this quote will piss off the 'ill accept the shoddy version no matter how crap it is just because its set in the victorian period version.) I say the SS version has 100% relevance to the modern age with 'american' imperialism dominating the globe just as British colonialism dominated the world 107 years ago. Well said. I am amazed at how petty people are on this site to be honest - it is bordering on infantile. It looks like Pendragon will end up butchering a golden opportunity yet people still stand behind them no matter what! I couldn't give a damn if Spielberg says they're Martians or not - I am far more excited about his version than the Pendragon one after seeing that truly awful Pendragon trailer. |
|
|
|
Post by phillev on Feb 13, 2005 15:48:49 GMT
Agreed Horsell lets just enjoy them for what they are I suspect alot of people who wanted a proper WOTW setting are just a little bit miffed that the PP film might never see the light of day so are instead turning their attention to the Speilberg production and trying to rip it to shreds personally I will watch both if the PP one ever arrives of course and enjoy them for what they are which is pure Science fiction escapism.
|
|
