An FAQ for the IMDb board

[alabaster]

I've had some success on IMDb with an FAQ for the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy board, and I recently tried to replicate the success with a similar thread for War of the Worlds. However, I failed to do it properly because I didn't bother to fact check it before I posted it, thus leading me to make mistakes. My Hitchhikers FAQ was vetted by a number of knowledgable folks on a very dedicated fansite, and I thought I might attempt to relaunch the thread with your input.

Here is the thread as it stands:

Hello and welcome to the "War of the Worlds Round Table".

Everybody settled? OK.

I had an idea to start an FAQ for this thread, answering the questions that keep getting raised and raised and raised. However, I realised that some of these issues are too contentious to be answered by one person, and that much of what I could say would be opinion, rather than fact.

Here is what I came up with instead. I will make a list of Frequently Asked Questions, and answer them as I see them. Anyone who disagrees with me, and there will be many, as I am decidedly more pro-this film than most on this board, can respond in kind by giving their own answers. Any facts you feel I omitted, or got wrong, any thoughts or criticisms you could make, make them. Hopefully, it will lead to something more constructive than just continuous posting and reposting with the resultant flaming.

Question 1: Won't this just be a copy of Independence Day?

NO! NO! NO! I don't think anyone on either side of the many arguments on this board can take this question seriously. The War of the Worlds was a novel written in 1898 by British author HG Wells. Originally set in the areas around Victorian London, it was told from the point of view of one man as he struggled to survive amid the carnage. It was adapted into a radio play in 1938 by Orson Welles (one which famously lead to several thousand people mistakenly believing they really were being invaded), and into a film in 1953. Though radically different in tone and theme, Independence Day contains a number of allusions to the book, particularly when Jeff Goldblum gives the aliens a "cold" by infecting them with a computer virus- this is a parody of the end of Wells's novel, when the aliens ultimately destroyed themselves by exposure to Earth's microorganisms.

Question 2: Why was the book shifted to the modern-day US? Isn't this just yet another attempt by the Americans to protray themselves as the saviors of the world?

Well, if the film is done right, it shouldn't portray the US that way. Unlike in Independence Day, the aliens in War of the Worlds are not defeated by humanity's efforts, but by viruses and bacteria. All the efforts of the world's best technology come to naught. The world is left a smouldering ruin. Wells set his story in his own country, Britain, and set the time in what was, for him, the near future. Britain was, at that time, the greatest power the world had ever known, in much the way America is now, and he wanted his people shocked out of their complacency. Their "superior morality" with which they justified the extermination of "inferior races" (a term even Wells used) was only backed up by superior technology. Once that was taken away, they were as helpless as the African natives they slaughtered. This is hardly a jingoistic subtext, so transferring it to the US, now the world's hyperpower and possessor of mankind's best technology, is not a compliment. Whether Spielberg will be as radical as Wells in his message (Wells was a committed socialist) remains to be seen. Which leads us nicely onto

Question 3: How can this film retain the mood of Wells's book? Steven Spielberg will surely just sentimentalise it.

Can't argue there. Spielberg has a habit, and one he freely admits, of ladling sentementality onto his films, particularly near the end. But recent projects, such as Schindler's List and Minority Report, have shown that he can at least restrain himself til the final few minutes. Spielberg has claimed to be a lifelong fan of the George Pal film (indeed the poster art suggests that he will be homaging it heavily) and of the original novel. He must be aware of the book's political aspects, and, I hope, is smart enough not to let his incorrigible optimism get in the way of Wells's bleak feelings on human nature. "You know, I gave the benevolent aliens a couple of shots," says Spielberg, "and now I'm going to try my hand at the worst kind; you know, the kind that's just bent on ending civilization as we know it and beginning their own if you read the original book."

We'll see.

Question 4: Bar the setting, how much of the book will be preserved?

So far, it seems, quite a lot. The red weed, the tripods, the character Ogilvy, the one-man perspective, the fact that the aliens "dominate the Earth," and, judging by the Superbowl trailer, the heat rays. One of the cast members on IMDb is listed as "man in basket", suggesting that the film will preserve the "baskets" used by the tripods to harvest humans for their blood. A number of important questions, such as whether or not Spielberg will maintain the book's dark ending or abandon all logic and go for an all-American gung-ho counterstrike, ala Independence Day, are still unresolved, though Spielberg has claimed in an interview that, "We have our own version of the ending that neither strays nor mimics the original book; so I think we've hit a very satisfying compromise," which, depending on how you read it, is either reassuring or disturbing.

The interview that quote was taken from can be read here:

www.darkhorizons.com/news05/warworlds.php

Question 5: What's been thrown out?

Well, producer Kathleen Kennedy, in an interview with Dark Horizons (Feb 11), has unleashed what must be the biggest bombshell yet: that the aliens will not be Martians. This is a bit of a blow for the purists. Also, it looks as if the black smoke won't be emphasised. The not-Martians will also not resemble the "evil octopi" of Wells's novel.

That interview can be read in full here:

www.darkhorizons.com/news05/warworlds2.php

Question 6: I dislake the change in setting and I want to see a film that does justice to the source material.

You're in luck. Another War of the Worlds film, directed by Timothy Hines and produced by Pendragon Pictures, is sceduled for a March 30th release, though that could very well change. It will maintain the original novel's Victorian British setting. Information can be found here:

stuffo.howstuffworks.com/wotw-videos.htm

Another Victorian-set version, a computer animated feature created by Jeff Wayne from his famous Richard Burton-narrated musical, should be released by 2007.

You can view a test shot for that film here:

www.waroftheworldsonline.com/movies/clip2.htm

Question 7: Where can I view the trailers?

The first trailer can be seen here:

www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/

The Superbowl trailer can be seen here:

us.share.geocities.com/mattburge66/waroftheworlds_com.mov

A fragment of behind-the-scenes footage can be seen here:

www.dreamworksfansite.com/waroftheworlds/et_wotw.php

Question 8: Is this going to be a trilogy? Does this have "the largest budget ever"? Is Tom being paid over $300mil.?

No. No. No. All of this was traced to a single early false report. There is no official announcement for a planned trilogy, but no official statement against this rumor. The budget was officially announced as $128mil. Tom has a profit-share contract that will pay him well only if the film is wildly successful, and the exorbitant $300mil. figure was also based on the false trilogy report.
[courtesy of Johnnycinematic]

Any additions, corrections or deletions you could make would be welcome. Thanks for your help.

[Flynn77]

The bashing of David Koep is a bit harsh! For a start, quality aside, Stir of Echoes is an adaptation of book written before Sixth Sense. Jurassic Park was a different take, but certainly not murder, as it was re invented for a more general appeal(ie kid friendly) than the book, and parts of the book were also cut for technical reasons. Panic room uninspired? Oh well, horses for courses there. The rest of the Faq seems to stick to the facts though.

[paco417]

maybe a FAQ section would come in handy for this forum? moderators get you thinking caps on!

[malfunkshun]

that faq starts out biased and doesn't get much better in the way of objectivity in my opinion. it feeds itself with sarcastic questions and redeems itself by propping up the SS production as if it were gold plated. good for somebody who supports the SS film and is looking for reinforcement of their opinions

[alabaster]

Flynn: Good point. Isn't well backed up, factually. I'll get rid of it.

Mal: The sarcasm was a holdover from my last FAQ, (The HHGG one) and also subconsciously inspired by the tone of most of the threads. I suppose it works in my other FAQ, where there are far more people in agreement with me, but when I'm in the minority, it probably pays to be more diplomatic.

As to the bias, well it's very difficult to be objective about these particular topics. Perhaps, if you wouldn't mind doing it, you could give your own answers to those questions- a kind of con to oppose the pro? It would be interesting to contrast the two opposing points of view.

[themotile]

Actualy I think that was quite good, theres only so much you can do without actualy seeing the movie, so a lot of it will be conjecture. I didnt think it was biased, you do say Spielberg has a habit of pouring syrup over the endings but that he has shown he can restrain himself, so thats fair enough.

[dudalb]

I would probably include a word of caution about the March 30th date for the Pendragon film, since that date seems very unlikely.

[alabaster]

OK. I'll do that. Thanks.

[Topaz]

The whole thing seems fairly balanced to me. I like it. You touch on some points of concern, but pretty much equally as cheerleader and critic.

I thought the segment about Spielberg's 'sentimentality' was particularly well done. The only thing I might add to it is his quote regarding doing evil aliens this time; I believe from the same interview you linked. I'm very concerned about how this question plays out in the movie, but the man deserves to have his word on the subject given equal air.

[Gerkinman]

The Tasmanians were the Australian Aboriginals living on the island of Tasmanina in Wells Novel, not some African race as this interview claims.

[alabaster]

In Wells's novel? The Tasmanians were a real race that really were exterminated. I suppose I could specifically mention the Tasmanians, but the British were just as guilty of massacring Africans as well.

[Gerkinman]

I live 2 states up from tasmania, the story is thus

The british all formed a line at the top of the island, each person in site of the next, and each with a rifle and they marched down the island shooting every single aboriginie
thats how they were wiped out.

[theheatray]

That is exactly what is said in H G Wells's novel, he uses it to explain the psycology behind the martians attack.


Its a sad story though.