|
Post by maniacs on Feb 17, 2005 12:11:18 GMT
How many of you out there feel the book and movie has been constantly ripped off to make other films and thus the book required no further adaptaion? Knock me over with a feather! Thats a fact?
This was a weird thing for SS to say! Now suddenly he has seen a reason to say it was worth one more screen adaptation. Was that the strong fan backing that Hines got so long ago.
Im a fan. To me, I could understand SS point of view if WOTW had been faithfully adapted the once, albeit just time + place. Yet this 'fan' in all his wisdom decides the movie needs to be modernised! Since when. Lets have the 19th century version first then we'll talk about the revamps and the tired concept. I'm wrong?
Oliver Twist, Journey to the centre of the Earth, Phantom of the opera, scrooge, Jane ayre nuts, DRACULA, frankenstein, King Arthur etc Some movies that have enjoyed several retellings, most without much aversion from the plot.
As fans we must be some of the most screwed and misled people on Earth. Apparently there has been so many rip offs of the story its not worth consideration by the big boys! Since when. Goerge Pals WOTW was not close, but closest, counting beginning and end.
At least we got the musical version. Thats something I spose. I can cope with tap dancin martians if I had to. But come on.
Is SS really saying that a radio version was enough? and any other alien invasion story was a WOTW rip off. Was ET? Or Starman? Or Dr.Who? Close encounters? Are we to say that any story involving an alien invasion was a rip off? (techno speaking any unauthorised entry of our atmosphere is an invasion) . Then of course it may be true. In that case it has been, but I do not feel any story has come close it.
OK HG came up with it first. But would no one else? Its like saying, The fall of the Roman Empire, was a unique peice of work and no more Roman stories can come of it. Yet we are hammered with them and still enjoy them.
The book always had and always will have its own signature.
This is why I believe SS has missed the point.
There are alien invasions and there is War of the Worlds.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 17, 2005 12:51:17 GMT
I think Spiello was trying to say that the basic story has been chewed over so many times. If you strip it down to the bare bones, you get: # Aliens invade # They can't be stopped # Mass destruction # Defeat by deus ex machina
As Spielberg points out, THIS plot has been ripped off so many times. However, if you take into account the underlying subtext, WOTW as a movie hasn't been made.
It all depends on what you want from WOTW. Spielberg knows his market, and to him WOTW means the points above. The masses don't want to be preached at, or depressed, or lectured in a movie - and probably won't even draw any parallels to the modern world. They want to see explosions, landmarks destroyed, and the aliens get their ass whupped!!
|
|
|
Post by theheatray on Feb 17, 2005 13:50:35 GMT
Hi maniacs
I thought Pendragon Pictures were making an authentic direct adaptation of the book? I would rather see Spielberg make the version hes making as I think thats were his strengths lie, thats were his passion is strongest.
Some people are asking why we havent had a faithful version before the spin offs but are forgetting that the first film out is as about as close as you can get to the book. If it turns out to be a turkey (I dont think it will, hope willing) then its not the end of the world maybe one of us will end up making it or the box office takings from Paramounts offering will inspire another director to go back to the book and make it for real.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 17, 2005 14:32:06 GMT
the reason why some of us are upset about this heatray (you're relatively new and may have missed out on the most of the fun so far on this subject ) is that SS can deliver the FX goods a lot more so than pendragon, and we purists are dissappointed because the pendragon version, although i believe will still be good, will NOT be as good as what SS could have done if he had the same intentions as Hines. anyhow, i came to grips with Hines pretty quickly when i saw that the FX were going to be below standard, and i'm coming to grips with SS that it won't be WOTW. both movies will be fun, i think, although Pendragons version is the one i'm looking forward to the most.
|
|
|
Post by Necronmaniac on Feb 17, 2005 17:49:15 GMT
AAARRGGHH!!
Did we really need ANOTHER thread discussing the SS version?
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 17, 2005 18:32:23 GMT
<<I can't get no...satisfaction>>
There are certain establishments that can help aid your need, or am I going in the wrong derection with this one ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 17, 2005 18:36:49 GMT
AAARRGGHH!! Did we really need ANOTHER thread discussing the SS version? Whats wrong with that?, and its in the Paramount section too. What do we do?, bury our heads in the sand and forget its happening?.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 17, 2005 18:45:34 GMT
How many of you out there feel the book and movie has been constantly ripped off to make other films and thus the book required no further adaptaion? Knock me over with a feather! Thats a fact? Wells is one of Hollywood's favorite - but rarely credited - sources for material. Not since 1936 has a film attempted to follow any of Wells' original texts with much degree of care or accuracy. More often they simply "borrow" ideas, characters or situations, retitle them and pass them off as something else. And most people are none the wiser. This one isn't retitled, but I wonder if someday I'll wish it was.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 17, 2005 18:50:28 GMT
That's one good way of looking at it.
H_C
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Feb 17, 2005 19:43:01 GMT
There are alien invasions and there is War of the Worlds. Indeed!!! Tripod
|
|
|
Post by Necronmaniac on Feb 17, 2005 21:52:59 GMT
H_C,
My point is not "oh my god we are discussing the SS movie" my point is "Oh my god we now have THREE threads discusssing the SS movie which we really dont need.
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Feb 17, 2005 22:54:52 GMT
This one isn't retitled, but I wonder if someday I'll wish it was. Would you like the '36 radio play and the '53 movie retitled cause they were set in the present? Would you like the musical retitled cause it was a musical? You could go on forever.
|
|
|
Post by theheatray on Feb 17, 2005 23:05:27 GMT
hi guys, I think its a little fanatical to insist that any fiction that is based on fiction is somehow not qualified to be based on the said fiction if it deviates from the said fiction.....does that make sense? I hope so.... Nobody is changing the text of the book, they are making fiction based on the fiction in the book, by its very nature the material in the book almost acts as a guide from which others will tell their storys and so on. To make a movie based on ones own whims and likes is just as H G Wells did when he put pen to paper a hundred years ago, after all fiction is something that is made up to entertain others, if by adapting it for whatever the reason it succeeds in entertaing again then surely that must be construde as positive.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 18, 2005 10:49:09 GMT
"Would you like the '36 radio play and the '53 movie retitled cause they were set in the present? Would you like the musical retitled cause it was a musical?"
Well, the musical version (to give it it's full title as stated on the album cover) is Jeff Wayne's Musical Version Of The War Of The Worlds, so that wouldn't need changing!
You don't really need to rename the others - after all, they are not marketed as H.G.Well's version of WOTW.
I think what Charles is implying (and I could be wrong) is that if SSs version ends up totally different to Wells vision, then they'd hope the film has a different title that can't be associated with, or taint, the Novel.
|
|
|
Post by theheatray on Feb 18, 2005 10:58:15 GMT
"Would you like the '36 radio play and the '53 movie retitled cause they were set in the present? Would you like the musical retitled cause it was a musical?" Well, the musical version (to give it it's full title as stated on the album cover) is Jeff Wayne's Musical Version Of The War Of The Worlds, so that wouldn't need changing! You don't really need to rename the others - after all, they are not marketed as H.G.Well's version of WOTW. I think what Charles is implying (and I could be wrong) is that if SSs version ends up totally different to Wells vision, then they'd hope the film has a different title that can't be associated with, or taint, the Novel. Although I see the point thats being made I must point out the 80's TV series was almost nothing like the book or even the 50's film on which it was based, it had aliens (not martians) absorbing humans and hatching weekly lame plans to take over the world from their radioactive lair but it never ever tainted the novel in any way and nobody got confused about which came first even though it was called war of the worlds.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 18, 2005 13:40:19 GMT
Yeah, but did anyone watch it after the first episode? It was clearly linked to the '53 version, but I didn't watch it after episode 1 coz it was pants!
The series didn't tarnish the name, probably because no-one got to see it. It's usually shown on obscure channels at ridiculous times when we're tucked up in bed asleep!
More people will get interested now because of Spielberg, and start picking up the book. After seeing what SS does to the plot, reading the book later may come as a dissapointment to many young readers. Besides, we'll probably get the dreaded Novel Of The Movie Adaptation Based On The Screenplay by David Koelp, which won't help the original novel. After all, in the public eye, Jaws & Jurassic park are connected with Spielberg more than Peter Benchley & Michael Crichton - remember the 'childrens version' of Jurassic Park the book, and the re-novelization of the film?
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 18, 2005 13:41:04 GMT
Steven Spielberg version wont be a %100 WOTW.
PP version is sub standard, and probably will never see the light of day (above the rim of the bargain bin) despite the fact that its the most faithful.
Thank gawd for Jeff Wayne... lol
|
|
|
Post by theheatray on Feb 18, 2005 13:53:38 GMT
Yeah, but did anyone watch it after the first episode? It was clearly linked to the '53 version, but I didn't watch it after episode 1 coz it was pants! The series didn't tarnish the name, probably because no-one got to see it. It's usually shown on obscure channels at ridiculous times when we're tucked up in bed asleep! More people will get interested now because of Spielberg, and start picking up the book. After seeing what SS does to the plot, reading the book later may come as a dissapointment to many young readers. Besides, we'll probably get the dreaded Novel Of The Movie Adaptation Based On The Screenplay by David Koelp, which won't help the original novel. After all, in the public eye, Jaws & Jurassic park are connected with Spielberg more than Peter Benchley & Michael Crichton - remember the 'childrens version' of Jurassic Park the book, and the re-novelization of the film? I dont think your showing much faith in the book or people in general, when the time machine was re imagined the book sales took off, they had the re print in borders and it was selling like hot cakes, the same will happen with Spielbergs version. I heard the album before I read the book, in fact I saw the movie before I read the book, but after I did read the book that took first place as it will never be matched, it was a litterary apiphany, now I cant be alone so that tells me that people will get interested in the book when they otherwise wouldnt have.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 18, 2005 14:21:17 GMT
Yeah but no but yeat but no but...
The Time Machine was marketed as HG Wells' The Time Machine, and it wasn't all that re-imagined. And it had Wotserface in a see-thru dress. Also, there wasn't a new novelized adaptation. I think such changes aren't all that confusing.
With WOTW, SS is applying major changes to elements of the book, and I think that's the worry that the Wells society has. If changes are too drastic and stray to far from the text, then they may regret allowing them to use the title WOTW, as it no longer would be true WOTW. Or something.
I may not have much faith in people - but look at many people think Spielberg came up with Jurassic Park.
|
|
|
Post by theheatray on Feb 18, 2005 14:37:34 GMT
I see what your saying
For me its not that Wells wont get the credit from Mr. Spielberg but rather people will assume it is a remake of the 1953 Pal version, which for a lot of Americans is the original war of the worlds anyway.
I think they could do more to make it clear its an adaptation 'based' on the novel not the 1953 corn feast.
Some so called professional movie critics are already calling it a 'remake' which it is not. That is the thing that is bad for Wells not the movie itself, that can only be good for the book as it does say H G Wells in the credits and Mr. Spielberg has said his name dozens of times in interviews so credit for Wells isnt lacking.
|
|