|
Post by dudalb on May 9, 2005 23:57:23 GMT
"Even Speilberg, even if-- as rumored-- his version of WotW is the most expensive movie ever made, will have to make compromises." It is definenetly not the most expensive movie ever made. Spielberg has denied that rumor and has given a final cost of 133 Million dollars, a lot of money but a long way from the most expensive. Both Titanic and Pearl Harbor cost over 200 Million, and Oliver Stone apparently spent over 150 Million on "Alexander". So it's a long way from the most expensive, and Speilberg has gone out of his way to discredit that rumor. In fact, 133 Million is what Lucas has spent on "Revenge Of The Sith".
What gets to me about fallingstar is his rage at Speilberg. If Fallingstar wants to get mad at somebody, why not Orson Welles who updated the story and moved it too New Jersey....or George Pal who changed the story even more and moved it to Los Angeles. Speilberg is just following in their footsteps And for what it is worth, apparently Speilberg is keeping more stuff from the book in his film then Pal did in his film. WHy no rage at Pal and his version?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 10, 2005 1:07:22 GMT
Mr. Latt was given the opportunity to make a quick-and-relatively-cheap "interpretation" of WotW, timed to take advantage of the huge Paramount publicity machine. He had a choice: He could either have said yes-- which he did-- or he could have turned up his nose and said "I refuse to be a part of anything which forces me to compromise on vision, money, effort or time." Apparently, Fallingstar, you would have preferred the latter. Question: Have you ever been given the opportunity to say "yes" to such a question? Or is yours just an ivory-tower attitude? In the real world, *all* film makers have to make compromises to get their films made. Even Speilberg, even if-- as rumored-- his version of WotW is the most expensive movie ever made, will have to make compromises. No movie ever made will please everyone. Even the best fantasy films ever made-- "Lord of the Rings"-- were cricitized recently on these boards for omitting parts of Tolkien's work. Thank goodness not all film-makers have your attitude, Fallingstar. In fact, none of them do. If they did, none of them would ever have completed a film, and none of us would ever have seen a movie. Thank goodness some people like Peter Jackson do have a similar attitude to mine. No one's saying that changes don't have to be made for book to film adaptations, but most of the criticisms directed at LOTR were minor and most fans thought it was a fantastic adaptation. Most sensible people realise that there will be imperfections and changes even in a very faithful film, but Asylum and Spielberg are pinching the title of WOTW and changing just about everything. Asylum even have the audacity to put HG's great name above theirs. If they're going to make a film loosely based on a novel - fine, but call it something else and don't pretend you're a fan of the book and then throw most of it out of the window. If wanting a book to film adaptation to be faithful is living in an ivory tower, then let me live in an ivory tower.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 10, 2005 2:05:50 GMT
"Even Speilberg, even if-- as rumored-- his version of WotW is the most expensive movie ever made, will have to make compromises." It is definenetly not the most expensive movie ever made. Spielberg has denied that rumor and has given a final cost of 133 Million dollars, a lot of money but a long way from the most expensive. Both Titanic and Pearl Harbor cost over 200 Million, and Oliver Stone apparently spent over 150 Million on "Alexander". So it's a long way from the most expensive, and Speilberg has gone out of his way to discredit that rumor. In fact, 133 Million is what Lucas has spent on "Revenge Of The Sith". What gets to me about fallingstar is his rage at Speilberg. If Fallingstar wants to get mad at somebody, why not Orson Welles who updated the story and moved it too New Jersey....or George Pal who changed the story even more and moved it to Los Angeles. Speilberg is just following in their footsteps And for what it is worth, apparently Speilberg is keeping more stuff from the book in his film then Pal did in his film. WHy no rage at Pal and his version? Because Spielberg is the one who's making the film at the moment and people know and expect better these days. Just because Spielberg is shoving 1 or 2 more aspects of the book than Pal into his film doesn't mean that will make things alright in the eyes of most Wells fans. Also, I do find it very annoying that there are people around who think that Orson Welles radio broadcast and the 1953 film are the originals and now with Spielbergs and Asylums films coming out - that people who see these might think they're the original tale. Film makers seem to go to any lengths possible to avoid doing the story properly. There are people around who think that Orson Welles actually wrote the original story - so I'm not exactly pleased about that either. I think it's disgraceful that a lightweight kids book [ Harry Potter ] is treated with more respect by film makers than the works of a genius and visionary writer.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on May 10, 2005 10:13:08 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Have you actually watched the trailer FallingStar? The scenes and characters, the action sequences - everything is how it should be in Wells novel, except for two small points.
1. Conjoined tripods- the only reason Wells had Tripods was to evoke an image of something totally alien to a person of his time - something that we probably can't relate to in modern times. An alien war machine would satisfy Wells, as long as it looks alien enough. 2. Modern setting: Discussed heavily before, so I won't go into it again.
At the end of the day, people are trying to put Wells vision on the screen as best they can. As long at the themes and ideas of Wells are captured, and the plot is kept, I can't see a problem. It won't humilate the name of Wells in any way. So what if they're cashing in - Asylum seem to have actually got it right. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by bittersound on May 10, 2005 10:42:55 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Have you actually watched the trailer FallingStar? The scenes and characters, the action sequences - everything is how it should be in Wells novel, except for two small points... 1. Conjoined tripods- the only reason Wells had Tripods was to evoke an image of something totally alien to a person of his time - something that we probably can't relate to in modern times. An alien war machine would satisfy Wells, as long as it looks alien enough. 2. Modern setting: Discussed heavily before, so I won't go into it again. At the end of the day, people are trying to put Wells vision on the screen as best they can. As long at the themes and ideas of Wells are captured, and the plot is kept, I can't see a problem. It won't humilate the name of Wells in any way. So what if they're cashing in - Asylum seem to have actually got it right. [/glow] I thoroughly agree with you there... So far this version is the only one that has given something really tangible (extra legs and modern setting issues notwithstanding) that relates to the book in an apparently accurate manner. Whether the final product actually turns out to be any good 'as a whole' is another thing entirely, let's wait and see eh?
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on May 10, 2005 19:44:56 GMT
"I think it's disgraceful that a lightweight kids book [ Harry Potter ] is treated with more respect by film makers than the works of a genius and visionary writer. " Then don't go see the films. That is about all you can do. You take this way too seriously. There is really nothing that you can do about it except rant..and that tends to turn people off. I could state that Rowling's books are no more lightwieght than "The Hobbit", "The WInd IN the Willows", and several other "kid's books" that have stood the test of time. And an awful lot of grown ups seem to be fans of the Potter books as well.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 10, 2005 20:27:14 GMT
"I think it's disgraceful that a lightweight kids book [ Harry Potter ] is treated with more respect by film makers than the works of a genius and visionary writer. " Then don't go see the films. That is about all you can do. You take this way too seriously. There is really nothing that you can do about it except rant..and that tends to turn people off. I could state that Rowling's books are no more lightwieght than "The Hobbit", "The WInd IN the Willows", and several other "kid's books" that have stood the test of time. And an awful lot of grown ups seem to be fans of the Potter books as well. It's lucky there are people around who are willing to take things seriously otherwise we'd just have endless crap released. If Jackson hadn't taken LOTR seriously god knows what Hollywood would have done with it. They might have filmed it in the Grand Canyon and stuck a rapping Will Smith in it. I'm not knocking grown ups who read Potter books but I wouldn't class them in the same league as The Hobbit or Wind in the Willows. I think those are far more imaginitive than those over hyped Potter books.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 10, 2005 22:10:17 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Have you actually watched the trailer FallingStar? The scenes and characters, the action sequences - everything is how it should be in Wells novel, except for two small points. 1. Conjoined tripods- the only reason Wells had Tripods was to evoke an image of something totally alien to a person of his time - something that we probably can't relate to in modern times. An alien war machine would satisfy Wells, as long as it looks alien enough. 2. Modern setting: Discussed heavily before, so I won't go into it again. At the end of the day, people are trying to put Wells vision on the screen as best they can. As long at the themes and ideas of Wells are captured, and the plot is kept, I can't see a problem. It won't humilate the name of Wells in any way. So what if they're cashing in - Asylum seem to have actually got it right. [/glow] If that's the best these film makers can do then I'd hate to see their worst. I've watched the trailer and it's absolutely sod all like the book. I'm not saying Wells name will be humiliated but what I am saying is - that instead of him being recognised for the genius he was most people will watch these two travesties and say - "hey HG Wells [ if they even get his name right or Spielberg even acknowledges it ] he wrote that Independence Day type film didn't he. Asylums dvd cover is proof enough of that.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on May 10, 2005 23:51:01 GMT
So many great works have been converted into 'adaptions' and it hasn't hurt the original work. Bram Stokers' Dracula, whilst an ok film, deviated from the original novel a fair bit. 'Reanimator' was a fair bit away from Lovecraft's story but it made for a thoroughly entertaining series of films. The novel will remain for us faithful.. and some others, drawn by the movies, will discover it. Those curious enough will be drawn to the novel, those not will take the movies for what they are. It's not a big deal, really. HG's novel is big enough, I think, to stand up for itself.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on May 11, 2005 10:36:20 GMT
To be honest the only bit about the Asylum version that gives me bad vibes is the bit about the 'weapon that will turn the tide...' that sounds dodgy to me, apart from that it all looks cool.
Lets be honest with each other, some may not like me saying this but the holy book is not standing the test of time as well as some believe, let me explain: I am a big fan of the book, as are millions around the globe and yes its been responsible for many sci-fi spin offs, credited or not, however the further we get from 1897 the more we realize that the martians just arnt as formidable as they were when Wells wrote it in 1897, set the same story today and they would be minced meat, so to ask anyone who isnt a hardcore wellsian fan to accept the ideas in the book while knowing what they know about our modern technology isnt very fair.
The book has loads of timeless ideas that will last an eternity but the book as a whole will only be appreciated by a small majority of the audience in film form, hard to understand for the hard core i know but there you have it. To read the book is to enter the world of H G but to those who have no intention of reading the book it just wouldnt be the same in the cinema as they would percive the quaint English victorian folk as primitive compared with today.
The other element the book has none of is litteral magic so to compare it to lord of the rings or harry potter is also not very fair. Both those titles have survived the transition because they exist in their own migical worlds, were they appeal to children and the innerchild in adults who remember a time in their lives when magic was still possible before it was extinguished by school, age and wisdom. Because war of the worlds is very hard and scientific, in which H G explains everthing as best he could the audience has no such tool as magic with which to explain away the unexplained such as the red weed or whatever.
My point is if we accept these points the updated version become easier to swallow as a pleasant enjoyable necessary evil rather than a blasphemous travesty that needs to be burned at the stake.
With that I will get my coat.....
|
|
|
Post by HTT on May 11, 2005 12:15:01 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]So, the book didn't feature Ogilvy and his telescope, a cylinder from mars, a cylinder in a pit on a common, a crowd approaching a cylinder, FMs on the attack, man fighting back (OK 'copters instead of cannons), a curate and a writer trapped in a cellar, writer looking out of the ruined hole in the wall....
Anyhoo, I'm not gonna argue with you, so I'l let it drop now.
Moving on to the ''weapon that will turn the tide..." section. I don't think that it's too dodgy. I would assume that at some point during the war, our armies would try to seek such a weapon - perhaps they never develop it, or it doesn't work? [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 11, 2005 13:26:21 GMT
Lets be honest with each other, some may not like me saying this but the holy book is not standing the test of time as well as some believe However the book is of its time and written over 100 years ago. It would be an entirely differant kettle of fish if it had been written in the last 10 years so to speak. The book could have easily slipped into obscurity a very very long time ago, but it hasn't because it has always and will remain the formost book that we regard as 'the best in sci-fi, and that proves that despite other people coming forward with there takes on the story, the original will always without any doubt be the best.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on May 11, 2005 18:22:36 GMT
However the book is of its time and written over 100 years ago. It would be an entirely differant kettle of fish if it had been written in the last 10 years so to speak. The book could have easily slipped into obscurity a very very long time ago, but it hasn't because it has always and will remain the formost book that we regard as 'the best in sci-fi, and that proves that despite other people coming forward with there takes on the story, the original will always without any doubt be the best. Like I said I am a big fan of the book so I agree that as a book there will never be a betterment, there is only one H G wells war of the worlds, take it or leave it. My point wasnt that the book has somehow changed or that any of these versions will be better than the book, dear me no, what I mean is that we as a culture we have changed over the last 100 years, our capabilities are far more advanced. Its no slant on H G that we have superceded the world in which he lived in fact its a great achievement that it has lasted as long as it has. His story will last forever, it will be around in thousands of years (if we are), it is like you say the difinitive sci-fi story, it was the first from which all else grew but because we are a more mature and advanced peoples the story has to be advanced on the big screen if its to appeal to a wider audience, in this way the book hasnt withstood the test of time its just been exceedingly popular, as it will always be, but it will start to become dated in ways that cannot be fixed (and I dont mean in the reading sense, as a book, like I said, there will be no betterment, ever). So updated versions arnt just inevitable they are necessary to get the story to a wider audience or more sceptical generation, that is if they dont want to read the book, but to be honest it should be taught in schools as part of the curriculum.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 11, 2005 19:35:32 GMT
Like I said I am a big fan of the book so I agree that as a book there will never be a betterment, there is only one H G wells war of the worlds, take it or leave it. My point wasnt that the book has somehow changed or that any of these versions will be better than the book, dear me no, what I mean is that we as a culture we have changed over the last 100 years, our capabilities are far more advanced. Its no slant on H G that we have superceded the world in which he lived in fact its a great achievement that it has lasted as long as it has. His story will last forever, it will be around in thousands of years (if we are), it is like you say the difinitive sci-fi story, it was the first from which all else grew but because we are a more mature and advanced peoples the story has to be advanced on the big screen if its to appeal to a wider audience, in this way the book hasnt withstood the test of time its just been exceedingly popular, as it will always be, but it will start to become dated in ways that cannot be fixed (and I dont mean in the reading sense, as a book, like I said, there will be no betterment, ever). So updated versions arnt just inevitable they are necessary to get the story to a wider audience or more sceptical generation, that is if they dont want to read the book, but to be honest it should be taught in schools as part of the curriculum. How will the book become dated? The whole point is that the book is unique because it's set in the past. That's part of it's charm. Believe me Spielbergs film will look dated in the future but a film that's deliberately setting out to be retro and set in the past will stand the test of time a lot easier. Updated versions of classic books aren't necessary at all to get the story to a wider audience. If that was the case Peter Jackson wouldn't be making King Kong set in 1930's New York. We all know a giant ape never trashed New York in 1933 but that doesn't matter. We have to suspend disbelief sometimes [ a lot of the time ] at the cinema. Not all sci fi films have to be set in the present or the future - some can be set in the past as well. It's all about transporting audiences to a place they haven't been before, another age, another world. People who say stories like this have to be updated are totally missing the point [ sometimes deliberately ].
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 11, 2005 19:36:32 GMT
However the book is of its time and written over 100 years ago. It would be an entirely differant kettle of fish if it had been written in the last 10 years so to speak. The book could have easily slipped into obscurity a very very long time ago, but it hasn't because it has always and will remain the formost book that we regard as 'the best in sci-fi, and that proves that despite other people coming forward with there takes on the story, the original will always without any doubt be the best. Precisely!
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 11, 2005 19:55:01 GMT
So, would "The Name of the Rose" have been a better movie had its setting and story been updated to the 1980s?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 11, 2005 20:01:10 GMT
To be honest the only bit about the Asylum version that gives me bad vibes is the bit about the 'weapon that will turn the tide...' that sounds dodgy to me, apart from that it all looks cool. Lets be honest with each other, some may not like me saying this but the holy book is not standing the test of time as well as some believe, let me explain: I am a big fan of the book, as are millions around the globe and yes its been responsible for many sci-fi spin offs, credited or not, however the further we get from 1897 the more we realize that the martians just arnt as formidable as they were when Wells wrote it in 1897, set the same story today and they would be minced meat, so to ask anyone who isnt a hardcore wellsian fan to accept the ideas in the book while knowing what they know about our modern technology isnt very fair. The book has loads of timeless ideas that will last an eternity but the book as a whole will only be appreciated by a small majority of the audience in film form, hard to understand for the hard core i know but there you have it. To read the book is to enter the world of H G but to those who have no intention of reading the book it just wouldnt be the same in the cinema as they would percive the quaint English victorian folk as primitive compared with today. The other element the book has none of is litteral magic so to compare it to lord of the rings or harry potter is also not very fair. Both those titles have survived the transition because they exist in their own migical worlds, were they appeal to children and the innerchild in adults who remember a time in their lives when magic was still possible before it was extinguished by school, age and wisdom. Because war of the worlds is very hard and scientific, in which H G explains everthing as best he could the audience has no such tool as magic with which to explain away the unexplained such as the red weed or whatever. My point is if we accept these points the updated version become easier to swallow as a pleasant enjoyable necessary evil rather than a blasphemous travesty that needs to be burned at the stake. With that I will get my coat..... No one's comparing LOTRINGS or H.POTTER to WOTWORLDS and I just used H.POTTER as an example of how Hollywood treats an over hyped kids book better than the works of a true genius. Also WOTWORLDS and LOTRINGS aren't lightweight kids books like H.POTTER and they're in a vastly different and superior league. Wells original novel has stood the test of time extremely well and I'd argue that it's now better than it's ever been. Victorian sci fi like WORLDS and THE TIME MACHINE is now classic and highly regarded stuff.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 11, 2005 20:04:21 GMT
So, would "The Name of the Rose" have been a better movie had its setting and story been updated to the 1980s? Exactly, of course it wouldn't and it would lose a lot of the original stories atmosphere and charm.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on May 11, 2005 20:26:35 GMT
Theres no point in explaining what I mean again and again and again, the urge to defend Wells is too strong to have a decent conversation even when Wells is in no way being slated. The name of the rose is completely out of context as it doesnt have great meandering alien tripods striding all over the place, I have never said a true authentic version wouldnt be good, in fact im sure it would be amazing but to appeal to the wider more sceptical non Wells fan audience it needed updating to a point were the aliens wernt totaly dependent on the primitive nature of victorian England as the basis for their superiorority, its not a hard concept to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 12, 2005 0:25:41 GMT
The fact that Jean-Jacques Annaud kept “Name of the Rose” in its original setting and accurately reflected the original novel when he could have just as easily modernized it for “skeptical” modern audiences that do not believe in Revelations and the “wiles of the Evil One” puts it in perfect context with what should be done with “War of the Worlds.” I know people who have been waiting seven months for Spielberg’s update, but far more who have been waiting decades for an authentic version. Drawing a wider audience is one thing, but maintaining the integrity of your source text while updating has shown itself to be a completely different thing - and one that almost always eludes filmmakers that choose Wells as a basis.
You are very much mistaken if you think the Martians depended at all upon “the primitive nature of Victorian England as the basis for their superiority.” One of the points Wells was making was precisely that the Martians were so advanced that they saw Mankind as cattle to be domesticated and exploited. The Martians did not have to depend on Mankind’s primitive nature (the Victorians were anything but primitive, anyway) any more than Mankind has to depend on the primitive nature of farm animals for our dominion over the earth.
|
|