|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 12, 2005 11:12:11 GMT
I think George Pal reflected that point well when he used the A-Bomb, Mans greatest destructive achievment, in the film which failed to annialate the Martians.
The EMP effect is a good idea, and one now used in everyday modern warfare, it would be surprising if the Martians didn't employ similar methods for sheer convience more than anything else. But to say that a Martian invasion would fail today, would certainly undermine the very essence of Well's orginal premise.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on May 14, 2005 9:07:11 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. Yes but HG Wells set his story in the present day his present day - not in Medieval Europe so your analogy is weak. Also, there was no need to modernise it as it was modern already! People can watch 'The Name of the Rose' to revel in the primitive ways of their ancient forebears and feel smug as they view this world through the hero's more 'modern' eyes. The story depends on its twentieth century point of view to describe this lost world. Wells however, writing a book set in the present and not in quasi-historical setting was trying to imagine what would happen in the near future if a superior race invaded and did to his English contemporaries what the English were doing to the Tasmanians and other technologically inferior people. To Wells' contemporaries the exodus from London must have sounded incredible. To us it sounds all too possible and imaginable. We have seen it happen to others, on the news a dozen times and we are constantly being reminded it could happen here. Everyone knows the Martian invasion never happened and those days are long gone. Instead we learned that our comfortable, modern western society was capable of falling apart by itself without the intervention of 'Martians'. We can imagine that - maybe - the world that Umberto Eco described in his novel actually existed. Maybe. It contained nothing that is impossible after all. Eco was projecting our modern genre conventions such as the detective story and the clash between scepticism and the irrational on to a medieval society. At the end of the film the library goes up in flames so it is possible that all kinds of evidence disappeared in the flames so we need not worry that we did not read about the events in history - even if we had a mind to! Wells' story however has a Victorian society attacked by Martians and we all know that never happened. So as a writer of a twenty first century film story he's well and truly stuffed because young audiences know that this never happened. A more relevant analogy is '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' which I saw as a little girl and enjoyed very much. That had a 'Victorian' submarine. Of course, I knew it was a story and I knew that it never happened but the Nautilus was destroyed at the end so I could accept that it 'might have happened' while I was watching and that was fun and in any case giant squids were scarily real - Martians aren't! Maybe the 'Great Sea Serpent' had really been a submarine developed in secret by a mad genius and then destroyed just like in the film! That was not too much of a suspension of disbelief - but Victorian Martian invaders? When I saw 'One Million Years BC' as a little girl all of my contemporaries were derisive about it because we all knew that dinosaurs and cavemen never co-existed. We liked the animated dinosaurs of course but we just thought the story itself was a joke. I know just how kids would have reacted to the Martians stomping their great great grandparents into people fudge - with howls of laughter! Maybe it would work as a comedy..... a spoof...... a parody..... a ripping yarn - but it would lose its impact and shock value. I saw the Pal version of The War of the Worlds as a little girl too. I saw it with my big sister and we talked about it all the way home. It was exciting and scary and thrilling because it was happening now. It had that nice Gene Barry in it too! We had both been brought up with the book and we loved the story - but this had contemporary relevance. It was sexy. Reading a book is a different thing altogether. When I read I enter into my own world and I can totally immerse myself and accept the author's world completely - providing it is written well enough. The reason is that it is a private thing whereas the cinema is social. When I read it is just me and the author in the relationship. There are no people sitting reading along with me and ridiculing the whole thing. No ironic laughter or howls of derision interrupt my reading. I have no such luxury in the cinema! Nowadays, when I see Pal version it seems dated and hard to take seriously and Gene Barry is corny and the romance angle is 'quaint'. It is jarringly religious too. I can enjoy it but I enjoy it out of nostalgic affection. In wanting a film maker to set 'The War of the Worlds' in it's original period setting rather than our present day you are asking them to make a film that is dated before it is even released and it is difficult to imagine any producer taking a risk like that! As an objective test, imagine you have thirty seconds to sell the idea to a producer. You have to describe the plot - and I mean describe - not justify it. If you had to explain why you thought it had to be set in the nineteenth century you would run out of time and lose the busy producer's attention. Think you know better than him what audiences want? Well just compare salaries and explain the difference! When it comes down to it; it would not be really true to the original if it were set 'in period' as, if Wells were alive today he would do what he did then and set it in the present day. Wells' intention was to rattle the Victorian's cage and if he were alive today he would want to rattle our cage and not the Victorians. In that sense the Pal version - when it was made was closer to the spirit of the original novel than any attempt to set it in period.... and an attempt to produce a contemporary re-telling of the story is - potentially - more in the spirit of the original too. It remains to be seen how close to the spirit of the original Asylum's or Paramount's versions are but setting them in the present day is a good start. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 14, 2005 18:08:47 GMT
Zoe, you missed the point, too. It doesn’t matter that Wells was writing a fantasy about the near future and not a fantasy set some six hundred years before, the analogy is correct. Using your logic, it would have been perfectly acceptable for “Forbidden Planet” to have been called “Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’”
As for revisions - which is indeed what you’re trying so hard to justify here, Wells did a couple of revisions himself. “A Modern Utopia” revised St. Thomas More’s “Utopia,” and “The Undying Fire” revised the Biblical book of Job. But you’ll notice Wells did not attempt to pass off his revisions with original titles – precisely because they were updated and placed in contemporary settings.
You forget, Wells was angry with Orson Welles and the ‘undue liberties’ he took with his novel for the radio revision, and that was just 40 years after the novel was published. I can only imagine Wells’ ire at what’s being done some 67 years after the radio broadcast. Something needs to happen around these revisions that rivals the so-called (and media driven) “panic” caused by the radio broadcast for Wells to have accepted them as ‘cage rattlers.’
Perhaps another filmmaker will “grow a pair” before Liberation Day 2017, but I’m not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 14, 2005 22:53:02 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. Yes but HG Wells set his story in the present day his present day - not in Medieval Europe so your analogy is weak. Also, there was no need to modernise it as it was modern already! People can watch 'The Name of the Rose' to revel in the primitive ways of their ancient forebears and feel smug as they view this world through the hero's more 'modern' eyes. The story depends on its twentieth century point of view to describe this lost world. Wells however, writing a book set in the present and not in quasi-historical setting was trying to imagine what would happen in the near future if a superior race invaded and did to his English contemporaries what the English were doing to the Tasmanians and other technologically inferior people. To Wells' contemporaries the exodus from London must have sounded incredible. To us it sounds all too possible and imaginable. We have seen it happen to others, on the news a dozen times and we are constantly being reminded it could happen here. Everyone knows the Martian invasion never happened and those days are long gone. Instead we learned that our comfortable, modern western society was capable of falling apart by itself without the intervention of 'Martians'. We can imagine that - maybe - the world that Umberto Eco described in his novel actually existed. Maybe. It contained nothing that is impossible after all. Eco was projecting our modern genre conventions such as the detective story and the clash between scepticism and the irrational on to a medieval society. At the end of the film the library goes up in flames so it is possible that all kinds of evidence disappeared in the flames so we need not worry that we did not read about the events in history - even if we had a mind to! Wells' story however has a Victorian society attacked by Martians and we all know that never happened. So as a writer of a twenty first century film story he's well and truly stuffed because young audiences know that this never happened. A more relevant analogy is '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' which I saw as a little girl and enjoyed very much. That had a 'Victorian' submarine. Of course, I knew it was a story and I knew that it never happened but the Nautilus was destroyed at the end so I could accept that it 'might have happened' while I was watching and that was fun and in any case giant squids were scarily real - Martians aren't! Maybe the 'Great Sea Serpent' had really been a submarine developed in secret by a mad genius and then destroyed just like in the film! That was not too much of a suspension of disbelief - but Victorian Martian invaders? When I saw 'One Million Years BC' as a little girl all of my contemporaries were derisive about it because we all knew that dinosaurs and cavemen never co-existed. We liked the animated dinosaurs of course but we just thought the story itself was a joke. I know just how kids would have reacted to the Martians stomping their great great grandparents into people fudge - with howls of laughter! Maybe it would work as a comedy..... a spoof...... a parody..... a ripping yarn - but it would lose its impact and shock value. I saw the Pal version of The War of the Worlds as a little girl too. I saw it with my big sister and we talked about it all the way home. It was exciting and scary and thrilling because it was happening now. It had that nice Gene Barry in it too! We had both been brought up with the book and we loved the story - but this had contemporary relevance. It was sexy. Reading a book is a different thing altogether. When I read I enter into my own world and I can totally immerse myself and accept the author's world completely - providing it is written well enough. The reason is that it is a private thing whereas the cinema is social. When I read it is just me and the author in the relationship. There are no people sitting reading along with me and ridiculing the whole thing. No ironic laughter or howls of derision interrupt my reading. I have no such luxury in the cinema! Nowadays, when I see Pal version it seems dated and hard to take seriously and Gene Barry is corny and the romance angle is 'quaint'. It is jarringly religious too. I can enjoy it but I enjoy it out of nostalgic affection. In wanting a film maker to set 'The War of the Worlds' in it's original period setting rather than our present day you are asking them to make a film that is dated before it is even released and it is difficult to imagine any producer taking a risk like that! As an objective test, imagine you have thirty seconds to sell the idea to a producer. You have to describe the plot - and I mean describe - not justify it. If you had to explain why you thought it had to be set in the nineteenth century you would run out of time and lose the busy producer's attention. Think you know better than him what audiences want? Well just compare salaries and explain the difference! When it comes down to it; it would not be really true to the original if it were set 'in period' as, if Wells were alive today he would do what he did then and set it in the present day. Wells' intention was to rattle the Victorian's cage and if he were alive today he would want to rattle our cage and not the Victorians. In that sense the Pal version - when it was made was closer to the spirit of the original novel than any attempt to set it in period.... and an attempt to produce a contemporary re-telling of the story is - potentially - more in the spirit of the original too. It remains to be seen how close to the spirit of the original Asylum's or Paramount's versions are but setting them in the present day is a good start. Zoe Maybe Peter Jackson shouldn't be making King Kong then set in 1930's New York as everyone knows that a giant ape never stomped all over New York and climbed up the Empire state building. Maybe Jeff Wayne shouldn't have made his musical version of TWOTWORLDS which sold over 12 million copies worldwide because everyone knew the Martians didn't invade London in Victorian times. We'll also have to contact him and ask him to stop making his CGI film because people won't be able to relate to it. The Victorian era might have been modern when Wells wrote the story but that doesn't mean you can't make an accurate version of the story set in the correct time and era - which loads of people have been waiting for ever since it was written. Anyone with a bit of an imagination can put themselves in the time period of the film, immerse themselves in the story and imagine they're a Victorian living in fear as they've just heard some nasty creatures from outer space have just invaded their planet. It's not that hard to do. An authentic version of the book will stand the test of time much more than a modernised version - for the very fact that it's being deliberately made to look olde world in the first place.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on May 15, 2005 1:37:51 GMT
Zoe, you missed the point, too. It doesn’t matter that Wells was writing a fantasy about the near future and not a fantasy set some six hundred years before, the analogy is correct. Using your logic, it would have been perfectly acceptable for “Forbidden Planet” to have been called “Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’” As for revisions - which is indeed what you’re trying so hard to justify here, Wells did a couple of revisions himself. “A Modern Utopia” revised St. Thomas More’s “Utopia,” and “The Undying Fire” revised the Biblical book of Job. But you’ll notice Wells did not attempt to pass off his revisions with original titles – precisely because they were updated and placed in contemporary settings.You forget, Wells was angry with Orson Welles and the ‘undue liberties’ he took with his novel for the radio revision, and that was just 40 years after the novel was published. I can only imagine Wells’ ire at what’s being done some 67 years after the radio broadcast. Something needs to happen around these revisions that rivals the so-called (and media driven) “panic” caused by the radio broadcast for Wells to have accepted them as ‘cage rattlers.’ Perhaps another filmmaker will “grow a pair” before Liberation Day 2017, but I’m not holding my breath. I suggest you read my post again as you have indeed not followed my argument through. I stand by what I said. I never justify my posts so I'll leave it there - except to say that modern dress versions of Shakespeare are happening all the time. Also, You may think that "HG Wells' War of the Worlds" is misleading but "William Shakespeare's Hamlet" if done in modern dress is not usually questioned. Shakespeare himself updated the stories he dramatised. HG Wells being protective about his work is hardly surprising but he is dead now so he cannot be offended any more. Really, a lot of this comes down to opinion - and fashion. I have no problem with adaptations and in fact I enjoy them if they are imaginatively and thoughtfully done. Some fans of the original novel seem rather sentimental about it but if the fashion in film making goes against them then - logical or analogical it makes no difference..... A period version won't get made. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 15, 2005 2:03:59 GMT
Really, a lot of this comes down to opinion - and fashion. I have no problem with adaptations and in fact I enjoy them if they are imaginatively and thoughtfully done. Some fans of the original novel seem rather sentimental about it but if the fashion in film making goes against them then - logical or analogical it makes no difference..... A period version won't get made.
Zoe
[/quote]
What about Jeff Waynes version then?
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on May 15, 2005 2:10:00 GMT
Yes but HG Wells set his story in the present day his present day - not in Medieval Europe so your analogy is weak. Also, there was no need to modernise it as it was modern already! People can watch 'The Name of the Rose' to revel in the primitive ways of their ancient forebears and feel smug as they view this world through the hero's more 'modern' eyes. The story depends on its twentieth century point of view to describe this lost world. Wells however, writing a book set in the present and not in quasi-historical setting was trying to imagine what would happen in the near future if a superior race invaded and did to his English contemporaries what the English were doing to the Tasmanians and other technologically inferior people. To Wells' contemporaries the exodus from London must have sounded incredible. To us it sounds all too possible and imaginable. We have seen it happen to others, on the news a dozen times and we are constantly being reminded it could happen here. Everyone knows the Martian invasion never happened and those days are long gone. Instead we learned that our comfortable, modern western society was capable of falling apart by itself without the intervention of 'Martians'. We can imagine that - maybe - the world that Umberto Eco described in his novel actually existed. Maybe. It contained nothing that is impossible after all. Eco was projecting our modern genre conventions such as the detective story and the clash between scepticism and the irrational on to a medieval society. At the end of the film the library goes up in flames so it is possible that all kinds of evidence disappeared in the flames so we need not worry that we did not read about the events in history - even if we had a mind to! Wells' story however has a Victorian society attacked by Martians and we all know that never happened. So as a writer of a twenty first century film story he's well and truly stuffed because young audiences know that this never happened. A more relevant analogy is '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' which I saw as a little girl and enjoyed very much. That had a 'Victorian' submarine. Of course, I knew it was a story and I knew that it never happened but the Nautilus was destroyed at the end so I could accept that it 'might have happened' while I was watching and that was fun and in any case giant squids were scarily real - Martians aren't! Maybe the 'Great Sea Serpent' had really been a submarine developed in secret by a mad genius and then destroyed just like in the film! That was not too much of a suspension of disbelief - but Victorian Martian invaders? When I saw 'One Million Years BC' as a little girl all of my contemporaries were derisive about it because we all knew that dinosaurs and cavemen never co-existed. We liked the animated dinosaurs of course but we just thought the story itself was a joke. I know just how kids would have reacted to the Martians stomping their great great grandparents into people fudge - with howls of laughter! Maybe it would work as a comedy..... a spoof...... a parody..... a ripping yarn - but it would lose its impact and shock value. I saw the Pal version of The War of the Worlds as a little girl too. I saw it with my big sister and we talked about it all the way home. It was exciting and scary and thrilling because it was happening now. It had that nice Gene Barry in it too! We had both been brought up with the book and we loved the story - but this had contemporary relevance. It was sexy. Reading a book is a different thing altogether. When I read I enter into my own world and I can totally immerse myself and accept the author's world completely - providing it is written well enough. The reason is that it is a private thing whereas the cinema is social. When I read it is just me and the author in the relationship. There are no people sitting reading along with me and ridiculing the whole thing. No ironic laughter or howls of derision interrupt my reading. I have no such luxury in the cinema! Nowadays, when I see Pal version it seems dated and hard to take seriously and Gene Barry is corny and the romance angle is 'quaint'. It is jarringly religious too. I can enjoy it but I enjoy it out of nostalgic affection. In wanting a film maker to set 'The War of the Worlds' in it's original period setting rather than our present day you are asking them to make a film that is dated before it is even released and it is difficult to imagine any producer taking a risk like that! As an objective test, imagine you have thirty seconds to sell the idea to a producer. You have to describe the plot - and I mean describe - not justify it. If you had to explain why you thought it had to be set in the nineteenth century you would run out of time and lose the busy producer's attention. Think you know better than him what audiences want? Well just compare salaries and explain the difference! When it comes down to it; it would not be really true to the original if it were set 'in period' as, if Wells were alive today he would do what he did then and set it in the present day. Wells' intention was to rattle the Victorian's cage and if he were alive today he would want to rattle our cage and not the Victorians. In that sense the Pal version - when it was made was closer to the spirit of the original novel than any attempt to set it in period.... and an attempt to produce a contemporary re-telling of the story is - potentially - more in the spirit of the original too. It remains to be seen how close to the spirit of the original Asylum's or Paramount's versions are but setting them in the present day is a good start. Zoe Maybe Peter Jackson shouldn't be making King Kong then set in 1930's New York as everyone knows that a giant ape never stomped all over New York and climbed up the Empire state building. Maybe Jeff Wayne shouldn't have made his musical version of TWOTWORLDS which sold over 12 million copies worldwide because everyone knew the Martians didn't invade London in Victorian times. We'll also have to contact him and ask him to stop making his CGI film because people won't be able to relate to it. The Victorian era might have been modern when Wells wrote the story but that doesn't mean you can't make an accurate version of the story set in the correct time and era - which loads of people have been waiting for ever since it was written. Anyone with a bit of an imagination can put themselves in the time period of the film, immerse themselves in the story and imagine they're a Victorian living in fear as they've just heard some nasty creatures from outer space have just invaded their planet. It's not that hard to do. An authentic version of the book will stand the test of time much more than a modernised version - for the very fact that it's being deliberately made to look olde world in the first place. Sarcasm is not going to impress me. Nor will implying that I am unimaginative when you do not know me. I stand by what I said. Quirky remakes of classic films aside (and Jeff Wayne's version was an audio version of the book and the CGI cartoon version has had the ground prepared for it by the musical version so I would not be surprised if it did well - even though I never really liked it) I am talking about selling the concept of a period version to a Hollywood film producer for distribution in cinemas. I am saying they would not bite. It's a testable hypothesis. If someone makes a period version I am wrong. No one has so far so I'm not.... so far. The fact the Spielberg chose not to supports me too. The fact that the Pendragon version did not get backing and is going straight to DVD also supports me. The whims of fashion could mean that Steam Punk films are all the rage next year. In the wake of such a phenomenon then maybe some producer might say "Hey! What was that HG Wells story about the Martians in Victorian England?" At the moment I doubt that any producer would take a risk with steam punk. Maybe Peter Jackson's remake of Kong will start a trend in that direction. I honestly don't know. Nobody does. I offer an opinion. I have nothing to add to the post I made. We just have to agree to differ. Zoe
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on May 15, 2005 2:14:24 GMT
Really, a lot of this comes down to opinion - and fashion. I have no problem with adaptations and in fact I enjoy them if they are imaginatively and thoughtfully done. Some fans of the original novel seem rather sentimental about it but if the fashion in film making goes against them then - logical or analogical it makes no difference..... A period version won't get made. Zoe What about Jeff Waynes version then? [/quote] Jeff Wayne's version is not a 'straight from the book to film version for distribution in cinemas'. That is what I thought we were talking about. I still say that a cinema producer wouldn't buy it. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 15, 2005 4:54:46 GMT
Speculate all you want, Zoe, but anything resembling a period version of a Wells film has not been tried since before the Second World War, so we don’t know whether or not it would 'sell.' As I’ve said, I know far more people interested in seeing an authentic adaptation of “Worlds” than yet another Hollywood revision...
What blows my mind is the sad track record revisions of Wells texts have at the box office, yet Hollywood still tries them - again and again. Perhaps it will be different this time. Even if it isn’t, my hope is that Spielberg’s version won’t be laughed at the way Frankenheimer’s “Island of Dr. Moreau” or the DreamWorks “Time Machine” were.
|
|
|
Post by ThunderChild on May 15, 2005 6:04:38 GMT
What a marvelous discussion! At the risk of pissing anyone off (but I tend to do that, sorry), I wanted to add my two cents… First of all, thank you Nervouspete for bringing up these issues. I love passionate debates, and this turned out to be a winner! I believe Fallingstar makes valid points. Everything after the original is made is really an interpretation. The fact is, is that the artists that come in and interpret work by another is going to be filtered…even if we insist it’s a word-by-word account of the work. The director credit on the movie poster is enough to tell the audience that this is an adaptation by another artist. That’s what the credit is for. When a painter paints a vase, it’s their interpretation of the vase that makes it their own art. They sign the bottom of the canvas. The vase may have been created by Rodan, but if Picasso paints it, we all know it’s his. Rodan’s vase still stands, and Picasso has a new piece on canvas worth $200K. So Franco Zeffirelli could have called it THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE, WORD-BY-WORD ACCOUNT OF SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET…and it would still be a story as told by Zeffirelli starring a 40 year old Mel Gibson (in a bigger sense, I don’t think the Bible suffered either when Mel directed THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST). But what if they writer of the novel is also the participant of the next incarnation of that work? Case in point, THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY. I read all the books – and even though Douglas Adams was instrumental in the production of the film I know that as a fan of the books I will see new and exciting things in the movie. I know, after hearing interviews on NPR, that Adams wrote new scenes for the film and that after his death the other producers added even more. So here is the writer, creator, and producer of the books interpreting his own work…and I’m sure it’s going to be different than the experience of reading his stories. Does that make the filmmakers sleepers…Looking for the dollar? Does that define them with less integrity for calling it the same title as the book, but changing it nonetheless? So, I made a sci-fi film. Is it Wells' vision to screen? No. Absolutely not. I never met the man (I’m old, just not THAT old). So why call it WAR OF THE WORLDS? Well, to set some kind of record straight I wrote a modern sci-fi film called INVASION. Did it draw heavily on Wells? Well, as much as Spielberg took the Martians and the Curate away, I probably did the same with my version. Fans expecting to see a word-by-word account of Wells novel in my version will be sadly disappointed. I drew from many other sci-fi sources, my life experience, my knowledge in film making, and my skill as a storyteller. So have the distributors call it WAR OF THE WORLDS or INVASION or MARTIAN LOVE FEST or HAMLET, it’s still my creative voice on the screen -- the director’s credit says all of that. Good or bad. And don’t worry about Wells -- “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Spielberg’s version of this novel is Spielbergs’ – much as Baz Luhrman’s adaptation of ROMEO + JULIET with Leo DiCapiro. These are remarkable artists creating new canvas’ with existing art (much like Hip-Hop scratches in melodies from classic tunes). There is also another issue raised which is that of integrity. Since you don’t know what is in my heart it’s probably difficult to pre-suppose my intention. But for the record, I went into this film (just like all of my films – yes, even the ‘crappy’ ones) with the intention of making a great film and for it to find an audience. I didn’t make it for me. I didn’t make it to put my family, business and livelihood at risk. I made it for an audience. And lastly, I also don’t believe it’s a question of integrity or, uhm, ‘balls’ to make LORD OF THE RINGS. The balls came from New Line (the film studio) who risked everything to produce these period/fantasy films when none had ever made a profit in recent years. The films even got the New Line’s president fired (he moved over to Dreamworks). Jackson was a hired gun that produced/directed the film that New Line wanted to make. If they told him to make it a modern musical starring Wil Smith and Rowan Atkinson…I guarantee he would have (or they would have found another director). This is not to say he wasn’t instrumental in LORD – he was, but it was really the studio that called the shots and allowed him to make the period film trilogy with all of those amazing effects (Please don’t misunderstand this as dismissive to Jackson. I idolize the man). I was given the opportunity to make a modern sci-fi by a studio and I did. I think it’s pretty good. I hope you will enjoy it. -Latt
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on May 15, 2005 9:26:50 GMT
Good answer. I've seen the Hitchhikers guide movie, and I thought it was great. Although I still prefer the radio play and the TV series over the film it none-the-less has a unique charm and is quite obviously "mostly" adams' work. Mr Latt, regardless of wether it is titled Invasion or WotW, i'll be buying this as it looks pretty funky on it own, regardless of the name. Ste.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 15, 2005 17:34:48 GMT
Fans expecting to see a word-by-word account of Wells novel in my version will be sadly disappointed. After the countless revisions, rehashes, and reinterpretations we've seen of Wells texts through the years, another one won't leave us 'sadly disappointed.' Wellsians are simply not surprised. If Wells were alive and interpreting his own work as he did "Things to Come," it would be perfectly acceptable. Bringing your experiences as a filmmaker to any project is understandable - even fleshing out understated or minor aspects of the work would be welcomed by fans of the original text. But the fact that numerous filmmakers feel entirely justified comandeering Wells' stories and injecting their own views or ideals and tying them to his name's coat tails would have infuriated him. At the end of the day it is his story and his ideals, not yours, not Spielberg's, not Koepp's, not Pal's, not Frankenheimer's. If you made a movie called "Invasion," which lifts entire concepts from Wells' masterwork - but is as you say essentially your own ideas visualized, great. But how can you in good conscience allow it to be called "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds" by anyone? It is your vision, not H.G. Wells'. Sadly, most filmmakers do no research on H.G. Wells before attempting to film his work. They and their screenwriter(s) read whichever novel they want to film a few times, then set about making the film, sometimes entirely ignorant of the subtle themes and ideas present in the novel that make it such an enduring piece. No consideration is given to how Wells thought regarding his work and how it might be interpreted and maintain its integrity. And this is why they fail to even come close to being wholly satisfying films. There are many authors that have suffered absurd liberties taken with their works by filmmakers. Sadly Wells stands near the top of that list. We might not know exactly "what's in your heart," but when you say you made the film for "an audience" and not for yourself or even to preserve the integrity of the original text, we know what was in your head. Good luck to you, though. I hope its the hit you and your financiers want it to be.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 15, 2005 18:23:21 GMT
What a marvelous discussion! At the risk of pissing anyone off (but I tend to do that, sorry), I wanted to add my two cents… First of all, thank you Nervouspete for bringing up these issues. I love passionate debates, and this turned out to be a winner! I believe Fallingstar makes valid points. Everything after the original is made is really an interpretation. The fact is, is that the artists that come in and interpret work by another is going to be filtered…even if we insist it’s a word-by-word account of the work. The director credit on the movie poster is enough to tell the audience that this is an adaptation by another artist. That’s what the credit is for. When a painter paints a vase, it’s their interpretation of the vase that makes it their own art. They sign the bottom of the canvas. The vase may have been created by Rodan, but if Picasso paints it, we all know it’s his. Rodan’s vase still stands, and Picasso has a new piece on canvas worth $200K. So Franco Zeffirelli could have called it THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE, WORD-BY-WORD ACCOUNT OF SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET…and it would still be a story as told by Zeffirelli starring a 40 year old Mel Gibson (in a bigger sense, I don’t think the Bible suffered either when Mel directed THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST). But what if they writer of the novel is also the participant of the next incarnation of that work? Case in point, THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY. I read all the books – and even though Douglas Adams was instrumental in the production of the film I know that as a fan of the books I will see new and exciting things in the movie. I know, after hearing interviews on NPR, that Adams wrote new scenes for the film and that after his death the other producers added even more. So here is the writer, creator, and producer of the books interpreting his own work…and I’m sure it’s going to be different than the experience of reading his stories. Does that make the filmmakers sleepers…Looking for the dollar? Does that define them with less integrity for calling it the same title as the book, but changing it nonetheless? So, I made a sci-fi film. Is it Wells' vision to screen? No. Absolutely not. I never met the man (I’m old, just not THAT old). So why call it WAR OF THE WORLDS? Well, to set some kind of record straight I wrote a modern sci-fi film called INVASION. Did it draw heavily on Wells? Well, as much as Spielberg took the Martians and the Curate away, I probably did the same with my version. Fans expecting to see a word-by-word account of Wells novel in my version will be sadly disappointed. I drew from many other sci-fi sources, my life experience, my knowledge in film making, and my skill as a storyteller. So have the distributors call it WAR OF THE WORLDS or INVASION or MARTIAN LOVE FEST or HAMLET, it’s still my creative voice on the screen -- the director’s credit says all of that. Good or bad. And don’t worry about Wells -- “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Spielberg’s version of this novel is Spielbergs’ – much as Baz Luhrman’s adaptation of ROMEO + JULIET with Leo DiCapiro. These are remarkable artists creating new canvas’ with existing art (much like Hip-Hop scratches in melodies from classic tunes). There is also another issue raised which is that of integrity. Since you don’t know what is in my heart it’s probably difficult to pre-suppose my intention. But for the record, I went into this film (just like all of my films – yes, even the ‘crappy’ ones) with the intention of making a great film and for it to find an audience. I didn’t make it for me. I didn’t make it to put my family, business and livelihood at risk. I made it for an audience. And lastly, I also don’t believe it’s a question of integrity or, uhm, ‘balls’ to make LORD OF THE RINGS. The balls came from New Line (the film studio) who risked everything to produce these period/fantasy films when none had ever made a profit in recent years. The films even got the New Line’s president fired (he moved over to Dreamworks). Jackson was a hired gun that produced/directed the film that New Line wanted to make. If they told him to make it a modern musical starring Wil Smith and Rowan Atkinson…I guarantee he would have (or they would have found another director). This is not to say he wasn’t instrumental in LORD – he was, but it was really the studio that called the shots and allowed him to make the period film trilogy with all of those amazing effects (Please don’t misunderstand this as dismissive to Jackson. I idolize the man). I was given the opportunity to make a modern sci-fi by a studio and I did. I think it’s pretty good. I hope you will enjoy it. -Latt The only problem I and I'm sure many other Wells fans have with your film Mr Latt [ and even more so with Spielbergs ] is the fact that the title WOTWORLDS is being used - and in the case of your film - HG WELLS name is also being put above the title. We're tired of the same old excuses as to why Wells story can't be told as it should be. Yes every film maker puts their own stamp on a film and we all know that even a very faithful adaptation will have changes here and there, but some just blatantly rip off the title of a classic work to make a quick buck and their film bears virtually no resemblance to the original work. If your film was just called Invasion then I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Wells fans would welcome it with open arms. I certainly would and I've nothing against different spins or adaptations of an original work - but when no big film studio has yet done full justice to Wells masterpiece - I find that extremely annoying. That should be the overwhelming priority for perhaps the greatest sci fi novel of all time. This book deserves to be treated with the utmost respect and it's a perfectly valid story as it is and despite what some people might say - it does not need to be changed for modern audiences to appreciate or relate to. If Spielberg had any respect for the book [ which I don't believe he has ] then he has enormous clout in Hollywood and if he had any sort of integrity he would have made the story as it should be - instead of just shoving a few tripods in, some red weed, a couple of cylinders and changing just about everything else. The whole reason us Wells fans want the story set in the correct time and location is because that's one of the things that makes the story unique. Without this it's just another aliens invade the USA story which has been done to death. As to the question of integrity again, I can guarantee that Peter Jackson would have walked away from New Line if he was asked to make it a musical with Will Smith and Rowan Atkinson. He has far too much respect for the book to have done that and he wasn't just some hired gun. He was the one who approached the various film companies in the first place about making an authentic version of the book - as he had read the book in his teens. He first approached Miramax who wanted to make just 2 films but as he wanted to make the book properly [ in 3 parts ] he scouted around - approched New Line and luckily they had the good sense to give him the backing. But again, he was the one who instigated the whole thing, not New Line or any of the other studios. It's precisely because of Peter Jacksons integrity that the film turned out as good as it is. He's also trying to get the rights to make The Hobbit before some other studio who haven't a clue or indeed any respect for the book makes a complete balls up of it. If only film makers would treat Wells works with the same respect.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 15, 2005 20:24:03 GMT
Sorry, but any film that would give me publicity for more work I would jump onboard and say yes to, withot reservation. Latt did a good thing for his career, be interesting to follow it further after this.
And this ivory tower attiude developing over all of the WOTW films cuts short of elitism in my opinion, and we all know aht type of polotics that drags up.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 15, 2005 21:39:46 GMT
Sorry, but any film that would give me publicity for more work I would jump onboard and say yes to, withot reservation. Latt did a good thing for his career, be interesting to follow it further after this. And this ivory tower attiude developing over all of the WOTW films cuts short of elitism in my opinion, and we all know aht type of polotics that drags up. Yes we're all a bunch of elitist snobs us fans who have the sheer audacity - sheer audacity I tell ya! to want to see a great piece of work treated with respect and done properly. It's all about publicity to get more and more work and to boost ones career and make wads of cash. Sod Wells and the book he was an elitist as well and just wrote from his ivory tower - stories that must be altered and messed around with because hey! they weren't that good really.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 15, 2005 23:24:04 GMT
I have never, never once seen a film 100% loyal to any book, not one, even the much praised Peter Jackson, who with great crafting mangaed to hide a fair few of the actors major failings to actually act, and still sell of what is to all intense and purposes a great trilogy.
Live with it, if it happens it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. Can't really say much on the subject except to say, all I see is complaining about all the films, I see little action on how to do something better.
An elitist complains... and visionary acts.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 16, 2005 0:48:54 GMT
I have never, never once seen a film 100% loyal to any book, not one, even the much praised Peter Jackson, who with great crafting mangaed to hide a fair few of the actors major failings to actually act, and still sell of what is to all intense and purposes a great trilogy. Live with it, if it happens it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. Can't really say much on the subject except to say, all I see is complaining about all the films, I see little action on how to do something better. An elitist complains... and visionary acts. Thanks for the very profound statement there Ashe! If you'll have read some of my previous posts you'll see that I made the same point about the fact that even a very faithful film won't be 100% like the book. I did state that clearly. Every self respecting fan knows that but there's a big difference between changes here and there [ LOTRINGS ] to rip offs and films where just about everything from the novel is thrown out the window. I think WOTW and Wells fans have every right to be complaining at the moment. The only one who's escaped any real criticism is Jeff Wayne.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 16, 2005 11:16:37 GMT
But... the only changes I see thus fasr are these.
Time and location settings.... six legged fighting machines except for tripods.....
other than that until I have seen the film I have yet to see the film to make a valid judgement. Cash ins are a part of life, and no amopunt of complainings going to do that. Either this is going to be a decent film, or a bad film. Whetehr or not it's a cash in anymore is beside the point.
Remebr Cash in doesnt nesscearily mean bad. And believe me, very few people in this world want so much to see a proper setting of this book as much as we all do. I'm not settiling for second best and certainly not for this version, but all the same, I'll be glad when it's out and even more impressed if the stick to the themes well enough.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on May 16, 2005 22:09:55 GMT
Well - I'm glad that you all know so much about how an author's vision should be turned into a film.
That's cleared my obviously confused mind and now I'll know whether and how to appreciate a film adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 17, 2005 1:07:10 GMT
This is quite funny actually.
We are all essentially putting words and opinions of how remakes should be done into the mouth of a dead person who will never be able to tell us how he truly feels either way.
Mr Wells himself.
This thread is over. QED
|
|