|
Post by Marcus on Jan 1, 2006 22:17:33 GMT
I have no opinions on Asylums WotW, other than I hope I enjoy it when I do see it. But it was a cash-in. In the same way The Lost World was a cash-in on King Kong.
Sure, it may claim to be based on a book who's copyright no longer applies, but that books didn't have a giant Monkey running around in it, nor did it bare the 'King' of this film in its title.
To believe that the makers of this are fans of WotW is a leap of trust, but to believe that their releases arn't anything but planned cash-ins is somewhat over trusting. In my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jan 2, 2006 1:12:01 GMT
Yes they are out to make a buck (what filmmaker isn't?), but David Latt is a fan of the stories behind the films he makes. He so obviously knows HG Wells' book well, a fact that you can see from the script he wrote. WotW is actually one of their less irreverent pieces (I have seven of their movies). There is a little humour, sure, but the drama of the story is, I think, given the respect it deserves. They may to the casual observer do low budget gore flicks (a fair point, perhaps, and a fact they would probably go along with).. but whilst they obviously have great fun making their flicks, they are very careful to tip their hat respectfully to the subject they are tackling. At the end of the day, Troma they are not. I refute the words 'cash-in' not through some misplaced loyalty (I am a fan of their work but I'm not a total idiot... I know crap when I see it), but because it is generally such a negative way to describe a movie. It may not be everyone's cup of tea.. but I think it deserves better than that.
|
|
|
Post by ThunderChild on Jan 2, 2006 4:44:11 GMT
Hi All – and Happy New Year!
So I was recently emailed about questions that have been brought up in this forum. Quite honestly after reading what has been said, I have very little to add.
Fallingstar has been very consistent for months now about his feelings towards ANY remake/adaptation of WAR. I think he makes some great arguments. Health-wise, this site is probably not the best place to hang out – considering much of what is discussed here are the different 2005 versions (too much stress) – but hey, more power to ya.
The only issue I have is that you question my intentions. I don’t know how you know what’s in my heart. You may hate my filmmaking…you may hate my timing…you may hate my choice of films…but to know my intentions? Even my wife isn’t that good (and believe me, she pretty damn good at second guessing what I do).
I’m not going to defend my heart. If you don’t like my film, then so be it. Personally, I don’t question Spielberg or Hines motives or intentions. Spielberg could have called his film anything (since it didn’t really follow the book) and it would have still made a billion. Maybe he’s a fan of the book, maybe not. Tim released his film to cash in with the Dreamworks juggernaut, but I don’t question if he sleeps with an H.G.Wells doll every night. Did you like his film? Spielbergs? Mine? Yes or no should be the only answer. Anything else is pure conjecture and, at the end of the day…who cares?
It kinda feels like the movie, THE CONTENDER. Did Joan Allen have wild sex orgies in college? She never answers the question (in public) – because it doesn’t matter. It’s a question that shouldn’t be asked. It’s a question only designed to deflect the important stuff and to have honest discussions about things that matter.
Wait. Maybe wild sex orgies with Joan Allen is important. Nevermind.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!!! -Latt
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jan 2, 2006 13:48:27 GMT
Happy New Year to you too, David. Don't worry about us getting overstressed here. We have pills for it.
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Jan 2, 2006 13:58:35 GMT
Thanks i think David Faltskog.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jan 2, 2006 14:20:13 GMT
Ah- so you're on the dried frog pills also, Nerf-er-Reindeery. Are they helping?
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jan 2, 2006 15:59:21 GMT
Ribbit?
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jan 2, 2006 16:26:19 GMT
I actually have faith in this version of War of the Worlds, don't get me wrong.
When I can get the english release - which, if anyone knows what retailers stock it, I would greatly appreciate knowing - I will be expected great things, and from what I've seen, I am already in support of this film, above the Speilberg one.
I just can't imagine both releases being completely by chance.
But, your right when you say that cash-in seems like an harsh way to describe a film.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jan 3, 2006 21:15:48 GMT
Hi All – and Happy New Year! So I was recently emailed about questions that have been brought up in this forum. Quite honestly after reading what has been said, I have very little to add. Fallingstar has been very consistent for months now about his feelings towards ANY remake/adaptation of WAR. I think he makes some great arguments. Health-wise, this site is probably not the best place to hang out – considering much of what is discussed here are the different 2005 versions (too much stress) – but hey, more power to ya. The only issue I have is that you question my intentions. I don’t know how you know what’s in my heart. You may hate my filmmaking…you may hate my timing…you may hate my choice of films…but to know my intentions? Even my wife isn’t that good (and believe me, she pretty damn good at second guessing what I do). I’m not going to defend my heart. If you don’t like my film, then so be it. Personally, I don’t question Spielberg or Hines motives or intentions. Spielberg could have called his film anything (since it didn’t really follow the book) and it would have still made a billion. Maybe he’s a fan of the book, maybe not. Tim released his film to cash in with the Dreamworks juggernaut, but I don’t question if he sleeps with an H.G.Wells doll every night. Did you like his film? Spielbergs? Mine? Yes or no should be the only answer. Anything else is pure conjecture and, at the end of the day…who cares? It kinda feels like the movie, THE CONTENDER. Did Joan Allen have wild sex orgies in college? She never answers the question (in public) – because it doesn’t matter. It’s a question that shouldn’t be asked. It’s a question only designed to deflect the important stuff and to have honest discussions about things that matter. Wait. Maybe wild sex orgies with Joan Allen is important. Nevermind. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!!! -Latt A happy new year to you and to everyone else. Hats off to you for coming on here to put your point across but as you can most probably guess my opinions are pretty watertight when it comes to the film adaptations we've had so far. Yes, we don't know what's in your heart - whether you're a fan of the book or not but I do think it's right that the motives for making these films are questioned because fans don't like to see their favourite books/films etc done a dis-service. And let's face it money is often the only reason. I've nothing against different adaptations of famous books etc - but if things are going to be altered quite a bit, then I think the adaptation should be called something else and have 'based on' the book in question - in the opening titles. Otherwise this opens it up to all sorts of criticisms from fans and can be seen as a cash in or a travesty. I think fans of the book have been short changed for far too long with this book 'and' other Wells adaptations especially when there's no good reason for not filming the book properly in it's correct time and setting - with a decent budget!
|
|