Hear me out...fellow doubters!

[maniacs]

As a puritan, and I AM! I looked forward to this movie simply because I'm a Sci fi fan and I do appreciate SS approach to films(at least some!). Saving Private Ryan is my all time favourite movie alongside Band of Brothers.

But look at a lot of my posts you will see the cynic that I am when it comes to this film. It's not WOTW. Its not!

But I am warming to it. The first principle of Wells book is the realism! It does feel real!!! In 1890 this is as close to real as you get without actually being there! Newspapers report some facts but at this time it was the later novels that gave you the personal experience.

This might be why the 1939 radio broadcast is almost a classic in its own right. I have to admit when I listened to it I got the same feel as the book. It was brilliant. The fact it was not a faithful adaptation of the book didn't occur to me. It was real. You thought it could be happening right now.

The Goerge Pal version is a good film but its not a faithful conversion.

Jeff Waynes WOTW is unique. I dont know who really wrote the key tones of the album. It works. It has atmosphere and feel. Its not realistic but its perfect! Class of its own. I dont want to see a musical film - stop. I'm hoping the CGI version will simply use the instrumentals of the musical and not too much of the vocals.

So how can a SS rip off the book, forgivably?

We know of the American power being a modern equivalent to the British empire, modern firepower being inadequate etc but I'm talking about film. If SS does film this semi-doci and he says he has your getting the equivalent of Saving Private Ryan meets WOTW. The new movies strength will be in its gritty realism. Just like the book. Of course without victorean restraints to violence he can push it further.

I'm not saying this film satisfies my lust to see the book faithfully adapted. Only Hines can do that! I'm looking at this film as something done in the spirit of Well' masterpiece and as close as we'll get it without the true adaptation.

[dudalb]

"Only Hines can do that!"
Nonsense. I can think of a number of directors who could make a good period WOTW.
Ridley Scott come to mind since he has done both great period films ("Gladiator" "The Duellists") and Great Sci fi films ("Alien","Blade Runner").
Maybe Hines will do a good job, maybe not. I am a skeptic based on what I have seen and Pendragon's handling of the same situation. But to Only Hines could make a good WOTW is silly.
And an adaption can be faithful to the book and still be a lousy movie. the 1974 Great Gatsby comes to mind.

[themotile]

maniacs said:

So how can a SS rip off the book, forgivably?

I dont think "ripping" off the book is accurate, if Spielberg made an alien invasion film with tripods and red weed and they all died from a cold at the end but he called it something else with no mention of H G then you would be quite correct, that would be a blatant rip off of the book, however its called WOTW and is a ligitemate adaptation with H G in the credits so is far from ripping off the book.

It can only be a good adaptation or a bad adaptation, from what we have seen so far its looking rather good.

[DareDevil]

"Only Hines can do that"?! "rip off"?!

all this just because an American is adapting the story of a Brittish writer?!

Does that mean no british director will ever be allowed to adapt the story of an American writer again

I think in a year from now the statement that will hold longer and better will be ; " no one will be able to outdo Spielberg" ;D

Just an opinion, and this isn't coming from an American, just someone who has a lot of faith in Spielberg's abillity to make a great movie

[David Faltskog]

"Brittish"?

Brit-Brat...aka...D.F.

[TOMAHAWK]

If a number of directors can make a faithful adaptation of the book THEN WHY HASN'T ANYBODY DONE IT THEN!!!

SS has had a chance to, given his budget would have been a cracking film , instead we have a modern interpritation , sort of "based on the book by HG Wells TWOTW"

Yes only Hines can do it, cos he has got the bottle to try and do it nobody else got off their fat backsides to do it, so instead of slating Hines ..Slate all the others inc SS for not even been bothered to try

And as for what we have seen of this film ...we have seen bugga all to suggest it is gonna be good/bad ...no SFX/Hardware images ...rubbish trailer that gave NO info whatsoever about the SFX..How can anybody say it is gonna be good /bad based on that trailer ...just like some people have said that the Hines film is gonna be crap..cos of a trailer (and that showed far more)

[themotile]

TOMAHAWK said:

If a number of directors can make a faithful adaptation of the book THEN WHY HASN'T ANYBODY DONE IT THEN!!!

SS has had a chance to, given his budget would have been a cracking film , instead we have a modern interpritation , sort of "based on the book by HG Wells TWOTW"

Yes only Hines can do it, cos he has got the bottle to try and do it nobody else got off their fat backsides to do it, so instead of slating Hines ..Slate all the others inc SS for not even been bothered to try

And as for what we have seen of this film ...we have seen bugga all to suggest it is gonna be good/bad ...no SFX/Hardware images ...rubbish trailer that gave NO info whatsoever about the SFX..How can anybody say it is gonna be good /bad based on that trailer ...just like some people have said that the Hines film is gonna be crap..cos of a trailer (and that showed far more)

Just because they chose not to make it doesnt mean they cant, thats two different things entirely, we know loads of directors that could make a faithful version.

Hines isnt making it because he has more "bottle" hes making it because hes always wanted to from when he was a child.

On the subject of SFX in the trailer, you say we have seen none, so the amazing exploding bridge was real was it? Just some handy stock footage of an exploding bridge?

This is still going to be a "cracking" film with ace special effects from one of the best FX houses in the world.

[FALLINGSTAR]

the said:

I dont think "ripping" off the book is accurate, if Spielberg made an alien invasion film with tripods and red weed and they all died from a cold at the end but he called it something else with no mention of H G then you would be quite correct, that would be a blatant rip off of the book, however its called WOTW and is a ligitemate adaptation with H G in the credits so is far from ripping off the book.

It can only be a good adaptation or a bad adaptation, from what we have seen so far its looking rather good.

HG has been mentioned by Spielberg in interviews [ in my view just to pretend he's acknowledging the book - to please fans ] but do we know he'll be given much credit for this by Spielberg in the actual film and after the movie's been released. I doubt it!

[TOMAHAWK]

Hang on Motile ... Erm the only trailer I have seen for this is the one with the traffic light/ people coming out of houses looking at a hill/horizon

If there has been another trailer ..then I apoligise, as I obviously have not seen it.

[themotile]

You havent seen the super bowl trailer Tom? What have you been doing over the past few weeks tom? Timetraveling or something?

[themotile]

FALLINGSTAR said:

HG has been mentioned by Spielberg in interviews [ in my view just to pretend he's acknowledging the book - to please fans ] but do we know he'll be given much credit for this by Spielberg in the actual film and after the movie's been released. I doubt it!

Well to be fair H G Wells didnt make the film did he? Spielberg did, based on the writings of H G Wells so im sure H G will get the credit for the source material as he should but it will be a Spielberg film non the less.

[FALLINGSTAR]

DareDevil said:

"Only Hines can do that"?! "rip off"?!

all this just because an American is adapting the story of a Brittish writer?!

Does that mean no brittish director will ever be allowed to adapt the story of an American writer again

I think in a year from now the statement that will hold longer and better will be ; " no one will be able to outdo Spielberg" ;D

Just an opinion, and this isn't coming from an American, just someone who has a lot of faith in Spielberg's abillity to make a great movie

The flak Spielberg's getting isn't because he's an American adapting a British writers book - it's because he's radically changing it. It doesn't matter where the film makers come from as long as they do things properly.

Pendragons an American company and they'll have huge respect from Wells fans if they can pull their faithful adaptation off.

Isn't Jeff Wayne also an American - or part American. He also will get loads of respect [ even more than he already has ] by Wells fans if his film is great. So this criticism of Spielberg has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Spielbergs an American adapting a British book.
That's what some of Spielbergs fans might say to try and twist things around.
And for the record yes Spielberg has made some great films. No ones doubting that Spielbergs film wil be a good summer blockbuster.

[themotile]

I think change and radical new ideas are a good thing, I cant see the problem some people are having with Spielberg. If Roland Emmerick was doing it I would like "uh oh!" But I have big faith in Spielberg.

I like new stuff, its fresh and interesting, ive read the book more than 30 times now in 20 years, its not getting boring but I have no burning need for it to be on the big screen although I do think it would be amazing, but just because something would be good doesnt mean everything else is going to be bad.

[Ashe Raven]

I'm an open skeptic, not a doubter

as I said with Hine's movie, we shall see

[themotile]

AsheRaven said:

I'm an open skeptic, not a doubter

as I said with Hine's movie, we shall see

Skeptasism is healthy and sometimes nesessery to avoid disapointment. Saying that with this film I am strangely not sceptical at all, which is not like me I must say. I am getting all the right vibes from this film.


But at least we can say with out a doubt that we will see, on July 4th.

[FALLINGSTAR]

the said:

I think change and radical new ideas are a good thing, I cant see the problem some people are having with Spielberg. If Roland Emmerick was doing it I would like "uh oh!" But I have big faith in Spielberg.

I like new stuff, its fresh and interesting, ive read the book more than 30 times now in 20 years, its not getting boring but I have no burning need for it to be on the big screen although I do think it would be amazing, but just because something would be good doesnt mean everything else is going to be bad.

True, but give us a BIG faithful adaptation first - not more excuses as to why the book can't or shouldn't be filmed properly.

[DareDevil]

FALLINGSTAR said:

So this criticism of Spielberg has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Spielbergs an American adapting a British book.
That's what some of Spielbergs fans might say to try and twist things around.

And for the record yes Spielberg has made some great films. No ones doubting that Spielbergs film wil be a good summer blockbuster.

Okay, it was just the atmosphere I thought I saw in several posts on sevaral boards. But next time I read it, i'll look if I can find the reason you mentioned more prominent. So far it hasn't jumped out as the biggest objection , though.

But, atleast I can agree on the second part

[timeship2]

all this just because an American is adapting the story of a Brittish writer?!

The flak Spielberg's getting isn't because he's an American adapting a British writers book - it's because he's radically changing it. It doesn't matter where the film makers come from as long as they do things properly.

I agree with what fallingstar is saying. I have to say that I do find it a little tiresome in that whenever the British criticize anything it's obviously because they hate everybody or are just whiners etc. as if they are unique on this planet for that. If the British were the ones with all the money and power, making what they wanted while ignoring everyone else (and I'm pretty sure they'd be just as bad as those in Hollywood if they were in this position) you can bet Americans would be just as critical and damning as the Brits.

[TOMAHAWK]

I agree with Motile/Ashe ..but I just hope that it is not too radically changed, still keeping with the book, and that is why I am in doubt about this production.

With any other book ..I wouldn't really care, but there are lots of books I would love to see come onto the big screen, BUT first and foremost .. If somebody is going to do one of my fave books .....for example - MOST of James Herberts books ...IE the RATS, The Dark or best of all -'48 then I wanna see it done by the book, cos that is what i have related to.

If anybody has read '48 'then there is NO way you could modernise that ...the setting is perfect for the story 1948 ....a 'modern version' would look too much like 'The Omega man, or 28 days later.

Apols if nobody knows what the hell I am on about

[themotile]

FALLINGSTAR said:

True, but give us a BIG faithful adaptation first - not more excuses as to why the book can't or shouldn't be filmed properly.

I dont think anybody has mad any excuses as to why the book can't or shouldn't be filmed properly, nor do I think they have to.

I dont think anybody actualy wants to make it, apart from the likes of Hines. Just because we the Wellsian fan base want it made doesnt mean anybody else does, or even cares about it being authentic.

Spielberg has said he didnt want to make a victorian sci-fi movie, simple as that, to many many people the victorian era is very very boring, minus the martian invasion and im not interested either.

It is US who have the problem not the directors. If we dont like it, tough.