|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 7, 2005 17:27:54 GMT
I don't know about corny, but definately 'of it's time', because these days I can hardly stay awake watching it!! I can't remember the last time I saw it all the way through!! I haven't seen any real negativity anywhere on the SS version. There's been disapointment, and some lively bashing at some of the changes, but on the whole, people are looking forward to it. We haven't really seen or heard enough to get negative about. Even hardcore wells fans look forward to it. OK, it may not be Wells's WOTW, but it'll still be a good movie to see. I've seen loads of negativity towards the Spielberg version. On these boards and on other websites. I'm also pretty sure that most hardcore Wells fans don't like what Spielbergs doing at all.
|
|
DareDevil
Full Member
I'm a genius! I solve problems no one even knew excisted!
Posts: 92
|
Post by DareDevil on Mar 7, 2005 17:53:53 GMT
I've seen loads of negativity towards the Spielberg version. On these boards and on other websites. I'm also pretty sure that most hardcore Wells fans don't like what Spielbergs doing at all. 'loads of negativity'? really? Give me some sites, I'm curious I spent a lot of time on the net but I seem to keep missing out on these sites. ;D I've seen quite a number Well fans switch from Pendragon to Paramount/Spielberg because they are so dissapointed in Hines and company . (they aren's falling over themselves with joy, but are more than willing to give it a try But I have noticed there IS a hardcore group of die-hard Wells fans that has been moaning and complaining, stillI have this strong ompression is a very small group because I keep seeing the same names popping up all the time
|
|
DareDevil
Full Member
I'm a genius! I solve problems no one even knew excisted!
Posts: 92
|
Post by DareDevil on Mar 7, 2005 17:55:09 GMT
The latest issue [ March ] of SFX magazine for a start. Probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest sci fi mags around. A two page feature entitled - Spielberg are you listenining? The 'Most Wanted' request was that it should have been set in Victorian England. Wasn't that about people writing in? The same as what they did with 'Star Wars'?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 7, 2005 19:59:06 GMT
Wasn't that about people writing in? The same as what they did with 'Star Wars'? Yes but it just shows you the way most Wells fans feel.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 7, 2005 20:21:11 GMT
'loads of negativity'? really? Give me some sites, I'm curious I spent a lot of time on the net but I seem to keep missing out on these sites. ;D I've seen quite a number Well fans switch from Pendragon to Paramount/Spielberg because they are so dissapointed in Hines and company . (they aren's falling over themselves with joy, but are more than willing to give it a try But I have noticed there IS a hardcore group of die-hard Wells fans that has been moaning and complaining, stillI have this strong ompression is a very small group because I keep seeing the same names popping up all the time Here's a few - www.aint-it-cool-news.com/tb_display.cgi?id=18137#794179theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=38166www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_2225.htmlI wouldn't class myself as a hardcore Wells fan as I can accept small changes here and there and as I've said before I don't mind different takes on a story as long as someone does the definitive version of Wells book - and that's the one that people remember. Yes there are hardcore Wells fans moaning about Spielberg and just because the same names keep popping up [at the moment] on this site, doesn't mean that the number is small. From what I've seen most of the people on this site want the book done properly - even though at this moment in time some are settling for second best because of Pendragons handling [or mishandling] of things.
|
|
DareDevil
Full Member
I'm a genius! I solve problems no one even knew excisted!
Posts: 92
|
Post by DareDevil on Mar 7, 2005 22:05:48 GMT
Oh, those sites ;D Yeach, I used to hang out over there, untill I discovered they hated most films I love. Took that is my cue to find a new hang place it's not the small group on this board I was referring to. It's just many messages on many boards have the same tone, and some even almost the same wording, as messages I read on other boards. Just makes me wonder on how many boards and different names people put the same messages.... I often can't help but thinking; didn't I read the exact same message, but on a different board under a different name?....It just leaves me very curious. But, I doubt we will ever agree on this, so just leave it at that, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by Necronmaniac on Mar 7, 2005 23:42:18 GMT
You might also note that most of them are bitching bout it not being authentic to the book and very little else. At then end of the day every Wells fan is up in arms over the spielberg movie but every neutral observer (The people who are the most objective since they have no vested intereste in weather its an authentic adaption of the book or not) viewpoint i have read has been positive. Any criticism there has been has not been that the film looks crap but that it "wont be war of the worlds" which to be honest i think is a weak thing to say but then i guess everyone is entitled to their point of view
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 7, 2005 23:42:46 GMT
I hate to say it, but this animus toward Speilberg is so old. What is amusing is that some of the same people who are die hard defenders of Hines and Pendragon slag Speilberg for every little thing they can think of. There are not that many hard core Wells fans out there, they make up a very small percentage of the film going audience, and all their bitching will not have any influence one way or the other. The film will suceed or fail on it's own merits. Hey, just about every major film ,radio, or TV versionof WOTW had been set in whatever was contemporary for when they were made. Nothing new. I can understand wanting a period version..I want one myself...but this acting like Spielberg has commiting some shockingly new outrage is silly. If you are going to blame somebody, blame Orson Wells for starting the whole tradition of modernizning the story. Heis the one who stole the WOTW name. I don't find that much negativity about the project at various websites. A few Hardcore Wells fans, a few people who hate Spielberg probaby because his sucess makes him a easy target, and ironically enough, a few people who hate him for turning to more serious projects ("Schindler's List"), instead of the Sci fi films that made him famous..and who still slag him despite the fact he is giving them what they want. This whole idea there is some huge underground movement of Die Hard Wells Fans who are going to somehow wreck the Speilberg WOTW is just plain silly. It does not exist, in the UK or anywhere else. " A two page feature entitled - Spielberg are you listenining?" I would not have any respect for a film maker who would change his project because a few fans complained. The average fan knows Nothing about film making. And one thing is for sure: I know, come June 29th I can go to my local theater and see the Speiberg WOTW. God knows when, where, or if I can see the Pendragon version.
|
|
DareDevil
Full Member
I'm a genius! I solve problems no one even knew excisted!
Posts: 92
|
Post by DareDevil on Mar 8, 2005 1:48:12 GMT
Yes but it just shows you the way most Wells fans feel. One more time, because I missed this message. This answer contradicts your previous one in which you stated: That answers reads as if it's the magazine critsizing the movie, which isn't he case (far from it, judging by the tone of their articles). My point is the same as I stated in previous messages; it's the same group of people, writing their same message on many different boards, and - apparently- even in magazines You might also note that most of them are bitching bout it not being authentic to the book and very little else. At then end of the day every Wells fan is up in arms over the spielberg movie but every neutral observer (The people who are the most objective since they have no vested intereste in weather its an authentic adaption of the book or not) viewpoint i have read has been positive. Any criticism there has been has not been that the film looks crap but that it "wont be war of the worlds" which to be honest i think is a weak thing to say but then i guess everyone is entitled to their point of view Yes, it is what I was trying to say; a group of die-hard Well fans complaining, pretending they represent a very large group while when you look at the messages they all come down to the same point, and you can't help but thinking from the same people. While the group not belonging to the die-hard Wells fans in general seem rather positive and anticpipating of it all
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 8, 2005 2:20:07 GMT
Daredevil, where in my sentence do I make out that it's the actual magazine criticising the movie and how on earth did my answer you pointed out - contradict the previous one? I just said that I've seen criticism in the magazines. I didn't state either way - whether it was the fans or the actual magazine who were doing the criticising.
To be honest I don't think it matters whether it was the magazine or the fans - the article's still in there.
Also, you keep stating that you think it's the same people who are having a go at Spielberg. Have you any proof of this? All I see are disgruntled Wells fans annoyed that Spielberg isn't doing the book properly - and if they keep repeating the same things it's because the same things are bothering one set of Wells fans to the next.
I've seen 1 or 2 people who are rabid in their support of Spielberg saying the same things over and over. How do you know they aren't the same people using different names?
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Mar 8, 2005 3:12:10 GMT
I’ve heard from many people both in and outside Wellsian (the proper name for so-called "hardcore" or "die hard" H.G. Wells "fans") circles express extreme disappointment the original novel isn’t being filmed by DreamWorks. Most of the concern stems from what DreamWorks did to “The Time Machine” a couple years ago, or what Frankenheimer did to “The Island of Dr. Moreau” in 1996. Hollywood’s track record filming H.G. Wells is absolutely dismal, and most people with any sort of memory fear history repeating itself. If Wellsians are cynical about this film they have an unarguable right to be.
It isn’t unreasonable to expect a film bearing the name of a piece of classic literature adhere to the text. After all, taking novels out of their original context is the same as saying the original story isn’t good enough for its title, so Hollywood will come to the rescue and put things right for today's fickle and otherwise disinterested popcorn-munching masses around the world. The funny part is when Hollywood types are surprised at how cynical many people are towards them for their arrogance and lack of creativity.
But I say wait and see. Try to enjoy it for what it is and remember Paramount's copyright expires in 2017. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 8, 2005 4:12:24 GMT
"and put things right for today's fickle and otherwise disinterested popcorn-munching masses around the world." Oh, and you Wells purists are so freaking superior to everybody else....
"If Wellsians are cynical about this film they have an unarguable right to be." Maybe the Wellsians would be better served to be cynical about what a hash that Hines has apparetnly made on his period version (certainly on the marketing and distributing of it ), and the chilling effect it will have on anybody thinking of putting money in a Victorian version. "I’ve heard from many people both in and outside Wellsian (the proper name for so-called "hardcore" or "die hard" H.G. Wells "fans") circles express extreme disappointment the original novel isn’t being filmed by DreamWorks." Not enough to have any impact on the sucess of this film whatsoever. "But I say wait and see". After spending most of your post attacking Spielberg, I find this amusing. Forgive me if I get the feeling you have already made up your mind to hate the Speilberg version.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Mar 8, 2005 4:33:09 GMT
I can forgive whatever your feeling is about me because you have just demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that where I’m concerned (and in addition to other areas) you have no idea what you’re talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Necronmaniac on Mar 8, 2005 8:45:47 GMT
My only real issue with everyone getting so cynical about this film is that what is so wrong with putting a new spin on an old idea? Isnt it (in a way) kind of exciting to wait to find out what THEIR take on it is? We have most of us read the book inumerable times and know pretty much all the main events in it, if the film was a direct re telling of the book we would know EXACTLY what was going to happen, at least now it will be a bit of a surprise. All this talk that modernising it wont work or that its not this or its not that, are you suggesting that there is absolutely NO WAY that war of the worlds as a story can be told except to re do the book EXACTLY? If so thats wrong, of course the story can be told in other ways. George Pal did it, i didnt LIKE his take on it but you knew when watching it that it was based on war of the worlds. SO its not so much a case of CAN WOTW be told in a different way, but more a case of CAN the director pull it off? And i think if anyone can SS can.
As Charles says everyone has the right to disagree but i think some people need to be a bit more open minded about things rather than only seeing "The Book" and thats the be all and end all of it.
|
|
DareDevil
Full Member
I'm a genius! I solve problems no one even knew excisted!
Posts: 92
|
Post by DareDevil on Mar 8, 2005 13:27:27 GMT
Daredevil, where in my sentence do I make out that it's the actual magazine criticising the movie and how on earth did my answer you pointed out - contradict the previous one? I just said that I've seen criticism in the magazines. I didn't state either way - whether it was the fans or the actual magazine who were doing the criticising. To be honest I don't think it matters whether it was the magazine or the fans - the article's still in there. Also, you keep stating that you think it's the same people who are having a go at Spielberg. Have you any proof of this? All I see are disgruntled Wells fans annoyed that Spielberg isn't doing the book properly - and if they keep repeating the same things it's because the same things are bothering one set of Wells fans to the next. I've seen 1 or 2 people who are rabid in their support of Spielberg saying the same things over and over. How do you know they aren't the same people using different names? --> to me this reads like you're saying the magazine is criticizing the film. which, like i wrote in my previous post is not the case. it's complaints Wells fans wrote and the magazine published this. The articles the magazine wrote itself are rather possitive about the SS version.
here you make it sound as if most magazines blast the movie. I haven't read any of it not even in the magazine you gave as an example; like i said that was the opinion of people writing in, not the opinion of the magazine.
Every person has his/her own personal style of writing. For my work I read a lot of different articles, from many different people, and you start developing an eye that tells you who it's written by before before you even see the name. The wording, the tone, the style, it tells you this is the same person who wrote this or that article. I see that an awful lot with the messages on different boards i mentioned. Although English isn't my first language ( you can probably tell that ;D) it was the first thing that caught my attention. So, 'proof'? no. A very strong suspicion? defenitely.
When you look at those messages you can see the style is pretty different. But, who knows? I do know for a fact it's not me posting under different names 'cause I only use one ;D
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Mar 8, 2005 15:17:14 GMT
I understand your point Necro, but the fact is this debate has been around much longer than this version of “Worlds.” Wellsians and fans of his novels have been open minded for decades already and generally all they’ve ever gotten out of Hollywood are laughable remakes and bad modernizations. Only two of the dozen or so have been worth remembering - and even then, as you pointed out, we remember them with qualifications. Everyone agrees “Worlds” is still relevant today, so I don't understand many feel it is such a bad idea to leave it in its original context – the way the author intended.
I try to imagine if Hollywood were to film “A Princess of Mars” but said ‘it won’t be on Mars because we know there is no life there, and the more fantastic elements – like how John Carter transports himself to the planet, have been modernized so they won’t seem so hokey.’ I expect Burroughphiles would be extremely disappointed - and just as cynical.
As for myself, I admit to enjoying bits of the Frankenheimer “Dr. Moreau,” as wide of the mark as it was, and I expect the story will be the same with this version of “Worlds.” I'll wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by Necronmaniac on Mar 8, 2005 17:45:24 GMT
This is a fair point i suppose, so I will give you that one but what i find particularly frustrating (and it can be seen in evidence on these very boards) is the fact that many people seem to take the line that if its not "the book on film" then its not War Of The Worlds and that any sort of adaption at all is just going to be bad.Adaptions can be just as good as the book and i honestly think that with SS on board it should be a very good adaption, it already has the majority of the key things from the book in, the red weed, the tri pods, the heat ray and the black smoke and the footage we have seen so far looks top dog. Cynicism i can understand, but closed mindedness i cant, at least ppl like you charles are open to the adaption even if your not totally convinced, people who dismiss it out of hand are the annoying ones.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 8, 2005 20:55:18 GMT
--> to me this reads like you're saying the magazine is criticizing the film. which, like i wrote in my previous post is not the case. it's complaints Wells fans wrote and the magazine published this. The articles the magazine wrote itself are rather possitive about the SS version.
here you make it sound as if most magazines blast the movie. I haven't read any of it not even in the magazine you gave as an example; like i said that was the opinion of people writing in, not the opinion of the magazine.
Every person has his/her own personal style of writing. For my work I read a lot of different articles, from many different people, and you start developing an eye that tells you who it's written by before before you even see the name. The wording, the tone, the style, it tells you this is the same person who wrote this or that article. I see that an awful lot with the messages on different boards i mentioned. Although English isn't my first language ( you can probably tell that ;D) it was the first thing that caught my attention. So, 'proof'? no. A very strong suspicion? defenitely.
When you look at those messages you can see the style is pretty different. But, who knows? I do know for a fact it's not me posting under different names 'cause I only use one ;D TEXTIf you want to put your own interpretation and spin on my words Daredevil to suit your own argument, then that's obviously up to you. As I've said - I've seen criticism of Spielberg in various magazines and on the net including the latest issue of SFX and it matters not whether it was written by fans or the magazine editors. The magazine is still running the article and it's in there, full stop. In fact it could be said that it's even more relevant if it is just the fans writing in and complaining. It shows you how disappointed most Wells fans are. As I've already pointed out - where in my sentence do I make out it's just the magazine criticising Spielbergs film? I can also turn round to you again and say that some of the messages from people supporting Spielbergs film sound very similar and often appear to be written by the same people. I also read a lot of reviews and can sometimes see similarities - but I don't have any proof - just like you don't!
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Mar 8, 2005 23:19:19 GMT
TEXT It shows you how disappointed most Wells fans are. Well I think thats a load of old tosh there matey, I am a big Wells fan, have been for 20 years and I am well and truly stoked over this movie, I cant wait! My friends who are Wells fans are the same, most of the guys on these boards are Wells fans but im willing to bet most of them are looking forward to this war of the worlds adaptation, its the few that p*** and moan about it with the same tired arguments like "its not like the book, I wanted the book" when realy you should be directing those arguments at the Hinester as he had that task and blew it big time. At the end of the day it wont be the last adaptation and the book is still on the shelf untouched so no harm done. On the subject of sci-fi magazines, the opinion of one whiney little geek writing in to slag off SS does not reflect the opinions of the publication, they print different articles so as to be fair and even to promote the credability of their own articles. Some guys are just biggots and fools and wont be told or convinced, its not what they wanted so thats it then, it musty be another ID4 because its not the book.....what a load of old cobblers.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Mar 8, 2005 23:46:56 GMT
Well I think thats a load of old tosh there matey, I am a big Wells fan, have been for 20 years and I am well and truly stoked over this movie, I cant wait! My friends who are Wells fans are the same, most of the guys on these boards are Wells fans but im willing to bet most of them are looking forward to this war of the worlds adaptation, its the few that piss and moan about it with the same tired arguments like "its not like the book, I wanted the book" when realy you should be directing those arguments at the Hinester as he had that task and blew it big time. At the end of the day it wont be the last adaptation and the book is still on the shelf untouched so no harm done. On the subject of sci-fi magazines, the opinion of one whiney little geek writing in to slag off SS does not reflect the opinions of the publication, they print different articles so as to be fair and even to promote the credability of their own articles. Some guys are just biggots and fools and wont be told or convinced, its not what they wanted so thats it then, it musty be another ID4 because its not the book.....what a load of old cobblers. It wasn't just one whiney geek as you put it writing in - it was a survey. And wanting it being set in Victorian England was right at the top. Are you also a whiney geek because of your rabid support of Spielberg and ranting at Pendragon all the time? Maybe we're all whiney geeks! I wasn't saying that one person who writes in to a magazine represents the views of the magazine. There's a bit of a difference between one fans viewpoint and a magazine survey - which is what this was. No one's saying that there aren't loads of people who are looking forward to Spielbergs film - but I bet you most Wells fans are disappointed he's not doing the book as it should be. And just because people are annoyed with Pendragon doesn't mean the real travestymongers in all this [ Paramount ] will be free from criticism.
|
|