Spielberg says the 1953 Film...... CORNY!

[jeffwaynefan]

Now matter how you cut it, it was a survey placed in a well known Sci-Fi magazine. . . The film studio's know best. They can swing it to a 50/50, haklf want a modern day appraoch while the other half wants a period setting - they can't please all. Im just thankful its being done in some form or other.

[Necronmaniac]

If only everyone could be like that H_C

[DareDevil]

FALLINGSTAR said:

TEXT

If 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!

This really is the last time I'm gonna reply to this, because i feel like I'm beginning to sound like a broken record myself here ;D

When you state:

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but I've seen quite a bit of criticism of Spielbergs WOTW all over the net and in most of the big sci fi magazines.

It reads as if you're saying the magazine itself is criticizing the movie. when you would have written 'look at the survey in....' it would have been a lot clearer (to me anyway )

You also wrote 'In most of the big sci fi magazines' then, when asked for an example you name one.....I really wouldn't consider that as ' most of the big sci fi magazines' just the one.
And like a said, I asked the question out of curiosity because I hadn't seen critsism in the SF magazines (not even in the magazine you gave as an example.

To the survey itself; Maybe it's me but I only read two down right negative comments. All the rest was people stating what they were and were not hoping for in the movie....

maybe some Well fans are rather negative about the SS movie, but I still haven't seen the "loads"of them you brought up several times.

But enough from my end. I tried to explain several times what I meant. if it still isn't clear I give up.
Just agree to disagree on this matter, shall we?

[HTT]

Ask 100 people to watch the event. Then ask each one what happened. You will end up with 100 different versions of the same event.

This is a very old quote (can't remember the source). However, replace the word watch with read, and it's much more accurate.

The problem with the written word is that it is (obviously!) written. There no vocal element to give it life - no emotion, pitch, or tone to give it. So, when you read it, you are putting your own interpretation of the authors intent. Therefore, you can misinterpret what the writer was trying to say.

So you're both right: One person can see negativity, another doesn't. Glass half full, or half empty?

As a Wells fan, I'm not negative about SSs movie. Sure, I have concerns about the changes, but that's different. The way things are going, I'm sure SS can deliver a great movie.

[FALLINGSTAR]

But enough from my end. I tried to explain several times what I meant. if it still isn't clear I give up.
Just agree to disagree on this matter, shall we?
[/quote





Yes DareDevil you're obviously going to put your own spin on my words and twist them round to suit your argument - no matter how many times I explain, so let's agree to disagree.

[DaveJames]

Sorry, not to butt in (I'm new here), but would a faithful adaptation even WORK?

As disappointed as I was at first to hear Spielberg was making a modern day version, I've come to see his point. If you want this story to feel urgent and real, you set it in the current day. The radio broadcast did the same thing, but I don't see many complaints about that.

As great as the book is, the world of 100 years ago is already a pretty strange and alien place. Reading it is like stepping into a time machine almost. With all the thick british accents and outdated terminology and unfamiliar landmarks, even Spielberg would have a hard time making it feel immediate and real. We'd always be aware we were watching a movie, and I think that's what he was most trying to avoid. He wanted the invasion to feel like it was really happening.

I'd love to see tripods stomping through Victorian England too, but if all you want is spectacle, then watch ID4. I think Spielberg's idea captures the spirit of the book much better than any "faithful adaptation."

[HTT]

[glow=purple,2,300]Of course you could make a faithful adaptation work, and make it real.

You don't need to put things in the modern day to make them urgent and real. LOTR was set way, way in the past, and still managed a gritty realness & urgency. Clint Eastwoods 'Unforgiven' was a period piece, again, gritty & real.

We'll still be aware that we're watching a movie with SSs version, what with all the thick American accents and unfamilliar landmarks... However, the London of 100 years ago isn't strange and alien at all - it's very familiar across the world, kept alive by Jack The Ripper, Sweeny Todd, Oliver Twist, Mr Darcey's Breeches, and WOTW.

A faithful adaptation can capture the spirit of a book much more accurately, because it's adapting that specific spirit. Whereas making a modern film based on (or more accurately, being inspired by) a book runs the risk losing the spirit of the book for the vision of the filmmaker.[/glow]

[DaveJames]

I'm not saying a faithful adaptation wouldn't work at all, just that it wouldn't feel AS immediate and real as a modern day retelling.

I just think Spielberg's idea has a lot more merit to it than people give it credit for. I'm sure someday the "ultimate WOTW movie" will be made like everybody wants, but in the meantime I think today is the PERFECT time to comment on what's going on in the world right now. The anxiety and fear that is in the air right now is straight out of the book in a lot of ways. I just think it's too good an opportunity to pass up.

I have a feeling all those parallels with british colonialism people talk about would probably get lost in a faithful adaptation. Especially when you don't have an author to spell it all out for you. For those who hadn't read the book, they'd simply be watching a bunch of tripods destroying London and wouldn't understand what it meant or why they should care.

[dudalb]

"With all the thick british accents "
I am an American, and think this remark is pretty stupid.
I think that a huge budget period version, much as I would love to see it done is problematical from a box office point of view (I think the box officer disaster with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" has made the studios very dubious about period Science Fiction)
but the idea that sucessful modern Sci Fi film could not be made with a British setting is simply wrong.

"Clint Eastwoods 'Unforgiven' was a period piece, again, gritty & real."
I really think that period Science Fiction is a different animal than a period Historical film. It's a much harder sell then say, a straight up historical drama. Apples and Ornages.

[DaveJames]

Again, I'm not saying a period version couldn't work. I just think it would be much harder for audiences to relate to some poor chap stumbling through bombed out London 100 years ago than a father and daughter running through New Jersey in 2005.

Like Spielberg said, this invasion is supposed to be happening in "our" world. It doesn't matter how convincing or gritty a period version is, we would still walk out of the theater knowing that it never actually happened. But the idea that all this could happen tomorrow or next week? I think that's a lot more unnerving.

[FALLINGSTAR]

DaveJames said:

Sorry, not to butt in (I'm new here), but would a faithful adaptation even WORK?

As disappointed as I was at first to hear Spielberg was making a modern day version, I've come to see his point. If you want this story to feel urgent and real, you set it in the current day. The radio broadcast did the same thing, but I don't see many complaints about that.

As great as the book is, the world of 100 years ago is already a pretty strange and alien place. Reading it is like stepping into a time machine almost. With all the thick british accents and outdated terminology and unfamiliar landmarks, even Spielberg would have a hard time making it feel immediate and real. We'd always be aware we were watching a movie, and I think that's what he was most trying to avoid. He wanted the invasion to feel like it was really happening.

I'd love to see tripods stomping through Victorian England too, but if all you want is spectacle, then watch ID4. I think Spielberg's idea captures the spirit of the book much better than any "faithful adaptation."

Again it's just an excuse to say a period adaptation wouldn't work. As has been said, what about period epics such as GLADIATOR, COUNTLESS WESTERNS, WW2 FILMS, SPARTACUS, TITANIC, LOTRINGS ETC, ETC and not forgetting Peter Jacksons upcoming remake of KING KONG - set in 1930s America with unfamiliar landmarks, outdated terminology and as you put it - thick accents. All countries [ including America ] have people with thick hard to understand accents.

People understood LOTRINGS ok didn't they? Everyone in that had an English accent!

Maybe Jackson shouldn't have set KONG in 30's America because the rest of the world won't be able to understand it or relate to it.

Also, we've had countless modern day alien invasion stories and Wells original story was a classic and a masterpiece and it's precisely because of this most fans want something more than just great special effects and spectacle.

We've already had the spectacle bit with ID4 so to have made WOTWORLDS as a period piece would have set it apart and made it unique. Just because it's set in the past doesn't mean it can't be realistic, spectacular and have a sense of urgency about it

[DaveJames]

I guess I just don't agree with the idea that we have to film it a certain way just because it's "a classic piece of literature." And I have no problem with accents or the period setting, I'm just thinking about the general audience who would probably only look at the movie on a surface level. They'd see tripods destroying Victorian London and think "hey, that looks cool" and nothing more.

I don't think they would automatically draw the same connections we do, and I'm sure that's what Spielberg was afraid of.

[FALLINGSTAR]

DaveJames said:

I guess I just don't agree with the idea that we have to film it a certain way just because it's "a classic piece of literature." And I have no problem with accents or the period setting, I'm just thinking about the general audience who would probably only look at the movie on a surface level. They'd see tripods destroying Victorian London and think "hey, that looks cool" and nothing more.

I don't think they would automatically draw the same connections we do, and I'm sure that's what Spielberg was afraid of.

Well of course just because somethings a classic piece of literature doesn't mean you 'have' to film it exactly as the book, but all this - 'it has to be updated for modern audiences cos they won't understand or relate to it' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If that was the case people wouldn't go to see any film set in a different time period such as TITANIC.

I think a lot of audiences will see Spielbergs film and think that looks cool, nothing more and just see it on a surface level, so it works both ways.

I bet if Dreamworks had done THE TIME MACHINE properly like LOTRINGS and not messed around with it so much - it would have been a big screen classic and a much bigger success.