spielberg vs hines vs wayne

[themotile]

Yeah, like, heavy man yeah

[Gray]

"I will watch all 3, but none will be a direct telling of H.G.'s story, not even Hines version, and it's a bit nieve to think that it will be."

I agree with you HC that it would be nieve to think that any film would be a definitive "direct telling" of Well's novel, as each reader's interpretation is subjective. And I'm sure you realize that's not what I said, although you imply so in your post. I'll tell you what: I won't twist your words if you don't twist mine.

"Going by that logic we cant ever have another disaster flick set in America because its got to be a homage to 9/11? Just because the bridge is grey because its made of concrete doesnt mean its a metaphore for the twin towers."

This is, of course, a Red Herring--dodging the real issue by drawing attention to an irrevelant one. But I agree with you about tone and will even give an example. Compare "Apocolypse Now", F. Copala's updated version of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" with the proper version. Copala's is more successful at carrying the essence of the book. So you could be right.

[jeffwaynefan]

Gray said:

"I will watch all 3, but none will be a direct telling of H.G.'s story, not even Hines version, and it's a bit nieve to think that it will be."

I agree with you HC that it would be nieve to think that any film would be a "direct telling" of Well's novel, as each reader's interpretation is subjective. And I'm sure you realize that's not what I said, although you imply so in your post. I'll tell you what: I won't twist your words if you don't twist mine.

Gray

I was refering to Hines stating that his film was a direct retelling and not what you said in your posting. You got the wrong end of the stick. I beleive its nieve of someone like Hines/a film producer/director to come forward claiming his project is a direct 'word for word'.

H_C

[Gray]

I misunderstood you H_C; I thought you were having a go at me.

[themotile]

Gray said:

"Going by that logic we cant ever have another disaster flick set in America because its got to be a homage to 9/11? Just because the bridge is grey because its made of concrete doesnt mean its a metaphore for the twin towers."

This is, of course, a Red Herring--dodging the real issue by drawing attention to an irrevelant one. But I agree with you about tone and will even give an example. Compare "Apocolypse Now", F. Copala's updated version of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" with the proper version. Copala's is more successful at carrying the essence of the book. So you could be right.

Actualy I believe it was a valid point and not a red herring -(red herring: believable bits of information put into a story to put people onto the wrong track and to keep audience guessing)- you said Spielberg would make the film as a metaphor for the 9/11 attack, you said:

"All the advance images remind me of Sep 11 photos. My guess is he's using WOTW as a working metaphor for 9/11. Working class Americans confronting sudden disaster"

Using that logic all disaster flicks must be in some way related to 9/11? As you have only seen the bridge be demolished and a couple of pics of Cruise you must mean the general disaster scenario. Or are they just films made to make money at the cinema, using eye candy and SFX to lure in the average joe?

Im not having "a go" at you and your Apocolypse Now example is spot on. Just dont ruin the war of the worlds by attaching it to 9/11, its attaching cliche's where there are none.

[Gray]

I'm not being clear. Allow me to elaborate.

First, we're defining Red Herring differently. Mine was a rhetorical definition, yours was cinematic, so I guess we're both right. Either way, I think we've moved beyond that.

In explanation: I'm sure you know that most films--and particulary Science Fiction films--reflect in some way the contemporary social/political environment, unless the filmmaker is consciously trying to avoid it. Toho's "Godzilla" was a metaphor for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII. The '50's WOTW reflected the Cold War. Scott's "Alien" = corporate greed. Even P. Jackson's LOTR--an example of a film that consciously tries to avoid comtemporary reference--lets it slip in with the suicide bomber at Helm's Deep in the "Two Towers" (Jackson equivocates as to whether this was a conscious or unconscious decision).

When Spielberg's WOTW photos began to appear on-line, it seemed to me that they all reflected 9/11 photos: crowds reaciting to off-screen disaster. Speilberg, (and certainly the marketing department) was surely aware of this.

Let me admit: I'm biased against Spielberg; I think that success has made him lazy, and I crossed him off the list after seeing "AI". But I did think it clever to use Well's story as commentary on 9/11. It just made sense. It's the perfect vehicle for it. And who better to do it than one of Hollywood's top storytellers? --And there's the bonus that with Spielberg we're guaranteed a happy ending.

But who knows? It's just a hunch. I'll admit that this 9/11 stuff could be garbage. Maybe it's all just a wager between Spielberg and G. Lucus over who'll get the biggest box office take in summer 05.

To clarify: I didn't intend to suggest that films that reflected 9/11 shouldn't be made; that they would be was inevitable. And I don't intend to ruin WOTW by making the connection. Actually, I think doing so honors it.

To return to the topic about who'll win, I suppose the real answer is that we're the winners.

Hurray!

[Gray]

Addendum: As to "are they just films made to make money at the cinema, using eye candy and SFX to lure in the average joe?" I'm too much of a cynic to answer this. I used to enjoy going to the cinema, but these days I usually leave feeling exploited in some way. It's a good question.

--And as to "all I've seen is a bridge being demolished and a couple of pics," actually, all I've seen is a couple of pics. I missed the download window, damnit! The Superbowl party starts at 5:00.

[TheDoctor]

I voted for Wayne as his version is the best....well it possibly isn't but I haven't seen the rest so at the moment Wayne's is the best!

[malfunkshun]

the said:

Actualy I believe it was a valid point and not a red herring -(red herring: believable bits of information put into a story to put people onto the wrong track and to keep audience guessing)- you said Spielberg would make the film as a metaphor for the 9/11 attack, you said:

"All the advance images remind me of Sep 11 photos. My guess is he's using WOTW as a working metaphor for 9/11. Working class Americans confronting sudden disaster"

Using that logic all disaster flicks must be in some way related to 9/11? As you have only seen the bridge be demolished and a couple of pics of Cruise you must mean the general disaster scenario. Or are they just films made to make money at the cinema, using eye candy and SFX to lure in the average joe?

Im not having "a go" at you and your Apocolypse Now example is spot on. Just dont ruin the war of the worlds by attaching it to 9/11, its attaching cliche's where there are none.

what? what logic? you are infering a great deal here. just because somebody made a point about what he thinks SS WOTW is gonna be like, you then throw a blanket definition on all other disaster flicks as a result? thats not logic, thats just... wierd.

and i agree with what was said earlier... SS version will have whiz bang special effects, and it'll be completely forgotten about in a few years. what a cash cow... but what else have we come to expect from hollywood? Great FX imbedded in crap movies.

now, i'm hoping that SS will surprise me with an actual good story, and we'll see how faithful he actually is to theh book. but to be honest, i'm expecting great FX and a cheese cornball for the filler.

[themotile]

Whatever malf

[HTT]

For me, it there is no definitive winner. Both Hines and Waynes are the ones I'm looking forward to most, for the accuracy to the original story and setting.

I will just say this: NONE of the films will be as good as we are expecting. As we are all familiar with the book/album, it doesn't matter who does a film - it cannot compare to the images we have built up in our heads over the years. We've all come out of cinemas saying "Yeah, that was really good, but not a patch on the book", but no-one has ever come out of a cinema and said "Cor, that film is MUCH better than the book". A book can impart much more information: Thoughts, ideas, concepts that cannot be visualised on screen.

As the saying goes: Nothing can compare to your own imagination.

[Thunder Child]

I definately agree on that!!

Johan

[Demon Angel]

I have to say, I am going with HINES!

But how can we really say who is going to win... Is it going to be about who makes more money or who is going to come out with the satisfaction of the fans and himself.

I think perhaps Iceburg will get the cash and HINES is going to get the saisfaction!