IMDb issues

[alabaster]

I'm trying to get to the bottom of the puzzling reactions of most of the IMDb hate-posts about this film. There seems to be an unspoken belief among many people that, since the film was updated to modern times and reset in America, it will be a shameless piece of US-centric jingoism. Why this should be the case, when the 1953 film, which was also updated reset in America, was not, is beyond me.

Perhaps what we are witnessing is a kind of delayed reaction to Independence Day, which, when you consider its title, was set up from the beginning to be a piece of pro-American propaganda. It's almost as if, having given hundreds of millions of their dollars to that film, they are suddenly realising that they were taken in, and are using this film to vent their fury.

I have no idea if Spielberg is going to play fast and loose with Wells's themes. I would be enraged if he did, and, truthfully, I wouldn't put it beyond him to do it. But Spielberg, even at his most shamelessly jingoistic (Amistad, Saving Private Ryan) has always had more respect for the truth and for reflective criticism than the childish and frequently bawdlerist Emmerich. To implictly compare the one to the other, which essentially is what these posters are doing, is, quite frankly, slanderous.

[ulla123]

To be honest, I disagree. People's views aren't slanderous - they are just their views.
I think it's a bit pointless to have a "modern day" "American" War of The Worlds.
HG Wells wrote the story and set it in Victorian England. If you call it WOTW, then keep it WOTW - like all the Jeff Wayne versions!

[flynnsixtysix]

anyone who posts on a forum - especially the imdb barfly forums - are already a 'certain type of person'. they are not the average Joe.

The average Joe still likes ID4. Movie fans with any critical detachment recognise it as a piece of crap.

your not going to get 'level headed' debate from anyone incentivised enough to post their opinion to the world. Ego got them to the keyboard in order to have their 'say' and that pretty much sums it up.

The old Billy Connoly joke ( from the days when he used to be funny and nto some idiot biggot) comes to mind ' The very desire to be a politician should be enough to stop them from ever becoming one'

As the romans used to say 'You got to the coloseum - your going to see slaughter'

however, I don't see why Spielberg will fall into this trap. Though he could.
He's a great movie maker and has made some shocking duds - but he's also made A.I, close encounters and Jaws which I consider to be three of the greatest movies ever made. They are both incredible visually, cinematically but all still explore the human experience.

Certainly all three are in my top 50 movies of all time.

[Rob]

I'd agree with that, even though A.I gets a slateing I loved it.

I have faith that speilberg will pull something of that is both true to wells ideas and a great classic film. He did say he wanted it to be 'the film of the decade'

[themotile]

Ahh A.I. it would have been a work of true genius if Spielberg would have resisted the urge to "Spielbergerise" the ending. A.I. was being made in the style of Stanley Kubrick, dark yet warm, shocking yet endearing. Spielberg loves his suger coated endings, in some cases he makes them work, E.T. for instance was a work of genius, the ending to the Terminal was a bunch of crap.

A.I. is a great film of true quality and a good story dealing with a gritty subject, the moral question of abandoning a robot child that can love, was it right to abandom it or ven to create it in the first place. Jude Law is in one of his greatest roles in this film.

To bring it back to WOTW you can garantee quality, great SFX and a riveting story but you cannot garantee that Spielberg wont pour his brand of sickly sweet syrup all over the ending. If he did, i doubt it would ruin the film for me anyway.

[FALLINGSTAR]

alabaster said:

I'm trying to get to the bottom of the puzzling reactions of most of the IMDb hate-posts about this film. There seems to be an unspoken belief among many people that, since the film was updated to modern times and reset in America, it will be a shameless piece of US-centric jingoism. Why this should be the case, when the 1953 film, which was also updated reset in America, was not, is beyond me.

Perhaps what we are witnessing is a kind of delayed reaction to Independence Day, which, when you consider its title, was set up from the beginning to be a piece of pro-American propaganda. It's almost as if, having given hundreds of millions of their dollars to that film, they are suddenly realising that they were taken in, and are using this film to vent their fury.

I have no idea if Spielberg is going to play fast and loose with Wells's themes. I would be enraged if he did, and, truthfully, I wouldn't put it beyond him to do it. But Spielberg, even at his most shamelessly jingoistic (Amistad, Saving Private Ryan) has always had more respect for the truth and for reflective criticism than the childish and frequently bawdlerist Emmerich. To implictly compare the one to the other, which essentially is what these posters are doing, is, quite frankly, slanderous.

I don't think it's a delayed reaction from INDEPENDENCE DAY as people criticised that for being jingoistic when it came out but there again people also realised that it was nothing more than a B type movie and it wasn't really pretending to be anything else. They also didn't hijack the name W.O.T.WORLDS like what Spielberg is doing.

I'm not sure if jingoistic is the right word with Spielbergs W.O.T.WORLDS, it's the fact that Spielberg and others in Hollywood would never consider doing W.O.T.WORLDS properly and by the book as it's set in England. He's only interested in making a film like this if it's set in America with a stereotypical type American family so that the average American audience will think - "My isn't that Spielberg a wonderful guy for bringing a great American story to life".

The argument that American audiences woudn't relate to it if it was set in England is false as a film like GLADIATIOR was a huge success. It wouldn't be so bad if they acknowledged at the beginning of the film that the original book was written in turn of the century England but they woudn't dream of doing that. Just shows that Spielberg and co aren't really interested in the rest of the world.

It's also a great excuse to show off the American military to the rest of the world.

Wells fans HAVE also criticised the 1953 film ever since it came out as this also threw the book out of the window and was largely made as propaganda for the American military and government.

It also looks like there isn't even one British actor in Spielbergs upcoming flick. Can't say I'm surprised though as I just get the feeling that they want people to think the book was originally written in America.

[alabaster]

I think that last thought is a bit of a stretch; it actually presupposes a certain stupidity on the part of the majority of people.

If you were to set War of the Worlds in the modern day, it would have to be set in the US; the British Empire is long gone, and, love it or shove it, the US has the best military in the world right now. Any parable that wished to make a point about the inequalities of human technology with alien technology would have to be set in the US if it were set in the present day. And The War of the Worlds was set in the present day. In fact, it was set in the near future. It was meant to be absolutely current. Wells even cited recent events in the lead up to the invasion. He wanted people to think it was just about to happen. If you were to set WotW in Victorian times, it would lack the original feel the novel tried to create.

Those are just my opinions, if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

[FALLINGSTAR]

alabaster said:

I think that last thought is a bit of a stretch; it actually presupposes a certain stupidity on the part of the majority of people.

If you were to set War of the Worlds in the modern day, it would have to be set in the US; the British Empire is long gone, and, love it or shove it, the US has the best military in the world right now. Any parable that wished to make a point about the inequalities of human technology with alien technology would have to be set in the US if it were set in the present day. And The War of the Worlds was set in the present day. In fact, it was set in the near future. It was meant to be absolutely current. Wells even cited recent events in the lead up to the invasion. He wanted people to think it was just about to happen. If you were to set WotW in Victorian times, it would lack the original feel the novel tried to create.

Those are just my opinions, if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

Ok America has the most powerful military in the world at the moment [ until China gets in to full swing ] and I've no problem with that, but why would a modern version HAVE to be set just in America. The point about inequalities of human technology with alien technology - in a modern setting wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway.

Though now you mention it - it might well be the case that terrorists could make a lot of this technology that modern militaries across the world use obsolete anyway. Take a look at Iraq and 9/11. This could also be applied to an alien invasion story. And it's not the military that defeats the Martians in Wells book anyway.

Wells might not have written it deliberately as a period piece but it's been read all over the world by millions of people and the overwhelming majority of those want the story translated accurately to the screen set in the correct time and setting because this is what makes the story unique. It is what it is. Imagine taking THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW and remaking it in modern London instead of 1800s upstate New York it would destroy the atmosphere and feel of the original story.

Everyone has imagery of Tripods strolling across Victorian/ Edwardian England and I'm absolutely amazed that you said that if it was made in the original time and setting it would lack the original feel the novel tried to create.

Noooooo!, updating it to modern America will lack the original feel of the novel. People who say it should be updated are totally missing the point. It's one of THE classic stories ever written and should not be turned in to just another popcorn summer blockbuster type flick which is most probably what Spielberg will do to it.

[alabaster]

Imagine taking THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW and remaking it in modern London instead of 1800s upstate New York it would destroy the atmosphere and feel of the original story.

Why? Actually I can imagine that quite well. I think it would work very well if you were careful and respectful of the original story. I live in London myself and there is atmosphere to spare in this place.

I don't understand this phobia people have about updating works of literature. How many Shakespeare productions are reset to different times and places every year? Hundreds probably; maybe thousands. No one bats an eyelash. And that guy was supposed to be the best writer ever. Talk about disrespect! They even let women play the female roles! How disturbing! Should we burn Frankenstein because it reset Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound in the 18th century Arctic? Should we burn Joyce's Ulysses because it updated The Odyssey to 20th centry Ireland?

And yes, I stand by my comment that to set the novel in Victorian times would be to destroy the novel's original feel. The book used cutting-edge science, current events and foreshadowing to create a sense that the invasion was just around the corner. The locations and descriptions were places his readers would have walked across and known intimately. He wanted to scare his audience out of their complacency. Nowadays the Victorian era is a very alien and distant time from our own. We no longer think like Victorians (Even Wells, the famous liberal, referred to the Tasmanians as "inferior races"), and it's difficult to see a cinema audience relate to a Victorian society under threat. There is a tendancy to assume that the Victorian imperialist mentality has been consigned to history, and that now we live in an era of tolerance and freedom. Wells would have seen that little has changed in the last hundred years. We still are complacent, and we still need to be scared out of our complacency. Watching Victorians getting slaughtered isn't likely to do that. Watching places we know, and people we can relate to being slaughtered would.

[spelky]

The main issue about updating WOTW is that an updates fine, just don't pass it off as the original story, call it something else say, Independence Day. Oops thats been done!

The other more serious point is that I feel a correctly set period film if done well would actually be a better film than another "me too" Alien invasion of the US. It's just that no major studio is brave enough to do it as the risks are higher.

I can see the Paramount Marketing guys trying to work it out now. It's set when? 1898? Oh it's a costume drama, we'll get Emma Thompson, hey what do you mean Aliens? Aliens weren't invented until 1942 at Roswell, how can you have aliens, you mean it's a sci fi film. Oh well then it has to be set now in the US as any alien worth his salt wouldn't land anywhere else would he?

By the way I take issue with the "US military is best" line, the US is the largest and best equipped yes but in overall quality, no chance

[spelky]

The main issue about updating WOTW is that an updates fine, just don't pass it off as the original story, call it something else say, Independence Day. Oops thats been done!

The other more serious point is that I feel a correctly set period film if done well would actually be a better film than another "me too" Alien invasion of the US. It's just that no major studio is brave enough to do it as the risks are higher.

I can see the Paramount Marketing guys trying to work it out now. It's set when? 1898? Oh it's a costume drama, we'll get Emma Thompson, hey what do you mean Aliens? Aliens weren't invented until 1942 at Roswell, how can you have aliens, you mean it's a sci fi film. Oh well then it has to be set now in the US as any alien worth his salt wouldn't land anywhere else would he?

By the way I take issue with the "US military is best" line, the US is the largest and best equipped yes but in overall quality, no chance

[alabaster]

So when Kenneth Branagh set his adaptation of Hamlet in the 1850s instead of the 850s, what should he have called it instead? Or when Ian McKellen played Richard III as a 1930s dictator instead of a fifteenth century king, should he have changed his name?

[spelky]

Anything he liked plus based on or inspired by Hamlet. I don't though have such an issue with Shakespear being updated. His themes are transferable to any time (surprisingly so) whereas one of the key points of WOTW is the contrast between the Martian technology and that of the late 19th century. Don't get me wrong I am sure it will be a fine film but in updating it they will lose all or most of the main points of the story.

[McTodd]

alabaster said:

So when Kenneth Branagh set his adaptation of Hamlet in the 1850s instead of the 850s, what should he have called it instead? Or when Ian McKellen played Richard III as a 1930s dictator instead of a fifteenth century king, should he have changed his name?

Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but...

...they still kept old Bill's dialogue (albeit edited) and characters. I doubt Spielberg will have kept any dialogue from Wells, just as Pal didn't (apart from elements in the prologue).

I completely understand your argument - setting a modern WotW in the US is clearly the analogue of Wells' Martians attacking the UK in 1900.

But I still want to see tripods in Victorian England!

Gimme my Victorian Martians!!!

[alabaster]

Gimme my Victorian Martians!!!

You'll get them. That's what the Pendragon version is for.

...they still kept old Bill's dialogue (albeit edited) and characters. I doubt Spielberg will have kept any dialogue from Wells, just as Pal didn't (apart from elements in the prologue).

That's a different argument. Will Spielberg be faithful to the themes and characters of the novel? So far, we know that he is using tripods, that there will be a character called Ogilvy, that the red weed will be present in some way, that the Martians "are going to dominate Earth", and that the story will be told from the point of view of one man trying to save his family. The words of the prologue heard in the teaser were edited and slightly altered but still far closer to the original novel than Pal's version. If anything what little we've seen so far suggests Spielberg's version will be very faithful to the novel.

I'm not suggesting by any means that that means it WILL be, just that, so far it seems that way.

[timeship2]

I don't understand this phobia people have about updating works of literature. How many Shakespeare productions are reset to different times and places every year? Hundreds probably; maybe thousands. No one bats an eyelash.

But the point is that Shakespeare has already been produced as intended many times also and it doesn't take much of a budget to make a decent version. Thus for variety when an 'alternative' version is produced no one 'bats an eyelash' as you say since they have been fed well enough already on authentic versions.

But if they had started to set the first versions of Shakespearian plays in a modern setting such as Los Angeles or even London for that matter. I can assure you there would have been an outcry.

The point about War of the Worlds is that regardless of the H.G.Wells message about society and our place in it, it is essentially a great Science Fiction Story which needs a budget to match. Unlike Shakespeare we are still waiting for them to do the first authentic one and we were all hoping it would be someone with not just the appropriate budget, but the skill and love of the Novell to bring this about.

Pendragon is to be commended for attempting to produce an authentic version, although as has been said before, even he wasn't going to produce it this way either until recently. It does seem to us that the film industry has an aversion to an authentic War of the Worlds.

I guess we as fans are just worried that the only place we may end up finding an authentic version of War of the Worlds will be in the bargain section of the local DVD store. This just doesn't seem right for what is arguably the greatest Science Fiction story of all time.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that as a movie Spielbergs film is going to be a visual delight and I will certainly be first in line to see it, but that does not mean we have to agree with the update.

[McTodd]

alabaster said:

You'll get them. That's what the Pendragon version is for.

True, Alabaster, I'm just worried PP will make a complete bol*locks up of it...

[Killraven]

MLB said:

I can't really see Steve as being a flag-waving, 110% Americano, the-hell-with-everything-and-everyone-else type. He simply usually chooses the contemporary American scene as his pallet because that's what he knows best, and that's what he does best.

Very true MLB. But as a well respected, highly skilled director with supposed vision, why can't he take a 'risk' (if indeed there is any : and break away from the old stereotype granny's american pie claptrap? Seems its usually only the young independent directors who want to make surprising thought provoking films these days, and not just mindless popcorn fodder

[FALLINGSTAR]

Exactly, Spielberg is so powerful in Hollywood he could easily afford to take risks and do full justice to one of the most respected books ever written. Just shows what an unimaginitive place Hollywood has become.

Don't get me wrong there's still some great stuff coming from there [ if it wasn't for some far sighted clever people at New Line Cinema then Peter Jackson might never have had the budget for RINGS ] but a lot of films coming out of Hollywoodland just treat the audience as stupid and are purely money making ventures.

Not only did Jackson do L.O.T.RINGS properly but it looks like he's also doing KING KONG properly set in the right location and time.

Hey wait a minute though because KING KONG'S partially set in 1930s New York maybe the rest of the world won't be able to relate to it.

[maniacs]

Hey wait a minute though because KING KONG'S partially set in 1930s New York maybe the rest of the world won't be able to relate to it.



LOL Dammit I wanted it to be updated, all the dinosaurs taken out and the gorilla shrunk to make it as realistic as possible!!!

Have you ever thought the reason Peter Jackson wont do WOTW is because he knows any financial support would of been it would need to be updated to modern day. PJ seems to me to be someone who does not want to stray too far from the original source.

The problem with SS is that hes read the book twice! He said its an extrodinary book, but it has been ripped off too many times or so he thought. He wants to make one kick ass alien invasion story.

A real fan would say its a brilliant book that has never recieved full justice at the cinema, I've lost count of the times Ive read it and would love to make it authentically.

I get the impression that Speilberg loved the film and thought the book was OK, and after the responce to Pendragon cancelling WOTW originally may have realised there would be a market for it.

He was even going to change the title.

He will make a good film. But it wont be WOTW as it should be.