|
Post by Anthony on Feb 13, 2005 13:54:54 GMT
Here is part of the Tim Hines Creative Screenwriting interview www.eveofthewar.com/news/4363"We approached DreamWorks with our version before they had thought of doing a version of The War of the Worlds. Tom Cruise announced his intention to do a version a full two years after ours had been publicly announced in Variety with a half page ad. We were about ready to shoot when Steven Spielberg signed on, and two thirds of the way through filming when Cruise and Spielberg dropped their other projects and decided to fast track a version out. Needless to say, we received a hefty blast of cold wind." The magazine goes on to state that this wasn‚t the only problem Hines and Co. encountered. Wanting to tell a "period accurate" version of the famed H.G. Wells story, there was constant pressure from the production powers that be that he modernize the script. He and partner Susan Goforth did and then 9/11 happened. "Some of our financial people were directly involved in being at Ground Zero. Also, our updated screenplay frighteningly mirrored many aspects of the 9/11 attack." This tragedy actually afforded Hines the ability to tell his story the way he originally intended. "We convinced our remaining investors to let us move forward with the production in it‚s original period setting." So it seems like we will have a very interesting box office battle on our hands. In one corner we will have DreamWorks with their $128 million dollar movie which is also starring and directed by arguably the worlds most popular actor and director. In the other corner is Timothy Hines and his 8 figure passion project. Despite many hurdles, Creative Screenwriting reports that Hines is undaunted and in fact quite optimistic. "This is the first time The War of the Worlds will be brought to the screen in it's original context and setting. As far as I know, this is the first time any Wells novel has been adapted with such accuracy. People who have never read Wells will find out for the first time why the passion for his novels has lasted over a hundred years." Read the full article in Creative Screenwriting Magazine
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 13, 2005 14:45:45 GMT
Thats almost word for word the interview from howstuffworks.com, nothing new, but the 9/11 thing is bull, they changed the project because paramount had the rights to a modern version. Full stop.
I think to use 9/11 as an excuse is a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 13, 2005 14:52:41 GMT
Pendragon said that the creative screenwriting magazine aritlce was a new interview. Dam
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 13, 2005 15:02:24 GMT
Thats almost word for word the interview from howstuffworks.com, nothing new, but the 9/11 thing is bull, they changed the project because paramount had the rights to a modern version. Full stop. I think to use 9/11 as an excuse is a disgrace. Dude, I don't know if you've been watching the Pendragon site as long as I have, but I've been keeping an eye on it since pre-9/11. I remember being dissappointed hearing that they were doing a modernized version. I even wrote them an e-mail, urging them to do a period piece. Then 9/11 happened. And guess what... it wasn't a week later that they posted on their site that all production on WOTW had halted and that when it started up again, it would be set in its original time, out of respect to the 9/11 victims, because the original script had scenes of buildings collapsing and planes falling out of the sky. Pretty good evidence to me that the script change was a result of 9/11.
|
|
syrtismajor
Full Member
Heat rays are for wimps, all hail the egg whisk!
Posts: 87
|
Post by syrtismajor on Feb 13, 2005 15:29:31 GMT
I agree with malfunkshun, I started following the Pendragon film in late August of 2001 and was excited that WOTW was being made but was upset at the modern setting. The artwork showing the tripods cutting down the needle in Seattle though did make me think twice. About a week after 9/11 they did say that the production was halted due to similarities (and I remember reading on upcomingmovies.com at the time that there were to be scenes of planes crashing down onto Seattle high-rises after an EMP attack). I honestly believe that paramount had nothing to do with the changing of the setting, remember that at the time that the Paramount version was in what's known as development hell. The final script was only handed over recently as it says in the Cruise/Spielberg interview. This is one thing I do actually believe that has come from Hines!
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 13, 2005 17:16:05 GMT
Lets damn Spiderman for having taken out the twin towers in the movie due to 9/11 shall we whilst we're at it Oh yes lets... geeez
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 13, 2005 18:13:41 GMT
Lets damn Spiderman for having taken out the twin towers in the movie due to 9/11 shall we whilst we're at it Oh yes lets... geeez No spiderman was ok, that was genuine, I dont believe Pendragon were genuine when they used the 9/11 excuse, they through away millions off dollars to change the setting, its seems more of a coincidence that they changed at the exact time paramount wanted the project for themselves and they hold the rights.
|
|
|
Post by VES on Feb 13, 2005 18:34:28 GMT
No spiderman was ok, that was genuine, I dont believe Pendragon were genuine when they used the 9/11 excuse, they through away millions off dollars to change the setting, its seems more of a coincidence that they changed at the exact time paramount wanted the project for themselves and they hold the rights. Sorry, mate; but your views seem a bit.....paranoid...as if it was a massive Hollywood conspiracy to cover up Hines' screw ups. That just doesn't float with me. Your hatred of Hines(yes, hatred)seems to have really done a run on your noodle.
|
|
Gray
Full Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by Gray on Feb 13, 2005 18:36:01 GMT
No spiderman was ok, that was genuine, I dont believe Pendragon were genuine when they used the 9/11 excuse, they through away millions off dollars to change the setting, its seems more of a coincidence that they changed at the exact time paramount wanted the project for themselves and they hold the rights. I think Motile has something here. 9/11 might very well have been the cause for the change in the production; I disagree with his rejection of that explanation, but that's not the point. Intentional or not, Pdragon appears to have exploited 9/11 by working it into their interviews. I don't know how T. Hine's mind works; he might be 100% sincere. Maybe it really is their story, but it appears unseemly. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Or Motile's posts are polluting me.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 13, 2005 18:42:18 GMT
9/11 delayed the project, that seems to be a given fact that was given in the interview. Live with it, it's not harping on about it.
Spiderman was also delayed by a few months, but it had the advantage of already being funded and finished. Hine's cannot be blamed for stating a fact of the time.
But ironically, the drop in funding due to 9/11 bought about an opportunity to bring about a more faithful adaption. It may nit be to your liking, but there you go.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 13, 2005 19:38:00 GMT
Motile is very angry with Hines. He was very dissapointed at the last trailer. Give him some leeway!!!
it was movieweb who released that interview, not T.Hines. Lets not make out hes a bigger liar than some would already suppose!
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 13, 2005 20:13:43 GMT
Motile, do it properly. Give Hines your full address and tell him hes a liar, so he can sue. Then we will all know once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 13, 2005 20:16:40 GMT
I think Motile has something here. 9/11 might very well have been the cause for the change in the production; I disagree with his rejection of that explanation, but that's not the point. Intentional or not, Pdragon appears to have exploited 9/11 by working it into their interviews. I don't know how T. Hine's mind works; he might be 100% sincere. Maybe it really is their story, but it appears unseemly. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Or Motile's posts are polluting me. uhhh... SS has 'worked' 9/11 into his interviews too ya know, if it has a part to play in production, well whats wrong with coming out and saying it? saying people are somehow working this 9/1 bit into interviews for whatever value they think they might get out of it other than just explaining the truth is wrong IMO, and I don't think hines or SS have tried to exploit 9/11 in order to further their projects.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 13, 2005 20:31:13 GMT
Motile, do it properly. Give Hines your full address and tell him hes a liar, so he can sue. Then we will all know once and for all. Movie web released the article, but the article was taken from Creative Screenwriting Magazine in which TH was interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Feb 13, 2005 20:59:05 GMT
9/11, the Tsunami...
Good grief I really hope Big Ben don't fall down between now and April or we're never gonna see Hines' little labour of love are we?
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 13, 2005 22:00:00 GMT
uhhh... SS has 'worked' 9/11 into his interviews too ya know, if it has a part to play in production, well whats wrong with coming out and saying it? saying people are somehow working this 9/1 bit into interviews for whatever value they think they might get out of it other than just explaining the truth is wrong IMO, and I don't think hines or SS have tried to exploit 9/11 in order to further their projects. Good point, Mal. I always need to remind myself that people like Spielberg have made a whole career of blowing up major metropole centers - Paris, New York, Los Angeles, whole planets - and making tons of money at it from American audiences who seem to enjoy the sadism of it all. Then al-Qaeda does the real thing. So now Spielberg goes and blow up other areas of the country 'out of respect for the victims'. What tripe. Hines's blowing up Big Ben smacks of the same thing, but I suspect he's doing Big Ben because your average American wouldn't know St. Pauls anyway. Hell, the average American probably couldn't identify Britain on a map, too, but they probably saw Big Ben on a picture in a travel office somewhere. But I digress. The 9/11 thing, I think, is quite serious - and from both directors. Remember there were quite a few films held up - major films with major budgets from major directors and major production companies - and they had to hold off, sometimes 1-2 years after September 2001. It's easy to imagine how the 'post-9/11 mentality' affected films that were just getting financing and/or going into production. It would have been disasterous. So yeah, I think both Hines and Spielberg had to hold up their respective projects. Not just for 'respect for the victims', but for the simple fact no one would fund these projects in the immediate aftermath of the al-Qaeda attacks. Motile, I always appreciate your passionate invective, but would gently push this point with you. I think 9/11 threw a major monkey wrench into the Hollywood assembly line, on a whole variety of levels. Obviously, it's long since recovered. And yeah, the constant handwringing about it all - from both Hines and Spielberg - is rather gross, I think. Best, Quaderni
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 13, 2005 22:15:43 GMT
Hell, the average American probably couldn't identify Britain on a map, too, but they probably saw Big Ben on a picture in a travel office somewhere. ooo...k, don't hold back, tell us exactly what you think about us
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 13, 2005 22:30:58 GMT
Well it is rather annoying that a lot of Amaericans I meet seem to think we all live in London
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 13, 2005 22:43:43 GMT
ooo...k, don't hold back, tell us exactly what you think about us Oh gosh, sorry, Mal - that statement comes from my own self-loathing. ;D I'm assuming that we all - on this list - excuse ourselves from crass generalisations, right
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 13, 2005 22:55:00 GMT
I live in Woking, now all you Americans on this forum do know where that is yes.... LOL ;D
|
|