Tim Hines Creative Screenwriting Interview

[jeffwaynefan]

AsheRaven said:

Well it is rather annoying that a lot of Amaericans I meet seem to think we all live in London

Well I live in Wolverhampton, rigyht outside Birmingham, some 105 miles from London, so basically, yes I do live in London as according to a new Collins A-Z book, London stretches from Lands End To John-O-Groats ;D

[Gray]

the said:

The production was not due for release for another THREE years, how in this world does a film now affect what happened three years ago?

Nonsense, Mot. You're twisting logic here. The original plan was to film in 01 for likely release in 02, not sit on it for three years, as you say.

[Rob]

I think this is getting very off topic. Back on topic please. These political issues are for political not war of the worlds forums.

[Anthony]

I dont know, because that is what that Tim Hine interview is about.

[quaderni]

Rob said:

I think this is getting very off topic. Back on topic please. These political issues are for political not war of the worlds forums.

Actually, I think that's my fault. My apologies all around. I think my overzealous (and frankly stupid) bashing of my compatriots - indeed, I'm American - sparked the exchange. So with true contrition, I'd like to offer apologies - especially to Mal and Topaz.
Best,
Quaderni

[malfunkshun]

the said:

A quote from howstuffworks, the Tim Hines interview.

"When I originally set up my production on 'The War of the Worlds', we approached everyone in Hollywood for the distribution side. Eventually we were funneled into Dreamworks/Paramount. We met with the heads of Paramount and friends of friends of Tom Cruise, various producers and associates. And little by little we learned that he [Cruise] had designs to do 'The War of the Worlds.' And we really weren't quite given clear indication as to why it was stalled out for him, what was his problem that he hadn't previously made it. But we weren't given such clear indications that it was definitely a go project for him. And indeed from the time where we first heard that to the point where they eventually fast tracked it, he did 10 or 15 projects in between." What's the legal copyright status of the right to make movies from the book?
"It's one of the most complicated copyright issue problems out there. I can only say it like this. Parts of it are in the public domain, parts of it have really strange rights optioned in very strange ways to people for various different concerns. It's available in some territories and not available in other territories for some people and that possibly is why Tom Cruise was so stalled out. It was just a daunting experience. When we set out to make it we spent easily right at the very beginning $12,000 in just copyright research alone. Just to find out what all of the different various aspects of the copyright concerns were. So what I can say to you is that it boiled down to essentially a head to head between us and Paramount and ultimately they wrote us a letter conceding that we had a right to do an authentic version of 'The War of the Worlds."



The excuse:

"On September 11, 2001, Hines was in the middle of pre-production on "The War of the Worlds." He wanted to create a scene in the movie where the aliens destroy the Space Needle, and had just negotiated permission from the monument's owners to do so. As the September 11th tragedy unfolded, Hines began to feel like it was the wrong time to shoot a movie about cities being destroyed. "

Tripe.

The production was not due for release for another THREE years, how in this world does a film now affect what happened three years ago? Does anyone take offence?
In Spielbergs movie he has a plane crash into a house, is anyone shouting 9/11!!! No they are not.

nowhere in that article does it say when all that was taking place. and i still didn't read ANYTHING that said "we decided to do a period piece because spielberg had the rights to the modernized version". what he said was that Paramount had conceded that they had a right to make a movie out of The War of the Worlds.

i really don't know where you're getting this idea from motile, about the 9/11 excuse being BS. that article snippet you posted gave no indications of that.

[Optical]

It’s clear that Motile doesn’t like Tim Hines or his project, but I’d say he has now demonstrated a serious lack of credibility as well … his thesis on this thread is that Pendragon was somehow allowed to do a period version, quoting the How Stuff Works interview. Well, here is a true pasting from the interview (and you can quickly see where Motile cleverly inserted his own deceiving words) …

"When I originally set up my production on 'The War of the Worlds', we approached everyone in Hollywood for the distribution side. Eventually we were funneled into Dreamworks/Paramount. We met with the heads of Paramount and friends of friends of Tom Cruise, various producers and associates. And little by little we learned that he [Cruise] had designs to do 'The War of the Worlds.' And we really weren't quite given clear indication as to why it was stalled out for him, what was his problem that he hadn't previously made it. But we weren't given such clear indications that it was definitely a go project for him. And indeed from the time where we first heard that to the point where they eventually fast tracked it, he did 10 or 15 projects in between." What's the legal copyright status of the right to make movies from the book?
"It's one of the most complicated copyright issue problems out there. I can only say it like this. Parts of it are in the public domain, parts of it have really strange rights optioned in very strange ways to people for various different concerns. It's available in some territories and not available in other territories for some people and that possibly is why Tom Cruise was so stalled out. It was just a daunting experience. When we set out to make it we spent easily right at the very beginning $12,000 in just copyright research alone. Just to find out what all of the different various aspects of the copyright concerns were. So what I can say to you is that it boiled down to essentially a head to head between us and Paramount and ultimately they wrote us a letter conceding that we had a right to do a version of 'The War of the Worlds.'"

The link is here:

stuffo.howstuffworks.com/wotw-hinesthree1.htm

[maniacs]

Look at the logic...

if Hines had made a modern Vers against SS modern Vers hed easily lose.

Hines does a faithful and hes a winner! You have to admit that at least. He cannot compete with SS. Money and poss talent do not even come close!

I love Hines, good luck to him!!! Just stating facts!

[theheatray]

Hi, i'm new here (bet you guys here that a lot) but i have been watching for a while now.

Here is my opinion, for what its worth.

Some of you guys are getting pretty anal over this project, your ragging on some of the guys in here as if they are actualy responsible for Mr Hines's short falls, as if them saying its bad actualy makes it so and if they stop it will somehow become amazing.

Im not a nut and I usualy take things at face value but motile does make a good point but it seems to some of you guys simply wont have it because Mr Hines has spoken so that must be the truth. Except under scrutiny that doesnt stand up does it, Paramount have stopped Pendragon getting a distributer, its in that interview your all squabling about, evertime they tried they ended up in the Paramount offices. Paramount obviously didnt want Pendragon to make any version but in the end conceded that they could make 'A' version, well ofcourse they could, the victorian version is in the public domain, Paramount couldnt do anything to stop that except maybe wait until it was finished and block its distribution.
None of this is a dig at Pendragon at all but it does make the 9/11 thing a little convenient, so I agree with Mr motile on that, although I would say to you motile maybe it would be better to wait until the film comes out (or doesnt) I agree the stuff seen so far is a little rank but we cant judge the entire film off that, surely. As someone else said here im more worried about the acting than anything else.

Out of all the movies I am rooting for Jeff Waynes the most as I heard the album before I read the book but I would like to see this movie live and I do think it has potential, I mean they already have the best story of all time, that parts garanteed.

Sorry if this is a bit negative but there you have it.

Nice to meet you all anywho!

[RustiSwordz]

But where is his project? we are steaming towards the countdown here and all weve got is a couple of vague production designs and a nd a couple of unfinished trailers.

This project wreaks of fail, fail, fail...

[Ashe Raven]

The problem is not with Motiles points

The problem is the repitvinss, and somes times purile humour behind his points.

Look atthis topic page now. Not one thread has had a fully decent convosation. I for one would like Motile telling us one more time why he does not like this film, or comments on the 30th March, or a DVD release, or a joke about SFX and such stuff.

Just for once, I'd like to talk about an upcoming film, without it breaking down into aurguments or the same old battle grounds over and over again.

I'l be honest, I'm physically tired over this. My posts have dropped to more than half they used to.

[theheatray]

AsheRaven said:

The problem is not with Motiles points

The problem is the repitvinss, and somes times purile humour behind his points.

Look atthis topic page now. Not one thread has had a fully decent convosation. I for one would like Motile telling us one more time why he does not like this film, or comments on the 30th March, or a DVD release, or a joke about SFX and such stuff.

Just for once, I'd like to talk about an upcoming film, without it breaking down into aurguments or the same old battle grounds over and over again.

I'l be honest, I'm physically tired over this. My posts have dropped to more than half they used to.

Hi there,

I dont know if you have niticed this but your post is probably more whiney than most (sorry!), in the nicest possible way, I hate typing these negative posts! but you seem to poke more than you discuss. I dont think any humour is purile, humour is humour, its a good thing in any form (apart from the very crude) from the leaugue of gentlemen to monty python and spaced its all good, so how can we complain if someone puts humour into a post? The only other problem I see (sorry!) with you comments are about repetitvinss, it seems to me you are all guilty of that one, LOL, unless you want the forum to fall into silence or to become an exercise in agreeing with each other I cant see how you will kill 'repetitvinss'.

Anywho, im not physicaly tired yet so im going to walk my dog Tink.

Go Pendragon!

[malfunkshun]

the problem IS with motiles point. he has even gone so far as to edit the interview he posted.

"a right to do A version" - original quote

"a right to do an AUTHENTIC version" - motiles edited version

thats just plain shoddy debating, altering facts to support your argument. come on motile, that really surprises me that you'd do that

thanks for pointing that out optical, i would have missed it completely as i'm sure was motiles hope

[themotile]

ARE YOU FU*KING BLIND?

What do you think "A" version means? Any old version they want to make EH? IT MEANS AN AUTHENTIC VERSION. You guys need it spelling out for you hence the change, it means exactly the same thing, for fu*ks sake, do any of you TRULY believe that it means anything else?

Paramount conceded that they could make A version, not the modern version but A version, now for a bunch of guys who are defending Hines like hes a relation how would you put that accross? WORD IT FOR THE LITTLE KIDDIES.

GROW THE FU*K UP.

[theheatray]

malfunkshun said:

the problem IS with motiles point. he has even gone so far as to edit the interview he posted.

"a right to do A version" - original quote

"a right to do an AUTHENTIC version" - motiles edited version

thats just plain shoddy debating, altering facts to support your argument. come on motile, that really surprises me that you'd do that

thanks for pointing that out optical, i would have missed it completely as i'm sure was motiles hope

Hi malfuntion

Its seem that you may be arguing symantix and actualy getting away from the real point, if this is intensional its very clever, Mr motile's point remain valid EITHER way you word it, thats obvious and the way some of you react to motile personaly as if he at some point attacked you is a little off putting and im getting nervouse about posting myself! I want to be friends with all you guys, at some point I have agreed with all of you from me perch in limbo but I now i have taken the plunge I have to stick up for the poster your ragging on.

So instead of diverting from the actual enigma by shouting at Mr motile maybe it would be better to discuss that (or not discuss it as some seem to be taking it to heart) enigma instead.

You could look at it this way, Mr motiles point is not against Pendragon its actualy against Paramount (alright and Mr Hines playing the "arnt we great, we changed for 9/11, arnt we great" card for credit) but mostly Paramount, why not start ragging them?

Just a thought

later guys! ;D

[malfunkshun]

motile and i have been going back and forth on these boards for a while, and i respect his opinion a LOT... he doesn't resort to personal insults, and his points, although i disagree with a lot of them, are still usually pretty good ones. however, this last thing really surprises me, that he would actually edit his reference material to suit his argument...

and i understand motiles real point. its not hard to grasp what he's trying to say, all i wanted was some references that supported his argument here, concerning whether or not Hines was using 9/11 as a convenient excuse to switch from a modern version to a period piece. motile readily supplied me with a quote from a hines interview... and even with the editing he did to the article, as i stated a few posts ago, i still didn't get any indication as to what he was saying actually being true.

if there is some other source material that supports your argument motile, i'd still like to see it. if thats quote you posted is all you have to go on, well IMO thats simply not any kind of proof whatsoever.

[jeffwaynefan]

Guys, it's what we have come to expect just of late. I like other's want to see and end put to all this arguing and bickering. If you have something to say then say it 'unless' you know that's it can offend of which the post contiuing is done for a purpose and soley to offend and upset. Some points have been made, some good, some bad and most WITHOUT an evidence to back them up and thats what I call 'just winding up folk'.

As a fan of TWOTW there is nothing more I would like to see than a faithful adaptation made, and so do other's. But who are we to tell the big production houses what to do. They will only listen to us upto an extent then they draw a line.

You dont have to be Eistein to notice that PP have fallen well behind with the film and its post advertising stages, which could only mean that (with hope) they will annouce a delay in the film, pushing the film back into the later part of this year. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHETHER WERE FANS OR NOT. Personally I don't think for one moment the film will be released either at the end of March or early April, they have issues and issues we are not supposed to find out about because it has NOTHING to do with us, so that's left to them to sort out.

Lets look at some points

1/ Lack of film advertising - Could be a number of things really. Money going into the film, nah, could be true but hardly. The main thing is that the film is advertised to the max to get the coverage that it needs.

2/ Film is costing more than they planned, so it has to be pushed back - Could be. They have to get the film looking good and live up to the standards of the book for authenticity. After all, as its old style film (Victorian) I guess it would cost more to acheive in the way of effects as were living in a 21st century world and not must exsists of Victorian surroundings.

3/ Copyrights & Licensing - This plays a key facter in the film. Paramount own film rights, JWM own the rest in the way of merchandising and so forth. If rights were not obtained, then the film will NOT go ahead. We can only guess that PP have obtained permission to use 'H.G. Wells' name in the title. It was said before Christmas by another member that Paramount has still NOT given permission for the film to be done. . . I can only hope that its all been sorted out now.

4/ Sensitivity - 9/11 and the Tsnami are being used against Hines for the delays and so forth. Whats wrong with showing concern and being aware of sensitivity. After all these were major disasters that shook the world and cost lives, many lives - WOTW is very nearly the same. But disasters do happen, its way of the world and Hines has moved on and continued work on his WOTW movie but with a change - not a modernised version now longer.

PP has all the looks of a small production house - and thats what it is, and these small house need a film to break them out of that mould and bring them into to modern world and show the 'big boys' what there made of. Hines project of TWOTW is the film that Hines believes will do this for PP. But to do this he needs support from people, mainly fans and what happens, a few glitches and were kicking the bloke while he's down without giving him a chance to get up.

So in a months time, PP turn and say 'Guys, were finnished, here is the movie, ready to be released', OR 'Guys, we have a problem, we are behind in the film', OR 'Guys, we have decided to put it right out onto DVD instead of the cinama' - what we going to turn and say - 'Wow, now that came as a supprise shock' as we have already talked about it weeks ago.

Lets hear something we ALL don't know for a change instead of covering old ground as its clearly not getting us anywhere. . . . It's getting very frustrating now. A lot of us are worked up, a lot are angry, a lot are concerned.

It has been a long struggle (if Rob does not mind me using that phrase), not only for Rob but for the members to get this site where it is today - lets not spoil it for Rob and the members. We still have a LONG way to go, and we need each other's support to bring the world the story of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS.

H_C

[theheatray]

Hay malfuntion!

Im not ragging at you matey its just I dont see the point in arguing, debate is healthy and I see from the other threads that you all are very formidable dabaters, its amazing hw different people interperate the same thing, humans are great.

I can understand the editing (it was only one word and it does make the point clearer) to a degree and I can understand others not seeing the same information in that text, but Mr Hines does make it quite clear that Paramount made it impossible to find a distributer for their first version and it ended with Paramount telling him he could make "A" version, thats pretty self explanatory, to me anywho!

I think some of your guys are taking this film a bit too personaly, yeah its been wanted for decades and some guys have judged it (rightly or wrongly) from a tiny bit of stuff posted on the net (and to be diplamatic, I can understand the pre judgement, the question has to be asked what were Pendragon thinking when they released that stuff?) when they should be waiting for the actual project but its all become a bit of a religion, so maybe its best to be nice with each other, after all you dont actualy know each other and in real life you may have been best of friends.

Happy happy days!

[jeffwaynefan]

You are all entitled to your say, but its getting personal and enough's enough - Keep them to a PM instead of posting them up for all to see. Im sure you can sort your differances out one way or another without resulting to that kind of abuse on a public forum.

[Ashe Raven]

theheatray said:

Hi there,

I dont know if you have niticed this but your post is probably more whiney than most (sorry!), in the nicest possible way, I hate typing these negative posts! but you seem to poke more than you discuss. I dont think any humour is purile, humour is humour, its a good thing in any form (apart from the very crude) from the leaugue of gentlemen to monty python and spaced its all good, so how can we complain if someone puts humour into a post? The only other problem I see (sorry!) with you comments are about repetitvinss, it seems to me you are all guilty of that one, LOL, unless you want the forum to fall into silence or to become an exercise in agreeing with each other I cant see how you will kill 'repetitvinss'.

Anywho, im not physicaly tired yet so im going to walk my dog Tink.

Go Pendragon!

Whiney it may be

But I havnt called anyone stupid or used comments that alomst caused offence and an entire thread to be delted.

I'd rather whine than be rude. Live with it