CINESCAPE.COM REVIEW

[dragon]

Cinescape.com has a featured review of the Pendragon dvd.

[Poyks]

A very polite review, but the same old misgivings are still there.

[Zoe]

dragon said:

Cinescape.com has a featured review of the Pendragon dvd.

Of course I've not seen it so I am not qualified to judge. I just think that this sounds like a fair and even handed review.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. An expensively produced, authentic, period version of The War of the Worlds was never going to happen. Spielberg knows what gets bums on seats and it's not Martians eating Victorian Englishmen alive or roasting them with their magic lanterns. The basic idea is so ludicrous that only someone who has been enthralled by the book would hope to see it. For anyone else it is at best a quaint fancy and at worst one long yawn - something serious film-makers would not touch with a handling machine.

Marketing people know well 'the five Fs'.... that is when you are trying to sell an idea if all you can sell it to are Family, Friends, Fools and Fan(atics) you might as well Forget it. Hines is a case in point. He deserves congratulation for trying and he does not deserve the vitriol he has got as he has done about as well as could be expected with his labour of love... (or fools errand; take your pick).

To those who direct their vitriol at Hines for having ruined the chance of an authentic version being made I say - there never was a chance. Someone flogging a dead horse does not ruin the chance of someone else giving it the kiss of life.
The War of the Worlds is the (fictional) story about the end of the world... that nearly was. Hines himself shows the absurdity of any attempt to show it on the screen as anything else but a curio. On the Trailer appear the words "Before World War II.... Before World War I....." and the subtitle of Hines' opus is - 'The War To End All Wars'. Priceless! ;D

So guys.... You didn't get some rich eccentric's expensive folly.... you got the five Fs - tough titty!

Zoe

[Ashe Raven]

I love you Zoe

[Poyks]

asheraven said:

I love you Zoe

I love you too Zoe, and I love you as well Ashe Raven. In fact I love you all!!





(this is BEFORE I've had a pint! hehe!! ;D)

[FALLINGSTAR]

Zoe an expensively produced period version of WOTW was never going to happen with Spielberg that's why he's given us his mediocre excuse for a WOTW film complete with ultra crap actor and self publicist - Cruise.

You can say the basic idea of the book being ludicrous all you want but it's no more ludicrous than Spielbergs effort. Spielbergs film is pants compared to the book and I'm pretty sure most HG Wells fans feel the same way.

Just because Hines made a complete balls up of his WOTW film, doesn't mean someone with more talent and imagination can't give us a much better version in the future. Jeff Wayne for example. Hines doesn't deserve any good comments about his film as he made it out to be something that it wasn't.

It could be said, that people who say that the book can't be made into a great film - either work for Paramount or they don't have much of an imagination.

[Zoe]

fallingstar said:

Zoe an expensively produced period version of WOTW was never going to happen with Spielberg that's why he's given us his mediocre excuse for a WOTW film complete with ultra crap actor and self publicist - Cruise.

You can say the basic idea of the book being ludicrous all you want but it's no more ludicrous than Spielbergs effort. Spielbergs film is pants compared to the book and I'm pretty sure most HG Wells fans feel the same way.

Just because Hines made a complete balls up of his WOTW film, doesn't mean someone with more talent and imagination can't give us a much better version in the future. Jeff Wayne for example. Hines doesn't deserve any good comments about his film as he made it out to be something that it wasn't.

It could be said, that people who say that the book can't be made into a great film - either work for Paramount or they don't have much of an imagination.

Well I don't work for Paramount and I do have a very highly developed imagination so you are totally wrong there. Saying something is so does not make it so. If someone else could make a good period version why don't they? And I'm not talking about something riding on the back of a hit record.

If you read what I wrote you will see that I am not denying that the book is better than the film.... People with a good imagination like mine do not need to see it on the screen with whizz bang special effects... I would certainly enjoy watching a period version if one appeared.... but it would not absorb me like the book.... It would almost certainly fall short of the original.... because SF action films do not work on the imagination as much as books do.... and anyway you know very well that you and I and everyone on this board would be thinking "Ah... now we're getting to the bit with the Curate....." or "I wonder what the black smoke will look like?" It is precisely because my imagination is so good that I can imagine what it would be like to watch a film that closely followed the book..... No surprises.... and if it departed from the text to create surprises imagine what the reactions would be? Well we don't need to use our imagination for that one.... not after Spielberg's version.

So this is my point. ANY director wanting to make a big movie version with special effects would want to make changes in order to make it work on the screen - for people with poor imaginations if you like. And what do you think would be the first change that the director would make? One that would cut the budget considerably; bring it up to the present day and in the immortal words of Orson Welles "Destroy the world before your very ears" - and eyes. Are you saying that Orson Welles was untalented or unimaginative because he updated Wells' story to the then present day of 1938? Or was George Pal and his team giving us a mediocre excuse for a War of the Worlds film? I suppose if HG Wells had been more imaginative and talented he could have set it in 1776 and had the Martians coming to the aid of the American side in the War of Independence? Steampunk SF works fine on paper.... I have written some myself. It appeals to SF fans...... especially those who cut their teeth on Jules Verne and HG Wells.... but I won't hold my breath to see any of it on the cinema screen.

Do you not realise I am saying (and quite obviously!) that films aimed at fans do not get funding? They have to have a broader appeal than that. Insult me all you like but you miss the point in what I am saying anyway. You always do. We will just have to agree to differ.

Zoe

[timeship2]

So Zoe, what's your take on Lord of the Rings then? If ever there was a film that fan based, it has to be this one. I'd argue that War of the Worlds, even based in Victorian England would still be more mainstream than Lord of the Rings. In fact I still don't see why people get hung up about those wanting it set in the Victorian age. Frankenstein is classed as science fiction yet doesn't seem to suffer from being set in it's intended period. No modernising needed yet you could easily create a modern version, but then it wouldn't be THE Frankenstein then would it?

I personally think that the War of the Worlds novell seems to rate alongside the invention of the car with regards to America. I once read a quite somewhere that it troubled Americans that they didn't invent the car as it was so entrenched in their life and so it seems to be with War of the Worlds ie it seems to trouble them that they didn't come up with the Story since everytime they get their hands on it, it suddenly morphes into something else.

I was in a bookstore the other day and saw a picturebook version of war of the worlds, yet guess what? The story was once again set in the USA.

While Jane Austen and other English period dramas seem to go down reasonably well and are untouched in the USA, for some reason they just cannot leave the original War of the Worlds alone!

[FALLINGSTAR]

zoe said:

fallingstar said:

Zoe an expensively produced period version of WOTW was never going to happen with Spielberg that's why he's given us his mediocre excuse for a WOTW film complete with ultra crap actor and self publicist - Cruise.

You can say the basic idea of the book being ludicrous all you want but it's no more ludicrous than Spielbergs effort. Spielbergs film is pants compared to the book and I'm pretty sure most HG Wells fans feel the same way.

Just because Hines made a complete balls up of his WOTW film, doesn't mean someone with more talent and imagination can't give us a much better version in the future. Jeff Wayne for example. Hines doesn't deserve any good comments about his film as he made it out to be something that it wasn't.

It could be said, that people who say that the book can't be made into a great film - either work for Paramount or they don't have much of an imagination.

Well I don't work for Paramount and I do have a very highly developed imagination so you are totally wrong there. Saying something is so does not make it so. If someone else could make a good period version why don't they? And I'm not talking about something riding on the back of a hit record.

If you read what I wrote you will see that I am not denying that the book is better than the film.... People with a good imagination like mine do not need to see it on the screen with whizz bang special effects... I would certainly enjoy watching a period version if one appeared.... but it would not absorb me like the book.... It would almost certainly fall short of the original.... because SF action films do not work on the imagination as much as books do.... and anyway you know very well that you and I and everyone on this board would be thinking "Ah... now we're getting to the bit with the Curate....." or "I wonder what the black smoke will look like?" It is precisely because my imagination is so good that I can imagine what it would be like to watch a film that closely followed the book..... No surprises.... and if it departed from the text to create surprises imagine what the reactions would be? Well we don't need to use our imagination for that one.... not after Spielberg's version.

So this is my point. ANY director wanting to make a big movie version with special effects would want to make changes in order to make it work on the screen - for people with poor imaginations if you like. And what do you think would be the first change that the director would make? One that would cut the budget considerably; bring it up to the present day and in the immortal words of Orson Welles "Destroy the world before your very ears" - and eyes. Are you saying that Orson Welles was untalented or unimaginative because he updated Wells' story to the then present day of 1938? Or was George Pal and his team giving us a mediocre excuse for a War of the Worlds film? I suppose if HG Wells had been more imaginative and talented he could have set it in 1776 and had the Martians coming to the aid of the American side in the War of Independence? Steampunk SF works fine on paper.... I have written some myself. It appeals to SF fans...... especially those who cut their teeth on Jules Verne and HG Wells.... but I won't hold my breath to see any of it on the cinema screen.

Do you not realise I am saying (and quite obviously!) that films aimed at fans do not get funding? They have to have a broader appeal than that. Insult me all you like but you miss the point in what I am saying anyway. You always do. We will just have to agree to differ.

Zoe

What do you mean something riding on the back of a hit record Zoe? I presume you're talking about Jeff Wayne there. Well it might have escaped your attention but Jeff Waynes record was out in 1977 - long before Spielbergs effort - so I hardly think he's riding on the back of a hit record.

You say "why hasn't a good period version been made" - well, there's many reasons such as rights issues etc and the fact that Hollywood or perhaps more specifically Paramount/Cruise/Spielberg [ who hold quite a few rights ] are only interested in a film that's set in America - not because a good film of the book can't be made. Anyway Jeff Wayne will hopefully give us a good version.

I'm pretty sure most Wells fan know that any film maker will have to make changes here and there [ like some of us have said on many occasions ] just as Peter Jackson did and films CAN be as good as books if they're done properly [ I like the LOTR films just as much as the book and in some ways the films are better].

Spielberg pinched the title WOTW and changed a hell of a lot and if Cruise can get a massive paycheck for his non acting then some film company can put the money they've saved on hiring a dull big name star into creating a believable film - set at the turn of the century.

A period version wouldn't have to be more expensive - if at all. That's no excuse. And Hines has NOT shown the absurdity of attempts to make an authentic WOTW film like you said. He's just shown that any film/adaptation can be a disaster in the wrong hands.

The radio broadcast was ok but nothing compared to the book, same with the 1953 film - so yes, I am saying they're mediocre compared to the original book. The radio broadcast was hardly a work of genius was it.

If your imaginations as good as you say it is Zoe then why can't you see that the book could be turned into a great film by someone who IS talented and has vision?

[FALLINGSTAR]

timeship2 said:

So Zoe, what's your take on Lord of the Rings then? If ever there was a film that fan based, it has to be this one. I'd argue that War of the Worlds, even based in Victorian England would still be more mainstream than Lord of the Rings. In fact I still don't see why people get hung up about those wanting it set in the Victorian age. Frankenstein is classed as science fiction yet doesn't seem to suffer from being set in it's intended period. No modernising needed yet you could easily create a modern version, but then it wouldn't be THE Frankenstein then would it?

I personally think that the War of the Worlds novell seems to rate alongside the invention of the car with regards to America. I once read a quite somewhere that it troubled Americans that they didn't invent the car as it was so entrenched in their life and so it seems to be with War of the Worlds ie it seems to trouble them that they didn't come up with the Story since everytime they get their hands on it, it suddenly morphes into something else.

I was in a bookstore the other day and saw a picturebook version of war of the worlds, yet guess what? The story was once again set in the USA.

While Jane Austen and other English period dramas seem to go down reasonably well and are untouched in the USA, for some reason they just cannot leave the original War of the Worlds alone!

Exactly, LOTRings is a fanboys wet dream and part of the charm of Frankenstein IS that it's set in the past. Same with Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, King Kong, 20,000 Leagues, Sleepy Hollow etc, etc - so why is it so hard for someone in Hollywood to make an authentic WOTW?

I'm one of the first people to judge people on what they're like as a person and not what country they're from but there definitely seems to be a misguided/childish/arrogant mindset in Hollywood that will only make films that are set in America or are about Americans [ especially WAR related films ] and yes WOTW is obviously one of them.

[Lensman]

Films such as "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Iron Giant" do prove that "retro" science fiction films can be successful. But the box office flops of "Sky Captain" and "The Rocketeer" perhaps suggest that the average film of this type have limited appeal, and that it takes an extraordinary film in this genre to earn broad box office appeal.

I don't think that Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" is a good analogy for WotW. High fantasy with heroic adventure is *very* different from a dark, pessimistic Victorian horror epic. (Yes, LOTR has lots of dark, pessimistic material. But that is contrasted with beauty, wonder, and swashbuckling action scenes-- which WotW entirely lacks.)

We'll see if Jackson can pull it off again with "King Kong". Frankly I suspect he can, and I strongly suspect he could make a hit out of WotW too. But Spielberg's WotW makes it extremely unlikely that any other big-budget version of WotW will be done for at least 15 years. And let's be honest: Just because Jackson could probably pull off a successful, popular and faithful WotW doesn't mean that there's much chance of it happening. Most directors want to put their personal stamp on things, just as Spielberg did with WotW. Sure Jackson would do a great job-- if he wanted to. Ditto James Cameron. But can you name another director who has the ability and the clout to give WotW the treatment it deserves, and enough respect for the material to make a faithful adaptation? I can't.

As for Hines' film: The only thing it proves is Hines' ineptitude. It's absurd to point to that and say "See-- that proves WotW can't be made into a successful film!" If Hines were given "Gone with the Wind" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Titanic" -- all period films and all huge hits-- he would have botched them just as badly.

[mctoddridesagain]

lensman said:

As for Hines' film: The only thing it proves is Hines' ineptitude. It's absurd to point to that and say "See-- that proves WotW can't be made into a successful film!" If Hines were given "Gone with the Wind" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Titanic" -- all period films and all huge hits-- he would have botched them just as badly.

Nail-Hammer Interface Scenario, Lensman.

It would be like someone in 1900 pointing to that tit who threw himself off the Eiffel Tower with just a pair of canvas wings, flapping wildly as he fell to his death, and saying, 'See! Heavier than air flight is impossible!'

[timeship2]

Films such as "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Iron Giant" do prove that "retro" science fiction films can be successful. But the box office flops of "Sky Captain" and "The Rocketeer" perhaps suggest that the average film of this type have limited appeal, and that it takes an extraordinary film in this genre to earn broad box office appeal.

I disagree with the latter two. I don't think the period setting was the problem with either of those two films. Sky Captain was just too off the beaten path and weird. The Rocketeer was just a mediocre story and nothing special regardless of when it was set.

The thing is, War of the Worlds *is* special. If King Kong and other movies work in a period setting, I still cannot see anything about War of the Worlds that would preclude it from working also. I really don't think the Victorian setting is the stumbling block at all. The problem is that anyone who has gotten their hands on it, immediately wants to use H.G.Wells powerful themes in a movie of their own design and stamp their mark on it.

The fact that Tim Hines made a complete mess of a period version does not invalidate the hypothesis one bit. Until someone makes a 'proper' period version we won't know and Pendragon's version doesn't count since even if it was a good movie, it still needed a good marketing machine which they just didn't have. Even Spielbergs needs all the hype his marketing machine can generate.

[FALLINGSTAR]

Yes I thought it wouldn't be long before someone like Zoe came up with "Hines film proves that an authentic adaptation can't be made". Something all sensible Wells fans know is complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't prove anything except that Hines wasn't capable of doing the story justice.

And I agree that I don't think Sky Captain flopped because it was in a period setting. It was a bit too way out for some people and some people didn't get the black and white [ well almost black and white ] imagery thing and let's face it the title Sky Captain might have put some off too. It's not the best of titles.

I think a film called HG Wells The War of the Worlds [ which is what the film of the book should be called ] would have been a big film had it been made by the right people. Instead we get all these stupid half arsed attempts. Anything to avoid making the film properly.

[BrutalDeluxe]

fallingstar said:

timeship2 said:

Same with Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, King Kong, 20,000 Leagues, Sleepy Hollow etc, etc - so why is it so hard for someone in Hollywood to make an authentic WOTW?

Hire films like Dracula 3000 if you want to see how much a film suffers outside of it's native setting and in the hands of money-grubbing shonky directors.

Iron Giant was a fantastic movie that capture all of the charms and fears of that era. Take it out of that context and you'd lose a lot.

I would really love to see what a director like Tim Burton could do with a WOTW licence given his flair with Victorian gothic asthetic. He'd have to restrain himself from turning it into a parody though.

[Killraven]

lensman said:

,Sure Jackson would do a great job-- if he wanted to. Ditto James Cameron. But can you name another director who has the ability and the clout to give WotW the treatment it deserves, and enough respect for the material to make a faithful adaptation? I can't.

Er...John Boorman? Ridley Scott?

Seriously though this story is gasping for a proper period remake. There's no reason why this can't be done - after all, both versions of Time Machine were in period (just the latter was moved to the States and was.. well.. crap ;D)

[Mr Death Ray]

Pirates of the Caribbean? Look how good that worked.

Believe me, I've asked nearly everyone I know and they have all said they would rather see a period setting rather than a modern setting.

Also, is it just me or does the book have alot more action than the film?? I think it has alot more!!

And why do these directors keep giving the fighting machines shields?? Its really annoying! I wanna be able to cheer every time one gets taken down!

[timeship2]

Seriously though this story is gasping for a proper period remake. There's no reason why this can't be done - after all, both versions of Time Machine were in period (just the latter was moved to the States and was.. well.. crap ;D

Exactly! The number of times I have heard that a period version of War of the Worlds would be stupid because it wouldn't be believable or some such crap! The Time Machine works a treat in it's Period setting.

You will also notice that the one that stuck more to the book (ie the original) was a great movie, while the latter where they just HAD to mess around with it, was a flop. The sad thing is that H.G.Wells own great-grandson was involved in this, although to be fair I suspect he probably didn't have control over the actual movie's basic storyline.

The reason they don't want to do a period setting is that they don't want to stick to the book. They want to change it completely so that if it's a hit, they can then say that it was only because of the changes that THEY made and not because of H.G.Wells great story!

[tug]

How about a petition to the BBC perhaps a two parter... called the war of the worlds 1897
might get around paramounts hold. or we might at least get an explanation of the legal sitiuation.

OK grasping at straws now...

[tug]

How about a petition to the BBC perhaps a two parter... called the war of the worlds 1897
might get around paramounts hold. or we might at least get an explanation of the legal sitiuation.

OK grasping at straws now...