Slashdot Mirror


War of the Worlds Remake

subtropolis writes "The Guardian has an article about a remake of the classic. Spielberg directing, T. Cruise acting. The guy who did Jurassic Park I & II did the screenplay. Anyone else think Bruce Sterling would've been a good choice for that? Quoth the article: 'While HG Wells was an enthusiastic supporter of many of the film adaptations of his work, the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had to another director taking one of the works with which he became most closely associated, can only be a matter of conjecture.'"

518 comments

  1. Hollywood declares war on a classic by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A sad day for the people of earth...

    While I think Spielberg has done some fine films, I also think he's done some utter rubbish. Cruise, I have little respect for in any role other than martian invader for this film. I expect nothing less than an insipid action picture filled with orange fireball explosions and Cruise trying to look heroic and utterly out of place with the subject.

    Can you can't tell this is one of my favorite books? The 1953 movie was utterly camp, despite assertions of playing off cold war fears, but expect it to look good in comparison. I'm rather bummed and would prefer some artsy director and a cast of unknowns and trying to stay true to the underlying message of Well's original tale, rather than focusing on the vehicle (martians invading earth, killing people, etc.)

    The difference between Heinlein's Starship Troopers and the movie 'adaptation' will probably be the same in this instance.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by jo42 · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Further proof that there is not a single gram of original talent in Hollywood. They'd rather bodge something old than risk doing something new.

    2. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by dsci · · Score: 3, Informative

      In 2002, radio host Glenn Beck did a War of the Worlds radio broadcast on Halloween. I only heard exerpts, but it was pretty cool. At one time, you could listen to the two hour show online from the web site.

      --
      Computational Chemistry products and services.
    3. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously. I am absolutely with you on this one. The thing that worries me is that Spielberg and Cruise will make another film like Minority Report, that has all the potential of being good cinematic material that could tell a good story and make commentary on social issues, but falls completely flat on lousy acting. A great book, but from the looks of it, will become another vehicle for T. Cruise.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think you are right, have a group assembled like was done for the LOTR trilogy. People picked for the part without "fame" before being considered.

    5. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, the 1953 film was garbage. Although it was notable in its day as being the only film ever made in Hollywood to show US Marines being defeated...

      The biggest recent remake was, of course, "Independence Day", although that one somewhat missed the point by showing the military, eventually, triumphant. I have enough faith in Speilberg and Cruise that they can do better than thatgreat noxious steaming pile of fourth-grade rhino dung.

    6. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by anzha · · Score: 4, Funny

      The difference between Heinlein's Starship Troopers and the movie 'adaptation' will probably be the same in this instance.

      Repeat after me. There was no Starship Troopers movie.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    7. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fizban · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm actually thinking this will be okay. Spielberg, because he no longer has to listen to what other producers in hollywood say about his projects, is very similar to an independent film producer. He has the freedom to do things the way he sees it, without it being muddled with other people's input. Whether that agrees with how you see it is another thing, but one can hope that he'll do things well, because he has a long track record of doing *great* films.

      I think you dislike Cruise just because he's Cruise and not necessarily for any specific acting reason. As much as people tag him as an "action" hero, he's actually not. How many "action" pictures has he actually been in? Most of his films are deeper than that. The Last Samurai was an excellent film.

      There's some good talent attached to it. I'll actually wait to see the final product before I make any judgements. It may be better than you think.

      --

      +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    8. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      would prefer some artsy director and a cast of unknowns
      Yeah, like Starship troopers...

    9. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look on the bright side, even though Cruise is another fanboy of L Robot Hubbard, it couldn't any worse than Battlefield Earth, right?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    10. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Reid · · Score: 1

      In every movie I see Tom Cruise in, I don't see the character he's portraying, I see Tom Cruise playing the character. I'm not sure why that is; not necessarily because he's a bad actor (but I bet that's part of it). Whatever the case, it makes it harder to enjoy the movie. Looks like it's not just me, either, from all the comments.

    11. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      The difference between Heinlein's Starship Troopers and the movie 'adaptation' will probably be the same in this instance.

      So... the Martians will park their ships in orbit really close together so one Earth missle takes out 50, send ground troops against our tanks and airplanes and be made to look like Nazis in a complete and retarded misunderstanding of the source's POV? Great. :-\

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    12. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Hollywood's eating it's young.

      Somewhere out there is a writer with an original story, a powerbook and a digicam.

    13. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You remind me of the strangest version of WoTW, which was the 1988 TV series. This was written as a sequel to the 1953 movie, set in the present day! One thing I never quite figured out: was the series set in some alternative universe where there actually was a 1953 invasion from Mars? Or was the show written by and for people who never stop to wonder why an interplanetary invasion didn't make the news?

      I have to pick nits with your hero H.G. Using giant cannon to send your invasion force? Navigation issues aside, how can thin layers of Martian Jam invade anything?

      As for Steven Spielberg -- I'm probably the only living human who knows this, but he's totally overrated, the epitome of everything I hate about Hollywood. What has he done of any real quality? Lots of brainless adventure movies, just disneyland rides caught on film. Films based on popular mythology about flying saucers. And "literary" films that totally fail to capture the spirit of the book he's adapting. Rounded out by the nausea-inducing, bloated Oedipus-fest, A.I. His script is real, but he is not.

      The last decent Spielberg movie (and the one he's been coasting on ever since) was Jaws. Which, if it had gone as planned, would have been a hopeless piece of crap, dominated by an absurd-looking mechanical shark. Fortunately, Bruce (yes, he had a name!) was broken most of the time, and being on a tight schedule, Spielberg had to shoot around him. Which meant a lot of improvising by a team of very talented actors. And which meant portraying the shark mainly as an ominous presence, which the critics consider a stroke of genius, forgetting that it was just a last-minute fallback. And most of all, it meant that Bruce was on-screen long enough to scare the bejesus out of people, but not long enough for them to notice how fake he looked.

      And that's Hollywood!

    14. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think you dislike Cruise just because he's Cruise and not necessarily for any specific acting reason. As much as people tag him as an "action" hero, he's actually not. How many "action" pictures has he actually been in? Most of his films are deeper than that. The Last Samurai was an excellent film.

      Right on. "Mission Impossible" (1 and 2), for example, were fantastically deep films, with downright Mamet-like plots, and Cruise was fantastic in them! They greatly exceeded the quality of the TV show!

      Likewise with "Minority Report." What a wonderful triumph of cinematic art that was! Why, if PKD were alive I'm sure it would have brought a tear to his eye.

      I was really thinking Cruise had far too much gravitas and depth for WoW. I really believe the part should go to someone with a lighter touch, who could be more believable in the role. Like Pauly Shore or maybe Rob Schneider.

      Not.

    15. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by germanbird · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have to agree with you on Spielberg. He seems to be hit and miss. On the one hand, I think of all the groundbreaking films he has produced (Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, E. T., etc.). However, I also cringe when I remember the hours wasted watching A.I. and the not-as-terrible-at-least-until-they-got-to-the-mai nland sequel to Jurassic Park.

      As far as Tom Cruise goes, though, I have to disagree. I think Cruise has a good chance at doing justice to this movie. Look at his excellent performance in The Last Samuri. If he can pull that off again, we may be in for a treat.

      I think we will just have to wait and see on this one.

    16. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      although that one somewhat missed the point by showing the military, eventually, triumphant.

      No, that wasn't the military, that was Will Smith as a Buck Rogers type character saving the earth with his own macho and bravado.

      "You will not shot that green sh!t at me!"

      Nice CGI, incredibly boring story. I can't really watch it again because it's just not interesting. Shallow action pics are like a one trick pony. Once you've seen the trick you could care less about seeing it again.

      Bladerunner, as someone else alluded to (as a possible remake target) is still something I'll watch every year or so, because it's a great story.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    17. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I wish these guys would hurry up!!!

      Apparently they lost momentum due to a harddrive crash. (don't people do backups?!!).

      Dammit, I want the future as advertized, not what we ended up buying!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    18. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by rco3 · · Score: 1

      NOTHING could be worse than Battlefield Earth. Unless, of course, they decide to finish the other *half* of the story - Battlefield Earth, Part Deux? Ecchhh....!

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    19. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by moviepig.com · · Score: 3, Insightful
      WAR OF THE WORLDS has already been remade.

      With a tongue-in-cheek updating of the common cold to a computer virus, it was called INDEPENDENCE DAY. Like the "original", its visual effects were great at the time ...and nearly enough to carry you safely above the cornball sludge of both movies.

      I expect the same this time around ...and, like most, will likely fork over my sawbuck for it, rather than for some more deserving film that'll migrate better to the small screen.

      Shame on us.

      --
      Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
    20. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by filth+grinder · · Score: 1

      I'm actually thinking this will be okay. Spielberg, because he no longer has to listen to what other producers in hollywood say about his projects, is very similar to an independent film producer. He has the freedom to do things the way he sees it, without it being muddled with other people's input. Whether that agrees with how you see it is another thing, but one can hope that he'll do things well, because he has a long track record of doing *great* films Except Spielberg has lost his way. He no longer makes the classics he usually does, in fact his gotten the Lucas diseased and is hacking up his old movies. Look at the utter ridiculous censoring of E.T. That was a fine quality work, and he went and took out the guns and "penis breath". Great... He is kuwtowing to people now. He is no longer a great film maker. Look at A.I. That was a mess. Too many, "oooh celebrity cameo!" and then the horrible ending that instead of being tragic turns out to be just silly. Spielberg has lost it. Just look at his past couple of films. He's no longer the same director he once was.

    21. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Lol, as stupid as the Republicans are that listen to his wanna be Rush oxy^H^H^H Limbaugh liberal hate show, it wouldn't surprise me if they believed it. Maybe if it were a bunch of Aliens invading to put Clinton back in office or something it would help stir the moronic right wing believers into a new Amendment "Against Alien Insurgents".

    22. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by robson · · Score: 1

      While I think Spielberg has done some fine films, I also think he's done some utter rubbish.

      I like Spielberg. In fact, I'm a fan. That said, he's had a problem lately -- he can't commit to an ending. A.I. and Minority Report both had this problem, and it's just painful. I actually had to walk out after A.I.'s third ending because they just kept getting worse and worse, and it hurt to see Spielberg make such a monumental mistake.

      Okay, rant over. That said, I hope he's learned his lesson, and I'm looking forward to his take on War of the Worlds.

    23. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Informative
      One thing I never quite figured out:

      IIRC, the premise of the series was there was an actual invation from Mars, but the HG Wells story that it was a radio broadcast, not a news broadcast, was the cover up for the actual invasion. The news broadcast was real. Like the 'weather balloon' cover story for Roswell.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    24. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Doug-W · · Score: 1

      The problem with the movie Starship Troopers was that it was based on the back of a book by Robert Heinlein...

    25. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of brainless adventure movies, just disneyland rides caught on film. Films based on popular mythology about flying saucers.

      Gee, sounds like all the Star Wars crud. Oh wait, this is slashdot... sorry, I forget, you guys WORSHIP Star Wars, right?

    26. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear lord...I think I'm the only one who enjoyed the TV series.

      The plot premise of it was that after the aliens were defeated, they were drumed in 55 gallon drums, and stored in a radioactive waste facility, which sterilized them, and allowed them to come back to life. They also could take over and live in human hosts.

      Posting AC to hide the shame of likeing this series.

    27. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Ranger96 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [sarcasm]Yep, "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" were definitely garbage.[/sarcasm]

      Don't equate your own personal tastes in movies with the talent or lack thereof of the movie maker.

      Ranger96

      --
      What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.-Ecclesiastes 1:9
    28. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, they *did* make a movie with lots of people getting cut up by big insects, lots of spaceships exploding and bare breasts.

      Any similarity between the movie's title and Heinlein's books is strictly coincidental.

    29. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      That's a nice tidbit of information - the name of the mechanical shark being Bruce; it's no doubt why the main shark character in "Finding Nemo" was also named Bruce.

      IMHO, the last decent movie Spielberg did was "Schindler's List" - No Hollywood explosions, just a real story, well told.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    30. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Chasuk · · Score: 1

      We've already had one recent crap adaption of WotW... I refer you to Signs, which managed to combine the non-starter cliche of crop circles, the WotW, and the melting witch scene from the Wizard of Oz.

      Did I mention ham-handed direction, predictable ending, falsely portentious middle, and Mel Gibson's worst acting job ever?

      Do we need ANOTHER crap adaption of WotW?

    31. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1

      If my personal taste has no value, what about yours? Plenty of critics hated Private Ryan. As for Schindler, the subject of the movie totally precludes anything like objective analysis.

    32. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      This not to be confused with the other War of the Worlds remake for a 2006 release. That version was going to take place in modern times, but after September 2001 and seeing shots they wanted to make being acted out in reality, the project went into a rewrite to set it in 1898 and make it a much closer adaption of the original book. This caused them to miss their intended release date of Halloween 2003, 50 years after the last movie and the date of the radio broadcast. (I even suggested to them to pull the date back to October 30th, the actual date of the Orson Welles broadcast, or hold a special sneak premiere on that date.)

      I've had my hopes on that production more than this Spielburg-Cruise production, both before and after their decision to change the setting. I have no idea when the setting is for this one.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    33. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has he done of any real quality?

      He was the Executive Producer on Band of Brothers. Of course his part in that was probably pretty minimum since it was really Tom Hanks baby.

    34. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You may be ashamed, but I put up a web site for it and every other version of the story I could find.

      Which reminds me, I really need to take some time to make some updates.

    35. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      Somewhere out there is a writer with an original story, a powerbook and a digicam.

      And he is making gay porn.

    36. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I come from a cultural heritage (eastern European Jewish) that was basically eradicated by the Holocaust. Add that to the usual immigrant identity crisis and guilt-tripping, and you have a subject matter that's so painful to deal with, I could never form an objective appreciation of a movie on the subject. So I might as well concede that I have no real opinion about the quality of Schindler's List. It's simply that every other post-Jaws Spielberg movie has motivated my disgust. The adventure movies are painfully derivative (by intent, but that doesn't make it any better), mindless, sadistic, and over-long. The more serious movies are hyper-sentimental and lack any real humanity. Perhaps Schindler is an exception. I'll never know.

    37. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Hollywood apparently has run out of good ideas and/or writers. It seems that they either put out absolute garbage or take a great old movie and put out a weak remake at best.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    38. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the Orson Welles radio play. In the episode that dealt with that, an actual invasion of Grover's Mill, NJ took place (lead scouting mission before the main invasion 15 years later), but the radio play was commissioned by the government to cover up the incident after the fact. That the panic occurred reflected that the play was too real.

      Though they did make mistakes in the timeline. The witnesses say it occurred on Halloween, but the radio play actually aired the night before, October 30th. (Like television now, weekly radio shows would have holiday-related programming that didn't necessarily fall on the holiday itself but rather on the week before and after.) Though some of that could be explained by witness confusion.

      Those witnesses that had firm memories claimed the radio play was nothing like what actually happened.

      And this was how the series tied in the 1938 broadcast in the 1988 show in their late-October episode.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    39. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't forget ET, man. The original one from 1982, the one I saw when I was 6 and was crying so hard I couldn't leave the theater.

    40. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You liked it because you saw it when you were six.

      The typical Spielberg fan (including movie critics) has a mental age of six.

    41. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Perhaps John Travolta will get a part as a Martian?
      In one passage, a radio news journalist reports: "Good heavens, something's wriggling out of the shadow like a grey snake. Now it's another one, and another. They look like tentacles to me. There, I can see the thing's body. It's large as a bear and it glistens like wet leather. But that face. It ... it's indescribable. I can hardly force myself to keep looking at it."
      Sounds like they could just recycle his costume. :^P
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    42. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more serious movies are hyper-sentimental and lack any real humanity. Perhaps Schindler is an exception.

      It is not.

    43. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      hey, at least they didn't try to make movies out of the ten-novel Mission Earth series.

    44. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Chibi · · Score: 1
      Spielberg, because he no longer has to listen to what other producers in hollywood say about his projects, is very similar to an independent film producer.


      While I agree with you that Spielberg has enough clout to do things in his own vision, who was the last independent filmmaker whose film felt somewhat like a 2-hour advertisement for companies like Lexus, the Gap, Bulgari, etc? (this coming from someone who actually enjoyed Minority Report, despite all of the commercial push in it).

      --
      If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
    45. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      And there was only one sequel to Alien. And only one Highlander.

    46. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Jhon · · Score: 1

      There hasn't been much "original" talent ANYWHERE, let alone hollywood. Most of the plots now-a-days are re-hashed Shakespeare.

    47. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I pity you.

      You are either so mentally unstable or full of hate that you can't even join a discussion about a movie being remade without going off on a political rant. I am not a doctor, but i suggest you see one.

    48. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Except that Welles did say "It's Halloween" at the end of the broadcast. Not because WoTW was any kind of "Halloweeen Special" (that was the only mention of Halloween). It was his way of responding to the reports of panic that had already begun to reach him.

      This discussion brings to mind this really good docudrama about the making of the radio play and the way people responded to it. There are thoughts on the way mass media was emerging as an influence on what people believed, with appropriate references to emerging political media stars like Hitler and Roosevelt. And some amusing scenes, as the sound effects folks try to get just the right kind of sound, utilizing a microphone, a mason jar, and a toilet bowel!

    49. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise with "Minority Report." What a wonderful triumph of cinematic art that was! Why, if PKD were alive I'm sure it would have brought a tear to his eye.

      You're probably right about the crying part, but not in the way that you think...

    50. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Stone316 · · Score: 1
      I don't know why some people single out certain actors/actresses and crap on em... I think Tom Cruise is a good actor, why? Because when I watch one of his movies he suits the roll. I'll admit, i'm not hard to please when it comes to movies but if _I_ can tell a person is acting and their performance doesn't suck me into the film then I generally don't like the movie.

      He is a good actor, he does most of his own stunts, some of which are pretty damn scarey. I think some people hate certain performers not because they aren't good but because deep down somehwere they are jealous somehow and it builds resentment.

      Face it, these guys have made 10's of millions of dollars.. If they were that bad people wouldn't turn out to see the movies. You can preach about your indie films all you want but the basic fact is most of them are artsy fartsy and suck. I go to a movie to be entertained, if I wanted a higher enlightenment i'd choose another activity.

      --
      "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
    51. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yours was the first site I hit when I Googled for sites that talk about the TV series. Your conceit (I hope that's what it is!) that all the books, movies, and series are somehow based on fact is amusing. It's meant to be amusing, right? Right?

    52. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, both movies were crap.

      I'll cut Spielberg a break with Schindler; most of it is very good, except for that last scene ("why didn't I sell this pin? I could have (sob) saved two more.."). It wrecked the whole flick for me, with all of that unnecessary treacle. I couldn't help but think, "man, if only another director handled this project, I wouldn't have this last crappy scene ruining the entire experience".

      As for Ryan, well, once you check out the first half hour, there's not much else to see, unless you drool spontaneously when things blow up. The plot itself is just 100% inane.

      But what would you expect from a guy who has defined the "Hollywood ending". You know, the ending where we all live happily ever after (or most of us anyway), and every loose plot thread is neatly tied up by the end of the movie because, you, dear viewer, are just too damn dumb to figure out everything by yourself..

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    53. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invaded? Migration, it's what your country's built on.

    54. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by GT_Alias · · Score: 1
      I'm probably the only living human who knows this, but he's totally overrated, the epitome of everything I hate about Hollywood.

      I'd venture to say that is your opinion, not some level of enlightenment you have obtained above the rest of humanity.

    55. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Cally · · Score: 1
      The 1953 movie was utterly camp, despite assertions of playing off cold war fears, but expect it to look good in comparison.

      Hey don't knock it, that film scared me senseless on TV, aged 18 or so... granted I don't watch horror / suspense type films so perhaps today's Scream-savvy film goers just laugh at it. But there ya go .

      Personally I hope they take some inspiration from Volume 2 of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the Alan Moore comic that is, not the abortion of a Hollywood adaption that metaphorically plumetted past my window some time last year. Alternatively just stick obsessively to the Wells original, which ALSO gave me the willies when reading it for the first time as an adult. Perhaps it's the place names and such that give it that vertiginous sense of looking down at your feet and seeing a well. E_METAPHOR_OVERLOAD

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    56. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Speilberg's JAWS was the genesis of the summer 'blockbuster' -- a term defined by the fact that people lined up around the block to see JAWS.

      Unfortunately, Speilberg will never be one of the all-time great directors. He is too affected by sentimentality, too demeaning to his audience, and too market driven to aspire to something greater. Even Schindler's List -- which has some great sequences and was brilliantly conceived -- collapses into a pit of sentimentality and historical inaccuracy at the end. And his book-ending of films with peoeple reminiscing (e.g. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan) is the ultimate disservice to his story telling ability... "I don't think you got the message, so I'm going to beat you over the head so you understand what I meant!".

      He's put together a string of really good films, and he's created some of the most entertaining movies in the past 25 years, but none will stand the test of time aside from being spectacle.

      PS Its funny that people can't remember Spielberg's failures -- which are numerous. Hook...Jumanji...1941...Jurassic Park 3...big budget disasters of the Nth degree.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    57. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I think you're being unfair. The Indiana Jones series was very good. Poltergeist was scary. Schindlers List was.. well, hard to judge if it was good given the subject. I think his last really good movie was Last Crusade though. Saving Private Ryan was merely OK, and Minority Report was worth the $2 I paid to see it at second run, but not much beyond that. Catch Me If You Can was pretty good, though it doesn't compare to Indiana Jones though.

      It's true that Spielberg does have a tendency to make schlocky, crappy hollywood movies. AI was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and he should be beaten for the Jurasic Park series. Let's hope WOTW will follow with the sucesses, and not the miserable failures.

      --
      AccountKiller
    58. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out. Never would have occurred to me.

    59. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You're entitled to disagree with me. But if you don't explain why you disagree, why bother to post?

    60. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WKBW's 1968 production is a stand-out, although the audio quality has much degraded. The 1971 remake is easily found on the web, and is well worth your time, but doesn't carry the same impact. KB was Buffalo, New York's top-rated station for rock and news, the drama used live remotes from around the city, new technology then. Localized, updated and played straight with an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, it is a perfect compliment to the Welles original.

    61. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Why is the subject of the movie in any way relevant to the objective analysis of the movie? It feels this way to you because you have been brought up (assuming you live in an industrialized Western country) and educated about the Jewish Holocaust. Would this movie invoke the same kinds of emotion if screened in Africa or Asia? I think you can't disagree that, at least in the US, Jewish Holocaust awareness is a disproportionately large part of the US educational system's history curriculum. I do believe that it is an important epoque in recent human history which must be taught to our young, but let's face it - there have been greater and even more tragic events in history which also merit equal mention. But that's almost getting off-topic. My point is - if you did not grow up in a society where the horrors of the Holocaust have been pounded into your head from elementary school, why would you treat this film differently than another?

      I remember when Schindler's List came out, a number of reviewers (albeit a small number) wrote reviews strictly based on the cinematic merits of the movie, and concluded that while it was overall an excellent picture (which I agree - I just picked up the excellent DVD), it falls short on Spielberg's typical misuse of childish sentimentality to prove his point (which sometimes shadows and oversimplifies over the importance of the subject matter itself, which I also agree with). Incidentally, some of these reviewers were later accused of being anti-Semitic for simply saying something negative about this film (going back to my mention of over-emphasis of this topic in US educational systems).

      Of course, films like this will bring out these sorts of emotions. The outrage towards negative reviews of The Passion of the Christ is a very good example of this.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    62. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      One that I have to disagree. Aliens and Alien Resurrection rocked. The Director's Cut of Alien3 was better than the initial movie release, but it still had huge issues.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    63. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by DanBrusca · · Score: 1

      The film will be made, it will rake in at leasta couple of hundred million at the box office, millions more on DVD and many, many people will enjoy it.

      You have your book, these people will have their movie. Let them enjoy it.

    64. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. How can you respect someone so stupid? Same with Travola and the rest... I mean, the fact that they're easily brainwashed by a cult (it is a cult with religious status) it just ruins any credibility they have as an actor.

      Please do NOT taint classic stories with pop-culture garbage icons. THey will anyway. It's not like they give a shit about dignity. They'll do anything to make a quick buck.

    65. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Migration" implies they will be going back.

      We have and illegal EMIGRATION problem.

      What worries me isn't the Mexicans coming here for work (though they should be at least registering somewhere), it's the terrorists that can (and probably do) use the same routes.

    66. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>...The Last Samurai was an excellent film.

      Let down only by really bad acting on the part of....Tom Cruise.

      Which is a shame really, he has proved that he *could* act, at least in the movie A Few Good Men.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    67. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Of course not -- he was talking about this:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268126/

      or maybe it was:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173615/

      Anyhow, it was certainly one of those adaptations! :)

    68. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Hey wait a minute there. Jules Verne was also fond of using Canons for inter-planetary travel. Writers in the era just weren't well versed on the forces of rapid accelleration. Come on, do you really think we are right about string theory and artificial intelligence. People 100 years from now are going to look back at our primitive ideas with the same disdain we express about ideas 100 years ago.

      Now I definitely hear you on Jaws. Alien was another classic by accident, largely because of costuming problems. (They ran a test of the film with the alien in the scene, and saw that it looked completely fake. They took the alien out and magic happend.)

      My concern with modern movie making is the reliance on explicit detail. Look at a modern love scene. There is nothing left to the imagination. Go back to the 50's, you would see him look at her, her look at him, a few waterfalls, some fireworks, and cut to the next morning with everyone in bathrobes and bedroom slippers sipping coffee. And you knew it was good they way they were staring at each other over that coffee.

      Mob movies were also good at letting your mind fill in the blanks. They would throw someone in a trunk, and then riddle it with bullets. At a crime scene, you would only see the gruesome expressions on the faces of the detectives.

      Of course, you had to have decent actors and a skilled writer back then. Today you just let any hack toss in a few kid's off the street and a set of CGI artists and WHAM! you have a movie.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    69. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      >>[sarcasm]Yep, "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" were definitely garbage.[/sarcasm]

      Well, now that depends on your definition of garbage, no?

      Case in point: Saving Private Ryan was supposed to be based on true events. Typical Hollywood, mucks that up big time. In addition, much of the details are wrong (uniforms, patches, weapons, tactics, etc.), which ruins the film in many ways, thus making it garbage.

      Ditto with SList. So for my definition (and a few others I know) they were terrible films.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    70. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a problem with people leaving the country illegally?

    71. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Why is the subject of the movie in any way relevant to the objective analysis of the movie?
      Fine. Let's suppose everybody you know or love is murdered in a particularly cruel fashion. Suppose they make a movie about it. Are you utterly confident you could review the movie objectively? If so, your understanding of how humans work is nonexistent.
    72. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Opie812 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Last Samurai was an excellent film.

      You must have left early. The last 5 minutes of the movie totally wrecked what I otherwise thought was a pretty good movie.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    73. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by The+Dobber · · Score: 1

      Alien Resurrection was an utter piece of crap. It was the dying gasp of "lets make one more for the money". Unfortunately, since they'd killed off Ripley in #3, they had to come up with some contrived scheme to bring her back once again. She just looked bored the whole movie.

      And that Alien hybrid at the end was just pitiful. Everytime I catch it on cable I have to laugh. Looks like some poor smuck in a beat to sh!t Barney suit.

      They would have been better off dropping the Ripley / clone angle and going off in a new tangent. I always though a Doom type story would have been cool.

      Has there ever been a 4th iteration of a movie that didn't suck?

    74. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by PantsWearer · · Score: 1, Insightful
      All I can say is: "Nope."

      I truly doubt there's such a thing as a truly original story. We've been writing stories for something like 6000 years. We've been telling them for about as long as we could string ideas together far longer than that.

      Retelling and interpreting themes has been the bread and butter of writers for as long as there has been writing. We humans still enjoy them. We still react to the same things that we've reacted to over the course of our history and our individual lives. There is nothing wrong with telling a story over again; it's how it's done.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    75. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Casca · · Score: 1

      There was no startship troopers movie, just a decent shower scene.

      --
      Casca
    76. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by jallison · · Score: 1
      Actually, both movies were crap.
      I wouldn't say bother were crap, but I agree they could've been better.
      I'll cut Spielberg a break with Schindler; most of it is very good, except for that last scene ("why didn't I sell this pin? I could have (sob) saved two more.."). It wrecked the whole flick for me, with all of that unnecessary treacle.
      Absolutely! There was a perfect moment in the film for an ending...Ben Kingsley sitting on a box near the railroad tracks. At least I think I'm remembering that right, it's been a while. But Spielberg always stretches his movies out too long. He doesn't know how to end them.
      As for Ryan, well, once you check out the first half hour, there's not much else to see, unless you drool spontaneously when things blow up. The plot itself is just 100% inane.
      The middle is definitely standard-issue war movie stuff. The first 20 minutes are incredible, though. This movie has unecessary bookends as well. Do we really need to see the old vet at the beginning and end of the movie? We get the point without that!
    77. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys need to stop focusing in on the title, and realize what the movie was -- an excellent parody of WWII propaganda films that happens to share the same name and bare-bones plotline of the book. They are two different creatures, each good in its own arena --- the movie as satire and action film, the book as an idealogical platform and true sci-fi.

      Haven't you guys seen Robocop? Remember all the satire in that movie?

      Just relax already -- someone took the title of your favorite book and pasted it on a movie that was very different from the book. Don't put down the movie just because it isn't the book.

    78. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Writers in the era just weren't well versed on the forces of rapid accelleration.
      Still aren't, judging from Star Trek, and other such attempts to depict space travel. But is that an excuse? Not when Newton's Laws have ben part of the scientific canon for over 300 years. And not when you're writing in a genre where scientific and technical detail is itself a key part of the story.

      Verne deserves credit for helping to establish SF as a genre where you play with ideas. But like many SF writers, he wasn't all that careful about playing with them in a plausible or logical manner. My favorite example is Around the World in 80 Days where the ending rests on Phineas Fogg's ignorance of the circumnavigator's paradox. Which is an interesting idea -- but is it really plausible that a guy could travel from Tokyo to London without once hearing anybody mention the date?

    79. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      advertisement for companies like Lexus, the Gap, Bulgari, etc?

      How are you supposed to realistically portray a dark future of America without pervasive corporate advertising?

      Inventing fake companies would've been... fake.

    80. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by OblvnDrgn · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a 4th iteration of a movie that didn't suck?

      Yes. Star Trek IV: The Good Star Trek Movie

    81. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by ozbird · · Score: 1

      The 1953 movie was utterly camp, despite assertions of playing off cold war fears, but expect it to look good in comparison.

      Don't forget its heavy religious overtones - I was rooting for the Martians: "Zap that #@%^$! preacher so we can get on with the story!"
      The remake could turn into another Battlefield Earth.

    82. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Malfourmed · · Score: 1
      Has there ever been a 4th iteration of a movie that didn't suck?

      Star Wars Episode 4 didn't suck.
    83. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Flavius+Stilicho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You guys need to stop focusing in on the title, and realize what the movie was -- an excellent parody of WWII propaganda films that happens to share the same name and bare-bones plotline of the book. They are two different creatures, each good in its own arena --- the movie as satire and action film, the book as an idealogical platform and true sci-fi.

      You are dead on sir. SST is absolutely my favorite movie ever. The wit of the writers shows in almost every scene. The special effects were also primo in my opinion.

      SST is a movie every male /. geek should love: Smart parody of propaganda, spaceships, shit blowing up, T&A, aliens and uninhibited, over-the-top graphic violence. What else would a guy want from a scifi/action movie, hobbits?

      I doubt that this remake of WoTW will come close to the caliber of SST.

    84. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Except that Welles did say "It's Halloween" at the end of the broadcast.

      At the start he said (in narrative character), "On this particular evening, October 30th, the Crossley service estimated that thirty-two million people were listening in on radios," and also at the end (out of character), "Starting now, we couldn't soap all your windows and steal all your garden gates, by tomorrow night . . . so we did the best next [sic] thing."

      And the mention of Halloween, in context: "So good-bye everybody, and remember, please, for the next day or so, the terrible lesson you learned tonight: That grinning, glowing, globular invader of your living-room is an inhabitant of the pumpkin patch, and if your doorbell rings and nobody's there, that was no Martian . . . it's Hallowe'en."

      Halloween was in "the next day or so".

      The broadcast most certainly occured on the evening of October 30th, 1938(*). I've pulled many newspaper references on this subject, including the days before the broadcast to see how much publicity it got before going to air. Even local radio schedules.

      I do also recommend The Night That Panicked America which is occasionally shown on the Sci-Fi Channel. It does so nicely put the events in the context of the day and the efforts of the foley actors to get the effects needed.

      I'd really love a copy of the raw newsreel footage of the interviews the next day of Orson Welles though. From what I've been able to gather from other programs, he seemed more prepared than I'd thought.

      (*) Technically, the play itself was set on October 30th, 1939, one year in the future to the day from the broadcast date: "In the thirty-ninth year of the Twentieth Century came the great disillusionment." This a paraphrase of the original, "In the last years of the Nineteenth Century came the great disillusionment," to reset the story in contemporary times. (I believe Howard Koch's original script, properly titled "Invasion From Mars", actually said "thirty-eighth". I believe that's how it reads in his book, "The Panic Broadcast".)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    85. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the first 20 minutes and 50% of the last 30 minutes, "Saving Private Ryan" was definitely garbage.

    86. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Last Samurai was a good film? In the (from memory excuse the errors) words of Paul Mooney, "First they had Brad Pitt in the Mexican and now Tom Cruise as the Last Samurai. Maybe Hollywood will make my new film. It's titled, 'The Last Nigger on Earth' starring Tom Hanks."

    87. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [sarcasm]Yep, "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" were definitely garbage.[/sarcasm]

      Mmmm, and IMHO, Tom Hanks carried SPR, as Spielberg was busy making things simply go boom.

    88. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      Every single Tom Cruise movie can be renamed according to the "Top Gun" template. For example, his last film (Top Samurai) was typical Tom Cruise. I can't think of any other actor better able to portray a washed-up alcholic post-traumatic stress syndrome civil war has-been who retains exceptional marksmanship when drunk, is capable of learning (over a single season) the martial skills of Samurai who've dedicated their lives to swordsmanship, and manage to come out a hero.

      I still haven't seen Top Nascar or all of Top JAG, but I don't think I would have to. Lemme guess, he's disfunctional, a bit of an asshole, and lacks any semblance of discipline, yet manages to win, get the girl, and finish the movie as a hero...

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    89. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. The site's style attempts to immerse you into the mythos of the series. This following the lead of the series in tying in both the movie and broadcast.

      With the series also having a tripod manta-shaped ship buried on an American Indian reservation thousands of years prior ("Dust to Dust") and a frozen escape pod elsewhere ("The Raising of Lazarus"), this leaves open the possibility of other incidents and allows tying in even more stories.

      It gets difficult in some areas though, such as comic books, especially ones that crossover with other comics like Superman. I know it is quite a stretch and that I don't succeed everywhere, but it is just a way to tie the site together in a fun way.

      It's a pity I can't make any money off of it, what with its top search ranking and all. Well, I could, but I just don't think it would be right.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    90. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by erik_fredricks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there was a film by that name, I'm pretty sure. It was a Paul Veerhoven tribute to the work of Leni Reifenstahl.

      --

      THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
      Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18

    91. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes it did.

    92. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Noren · · Score: 1
      ... except that the movie you're probably thinking of was titled "Star Wars" in the initial release- the "episode 4" subtitle was first added 4 years later.

      If you mean the 1997 rerelease of "Star Wars" with the Episode 4 title shoehorned in along with the insipid "Greedo shoots first" set of edits, then yes, Lucas made even his masterpiece suck- mostly because of the inevitable comparison to the original. But maybe I'm overdoing my association of this set of edits with the Episode 4 subtitle...

      If you think that the 4th movie to be released in the Star Wars franchise(subtitled "Episode 1") didn't suck , then there's no hope for you.

    93. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by metlin · · Score: 1

      Whew! I was afraid you'd say Bruce Campbell :-p

    94. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Jerf · · Score: 1

      I really believe the part should go to someone with a lighter touch, who could be more believable in the role. Like Pauly Shore or maybe Rob Schneider.

      De derp de derp de derp-i doo Martians. De derp de derp! Derp-de-derpidoo! Uh-oh! A carrot! Derp derp derp derp-i derp-i-do! A-choo! Derp derp derp derp do!

      (A hint to the mods: South Park.)

    95. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the subject of the movie in any way relevant to the objective analysis of the movie?
      ...
      Incidentally, some of these reviewers were later accused of being anti-Semitic for simply saying something negative about this film

      You answered your own question. You cannot take an objective look at anything regarding the holocaust without being calling an anti-semite, a nazi sympathizer and/or a holocaust revisionist.

      On a side note, Schindler's List played in the US on broadcast TV during primetime completely unedited. No blurring of the full-frontal nudity, no bleeping of the cuss words. No fuss raised by anybody, including the FCC. Janet's boob gets exposed for half a second and all hell breaks loose.

    96. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by dasunt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Repeat after me. There was no Starship Troopers movie.

      Bah, at least the book and the movie has a few things in common. Hell, you even got a watered down version of Heinlein's political evangelizing.

      Take "The Postman" as an example of a book to movie adaptation gone horribly wrong. Remember the super soldiers in the movie? How about the AI supercomputers? Bear flag republic? Oopsie, I forgot, that was all dropped from the movie. To add insult to injury, I'm told the author is happy with the adaptation!

      In a few months, there's a good possibility that "I, Robot" will be the subject of a similiar rant.

      Starship Troopers, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the like are decent movie adaptations. Not the best, not the worse. Heck, if you want to argue bad Heinlein movie adaptations, look at "The Puppetmasters". At least, in the book, the parasites were smarter.

    97. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      It should be clear to most anyone involved in this discussion that the movie commonly known as "Star Wars - Episode 4" is not, in fact the fourth, but the first iteration of the Star Wars series of movies. The irony in the fact that the fourth iteration did suck, but "Episode 4" did not, is what makes it funny.
      Might I suggest that you acquire a sense of humour? It makes life a lot more fun.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    98. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1
      What ruined Minority Report for me were the plot holes you could drive a Mack truck through. There is one team of three precogs, it takes most of a day for the precops to prevent a single murder, and this is supposed to scale to nationwide by next week?

      Assuming that Spielberg stays true to the intent of Well(e)s (i.e. a serious horror story of a helpless Earth, followed by redemption through sheer luck) he'll have to do some serious spellbinding to keep the suspension of disbelief from busting a leafspring.

      Frankly, I doubt he's up to it, and while Cruise has *some* talent he's, yes, worlds away from being able to carry a McGuffin that size on his lonesome.

    99. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides possibly hobbits, you left out sex. Fortunately, it has that too.

      Hmm...hobbits+sex...that would sell well on slashdot...

    100. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      *waves hand*

      There is no Phantom Menance.

      *waves hand*

      There are only THREE star wars movies.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    101. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Oh yes. The site's style attempts to immerse you into the mythos of the series. This following the lead of the series in tying in both the movie and broadcast.
      You must have really enjoyed the series. You've also taught me to be more patient with seemingly-illogical premises.

      Unless they're authored by Rick Berman of course!

      It gets difficult in some areas though, such as comic books, especially ones that crossover with other comics like Superman.
      Superman is, of course, the very epitome of "make up the premise as you go along." I seem to recall that they originally explained all his powers by saying he came from a planet with heavy gravity, making him super-strong. But that didn't have enough wow-value...

      My least favorite crossover is X-Men meet Star Trek: TNG. Some things just shouldn't be allowed...

      You're lucky that your favorite fantasy-verse is more or less consistent. I've seen Star Wars fanataics engage in just astonishing contortions to try to make all the movies, comic books, novelizations, and what not hang together. Don't know whether to pity or admire them.

      The first Star Wars movie I saw was Empire Strikes Back. I really dug the "i am your father" scene. But a guy I went to the movie with was appalled, because it de-canonized one of his favorite SW comic books, which showed Vader and Anakin together in a flashback. Oh well!

    102. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Speilberg's JAWS was the genesis of the summer 'blockbuster' -- a term defined by the fact that people lined up around the block to see JAWS.
      I'm sorry, but how does lining up around the block bust that same block?

      The term "blockbuster" was around for a long time before Jaws came out -- during WW II, it referred to a bomb capable of destroying a whole city block with a single blast. Don't recall if I ever heard it applied to movies before Jaws came out. I suppose this other meaning could have appeared independently, but I suspect that it's just a way of saying that a movie made a lot of noise.

    103. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Warhaven · · Score: 1

      Speaking of horrible movie adaptations, I thought the Time Machine was a fairly decent movie, so long as I wasn't associating it with the book. Same with Jurrasic Park and Starship Troopers. Jurrasic Park had awesome digital effects and animatronics. Starship Troopers, as mentioned before, had some really good satire, gfx, etc.

      So, I'll probably go ahead and give WotW a try, even though I don't much care for Tom Cruise. It might surprise me, and be a half-decent movie so long as you don't associate it with the book.

      On a similar note, here a few additional books I'd like to see ported to movie fomat:

      • Ender's Game
      • Sojourn, and the other two Driz'zt Novels. Could make for a good trilogy, so long as the same people who did the Dungeons & Draogns movie don't make it.
      • Dragonlance Chronicles, with the same stipulations mentioned above. This could be the next big LotR-style sfx fantasy blockbuster.
      • A good 1985 adaptation.
      • Footfall

      And, just for kicks, I think a live-action Robotech full-length movie would be really kick-ass. Especially with all the sfx tech we have nowadays. I just hope, if it comes about, it's a good adaptation of the cartoon.

    104. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

      Yes damnitall. in the book "The Puppet Masters" we had:
      1> Flying cars
      2> Variable length marriages (pick duration when you buy your license)
      3> Flying Cars
      4> Super spies
      5> Flying Cars
      6> Really nasty alien invaders
      7> flying cars
      8> Public nudity
      9> Did I mention the flying cars?

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    105. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

      Hey I think Bruce Campbell should be the Captain (or maybe helmsman) of the Thunderchilde.

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    106. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Fuzztwin · · Score: 1

      A tragic day indeed. What miniscule chance do you think the remake will have of retaining one of my all-time favourite sci-fi wonders - the "protective blister" that shielded the martian craft from human weapons. It is mentioned a few times during the movie by the main scientist dude, and never fails to crack me up. Force fields are for wusses, real women swear by protective blisters.

    107. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition, much of the details are wrong (uniforms, patches, weapons, tactics, etc.), which ruins the film in many ways, thus making it garbage. ...Only if you are a military historian or very interested in WWII US military arcana. Considering there were over 150 WWII infantry division patches alone.

      Tactics? Again, unless it is the Rambo or John Wayne rush, most people could care less, even if they had a bit of infantry training in the past.

      How many old WWII-based movies have used AT-6 Texans as Zeros, F4Fs, P-47s, P-51 vs Me109, etc., because the real things are not available either as singles or in enough numbers?

      Or that the M-48 Pershing tank was close enough to an M-3 Sherman (it did span the two), or the "modern" movie that uses available M-60 tanks in "M-1" armor units, so that they get used?

      Most people don't care. Enough people that do realize how difficult it is to be totally authentic, and thus don't care unless it is a totally bogus substitution.

      At least with "Patton", there was still some third-world country that had enough US WWII equipment in its inventory that helped give that movie authenticity there. But one would not be able to do so today.

    108. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by kaens · · Score: 2, Funny

      "A good 1985 adaptation."

      the preview button is your best freind.

      unless mr. orwell made a sequel?......

    109. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      ST IV: The Search for Whales? Surely you jest. Well, I'll agree it didn't suck, but to call it THE good Trek movie is a bit unfair.

      The real rankings:

      1. II KHAAAAAAAANNNN
      2. VIII Night of the Living Borg
      3. VI The Undiscovered Acting
      4. IV The Search For Whales
      5. X Numbesis
      6. I The Motionless Picture
      7. IX Insufferable
      8. III The Search For Plot
      9. VII Geriatric
      10. V Oh, God In Space

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    110. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's no doubt why the main shark character in "Finding Nemo" was also named Bruce.

      And all this time I figured it was because it was the "stereotypical" Australian name. Closely followed by Nigel, the only other character with an Aussie accent.

    111. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by instarx · · Score: 1

      OK, Speilburg CAN make good movies, but he generally doesn't. His scifi movies are particularly bad and are more specialized demonstration pieces for Hollywood special effects insiders than for an audience. If he has a special effect he likes he shows it to you, he then shows it to you again in case you missed how wonderful it was, and then he shows it to you AGAIN in case you missed it the first two times.

    112. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by mpe · · Score: 1

      The title is probably wrong, with Hollywood having been at war with "classics" for quite a while now :)

      The difference between Heinlein's Starship Troopers and the movie 'adaptation' will probably be the same in this instance.

      IIRC an original idea for the books title was "The Starship Soldier". Which, given that the book is following the life of one man, might have been a better choice of titile.

    113. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Silburn_Luke · · Score: 1
      [Anonymous Meoward]
      But what would you expect from a guy who has defined the "Hollywood ending". You know, the ending where we all live happily ever after (or most of us anyway)

      Kind of ironic, given that every major character in the film gets whacked bar Ryan, the coward and the guy who wanted to blow off the mission.

      [Jallison]
      The middle is definitely standard-issue war movie stuff. The first 20 minutes are incredible, though. This movie has unecessary bookends as well. Do we really need to see the old vet at the beginning and end of the movie? We get the point without that!

      The bookends are necessary to fake out the audience though. The cut from 'vet having a flashback', to 'Hanks in the landing craft' is clearly intended to make the audience think the vet is Hanks and that his character is going to come through (although the Airborne pin on the vet is a giveaway for the observant militaria-geeks in the audience - guilty as charged m'lud).

      This allows Spielberg to shock/surprise the audience with Hanks' character's death in the final fight - although of course Spielberg still manages to work in some schmaltzy stuff about 'Greatest Generation' sacrifices at the end there, but that's Stevie for you.

      Personally I think 'Ryan' is a so-so film in terms of plot, character etc bar the two battles at start and finish. However you have to credit the gritty production design and cinematography (which practicaly all war movies bugger up) and of course without 'Ryan' there would have been no 'Band of Brothers' mini-series, so I cut it a bunch of slack.

      Regards
      Luke
      --
      #include witty_one_liner.h
    114. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by WhyteRabbyt · · Score: 1

      No, because in spirit, the film of Starship Troopers was actually more like the The Forever War... which was a satirical response to Starship Troopers from a post-Vietnam perspective

      --
      free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
    115. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by Noren · · Score: 1
      It should be clear to most anyone involved in this discussion that the above post was made with the noble intention of helping me out by demonstrating how a master of comic timing and wit would tackle the subject. After all, we all know how much funnier jokes get if they're explained in great detail after the fact. Particularly if no information which has not already been mentioned is included- that's sure to make it funny!

      Might I suggest that you flame less? It makes life a lot more fun.

    116. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by jafac · · Score: 1

      Cruise will probably push it more towards "Battlefield Earth".

      Any bets on whether the aliens will look like clams?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    117. Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic by WarrDogg · · Score: 1

      It would be sweet if it had Bruce Campbell in it!!!

  2. No more imagination.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Blade Runner?

    Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars..

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:No more imagination.. by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars..

      Knowing Lukas, in 50 years we'll be taking the grandkids to see the super special enhanced version of the remake of the remake.

    2. Re:No more imagination.. by flewp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars..

      I'm tempted to think a remake of any of the new Star Wars could only be a good thing....

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    3. Re:No more imagination.. by danormsby · · Score: 1
      --
      Omnis amans amens
    4. Re:No more imagination.. by BTWR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the last 2 years' best pictures were both movies that had been done before (Chicago, and LOTR - animated... I'm considering the ROTK award to have been an award for the whole series and not solely ROTK).

    5. Re:No more imagination.. by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Blade Runner?

      I've seen TV ads (yeah I caught about 20 minutes of TV this weekend, first time I watched all month) and saw two -recent- films coming out as remakes. One was probably 'Dawn of the Dead', the other I don't remember at the moment.

      Some of this is bound to happen. It seems the plethora of cinema megaplexes has really spurred a glut of films and not all of them can be gems. So take an old idea, put a *STAR* in it and strip out anything the audience has to remember for more than 20 seconds and slap it in a can.

      Actually pretty cool how Passion of Christ has kicked some serious boxoffice butt. Are moguls looking at this and thinking, "Hey, we could remake The Ten Commandemnts!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:No more imagination.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut your infidel mouth, terrorist!

    7. Re:No more imagination.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Casablanca
      On the subject of remakes of classics, this is perhaps the funniest quote of 2003, but I'm afraid I forget who said it (Leno? SNL?):

      "It's rumored that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez want to star in a remake of 'Casablanca'. This will be the perfect film for people who liked the original, but wished it was terrible."
    8. Re:No more imagination.. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars

      Or at least a cartoon adaptation -- oh wait what's that 10 minute thing on the cartoon network?

      I don't think Hollywood gets it: people want new stories, not rehashes of bad 90's syndicated TV shows. Sequels, prequels and remakes are notably uncreative. Now I'm sounding like Rumsfield.

      --
      -- $G
    9. Re:No more imagination.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think Hollywood gets it: people want new stories, not rehashes of bad 90's syndicated TV shows.


      Yep. Hollywood keeps making these remakes specifically because noone wants to see them...

    10. Re:No more imagination.. by urmensch · · Score: 1

      mind pointing my way to the first movie version of Chicago? I saw it on broadway and wouldn't mind seeing another take on a translation to the screen.

    11. Re:No more imagination.. by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually pretty cool how Passion of Christ has kicked some serious boxoffice butt. Are moguls looking at this and thinking, "Hey, we could remake The Ten Commandemnts!"

      My biggest fear about that is now Hollywood is going to start churning out ultra-violent religous epics.

      Sodom and Gommarah starring Ben Affleck with Charlise Theron as Lot's wife. David and Goliath with Ashton Kutcher. Samson with The Rock and J.Lo. I wouldn't mind it so much actually if they leave the sex in, but we know that they won't, becaus that would be un-Christian...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    12. Re:No more imagination.. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      The difference being that the earlier attempts at LOTR were just horrible. Citizen Kane, et. al. were classics, they were done right the first time.

      War of the Worlds was done right the first time (on radio). Hey, Peter Jackson! King Kong was done right the FIRST TIME, now go make the Hobbit, you fat bastard!

      (sorry, I'm feeling mean)

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    13. Re:No more imagination.. by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      Or at least a cartoon adaptation -- oh wait what's that 10 minute thing on the cartoon network?

      And it was actually better than Episodes 1 and 2 combined.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    14. Re:No more imagination.. by GothChip · · Score: 1

      Remake Casablanca? Philistines! The one starring Mary Binglebat and Peter Beardsly is definitive!

    15. Re:No more imagination.. by Docrates · · Score: 1

      Look, after what Peter Jackson did with LOTR, I don't mind if he makes a remake of Banbi vs. Gonzilla, I'll go see it and it will be great.

      Provided, chances are he'll never do something as good and his career has probably peaked, but any LOTR fan owes him a great debt and that'll probably guarantee him eternal praise.

      Kong is something he's always felt passionate about and I'm sure he'll try to do it with as much love as LOTR. Even if I don't care for the story.

      --

      There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    16. Re:No more imagination.. by loveaxelrod · · Score: 1

      So because Orson Welles adapts the book for radio no-one else can make a film of it? so was Peter Jackson wrong to make a film of LOTR because it had already been adapted for radio?

      This doesn't make sense - Welle's version is not even famous for it's content than it's effect, it's not like he has rights over any subsequent version regardless of what format it arrives.

    17. Re:No more imagination.. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Blade Runner?

      To be fair, they were classic movies. But the earlier film versions of War of the Worlds were fairly mediocre. More worrying is what they'll do to make Cruise into a hero -- there are no heroic roles in the story. Just a narrator who watches the Martians roll over us, until (I hope that revealing the ending of a book over a century old isn't a spoiler) they die from earth bacterial infections.

      Coincidentally I was watching the Justice League cartoon last Saturday, and they had a story freely borrowing from WoW, (including giant three-legged war machines) as a way of giving the "secret origin" of the Martian Manhunter and the League.

    18. Re:No more imagination.. by One+Louder · · Score: 1
      There have been several attempts to remake Casablanca - as recently as this last May, they were planning one with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, but it was scrapped because of the failure of Gigli and the subsequent end of their...uh...whatever it was. In the past there several abortive attempts, including one by Ted Turner in the 1980s, and even Madonna and Sean Penn were mentioned at one time as leads.

      There was even a TV series based on the film in 1983, starring David Soul of "Starsky and Hutch" (the original series), Ray Liotta, Scatman Crothers and Hector Elizondo.

      There have been some thinly-disguised remakes, notably Sydney Pollack's "Havana".

    19. Re:No more imagination.. by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Sodom and Gommarah starring Ben Affleck..."

      At least we know there will be a co-starring role for Matt Damon in this one...
    20. Re:No more imagination.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm considering the ROTK award to have been an award for the whole series and not solely ROTK).
      Which is kind of scary (you're probably right), because it won best editing.

      That's right. A nine and a half hour "film" (divided into three parts) won the Oscar for the best editing. What was it before they edited it, nine and a half weeks?

      Oh, wait, totally different movie...

    21. Re:No more imagination.. by gosand · · Score: 1
      What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Blade Runner?

      I recently decided to watch some of the top 100 movies as rated by the AFI that I hadn't yet seen. Citizen Kane and On the Waterfront were among these. Ick. I understand why they were groundbreaking for their time, but in my honest 2004 opinion, they sucked. They were boring. They had corny acting. Gone With the Wind is another stinker. Chinatown was OK, but just OK.

      I do agree with many of their choices, but others I just don't get. I think about 3 of their top 10 deserve to be there. But that is just me.

      Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars.

      Lucas would NEVER allow anyone to touch his masterpieces. He wants to have all the rights to screw up his creations.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    22. Re:No more imagination.. by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Note:
      "I don't think Hollywood gets it:Some people want new stories, not rehashes of bad 90's syndicated TV shows. Sequels, prequels and remakes are notably uncreative. Now I'm sounding like Rumsfield."

      all the sequels and rehashes and prequels and such seem to do pretty well. Seems the ones who want originality are the minority. I enjoyed soem sequels soem prequels and derivitive stories and I've hated a lto of original work. Judge them on a project by project basis.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    23. Re:No more imagination.. by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      I don't think Hollywood gets it: people want new stories, not rehashes of bad 90's syndicated TV shows. Sequels, prequels and remakes are notably uncreative.

      Unfortunately Hollywood does get it. The vast majority of movie goers will pay to see anything with explosions, F/X and a big name star. Look at the summer movie numbers. Why actually pay a screenwriter to come up with some shit like Torque when you can take something the studio already owns and "update" it. In the same vein why pay someone to write a good screenplay when you can buy the rights to a novel with a built in fan base and make a lowsy watered-down adaptation, with explosions. Same thing for pre/sequels.

      Thats a trend that been building for a while now, and has begun moving to other entertainment industries (TV and Videogames), and its only going to get worse. Look to Hollywood if you want commitee written popcorn movies. Look to indies if you want art (not that all indies are good).

      And please god, I hope no one in Hollywood ever "discovers" Takashi Miike. If they do to him what they did to John Woo, Jet Li and Jackie Chan, my life will lose all meaning.

      ...or at least some of it.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    24. Re:No more imagination.. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Glad I didn't have lunch yet. The thought of that love scene brought on more dry heaves than being on a dive boat in 12 foot seas.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    25. Re:No more imagination.. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I think Blade Runner is a little too much of a cult phenominon to grab a movie exec's interest. (I love the movie too, though. Anyone know where you can find the original theatrical release? I LOATHE the director's cut and it's the only one I can find.)

      Oh no, if recent history is any guide they'd have Pixar re-make "Yellow Submarine" WAY before anyone would touch Blade Runner.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    26. Re:No more imagination.. by torpor · · Score: 1

      fuck, if they remake blade runner i'm outta here, and i'm taking my secret clique of androids with me ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    27. Re:No more imagination.. by Speare · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sodom and Gommarah starring Ben Affleck with Charlise Theron as Lot's wife.

      This is slashdot, dude. Natalie Portman *must* be the actress who is petrified.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    28. Re:No more imagination.. by Red+Weasel · · Score: 1

      Of the space bars in all the universe you had to walk into mine.

      That's a classic!

      --
      ..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
    29. Re:No more imagination.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually pretty cool how Passion of Christ has kicked some serious boxoffice butt.

      Best quote from Jay Leno about 'The Passion' - I hear they're going to make a book out of it.

    30. Re:No more imagination.. by wass · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm old fashioned, but I thought Citizen Kane was absolutely amazing. Even more so that despite being 50 years old, it's still every bit as relevent today as it was then.

      --

      make world, not war

    31. Re:No more imagination.. by aparrish · · Score: 1

      "David and Goliath" with Ashton Kutcher?

      See, now I've got this whole "That 70's Show" scene
      with Hyde and Kelso going through my head.

      "Goliath" Kelso runs off screaming "Ow! My eye!" at the end, right?

    32. Re:No more imagination.. by Mateito · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Samson with The Rock and J.Lo

      Except when you cut his hair he turns into Eric Banner.

    33. Re:No more imagination.. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      War of the Worlds was done right the first time (on radio).

      I'm still trying to track down what Orson Welles was referring to in his news interviews the next day about previous adaptions of the book, particularly his mention of "comic strips". Can anyone point me in the right direction for that?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    34. Re:No more imagination.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean un american

    35. Re:No more imagination.. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Seen that one. Classic.

      "Of all the space-bars in all the worlds, you had to rematerialise in mine."

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    36. Re:No more imagination.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally I was watching the Justice League cartoon last Saturday

      Coincidentally, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a comic book concieved as an 1880s version of the Justice Leauge, and its heros have battled WotW martian tripods (but with a bioterrorism twist)

    37. Re:No more imagination.. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Blade Runner?

      Starring Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Johnny Depp, respectively.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    38. Re:No more imagination.. by qoa · · Score: 1

      You do realize that if he remade it, every scene would be in front of a blue screen and have JarJar all over it?

      --
      Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
    39. Re:No more imagination.. by the_weasel · · Score: 1

      Pauly Shore stars as young Anakin Sywalker, with appearances by Whoopi Goldberg as a Jedi night, and Paul Hogan as Jenga Fett.

      Be very careful what you wish for.

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    40. Re:No more imagination.. by BTWR · · Score: 1

      it was done in the 20's... here

    41. Re:No more imagination.. by BTWR · · Score: 1
      true about the original LOTR (the cartoon Hobbit was good fun though)

      But remakes can be great too:

      The Italian Job

      Ocean's 11

      The Fly

      Red Dragon

      Cape Fear

      The Wizard of Oz (was a remake of an earlier version)

      The Thing

      The Maltese Falcon

      Even Hitchcock remade one of his own movies - not sure which one

    42. Re:No more imagination.. by alphakappa · · Score: 1

      Knowing Lukas, in 50 years we'll be taking the grandkids to see the super special enhanced version of the remake of the remake.

      In 50 years, Lucas will be 60+50=110 years old, and then we'll go to watch him as the oldest surviving person!

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    43. Re:No more imagination.. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Some of this is bound to happen. It seems the plethora of cinema megaplexes has really spurred a glut of films and not all of them can be gems. So take an old idea, put a *STAR* in it and strip out anything the audience has to remember for more than 20 seconds and slap it in a can.
      Piffle. You young'uns who haven't bothered to study history keep thinking the stunts that Hollywood moguls are pulling today are new.

      They aren't. Sequels, remakes, ripoff-a-book-and-rewrite-the-plot... These have not only already been done, these practices date back to nearly the dawn of the movie industry.

      The growth of cinema megaplexes is pretty much meaningless. In my small town, there are three times as many screens as in 1940. However, there is almost ten times the population. (I.E. the screens per capita has fallen greatly.) A review of the newspaper ads of the 1940 era show not one single duplication of a film, each screen was showing a different film. Todays ads show a much smaller number of films, with multiple screens per film for almost every film. (I.E. despite the tripling in size of the number of screens, the number of films available has actually fallen.) And a comparison with $MEGACITY nearby shows essentially the same picture.
    44. Re:No more imagination.. by bkhl · · Score: 1

      The Anniversial Extra Special Edition Now With More Ewoks, you mean...

    45. Re:No more imagination.. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Torque was actually not THAT bad.

      Studly male lead: I live my life a quarter mile at a time
      Hot female lead: That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life

      I'm not saying it was great, but the tongue in cheek moments made it worth watching.. not sure I would have payed 7 bucks, but it wasn't 2 hours of my life I want back.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  3. In other news.... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, engineers are working on wrapping Orson Welles body in copper wire as a means to harness the energy generated by him spinning in his grave.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:In other news.... by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      That's surely one of the funniest slashdot posts I've ever read. TY :D

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    2. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, Orson Welles sucks. His version sucked. He's an idiot. HG Wells wrote the damn thing, give him the credit.

    3. Re:In other news.... by quisph · · Score: 1
      In other news, engineers are working on wrapping Orson Welles body in copper wire as a means to harness the energy generated by him spinning in his grave.
      They found that it is more efficient to run a generator off of the gases released by his decomposition.
    4. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! You haven't got that quite right.

      Now then, we attach a *magnet* to the spinning dead person, and leave him encased in a coil of wire, thus generating electricity.

      *waits for the obligatory 'only on slashdot' reply to this post*

    5. Re:In other news.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      In other news, engineers are working on wrapping Orson Welles body in copper wire as a means to harness the energy generated by him spinning in his grave.
      Considering that *he* (Orson Welles) ripped off and re-wrote the story in the first place, he's got nothing to complain about.
  4. Here's an idea... by Yoda2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's post some juicy excerpts from the book as /. stories and see how may geeks panic and run for the hills.

    1. Re:Here's an idea... by irokitt · · Score: 1

      Hey, stop giving CmdrTaco ideas, you remember how bad last years April Fools was.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:Here's an idea... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember how bad CmdrTaco's April Fools was last year?

    3. Re:Here's an idea... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      Dupes are bad enough. Now you want to incite panic?

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    4. Re:Here's an idea... by flewp · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'd panic. I think they'd just say that if the world were running Linux we'd win.

      Either way, I say they just send up Jeff Goldblum in this remake with a MacOS virus up to the martian's mothership and we'll all be saved.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    5. Re:Here's an idea... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I envision an "All SCO, all of the time" format change this year...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    6. Re:Here's an idea... by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      Hasn't that happened already? Though, instead of martians the stories seem to recall them as "corporations"..

      --
      Store with salt
  5. I see bad things happening... by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There were people running around in the streets with guns last time this happened.

    This time the people are a little dumber, more dependant on tv, and the special effects are a lot better...

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:I see bad things happening... by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

      People are so fscking stupid that unless they saw "Independence Day"-style ships vaporizing city blocks, they wouldn't react to even a REAL invasion, and even then it'd be something like "Hey honey, did we upgrade to 3D cable or something...?"

    2. Re:I see bad things happening... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Except that they're also accustomed to seeing movies on TV.

      The worst that could happen would be the movie would have television scenes that look credible enough to be seen on CNN or FOX.

      Wait...now that I think about it, Geiko commercials have taken care of that possibility.

    3. Re:I see bad things happening... by darth_MALL · · Score: 1

      I think that paying $10 to get in to a theatre to watch this will negate any chance of fooling people. But you never know...there's always Kentucky and Manitoba.

    4. Re:I see bad things happening... by ion++ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not true. People can most certainly "see" the difference between fact and fiction. Just look at 911, people didnt think it was a movie, not even a bad movie, people knew it was real.

      Maybe because every TV and radio station arround the world transmitted those pictures, and told the audience about it.

      Sure, the phone system broke down, but the internet was still running, so people was able to get verification that it really did happen.

      The time when an invasion could happen without knowledge being spread are unlikely. However, the time when you could fake an inversion are also gone. There will not be another "war of the worlds" radioshow.

    5. Re:I see bad things happening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not true. People can most certainly "see" the difference between fact and fiction. Just look at 911, people didnt think it was a movie, not even a bad movie, people knew it was real.


      People can most certainly "see" the difference between serious comments and jokes. Or can they?

    6. Re:I see bad things happening... by The12thRonin · · Score: 1

      Actually when CBS aired "Without Warning" in 1994, it was done in the style of a faked news story, they were constantly running crawlers saying "THIS IS NOT REAL" and every commercial break ended with a screen saying the same.

      After the show was over and they had the blurb for the 10 o'clock news, the local CBS affiliate in Houston reiterated this because their switchboards were flooded with calls wanting to know what was going on.

      It's not the message but the medium...
    7. Re:I see bad things happening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it will happen much like in David Gerrold's "Chtorr" series. What happens if an alien biological system invades the earth, subtly, to "terraform" the earth to its biosphere?

      It could be that by the time we notice and believe the macroscopic presence (Chtorr "worms"), it would be too late to do anything about it, because it will be ingrained at such a microsocopic level.
      The only way to remove it would be to sterilize the planet.

  6. Mars Madness by darth_MALL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like Speilberg is riding the Mars wave. This could be really cool if they stick to the old martian invader thing. I always enjoy some intentional campiness.

  7. There are many by Brahmastra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mars Attacks, 500 other crappy sci-fi movies, etc can all pass off for remakes of war of the worlds. Just because something was cool in 1938 doesn't mean remaking it is a good idea. It'll just be another weird movie with weird looking aliens shooting at everything with weird looking weapons.

    1. Re:There are many by xs650 · · Score: 1

      That is the objective.

  8. Could not wee get someone taller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I have noticed that in most Tom Cruise films the camera angles are such that you never get to see how short he really is.

    1. Re:Could not wee get someone taller by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Tom Cruise will be tall compared to the martians.

  9. Is this IMDB Link to the same movie? by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is this the same movie?: IMDB link. Or did Steven buy these guys out?

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    1. Re:Is this IMDB Link to the same movie? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      War of the Worlds is in the public domain.

      See, there is a bad side to all good things ;-)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    2. Re:Is this IMDB Link to the same movie? by Comte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hines is a Tacoma-based low-budget film director who has been talking this up for several years, but never had anything remotely resembling a real "deal" with either the Wells estate, Universal, Paramount, Dreamworks, or anyone else for that matter. At one point in time he was bragging that he was "negotiating" with Michael Caine, Charlize Theron & Mathew McConaughey to be in his version, but according to sources inside the industry, all he'd ever done was make some phone calls to their agents asking if they'd be interested in reading a script. I'd be surprised if they bothered to return his calls. One indication of the type of film this was going to be -- despite touting a purported "$42 mm budget", the only casting that was ever confirmed was a cameo appearance by Harry Knowles! In addition, he was sued a couple of years ago by Jon Sorensen, a UK-based miniature effects designer who did some pre-production work, but then was never paid. Never heard how that turned out, but you can see some of Mr. Hine's "work" here. Also, here's a copy of his self-promoting PR trying to ride the coattails of the initial Tom Cruise package announcement. Whatever else you say about him, you have to admit, the kid's got moxie!

      --
      "Courage is the price that life exact for granting peace. The soul that knows it not knows no escape from little thin
  10. pfffft ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for a remake of the Tripods

    1. Re:pfffft ... by grub · · Score: 1


      Woo, if you mean that British miniseries you can download it off of eDonkey (or so I hear.. ;)) It was a classic.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:pfffft ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for the Beeb to finish the final part of the original series!

  11. Script writer by demachina · · Score: 1

    ANY script writer would be an improvement on the script writer for Jurassic Park. It was a great story concept and the special effects made it a block buster but the dialog was, for the most part, dopey.

    --
    @de_machina
    1. Re:Script writer by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny
      "...but the dialog was, for the most part, dopey."

      What are you talking about, "this is UNIX, I know this" was one of the best comedic lines ever written. I laughed so hard I was thrown out of the theater.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Script writer by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i don't see whats so funny about that line? i've thought it (and been wrong) many times, sitting down at SGI boxen ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  12. Would it not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    be interesting if they did 'reality' war of the worlds as they did in the 1930's on the radio. Some people actually fell for it, imagine what could be done using TV, interenet. Just to be on the safe side they could broadcast it on April fools day.

    I would love to see Bush saying "those evil do'ers have invaded our homeland..."
    And the UN security council going into a emergency meeting. Then only to have any action vetoed, because Halburton would like to do a business deal for new fossil energies with the aliens.

    1. Re:Would it not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more likely the enviro-cunts would cry about making the aliens extinct, the French and Spanish would pre-emptively surrender, and the liberal faggots would say we brought the alien attack on ourselves by sending probes to mars without respecting their native culture.

    2. Re:Would it not by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Then only to have any action vetoed, because Halburton would like to do a business deal for new fossil energies with the aliens.

      I think you mean Total Elf Fina.

  13. parser overflow by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    "While HG Wells was an enthusiastic supporter of many of the film adaptations of his work, the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had to another director taking one of the works with which he became most closely associated, can only be a matter of conjecture."

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  14. Another memory in the toilet. by iansmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is is that almost every remake of a movie has the producers and directors trying to convince people that one, they are not COPYING, they are doing a remake.. it's an honor! Then they end up going on about how they are re-inventing the movie.

    Umm... isn't anyone capable of re-inventing these days without the re?

    I hope this one turns out good, instead of yet another huge box office smash due to the name, and not the empty content.

    1. Re:Another memory in the toilet. by Savatte · · Score: 1

      Umm... isn't anyone capable of re-inventing these days without the re?

      Yes, David Mamet is capable and does invent, in cinematic terms. He creates labrynthe, tight plots that actually have to be thought through in advance, and eschews lame twists that screenwriting hacks tack on in favor of credible turns.

      He also has his own unique style of dialogue, and has trainmed many of today's popular actors, including William H. Macy and Joe Mategna.

      Oh yeah, Spartan is good, but go rent House Of Game and The Spanish Prisoner. Those are awesome

    2. Re:Another memory in the toilet. by WorldRimWalker · · Score: 1

      Novel things do come out occassionally, like Memento, for example. But no one wants a steady diet of that sort of movie.

    3. Re:Another memory in the toilet. by iansmith · · Score: 1

      I'm not so much agast at the lack of unique movies like Memento, but at the lack of movies that don't rely on previous movies to get people to see it.

      Take a random title "Gilligans Island" throw in a few big stars, spend $100 million on special effects.. and maybe 10 minutes on a crappy script and you get instant blockbuster. And a horrible movie.

      Then make second one, and repeat until people stop going. Then find a new title...

  15. Wasn't this done already? by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought "Independence Day" was a remake of "War of the Worlds".

    1. Re:Wasn't this done already? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      So the new War of the Worlds is a remake of Independence Day, which wasa remake of War of the Worlds. A *Meta-Remake* if you will.New Holyywood buzzword, give it 6 months...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:Wasn't this done already? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I thought "Independence Day" was a remake of "War of the Worlds".

      Understand that there is a difference between remake and ripoff. At least with a remake, credit is given to the originator.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Wasn't this done already? by ObjetDart · · Score: 1

      As did I. The two movies are remarkably similar, from the failure of a U.S. nuclear bomb to penetrate the alien shields, right down to the "virus" that defeats the aliens in the end.

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    4. Re:Wasn't this done already? by milatchi · · Score: 1

      I thought Independance Day was horseshit!

      --
      Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
    5. Re:Wasn't this done already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know if you could call independance day a rip off of war of the worlds, because it ripped off just about every popular scifi movie out there.

      i suppose you could even say that the rip offs were references to these movies made obvious enough that a sci fi buff could see them and get a chuckle.

      or maybe it was just a rip off of wotw and you guys are the only ones sharp enough to catch it.

    6. Re:Wasn't this done already? by gblues · · Score: 1

      Except--get this--they kill the aliens with a COMPUTER virus, instead of a biological one! F'in brilliant!!

      Nathan

    7. Re:Wasn't this done already? by NUBlackshirts · · Score: 1

      "Horseshit" is far too good a rating for that movie.

    8. Re:Wasn't this done already? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      No, that was "Mars Attacks".

  16. I'm sure.. by hookedup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will be a pretty big hit with todays audience. It's just too bad (or maybe a good thing) that it wont have the same effect as it did when it was originally aired over the radio.

    1. Re:I'm sure.. by marvin2k · · Score: 1

      Maybe it will be so bad that the audience will run screaming for the exits.

  17. Good idea, but bad choice of people. by zoobaby · · Score: 1

    WoW is a great book that had one crappy movie made out of it already. Spielberg will try to make it too feel good and ruin the tale for many people. Tom Cruise can't act, when you see I on the screen I think, look there is T.Cruise trying to be ________. Bottom line, they will still get my money since I generally waste it on all sci-fi movies.

  18. Where will it be set? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It appears this is going to be set in 1898, which is about the right time, but will the Aliens land in Woking in Surrey? If so, where will they film it? Woking today doesn't look a lot like it did 100 years ago. (Although there's a nice statue of an alien war machine in near the shopping centre).

    The other question is will it follow the plot of the book reasonably closely, or will it diverge after a few pages, like Minority Report did?

    1. Re:Where will it be set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they do land on Horsell Common... which Id guess looks pretty much the same as it did then. Or in fact simular to quite a lot of COmmons :) From what I recall from the novel the town of Woking didnt make that much of an appearance... I recall some people got friend by the Martians.

      I used to commute from Waterloo to Woking and reread War of the Worlds on the trip. Going (roughly) along the path the Martians would have taken to get to London... if only theyd been reliant on South West trains... humanity would have been spared much grief. Not much of a novel tho.

      Martian 1 : What does the ticket guy say ?
      Martian 2 : Apparently theres been a signal failure in Wimbleton.
      Martian 1 : What again ?
      Martian 2 : Yep. Also apparenly theres a points failure in Clapham Junction and Vauxhalls been closed due to a secuirty alert.... and I told you we shouldnt have invaded in Autumn. All these leaves on the track !

    2. Re:Where will it be set? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      They'll shoot it in some Eastern-European country where they can get extras cheap, and tons of tax breaks for production.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Where will it be set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone that used to commute on that route, you made me laugh, thanks.

    4. Re:Where will it be set? by torpor · · Score: 1

      oh man, the woking war machine is awesome ...

      i totally want to steal it. how cool would that be! its just -gone- one day, and nobody knows where it is ... except me, and the parties i would throw in its honor, every friday night, in my underground bunker ...

      damn, i want one.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    5. Re:Where will it be set? by carn1fex · · Score: 1

      1898? Slimey invaders? alien war machine? Is this a statue of a big empty bottle? I dont read alot.. is this about the irish potato famine?

      --

      ---------

      No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

    6. Re:Where will it be set? by TheWayOfSteve · · Score: 1

      i totally want to steal it. how cool would that be!

      Would be very cool yes. But it would require spending time in Woking. Something that shouldnt be inflicted on people.... joking aside, Woking is full of HG Wells references... builds named after him. There is a hall called the HG Wells memoriable pub.

    7. Re:Where will it be set? by torpor · · Score: 1


      dude, coming from where i am right now, spending time in a place called woking in order to steal a martian war machine would be a -grand- weekend.

      i'd probably have a wicked after-bite afterwards though, from walking awound saying 'thats woking' at everything cool i thought i liked ... in the process of stealing the martian war machine, that is ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    8. Re:Where will it be set? by TheWayOfSteve · · Score: 1

      OK then... what you up to weekend after next(cant make it this weekend as Im off to Southhampton)... Im up for some pints in the weatherspoons then(Mine a pint of Tea). and then we steal the martin :)

    9. Re:Where will it be set? by torpor · · Score: 1

      Ssssshhhh!!!! ;)

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  19. Too Bad Someone Doesn't Make Moore's LOEG V2 by ZipR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Alan Moore's take on The War of the Worlds (in the League of Extraordinary Gentleman comic volume 2) was sooo cool-- in many ways much more interesting than the original novel.
    Of course, the first League movie was pretty crappy, so the prospects are prolly unlikely...

  20. They should remake BAD films.. by ScottGant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Though the original movie based on WotW scared the crap out of me as a kid, I think they could have done better.

    If Spielberg can follow the BOOK. Like make it a period piece set back in the late 1800 early 1900s would be nice. Otherwise we'll just have another "Fourth of July" on our hands.

    Go with the book I say. Adapt a screenplay based on that. NOT set in 2004, NOT based on the radio play, NOT based on the George Pal movie.

    Spielberg is good, he's made crap in the past, but not everyone can be a Kubrick. His good movies far outweigh his Hooks and Jurrasic Park 2's.

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    1. Re:They should remake BAD films.. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Though the original movie based on WotW scared the crap out of me as a kid, I think they could have done better.

      How? Okay, with better acting - but the FX were top-notch for the time (it did win the Oscar for FX).

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  21. Not Tom. by big_groo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please. Anyone but Tom. Seriously.

    1. Re:Not Tom. by pavon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, I recomend Rob Schneider.

    2. Re:Not Tom. by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Careful what you wish for...

      They could trade Tom for Leo diCaprio or worse ;-)

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    3. Re:Not Tom. by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Keanu Reeves!

      Whoa.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:Not Tom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You asked for it:

      War of the Worlds, starring Carrot Top.

    5. Re:Not Tom. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1

      What... with Hugo Weaving as an Alien in sunglasses?

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    6. Re:Not Tom. by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Heh... cue South Park announcer:

      "Once he was just a mild mannered space traveler...
      But now he's crashlanded and can't get home...
      Rob Schneider is..... THE MARTIAN!"

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    7. Re:Not Tom. by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 1

      At least it's not Richard Gere and Julia Roberts.

    8. Re:Not Tom. by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      Keanu Reeves!

      Masochist.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    9. Re:Not Tom. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      Agreed. They shouldn't cast Scientologists in lead roles period... it just ruins the movie.

      Come on, this is this the type of people we want acting in movies? Sounds like he should be in a mental hospital.

      How can you even begin to take a movie seriously if someone like that is in it?

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    10. Re:Not Tom. by pknoll · · Score: 1
      Here are some movies in which Tom Cruise did a pretty good job of acting. Seriously.

      In no particular order - TAPS, The Color of Money, Rain Man, Jerry McGuire, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut.

      I'd have to admit that he's not one of my favorite actors to watch, but that's not because he's a bad actor. He's had some bad roles. That's not uncommon, for any actor.

  22. Musical War of the Worlds by robslimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm all in favor of a new movie remake; not so sure Tom Cruise should be in it. Oh, well.

    You might think it odd, until you hear it, but I really enjoy listening to Jeff Wayne's Musical War of the Worlds

    Richard Burton did the first person narration and members of the Moody Blues performed a lot of the music. Very good.

    1. Re:Musical War of the Worlds by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

      I have that CD, too. IT's awesome.

      They made a rather mediocre real-time startegy game of it, too, but it flopped. It had some interesting remixes of Jeff Wayne's music in it, though, and a pretty, if clumsy, interface. But it was mind-bogglingly dull to play, and obviously had some play balancing issues. (Aha, now the army of WWI vintage tanks I have been building for the past fifty turns will advance on the martians and...oh, drat.)

      I used to have the LP, which had one of those nice, album-sized books you could page through with lots of cool artwork. All of this is gone now, replaced by plastic jewel cases and tiny booklets filled with microscopic type.

      For a complete list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the human condition, please press one...

    2. Re:Musical War of the Worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A clever remake would incorporate the voice and soundtrack of Jeff Wayne's version into the movie, with the movie set exactly as described in the book (which I just started to read last week as a matter of fact, after reading the excellente "The First Men on the Moon").

      I can't help but hear Richard Burton's voice when I read the narrative in WOTW; think of his original voice over modern computer generated graphics set in the 19th century. "No-one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space ...", of the war machines stalking through the rolling countryside and the cannons hidden on the river around Weybridge destroying one of them.

      It has the potential to be a fantastic movie, but alas I suspect that like the 1953 version, the classic story & setting will be shunned for a more modern version.

      I think James Cameron or Peter Jackson would've been much better directors for this story.

    3. Re:Musical War of the Worlds by ross.w · · Score: 1

      I have this as an LP still. Maybe it's time to go and find that new needle for my turntable.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  23. starring: by maxbang · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will Smith as one of the aliens, Gwyneth Paltrow as a microbe, and Sam Rockwell as the president. I, for one, welcome our Hollywood rape-daptorlords.

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
    1. Re:starring: by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Paul Turturro, who got fired from reviewing movies on CNN, even though he was hilarious and spoke the truth - once said that he always knew how a Gwyneth Paltrow shot would be blocked, because if she turned sideways, she would vanish.

    2. Re:starring: by ed__ · · Score: 1

      do you mean paul tatara?

      i loved his reviews too.

      here's a story on him.

  24. Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True, they will hack this story to pieces...

    HOWEVER

    If you look at the bright side, if someone enjoys the movie, they'll be more encouraged to read the book. I read Heinlein's Starship Troopers after I saw the movie and thought "Wow, they hacked the crap outta something that really doesn't translate well to the movie media at all." (And I also am reading the Bourne Identity cause I enjoyed the movie a ton. And the book is VERY different than the movie, and much better, might I add). So, if it is bearable to watch, more people are more likely to read the book to discover everything that the book includes, but the movie doesn't.

    There's a bright side, after all ;-)

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you - when I heard they were making Harry Potter movies my first reaction was "great, teaching another generation they can just go see the movie instead of reading a book."

      But that hasn't happened at all, more people than ever are reading those books (for good or ill). Likewise, I'm extremely happy that they made LOTR because it gave me a chance to read the books AGAIN, since it'd been so long, and while I always loved the books, I got a whole lot more out of them (maybe I was too young the first time).

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by prala · · Score: 0

      You're both absolutly right - and to point to other recent remakes (particularly the Dick books), based on the quantity of assorted P.K. Dick stories, etc, flowing through my local library, Minority Report led people to his work as well.

      --
      i'm on the wtf train...scratch that, i'm DRIVING the wtf train
    3. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by stateofmind · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm afraid the same with happen to Enders Game once it reaches the screen. But like you said, hopefully some will go read the excellent book.

      I don't know how many know this, but Ender's Game is on the Marine Commandant's List of Recommended Reading. After reading it, I see why. :)

      Josh

    4. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      And your death will feed many worms. That doesn't make the tragedy of you death any less painful.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    5. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      At the rate Rowling is churning out the books they'll have caught up with her. Then what? Harry Potter 5.5 the Gap Filler?

      I wouldn't be inspired to read the books after seeing the films, but I read about 30 books a year and see maybe a third that many movies. (next on my calendar is Kill Bill vol 2) Harry Potter is a pretty good yarn, a bit smarmy in parts, but good nonetheless. It was a major seller around the world before the first film debuted. Also, Harry Potter 5th book made more money in sales the same weekend The Hulk appeared in theaters. When was the last time a book outstripped a big film release?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Seeing a favorite book made into a bad movie isn't like having the glass half empty. It's like having the glass filled with some foul-smelling fluid that you have to drink, and people make fun of you if you can't do it without gagging.

    7. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Depends on your opinion of the poster, I guess.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    8. Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! by mpe · · Score: 1

      I agree with you - when I heard they were making Harry Potter movies my first reaction was "great, teaching another generation they can just go see the movie instead of reading a book."

      Apparently a reviewer actually complained that the films follow the books "too closely" :)

  25. Calm down by Omega1045 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "There have been several film and television versions of the novel"

    Tom Cruise is more than a bit strange, but I have to admit he was really good in "The Last Samurai". However, I do have complete faith in "The Man" Steven Spielberg. I am sure he will do justice to the tale. But I am sure the tinfoil hat and Original Battlestar Galactica types will deride the film on ./ then turn around and throw down the $7 to see it.

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Calm down by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      throw down the $7 to see it.

      Where do you live? $9.50 last I checked.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:Calm down by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      "There have been several film and television versions of the novel"

      The television series got some interesting reviews here and here

      Although I don't think I'd want to collect every single orginal paper novel.

    3. Re:Calm down by Omega1045 · · Score: 1

      Austin, and I guess it was $7.75 after checking the web site.

      --

      Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

  26. I hope they do better than DUNE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean after all that crap with the 'weirding modules' you would hope Speilberg had learned his lesson, but as 'Finding Nemo' demonstrates, nobody ever got poor by underestimating the stupidity of the great American public!

  27. Mars Fever! by Marco_polo · · Score: 2, Funny

    What a blatant attempt to capitalize on the Mars fever in america. I bet the martians heard Bush was coming soon, and decided to be pre-emptive.

    they hid their MWMD :)

    --
    I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
    1. Re:Mars Fever! by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I can't tell ... is the MWMD Tom Cruise, or is it just the classic Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator?

  28. Spielberg + Cruise + Old Movie = Disaster by eston · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am not much of a movie fanatic, but even I know this movie is going to be absolute crap. Why though did I originally think (when I read through it) that it was a Pixar film? Maybe because it sounds like they're going to soften up the idea to where it's 'appropriate for family viewing'? I will admit, however, that it would be cool if they actually filmed the whole movie as a news broadcast, starting some pandemonium.

  29. Speaking of Wells by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd love for someone to do an accurate film of the Time Machine. After reading the original book again, I see that there is a far more importnt message in the story than just a machine to travel in time. It appears that Wells was trying to warn of the excesses of technology and the eventual class separation that could result. It appears that his message has gone unheeded for far too long. The middle class is disappearing...

    1. Re:Speaking of Wells by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The middle class is disappearing..."

      No it isn't. The actual classification of "middle class" are the professions like doctors and lawyers, and that can also be extended to business professionals. Most people today consider this group as "the rich", but "the rich" are those well above these people, the top 10% of who owns the wealth of the country. In Marx's time, these would be the royals of a particular nation or the industrialists who became the "captains of industry." And if you look at the number of doctors and law students graduating on an annual basis, you'll see that "the middle class" continues to expand, at least here in the US.

      What you are referring to is the "working class." The working class in America circa the 1950s or so somehow started believing they were the middle class and that became a popular association in the mass media. However, that wasn't true based upon the classical definitions. The working class thought you could simply get a job in the town's factory and raise a family straight out of high school with one income (the husband's) and that was the norm. Now they are angry because ever since the late 1970s, they've been continuously underpriced by manufacturing labor in the third world. They did not understand that the 1950s lifestyle was not the norm nor would it endure. All they had to do was look back to the 19th century where entire families worked "to the bone" to make ends meet to realize they were living in a bubble of sorts. Of course, the same thing could be said about the late "roaring 90s" in IT...

      So now, we have perversions to these class definitions. You have "lower middle class" and "middle middle class," all caused by not adhering to the strict definitions of class structure.

      So here it is:

      The Rich - the "Top 10%" of the owners of wealth. Some would even restrict that to the Top 1-4%.

      The Middle Class - Professionals

      The Working Class - (aka "the working poor") All the other working schmoes.

      Proletariat - the poor. the homeless. the illegal aliens (excuse me, "undocumented workers"). the disenfranchised.

      Okay, off my non-Queer Eye for the Straight Guy soapbox of Irish Spring.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    2. Re:Speaking of Wells by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      One of the most insightful posts I've seen on Slashdot ever.

      Thank you.

    3. Re:Speaking of Wells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The professional class is being merged into the working class (offshoring and so forth) - hence the size of the middle class is shrinking.

      I guess that the new conservative way of dealing with the destruction of the middle class is shown in your response, which is to claim that there never was any middle class to begin with.

    4. Re:Speaking of Wells by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      The Working Class - (aka "the working poor") All the other working schmoes.

      Proletariat - the poor. the homeless. the illegal aliens (excuse me, "undocumented workers"). the disenfranchised.

      Good post, but aren't the proletariat and the working class more or less the same thing (modulo class consciousness, perhaps)? I think you mean lumpenproletariat.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  30. "P.K. Dick is out! Lets move on to HG Wells!" by prala · · Score: 0

    I'm tired of Cruise in the "Sci Fi Author of the Week" movies (Dick, now Wells...seems like he's sad he missed out on the LOTR train), and am LESS likely (lets face it - totally unlikely to go) due to his involvement more than Speilberg. But the combo, like you said in Minotiry Report, is sort of scarey.

    --
    i'm on the wtf train...scratch that, i'm DRIVING the wtf train
  31. Blatant pandering? by Marco_polo · · Score: 1

    With all the Mars rover-fueled martian fever in America, I wonder if this is just a cheap way to cash in?

    God I hope it's better than Red Planet.

    --
    I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
  32. GOOD by bitrott · · Score: 1

    I know it's convention to believe that Hollywood buggers everything good, but WOTW could be remade. It's a decent story that has only been told well enough in 2 other mediums - radio and books. Just because its been done before doesn't mean a thing can't be done better again. Granted it'd be against the norm, but there are plenty of good solid films out there that have borrowed themes from other classics of film and literature.

    1. Re:GOOD by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. That's why i posted this article. I'd love to see WotW redone; just not with T.Cruise and that guy who wrote that dreck for J.Park. Speilberg is a toss-up. I just hope it's *not* a contemporary setting. If that's how he does it i don't know that i'll even see it (like i didn't bother with Independence Day, Starship Troopers, or that nonsense with Bruce Willis on the shuttle). I love sci-fi too much to bother.

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  33. Orson or H.G? by __aamkky7574 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm confused about exactly what they are making a film of:

    • a film of the original novel, or
    • a film of the radio series of the original novel
    I'd love to see an authentically Victorian-decoed version of the original novel in the original setting, but not a remake of one set in the US. No disrepect to the US geeks here, but the Aliens-Invade-Uncle-Sam storyline has been done way too many times by now.

    I'd rather to see stiff-upper-lipped men in scarlet jerkins taking on the Hun From Space! "Zulu" meets "The League of Extraordinary Gentlement" (albeit with a better script).

    "Martians... thousands of 'em. Wait 'til you see the greens of their tentacles, boys, before you strike!"

    P.

    1. Re:Orson or H.G? by The+I+Shing · · Score: 1

      I heartily concur, old chap!

      "Octopuses," said he, "that's what I calls 'em. Talk about fishers of men--fighters of fish it is this time!"

      "It ain't no murder killing beasts like that," said the first speaker.

      "Why not shell the darned things strite off and finish 'em?" said the little dark man. "You carn tell what they might do."

      "Where's your shells?" said the first speaker. "There ain't no time. Do it in a rush, that's my tip, and do it at once."

      --
      You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    2. Re:Orson or H.G? by praksys · · Score: 1

      I think the original (the book) was intended to be "Zulu" as seen from the perspective of the Zulus.

    3. Re:Orson or H.G? by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I'm glad somebody else thinks so too ... surely one period War of the Worlds is not too much to ask. Though I don't know how Spielberg would go with that ... clearly when he thinks "history", he thinks "1933-1945".

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  34. Let's hope they improve the writing... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Let's hope they don't screw up how computers are portrayed like they did in Jurassic Park. I for one shudder at the thought of some pre-teen girl saving the planet by sitting at a computer with a pretend real-life operating system.

    Que-Spielbergian happy ending music.

    I want War of the Worlds to be DARK... and foreboding.. not an frosting coated commercialism based action film

    1. Re:Let's hope they improve the writing... by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      it was not a "pretend real-life operating system"!
      This is Unix! _I_ know this ;-)

    2. Re:Let's hope they improve the writing... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was IRIX.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Let's hope they improve the writing... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      As I recall, she was using an actual 3D shell for a commercial variant of Unix (though I forget which one). I do, however, agree with the rest of your post :)

    4. Re:Let's hope they improve the writing... by One+Louder · · Score: 1

      You do know, of course, that that 3D file navigation interface in Jurassic Park was *real* - it was an actual product from SGI for IRIX.

    5. Re:Let's hope they improve the writing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be much happier going to a movie just for the sheer enjoyment of watching something entertaining.

      Think of it as a date. Take your mom.

  35. Orson Welles *liked* Spielberg by sam_handelman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course, I'd like Spielberg too, if he worshipped me as a God.

    Orson Welles did the voiceover for the trailer for Jaws - which he thought was great (I can't find the quote. Anyone?)

    Spielberg often does really lousy movies - however - given his (avowed) great respect for the material, I think that he will, at least, make an effort to do a good movie. Certainly no studio exec can make him do anything he doesn't want to with this movie.

    Of course, I liked Minority Report (except for the stupid spiders,) so I'm inclined to give imitative movies by Spielberg+Cruise a chance.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Orson Welles *liked* Spielberg by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spielberg often does really lousy movies

      Yes, lousy movies like:

      Schindler's List
      The Color Purple
      Saving Private Ryan
      Close Encounters of the Third Kind
      E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial
      Indiana Jones Trilogy
      JAWS

      I could go on...

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  36. Welles Invasion from Mars by shawkin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Welles never directed a film of War of the Worlds.
    Welles directed and starred in the War of the Worlds radio adaption for CBS in October of 1938.
    He didn't make his first film, Citizen Kane for RKO, until 1941.
    The old War of the Worlds film was produced by George Pal and directed by Byron Haskin.

    1. Re:Welles Invasion from Mars by ph43thon · · Score: 1

      Thanks and dam you for pointing that out. Maybe I'll re-point it out and hope no one notices. p

    2. Re:Welles Invasion from Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also, in the first few years following the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast, Welles was not particularly fond of being famous (notorious) for it. The broadcast's fame was due to its status as an unprecedented mass media phenomenon, rather than a creative work, and people who knew Welles only because of it assumed that he was some sort of prankster or troublemaker (or, in the Slashdot parlance, a "troll".)

    3. Re:Welles Invasion from Mars by kimota · · Score: 1

      More Welles information to make you feel bad about yourself:

      He directed the radio WotW at the age of 23, and he made Citizen Kane at 26!

      Damn.

      --Kimota!

      --
      Who moderates the meta-moderators?
  37. Been There Done That by sisco · · Score: 2

    Try something new hollywood! The original WOTW only worked because of the shock and surprise factor. You cannot remake that, at least not by announcing that you are going to remake it! Also, the original broadcast stated that it was a reading and fictional, but then went straight into 20 minutes of playing music. People who did not tune in at the beginning did not hear the message and consequently when the music was interrupted for a "special bulletin" it seemed very real. In order to do a modern remake, they would have to have a fake movie that played for about 20 minutes before they interrupted it and pretended to put on a news program. Even then it would be hard to believe, and the surprise would be spoiled on opening night.

    --
    DATA comments; PROC SORT DATA = comments BY score; PROC DELETE comments >> 1; RUN; DATA entertainment SET commen
    1. Re:Been There Done That by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are making a film based on the 19th century novel. What does this have to do with the radio broadcast of the story in the 1930s? Absolutely nothing. The original original WOTW worked because it was an excellent book.

  38. Yeah, the old "how about something new" rant by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have a fairly complete collection of the Asimov/Greenburg edited books where they picked the best stories from a particular year. The first one is for 1939, and they go all the way through, oh, some year or other. There's a lot of them.

    Many are short stories but many are also the novellas which translate best to movies. So many of them would make really smashing films, and would keep the sci-fi portion of the movie industry humming for decades, and that's just one collection.

    Ah, what's the use...

    Someone really needs to do Zelazny's "Creatures Of Light And Darkness".

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  39. Please set it in the late 19th Century by The+I+Shing · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it would be a cool movie to make if it were set in the late 19th Century, like the original story itself.

    It's not that stories of the past can't be brought into the present day to good effect, the way some theatre companies and filmmakers opt to do up-to-date versions of Shakespeare's works, but once in a while I'd really like to see a work of hundred-year-old science fiction done as if it were taking place in the author's time rather than our own.

    This upcoming "Sky Captain" movie is, I'm hoping, going to be along the lines of what I'm talking about. But I think Sky Captain isn't based on an actual book from the late 1930s, which is, as Stuart Smalley would say, "okay."

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Please set it in the late 19th Century by Svet-Am · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. A story like this is bound to fail if they attempt to modernize it.

      The entire impetus behind why people were so scared is intrinisicly linked to it being set in that time period.

      --
      [move .sig! for great justice, take off every .sig!]
  40. +1 Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought so too

  41. slime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    a made-for-tv hack director with a scientologist in the lead role. yuk

  42. Already been done... by artemis67 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It was called "Independence Day".

  43. Deep Impact != War of the Worlds by adamgreenfield · · Score: 1

    Spielberg became interested in making a version of the story during the 1990s, but instead of becoming a straight adaptation that project evolved into the film Deep Impact.

    If Deep Impact in any way reflects King's interpretation of this story, I have a sinking feeling that this adapation may leave a lot to be desired. I was not really thrilled with that flick, and even being an avid fan of this book didn't make the connection between the two at the time.

    The best part of Deep Impact in my opinion was that Morgan Freeman played the President... however he made a better god.

    --
    -Adam C. Greenfield
  44. Let's look at some facts... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speilberg took Kubrick's notes and unfinished script and finished AI and filmed it. And it was very much in the vein of a Kubrick film, it was to be the flipside of 2001 and Kubrick's final statement on AI. Speilberg should have ended the film underwater at the Blue Fairy, what he filmed after that felt tacked on. But Speilberg was the only director with the clout and the guts to pull that off.

    Minority Report, for all of Cruise's non-acting (he always looks like he is going to puke whenever he is supposed to emote), the story was very good. Although, I would have preferred the darker ending, which is that the child molester was real, and Cruise does choose to kill him.

    WoW is about xenophobia, and I think Speilberg will understand that. How he chooses to the do the science and the FX will be interesting, I think you want to stay far away from any sense of campiness, and make it truly scary. Have the Martians knock down a skyscraper, like the Sears Tower or the Transamerica building. I think the audience will "get it". We'll see.

    Point is, I think Speilberg has a good record with Sci-Fci.

    By the way, one of the penultimate films regarding xenophobia and consumer culture was Romero's Dawn of the Dead. It was a horror movie that had a LOT of social commentary. My guess is the remake coming out this weekend is stripped of all of it, and just concentrates on quick cut scream-inducing "pounce" shots and gory makeup. I digress.

    1. Re:Let's look at some facts... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Have the Martians knock down a skyscraper, like the Sears Tower or the Transamerica building.

      Unfortunately, I think they'd probably shy away from knocking down any skyscrapers. The tie-in with the current terrorist thing, and the current round of elections would be too much.

      "yes...we defeated those evil 'aliens' that knocked down our skyscraper!"

    2. Re:Let's look at some facts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'WoW is about xenophobia, and I think Speilberg will understand that. '

      Actually, its about the justification of xenophobia. At least, from the movie's perspective. The book is much deeper.

      At the beginning of the original film, there are three men who approach the crashed 'meteor' with a white flag upraised after it starts moving and looks around. You have a pretty good idea what happens to them.

      Later on, the father of the heroine of the story, a priest, attempts to approach the UFOs while reciting prayers. What happens afterwards is a defining moment for the movie: the martians kill the priest, and the army opens fire.

      The movie paints the martians as beings who have all the mercy and virtue of an impish child studying ants through a magnifying glass before he turns it into a focusing lens for the sun's rays.

      Which is part of the problem, and one reason that this movie is a horror flick, rather then science-fiction. There is no negotiation, no pause, and no commentary on deeper issues. All that happens is that a nigh-unstoppable army terrorizes humanity until it keels over and dies.

      Fortunately... look at Jaws. Spielberg does good horror movies, and is at his core a good director when he isn't medicating himself with technology. Now, I hope someone has the common sense to beat his special effects guys into comas so he relies on actors more and 'shineys' less.

      What I can't figure out is, why THIS movie. I mean, they already redid War of the Worlds: its called 'Independence Day'. The two movies have a lot in common: the escape on the plane at the end of a disaster, the failure of raw nuclear weapons, a botched aerial raid, the slow systematic movement across the globe, the use of energy weapons and shields by the invaders, the hero is a scientist...

    3. Re:Let's look at some facts... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      By the way, one of the penultimate films regarding xenophobia and consumer culture was Romero's Dawn of the Dead.

      If "Dawn" was the second best which movie was actually the best?

      Sorry, "penultimate" brings out the vocabulary nazi in me.

    4. Re:Let's look at some facts... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Night of the Living Dead, of course. I linked to the word because Dawn was the 2nd film in the trilogy. It's use in that context is not 100% correct.

    5. Re:Let's look at some facts... by everythingeverything · · Score: 1

      good record with Sci-Fi? take E.T and Gremlins - two movies with cool ideas that could have been scary. and look what he came up with.

      --
      "One seeks a midwife for his thoughts, another someone to whom he can be a midwife: thus originates a good conversation.
  45. Better ending? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's a neat book, but the ending is kind of lame. The Martians, who landed their vehicles in Surrey (just west of London), almost succeed in taking over the world and have killed many people in London, but they are foiled by the common cold. Yes, they all catch the cold, for which they have no immunity or tolerance, and die.

    Spielberg will change a lot, probably. Like the ships, which were not flying vehicles per se but rather were launched like bullets from a big cannon on Mars, will probably be updated. But I hope he changes the ending or it will be Independence Day all over again. (Remember discovering that Macs are compatible with alien technology? And that alien computer systems are easy to code viruses for?)

    1. Re:Better ending? by genixia · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might want to check your geography. Surrey is actually south of London.

      Anyway, have you ever read a Michael Creighton book? Now you know where he got all of his endings.

    2. Re:Better ending? by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmmm, maybe the twist will be that HIV mutates to MIV and the invaders all die of AIDS.

      On the mac + alienos thing, remember this?


      Independence Day - CERT alert

      From: CERT Bulletin
      Newsgroups: comp.security.announce,rec.humor
      Subject: CERT Advisory CA-96.13 - Alien/OS Vulnerability
      Date: 4 July 1996 20:52:15 GMT
      Organization: CERT(sm) Coordination Center - +1 412-268-7090
      CERT(sm) Advisory CA-96.13
      July 4, 1996
      Topic: ID4 virus, Alien/OS Vulnerability

      The CERT Coordination Center has received reports of weaknesses in
      Alien/OS that can allow species with primitive information sciences
      technology to initiate denial-of-service attacks against MotherShip(tm)
      hosts. One report of exploitation of this bug has been received.
      When attempting takeover of planets inhabited by such races, a trojan
      horse attack is possible that permits local access to the MotherShip
      host, enabling the implantation of executable code with full root access
      to mission-critical security features of the operating system.
      The vulnerability exists in versions of EvilAliens' Alien/OS 34762.12.1
      or later, and all versions of Microsoft's Windows/95. CERT advises
      against initiating further planet takeover actions until patches
      are available from these vendors. If planet takeover is absolutely
      necessary, CERT advises that affected sites apply the workarounds as
      specified below.
      As we receive additional information relating to this advisory, we will
      place it in
      ftp://info.cert.org/pub/cert_advisories/CA-96.13.R EADME
      We encourage you to check our README files regularly for updates on
      advisories that relate to your site.

      I. Description
      Alien/OS contains a security vulnerability, which strangely enough
      can be exploited by a primitive race running Windows/95. Although
      Alien/OS has been extensively field tested over millions of years by
      EvilAliens, Inc., the bug was only recently discovered during a
      routine invasion of a backwater planet. EvilAliens notes that
      the operating system had never before been tested against a race
      with "such a kick-ass president."
      The vulnerability allows the insertion of executable code with
      root access to key security features of the operating system. In
      particular, such code can disable the NiftyGreenShield (tm)
      subsystem, allowing child processes to be terminated by unauthorized
      users.
      Additionally, Alien/OS networking protocols can provide a
      low-bandwidth covert timing channel to a determined attacker.
      II. Impact
      Non-privileged primitive users can cause the total destruction of
      your entire invasion fleet and gain unauthorized access to
      files.
      III. Solution
      EvilAliens has supplied a workaround and a patch, as follows:
      A. Workaround
      To prevent unauthorized insertion of executables, install a
      firewall to selectively vaporize incoming packets that do not
      contain valid aliens. Also, disable the "Java" option in
      Netscape.
      To eliminate the covert timing channel, remove untrusted
      hosts from routing tables. As tempting as it is, do not use
      target species' own satellites against them.
      B. Patch
      As root, install the "evil" package from the distribution tape.
      (Optionally) save a copy of the existing /usr/bin/sendmail and
      modify its permission to prevent misuse.

      The CERT Coordination Center thanks Jeff Goldblum and Fjkxdtssss for
      providing information for this advisory.

      If you believe that y

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    3. Re:Better ending? by Trikenstein · · Score: 1
      And that alien computer systems are easy to code viruses for?

      The aliens in ID were telepathic and more than likely hive mindish (that's what I got from it anyway).
      As such subterfuge and malicious code writing would be, well, ummm, alien to them.
      Thus they wouldn't protect against it.

    4. Re:Better ending? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about a cheesy 80's type of morality statement, kind of the type you'd see at the end of Inspector Gadget or something like that.

      Like the aliens are celebrating their success on the battlefield, steal some good Cuban cigars to smoke, and die because they cannot handle the smoke. Then Orson Welles comes on and says "Remember, kids, smoking is bad for you".

    5. Re:Better ending? by wass · · Score: 2, Funny
      Like the ships, which were not flying vehicles per se but rather were launched like bullets from a big cannon on Mars, will probably be updated.

      Yeah, in this remake the vehicles will be shot out from a giant Martian walkie-talkie instead of a cannon.

      --

      make world, not war

    6. Re:Better ending? by Mateito · · Score: 1

      Spoiler alert, please!

      I've waited 104 years for this movie, and you've just ruined it for me.

    7. Re:Better ending? by tiluki · · Score: 1

      I don't think you could get much of a better ending. Provided that any adaptation holds true to most people interpretation - that is, for all their technological superiority, the Martians are brought low by a humble virus. The best laid plans gang aft aglay...

      What would you prefer? A nice, big, sci-fi laden explosion (one of those ones with the shockwave front radiating out only along the equatorial axis)? Whoo - yeah!

    8. Re:Better ending? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      I was approximating. It's southwest of London: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/g enfiles/COU_files/ENG/SRY/EncBrit_sry_1899.htm Though in your defense, it's a bit more south than west.

    9. Re:Better ending? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1
      Yes, the end of the new movie should have exactly that kind of explosion, like the ones in Star Trek VI and the Star Wars Special Edition, but a slightly different color. Maybe green, or red because it's Mars.

      Also the main characters should be seen running toward the camera in slow motion, outpacing the explosion by some superhuman feat. That would be way better than the aliens catching a cold.

      Spielberg better give me writing credit if he does all that, though ...

    10. Re:Better ending? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know Independence Day was a retarded movie, but this comment *always* pisses me off. There is a distinct comment made by the scientists that they know "tonnes about" the ship and the aliens. If they had 50 years to understand the technology, then I think they could probably have deciphered the computer systems enough to make a Mac-compatible interface as well as viruses. Thanks. ~g

    11. Re:Better ending? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      But they didn't. The virus was created by Jeff Goldblum's character, who was not among the team that had been studying the ship. He knew as much about their technology as you or I would.

  46. Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You already hit on the fact that remaking a movie doesn't require too much imagination. I'm a bit dismayed at the actual movie they chose to remake. War of the Worlds is really a simplistic "bad guys vs. good guys" story. I mean the lines between good and evil are as clearly deliniated as they are in a typical Fox News story. It was probably pretty interesting decades ago but I'd like to think that our species is getting a bit wiser. What I'd really love to see is a war film where the lines between good and evil aren't really that clear.

    I fully admit that it would be quite a feat to accomplish this in a film about one species versus another. It's pretty hard to see the other guy's point of view when their goal is to annhiliate your entire race. But I think that it could be done. The Borg from Star Trek started to hint at this just a little. Picard as Locutus asks the Enterprise crew why they are resisting. After all, he claims, we're only trying to raise your quality of life by making you part of us. In a later episode, Hugh (the young borg male treated for injuries) also expresses confusion why everyone hates the borg so much. You get the feeling that the borg aren't purely evil, they've just got some pretty warped ideas on how people should live their lives. And, of course, they don't take the desires of other species into account. Of course, this small amount of moral ambiguity was completely erased by the film Star Trek: First Contact which reduced the borg to a hive of malevolent insects.

    I'd really like to see a film where the alien invaders are not pure evil. Maybe they feel morally justified in attacking us because we're "wasting the planet". Maybe they feel like their acting in self-defense. I realize that Enterprise is trying to do this with the Xindi but they're not doing a very good job of it, IMHO. Perhaps a War of the Worlds where the aliens are clearly taking pains to avoid civilian casulties. Perhaps they even tell humanity that they are willing to pay for relocation costs to settle us on another planet if we decide not to fight.

    I dunno, maybe I'm just ranting here. I'm just disappointed to see a remake of Black Hats vs. White Hats in the 21st century. Rarely is war a clear-cut matter of good vs. evil. And I'd love to see a Sci-Fi film that tries to do this in a clever way.

    GMD

    1. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      War of the Worlds is really a simplistic "bad guys vs. good guys" story. I mean the lines between good and evil are as clearly deliniated as they are in a typical Fox News story.
      There is a difference. War of the Worlds is a story where the bad guy is the highly technological civilization that invades the poorer, less developed land to steal all their natural resources. When Fox News runs the same story, the good guy is the highly technological civilization that invades the poorer, less developed land to steal all their natural resources.
    2. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      It was probably pretty interesting decades ago but I'd like to think that our species is getting a bit wiser.

      I don't know why.

      We were reflecting on the grayness of warfare millenia ago; the Cold War and the Nuerenberg trials, with their rather drastic black & white (er, Red & Green) morality were more of a temporary backslide than an indication of any genetic inability to appreciate complexity.

      Rarely is war a clear-cut matter of good vs. evil.

      Actually, most of the time it is. The difference is that the good/evil difference is not always split along national lines.

    3. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoyed the "Enemy Mine" movie. Probably a book too.

    4. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and he stole that joke from a review of LOTR:FOTR on the onion a few years back:

      http://www.theonionavclub.com/review.php?review_id =5084

    5. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by eexlebots · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's a "good versus evil" type of flick. To me, WOTW seemed to be a tale of how insignificant humanity is in the grand scheme of things. Humans don't even get to take the Martians out-it's those pesky germs!

      --
      ***
    6. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to see a film where the alien invaders are not pure evil. Maybe they feel morally justified in attacking us because we're "wasting the planet". Maybe they feel like their acting in self-defense.

      Already been done by The Day The Earth Stood Still. Maybe they should remake that...

    7. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by dasunt · · Score: 1

      What I'd really love to see is a war film where the lines between good and evil aren't really that clear.

      Although not really a war film, try 'Mother Night'. Vonnegut at his best.

    8. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parts of Aliens is like this: except for Ridley of course. Human greed and alien violence show the polar extreems of evil. Except for Ridley, everyone else seems to have some form of flaw. I suspect WoW will be another Tom Cruise is the shit movies, with everyone else dieng around him. But showing both species as evil can and has been done before.

    9. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      OK, but what about Kang and Kodos as antagonists?

    10. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a great one. Wish I still had my mod points for you.

    11. Re:Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons by jafac · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to see a film where the alien invaders are not pure evil. Maybe they feel morally justified in attacking us because we're "wasting the planet".

      Sort of like a "Day the Earth Stood Still"?
      Actually, with the recent trend of Video Game -> Movies, perhaps a "Halo" movie could work. It would be a case of Covanent religious persecution on humanity. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  47. Welles no do 'War of the Worlds' movie by ph43thon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Welles never did a 'War of the Worlds' movie.. he did the fun radio address that scared people. Here is the first movie done after the radio address.

    p

    1. Re:Welles no do 'War of the Worlds' movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recount to you the actual events that occured that night, my tinfoil hat is firmly attached:

      1. It was NOT a fun radio play! We actually were attacked by aliens!

      2. The government hushed it all up after they died from our germ-warefare counter attack.

      3. As proof of this, have you ever tasted a beet or an eggplant? Alien vegtables I tell you!!!

    2. Re:Welles no do 'War of the Worlds' movie by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      After seeing enough MST3K, I can't read the cast list of that movie without cracking up:

      Gene Barry .... Dr. Clayton Forrester

  48. Not as bad as it could be by Savatte · · Score: 1

    People are crying bloody murder, but just think, this movie could have easily been staffed with the likes of Steven Norrington, Brett Ratner, or Michael Bay directing, or Vin Diesel or Ja Rule as the star.

    1. Re:Not as bad as it could be by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Funny

      Michael Bay AND Vin Diesel! kewl! Could we get Nick Cage in there somehow?

  49. Bruce Sterling... by mmaddox · · Score: 1

    ..author of such rubbish as The Difference Engine? God, I should hope not. It'd be full of techie-angst-mystery and Slashdotters would either point to it as the acme of Western culture or as the most disappointing let-down of the past 500 years...including the Comet Kohoutek.

    Remember, screenwriters are more than just authors. And a bad author...ick. You'd get Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions all over again.

    --

    What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?

    1. Re:Bruce Sterling... by StefanJ · · Score: 1

      From what I have read, Sterling doesn't want anything to do with Hollywood, so don't fret too much.

      Don't judge Sterling just by The Difference Engine. Check out some of his short stories:

      "Our Neural Chernobyl" is a hilarious what-iffer about a gene-hacked virus that raises the intelligence of North America's mammals.

      "The Shores of Bohemia" at first looks like something set in an alternate history rennaisance city state . . . then perhaps a post-holocaust story. What's really going on is just frigging awesome.

      Stefan

  50. Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Troll
    If you look at the bright side, if someone enjoys the movie, they'll be more encouraged to read the book. I read Heinlein's Starship Troopers after I saw the movie and thought "Wow, they hacked the crap outta something that really doesn't translate well to the movie media at all." (And I also am reading the Bourne Identity cause I enjoyed the movie a ton. And the book is VERY different than the movie, and much better, might I add).

    Better idea: Skip the movie and simply read the books. When I've read books and seen movies I'm often disappointed, because someone went along with the philosophy "this book won't translate into a movie", usually wrongly. I think lots of books would make great movies, but Hollywood has a few things in mind, like Marketing and Merchandising. They don't believe a good story can be sold, but an bunch of vapid acting, CGI and action can make up for depth.

    Probably one of the most memorable movies of all time, Star Wars: A New Hope challenged that attitude, but Hollywood is a creature of habit and goes back to what it considers "Tried and True"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by FortKnox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, call me unimaginative, but I like to watch a movie THEN pick up the book. That way, instead of being disappointed in the movie, I'm surprised and delighted with the book. Plus it helps me put faces to names when I read the book (hence, the unimaginative part of me).

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    2. Re:Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't help with Starship Troopers, the book's not that great either.

    3. Re:Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      They don't believe a good story can be sold, but an bunch of vapid acting, CGI and action can make up for depth.

      Probably one of the most memorable movies of all time, Star Wars: A New Hope challenged that attitude, but Hollywood is a creature of habit and goes back to what it considers "Tried and True"


      Something bugs me about the pairing of these sentences. Oh, wait, I figured it out, Star Wars IV contained "vapid acting, [large amounts of special effects], and action", which was only made up for with depth that was only really acheived by what existed outside the movie itself. The movie started the biggest CGI/effects studio in Hollywood, and lead to the creation of Star Wars I & II.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by Mateito · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Well, call me unimaginative

      Unimaginative!

      (Like this post)

    5. Re:Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by paganizer · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Boo.

      The Best work by one of the best writers of modern times.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    6. Re:Save Money, Skip the Movie, Read the Book by nomadic · · Score: 1

      If by best you mean worst.

  51. Re: Slashdot and grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're reading Slashdot then it is unlikely that your going to have grandkids let alone be getting laid anytime soon.

  52. Top 10 Spielberg Changes to 'War of the Worlds' by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 5, Funny

    10. Addition of 'good alien' who helps the poor humans escape.
    9. Movie being remade as a comeback vehicle for Kate Capshaw
    8. Additional 30 minute epilogue containing interminable scenes of humanity and the aliens co-existing in the far future
    7. What? No Tom Hanks?
    6. Grover's Mill insufficiently multicultural, so location will be moved to San Francisco.
    5. Aliens killed by sneaking oxygen tank aboard spaceship and shooting it with a rifle.
    4. Main characters will be ethnically-diverse adolescents that are smarter than all the adults. (Note: unknown whether Tom will play an adult or child)
    3. Aliens will be cute, furry, and ever-so-marketable.
    2. Changes 'War' to 'Misunderstanding' so as to not upset children.
    1. Complete abandonment of subtlety, moral ambiguity, or any semblance of creativity

    1. Re:Top 10 Spielberg Changes to 'War of the Worlds' by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Mod up. That was hilarious.

      Can I keep it going?
      15. Obligatory greets to Lucas includes Martians using R2D2.
      14. Dying martian to utter the phrase "Phone home".
      13. Naval Commander to say "we're gonna need a bigger boat."
      12. Shot of Dennis Weaver driving a late model Dodge Dart swerving wildly.
      11. Once word: Whoopi

    2. Re:Top 10 Spielberg Changes to 'War of the Worlds' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is gay. The top 10 doesn't fit Speilberg... how about Lucas. Then it would work.

    3. Re:Top 10 Spielberg Changes to 'War of the Worlds' by Stavr0 · · Score: 1

      Missed one:
      16. No weapons: Soliders are to wield walkie-talkies.

    4. Re:Top 10 Spielberg Changes to 'War of the Worlds' by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      As the Martians are about to die from the evil government secret virus, the cute kids hand them the cure, which just happens to be (well displayed to the camera) Reese's Pieces.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  53. Stop Crying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a grip already. Movies fall into two catagories. Good and entertaining. If you lucky you get a movie that is both.

    If you, you, or you did Jurassic Park ( for example) it would have been completely different than the way I would have done it. Everyone has thier own idea of how something should be done. Not everyone has the same taste.

    And just think. Some kid who goes and sees the remake of War Of The Worlds could be inspired to make movies when they get older that you WILL want to watch.

    1. Re:Stop Crying by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Get a grip already.

      My dodctor told me to stop that lest I go blind. And when I say doctor, I mean the leather-clad woman I pay money to for various services.

      Movies fall into two catagories. Good and entertaining.

      You forgot the categories of "boring", "insipid", "dreck", "what the Hell were they thinking", "I wish death upon all those who stole 2 hours on my life" and "Affleckted".

      If you lucky you get a movie that is both.

      Obligatory Hollywood Level Humor: And I may crap a gold turd. [laughtrack]

      If you, you, or you did Jurassic Park ( for example) it would have been completely different than the way I would have done it. Everyone has thier own idea of how something should be done. Not everyone has the same taste.

      Can't disagree here. My Jurassic Park would have had more flying monkeys, biker lesbians, fractal math and Reese's breakfast cereal. Just like the book... if I'm thinking of the right book. It's the one with the thing, right? You know, the big green thing with the little bits along the side that went all "woop woop" if you rubbed them.

      And just think.

      No! It hurts!

      Some kid who goes and sees the remake of War Of The Worlds could be inspired to make movies when they get older that you WILL want to watch.

      Or they may make Brown Bunny 2040.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    2. Re:Stop Crying by BungoMan85 · · Score: 1

      "I wish death upon all those who stole 2 hours on my life" the matrix revolutions. i want my 6 bucks and 2 hours back.

      --
      Bungo!
  54. Thanks, but no thanks... by sammaffei · · Score: 1

    I'll take "Mars Attacks" any day.

    "Aliens attack the world" has been done sooooo many times that Burton knew the only orginal slant was parody.

    "All green of skin... 800 centuries ago, their
    bodily fluids include the birth of half-breeds. For the fundamental truth self-determination of the cosmos, for dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"

    --

    Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.

  55. I, for one, ... by hummassa · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm happy and I rejoice. Anyone including my father-in-law is better than Ben Affleck. As long as he doesn't ruin one more movie, I welcome our Tom Cruise overlord!!!! :-)

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  56. How to make it original by GuyMannDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just finished writing a big long post about how I thought remaking War of the Worlds was a bad idea because it's depressing to see the complexity of the world reduced to a simple 'good vs. evil' story. But there is an alternate way to remake War of the Worlds that would be interesting: Focus on what people will do when they are desperate.

    Films such as the previous War of the Worlds and Indepdence Day paid a small tribute to what panicing people will do (e.g., looting, rioting). It would be kind of interesting to focus on that aspect of the martian invasion rather than all the neat explosions and fancy spfx. The film starts off showing us characters from several walks of life. We get to know them a little. Then the martians show up and we witness how they react to the uncertainty. Then the martians attack and we witness how these individuals change (or, perhaps, don't change) when the chips are down and what happens to them. What would the average person do if they truly believed that humanity was about to be destroyed? Would people even bother looting? Would they turn on each other in a desperate psychological need to feel like they have the power to fight/kill someone?

    The campy film "Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension" has a great quote from the leader of the evil black lectroids: "Character is what you are in the dark." What it means, of course, is that how you react under pressure is the acid test of what kind of person you are. It's easy to be a decent human being when your life is great. But when the chips are down, what kind of person would you be? I think a film that studied this question would be a very interesting -- and original -- remake of the tired old "aliens coming from outer space to destroy humanity" theme.

    GMD

    1. Re:How to make it original by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      But there is an alternate way to remake War of the Worlds that would be interesting: Focus on what people will do when they are desperate.
      IIRC, Mars was considered a dying planet by the original author. The Martians eventually had to do something to keep their people alive, and that meant colonizing Earth. The Martains, having observed Earth for many years, have known that it is populated with a civilization bent on conquest and would never accept aliens coming from the sky.

      In a way, the movie could potentially put focus on the alien civilization as well, showing that they perform their acts from desperation rather than a desire for cruelty or power.
    2. Re:How to make it original by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      It would be kind of interesting to focus on that aspect of the martian invasion rather than all the neat explosions and fancy spfx.

      I think that's a downfall of many science fiction films/series which focus on effects and action to the detriment of character development and story. Your post reminds me of a terrific Niven novel called, 'Lucifer's Hammer', which features an end of the world scenario caused by comet impact. Always thought that would make a great film, but I'm sure Hollywood would slaughter it. :(

  57. Orson or HG? Nope: Jeff Wayne by chiph · · Score: 1
    I'm confused about exactly what they are making a film of:
    • a film of the original novel, or
    • a film of the radio series of the original novel
    No, it's actually Jeff Wayne's musical War of the Worlds set to film.

    Chip H.
    1. Re:Orson or HG? Nope: Jeff Wayne by __aamkky7574 · · Score: 1
      I'm sure it should be on a list of guilty pleasures, but I loved that album as a kid. The artwork was great, and there were some great songs on it (a little cheesy, but hey). "Spirit of Man" is possibly the only David Essex song that straight men will admit to have liked...

      We'll build shops and hospitals and barracks right under their noses - right under their feet! Everything we need - banks, prisons and schools... We'll send scouting parties to collect books and stuff, and men like you'll teach the kids. Not poems and rubbish - science, so we can get everything working. We'll build villages and towns and... and... we'll play each other at cricket! Listen, maybe one day we'll capture a Fighting Machine, eh? Learn how to make 'em ourselves and then wallop! Our turn to do some wiping out! Whoosh with our Heat Ray - Whoosh! And them running and dying, beaten at their own game. Man on top again!

    2. Re:Orson or HG? Nope: Jeff Wayne by chiph · · Score: 1

      I still have it on vinyl. I need to try the remastered CD version, if Amazon isn't sold out.

      Trouble with CDs is the gorgeous artwork, jacket notes, etc. has been Mini-Me'd.

      Chip H.

  58. Please let it be based on the novel. . . by Zobeid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 1930s radio program was a novelty act that would be forgotten today if it hadn't caused panic, and if Orson Wells hadn't gone on to do much greater things. As for the 1950s movie, it really shouldn't have been called War of the Worlds because it had practically nothing to do with the novel.

    But the book. . . Ah, the book is a true classic! Even today it's still a good read. I think War of the Worlds occupies a place in SF literature much like The Hobbit does in fantasy. They are both relatively short novels, they are both adventure stories with a sympathetic "everyman" protagonist, they are both written in an engaging and accessible way, and both played a crucial role in shaping their genres: science fiction and high fantasy, respectively.

    If War of the Worlds had any weakness, it was that the protagonist was maybe too passive -- he's a walking camera perspective, blundering through the war and reporting what he sees, never taking a hand in events. In that way he represented the helplessness of the human race in the face of cosmic forces, but I'm not sure how that will play in a movie.

    And yes, both War of the Worlds and The Hobbit introduced themes that have since been done to death.

  59. Jeff Wayne's Version by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    People may listen to Orson Well's version once I year, but I always pull out my CDs of Jeff Wayne's musical version of "War of the Worlds" (with Richard Burton narrating).

    Now, if Spielberg were to make a film of this version I would definitely go see it, even if T. Cruise was starring in it.

    myke

  60. Conqueror's Pride by drpentode · · Score: 1

    Timothy Zahn's "Conqueror's Pride" series did an excellent job showing ambiguity. Both warring races thought they were only defending themselves, but it was all a big misunderstanding. This is a series I'd love to see turned into a movie.

  61. A film on the proper version of W of the W? by stewart.hector · · Score: 1

    Hope the film is based on the proper HG Wells version of the W of the Worlds - ie, the tripod martians, instead of the flying things in the 1950s abomination.

    I've read the HG Wells book several times, it really is excellent. Unfortunately, the musical version, whilst the music is good, the story sucks. The Musical version was made by Jeff Wayne btw and was released in the 1970s (I think).

    I'm really looking forward to this - if done correctly - classic sci fi.

    --
  62. I think it's the movies. by khasim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Top Gun - Tom is the bestest pilot ever.

    The Color of Money - Tom is the bestest pool player ever.

    Cocktail - Tom is the bestest bartender ever.

    Days of Thunder - Tom is the bested driver ever.

    Mission Impossible 1 - Tom is the bestest spy ever.

    Mission Impossible 2 - Tom is the bestest spy ever, again.

    Okay, you see the pattern here. You're right. You don't see the character in the movie. I don't know if that's because they don't give him much character depth to work with or what.

    1. Re:I think it's the movies. by Mateito · · Score: 1

      Interview with the Vampire - Best evil vampire ever.... and actually the only role he has ever done that didn't make me cringe. Obviously not Oscar material, but not bad.

      Still... for what he charges... "not bad" is not enough.

      Put Johnny Depp in the role.

    2. Re:I think it's the movies. by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Born on the Fourth of July - Tom is the bestest... ???

      I think that movie, and to a lesser extent, Rain Man, show that the guy can act. But I won't be seeing this movie, as I refuse to support someone who is descended from aliens.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:I think it's the movies. by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I was thinking much the same thing. I'm not sure exactly where it was timeline wise because I don't really pay all that much attention to Tom Cruise but I recall a point in his career where he was (apparently at least) trying to do a wider variety of roles. He seemed to be trying to elevate himself. Somewhere in there he seems to have decided that "Action Hero/Aging Hearthrob" ain't a bad gig if you can get the work and he seems to have resigned himself to a small subset of roles (nicely summed up by a previous poster as "Tom is the bestest...."

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    4. Re:I think it's the movies. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no pattern - if any, it's a pattern of your attitude towards Cruise. He had interesting parts in movies like "Rain Man" (1988) or "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999). In the former Cruise plays a disgruntled yuppie, in the latter a husband, tempted by the idea of marital infidelity. You might not like them (I actually like both), but don't pretend they don't exist.

    5. Re:I think it's the movies. by Sabalon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Far and Away - An awesome movie.

    6. Re:I think it's the movies. by Steve+Cox · · Score: 1

      Top Gun - Tom is the shortest pilot ever.

      The Color Of Money - Tom is the shortest pool player ever.

      Cocktail - Tom is the shortest bartender ever.

      Days of Thunder - Tom is the shortest driver ever.

      Mission Impossible 1 - Tom is the shortest spy ever.

      Mission Impossible 2 - Tom is the shortest spy ever, still.

      Looks like another pattern.

    7. Re:I think it's the movies. by mgs1000 · · Score: 1
      You forgot:

      Vanilla Sky - Tom is the bestest disfigured frozen guy ever.

    8. Re:I think it's the movies. by aftk2 · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight.

      You're saying that Tom Cruise doing movies like "Rain Man" (complete with the frequently flashed trademark smile) are attempts to "elevate himself" but some of his latter-day movies like, oh, let's see...Eyes Wide Shut, Vanilla Sky, Minority Report and The Last Samurai are an attempt at an "Aging Heartthrob?"

      Yeah, you've got the Mission Impossible movies in there, and I'm not making any claims about the quality of the movies I just listed, but to say he's stuck in the same kinds of roles is pretty ridiculous. I think Tom Cruise has recently tried a lot of dark, challenging roles about disfigurement, disillusionment and failure. He just may not be talented enough to consistently succeed at them.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    9. Re:I think it's the movies. by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      You all forgot:

      Vanilla Sky - Tom is dead (and frozen and dreaming and...)

    10. Re:I think it's the movies. by d_strand · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Cruise fan but I think he's not *that* bad. Sure all the movies you named sucks, but he's done many others:

      Interview with a vampire - decent movie of a decent book, where Cruise really made the best character in the movie.

      Eyes wide shut - crappy movie but good acting.

      Magnolia - Great movie with good acting.

      Far and away - havent seen it but certainly not action.

      Vanilla sky - Bad remake of good original movie with ok acting.

    11. Re:I think it's the movies. by Malfourmed · · Score: 1
      Interview with the Vampire - Best evil vampire ever.... and actually the only role he has ever done that didn't make me cringe. Obviously not Oscar material, but not bad.

      Cruise in Magnolia got a well-deserved best supporting actor Oscar nomination. It did make me cringe, but for all the right reasons.
    12. Re:I think it's the movies. by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      You know what, you're right.

      Like I said I just don't pay very much attention to him or rather I don't base my movie going decisions on whether or not he's in something (or for the most part whether or not almost anyone is in something) so I really hadn't considered those films at all. On further consideration...

      Probably more accurately I'd have to say that he started out with the "Risky Business", "All the Right Moves" stuff (which I wasn't real interested in though Rebecca De Morney's nude scenes were good stuff (Hey, I was in high school when that came out). Then he kind of graduated to the formula junk that he became known for (Your "Top Gun" and "Days of Thunder" junk) and again, I didn't think much of it.

      Somewhere after that time he did the Marine Corp movie with Nicholson (YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!) and I watched that and enjoyed it. Sure maybe he wasn't the reason I enjoyed it but I thought he did a good job. I also liked him in "Rain Man" but you're right, it's very much Tom playing, well Tom. "Interview With a Vampire" and I was dreading it because I just didn't think he could do it. I hated the very concept of him in that part (like a lot of people) and then he did it and he did it well. I was impressed. "Jerry McGuire" was another good movie (no stretch but he was again solid) so I'm thinking there's more to Tom Cruise acting wise than I thought.

      Then came "Mission Impossible" and that was absolute shit IMO. "MI2" was a bigger bunch of shit (I saw this against my will thanks to my son who had to see it) and at that point I think I wrote the guy off forever.

      Eyes Wide Shut I've never seen in it's entirety. What I have seen was maybe the least erotic movie filled with sexual content I can imagine. Boring to the point where I either shut it off or fall asleep. I have since passed on all the other movies you mentioned. "Vanilla Sky" I was warned away from by my brother. Minority Report I thought looked like a typical Cruise film only set in the future, and "The Last Samurai" I took a pass on from the moment I saw the trailer.

      So you're right. He's done more stuff but I guess my view of his career and choices is somewhat dated since I've blown off his more recent attempts to branch out.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    13. Re:I think it's the movies. by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      There is no pattern - if any, it's a pattern of your attitude towards Cruise. He had interesting parts in movies like "Rain Man" (1988)
      I would say that the Dustin Hoffman was a better actor in that film, in addition to having a more interseting role. Also, the film appeared to be set up in a way that was causing Dustin to receive more noticable camera time than the actor you're referring to. His skills in acting are impressive in that film, as it is difficult in order to perform some of those scenes with a straight face.

      The role played by Tom Cruise was more of a generic role of a brother not receiving what he wanted in his inheritance. He was also extremely frustrated with having to adapt to take care of his autistic brother after taking him, a sign that he was not ready to take responsibility. In a way, his character was simply using his brother (and was confirmed by the autistic character when he was asked if he was being used.)

      Whether Tom's acting is good or merely average (depending on your tastes), it is overshadowed by Dustin's acting. As a result, we need to rely on other films he was in to see his full potential. From what I see from personal experience and the comments of others, most of the films he he stars in don't really show his potential either, meaning that he'll get a reputation as a famous but bad actor.
    14. Re:I think it's the movies. by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 1

      One minor correction: In the US military, most pilots are in the 5'2" to 5'4" range, not the 6'3" range as portrayed in movies. Size and weight matter when facing Mach speed.

      It is far easier to fit a small person into an already cramped cockpit than someone who looks down at the subway hand grips.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    15. Re:I think it's the movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jerry Maguire - Tom is the best peter pan turned father ever.

    16. Re:I think it's the movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vanilla Sky is Ubik?

    17. Re:I think it's the movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that TC in "Rain Man" is a disgruntled, up-and-coming type-A personality who gets smacked down by reality as well as poor business skills, it still seems like the same TC in "Top Gun", "Days of Thunder", etc.

      At least in "Toby McGuire", he is overshadowed by the simple joy de vivre of Cuba Gooding, Jr. and to a lesser extent by Zelwigger's character and her son. At least TC the personality did not eclipse some of the other points of the movie.

    18. Re:I think it's the movies. by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      Agreed. Magnolia is another one you could throw in there - a very challenging role and he pulled it off very well (although from one perspective you could say it's just a variation on his usual cocky, smarmy character.)

      It's a bit like Mel Gibson's directing - you can say what you like about how good his films are, but nobody can say he is sticking to safe, familiar territory - otherwise he'd be directing himself in Lethal Weapon 9, rather than films like Hamlet and that Jesus thing. Gotta give them both points for trying.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    19. Re:I think it's the movies. by jafac · · Score: 1

      Hopefully (having read the book);

      War of the Worlds - Tom is the bestest alien-killing disease ever!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  63. Speilberg is a hack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should be Nader's running mate, their egos match.

  64. Dopey language by cheezit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had...can only be a matter of conjecture."

    If the author thinks Welles would have hated it, why doesn't he or she say so?

    That's a perfect example of the kind of idiotic innuendo that pervades journalism these days. This article isn't controversial, but the same device---an open-ended statement that implies a viewpoint but won't actually state it---seems to be extremely common in political journalism. Reminds me of the Mindcraft troll.

    --
    Premature optimization is the root of all evil
  65. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Tom starring, it means Taranaki will probably be used as some foreign alien planet.

  66. Remake Madness: A Comparison by myownkidney · · Score: 1
    I did a very unscientific study comparing the ratings of remakes and originals.

    There're only a few cases where the remake was better.

    1. Re:Remake Madness: A Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since LOTR is based on a book, I'd hardly call Peter Jackson's LOTR a remake of Bakshi's LOTR.

      It's not the same as other movies on your site, like "Psycho", or "The Italian Job."

      Take for instance "Hamlet." The AWESOME 100% faithful to the book 4 hour Kenneth Branaugh version of "Hamlet" is not a remake of cheesy stupid late 80's version starring Mel Gibson.

      Yes your study is unscientific, but let's stick to actual remakes:

      The movies you list that are actual remakes stink (The remakes, that is)

  67. LXG by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'd rather to see stiff-upper-lipped men in scarlet jerkins taking on the Hun From Space! "Zulu" meets "The League of Extraordinary Gentlement"

    I thought LXG did wind up fighting Wells' Martians in volume 2?

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  68. I want a sad, depressing ending for once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The original Night of the Living Dead was truly a great movie.

    It is one of the most depressing, dehumanizing movies ever made.

    The zombies are not an invading force or something that can be conquered. They are not evil. They are nothing but the result of contamination from a crashed object from space.

    They are unstoppable, uncaring, unflinching, endless.

    Every main character is killed matter of factly, without intention or remorse.

    And until there point there is no moment in movie history more important than the closing scene.

    Just when you think that the hero has survived, that somehow mankind has triumphed, he is shot dead unknowingly, matter of factly, without vengeance, his deeds never to be known.

    It is complete defeat and the lack of all meaning. Our efforts are in the end meaningless. We are discarded to rot in the ground.

  69. The 1988 TV series by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The premise of the TV series was that the 1953 invasion occurred, as did a 1938 invasion and the corresponding radio broadcast.

    The first season suggested that the reason why most people didn't remember the 1953 invasion was a combination of traumatic memory suppression and that the aliens had their own way to make humans forget, coupled with the governments of the world collecting all evidence of the invasion and suppressing the knowledge themselves. Which seems rather fantastic unless you also accept that the scope of the invasion wasn't as widespread as depicted in the movie (i.e. perhaps it was only Los Angeles County that suffered greatly in the US).

    The second season though revisualized the series as Earth society being in a bad way, perhaps when the invasion was not forgotten and society being more broken. Where drugs were legal and taxed, supplies were harder to come by, pollution was a serious problem, and the government was corrupt and senators were on trial. And the aliens were replaced with ones that didn't eat roses and actually liked that humanity was polluting the Earth into an environment more suited to them.

    And they weren't from Mars in the series. The movie laid down a premise that they were, but there was no hard evidence. The series first said they were from Mor-tax, then second series changed it to Morthrai.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:The 1988 TV series by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      I do recall something about Europe being fairly affected... wasn't there a photo of the Eiffel tower in ruins or something?

      On a side note, I've always been amused that the martians landed 3 miles east of my childhood home (the city was mostly a ranch then), and then proceeded west to LA. My town (as it were) was the first to get killed!

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:The 1988 TV series by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The movie depicted destruction of the Eiffel Tower in a still image in the middle, also crashed ships in India and Rio de Janeiro, but these shots weren't used in the TV series. But they did establish entombed aliens in Canada, and a lot active in China in a summit of world scientists in the episode The Last Supper (the first season used biblical references for every episode title).

      I would like to hear more about the location for the initial landing site from the movie to add to the site I cited above. If you could send it to the webmaster address at that site, I'd appreciate it.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  70. Riffing on War of the Worlds (Spoiler Warning) by pilotofficerprune · · Score: 1

    One of the better riffs on War of the Worlds has been the most recent Alan Moore comic-book The League of Extraordinary Gentleman which managed to shoehorn in John Carter of Mars, Doctor Moreau, Rupert the Bear and Tiger Tim(!) into the heady mix.
    In that, the Martians are destroyed by a hideous bioweapon launched by masonic grenadiers, only for the head of British intelligence to inform the League that Her Majesty's govt. would spin the story so that everyone believed it was caused by the common cold.
    Top stuff from Mister Moore and worth a punt!

  71. Ender's Game by davandhol · · Score: 1

    Don't get all gloomy yet; Orson Scott Card is working on the screenplay, and as he was originally a playwright, one can hope that a movie of Ender's Game won't be as we expect it to be.

    1. Re:Ender's Game by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps. We can hope, but Hollyweird normally treats scripts from the orignal writer like a Vogon treats orders to save his grandmother from the Ravinous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Ender's Game by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      one can hope that a movie of Ender's Game won't be as we expect it to be.

      I think that the biggest problems for Ender's Game, given that Card is working so closely with them on this, will be casting and the work of the film-makers to portray the children as they were portrayed in the book. Ender's Game is somewhat controversial because so many people can't understand that children can think and behave that way, yet it's always been a big hit among certain groups in or near the same age group as the characters because it portrays them in the way they often see themselves. Hollywood has rarely (if ever) portrayed children in the manner that Card did in Ender's Game, and one can only hope that they can do it right this time.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    3. Re:Ender's Game by SharkJumper · · Score: 1

      Not to mention a movie critic.

      SharkJumper

    4. Re:Ender's Game by DarkKnight · · Score: 1


      Which is all well and good. However unless Card puts up his own money for a stake, his input won't necessarily mean alot.

      Unless the author, director, producers & studios are on the same wavelength, the movie won't necessarily be true to the book. This was the rare case with Lord of the Rings (which did suffer some tweaking).

      Next consider I, Robot (based on the preview). I have respect for Alex Proyas and the design looks terrific. However the preview makes it look like another standard technology amuck plot mixed with some Will Smith action / comedy.

      I appreciate the need for some modification of books to hit the cinema, but science fiction seems to suffer the most mangling. Usually being forced into the action film genre (whether appropriate or not).

      War of the Worlds may actually be appropriate for the times if done properly. But given Tom Cruise's involvement I don't see that happening.

      --
      /* Andrew Fong - rogue programmer */
    5. Re:Ender's Game by kaens · · Score: 1

      it seems to me that movies made off of books are, for the most part, much better when the author of the book works on the screenplay.

      case in point: Requiem for a Dream. if Hubert Selby hadn't worked on the screenplay, i doubt it would have been such a great movie.

      if Orson Scott Card is working on the screenplay for Ender's Game, i would expect it to be good, or at least better than it would have been without his input.

  72. Orson Welle's reaction... by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2, Funny
    the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had to another director taking one of the works with which he became most closely associated, can only be a matter of conjecture

    I think we can predict quite well how he would have reacted to the coming remake of his masterpiece: "Halloween Part 7: Freddy Krueger versus Citizen Kane", starring Geraldo Rivera.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  73. Which species are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Tom can tell us if the Martians are Thetans or Xemu's minions?

  74. Should be modded +5 insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not funny. Rather sad eh.

  75. WoTW book was allegory by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I first read the original story, I wasn't very impressed - it seemed to me the Narrator spent the whole story just mooning around about how awful it was that this was happening, how awful it was his girl wasn't there, etc. I chalked it up to a cultural difference - as an American I would have been fighting or at least preparing to fight, so perhaps this was an English thing.

    I later read a point that brought the whole story into sharp focus. The book was allegory, and a warning. The invading Martians were attacking England (note that in the story you don't hear about what is happening elsewhere in the world). This is karma served piping hot - the English attacked the primitives of other lands, taking their resources and using advanced technologies to win (rifles and cannons are advanced when all you have is pointed sticks. And banannas.). Then the aliens come, with their advanced technology, treating the Brits as primitives to be exploited. And the Brits are not saved by "Stiff upper lip, good ole college try, pip pip!" They are saved, by accident of fate, by something completely uninterested in saving them.

    Now, *IF* Speilberg can stay true to that concept, then updating/relocating the story should not matter - indeed it may make it even MORE powerful to have the aliens attacking the US.

  76. They should do the Marvel version by Garg · · Score: 1

    ... with Tom Cruise as KillRaven.

    Well, maybe not.

    Garg

    --
    Garg
    Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
  77. You forgot one by Smallpond · · Score: 2, Funny


    Legend - Tom is the worst fantasy hero ever.

  78. It's been done already by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

    Let's post some juicy excerpts from the book as /. stories and see how may geeks panic and run for the hills.
    please read comments for any yro.slashdot article. In fact, the term "Big Brother" is quite popular there.

    --
    This is not my sig.
  79. What to do? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    I know how it ends, as most of us do. So why go see it other than the effects?

    Anyone remember War of the Worlds: The TV Series? I do, what a turd that was.

    Well at any rate, I plan on seeing it and honoring Orsons performance, which is available at you local library or somewhere on the web I'm sure. By running around madly, screaming at the top of my lungs that the Martians have landed! The original broadcast is truely outstanding, as far as radio drama. Yes I am a fan of radio shows. I have many of the audio shows of Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Homes. If you haven't heard a copy of the original broadcast of WoTW, stop by your local library or download it from the net. It's worth a listen.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  80. Re: Slashdot and grandkids by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

    let alone be getting laid anytime soon

    Your totally right! I really should take a break!

  81. leave it alone! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    Damn.
    They keep remaking movies and ruining them.
    I was PISSED at how they destroyed "The Time Machine" and countless other EXCELLENT classic movies.

    CG sucks. Period, it sucks. They just use CG to disguise the fact that the plot is pure shit and the actors and actresses CAN NOT ACT.

    Overload your senses with loud ass music that DOES NOT FIT THE PERIOD and blow shit up.

    Pearl Harbor was one that sucked, way to much CG and the rap music was STUPID.... I won't even get into the plot, which was shit too but the music and "kaboom" just ruined it. Not that it was a remake, but just as an example of too much CG, shitty plot, poor acting and LOUD MUSIC..

    I'm hearing impared and modern movies are impossible for me to watch without CC.
    They set the voice levels too low for me to hear so I have to turn the volume all the way up to hear speech then just about that time they start blowing shit up, (like my speakers and my head) and lay in with the loud ass music. Words can not begin to describe how freaking annoying that is.

    This is SOP for ALL modern movies, so, I just quit watching anything made after the early 70's.. My preference is movies from the 30's to the 60's. No CG and no loud ass music. The actors had to act and the plot had to be good or the movie simply failed. Now movies don't even need actors or plots, just blow some shit up and crank up the music and you have a box office block buster...

    1. Re:leave it alone! by DanBrusca · · Score: 1

      Isn't it about time we dispelled this notion that actors 'way back in the day' were any good?

      Let's face it, virtually every movie made before WW2 is saddled with the most wooden acting conceivable. I don't blame those actors for this, cinema wasn't very old at that time and most actors just thought they could transfer what were effectively stage performances to the big screen. Times have changed, cinema has evolved and over the decades actors have developed the skills for far more realistic portrayals of their characters.

      To say that actors and actresses today 'CAN NOT ACT' is just plain ridiculous. Sure, there are plenty who can't but there are many more who can and who are consistenly providing some of the finest performances we've ever seen on screen.

    2. Re:leave it alone! by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      They set the voice levels too low for me to hear so I have to turn the volume all the way up to hear speech then just about that time they start blowing shit up, (like my speakers and my head) and lay in with the loud ass music. Words can not begin to describe how freaking annoying that is.

      I thought I was the only one driven nuts by this. I'm relatively young and have perfectly good hearing, and I still find it annoying as hell. Why on earth do they do this??

      Does anybody know of a DVD player with some nice AGC built in (and running by default)? I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

  82. Night of the Living Dead - Online by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
    Not Dawn, but I came across Night of the Living Dead, Romero's prequel, online for download at archive.org: The info page indicates it has fallen into the public domain, which was a big surprise to me. Since Romero is still alive, all I can figure is that someone screwed up the paperwork for the copyright extension. A shame for him, but kinda cool for the rest of us.

    Be warned that these are Very Big Files: 4.1G for MPEG2, 248.8M for MPEG4. To be expected for a 95 minute movie, though.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  83. I agree -- it's a great work by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Informative

    I had that on LP when I was a kid, then had it on tape during my college years, and now I've got it on CD. It is a really neat way of enjoying the story. Because there isn't any exciting visuals (obviously) you have to focus on what the music is telling you. The music shifts back and forth with the mood of the people and the narrator. From the confident assertion of Ogilve the astronomer ("The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one!"), to the inspirationaly yet ultimately depressing horror of watching the fighting machines effortlessly destroy the battleship ThunderChild, to the desperation of people as they watch the Red Weed take root and a parson loose his mind and blame the attacks on Satan, to the excitement as the narrator attempts to commit suicide in front of the martians only to realize that the martians are no longer a threat. The music compliments the changing emotions of the story beautifully and it is indeed a great story (except for the stupid "epilogue" which attempts to fast-forward the story to the modern day). I've actually heard a radio station play the entire album from start to finish, commercial free.

    I would definitely recommend it. The music is unconventional and the album has won several awards for its novel take on a tired old story.

    GMD

  84. Don't forget Independence Day(ID4) by bobobobo · · Score: 1

    Same premise, aliens land destroy us with their death/heat rays. In the end the aliens are defeated in the same way. However instead of a regular human virus, they're killed off by a computer virus.

    1. Re:Don't forget Independence Day(ID4) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a nuclear bomb and thousands of jet fighters.

  85. Correction: Public Domain by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
    Found the answer about the copyright at IMDB:

    "This film is accidentally considered public domain (meaning that anyone with the capabilities can release it without going through any copyright laws) because the copyright notice was left off after the title changed."

    Ouch! I guess that goes to show anyone who says that the guys who make the titles aren't important.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  86. IP Rights and Wrongs by cei · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm probably the only one who's bothered by this, but I have a problem with what's going on here. H.G. Wells first published War of the Worlds in 1898 and died in 1946 leaving the copyright to his children. I believe that under the copyright terms at the time the novel is now in the public domain -- its copyright has lapsed. I'm uncertain if any of the more recent copyright term extensions would still hold on a work created more than 100 years ago.

    But for the sake of argument (unless you can explain to me otherwise) let's assume that the novel is in the public domain at this point.

    In 1951 Wells's kids signed a contract with Paramount which included the following:
    The Seller hereby grants and assigns to the Purchaser irrevocably and forever ... ALL his right title and interest in and to the sole and exclusive motion picture rights of every nature whatsoever throughout the world ... and/or as a part of any motion pictures to combine said story with any other works to project transmit and/or otherwise reproduce said story pictorially and/or audibly by the art of cinematography and/or any process analogous thereto, including the right to project transmit reproduce and/or exhibit such motion pictures by television and/or any other process of transmission now known and/or hereafter to be devised ...
    Now, that bothers me... how can a company retain exclusive and perpetual rights to produce something based on a work that's in the public domain? The New York County Supreme Court upheld Paramount's rights in a court case a couple of years ago when the Wells family wanted to sell rights to a TV mini-series to Hallmark.

    So contract law trumps copyright law??? I find that pretty disturbing.
    --
    This sig intentionally left justified.
    1. Re:IP Rights and Wrongs by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Good point, but it's tricky. It depends on which country's laws, when, and what happened. In the US, you had to keep renewing a copyright. Sometimes a work would slip through the cracks and become public domain if it wasn't renewed. (And companies that slipped up would try to quietly paper those mistakes over.)

      It would probably take a team some digging to work out the current WotW rights.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:IP Rights and Wrongs by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      The New York County Supreme Court upheld Paramount's rights in a court case a couple of years ago when the Wells family wanted to sell rights to a TV mini-series to Hallmark.

      Wait a second. How could the Wells family try and sell the rights if the work had entered the public domain? They couldn't. I don't think the court case means what you think it means. Sounds to me like they still owned the rights at the time. If War of the Worlds has entered the public domain then so has the movie rights. Look at the part of the contract you posted: ...ALL his right title and interest in.... Once the work enters the public domain, the seller no longer has "right title", correct?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:IP Rights and Wrongs by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      So contract law trumps copyright law???


      It always has.

  87. SPOILER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Knowing Lukas, in 50 years we'll be taking the grandkids to see the super special enhanced version of the remake of the remake.

    In that version, Greedo attempts to shoot first, Han knocks the blaster out of his hand using a knife-hand block (think "Wax on/Wax off"), and then proceeds to kick the shit out of him slow-motion, Matrix-style.

  88. You Forgot A Couple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Born On The Fourth Of July - Tom is the bestest cripple ever.

    Minority Report - Tom is the bestest cop ever... if you overlook that little running from the police incident.

    The Last Samurai - Tom is the drunkest war hero ever.

    A Few Good Men - Tom is the bestest lawyer ever.

    The Firm - Tom is the bestest lawyer, again.

    Eyes Wide Shut --- Didn't really happen, nothing to see here, move along.

    1. Re:You Forgot A Couple by The+Dobber · · Score: 1

      Eyes Wide Shut - Tom gets the best piece of ass ever.

  89. No BS by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Anyone else think Bruce Sterling would've been a good choice for that?
    Sterling is pretty much my favorite living SF writer. But I'd run in the opposite direction from any movie with his name on it. His best stories are motivated by weird philosophical premises (which I mostly disagree with, but usually enjoy the way he incorporates it into his storytelling) and extremely good insight into the future of technology. Good reading, but not the stuff of good movies.
  90. Moon shot guarantee? by wardk · · Score: 1

    I just hope he puts the obligitory "ET" floating Moon shot, like he did when he did the "Kubrick" film "AI".

    yeah, that was cool. gag

    Cruise again? gee I hope he gets to do the arm-wave computer control thing, like was so cool in the Majority Report. now that's some real acting!

  91. OT: You do NOT know the difference in media... by neBelcnU · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have confidence in telling you I should know the difference between real and fake.

    On 9/11, I took the bus (damn car), which for lack of a walk-thing put me out of media contact until I entered the shop where we have a TV. I unlock the door, look up, and the first thing I see was the first tower collapsing. I asked my coworkers what was going on, and I did NOT believe them for a good 30 seconds.

    So next time you think you can tell mediated reality from fiction (TV, radio, print, film) FORGET IT. Just because you haven't been fooled, doesn't mean you can't be fooled.

    1. Re:OT: You do NOT know the difference in media... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, maybe you're just dumb.

  92. "Quoth", "Boxen", "Virii"... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    "Quoth", "Boxen", "Virii"... Hey people, why do you think Comic Book Man is so funny? BECAUSE HE'S A BUFOON!

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  93. Welles didn't direct War of the Worlds... by applef00 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sure somebody else already pointed this out, but be nice to me. I'm "tired." Orson Welles directed the "Mercury Theatre" radio adaptation of War of the Worlds but he had nothing to do with the 1953 film version. Byron Haskin was the director of that.

  94. They could do a musical by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    based on Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of WotW. Or they could base it on the computer game based on that.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  95. Yeah, why not Bruce Sterling? by realmolo · · Score: 1

    I mean, you've already got Spielberg, who's forgotten how to direct, and Tom Cruise, who never really knew how to act. Why not Sterling, who can't write a grocery list without going off into goofy, half-assed techno-political rants? It would be the best movie ever! To summarize: Fuck Bruce Sterling.

  96. Yes it was by bobobobo · · Score: 1

    Same premise, invaders blast us with heat rays. They're even defeated the same way. Instead of a regular human virus, they're beaten by a computer virus.

  97. the Salon.com 2002 Oscar Article said is best: by backlonthethird · · Score: 1
    Link. Quote:
    I must warn the world about Tom Cruise. I feel he is an utterly terrifying Superior Life Form, with the power to melt heads and braid spines. His eyes are as hard, shiny and brutally penetrating as diamond drill-bits. The new braces on his teeth suggest that he is erasing all that remained of his tiny imperfections, and he is now metamorphosing into Ultra Super Perfection Man 3000. I fear his intense, mind-beating politeness, his titanium imperviousness to human weakness, his barking power-laugh.
    That, needless to say, is not the man to play the lead role in War of the Worlds.
  98. I loved it when it was called... by Deanasc · · Score: 1

    Independence Day.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  99. Mister HP by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Kids were lining up to buy the books long before there was any glimmer of a movie.

    I enjoyed the first couple of HP books, though I'm not sure there's enough story there to sustain the books that have already been published, never mind two more.

    I'm not a rabid fan, but I was disappointed by the first movie's failure to capture the feeling of the book. (No chance I'll go to any of the sequels.) My favorite scene in the first book is where Harry is all uptight about having to learn to ride a broom. All the other kids have been doing it all their lives, and he's never even touched a flyable broom. What if he makes an ass of himself? Then he goes to class and he already knows how. It's a magical (in a non-literal sense) moment that movie utterly fails to capture.

    And then there's those moving staircases. In the books, people keep getting lost because all the rooms and corridors at Hogwarts are mysteriously enchanted. Cool! (And crucial to the plot in the latest book.) But in the movie, they explain the same thing by showing the staircases moving back and forth for no obvious reason. Lame.

    Let me tell you why I first picked up a Harry Potter book. I heard this commentator on NPR talking about how he read the books to his elementary school class. The kids would not let him show them the illustrations, because they were too into the internal fantasies they'd formed about what Harry's life at Hogwarts must be like. Does Hollywood provoke that kind of imagining? It does not. Hollywood has to show everything, because it doesn't trust its audience.

    Sometimes an adaptation promotes the original. Sometimes it destroys it. I've always been grateful that Bill Watterson never allowed any adaptations of Calvin and Hobbes. But now Rowling is a billionaire, so I guess that makes it all right.

    1. Re:Mister HP by bogie · · Score: 1

      "but I was disappointed by the first movie's failure to capture the feeling of the book"

      That's where I would disagree. Think about how many books have turned out to be absolutely horrible movies? Now look at the first two HP movies. They have done an excellant job creating the wizard world and the characters couldn't have been portrayed any better. Considering how much of the book they included in the first movie I'd consider you complaints nitpicking at best. But hey, you can't please everyone.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:Mister HP by ChibiOne · · Score: 1
      Does Hollywood provoke that kind of imagining? It does not. Hollywood has to show everything, because it doesn't trust its audience.
      Actually, Hollywood does it because it's a visual medium. I know, there are movies in which some things are left to the imagination of the viewer, but this has to do more with plot elements than anything else.
    3. Re:Mister HP by Jerf · · Score: 1

      And then there's those moving staircases. In the books, people keep getting lost because all the rooms and corridors at Hogwarts are mysteriously enchanted. Cool! (And crucial to the plot in the latest book.) But in the movie, they explain the same thing by showing the staircases moving back and forth for no obvious reason. Lame.

      Probably a good thing, considering the alternatives. Ever seen Cube 2: Hypercube? The only movie in ten years to give me legitimate nightmares, because they really did a great job on "this door doesn't ever open on the same thing twice", along with a lot of other wierd stuff that gives your limbic system fits.

      Reading in a book about corridors that don't seem to go to the same place twice is OK, but actually seeing it would give the target viewing age nightmares. Seriously. The way they did it may not be as cool, but it's a lot easier on the mind.

    4. Re:Mister HP by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is precisely why I mostly hate Hollywood movies -- they're too easy on the mind.

    5. Re:Mister HP by Jerf · · Score: 1

      I agree, but recall this is a kid's movie. People who are still forming their understanding of how the world works don't really get helped by things that contradict and undermine it. (It can be hard to remember how literally true that is, too; I'm not talking ethics, I'm talking the mechanics of things like "conservation of volume" type of things, if you've studied child development. I wouldn't mind challenging a 12-year-olds ethics, and I'm sure isolated 12-year-olds could handle having their geometry-sense challenged, but as a whole, it would be neither a good nor a profitable aspect of a movie.)

      Try to come up with a copy of Cube 2; maybe the Sci-Fi channel will re-run it sometime. I don't guarentee it will have the same effect on you that it did on me, but it sound like it would be worth a time. (I haven't seen the first one yet but based on my reading of the summaries it wouldn't challenge me in the same way.) AFAIK, neither are "Hollywood" movies, they are both relatively low-budget independent affairs. (Could be wrong, but it certainly doesn't feel Hollywood.)

    6. Re:Mister HP by fm6 · · Score: 1
      It being a kid's movie just makes it worse. The books' main merit is that they stimulate kids' imaginations. Hollywood want kids to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

      I saw the first cube movie and hated it. What was the point? A bunch of people are stuck in a giant cube, and have to solve silly puzzles to find their way out. All the questions I wanted answered (Who? Why? How?) are not part of the story. If you're a horror fan (I'm not) I suppose you get off on all the nasty things that happen to them when they get the wrong answers. But that's not enough to make a decent story.

    7. Re:Mister HP by armb · · Score: 1

      My children enjoyed the books (first) and the films. I think the films did a reasonable job of showing the spirit of the books. I think the fact that the movies will have to shorten the longer later books might be a good thing though.
      (But while my reaction to the ending of Goblet of Fire was "Voldemort badly needs to read the Evil Overlord list", my children (aged 5 and 7 at the time) didn't point out how easily he could have skipped most of the book, so it can't be that bad.)

      --
      rant
  100. It's Not a Remake... by bottlerocket · · Score: 1

    War of the Worlds remake? I've never heard the latest adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet" called a remake before. They're all based on the same story!

    --
    where the comment ends and sig begins
  101. Vast Oversimplification of Story by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'War of the Worlds is really a simplistic "bad guys vs. good guys" story.'

    No, it isn't.

    When was the last time you read this book?

    In large part it's a parable about arrogance and imperialism. Victorian England was very full of itself, and thought nothing of conquering and exploiting backward parts of the globe for gain and glory.

    Wells wanted to show Victorians what it might be like to be conquered by a "superior" civilization.

    Again:

    Good vs. Evil?

    Consider WOTW's human characters. Among the most vivid are a clergyman who, on seeing the ease with which the martian war machines plaster England's best, turns into an apocalyptic nutcase.

    Then there's the Artilleryman. A Social Darwinist with big ideas. He tells the narrator about the underground cities he's planning on building, and the guerilla campaign he'll fight against the martians. Then he proudly shows off the tunnel he's dug in the time since the invasion. The narrator notes that it looks like something a determined man might complete in a day. They both continue digging; the narrator notes that the Artilleryman stops digging the moment he does. The guy is all talk and brave ideas, not action.

    This book is a LOT more subtle than you suggest. It's trying to give us a dose of cosmic perspective. We're not only not the hieght of technological competence, we're often not the heroes we pretend to be either.

    * * *

    Regarding simplistic Good vs. Evil plots, I quite agree. I'm sick of that particular idiot plot myself.

    Hey, how about an invasion story where the invaders are really, really dangerous not because of their weapons (although those are good, too) but because of their ideas? What if they're more tolerant, imaginative, dynamic, and funny than we are? What if their culture makes ours look sour and limited?

    What if they look at us as we look on the Taliban?

    That would make for a fun enemy.

    Stefan

    1. Re:Vast Oversimplification of Story by NickFusion · · Score: 1

      "What if they're more tolerant, imaginative, dynamic, and funny than we are? What if their culture makes ours look sour and limited?"

      Not the most awesome book ever written, but "Darwin's Radio" had a very interesting take on this. A good read.

      (For calibration, I think the DaVinchi Code guy is a hack, much like Michael Crichton.)

      --
      What were you expecting?
    2. Re:Vast Oversimplification of Story by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      What if their culture makes ours look sour and limited?

      Been done. There were actually a lot more in 50s science fiction, such as one short about aliens who casually installed a satellite that prevented the instigation of violence...

    3. Re:Vast Oversimplification of Story by Peter+Harris · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, but I worry that Spielberg is not going to give a film version of War of the Worlds any depth whatsoever. Plus, he won't set it in Victorian England (or my God, I hope he doesn't if Cruise has to do an accent!).

      As for meeting a more 'fun' enemy, my hope would be for someone to get around to making a film set in the universe of David Brin's 'Uplift' novels, or Larry Niven's 'Ringworld'.

      I hear Greg Bear's 'Forge of God' is destined to become a (possibly sucky) film, but if I had a few million to spend, I'd personally pay to have them shrink it to a 10-minute prologue of the much better 'Anvil of the Stars'.

      Oh well.

      --

      -- What do you need?
      -- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
  102. Scientologists are idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why people still enjoy Tom Cruise is beyond me. The guy is obviously a fucking moron if he's gullibule and weak-minded enough to be suckered into Scientology.

    Any credibility he might've once had (if any, he's not that good of an actor) is just out the window for the fact that he follows some Sci-Fi books as a "religion".

  103. NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tom Cruise No! Arrrrggggghhhh!!!

  104. slashdot needs a tinfoil hat moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those aren't wetback's. They're the RED CHINESE ARMY!!!!

  105. Don't worry, we'll find some way for you to serve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously you've never had your leg blown off while defending the homeland.

  106. Bruce Sterling?!? by uxo · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think Bruce Sterling would've been a good choice for that?

    Dear god I hope you're joking. I wouldn't let Bruce Sterling write a laundry list. He even managed to make William Gibson suck when they co-wrote "The Difference Engine".

  107. FEAR OF A CLEAR PLANET by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Somewhere in there he seems to have decided that "Action Hero/Aging Hearthrob" ain't a bad gig if you can get the work "

    Those auditing sessions don't come cheap, bub! Why do you think Isaaic Hayes had to take a job doing the voice for a kiddie cartoon?!!! (hmmmm.... you notice that the alledgely irreverent Matt & Trey haven't gone near that subject!)

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:FEAR OF A CLEAR PLANET by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      you notice that the alledgely irreverent Matt & Trey haven't gone near that subject

      No kidding. What's the holdup? I see they had no problems taking on the Mormons. Jews and Christians have been fair game. When do we get to see Xenuclaus?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  108. Wait and see. by Shawn_LH · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Spielberg has made some less than great films, but also some genuine classics (CETK, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List), and Tom Cruise is a fairly good actor. Not as good as Ed Norton, but better than many. So I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt and just wait and see. And puhleeease, hatred of all things Hollywood is just boring wank. Hollywood makes bad films, good films, and some truly great films. It's all pretty subjective anyway. Far too many nerds have corncobs inserted firmly in their rectums.

    1. Re:Wait and see. by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Last time I heard Spielberg was working with Cruise on a scifi project I was excited, but it ended up being a piece of turd. I know it got great reviews, but who can honestly tell me that Minority Report was a good movie?

  109. The ending is very prophetic... by Phil+John · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...in this day and age. What, with the ever looming threat of bio-terrorism, drug resistant strains of bacteria and deadly viruses (hiv) becoming more and more of a problem.

    It's humbling that no matter who you are, rich oil tycoon, head of state, street sweeper, we can all die at the hands of these organisms.

    Wells hit the nail right on the head with the ending and any change would be a travesty.

    --
    I am NaN
  110. Picking the right nits by fm6 · · Score: 1
    In addition, much of the details are wrong (uniforms, patches, weapons, tactics, etc.), which ruins the film in many ways...
    From a purely personal point of view, I strongly agree. But I'm forced to admit that most people don't think that way. I once read this famous crime novel that's been praised by critics and readers around the world. I suppose it's decently written (Dunne is widely considered one of the great writers of his time), but I could never get past the fact that the author didn't seem to understand that the Los Angeles (city) Police Department and the Los Angeles (county) Sherrif's Office are completely separate entities!

    I just finished reading this Israeli historical novel, where the Hebrew (or maybe Arabic) word for "forecastle" is repeatedly translated as "bridge". Drove me crazy, but at least it makes more sense than the more usual mistake, which is to call a quarterdeck a "bridge". (Isn't the bridge the place you steer the ship from?) Of course, this only bothers me because I happen to know that a bridge is a raised structure that wasn't invented until the age of steam. (Originally it was a literal bridge between the paddlewheel housings.) Most people don't know this sort of thing, and don't care, and look at nipickers like you and me with disdain and impatience.

  111. Would All You Zombies kindly SHUT UP?!!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    I think the accursed Greeks thought that there were, what, seven basic plotlines?

    Boy meets girl. Boy wins girl. Robot comes from the future an kills girl. Child grows up to be anti-robotic activist and time-travells back to protect his mother...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  112. Read the book free by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

    Somehow, the copyright expired. How does THAT happen?

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/warworlds/war w. html

  113. The Greatness of H.G. Wells OR The Magical 4 Years by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Something struck me a few months ago, when I was reading up on Wells for some reason or other (probably because I'd just seen "Time After Time" again). I'd been a fan since I was a kid, but I hadn't realized that:

    The Time Machine (1895)
    The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896)
    The Invisible Man (1897)
    The War of the Worlds (1898)

    came out, in that order with nothing in between, in the short space of just four years. The whole foundation of modern science fiction! It blew my mind.

    Of course, these aren't Wells' only great works; but has there ever been anything like those four years, for any author?

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  114. SPOILER WARNING! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Spoiler! Yeah right - who dares read /. who doesn't know the story?

    it, will become another vehicle for T. Cruise.

    That's likely to be the biggest problem for me. The emphasis in the original book seemed to be on mankind's helplessness. It was only and only the alien's weakness that saved us all. We could do nothing. It's hard to see Hollywood and Tom Cruise playing this up. No doubt he'll discover their weakness and sneeze on the alien commander in a climactic battle on the mothership.

    The colour movie I saw also distorted Welles' original message, if not the facts, by putting them all in a church at the end, praying to God for deliverance. Suddenly the aliens start dying and the clear implication is that God did it really. *wink wink*

    Bleh! I dread this!

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    1. Re:SPOILER WARNING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's was Wells' original message, not Welles'!

  115. There is no second Starship Troppers... by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1
    "Repeat after me. There was no Starship Troopers movie."

    I would suggest avoiding movie previews for the next 1-2 years then. ST2 looks twice as bad.

    --
    Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    1. Re:There is no second Starship Troppers... by spun · · Score: 1

      It's a 'made for TV' movie, so the good news is that you won't see previews for it at the movies. The bad news is that it's a 'made for TV' movie, and it's coming out this year.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  116. David Koepp, Paramount by DanBrusca · · Score: 2, Informative

    While much attention has been drawn to David Koepp's work on the first two Jurassic Park films, not much has been mentioned of his other work. Among his other credits are the likes of Carlito's Way and Panic Room, which demonstrate he can take things a bit darker when required and Spider-Man shows he can tell a story true to the spirit of it's source material.

    One other observation I would make is that Paramount has a history (and indeed, policy) of making films with comparatively low budgets that go on to do reasonable, if not spectacular, box office.

    Last week, Sumner Redstone announced that he thought Paramount would have to start taking bigger risks by producing more big budget fare. It would be interesting to see what side of that statement this film falls on...

  117. Oh good by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    And another writer goes without a paycheck.

    Way to go! Billions of dollars and they simply cannot greenlight a new idea.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  118. Colonialism - Don't Forget the Red Weed by meehawl · · Score: 1

    WoW is about xenophobia

    WotW was written by Wells, an avowed Socialist, as a critique of Colonialism. In the story, *we* are the natives of New Zealand, Australia, the Americas, and Africa and the Aliens are the invading Europeans, bringing with them fearsome new technolgies and introducing exotic, destructive new species such as the "Red Weed".

    One of the first people to link Euro hegemony over the past 1000 years to the successful displacement of other global ecologies before the Euro portmanteau biota was Alfred Crosby in Ecological Imperialism : The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 .

    Many people during Wells's day observed very well how invasive Eurasian biologies swarmed astonishingly quickly across the Americas and Oceania, obliterating everything in their path and upsetting or destroying native ecologies and agricultural systems.

    Wells himself referred to the invading Martians sowing their "Red Weed" on earth, and how devoted a lot of space to the narrator's horror as the new plant spread relentlessly across the Earth. Wells was alluding most directly to the then-recent experience of the Maori in New Zealand, who witnessed their entire agricultural system annihilated by invasive Eurasian species, especially the terribly efficient synergy of clover and bees.

    More recently, Ian McDonald has written some good stories about an invasive botanical Alien called "Chaga" that spreads across the Earth. It's a common theme in scifi, I hope the new movie uses it.

    --

    Da Blog
  119. Heil Heinlein! by Vagary · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I haven't read Starship Troopers, but I did see the [Esc]3dbi have read other Heinlein books.

    My understanding was that the point of the film was parody of Heinlein, particularly his neo-fascism. Putting the psychics in blatant Nazi uniforms seems too decontructional to just be trying to reflect the fascism in the book. And I think much of the script is mocking Heinlein's writing style and hero worship.

    If the parody angle is correct, that would certainly explain why so many Heinlein fans didn't get the joke, wouldn't it?

    1. Re:Heil Heinlein! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parody of Heinlein, particularly his neo-fascism

      Anybody that thinks Heinlein was fascist hasn't read anything by him.

      Please remember that not all characters in all books by an author are speaking with the author's voice or expressing his ideals.

      If you look over the sum of his work and judge by that, Heinlein was much more like a libertarian than a fascist. Lazarus Long is more like to be his own personal voice than the History and Moral Philosophy instructor Dubois. It's particularly interesting that Heinlein wrote ST in the middle of writing Stranger In A Strange Land, so it's not even as though the difference reflects a shift in his own attitude.

      Heinlein is simply telling a story and presenting a point of view. Good authors provoke thought, right? But instead of discussing the actual issues raised, lots of people seem to launch right into ad hominem on the author.

      I suppose you think It Could Happen / Revolt in 2100 make him a neo-Christian-fundamentalist as well?

  120. SNEEZE WARNING by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

    No doubt he'll discover their weakness and sneeze on the alien commander in a climactic battle on the mothership.

    After Cruise uses an Apple laptop to hack through the alien's security, there will be a big, Matrix-like fight sequence with the evil alien commander, whose name is Xenu. Cruise will sneeze and droplets will fly out of his nose, bullet-time style. Expect extreme slow motion close ups of phlegm hitting Xenu. The whole sequence will last 15 minutes.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:SNEEZE WARNING by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      strangely this was almost exactly what I thought when I read the article blurb... Except the alien commander isn't named Xenu, it's quite unprouncable and he's 12 foot tall with and wears some sort of powered suit ala Independance Day...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    2. Re:SNEEZE WARNING by spun · · Score: 1

      I can picture it so clearly in my mind: Tom Cruise is bent over backward, like Keanu dodging bullets on top of the building in the first Matrix. In super slow motion, he sneezes. The droplets fly out, full on bullet-time shockwaves and everything. They splash when they hit the alien, who then writhes around moaning, also in super slow motion. Slime coming off the alien hits the other aliens, who are likewise infected, and so forth until they all dissolve into huge puddles.

      Despite being panned by critics, I predict the movie will be a box office hit. Audiences love mucus.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:SNEEZE WARNING by instarx · · Score: 1

      The whole sequence will last 15 minutes.

      And since Speilburg is the director we will see it three times in case we missed noticing how cool it was the first two times.

  121. What about the already made remake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen anyone mention the remake already remade... I think it was in the 80s (and even spawned a TV series), involving alien corpses coming back to life via the miracles of toxic waste.

    Or have you all blocked that particular memory in self defense?

  122. Re:The Greatness of H.G. Wells OR The Magical 4 Ye by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    H.G. Wells is da bomb. I could only wish for one GOOD year, much less 4 in a row. (:

    BTW, not only have I read the book and have the original radio-broadcast, but I have a 70s "musical" version on two CD's (when I say music, I mean the Moody Blues or some other group plays background music and song interludes while the narrator talk-sings the story).

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  123. oh dear god please don't f**k it up by GrumpySimon · · Score: 1

    Why is it that everytime I hear that Hollywood is making a movie about a) a book or b) a remake of a movie I liked or c) a radio show (H2G2, and this), my immediate reaction is 'Oh dear god please don't f**k it up'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting Shakespeare, but just don't screw it the hell up like Solaris or The Italian Job or Planet of the Apes or hell, even A Clockwork Orange.

    Although, maybe since a certain Mr Jackson didn't screw up a recent three book trilogy, this signals a change in the approach? We can only hope.

  124. Rob Schneider is: The Mucus by spun · · Score: 1

    Yeah, see, Rob plays the mucus that Pauly sneezes at the Martians.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  125. Read Iain M. Banks' 'Inversions' by spun · · Score: 1

    I just finished it. It is a very interesting story about two people from a vastly superior culture such as you describe (tolerant, imaginative, dynamic, etc.) trying to change a backward feudal culture. The two are doing it for very personal reasons having to do with love and jealousy rather than pure altruism. The book explores the validity of the concept of changing another culture for the better. Don't expect clear cut, black and white answers from this book. It is very subtle, but still a compelling read.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Read Iain M. Banks' 'Inversions' by StefanJ · · Score: 1

      Oooh, The Culture is a perfect example of what I was writing about.

      I really need to get caught up on Banks's stuff.

      Stefan

    2. Re:Read Iain M. Banks' 'Inversions' by spun · · Score: 1

      Hehe, okay, pretend that you don't know about The Culture when you read 'Inversions.' It will be better that way. I gave away too much describing the book. Just forget everything I said about where the main characters come from.

      'Look to Windward' explores a similar theme about the consequences of meddling in the affairs of others, even to improve them. It doesn't pretend not to be a Culture book ;-)

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  126. Oh, come on by ader · · Score: 1

    The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one (he said). But the chances of this film being much cop are...zero.

    Ade_
    /

    --
    Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
  127. Character is what you are in the dark by spun · · Score: 1

    "Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension" is one of my all time favorite films. I've watched it a dozen times, I get something new from it every time, and yet I never even thought about that line like that. So much of what Dr. Lizardo says is pure nonsense like "Home! Home is where you where your hat! I feel so breakup, I wan' go home!" that I just kinda glossed over it. Makes me want to watch it again. So may great lines in that movie...

    Wherever you go, there you are.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  128. Yes dammit, I can't get that cat off by six809 · · Score: 1

    While HG Wells was an enthusiastic supporter of many of the film adaptations of his work

    Bob knows why. I have a half-memory of a black & white film that may only have existed in my dreams that seemed right to me, but the colour film with the hovering machines was just nonsense.

    the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had to another director taking one of the works with which he became most closely associated, can only be a matter of conjecture.

    Who cares enough to indulge in such conjecture? It wasn't his story. Just like it wasn't Jeff Wayne's story (although I've heard rumours that he effectively tries to claim as much these days... "That's just what I heard somewhere". Though I do really like that musical.).

  129. Tom Cruise!? by tacocat · · Score: 1

    You've got to be kidding me!

    What a sick puppy of a joke to put this guy in the movie. Whatever anyone says of him, he's not the persona of a character you would ever put into this movie.

    Too bad no one read the book before putting him in the script.

  130. The Onion Says by spun · · Score: 1
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  131. Spielberg book - movie conversions by allrong · · Score: 1

    I regard Spielberg's Empire of the Sun as the best book to movie conversion I have ever seen. I thought that Stoppard's script captured the essence of the story, the reflections on the good and bad of each of the cultures. I was also astonished to see Ballard's vivid descriptions of China appear on the screen just as I had imagined them.

    That said, I would love it if Spielberg's favourite actors, the Toms, Hanks and (now) Cruise, gave up "acting" for ever.

    --
    What is the inverse of the Matrix?
  132. Peter Jackson would be perfect... by Danious · · Score: 1

    Exactly! I was so wanting PJ to use his LOTR millions to buy up the rights to the classics like WOTW and HG2G and make versions had had some integrity and imagination.

    But then I'm biased, being a Kiwi and all and living just down the road...

    1. Re:Peter Jackson would be perfect... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Exactly! I was so wanting PJ to use his LOTR millions to buy up the rights to the classics like WOTW and HG2G and make versions had had some integrity and imagination.

      Since War of the Worlds was published in 1898 it is in the public domain. Anyone who feels the urge can make a movie, comic, tee shirt, concept album, reprint the book, etc (and many have). Only if you based your work on a later adaptation (like Welle's radio version, eg) would you have to buy rights. As for classics, well I'm sure you know PJ is working on King Kong. Personally though I'd rather he did something more original than a remake, no matter how well he does it. Thouhg it would be retreading old ground for him, I hope he can work out a deal to do (or at least produce) The Hobbit. I heard he mothballed some of the Shire sets just in case.

  133. wasn't this already done.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the most recent movie adoption of war of the worlds was called "Independance day". Speilburg is an idiot for paying copyright charges of this thing...hell he should just call it close encounters part 2...save a few bucks.

  134. Re:Not Tom!! Harrison Ford or Sam Waterston! by APL+bigot · · Score: 1

    May Tom Cruise be run over by a bus. 'Nuf said!

    --
    Heisenberg may have been here.
  135. Rebutting an AC by neBelcnU · · Score: 1

    Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot.
    -Paul Graham, "What You Can't Say" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

  136. Niven's Footfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see this book as a movie. The Archangel would be cool on the big screen!

  137. Read "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    Done well, that would be a kick arse movie, IMHO.

    Course, I dont lay any odds on someone doing it well. It would probably come out as a bunch of eye-candy.

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  138. Tom cruise actually acting/directing by cnmsales · · Score: 1

    In a new report from the Matt Drudge site it states the tom cruise will also be sharing the directing role for this film. I submitted this same story 2 days ago but it wasnt for some reason published.

  139. Dorking by Cybertect · · Score: 1

    I think you really want to head down the road to Dorking, it seems to amuse my American friends much more :)

  140. Sophomoronic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had to another director taking one of the works with which he became most closely associated, can only be a matter of conjecture

    Now there's a sophomoronic statement if I ever read one.

    What utter rubbish, nonsense.

    You little twit.

  141. Re:The Greatness of H.G. Wells OR The Magical 4 Ye by BiOFH · · Score: 1

    Mr. Wells was very excited by the looming 'turn of the century'. Make of it what you will, but I think this had a lot to do with his late 1890s work.

    --
    - I am made of meat.
  142. But who? by cfuse · · Score: 1
    Spielberg directing, T. Cruise acting.

    But who'll play the 'cute' kid?

    And which blonde will play the screaming, helpless love interest?

  143. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    remake of the classic.

    Remake of what classic?

  144. Another WOTW in the making by Pendragon Pictures? by XNormal · · Score: 1

    Pendragon Pictures is also planning a War Of the Worlds movie. Their concept art looks quite cool.

    They claim that their originally planned "modernized" version had too many similarities to the World Trade Center attack so they pushed it back to rework the script, this time making it an accurate adaptation of the Wells classic story placed in its original 1898 setting.

    I wonder if the 800 lb gorilla (Spielberg/Cruise) might cause them to change their plans again.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  145. Two thumbs up on that idea! by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1

    I think Johnny Depp would be great in WotWs!

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
  146. possibilities by jafac · · Score: 1

    I've actually put a lot of thought to several "classic" sci-fi books, and how they'd make great movies by twisting and bending a little.

    For War of the Worlds, there are a lot of great themes that could be explored:

    - The Martians, because of their overly-agressive, militaristic society, never bothered to actually develop medical science. The problem of whether an infantrysquid gets wounded is resolved by replacing it with a fresh soldier. Their culture's all about fighting and agression and winning. They have the technology, and the muscle, and the agressive drive to mount an interplanetary invasion. So when they get to Earth, it's Earth's environment (germs) that proves deadly to them, not Earth's inhabitants. They have such a poor understanding of medicine, the result of narrow-mindedness, that they're all wiped out.

    - . . . or, their lack of medical science could be the result of conservative religious extremism (see, US policy on stem-cell research).

    - Now, looking at Independence Day - *that* movie was a War of the Worlds remake of a sort. But the aliens' weakness turned out to be a COMPUTER virus. Which is really a decent modern twist, as absurd as it sounds - the producers never bothered to explain the technical reasons why such an invincible aliend assault force didn't bother with computer security (and why their systems were binary compatible with macintosh) - it's a real stretch. Maybe Tom Cruise could be a biologist who creates a super-germ that wipes out the martians? (*appalling*) -

    All that said - Hollywood has had a great opportunity with the surge in popularity of science fiction in the 1980's and 1990's, and has squandered it on flashy special effects, explosions, and cheezy plots. Oh well. I guess Union Caterers are more important than good screenwriters.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.