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.'"
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.
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.
I thought "Independence Day" was a remake of "War of the Worlds".
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Somewhere out there is a writer with an original story, a powerbook and a digicam.
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
watch this
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.
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
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!
"...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
I thought LXG did wind up fighting Wells' Martians in volume 2?
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
[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
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.
"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*
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. --
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.
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.
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.
'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
>>...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.
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.
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.
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
...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
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.
Which is precisely why I mostly hate Hollywood movies -- they're too easy on the mind.