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.'"
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
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,
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?"
Let's post some juicy excerpts from the book as /. stories and see how may geeks panic and run for the hills.
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.
Is this the same movie?: IMDB link. Or did Steven buy these guys out?
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
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".
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...?"
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?
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.
Please. Anyone but Tom. Seriously.
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.
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?"
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.
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'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...
Un-news
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?)
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
watch this
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
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
'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
...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
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
Spoiler! Yeah right - who dares read
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.
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