War of the Worlds Remake Already Shot Overseas

AlphaJoe writes "In regards to remaking War of the Worlds, Steven Spielberg has apparently been beaten to the punch by an English rival, director Timothy Hines, as being reported by SF Crowsnest. Principal photography has already been completed, and a Spring 2005 release date is anticipated. The English version is staying true to the original story, which was set in the late 1800's, where as Spielburg's version will be drastically modified to a more modern version. Hines feels there will be room for both films to exist, as they will be drastically different in story and scope."

Comments

Of course it will be drastically different/modern

[Anonymous Coward]

The English version is staying true to the original story, which was set in the late 1800's, where as Spielburg's version will be drastically modified to a more modern version.

But will it have JarJar?

But will they do the radio broadcast again?

[Nos.]

http://www.transparencynow.com/welles.htm is a good article talking about the broadcast that... upset a few people.

Re:But will they do the radio broadcast again?

[toastgoddess]

And Fourmilab has the original novel by H. G. Wells online. It was first published in 1898 and it's still fun.

Re:But will they do the radio broadcast again?

[robslimo]

Not sure about the 'original' radio broadcast, but every Halloween there's usually at least a few radio stations that play Jeff Wayne's Musical War of the Worlds

Richard Burton narrates (great voice) and at least one member of the Moody Blues) Justin Hayward wrote and performed [some/all?] of the music.

The music is great, the story is excellent... a timeless classic, in my book. Well worth the listen.

Re:But will they do the radio broadcast again?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Currently, everything on the radio has the "talk radio host righteous indignation" tone of voice instead.

"We are being invaded by a left-wing alien force from the planet Mars! I'm telling you people, I'm right about this!"

Re:But will they do the radio broadcast again?

[Long-EZ]

I concur.

I recently bought a copy of Jeff Wayne's rock opera, War of the Worlds, on eBay (no $$$ to RIAA). I had heard it before on the radio, in bits and pieces, and always wanted to listen to it in its entirety. It's really good, and does a good job of following the original story. I wish there were more works like this, that blend a book-on-CD with a musical recording.

The Americanized movie in the sixties was good for its time. With Hollywood creativity in a slump and remakes all the rage, I figured a War of the Worlds remake was coming soon. I hoped it wouldn't be a Spielberg movie. I liked some earlier Spielberg movies, but none lately. AI was a great topic for a movie. I think it's a fascinating subject, yet I was only barely able to sit through the entire movie. It totally missed the mark.

So I'm glad there is a UK remake that stays true to the author's intent. That's the one I'll see. Unfortunately, the Schpeelberg crapola version will be the one making the money. It's the bane of engineers... marketing is much more important than the product.

Oh well, at least it can't be as bad as what Hollywood did to Starship Troopers. Can it?

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[72beetle]

But will it have JarJar?

Yes, and it'll be shooting a walkie-talkie.

It's time for...

[venicebeach]

War of the War of the Worlds.

LOL

[webword]

"Hines feels there will be room for both films to exist, as they will be drastically different in story and scope."

READ: Hines knows that he will be 0wn3d by Steven Spielberg and he is leaving himself wiggle room.

Re:LOL

[grasshoppa]

READ: Hines knows that he will be 0wn3d by Steven Spielberg and he is leaving himself wiggle room.

Actually, it sounded smug. Like he just knows that Spielberg won't be able to leave a good thing alone until he ruins it, like most remakes come out to be.

Take this line for example:

where as Spielburg's version will be drastically modified to a more modern version

I read this as: Spielburg's film will include every big name he can sign on, spend more on Special effects than the GP of most small countries, and get his plot from "Rent-a-plot", with a catch at the end for sequels. And let us not forget the merchandising rights. A cute fuzzy alien teddy bear will probably save the world in Spielburgs version.

Re:LOL

[Volmarias]

The aliens aren't defeated by a cold, not this time around. No, they're much too smart for that. Now, it will be a talk dog sidekick that can fly!

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, kids will be the heroes. I heard that kids will stop the alien machines by getting suck in the air vents and suffocatting the aliens.

Hines to Speilberg

[HMA2000]

FIRST MOVIE!

OWNED!

Re:Hines to Speilberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there an earlier remake called "Independence Day"?

Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

The original WotW was a classic film, beloved by many (including me). Why remake it? Why remake 2 versions? They're out of ideas, folks. This is why we get craptacular stuff. They must not have an original bone/idea left.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[savagedome]

Why remake it? Why remake 2 versions?

Remember the Rocky series. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and will keep going till Sly Stone is 95 years old and can't do it anymore.

It's called milking a cash cow.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[ideatrack]

I don't disagree that Hollywood is producing crap and that remakes is just barrel scraping, but there's more to it than that.

The best films I've seen recently have all underperformed next to dross like 'The Day Before Yesterday' (or whatever it's called) and similar banal movies. Look at 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', it got fantastic reviews, was an incredible achievement but just didn't perform as well as some big explosions and pretty effects. Similarly 'Spirited Away'.

Hollywood does what makes it money and lets it pay retarded sums of money to the actors. Until the audiences mature, and they probably never will, all we can do is get used to it. Guarenteed the Spielberg picture will make a lot of money on name recognition alone.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[Flibz]

I dunno. I reckon that the Pendragon production with full on period setting could be awesome. The book ruled. The audio vesion (Jeff Wayne wasn't it?) was fantastic. It appears to be what I was hoping for from Speilberg, but maybe being an independent it'll have that extra integrity... and it will be set in England ;) The Speilberg version will probably be flimsy and nice looking.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[R.Caley]

Why remake it? Why remake 2 versions?

Well, for one of the two versions, they actuall;y want to make a film of the book. That sounds like a reasonable thing to do to me. In addition, If they just make one without having to throw bones t the religious loons (which shouldbe possible with a British production) that will be one up on the older film.

The Spielberg one will be just the usual mindless drivel with kids who make your skin crawl until you start screaming `eat them' to the monsters, so any connection with either the book or the old film will be just in the title.

So long as they cast Mary Binglebat.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[hattig]

Which "original" ... the awful American version with the floating aliens and the nuclear bomb? That really didn't deserve to have that title, it was nothing like the book.

So we're going to have one film that is close to the original book, and thus be a film of the book. This will probably mean that there will be issues of course, maybe portray the actions as something that happened and was covered up or something ... or just as the Victorian fantasy it was.

And another one which will be a horrible tacky American version with "American" heroes defeating the Alien "Terrorists" who will probably now be from a different star system. I expect the only similarity will be in how the aliens finally die.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

The original WotW was a classic film, beloved by many (including me). Why remake it? Why remake 2 versions? They're out of ideas, folks. This is why we get craptacular stuff. They must not have an original bone/idea left.

The original Unix was a classic OS, beloved by many (including me). Why remake it? Why remake 234 versions? They're out of ideas, folks. This is why we get craptacular stuff. They must not have an original bone/idea left.

The original pickup truck was a classic vehicle ....

The original story of aliens invading the Earth was a classic ....

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[Scrameustache]

The original WotW was a classic film, beloved by many (including me). Why remake it?

Because it was a bastardization of a book and he's making a true-to-the-original adaptation instead.

As for Spielberg, he want money, and remakes of sci-fi with better SFX makes perfect sense to me. I keep hearing about a possible remake of Logan's Run and I would LOVE to see a version of that story that is filmed competantly.

As for WotW, I just hope he mentions the number of observed launches on Mars and the number of ships that reaches earth.
Can't say more without spoilers, but its one of the most fascinating aspect of the story to me and its completely ignored by all adaptations I've seen/heard.

Re:Hollywood is truly out of ideas

[FlimFlamboyant]

There are cases where modern Hollywood creates remakes that are VASTLY better movies (IMHO) than their predecessors. Oceans 11, for one; my appologies (ok maybe not) to all of you "rat pack" fans, but the original was just about the corniest thing I've ever seen. The Manchurian Candidate was also (again, IMO) a far better movie than the original.

I can't comment on this one, because I've never seen the original WOTW. However, I've listened to the original radio broadcast, which, even by today's standards, was well produced and executed, proving that Orson Wells was a man well ahead of his time.

Two to choose from...

[voxlator]

But does it really matter, as long as *one* of them has the Americans crapping in their pants again thinking it's real, just like the radio series (with Orson Wells) did way-back-when...

:o)

--#voxlator

Re:Two to choose from...

[dr_dank]

Interestingly enough, there was a made-for-TV movie about ten years ago that went that same route. They had real newscasters from various markets all reporting on meteor strikes within the US.

Of course, despite dozens of disclaimers, panicked people still called the stations to ask if it was for real.

In Spielburg's version...

[fracai]

The human race meets the Aliens in space and all shoot at the same time.

i think there is a place for both movies

[BigBadDude]

spielberg will probably make yet another blockbuster.

and that other dude will do a great movie without the overused hollywood cliches...

Yay authenticity!

[meganthom]

I think it's a huge relief that Hines is beating Spielburg to the punch. I don't understand why we even bother making movies from books if we are going to change the stories completely. There is a reason many of these books have become classics. I guess that movies "inspired" by books rather than adapted by them are good for reading (you see the movie; you like it; you read the book, and it's better), but I think it hurts our culture in general. Maybe with Hines's movie out first, people will be less likely to think Spielburg's interpretation is Oscar-worthy.

Re:Yay authenticity!

[MenTaLguY]

I think such "remixes" are vital for culture.

Culture isn't a static thing, it must grow and evolve to survive. You have to take the good with the bad. Sometimes changes can bear surprising improvements.

Of course, the problem nowadays is that normally only a very small handful of people are allowed to participate in this, as our cultural works have ceased falling into the public domain.

Peter Jackson was one of the lucky few permitted to license LotR, for example.

There's quite a lot of debate over whether or not he did a good job (I think he did, on balance) -- but wouldn't it be great if the cultural field were open to competition there, as between Spielburg and Hines?

That healthy competition of interpretations is only possible with WotW because it is in the public domain.

For real cultural development, once a work has been established in the popular consciousness for a few decades, artists at large need to be able to build on it.

That used to be how things worked throughout the entirety of human history, until the inhumanly long copyright regimes adopted in the 20th century.

Now free cultural development on top of existing works (like LotR) is impossible until the release of those works (and in most cases the works themselves) has already passed from living memory. :/

Re:Yay authenticity!

[MooseByte]

"I think such "remixes" are vital for culture. [ ... ] Sometimes changes can bear surprising improvements."

Yeah! Like Greedo shooting first! Oh... wait...

Already done?

[Epi-man]

Hasn't War of the Worlds already been remade about 50,000 times? Independence Day? Signs? Heck, even the old 'V' mini-series was basically the same story. I am sure I am forgetting another million movies that were basically the same plot line.

Re:Already done?

[HTH NE1]

Yes, from the original Wells, you have the radio play (and its regional adaptions), the musical version (and its remixes), a stage play, a movie, additional books and short stories, two TV series, an arcade game, at least two computer games, at least one board game, several comic book adaptions, and possibly a new animated series.

Then there are movies with similar plot and resolution, and countless references (Buckaroo Banzai), homages, some direct like Pinky & The Brain's "Battle for the Plant" and more obscure like Krang in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being similar to Wells' Martians.

And don't forget how the radio play provided a case study for mass panic, setting world policy on how and if to release information that might produce panic, and ways to disrupt populaces by promulgating similar hoaxes for military purposes.

Not so much a retread but that the story is such a classic that it can be told so many times, and a telling that follows the original so closely has never been done on film before.

Re:Already done?

[Scrameustache]

Independence Day? Signs? Heck, even the old 'V' mini-series was basically the same story. I am sure I am forgetting another million movies that were basically the same plot line.

VERY basically.
I take it you've never read the book, because aside from an alien invasion, there isn't much similar between these and WotW.

Its more of an archetype comparison than a direct comparison. Like all love stories are "Boy meets girl", but they are not all basically the same story as Romeo and Juliet.

And by the way, "V" and "Independance Day" both ripped off Arthur C. Clark's premise for "Childhood's End": Giant city sized spaceships suddenly show up and proceed to silently hover over every major metropolis on earth, omniously. As opposed to the premise of WotW: Astronomers observe repeated explosions on Mars, and later, objects that appear to be coming from Mars towards us, and then there are landings of small crafts in the country.

Spoilerish:
P.S. The Overseers do not care about humanity's hapiness...
;-)

What? Just like...

[ashitaka]

Deep Impact and Armageddon?
Volcano and Dante's Peak?

You know the battle is lost when multiple movie makers are RE-making the same movie at the same time.

Re:What? Just like...

[Scrameustache]

Deep Impact and Armageddon?
Volcano and Dante's Peak?
You know the battle is lost when multiple movie makers are RE-making the same movie at the same time.

Look into it deeper, and you will find that every year the same basic plot is made into at least 3 major studio movies.

There was the year of comets, the year of volcanos, the year of alien invasions (Independance Day, Mars Attacks), the year of virtual realities (Matrix, 13th Floor, Existanz), this year was Superheroes I believe, a couple years ago it was haunted houses.
Its a definate pattern that has been repeating yearly for as long as I remember.

Its as though one studio starts making a film, and the others rush into production with a basic description "comets will destroy the earth, a team with spaceships try to stop it", "haunted house", "alien invasion", "airplane crashes", "superhero", etc.

Re:What? Just like...

[Dirtside]

Not quite accurate. It's quite common that two movies get greenlighted around the same time that have the same basic premise or story; 3 movies at once is extremely rare.

It has nothing to do with one studio finding out that another one has been greenlighted, then rushing to copy it; it's just a matter of probabilities. Of the thousands of screenplays and pitched ideas that studios buy each year, there's a significant change that there will be at least two that are on the same basic idea.

The last thing a major studio's going to do is deliberately copy the same idea as another studio (and of course there are always exceptions, but this is the general rule). It doesn't make financial sense. Look at it like a timeline:

- It begins with studio A buying a script about, let's say, a giant asteroid smashing into the Earth. Let's assume studio B finds out the very same day that this script was bought, and decides (that day) to make its own giant asteroid movie.
- Studio A has a huge lead-time because the screenplay has already been written; Studio B is months behind (despite what you may think about the quality of the movies that come out, writing a good, original screenplay is really fucking hard). So if it wants to beat studio A's film to theaters, it needs to cut a lot of corners both on the script and on preproduction.
- Studio B STILL has to hope that, even if they do cut those corners, they finish their movie first. The more they rush, the worse the movie is going to be; but taking longer means they risk coming out second with a movie that is still not going to be very good.
- On the flipside, if B deliberately takes longer so that it comes out with its movie months after A, it has to hope that its movie ends up being better than A's, because otherwise it will just look like an also-ran. This is not trivial.

There are little independent producers/studios that will make cheap rip-offs in order to glom onto the media frenzy accompanying a big movie (witness the numerous cheap asteroid strike direct-to-video movies that came out right around the same time as Armageddon), but that's a different story, because those movies have a tiny budget and the leftover hype from the Big Hollywood Version can easily turn them a profit. Paramount is not going to see Universal buy a script about a volcano exploding and rush its own into production.

If they both happen to have bought the same story around the same time, and then one announces that it's going into production, the other might then rush its own into production -- but they've already got the script, so it's a more even race (and since they've already spent the money on buying the script, they don't want to waste that investment. Nevermind that 95% of the scripts they buy, they never make, but when there's suddenly a competitor to a particular script they bought, it makes them macho).

The weirdest one that I remember is the two biopics about Steve Prefontaine, a fairly obscure distance runner.

RUN!

[travdaddy]

War of the Worlds? There's already been a shot overseas? Don't RTFA, head for the hills!!!

Which one will Mel Brooks choose

[samberdoo]

For his next spoof. Will the Speilberg movie be title "Band of Martians"?

Everybody's happy

[wcrowe]

That's great. One movie for literate fans, and one for the NASCAR crowd (Hint: if you don't know which is which, you're in the NASCAR crowd).

Re:Everybody's happy

[Archangel Michael]

That's great. One movie for the pretentious elitists, and one for normal people (Hint: if you know which is which, you are a pretentious elitist).

I can't stand people who demean others, just because they aren't FREAKING pretentious. The Artsy Fartsy crowd is just as bad as the Nascar Crowd.

Re:Everybody's happy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe it. Glorification of mediocrity and the belittling of intellectual endeavour, right here on Slashdot.

Re:Everybody's happy

[wcrowe]

Is is any wonder that the American education system is the laughingstock of the world when mere literacy is treated as elitism?

Re:Everybody's happy

[thenextpresident]

It's not that literacy is being treated as elitism, it's that the elitists are treating literacy as elitism. The original post stated one movie for the literates, one movie for the Nascar fans. Their is definetly implied elitism there.

Next, being literate is not simply mere. Literate doesn't just mean being able to read and write. In fact, literate usually means well read, or well learned.

The implication is that people who are educated will like one, while those who are not educated will like the other.

Which is all very interesting, because the purpose of movies and books are basically to entertain. Therefore, a movie that entertains more people could be considered better than a movie that only entertains a select few (the elitists). After all, the movie that entertains more people has accomplished it's main goal more-so than the other movie.

Note: Please do not take the above as me saying I like X type of movies. Assuming that from reading the above is very Nascar-like of you. =)

Re:Everybody's happy

[Archangel Michael]

It so happens that NASCAR requires a great deal of "literacy" to be successful. Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, all sorts of other technical skills.

The drivers aren't some dumb guy sitting behind a stearing wheel either. That is mearly your OPINION. I think most of the Artsy Fartsy crowd is illiterate in math and sciences. Sure, they may know art, literature and all the pretty shinies (debatable looking at what they consider "art").

The fact is, that they are pretentious, thinking that what they know is somehow more important than what the NASCAR crowd knows.

Personally, I think BOTH crowds can learn from each other. The Artsy Fartsy crowd can learn how to race their gas / electric Hybrids, and the NASCAR crowd can learn how to paint their bodies better.

It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

You wait for a WotW film for decades, then 2 come along at once... seriously, though, the idea of doing a production of the original version, not the godawful american update (why must EVERYTHING be set in the US with US actors?) can only be a good thing. The original WotW was full of social commentary on the europeans in africa etc and colonialism. Cheesy spielberg remakes will be terrible.

Very overblown

[GuyMannDude]

Actually, the commonly-believed story that there was mass panic was really a newspaper-fueled fantasy. The number of people who actually were scared enough to go ape-shit was quite small. You can read more about the overhyped-hysteria here -- go down halfway on the page until you get to "Book Excerpts, by Prof. David L. Miller".

By the way, the rest of that page has a lot of interesting material on the War of the Worlds broadcast, if you are interested.

GMD

I kind of liked the original version

[Dark Paladin]

I mean, the original movie version. When was that made - 1960's, 1970's or so?

It is probably the quintessential sci-fi movie: the professor and the "cute girl" trying to survive a terrible horror, the place of faith and science, and then the classic ending - with a bit on the usefulness (or, uselessness) of atomic energy.

I need to get the DVD of that and show it to my kids. I don't think this is nostalgia talking (I hate nostalgia the way some people hate liver), but some of the sci-fi movies of the 60's-70's had more style, or at least made more sense and prompted deeper questions.

Look at "The Time Machine". The original left you wondering "You know, if I was going to rebuild civilization, what three books would you take?" I remember having discussions with people over this issue, the sheer philosophy and rational behind such a decision.

The modern version? You wondered how the hell those guys grew brains out of their spines, and how Weena learned English. Yeah. Lots of thought put in there.

Re:I kind of liked the original version

[spitzak]

That was George Pal's War of the Worlds, made in 1953. George Pal also made the other movie you mentioned, The Time Machine in 1960.

George Pal also made When Worlds Collide and several other big budget (for the time) science fiction films. He really was the Spielberg/Lucas of that time.

Re:I kind of liked the original version

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you liked both those films, since they were both made by the same film producer: George Pal.

He also made Destination Moon, one of the first "realistic" science fiction movies, as well as When Worlds Collide. His earlier work included Puppetoons, three dimensional animation using puppets with replacable parts.

Here is a nice synopsis for you. Plus, he was apparently just a really nice guy.

Re:I kind of liked the original version

[lawpoop]

"I need to get the DVD of that and show it to my kids."

Yeah, they'll love that!

Dad: "Kids, get in here! We're watching a movie."

Bro: "Not again!"

Dad: "This is a great Sci-Fi classic. I loved it when I was your age."

Sis: "I hate these movies!"

Mom: "Honey, just let them play on their own."

Independence Day

[selfsealingstembolt]

... where as Spielburg's version will be drastically modified to a more modern version ...

Hasn't that been done by Emmerich already? If you take a look at the plot of ID4:
- Aliens attack earth
- Their weapons are far superior
- Our weapons cannot hurt them really
- A virus kills them

It has a very close resemblence to the book War of the Worlds, the difference is that it is set in modern times.

Re:Independence Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Another similarity:

The original movie had a B-49 Flying Wing deliver a nuclear weapon against the invaders, and ID4 had a B-2 stealth bomber (essentialy a flying wing) deliver one.

Re:Independence Day

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that in ID4, humans created the virus. It's an important point in the book, and central to the American movie that the Martians were killed by something that humans did not create.

Re:Independence Day

[sharkey]

Pretty close. Rumor has it that in Spielberg's WotW, the Martians turn out to be absolutely terrified of walkie-talkies, and provide flying bicycles to humanity as a concession in the peace treaty after they find out that every cop, FBI/CIA/DHS/RIAA agent and soldier/sailor/airman on Earth is armed with one.

Possible because WOTWorlds is in the public domain

[thisissilly]

War of the Worlds was original published in 1898. At the time, US copyright lasted for 28 years, and was renewable at that point for a second 28 year term, so copyright could have lasted until 1954. Now that it's public domain, no-one needs to ask permission to make a film out of it.

In comparison, H.G. Wells died in 1946. If Wells had lived under current US copyright law (life+70), WotW would not be public domain until 2016.

My first Mod Parent Up! posting

[ashitaka]

The article successfully compares how people can be easily deceived by simulations.

1938 - War of the worlds (Fake news broadcast)
1950's - Game shows (Fake game shows)
1990's - Milli Vanilli (Fake singing)

Re:My first Mod Parent Up! posting

[dylan_-]

2004 - Gulf War2 (Fill in your own) :-)

Re:My first Mod Parent Up! posting

[Viceice]

A true story about the power of Radio

Around the early 90's, Malaysia had about 3 radio stations that broadcasted in English. The more predominate one was the government owned Radio 4. It is an unformatted station and the DJs basically had the freedom to do whatever they wanted, as long as they were within the tolerances of censorship law.

Radio 4's morning show (morning till about noon) was hosted by a DJ named Patrick Teoh, whose morning show usually consisted of a talk show where he would highlight social issues and current events. He brought up issues like the horrible traffic situation, dirty public toilets and as much as he could, criticism of the follies of those in power.

So, about a week before April Fools day, Patrick was called upon by a friend of his, a Creative Director at an advertising agency. The agency wanted to do a little stunt for April Fools day and a plan was hatched.

Rather a duck was hatched. It was agreed that on April Fools day, Patrick would start his show as normal, and as the topic of the day, he would highlight the (fictional) case of an advertising agency abusing ducks. The Story was that an advertising agency, in making an advertisement featuring dancing ducks, got the ducks to dance by placing them on hot plates and filming them as their feet were burned and jumped.

As expected, the radio station's switch board lit up like a Christmas tree, with callers angrily criticising the Ad agency for their cruelty towards animals and along the way, angry words were said, along with demands for more details and the identity of the company.

As was the plan, about halfway through the show, a (fictional) lady secretary form the Ad Agency was to call the station and she was to tell a (again fictional) sob story about how she felt so guilty that her company was doing this and how the Creative Director for whom she worked was a really cruel man and he was keeping teh ducks in a back room at the office. Along the way she let it slip that the Creative Director was a foreigner.

After the call, again came a new torrent of callers. This time, instead about being about the ducks, the nature of the called suddenly turned nationalistic, with things like "How dare these foreigners come to our country and do this to our ducks?" being said and people were demanding that the Creative Director be sacked and booted out of the country.

Next on the script was a call from a fictional animal rights group, it called itself GNAP, which if you said out loud sounds exactly like the word for 'duck' in a local dialect, the first clue that the whole thing was an April Fools joke. So the group voiced its objections and vowed action. (Satire on the many real life NGO's who are mainly talk and little action)

A few more calls later was the finale, where the Managing Director of the Ad Agency was to call. In his call he would make a public apology on the company's behalf, explaining that the Creative Director acted on his own and the end of the call was a dramatic firing of the Creative Director, with "... wherever you are, if you are hearing this, consider this yourself fired and come over and pack up your things"

Now, even though the Ad Agency was real, the Creative Director was indeed the person named, the story about the ducks, the secretary's admission, the animal rights group and the dramatic closing were pure fiction. It was to be announced later that the who thing was just a April Fools prank.

Now, what wasn't expected that while all this was going on, the real life SPCA was listening in and alarm bells went off. In the heat of the moment, without proper investigation, a police report was lodged against the Ad Agency for cruelty to the ducks. Just after the drama ended on radio, a team of policemen along with the SPCA raided the premises of the Ad Agency.

It was of course explained to the raiding party that the whole thing was a joke, but with all the outrage, the secretary's emotional admission and the dramatic firing of the Creati

It's about stealing a brand-name

[GuyMannDude]

I don't understand why we even bother making movies from books if we are going to change the stories completely.

Oh, come on! That's an easy one! Two words: name recognition. Making a movie is an expensive proposition and is always risky. By co-opting a well-known name and slapping it on their product, the studios already have a built-in market. They can save money on promotion and marketing as well. We saw this a few years ago when Tri-Star took the internationally-known brand-name of Godzilla and slapped it on the front of a movie in which the monster bore little to no resemblance to the real deal.

Never underestimate the power of a brand-name. Remember when we were kids and you just *had* to have Pac-Man on your home console? The fact that the home versions really, really sucked didn't matter all that much? Remember how you were more happy to have a 3rd-rate version of Pac-Man rather than a 1st-rate version of, say, Mousetrap or some other Pac-Man-like maze game? That's what I'm talking about here. So it is with movies as well.

GMD

Re:It's about stealing a brand-name

[kmak]

Cue I Robot..

Amazing no one posted the site...

[AnswerIs42]

The official page for the movie is here.

There are some stills. But only of the actors. Nothing on how the war machines look yet. Or the thunderchild.

Should check out the Chrome trailer, pretty interesting.

The backstory to this would be a good 1984

[Afty0r]

In 2002 they had finished filming, and moved the release date from 2005 to 2004:
http://www.pendragonpictures.com/CRMtrlr1.h tml

Now, apparently, today in 2004, they are announcing a release date of 2005.

Chrome - back then finished and ready to hit cinemas in 2003 still has not emerged yet - here in 2004.

Apparently they searched high and wide for acting talent (wantint to cast unknowns) and auditioned over a thousand people, only to decide to carry on with a lead actor from Chrome.

Is this some sort of joke? Anyone got an inside scoop?

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[Shadow Wrought]

JarJar will not be in the theatrical release. However, he will be inserted in the DVD edition because "that's we really wanted to do all along..."

In all seriousness though, I find myself more excited about this version than the Hollywood version. I hope the Peter Jackson philosophy continues to trickle through movie making.

Nah, they just club us with their walkie-talkies

[Shivetya]

Spielburg's aliens won't even have death rays, most likely they will just have a new improved orgasmatron :)

The Earth ends up winning when we subject the aliens to 24 hour round the clock election coverage

No Big Deal

[kannibal_klown]

Spielberg used to be pretty dang good. However, his "updated" version of ET was laughable; I particularly like South Park's spoof about "Saving Private Ryan" with all guns replaced by walkie-talkies.

Let's take "I, Robot" for example. It didn't really capture the complexities of Asimov's short stories, but for what it was, it was an alright flick. It was a summer action flick with some parallels to the themes in Asimov's book, particularly the end. Yeh, it was obvious, dumbed down, and action-packed; but what else would you expect from a Summer movie with Will Smith?

Depending on how it looks, I might go see it, or at least wait until it's available "On-Demand." Will I expect the quality of story-telling from the original? No. Will I expect something visually stunning with perhaps some decent directing? Probably.

I'll have to wait and see, but I'm not going to put it down simply because Spielberg cannot possibly live up to the expectations of movie-buffs everywhere. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.

Hey, at least Lucas isn't involved.

I have always wanted to see

[dmatos]

A classy on-screen rendition of the ironclad destroying the Martian walker. That was the most powerful scene in the book for me.

lots of faith

[LuxFX]

Hines feels there will be room for both films to exist

That's a very calm reaction to someone who's work will inevitably be compared to Spielburg's. It sounds like he has a lot of faith in his project, I hope it turns out as good as he seems to think it will be. I'd much rather see a remake that's faithful to the story than a hollywood bastardization.

Differences in the versions

[192939495969798999]

British version vs. Spielberg version... GO!

1. lead actor: Someone that can act! vs. Ashton Kutcher
2. lead actress: Someone that can act vs. Kelly Osbourne
3. Special effects budget: 406 pounds vs. 406 million dollars
4. Days in advance for ticket line: 1 vs. 45
5. Amount of spinoff merchandise: 0.003 vs. 15 million tons (landfill volume to be occupied when the 10-year old boys turn 11 and have to have the next toy in line)
6. Awards won at Cannes: 46 vs. 0
7. People fooled by the broadcast: all in attendance (because it's that good) vs. only the way-too-young kids that parents continue to drag to movies (because what other reason would they have to scream through your $9.50?)

Overseas first?

[JustNiz]

It has probably been outsourced to India where it will be filmed in Hindi by Mr. Dalliwallispielbergi, then badly overdubbed into English.

hmmm

[minus_273]

i dont know but i could have sworn there was a modern version done already and that is was a big summer block buster..

Re:Yay authenticity! go independents

[LaMuk]

I don't see any reason why a movie shouldn't be different from the book. As long as it it is a good movie. After all it is a different medium.

The real problem, is that Hollywood seems to be out of ideas. Fortunately, making movies is getting so cheap that we have other choices. The best films last year were from independents. I even enjoy the $10 budget films that are made for our town's ameteur film festival. They are not all good, but they are quirky. And they are filled with local humor.

"Not-A-Word Police" make an arrest!

[goldspider]

"Scenarii"?? I've seen some bad ones on Slashdot in my time, but some of you people aren't even trying to mimic the English language anymore.

If the Bono copyright extension act applied...

[dameron]

Someone would have to acquire the rights from the copyright holder, so there wouldn't be two films.

Wells died in 1946 so "War of the Worlds", published in 1898 wouldn't enter the public domain until 2021. That's a whopping 123 years of copyright protection.

And we could look forward to Sherlock Holmes finally entering the public domain sometime next year.

-dameron

-----
DailyHaiku.com, saying more in 17 syllables than Big Media says all day.

War of the Worlds, Star Wars...

[lightspawn]

Now we just need Battle of the Planets, and we're set.

A rant about remakes and book based movies

[hellfire]

Okay, I'm sick and tired of the hollywood crew basically turning out the same damn thing over and over. And instead of coming up with a new idea and story, they rehash the old ones. And if the old ones don't fit a demographic or specific plot, it's altered to match it. Movies like I-Robot and A Sound of Thunder were great as sci fi stories, but movies took the very concept of those stories and twisted it into another action thriller with special effects. The movies are practically the same damn thing, and the written stories are drastically different!

Now, sometimes remakes or book based movies are okay. This is because the director puts his artistic interpretation on the books that's based on art, not money.

The Thomas Crown affair was an interesting remake. It put a great spin on a classic movie, and that spin was based on good movie making, not making a movie for the masses that would turn a quick buck. Both the old and new version of the movie stand on their own as good movies in my opinion.

Another example is Harry Potter. Many of you zealous slashdotters don't like HP, but I like it as nice escapist and imaginative reading. It's just fun. Now the movies turn a tidy profit so it's not to say that there isn't money involved, but the books practically read like a screenplay, so taking the book to the movies and showing everything off is not a bad thing, because a director's artistic interpretation is not going to alter the feel of plot dramatically or change it to anything drastically different than what J.K. initially created. It's further cool to see J.K.'s world visually as well as to read about it.

Hollywood types create screenplays based off of kneejerk reactions of what will make money, not the quality of the work. "Hey, that Bradbury story was cool, but let's turn it into a thriller to attract more people. Who cares if it changes the theme, we need to make shitloads of money."

I'm so sick of bad remakes and the like. I'd rather have Hines take the story and attempt to stay true to the story and flop miserably, than Spielberg make a copy and turn it into a blockbuster action ride that has no deeper meaning and makes a mockery of a great classic Sci-fi story.

Re:A rant about remakes and book based movies

[east coast]

Many of you zealous slashdotters don't like HP, but I like it as nice escapist and imaginative reading.

No no, I really get into the works of Lovecraft too.... Oh, that's not the HP you're talking about is it? My Bad.

I guess I was much to far in the concept of great writers/stories that have fallen pray to bad adaptations.

Looking on the positive side

[CmdrGravy]

Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe the copyright holder would refuse the Lucas version and only allow good films to be made. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Overseas...?

[Dr. Evil]

In a global medium, "overseas" is a silly thing to say.

Re:Possible because WOTWorlds is in the public dom

[cei]

Actually, I've mentioned this before in a few places, but in 2002 the Manhattan Supreme Court upheld a contract that gave Paramount exclusive rights (even though the work was in the public domain...)

From Yahoo! News:

Paramount Wins The War of the World Rights
Fri Apr 19, 7:41 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The grandchildren of author H.G. Wells lost their bid to control The War of the Worlds when Paramount Pictures was granted exclusive television rights to the science fiction novel in a ruling made public on Friday.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Ira Gammerman, in a six-page decision, said the Wells grandchildren, who filed a suit against Paramount nearly 18 months ago, are unable to sell the right to produce and distribute a television motion picture/miniseries based on the novel to Hallmark Cards Entertainment Productions LLC.

The novel earned a place in pop culture after actor Orson Welles set off a nationwide panic with his famed radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938.

When H.G. Wells died in 1946, he left all his rights and interests in the novel to his son, Frank. After his death, Frank Wells children, Martin and Robin Wells as trustees of their fathers estate, began negotiations with Hallmark to produce and distribute a TV miniseries based on the novel.

When Paramount learned of the negotiations in 1988, it asserted exclusive ownership of the television rights, based on a 1951 contract signed by Frank Wells.

The grandchildren and Hallmark as plaintiffs in the action had argued that while the 1951 contract gave Paramount extensive motion picture rights this was not television rights.

But the judge ruled that any motion pictures that Paramount has the right to produce, it also has the right to televise.

The grandchildren in their suit had attempted to draw a distinction between motion pictures and television miniseries.

Such a distinction is untenable, the judge wrote.

I emailed that to Lessig, and he was at a loss to explain it at the time.

Re:No doubt...

[Hassman]

How about Brits using Brit accents when they are suppose to be Russian?

Also, when did he warp a story before? Your argument is much more effective when you give examples... Because he didn't do U571, as you implied...

fluidity of time

[spoonyfork]

You might be interested in knowing that Gulf War2 started in 2003 and ended on May 1st, 2003. I don't know where you're getting 2004 from.

Re:fluidity of time

[autopr0n]

Gulf War2 started in 2003 and ended on May 1st, 2003

Wow. Someone really should have told the iraqis.

Re:fluidity of time

[spoonyfork]

i was under the impression we still had troops there regularly battling "insurgents" or whatever theyre being called

Correct. What the US called a war is over. The occupation is ongoing and what you are referring to is what other people outside the US call resistance, perhaps even a revolution since Iraq has an interim government. If they are indeed fighting themselves it could possibly be referred to as a civil conflict. Only when the entire history can be observed in whole from the future it will perhaps be described as a singular war... if it ever achieves something resembling an end.

My crystal ball tells me that September 11th 2001 was the large step in the start of a global conflict over religious extremism and oil. Since the inappropriate word crusade is already taken, I can see the whole conflict labeled something romantically unoriginal like World War 4. Truthfully, I've been referring to it as the Arabic War because that's what it is.

BTW, is this thread off topic if the original article is titled "War of the Worlds Remake Already Shot Overseas"? Chilling, isn't it?

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[the_maddman]

But will it have JarJar?

Ok people, repeat after me:
Spielberg != Lucas
Spielberg != Lucas
Spielberg != Lucas

ET phone home jokes are probably called for, but JarJar? WTF? We're supposed to be geeks, sticklers for trivial facts. I mean, Lucas and Spielberg don't even look alike.
[insert relevant joke] Maybe the martians will be velocoraptors with Unix computers [insert relevant joke]

Re:Don't forget to see the original first...

[MrBlackBand]

Wouldn't the original be the book? The 1953 movie was very different than the book. I liked the book much better, mainly due to the contrast between the 19th century Earth and the much more advanced Martians. The towering Martian war machines were much more frigtening in my mind than the hood-ornament saucers in the movie.

Re:Possible because WOTWorlds is in the public dom

[cei]

Indeed. IANAL, but I wasn't aware that contract law could trump copyright law. If someone sold a company the film rights in 1951, how long is that contract actually valid for? Perpetuity? I realize now days film rights are done with "options" that can expire, be resold, etc., but I'm guessing that the system wasn't that sophisticated (read, people weren't looking for loopholes so much) back in the 50's...

Poor H.G. Wells

[Levetron]

H.G. Wells is a brilliant writer, and arguabley the greatest Sci-Fi writer. He is also my favorite author. Unfortunately, his stories have a long history of being butcherd by hollywood, although I haven't seen some of the early adaptations from the 30's (and an Invisible Man from the 60's)- which seem to rate fairly well. Please let him rest in peace. Here is a partial listing:

The Food of the Gods - misses the point
The Empire of the Ants - a disaster
The Island of Dr. Moreau - 96 - aaaaagrh!
The Island of Dr. Moreau - 77 - fair
The Island of Dr. Moreau - 33 - haven't seen, might be good
The War of the Worlds Tv Series - Why?
The Time Machine - Fair
The Invisible Man - too horrible to contemplate

Oh, the pain...

Re:Poor H.G. Wells

[snarkasaurus]

Gotta agree with you. He postulated no end of modern machines before they existed, the quintessential science fiction writer.

Possibly the problem is that Hollywood is American, and has never understood the Victorians at all. Even at the time they didn't understand them, or like them. 1837 wasn't very long after 1812, let us not forget. Even in Well's time they remembered the War of 1812 the way we remember WWI.

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[ColdGrits]

"I hope the Peter Jackson philosophy continues to trickle through movie making."

Which philosophy is that?

The one where the director makes large changes to the story and characters, creating plot holes and needlesly destorying the way in which key characters work? The one where the director fucks up the editing and pacing so much that they have to delete an important encounter from the film for timing reasons? The one where the editor re-writes the story in a major way because he feels like it?

PJ's approach was already long-established within Hollywood. I'm just hoping his "philosophy" is not allowed to continue to spread and that instead we can have directors who can edit properly and who don't fuck about with characters for no reason and who do not drastically rewrite the story for their own purposes.

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[Daemonik]

A good book can not always be shot page by page for a movie. Personally, I was willing to give up a few chapters of hobbits walking along a trail and singing about pipeweed if it meant a sensational battle at Helm's Deep or a kick ass Gollum.

Peter Jackson may not have put together a 100% accurate tribute to LOTR but he treated it a lot gentler than any other Hollywood director would have. For God's sake man, what could a hack like Joel Schumacher have done to it!!! Imagine some Hollywood deal maker trying to get Chris Rock a bit part as a wisecracking Orc or something "So it will resonate better with the urban youth". Sweet jumping baby Christ, some people don't know when they got it good.

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[Shadow Wrought]

Transferring a novel to the screen is not as easy a task as most people tend to believe. A book portrays what is going on within the character, a movie portrays the character's interactions with others. The Peter Jackson philosophy of which I am speaking is one of trying to remain true to the story. Since it is impossible to tell the exact story of the book, the idea is stay true to the overarching story, which is what he did. You obviously disagree with that, but I think he did an excellent job. When I saw the movie after having read the books I was disappointed that certain characters and events were not included, but I also remembered that this was a movie. It could not capture 100% of what I read. If it could, there would be little point to reading it, right?

What hollywood has been about in the past is taking something with a built in audience, just like LoTR, and putting out something that was crap because it already had a built in audience. Rick "f'n" Berman is a prime example of this with his Trek offerings. Instead Peter Jackson kept a reverence for the books in his movies that I truly do think came through. Because of that, more people read the books than they otherwise would have, and the legacy of Tolkien was strengthened. That is the philosophy that I support.

Re:Of course it will be drastically different/mode

[PapayaSF]

A good book can not always be shot page by page for a movie.

Indeed, and you'd probably be safe to say "never." The Hollywood rule of thumb is that one page of screenplay equals one minute of screen time. (Oddly, this rule holds regardless of whether it's for dialog, action, or description.) Add this to the fact that screenplays have far fewer words on a page than the average novel, and it's easy to see that all but the shortest novels are too long for page-by-page adaptation. With Lord of the Rings, we're talking about roughly 1,200 pages, and even if those were less-dense screenplay pages, that translates to 20 hours of screen time!

Still in copyright in the UK

[rpjs]

However, the life+70 rule was adopted by the UK in 1988 and made retrospective, which resulted in some works that had fallen out of copyright because the previous life+50 rule had expired, re-entering it.

So Wells' books are still in copyright in the UK, and have never left it. I wonder quite who Pendragon films got the rights from?