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?

[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.

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

[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.

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

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. :/

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.

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.

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"?

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

[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

[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

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?

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

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.

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: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: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...

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: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.