Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

War of the Worlds Remake 518

Posted by michael from the mission-implausible dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

War of the Worlds Remake More

War of the Worlds Remake

Comments Filter:

  • Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:08PM (#8600037) Homepage Journal
    A sad day for the people of earth...

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

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

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


    • Further proof that there is not a single gram of original talent in Hollywood. They'd rather bodge something old than risk doing something new.
    • In 2002, radio host Glenn Beck [glennbeck.com] did a War of the Worlds radio broadcast on Halloween. I only heard exerpts, but it was pretty cool. At one time, you could listen to the two hour show online from the web site.
      • WKBW's 1968 production is a stand-out, although the audio quality has much degraded. The 1971 remake is easily found on the web, and is well worth your time, but doesn't carry the same impact. KB was Buffalo, New York's top-rated station for rock and news, the drama used live remotes from around the city, new technology then. Localized, updated and played straight with an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, it is a perfect compliment to the Welles original.

    • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:14PM (#8600142) Homepage Journal
      Seriously. I am absolutely with you on this one. The thing that worries me is that Spielberg and Cruise will make another film like Minority Report, that has all the potential of being good cinematic material that could tell a good story and make commentary on social issues, but falls completely flat on lousy acting. A great book, but from the looks of it, will become another vehicle for T. Cruise.

      • the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had to another director taking one of the works with which he became most closely associated, can only be a matter of conjecture

        I think we can predict quite well how he would have reacted to the coming remake of his masterpiece: "Halloween Part 7: Freddy Krueger versus Citizen Kane", starring Geraldo Rivera.

      • SPOILER WARNING! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:59PM (#8603009) Journal

        Spoiler! Yeah right - who dares read /. who doesn't know the story?

        it, will become another vehicle for T. Cruise.

        That's likely to be the biggest problem for me. The emphasis in the original book seemed to be on mankind's helplessness. It was only and only the alien's weakness that saved us all. We could do nothing. It's hard to see Hollywood and Tom Cruise playing this up. No doubt he'll discover their weakness and sneeze on the alien commander in a climactic battle on the mothership.

        The colour movie I saw also distorted Welles' original message, if not the facts, by putting them all in a church at the end, praying to God for deliverance. Suddenly the aliens start dying and the clear implication is that God did it really. *wink wink*

        Bleh! I dread this!

        • SNEEZE WARNING (Score:4, Funny)

          by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @05:14PM (#8603856) Journal
          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.

    • Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:17PM (#8600183) Homepage Journal
      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 ;-)

      • Re:Hang on there Mr Half-Glass-Empty! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:25PM (#8600275)
        I agree with you - when I heard they were making Harry Potter movies my first reaction was "great, teaching another generation they can just go see the movie instead of reading a book."

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

        • Mister HP (Score:3, Interesting)

          by fm6 ( 162816 )
          Kids were lining up to buy the books long before there was any glimmer of a movie.

          I enjoyed the first couple of HP books, though I'm not sure there's enough story there to sustain the books that have already been published, never mind two more.

          I'm not a rabid fan, but I was disappointed by the first movie's failure to capture the feeling of the book. (No chance I'll go to any of the sequels.) My favorite scene in the first book is where Harry is all uptight about having to learn to ride a broom. All the

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

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

        Josh

    • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:5, Funny)

      by anzha ( 138288 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:26PM (#8600286) Homepage Journal

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

      Repeat after me. There was no Starship Troopers movie.

      • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:4, Funny)

        by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @01:38PM (#8601289) Homepage
        And there was only one sequel to Alien. And only one Highlander.

      • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:21PM (#8602568)
        You guys need to stop focusing in on the title, and realize what the movie was -- an excellent parody of WWII propaganda films that happens to share the same name and bare-bones plotline of the book. They are two different creatures, each good in its own arena --- the movie as satire and action film, the book as an idealogical platform and true sci-fi.

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

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

        • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Flavius Stilicho ( 220508 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:57PM (#8602982)
          You guys need to stop focusing in on the title, and realize what the movie was -- an excellent parody of WWII propaganda films that happens to share the same name and bare-bones plotline of the book. They are two different creatures, each good in its own arena --- the movie as satire and action film, the book as an idealogical platform and true sci-fi.

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

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

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

      • Repeat after me. There was no Starship Troopers movie.

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

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

    • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fizban ( 58094 ) <fizban@umich.edu> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:26PM (#8600287) Homepage
      I'm actually thinking this will be okay. Spielberg, because he no longer has to listen to what other producers in hollywood say about his projects, is very similar to an independent film producer. He has the freedom to do things the way he sees it, without it being muddled with other people's input. Whether that agrees with how you see it is another thing, but one can hope that he'll do things well, because he has a long track record of doing *great* films.

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

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

      • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:5, Funny)

        by HaveNoMouth ( 556104 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:37PM (#8600437) Homepage
        I think you dislike Cruise just because he's Cruise and not necessarily for any specific acting reason. As much as people tag him as an "action" hero, he's actually not. How many "action" pictures has he actually been in? Most of his films are deeper than that. The Last Samurai was an excellent film.

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

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

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

        Not.

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

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

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

    • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:36PM (#8600422) Homepage Journal
      You remind me of the strangest version of WoTW, which was the 1988 TV series [eofftv.com]. This was written as a sequel to the 1953 movie, set in the present day! One thing I never quite figured out: was the series set in some alternative universe where there actually was a 1953 invasion from Mars? Or was the show written by and for people who never stop to wonder why an interplanetary invasion didn't make the news?

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

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

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

      And that's Hollywood!

      • One thing I never quite figured out:

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

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

          Though they did make mistakes in the timeline. The witnesses say it occurred on Halloween, but the radio play actually aired the night before, October 30th. (Li
          • Except that Welles did say "It's Halloween" at the end of the broadcast. Not because WoTW was any kind of "Halloweeen Special" (that was the only mention of Halloween). It was his way of responding to the reports of panic that had already begun to reach him.

            This discussion brings to mind this really good docudrama [imdb.com] about the making of the radio play and the way people responded to it. There are thoughts on the way mass media was emerging as an influence on what people believed, with appropriate references

      • The 1988 TV series (Score:3, Informative)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        The premise of the TV series was that the 1953 invasion occurred, as did a 1938 invasion and the corresponding radio broadcast.

        The first season suggested that the reason why most people didn't remember the 1953 invasion was a combination of traumatic memory suppression and that the aliens had their own way to make humans forget, coupled with the governments of the world collecting all evidence of the invasion and suppressing the knowledge themselves. Which seems rather fantastic unless you also accept tha

      • Re:Hollywood declares war on a classic (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ranger96 ( 452365 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:58PM (#8600770)
        [sarcasm]Yep, "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" were definitely garbage.[/sarcasm]

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

        Ranger96

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

      As far as Tom Cruise goes, though, I have to disagree. I think Cruise has a good chance at doing justice to this movie. Look at his excellent performance

    • WAR OF THE WORLDS has already been remade.

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

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

      Shame on us.

  • No more imagination.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:10PM (#8600063) Homepage Journal

    What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane [imdb.com], Casablanca [imdb.com] or Blade Runner [imdb.com]?

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

    • Re:No more imagination.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:13PM (#8600124)
      Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars..

      Knowing Lukas, in 50 years we'll be taking the grandkids to see the super special enhanced version of the remake of the remake.
    • Don't laugh, in 50 years you may very well be taking your grandkids to a remake of Star Wars..

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

    • Re:No more imagination.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BTWR ( 540147 )
      the last 2 years' best pictures were both movies that had been done before (Chicago, and LOTR - animated... I'm considering the ROTK award to have been an award for the whole series and not solely ROTK).
    • What's next, a remake of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Blade Runner?

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

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

    • Yeah, it's too bad -- for several reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:31PM (#8600362) Journal

      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

      • Vast Oversimplification of Story (Score:4, Insightful)

        by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:40PM (#8602046) Homepage Journal
        '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

    • How to make it original (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:42PM (#8600497) Journal

      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

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:10PM (#8600069)
    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.

  • Here's an idea... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Yoda2 ( 522522 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:11PM (#8600073)
    Let's post some juicy excerpts from the book as /. stories and see how may geeks panic and run for the hills.
  • There were people running around in the streets with guns last time this happened.

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

    • Re:I see bad things happening... (Score:5, Funny)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:14PM (#8600125)
      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...?"

      • Re:I see bad things happening... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ion++ ( 134665 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:52PM (#8600660)
        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.

  • Mars Madness (Score:2, Interesting)

    by darth_MALL ( 657218 )
    Seems like Speilberg is riding the Mars wave. This could be really cool if they stick to the old martian invader thing. I always enjoy some intentional campiness.

  • There are many (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:11PM (#8600090)
    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 IMDB Link to the same movie? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by $$$$$exyGal ( 638164 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:12PM (#8600098) Homepage Journal
    Is this the same movie?: IMDB link [imdb.com]. Or did Steven buy these guys out?
  • ANY script writer would be an improvement on the script writer for Jurassic Park. It was a great story concept and the special effects made it a block buster but the dialog was, for the most part, dopey.
  • "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."

  • Another memory in the toilet. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iansmith ( 444117 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:13PM (#8600114) Homepage
    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.

  • Wasn't this done already? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:13PM (#8600116) Homepage
    I thought "Independence Day" was a remake of "War of the Worlds".

  • I'm sure.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:13PM (#8600121)
    This will be a pretty big hit with todays audience. It's just too bad (or maybe a good thing) that it wont have the same effect as it did when it was originally aired over the radio. [about.com]

  • Where will it be set? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:14PM (#8600135) Journal
    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?
  • Alan Moore's take on The War of the Worlds (in the League of Extraordinary Gentleman comic volume 2) was sooo cool-- in many ways much more interesting than the original novel.
    Of course, the first League movie was pretty crappy, so the prospects are prolly unlikely...

  • They should remake BAD films.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScottGant ( 642590 ) <scott_gant@GAUSS ... T minus math_god> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:15PM (#8600148) Homepage
    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.

  • Not Tom. (Score:4, Funny)

    by big_groo ( 237634 ) <groovis.gmail@com> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:15PM (#8600153) Homepage
    Please. Anyone but Tom. Seriously.

  • Musical War of the Worlds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robslimo ( 587196 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:15PM (#8600159) Homepage Journal
    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 [kelkoo.co.uk]

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

    • I had that on LP when I was a kid, then had it on tape during my college years, and now I've got it on CD. It is a really neat way of enjoying the story. Because there isn't any exciting visuals (obviously) you have to focus on what the music is telling you. The music shifts back and forth with the mood of the people and the narrator. From the confident assertion of Ogilve the astronomer ("The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one!"), to the inspirationaly yet ultimately depressing h

  • starring: (Score:3, Funny)

    by maxbang ( 598632 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:16PM (#8600165) Journal

    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.

  • Mars Fever! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Marco_polo ( 160898 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:18PM (#8600194) Homepage
    What a blatant attempt to capitalize on the Mars fever in america. I bet the martians heard Bush was coming soon, and decided to be pre-emptive.

    they hid their MWMD :)

  • Speaking of Wells (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Trolling4Dollars ( 627073 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:19PM (#8600202) Journal
    I'd love for someone to do an accurate film of the Time Machine. After reading the original book [gutenberg.net] 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...
    • "The middle class is disappearing..."

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

  • Orson or H.G? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by __aamkky7574 ( 654183 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:22PM (#8600245)

    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.

    • LXG (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Embedded Geek ( 532893 )
      I'd rather to see stiff-upper-lipped men in scarlet jerkins taking on the Hun From Space! "Zulu" meets "The League of Extraordinary Gentlement"

      I thought LXG did wind up fighting Wells' Martians in volume 2?

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

    Que-Spielbergian happy ending music.

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

  • Welles Invasion from Mars (Score:3, Informative)

    by shawkin ( 165588 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:24PM (#8600266)
    Welles never directed a film of War of the Worlds.
    Welles directed and starred in the War of the Worlds radio adaption for CBS in October of 1938.
    He didn't make his first film, Citizen Kane for RKO, until 1941.
    The old War of the Worlds film was produced by George Pal and directed by Byron Haskin.

  • Yeah, the old "how about something new" rant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:25PM (#8600278) Journal
    I have a fairly complete collection of the Asimov/Greenburg edited books where they picked the best stories from a particular year. The first one is for 1939, and they go all the way through, oh, some year or other. There's a lot of them.

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

    Ah, what's the use...

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

  • Please set it in the late 19th Century (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:25PM (#8600284) Journal
    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."

  • Let's look at some facts... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:29PM (#8600337)
    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.

  • Better ending? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:30PM (#8600351) Homepage Journal
    It's a neat book, but the ending is kind of lame. The Martians, who landed their vehicles in Surrey (just west of London), almost succeed in taking over the world and have killed many people in London, but they are foiled by the common cold. Yes, they all catch the cold, for which they have no immunity or tolerance, and die.

    Spielberg will change a lot, probably. Like the ships, which were not flying vehicles per se but rather were launched like bullets from a big cannon on Mars, will probably be updated. But I hope he changes the ending or it will be Independence Day all over again. (Remember discovering that Macs are compatible with alien technology? And that alien computer systems are easy to code viruses for?)

    • Re:Better ending? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Fishstick ( 150821 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:58PM (#8600756) Journal
      Hmmm, maybe the twist will be that HIV mutates to MIV and the invaders all die of AIDS.

      On the mac + alienos thing, remember this [commandsoftware.com]?


      Independence Day - CERT alert

      From: CERT Bulletin
      Newsgroups: comp.security.announce,rec.humor
      Subject: CERT Advisory CA-96.13 - Alien/OS Vulnerability
      Date: 4 July 1996 20:52:15 GMT
      Organization: CERT(sm) Coordination Center - +1 412-268-7090
      CERT(sm) Advisory CA-96.13
      July 4, 1996
      Topic: ID4 virus, Alien/OS Vulnerability

      The CERT Coordination Center has received reports of weaknesses in
      Alien/OS that can allow species with primitive information sciences
      technology to initiate denial-of-service attacks against MotherShip(tm)
      hosts. One report of exploitation of this bug has been received.
      When attempting takeover of planets inhabited by such races, a trojan
      horse attack is possible that permits local access to the MotherShip
      host, enabling the implantation of executable code with full root access
      to mission-critical security features of the operating system.
      The vulnerability exists in versions of EvilAliens' Alien/OS 34762.12.1
      or later, and all versions of Microsoft's Windows/95. CERT advises
      against initiating further planet takeover actions until patches
      are available from these vendors. If planet takeover is absolutely
      necessary, CERT advises that affected sites apply the workarounds as
      specified below.
      As we receive additional information relating to this advisory, we will
      place it in
      ftp://info.cert.org/pub/cert_advisories/CA-96.13.R EADME
      We encourage you to check our README files regularly for updates on
      advisories that relate to your site.

      I. Description
      Alien/OS contains a security vulnerability, which strangely enough
      can be exploited by a primitive race running Windows/95. Although
      Alien/OS has been extensively field tested over millions of years by
      EvilAliens, Inc., the bug was only recently discovered during a
      routine invasion of a backwater planet. EvilAliens notes that
      the operating system had never before been tested against a race
      with "such a kick-ass president."
      The vulnerability allows the insertion of executable code with
      root access to key security features of the operating system. In
      particular, such code can disable the NiftyGreenShield (tm)
      subsystem, allowing child processes to be terminated by unauthorized
      users.
      Additionally, Alien/OS networking protocols can provide a
      low-bandwidth covert timing channel to a determined attacker.
      II. Impact
      Non-privileged primitive users can cause the total destruction of
      your entire invasion fleet and gain unauthorized access to
      files.
      III. Solution
      EvilAliens has supplied a workaround and a patch, as follows:
      A. Workaround
      To prevent unauthorized insertion of executables, install a
      firewall to selectively vaporize incoming packets that do not
      contain valid aliens. Also, disable the "Java" option in
      Netscape.
      To eliminate the covert timing channel, remove untrusted
      hosts from routing tables. As tempting as it is, do not use
      target species' own satellites against them.
      B. Patch
      As root, install the "evil" package from the distribution tape.
      (Optionally) save a copy of the existing /usr/bin/sendmail and
      modify its permission to prevent misuse.

      The CERT Coordination Center thanks Jeff Goldblum and Fjkxdtssss for
      providing information for this advisory.

      If you believe that y

    • Re:Better ending? (Score:3, Funny)

      by wass ( 72082 )
      Like the ships, which were not flying vehicles per se but rather were launched like bullets from a big cannon on Mars, will probably be updated.

      Yeah, in this remake the vehicles will be shot out from a giant Martian walkie-talkie instead of a cannon.

    • The ending is very prophetic... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Phil John ( 576633 ) <phil@@@webstarsltd...com> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:20PM (#8602563)
      ...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.

  • Welles no do 'War of the Worlds' movie (Score:4, Informative)

    by ph43thon ( 619990 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:32PM (#8600366) Journal
    Welles never did a 'War of the Worlds' movie.. he did the fun radio address that scared people. Here [imdb.com] is the first movie done after the radio address.

    p

  • Top 10 Spielberg Changes to 'War of the Worlds' (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ruprecht the Monkeyb ( 680597 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:36PM (#8600429)
    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

  • Please let it be based on the novel. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:44PM (#8600532)
    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.

  • Dopey language (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cheezit ( 133765 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:49PM (#8600604) Homepage
    "...the likely attitude that Orson Welles might have had...can only be a matter of conjecture."

    If the author thinks Welles would have hated it, why doesn't he or she say so?

    That's a perfect example of the kind of idiotic innuendo that pervades journalism these days. This article isn't controversial, but the same device---an open-ended statement that implies a viewpoint but won't actually state it---seems to be extremely common in political journalism. Reminds me of the Mindcraft troll.

  • WoTW book was allegory (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @01:03PM (#8600836) Homepage Journal
    When I first read the original story, I wasn't very impressed - it seemed to me the Narrator spent the whole story just mooning around about how awful it was that this was happening, how awful it was his girl wasn't there, etc. I chalked it up to a cultural difference - as an American I would have been fighting or at least preparing to fight, so perhaps this was an English thing.

    I later read a point that brought the whole story into sharp focus. The book was allegory, and a warning. The invading Martians were attacking England (note that in the story you don't hear about what is happening elsewhere in the world). This is karma served piping hot - the English attacked the primitives of other lands, taking their resources and using advanced technologies to win (rifles and cannons are advanced when all you have is pointed sticks. And banannas.). Then the aliens come, with their advanced technology, treating the Brits as primitives to be exploited. And the Brits are not saved by "Stiff upper lip, good ole college try, pip pip!" They are saved, by accident of fate, by something completely uninterested in saving them.

    Now, *IF* Speilberg can stay true to that concept, then updating/relocating the story should not matter - indeed it may make it even MORE powerful to have the aliens attacking the US.

  • IP Rights and Wrongs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cei ( 107343 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @01:20PM (#8601068) Homepage Journal
    I'm probably the only one who's bothered by this, but I have a problem with what's going on here. H.G. Wells first published War of the Worlds in 1898 and died in 1946 leaving the copyright to his children. I believe that under the copyright terms at the time the novel is now in the public domain -- its copyright has lapsed. I'm uncertain if any of the more recent copyright term extensions would still hold on a work created more than 100 years ago.

    But for the sake of argument (unless you can explain to me otherwise) let's assume that the novel is in the public domain at this point.

    In 1951 Wells's kids signed a contract with Paramount which included the following:
    The Seller hereby grants and assigns to the Purchaser irrevocably and forever ... ALL his right title and interest in and to the sole and exclusive motion picture rights of every nature whatsoever throughout the world ... and/or as a part of any motion pictures to combine said story with any other works to project transmit and/or otherwise reproduce said story pictorially and/or audibly by the art of cinematography and/or any process analogous thereto, including the right to project transmit reproduce and/or exhibit such motion pictures by television and/or any other process of transmission now known and/or hereafter to be devised ...
    Now, that bothers me... how can a company retain exclusive and perpetual rights to produce something based on a work that's in the public domain? The New York County Supreme Court upheld Paramount's rights in a court case a couple of years ago when the Wells family wanted to sell rights to a TV mini-series to Hallmark.

    So contract law trumps copyright law??? I find that pretty disturbing.

  • No BS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @01:28PM (#8601169) Homepage Journal
    Anyone else think Bruce Sterling would've been a good choice for that?
    Sterling is pretty much my favorite living SF writer. But I'd run in the opposite direction from any movie with his name on it. His best stories are motivated by weird philosophical premises (which I mostly disagree with, but usually enjoy the way he incorporates it into his storytelling) and extremely good insight into the future of technology. Good reading, but not the stuff of good movies.

  • Welles didn't direct War of the Worlds... (Score:3, Informative)

    by applef00 ( 574694 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @01:32PM (#8601220) Homepage
    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 [imdb.com]. Byron Haskin was the director of that.

  • The Greatness of H.G. Wells OR The Magical 4 Years (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Wicked Priest ( 632846 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:56PM (#8602978)
    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?

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close