quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Nobody:
I'll bring up LOEG, 'cause the current comic series deals with WotW.
True, I was aware of that. My comment had to do with MOTA's claim that the movie version is an example of why there shouldn't be a WotW movie set in 1898 England. As I said, I have yet to read the LoEG comic for myself.

quote:
I've long felt if Hollywood wants to do an original story they should do so-- and STOP trying to pass them off as "adaptations" of previously-existing books. For example, one of my favorite 007 films is YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE-- but the movie has ALMOST NOTHING to do with the novel! In fact, it only recently occured to me that the climax of the book-- more or less-- appeared as-- get this-- the pre-credit sequence of the PREVIOUS movie, THUNDERBALL. So much for having any respect for writers' works...
I don't mind changes to the stories in question so long as the changes make sense and/or there's an overriding reason behind them. The Pal/Haskin WotW is a case in point. The technology and financial resources to do a straight version of the novel simply didn't exist in the late '40s/early '50s. (Ray Harryhausen did some stop-motion test footage for a film version his own some years before Pal and Haskin did their film, and the footage Harryhausen came up with was pretty goofy-looking. I can't really blame Paramount for passing on his offer, especially in light of the FX work that WAS accomplished in the final film.) They HAD to change things up in order to make the movie, and what they DID come up with took two years to mount. With Dracula, it was the same thing. No film version of the time had the cash to make a full-blown take on the novel, and even self-admitted Dracula geek/actor Christopher Lee admitted it would have been impossible back when he started the series. It's only been in recent years that movies have developed the technology to do full-on versions of the classics. So I can cut the older movies a lot of slack, given what they had to work with.

It's when changes are made with no regard to the stories in question and are done solely for ego reasons that I have problems. Jon Peters, anyone?

quote:

I admire Jeff Wayne's WAR OF THE WORLDS-- although it does go on a bit long.
I made the foolish mistake of buying that album in early 1989, believing it to be an original score to the novel like Joel McNeely's Star Wars: Shadows Of The Empire. Needless to say, I was wrong, and the album scared me so bad that I STILL have nightmares from it to this day. And no, that's not a compliment to Jeff Wayne. I despise the album with a vengeance. Not only did it terrify the daylights out of me, but it put me off any incarnation of WotW for years afterwards. By contrast, neither the novel itself or the Pal version bother me.

But I have to stress, this is my feeling about the album, and mine only. I have no qualms if others like it. My dad loves it to death.

quote:
But his obsession to the point of INTERFERENCE in other people's projects borders on lunacy.
Agreed. It's my understanding (according to screenwriter Peter Briggs, whose much-lauded script for the film got scrapped because of Wayne's idiocy) that Wayne's late wife wrote the script for the album, hence his attachment to the material. That's all well and good, but does that justify telling the studio that owns the film rights and some of the most respected people in show business (Branagh and Cruise) that they can't make any movie unless it's his musical version? That's not only selfish, that's extremely unfair. For as many people who DO like his musical, there's probably as many who DON'T, or at the very least don't want the movie to be a musical. AICN's Knowles suggested that Wayne cut a deal with Paramount to let them do their straight-up film version and get himself a deal to make an animated film version of his musical, to ensure that both parties would be satisfied.

And as I said earlier, so far Wayne's stayed quiet as far as the proposed teaming of Cruise, Spielberg, and perhaps now DeVito. Again, three of the most respected names in show business. Is Wayne going to try and put a stop to this potential powerhouse trio, too? He walked all over Branagh, after all. And back when Pendragon first reared their low-budget schlock heads on the property, one of Wayne's aides bitched on AICN about how "everybody and their brother" wanted to do the new film version while the animated movie Wayne had been planning for years was languishing. I juist have to wonder, what's his deal? Does he want HIS version to be the only one in existence, to hell with what anyone else wants?

It's enough to make one wish George Pal would dig himself out of his grave and slap some sense into the guy.

quote:

So when I think of WOTW a la H.G. Wells, the first thing that comes to mind is the voice of RICHARD BURTON. With that in mind, the first actor that pops into my head should an "accurate" film ever be made would be another Welshman-- TIMOTHY DALTON!
Maybe 10 or 15 years ago, I'd agree with Dalton as the lead. But at this point, I'd rather see someone younger in the role, early 40s at most. Dalton would be fine as Ogilvy the doomed astronomer, or even the mad parson, since those roles seem more appropriate to an older man.

I have a number of thoughts on how this movie could be done. I'll post them up later on.

quote:
And speaking of INDEPENDENCE DAY... while clearly another WOTW type of story, it really bears the closest resemblance to the projhect is blatently RIPPED OFF-- and managed to beat to the theatres (despite a later starting date)-- MARS ATTACKS! As usual with me, comparing a "straight" and "comedy" version of the exact same story-- I'll take the one with the laughs!
Seeing as how Tim Burton grates on my nerves, it probably won't surprise you to hear that I hated Mars Attacks! I know the movie has its defenders, but it just turned me off. As for ID4, I liked it, but I was aware of what it was: a goofy, mindless popcorn flick. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but WotW is a different animal altogether.