Spielberg and War of the worlds

[alexia]

I dont mean to be rude to the guy after all he is a legend and anyone who makes movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Jaws, Schindler's list, Jurassic park, ET, Indiana Jones and so on (Ok forgive him for The Terminal) gets my respect but why is he making H. G wells War of the worlds when it was set in England, around near my area. I had heard that it was going to be made in England but no he has to make it all american and cast Tom Cruise in it and that annoying Dakota Fanning(although she was excellent in Man on fire). WHY OH WHY dont you just leave things as they were intended if H. G Wells set it in the Byfleet area then shouldnt it be filmed there this sort of thing just really pisses me off, Spielberg all I can say is it better be good because if it is not shame on you. Glad I got that of my chest.

[jeo4]

I'm somewhat prone to agree, but it is Spielberg with Tom Cruise. And together, they made MINORITY REPORT, which was great, IMHO. I'm reserving judgement for my first viewing on this one.

[Beeblebrox]

It's also set in the modern day. But the story is meant to be contemporary, as it was to the readers of the original story. And to make the movie now, that means certain adaptations to modern day.

As for the setting, I think the story is such that the setting doesn't really matter all that much, although I think it IS interesting that he's setting it in New Jersey, which is the well known locale for the Orson Welles radio version and the original movie version.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by alexia
WHY OH WHY dont you just leave things as they were intended

I disagree with this. If we were to leave things as intended, then Spielberg wouldn't even bother remaking WOTW, he would just try to engage everyone into showing up to see the re-release of the classic film.

I feel that a remake should change some things. If it stays totally same and tries to be wholesome like a Harry Potter adaptation, then why bother? Of course, many will agree with me to the point in saying of course, why bother, make something new. I'm starting to quasi-agree with that notion, as the remakes are getting contagious moreso than the 50th version of the Three Musketeers.

But I like it when a remake changes some things, it makes my journey to the theater that much more enjoyable. I don't want to go back to the theater 25 or 50 years after a classic film is made just to see new actors playing Bob and Jane, to see them defeat the same monster with the same weapon and say the same line and do the same kiss as the credits roll in the sunset.

It could be set in Africa for all I care. Just make it good, baby.

[robk]

I must admit that I was somewhat skeptical at first when I heard about this one being made, basically because War of the Worlds was virtually remade 9 years ago as Independence Day.
However, the director & cast notwithstanding, the film has started to sound more promising in recent months.
For instance, I hear the film will have Saving Private Ryan-esque camerawork; in other words, it'll be seen solely from the point of view of those on terra firma(no Star Destroyer shots here). Also, unlike Independence Day, none of the protagonists are military or government connected.
So, while we have yet to see a true screen adaptation of Wells's novel(this can also be said for Dracula), I'm looking forward to this one.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by robk
I must admit that I was somewhat skeptical at first when I heard about this one being made, basically because War of the Worlds was virtually remade 9 years ago as Independence Day.


There's not much in common between the novel and INDEPENDANCE DAY, alien invasion set aside. INDEPENDANCE DAY was just lame, action-for-action, brainless fun, whereas WAR OF THE WORLDS has a message and a depth to it.

Like Beeble said, the setting doesn't make much of a difference. The point is showing our civilization in that situation. It fit that it was England in the original time frame of the novel, but if it's set nowadays, as the movie is, then New Jersey is just as good a place as any other.

Besides, that way Steven can blow stuff up as much as he wants. No one's going to miss New Jersey. ;)

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
It's also set in the modern day. But the story is meant to be contemporary, as it was to the readers of the original story. And to make the movie now, that means certain adaptations to modern day.

RE:

Correct. Also, the original book happens in England because the story is essentially anti-imperialist. While England was the world's biggest imperialist nation 100 years ago, USA is (arguably) the most imperialist nation in the modern world.

In order to deliver the thematic content of the book the story had to be adapted into modern day setting, and to USA. And I've read that for Wells the thematical content was always more important than the more superficial elements such as time and location.

Ironically, in order to stay loyal to the book Spielberg had to change both the location and the time period.

[Cronos]

well, its hardly anything new that Hollywood takes a story that isnt set in america and then bases it there or takes a historical event that they werent involved in and turn it into a film in which they did

also the aliens arent Martians


im more interested in the smaller British version that stays true to the story

[Shockwave]

Ill take a good movie any way i can get it, but i do agree that i would have prefered it in its original day and time, as well as setting.

...that being said i still feel that it will be a very powerful movie.

[optimus]

I'm actually looking forward to this movie myself. Though I wasn't a huge fan of Minority Report, I do like Spielberg and Cruise.