September 14, 2004
2 War Of The Worlds
Want a definition of "Oh Crap"? Imagine for a moment that you decide to make a movie... and you're pretty excited about it. Let's say you're making... oh I don't know... a film version of the old Sci-Fi TV Show Automan. You've been waiting for someone to do a more modern adaptation of the story and take the bull by the horns and get it going yourself. The script is done, you cast a solid group of basically unknown actors, start shooting the film and then maybe even get to the post-production stages. Yes, the world seems good. And then someone tells you that that they just heard that Martin Scorsese has decided to direct another version of Automan and has cast Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp in the lead roles. Oh yeah, he also has a $200 million dollar budget and the backing of a major studio. That my friends, is a crappy day.
I as many of you know, Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg are developing a film called War of the Worlds. What i didn't realize was that a much smaller group has had a War of the Worlds film in the makings for quite some time. The good folks at CHUD.com give us this:
You might recall reading a few years ago about a new adaptation of H.G. Wells' classic story War of the Worlds from a company called Pendragon Pictures. It was to be a contemporary version of the story, and had made it to the casting phase (Michael Caine was attached) before the events of 9/11 made a film about a city under siege seem like an idea that's not so great.Hines is putting on a brave face and being very diplomatic here... but I don't care how calm he sounds, you've gotta be a little ticked off or panicked when you find out that Steven Spielberg is heading a project by the same name. No one can be that apathetic or unrealistic. Who knows... maybe I'm just shallow, but man I'd be pissed. You can read the whole CHUD article here.And that was the last we heard of their War of the Worlds movie. Until now. As it turns out, Pendragon has been quietly reworking the project into a faithful adaptation of Wells' novel. They've set the story at the turn of the 20th century, assembled a cast of relative unknowns... and already shot the damn thing in England and the Pacific Northwest. The film, directed by Timothy Hines (who has led the charge from the project's beginnings), will now enter post-production where CGI and miniatures join the full-scale models and mechanical effects already filmed. The plan is to release the film in Spring 2005.
Of course, you may have heard that Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg are reuniting on a project called... War of the Worlds. The filmmakers at Pendragon are unconcerned. "Now that they have announced that they are doing a modern version, I think there's room for both our productions to exist," says Hines. "From what I understand, they are changing the story dramatically, whereas we have point-by-point recreated the book for the screen. Our production of War of the Worlds is set at the turn-of-the-century. We're almost a back story to their version, sort of like a prequel."
Posted by John Campea at September 14, 2004 06:37 AM
Comments
Posted by: Bart Wang at September 14, 2004 09:58 AM
I think they did delay or shelve films to give the illusion that they cared about the events of 9/11. But I think you missed it by a hair.
They delayed them for what they said was "in respect of the victims of 9/11" but I think it was more accurate to say that they didnt see movies of that type being successful considering the events of 9/11. This wasnt about caring about the personal feelings of who they might offend, but rather how these offense would translate into poor boxoffice results.
Posted by: Rodney at September 14, 2004 04:46 PM
On a more related note, I thought I read somewhere that the Cruise/Speilberg version of War of the Worlds is going by a different title now. Perhaps this is a reflection of the implied changes to HG Wells' work or in respect to the other production company that had planned this movie all along.
Posted by: Rodney at September 14, 2004 04:49 PM
Actually, I can see where Hines is coming from. The reality is that this could be very good for his film. If it were a lower budget movie with a lesser known cast coming out AFTER the Spielbergian version, then there'd be a problem. As it stands, though, fans of the story will probably go see this movie to wet their appetite and hold them over until the more hyped version comes out. In addition, because of the shared subject matter, the lower budget version will start getting press coverage that they might not have gotten otherwise.
I see where your coming from, but there is definitely a silver lining.
Posted by: Mojo at September 14, 2004 06:13 PM
Automan -- heh. Pure cheese.
Posted by: david at September 15, 2004 01:32 AM
I prefer the sound of the low budget (Hines) production myself.
I've been waiting for a long time now for somebody to pick up on this story (the 1953 version was crap) It's just begging for a version to do the book justice and you just know what Spielberg & Cruise are going to do to it....
Posted by: craigiebaby at September 29, 2004 11:41 AM
Whant gambling? Online gambling at http://online-gambling-123.biz is your way!!!
Posted by: online gambling at December 4, 2004 12:15 AM
Try this War of the Worlds movie site!
Posted by: Nick Cameron at December 14, 2004 12:58 AM
I'm looking forward to all 3 versions (dont forget the Jeff Wayne CGI one!!) of War Of The Worlds :o)
Lee
http://www.eveofthewar.co.uk
"The War Of The Worlds Website"
Posted by: Lee Gregory at January 22, 2005 08:10 AM
The idea of filming an accurate-to-the-book version of "War of the Worlds" appeals to me. Unfortunately, having viewed the trailer (of the Pendragon version), I am somewhat dissapointed. Even the nasty, low resolution video can't hide the awful CGI. They would have been much better off doing good model work. The sight of the top of Big Ben flying off and striking the bridge shows a lack of knowledge of the basic laws of physics, like gravity for example. We can but hope these problems are fixed in post production.
Posted by: Rod at May 27, 2005 06:38 AM
This is unrelated but the thought was sparked by something in this item. Anyone find it odd/stupid/frustrating at the initial response by Hollywood to the NY terrorist attacks? They shelved movies that were about to come out or modified films to not show the World Trade Centre, etc. They said they were so upset by the tragedy that it would be disrespectful to release those movies. How long until they decided the world was ready for more movie bloodshed and carnage? Not long at all. It's called hypocrisy, kids. They don't actually care, they just want to appear to care. If these violent movies are inappropriate at times when bad things happen, why are they appropriate after a few months? Strange and illogical, if you ask me. But you didn't, I just decided to tell you.