in Search
Welcome to Neopoleon - Sign in | Join | Help
Navigation: Home | Forums | Galleries

War of the Worlds: Holy s***

I've been what I think of as "severely" disconnected this week. As of Monday morning, I've been almost entirely without net access, save a couple chances to log on and check email at the hotel where Tuesday's MSDN event was.

I can't believe what I've missed.

First, Chris posts one hell of a fine write up of his experiences at this year's Burning Man festival. While I enjoyed the descriptions of the dust, the nudity, and his man gown, what I liked most was the bit on how uncomfortable he felt surrounded by legions of veteran Burning Man weirdos. In a way, it seems like Chris went as a sort of Geek Ambassador, having an experience very similar to what many of the rest of us would have had. I, for one, would probably have felt very similarly, preferring to observe rather than participate (at least at first). Interesting stuff.

Anyway, got a little side tracked there.

The other thing that blew me away this week is that there is not one, but two remakes of War of the Worlds in progress. I look back on the first WOTW film as one of the high points of my childhood. It wasn't at all faithful to the book, but who gives a damn? "Not I," said me.

What's cool is that, of the two remakes coming, one will be very faithful to the book, while the other will be set in a completely different time. That's so cool that I can hardly contain myself, although I will continue to contain myself in any event given that I think my internal organs will only be useful as long as they continue to be internal. You don't hear about many people with external organs, do you? And, if you do, you don't hear about them for very long. That's because it turns out that living is harder when your internal organs aren't inside of you.

Sorry. Got side tracked again.

I wish that this happened more often with movies. I don't see anything wrong with the idea that there will be two movies based on the same story coming out relatively close to each other. It's going to be great seeing the differences between the two - seeing what works, what doesn't, and so on.

My only regret is that, while there will one day be several versions of War of the Worlds, there won't be a single version of John Wyndham's The Kraken Wakes, nor will there be a single good version of his Day of the Triffids. Given that Wyndham, in terms of classic sci-fi writers, was leaps and bounds ahead of Wells in terms of imagination, writing ability, and general fabulousness, this makes me sad.

But these things happen. It's more difficult to have good taste in things than to just give up and read Michael Crichton like everybody else. 

Published Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:42 AM by Rory

Filed Under:

Comments

 

Catatonic said:

It depends... On a really cold day, I have 2 less external organs than usual.
September 16, 2004 4:33 AM
 

SteveM said:

I seem to recall the BBC TV series of Day of the Triffids from the early 80s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/tv/triffids/reviews.shtml) was pretty good.
That said, I was about 9, so my recollection may be innaccurate!
September 16, 2004 7:59 AM
 

Edward said:


I've not read War of the Worlds, but one that I really enjoyed reading in school was The Space Machine, by Chistopher Priest.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060134291/102-6097842-542014

It quite cleverly interweaves the stories of the Time Machine and War of the Worlds with the story of a couple who end up on Mars and arrive back as part of the invasion fleet.

I think it would be cool to see a movie made of that.
September 16, 2004 8:16 AM
 

Eternity said:

Hollywood has a habit of "discovering" one scifi author and then bastardizing his work as quickly as possible. Phillip K Dick, Asimov, HG Wells,Ray Bradbury, Larry Niven, Douglas Adams have written so much that hollywood will be tied up with those for awhile. I think they tend to do better and producing the short stories into movies or making movies inspired by a book like iRobot.

I think they treat anyone outside of those authors as "unproven" and give them the same attention as a script tooting stalker that tries to sell them their story while they're trying to defecate.
September 16, 2004 8:22 AM
 

Colin said:

I recently watched re-runs of BBC's 'Day of the Triffids'. Hmmmm...was not nearly as good as I remember it being.
My wife does a marvellous impression of a triffid though....basically involves her flapping her outstreched arm around (thats its stinger you see) and making a sort of "Phft,Phft,Phft" sound (thats the noise they make on the TV program you see)....genius.
September 16, 2004 10:44 AM
 

skicow said:

Wow, thanks for the info Rory, I too love WOTW and can't wait to see how both movies turn out.

How about the movie coming out tomorrow that's basically a homage to those 40's and 50's sci-fi flicks - Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. That looks like it's going to be something sweet...I sure hope that they did it right...and if not, I can at least stare at Angelina Jolie’s lips and lose myself in a world of imagination....

I'd also like to see a remake of the old Metropolis movie by Fritz Lang...I know that there was an anime put out years ago that was very much based on the movie...but to see a full blown remake of it done by the mega-bucks people in Hollywood would be interesting.
September 16, 2004 2:30 PM
 

Eric Brown said:

Actually, what skicow wants is the restored authorized version of the old Metropolis movie by Fritz Lang. Came out about a year or so ago, and looks like it was made yesterday - a crystal-clear print and full orchestral sound.

It has the original German plot line - when Metropolis was imported to the US, the importer recut the entire movie and created an entirely different plot. The 1980 colorized version with the rock soundtrack used the US plot line.

My wife isn't really a film buff, but she enjoyed it as much as I did.
September 16, 2004 8:28 PM
 

paul said:

War of the Worlds was first a radio play, I have the recording if you ever want to put it on DotNetRocks!
September 17, 2004 1:13 AM
 

Bruce said:

"You don't hear about many people with external organs, do you? And, if you do, you don't hear about them for very long."

Check out Alexis St. Martin. (A quick Google found http://www.guineapigzero.com/AlexisStMartin.html amoung others.) He comes close. Basically his guts were exposed after a gun accident and he healed that way. Army surgeon Dr. William Beaumont took advantage of the situation and learned a lot about how our digestive system worked.

I fully expect to hear of at least one dream based on this little tidbit.
September 17, 2004 1:37 AM
 

skicow said:

Quote Eric Brown:
"Actually, what skicow wants is the restored authorized version of the old Metropolis movie by Fritz Lang. Came out about a year or so ago, and looks like it was made yesterday - a crystal-clear print and full orchestral sound."

Thanks! I'll have to check that out. I'd like to see this but what I would also like to see is a complete remake of the film with todays technology.
September 17, 2004 2:24 PM
 

GottaGetItOut said:

Situation:

Man says to Alexis St. Martin - "You ain't got no guts."

Alexis St. Martin - Lifts up shirt

Man - "Damn!"
September 17, 2004 2:33 PM
 

Ian said:

It (wotw) was on AMC last night btw..
September 17, 2004 5:56 PM
 

Glen said:

Rory, I'd be interested of your opinion of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" if you get an opportunity to see it...
September 17, 2004 7:07 PM
 

Denis said:

I'm sorry - Wyndham better than Wells? I seem to have stumbled into some kind of literary black hole that permits the two names to be mentioned in the same breath. Wyndham is to Wells as Haydn is to Mozart. Not bad company to be in but not quite the same stuff either.

Anyway - two movies on the same topic at the same time? It didn't work well for Valmont being released so soon after Dangerous Liasons. Both were good movies - Valmont clearly the superiour - but only one made money, the commercial one.
September 17, 2004 7:08 PM
 

Rory said:

Glen -

"Rory, I'd be interested of your opinion of 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' if you get an opportunity to see it..."

I'd be interested in my opinion on that movie, too.

I stumbled on the trailer accidentally a while back, and I've been waiting impatiently ever since. While I think the movie has an incredibly stupid title, I love the look of it - I'm a real sucker for alternate future art deco movies (not that there have been a bunch of them or anything).

I've been trying to get something organized for seeing it tonight, but it seems people are just busy, busy, busy...
September 17, 2004 7:13 PM
 

Rory said:

Denis -

"I'm sorry - Wyndham better than Wells?"

Yes.

"Anyway - two movies on the same topic at the same time? It didn't work well for Valmont being released so soon after Dangerous Liasons. Both were good movies - Valmont clearly the superiour - but only one made money, the commercial one."

I'm not talking about dough here - I'm simply talking about *my* interest in the two films. I'd be happy to go see them both (would actually love to see them close together).
September 17, 2004 7:14 PM
 

Rory said:

Eternity -

"I think they tend to do better and producing the short stories into movies or making movies inspired by a book like iRobot."

I agree with that, but I still think that the full blown book to movie conversions are a lot of fun.

Take Dune for example - I still talk to people who spit in disgust whenever discussing the film. They're that angry about it.

I didn't mind, though, that the film was only loosely based on the book. Expectations, I think, are what ruin a film adaptation much more often than the adaptation itself. Dune was a great movie with a great cast, good atmosphere, etc. It wasn't Lawrence of Arabia, but it was fun.

Then there's Jurrassic Park. I *hated* the book. Michael Crichton is such a bland writer that he doesn't even really have style - it's just unadorned story telling. Sometimes the story is interesting enough to make up for the bad writing (same deal with Arthur C Clarke), but the film just kicks so much ass over the book that it's ridiculous. I remember how up in arms people were when JP came out because it didn't follow the book, but it's not like the movie lost any aesthetic value that the book might have had, as that would imply that the book had any such value to begin with.

The movie worked well because the action was hugely entertaining on the big screen, dressed up in *nice* CG and a sense of *fun* that the book totally lacked.

In that case, I found the book painful and the movie pretty entertaining.

Obviously, it varies from book to book and from film to film, but I think that it would be fair to say that there aren't any hard and fast rules that can be applied to determine whether or not a particular adaptation is going to work.

I enjoyed iRobot, and I think you have a good point where movies that are "inspired" by a book are concerned, but I've liked the more direct, if not faithful, adaptations as well :)
September 17, 2004 7:23 PM
New Comments to this post are disabled

About Rory

I *own* this site, you loser.