WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion - Page 5

I doubt it will beat Spider-Man because it doesn't have the little kid draw that Spidey has.

But in Cruise and Spielberg, it has the audience that won't go to see Spidey, which is more than you'd think.

At this point the cynics hypothesize that details of the aliens’ true nature remain elusive because Spielberg and company aren’t entirely happy with the premise themselves.

What a retarded hypothesis. With filmmakers such as Cruise and Speilberg, who put so much effort in planning, researching (if applicable) and dedication to their individual projects (let alone when they've paired up), the aliens true nature or origin would be the FIRST concept discussed.

Their arguement doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't begin shooting a $150 million alien invasion movie without first deciding how they invaded, from where and why.

I agree that it is unlikely. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if this issue caused a lot of headaches for the production team in the early stages of development.

Stranger things have happened in Hollywood guys, but I agree its unlikely.

In other news...Mars pictures reveal frozen sea

Scifi.com has an interview up with the production designer, talking about how the aliens in War of the Worlds are going to look and feel, saying they are trying to stay as true to H.G. Wells descriptions of the aliens as possible.

Read it: Here

The CHUD main page has a photo of the Red Weed. I am glad they are sticking with concept from the Wells novel which no film has done before.
The Red Weed looks nice, though.
"That said, it wouldn't surprise me if this issue caused a lot of headaches for the production team in the early stages of development."
I am sure it did.
I think they knew that "WOTW" and "Martians" went together in the popular mind, but it is going to be very hard to sell modern audiences on a invasion from a planet were we saw robotic dune buggies running around and transmitting live video from last year.
You could either come up with some really iffy "The Martian Civilization is Underground" theory or just bite the bullet and make them Aliens from another Part of the Galaxy. they chose, probably wisely, the latter.
You could also do a "they are from another Solar System but are using Mars as a staging point" but once again that is convuluted as hell, and probably not very workable. I think, given the realities of the situation, they probably made the right choice.
BTW over at www.waroftheworldsonline.com there are still a few crazed fanboy talkng about how the more more and looking like it going to end up going straight to DVD Pendragon version is going to whip the Speilberg's version ass .

Old TV Show

I'm remembering back to the old syndicated TV show in the late '80s or early '90s. Weren't the aliens in some type of barrells or containers frozen and someone let them out?

I think that happened, I may be wrong.

You are right, In the very short lived TV series the Martians came alive in a Area 51 type situation.
BUt the series was a total disaster that everybody involved with would probably like to forget happened.
TV Sci Fi at it's very worst. Stupid concepts, Stupid writing, Stupid everything. Nothing made sense. And the massive mental truama excuse they used as to why nobody remembered the Martian Invasion gets my award as the lamest explanation in FIlm or TV History.

Curious you should mention that show. I was speaking to friend about it this afternoon and we both agreed that it is without doubt one of the bleakest SF series we've seen on TV. That said, we both liked it.

Look, I'm telling you life exists on Mars!!!

Rather than take the 'lets make Signs on a bigger scale' scenario, I would love to see a 'lets make The Thing on a bigger scale', with freaky ass parasite monsters wrecking havoc on a paranoid USA, let the political parallells begin!!!

Hey

I think I was maybe ten or twelve at the time. I was way into it, watched it every saturday. I think it was on prior to the old Friday the 13th Series.

At any rate, I am really looking forward to the new one.

Just to wrap it up...




They never left!
"In 1953, Earth experienced a War of the Worlds. Common bacteria stopped the aliens, but it didn't kill them. Instead, the aliens lapsed into a state of deep hibernation. Now the aliens have been resurrected, more terrifying than before. In 1953, aliens started taking over the world. Today, they're taking over our bodies!"

They're We're Alive!

This time, the aliens are ready...


Show Information

Also known as: War of the Worlds: The Second Invasion (Season 2 title)
Krieg der Welten: Die zweite Generation (German Season 2 title)
First Aired October 1988
Last Aired May 1990
Status Canceled/Ended
Running Time 60 min
Country United States
Network Syndicated


Show Stars

Jared Martin - Harrison Blackwood
Lynda Mason Green - Suzanne McCullough
Philip Akin - Norton Drake (Season 1)
Richard Chaves - Lt. Col. Paul Ironhorse (Season 1)
Adrian Paul - John Kincaid (Season 2)


Show Crew

Greg Strangis - Executive Producer (Season 1)
Sam Strangis - Executive Producer (Season 1)
Frank Mancuso Jr. - Executive Producer (Season 2)
Greg Strangis - Creator

I remember this show. I used to watch it. It would be interesting to see it again for the sake of pure nostaglia, but I doubt it will ever see the light of living rooms again. I don't even think the new WOTW movie would generate enough excitement to re-release that shite on DVD.

"I don't even think the new WOTW movie would generate enough excitement to re-release that shite on DVD."
The WOTW series is pure shit, but I am sure there are enough foolish fanboys who will buy ANYTHING sci fi releated that a DVD company could make money off a release.

You're probably right. So let me know when you buy it so I can borrow it.

Fella, your negativity is giving me an ulcer.

<g>

"You're probably right. So let me know when you buy it so I can borrow it."
I will buy the WOTW TV series on DVD in celebration of Uwe Boll's Oscar win.

"Fella, your negativity is giving me an ulcer."
Hey,Moriarity, stop making with the negqtive waves.....

My sister was a massive fan of that series. I remember Season 1 and Season 2 were like vastly different shows, both terrible, but one was post apocalyptic. Either way, it made no sense from start to finish, truly terrible.

However, when the original WOTW movie was remastered onto DVD for the 50th anniversary (?), the 8 disc box set of the TV show was also released, so the DVD Company execs are already way ahead of you guys! Desperate fanboys can find copies on Ebay. Aforementioned sister has a copy, but she's not giving it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if we all get a chance to get a "Special Edition" boxed set release for the new movie, along with "Cast Reunions" and "Where are they now?" featurettes (hell... where were they THEN?), and directors commentarys.

God knows Jeffrey Welles is not the most reliable source of info in the world, and Welles is often full of shit....but I think this artical pretty muchs nails the lid in the coffin of the Pendragon period version of "World Of the Wars".

Strange Invaders

There’s no telling how good or even credible Timothy Hines' screen adaptation of H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds will be, but it’s hard not to sympathize with any David facing a Goliath...especially when the kid with the slingshot got rolling on his project first.

Hines' film cost $12 million and apparently has no formal distributor, but will open, it is being claimed, seven and a half weeks from now -- on Wednesday, March 30 -- in five major cities on a four-wall basis...or so I've been told. (Hines is claiming he has a distributor, although he won't identify it.)

Paramount Pictures War of the Worlds (6.29), which is costing at least $150 million to produce, boasts the talents of director Steven Spielberg, star Tom Cruise and screenwriter David Koepp. Nonetheless, it will open about three months after the indie upstart.




No one thinks this will have even a slight effect upon the grosses of the Spielberg film, but the timing of the release of Hines' film could work in his favor.

The notion of a Seattle-based, hip-pocket filmmaker beating Spielberg, Cruise and Paramount Pictures to the Martian punch is, at the very least, intriguing.

As Hines told me yesterday over the phone, "I’m not doing this on the coattails of Spielberg. I’ve been working on this film for seven years. We almost made it two years ago but 9/11 forced us to rewrite it and start over. In any event we’re not selling sizzle -- we actually have the steak."





And yet there are issues about the Hines project that are giving me concern.

For one thing, the 44 year-old Hines (House of the Rising, A Midsummer Night's Dream) won’t tell me who his financial backers are, except to describe them as "computer industry people, and I’m not talking about Paul Allen or Bill Gates." He said one of the individuals behind the project is "one of the largest venture capitalists in the world."

Then there's the issue of Hines declining to tell me who his distributor is. I was told Friday morning that he doesn't actually have one -- he and his partners are going to self-distribute (i.e., "four wall") by booking screens outright, paying for their own advertising, etc. Hines has since declared this is "not true," although he wouldn't cough up specifics.




The one-sheet for Hines' film looks half-classy, half-exploitation...passable but a little bit cheesy-looking. It's not the sort of movie poster, I would think, that a savvy, hard-core distribution marketer would necessarily use to sell a movie with. Is this reflective in some way of the film itself?

Hines, the head of a Seattle-based company called Pendragon Pictures, has been doing a fairly skillful job of promoting his film on at least two websites aimed at sci-fi geeks, but it bothers me that the trailer won’t play, and is viewable only via Windows Media.

(Hines wrote me after this article posted on Friday and insisted "the trailers on howstuffworks.com are perfectly downloadable and have been downloaded by millions." Good to hear...but I couldn't download them, and a screenwriter friend who lives in New York had the same experience.)

Hines' feature, an apparently faithful adaptation of Wells novel that’s set in 1900 England, cost a reported $20 million, although $8 million of this was sunk into an earlier version that was going to be set in the present day, but was abandoned after the 9.11 tragedy. (It was decided that a modern-day film about invading destructive Martians would seem exploitive.)

H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds, the official title of Hines' project, may turn out to be a half-decent low-budgeter, a surprisingly inventive film or a grade-Z stinker, but come hell or high water it is apparently set to open in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco on 3.30.

A follow-up DVD release is set for 6.15 -- two weeks before the Spielberg-Cruise flick hits screens.





Whatever else it may turn out to be, the Spielberg-Cruise War of the Worlds is expected to be an all-out, go-for-broke CG extravaganza. It’s a modern-day spin on Wells' allegorical tale of alien invaders (i.e., it was meant as a metaphor for British colonialism, and was actually a kind of protest about the Boer War), and will be set largely in and around Hoboken, New Jersey, with Cruise apparently playing a longshoreman.

It wouldn't be totally out of line in a present-day context to call the Spielberg-Cruise flick a metaphor about U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- just think of U.S. forces as the Martians and the Iraqis as Hoboken natives.

I called around yesterday (i.e., Thursday) and found it hard to find anyone in the indie distribution community who’s seen Hines' film, or has spoken to anyone who’s seen it.

Hines told me a story about the film’s release strategy and financial backing was expected to break in Forbes on 2.11, but I checked about this on Friday morning and it appears that the story may be delayed.

I asked Hines why his pre-release strategy didn't involve a trade story or two in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. He didn’t have much of a response other than to air a suspicion that trade magazine reporters are too caught up in catering to powerful Hollywood distributor-advertisers to deliver an unbiased report about a small-time producer going up against the big guys.




I asked Hines two or three times about when the film would be shown to critics, and each time he gave what sounded to me like an evasive answer. He later told me he'll let me have an exclusive peek sometime in early March.

Here's some verbatim excerpts from what Hines told me. I’m just running the quotes undoctored, not having time to double-check everything before my scheduled return to Santa Barbara early this afternoon:

“I’ve been wanting to make War of the Worlds since I was ten years old. We were going to make a present-day version but we had to abandon our plan after 9/11."

[Note: I don't know for a fact that Hines began his film in '98, but he took out a trade ad announcing his project in the 5.7.01 issue of Daily Variety, timed for appearance during the Cannes Film Festival.]

"I’m a small independent coming out of nowhere. We’re clearly not part of the Hollywood machine. Obviously, Steven Spielberg doesn’t want to be seen as trailing in our footsteps. This is the first time ever in history in which a major studio, big-budget film will be following a smaller indie version of the same thing into the marketplace.

“We’re expecting to be trashed by critics, but my film is gorgeous. I cry every day at how well it’s coming together.

“We’re following the Wells book very closely, which partly involves using an old-fashioned idea know as story tension. The book begins with the initial landings, but the Martians don’t really show their hand until one third of the way in...but you know all the while that they're going to emerge and start attacking, and that’s where the tension lies."



Timothy Hines, apparently. (I haven't met the guy or taken his photo personally.)

"I didn’t make it as an analogy to the Iraqi War, although, yes, it’s about occupiers and hubris. All through history invaders and conquerors have fallen prey to their own hubris. You see it again and again and again. Wells was protesting the Boer War with his book. He was saying Britain is going to fall one day, and it did...it was beaten by a little brown man wearing a loincloth.

"Paramount is trying to get people to compare our film with theirs on the basis of budget and special effects alone, but a satisfying film is about more than just that.

"That said, our effects are going to look as good as if not better than what you see on Star Trek, for instance. Our film, at its best, comes off as visually assured as The Matrix."


The shitty footage I saw at the Pendragon site is as good as the effects in "The Matrix".?

I am going to fucking die laughing.
Hines is coming off with Ed Wood level delusions of his skills as a filmaker.

I love a David vs Goliath story but from what I have seen this David does not know how to aim a slingshot.
Too bad, I would love to see a good period version of WOTW but this piece of shit aint' gonna be it.

I like a man who puts heart and soul into his work.

I think that I saw the trailer for this one -- looks terrible. I think I'll pass. Seriously.

I liked the japanese trailer for the paramount version though.

I love that he's facetiously talking about tension... to Spielberg, the guy who made JAWS for chrissakes.

"I like a man who puts heart and soul into his work."
Yes, but you have a little talent also.
Tim Hines in that interview sounds like Uwe Boll.
And I can easily see Johnny Depp saying some of those lines a certain Tim Burton film...

True -- Speilberg is the master of tension, if nothing else.

Looking forward to the second teaser March 18th (woot woot).

A new teaser on March 18th? **Ears perk up**

That's awesome, I'm still loving the bridge being ripped up in the first one, I hope they have some footage for this next one that knocks my socks off. Is it going to be available on-line?

I'd love a trailer but then again, that'd probably spoil everything. I like the way they're marketing this film.

I like the way they're marketing this film so far. First the teaser then the Super Bowl spot, both made you really intrigued to learn more because they didn't reveal too much. So it will be interesting to see if even for a full-length trailer they try and keep an air of mystery too it.

This article from the highly respected "Forbes" magazine puts the Nail in the Coffin of the Pendragon attemp to do a period version of the film as far as theatrical release goes.

"War of the War of the Worlds
Stephane Fitch and Evan Hessel, 03.28.05

A clever DVD distributor aims to invade Paramount's summer blockbuster.

Paramount Pictures' new War of the Worlds has the makings of a summer blockbuster. The remake, set in present-day America, has a $130 million production budget, dazzling special effects, director Steven Spielberg and star Tom Cruise. Paramount is set to unwrap the flick in time for the big July 4 weekend.

But to the dismay of the Viacom-owned studio, another War of the Worlds could come out weeks before the Spielbergian version hits theaters. An obscure distributor of DVDs called UAV (formerly United American Video) plans to ship its own adaptation of the H.G. Wells classic about a Martian invasion in Victorian England. UAV's movie would go to 60,000 retail outlets around the U.S. in mid-June, right when Paramount is ramping up its marketing for Worlds.

The low-budget DVDdoppelgänger was shot by an obscure Seattle filmmaker named Timothy Hines, whose previous film was Bug Wars, a lesbian-exploitation sci-fi turkey that got shown in one theater in 1997. For his Worlds Hines used no-name actors and did the special effects on desktop computers, setting the film in the novel's Olde England and sticking closely to the original plot. "It's Independence Day meets A Room With a View," he says, honing the perfect Hollywood pitch.

It also is the riskiest move UAV and its chief executive, William Offenberg, have ever tried to make. Founded in 1985 and purchased for $50 million by Cleveland buyout firm Morgenthaler Partners in 2002, UAV is in two businesses. To the big studios it's a rack jobber that distributes DVDs to thousands of drugstores and convenience chains. But it has been doubling sales annually, luring new retailers with a side business that accounts for 20% of its $175 million in annual sales. UAV trolls back catalogs for old or independently produced movies that ride the coattails of big-studio releases, sharing a star or a theme. Then it sells those movies to retailers to push alongside the Hollywood material.

Last year UAV licensed the 1990 clunker Prisoners of the Sun, in which actor Russell Crowe had a bit part. UAV slapped the newly hot actor's mug on the DVD box, then distributed it when Twentieth Century Fox released its DVD of Crowe's Master & Commander. UAV also has hawked amateurish animated films that play off such Disney fare as The Lion King (Kimba the Lion Prince) and Hercules (The Amazing Feats of Young Hercules).

Invading Paramount's sum-mer plans has triggered the studio's wrath, but not much else. H.G. Wells published the novel in 1898, and 40 years later Orson Welles scared the bejabbers out of radio listeners in a dramatization that ignited a panic among thousands who believed their planet was under attack. Wells' novel lost copyright protection in the U.S. in 1954, giving Paramount little recourse. Its lawyers have warned the producers of the UAV version that the big studio will sue if the two-bit rival version makes it to Europe or Asia, where Worlds still retains its copyright. In those places Paramount has held the licensed rights since it shot its first Worlds in 1953.

UAV risks losing its distribution of Paramount DVDs, but Offenberg argues that inexpensive indie movies do not compete with the studio releases. A Paramount spokesman doubts UAV's Worlds will dent ticket sales of Spielberg's film, though he still laments that some fans may buy the wrong flick. "

I have nothing agianst a honest cheap explotation film maker, but i can't stand the aritistic pretensions that Hines apparently has.
It's has been pretty apparent this is where the Pendragon fiasco has been going for some time.

What the - ?

Anyway, the more interesting aspects of that article more or less involves UAV releasing movies that play off actual theatrical releases. Stupid, but then again, there will always be fools who will buy them.

Unfortunately we have companies such as this who capitalize on other people's hard work and original ideas to develop and market cheaply made and second-rate movies. They take advantage of what is popular and lure uninformed (or just plain stupid) consumers into purchasing movies they think feature their favorite actor or story. Unfortunately every business has its bottom feeders.

As for Paramount's concern for someone buying the wrong version; anyone who picks up Hines' version thinking they've purchased the new one deserves what they get. Even non-hardcore moviegoers know who Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg are. They are probably two of the most recognized names in show business.

Instead of Paramount even commenting on Hines' film, they should avoid addressing it as much as possible. All that's happening is Hines is getting some free publicity out of this. This is in no way a contest between the two films and whoever suggests as much is a complete idiot. Instead, Paramount should be feeling confident about their movie and saying as such. Their official comment should be: "We are aware of the Hines' production of War of the Worlds, and we wish them the best of luck. The two films, while based on the same material, are vastly different and approach the same ideas in different ways, including the timeline of when the events occur. Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise are two of the film industries biggest stars, and we have the utmost confidence in their abilities to produce and exciting and enthralling film."

Forget about the fact that Kimba the Lion prince was a bad movie, stating that it was a plays off the Lion King is just freaking funny considering how much older Kimba is than the Lion King

". This is in no way a contest between the two films and whoever suggests as much is a complete idiot."
Over at www. waroftheworldsonline.com there are lots of such idiots who treat everything Hines says as gospel truth.
It's sad, really,because I would love to see a version of World Of The Worlds in the original Victorian setting, but the Hines film looks like shit, and it will ball up any future efforts to do a live action period WOTW.
I have a feeling that Paramount is less concerned about the Hines DVD impacting the Speilberg movie then they are about it impacting the sales of the special edition of the 1953 George Pal WOTW which is scheduled for a mid June release.
I think that Jeff Wayne is very smart to put off his CGI animated version of his WOTW Rock Opera until 2007,so as not to go head to head agianst the Spielberg film.

Actually Forbes magazine is not saying the film was made to play off "The Lion King", they are saying that the UAV DVD release was timed to cash in on "The Lion King" release.
It's not unusual for cheesy DVD companies to find an film that has been rotting away in a vault somewhere and release it to try to cash in on a current sucess.
A similiar gimmick is mentioned in the Forbes artical: Find a movie in which a big name star had a small role early in his career and release it with a campaign that claims that the big name star is "starring" in the film despite the fact he might have a look fast or you will miss it 2 or 3 line bit part in the film.

Dubalb, why do you mention Jeff Wayne's musical in every post on this thread?

I checked my last ten posts, and did not mention the Jeff Wayne musical once,though I do not deny I am a fan of the Wayne CD's.
I do talk about the Hines fiasco a lot , simply because at several sites some Hines Fanboys were pimping it as the "real" version (The AICN WOTW threads, for example), and I want to destory any notion that the Pendragon version would be anything but shit. If somebody is too stupid or wearing too big a pair of fan blinders to see that "Straight to DVD" is an almost sure sign of a shitty film, then it really useless trying to reach them.
Besides, Hines has an Ed Wood style eagerness to portray his crappy little fillm as a masterpiece I find amusing.
BTW the more I read about the Speilberg film, the more I think people are going to be suprised by how much of the Wells novel he is going to keep his version.

Anyone who paid attention to the development of the Pendragon version had to know it was going to crash and burn. I'm not at all surprised it's heading straight to DVD. Somehow I doubt that people will confuse the two versions once the Spielberg version hits DVD. That won't be until Christmas, and I'm sure it will have been so succesful in the theaters that people will be well aware of it.

Go to www.waroftheworldsonline.com and go to the Pendragon section and you will find some true believers in the Hines version.
Hines, if nothing else, has learned to play the hard core Wells fanatics like a violin. He has been playing the "I am making the authentic version while Speilberg is raping the text" song for some time, and a few fanboys are still buying into it. Sad.

Well, at least he'll be able to make about a few hundred bucks out of it.

Heads up, guys.

The second teaser trailer for "War of the Worlds" debuts at 12:01 A.M. Eastern Time on Friday, March 18th.

I've heard the new trailer is going to be available only at apple.com.....don't know how long that will last, but for starters that is going to be the only place you can see it.

Well, it's not like Apple makes you pay to see the trailer or anything, so I don't see how that's a problem.

I like the new trailer. Seems like Spielberg is not going to give us any spoilers on this one regarding the aliens. The "cracked ground after several lightning strikes" seems a little odd. All the people looking into a small hole in the ground? Not too scary to me.

I'm thinking we might be getting one of the best sci-fi movies ever, or, one of the biggest disappointments. I don't think there will be an in between on this one.

Very cool. Hoping for a better look at the machines but this is only another teaser after all. I'm sure we'll have a nice, full-length trailer in May featuring a lot more footage. I only hope they keep most of it as a surpirse instead of showing all the best parts.

I think we got a glimpse of an alien machine tipping the boat, though. Effects look incredible and I like the gritty, earthen look. I disagree that this in any way has the potential to disappoint. I have the utmost faith in Speilberg and ILM to deliver a hell of a movie this summer.

Looks great. My girlfriend and I were extras in this last year when it was filming near Albany, so we were just freaking out when we saw that our scene (the tripods attacking the ferry landing) hadn't been cut. I'm really rooting for this, for selfish reasons; it would be great to say I was in Spielberg's latest Close Encounters, but not so much if it's Spielberg's latest 1941.

The new teaser gives it a very grounded human feel to the flick unlike ID4 where they just blew shit up in the trailer. I like Dakota and Tom hasn't been getting on my nerves as much as of late. Definitely June can't come quick enough.

Yeah I really like the new trailer....and I agree, it definitely looked like they gave you glimpse of the tripods in that shot of the ferry. The Super Bowl spot was so short, it was good to get a lot more footage in this one, and even hear some dialogue.

It look great. I think I see were they going with this one. It not ID4, there will be no heroes. It simple a horror survival tell, but with talent and a butt load of money.

From a scientific point of view, the problem with a disease is that vectors and the disease organism need similarities in order to jump species. An true alien species in all likelihood would be immune to every disease on the planet. Even though an alien organism would need the same amino acids, their proteins would most likely be different. Also they most likely would not use Deoxyribonucleic acid as a gene base. Even their sugars could be rotated the opposite of ours.

You see? THIS is why a modern audience can't accept the 'disease' ending.

That said, i feel the common cold is such an unimaginatively, relentlessly dull disease, it must be a universal phenomena.