Eve Of The War
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/

Spielberg & Cruise Talk Upcoming...
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=124
Page 1 of 1

Author:  eveofthewar [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:56 am ]
Post subject: 

FROM : <a href='http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050211h.php' target='_blank'>Darkhorizons.com</a><br /><br />Just a few hours ago in Los Angeles, a rep for Dark Horizons got to visit the set of the sci-fi epic "War of the Worlds" in Los Angeles where Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Producer Kathleen Kennedy and more were on hand for interviews and questions. Expect a full set report with interviews over the next few days, for now though comes the big news on what they're up to next - straight from their own mouths.<br /><br />Spielberg & Cruise talked a little bit about their future together. They had such a blast together on "Minority Report" that they decided to work together again, which is why "War of the Worlds" happened. According to both Cruise and Spielberg, after 'Worlds' their next film together might be a western.<br /><br />

Author:  rodnumber6 [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

The interview is up. Go here:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/warworlds.php' target='_blank'>http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/warworlds.php</a><br /><br />Pretty good stuff, although whoever did the transcript needs to learn who George PAL was, since George POWELL didn't make War of the Worlds or any other movie as far as I know. <br /><br />I was going to put up a few quotes from it, but I'll just let everyone go read it for themselves, then report back here for much discussion!

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

hmmm plenty in there thats encouraging for this version, i would point to this paragraph as particularly good news<br /><br />
Quote:
Spielberg: The film is ultra-realistic, as ultra-realistic as I've ever attempted to make a movie, in terms of its documentary style. But at the same time, it's full of the kind of Hollywood production values that the audience is demanding these days. And I think it's the combination, the blend, of these huge events visually and this kind of documentary story, personal story at the center of it
<br /><br />now thats the best thing I've read about from Speilberg in relation to this movie so far. the key phrase is "documentary style" because thats very much what the original story was - it was very much a kind of editorial comment on the invaison, yet it still had a personal flavor as well. Where i think the difference will come in is i think this will be much more personal than big picture and im not sure WOTW will translate too well over that transition. But generally quite a good moment for the Paramount camp on the PR trail. Also cheers go to the confirmation of Tripods and the promise of references to the George Pal version.<br /><br />On the bad side, I didnt like the swipe Speilberg took at Independance Day. Independance Day set out to be a modern alien invaison film, as well as its own story, and it included WOTW references because WOTW is the first and leading story of alien invaison. Speilberg made it sound like it set out to plagiarise WOTW. Not keen either on him saying the ending won't directly mimic the book. If i had to pick one area of this film that should be ironclad to the book it should be the ending. Speilberg was speaking in response to the question of whether the ending would include the '53 version's statement of mankind being rescued by God (and also that is in the book). That to me paves the way for mankind to save its own ass, and that above all else (and just by itself) would destroy this as a WOTW adaptation. Im not a big fan of chrsitianity but its not hard to simply adjust it so its not quite so christian based. "whatever higher power may be out there" would do. The whole point is humanity has been saved by something outside itself from an invaison it could never have survived as it was by itself.<br /><br />So good and bad points to take from that, and for me personally although obviously the rest of the film's book relevance does matter (and so far released fact puts it way behind on that score) the make-or-break factor is all on the ending.<br /><br />

Author:  gavv8 [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

A very interesting and thought provoking post leper.<br />Given the political climate and the one nation under god attitude in the us at the moment i would imagine that an ending accurate to the book would be seen very favourably by an american audience.

Author:  rodnumber6 [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

Really, his response to the question about the ending was so vague, I didn't know what to make of it. "neither strays from nor mimics the book..." Isn't that like saying you're sort of pregnant? Still, he said "won't stray from," and having humanity beating the Martians would sure be straying, so hopefully that's not what they have planned. <br /><br />Another quote that I found encouraging was this one on the subject of doing it moderized as opposed to Victorian:<br /><br /><br />
Quote:
I feel more at home today, in today's world. And I think, in the shadow of 9/11, there is a little relevance with how we are all so unsettled in our feelings about our collective futures. And that's why I think, when I reconsidered War of the Worlds, post 9/11, it began to make more sense to me, that it could be a tremendous emotional story as well as very entertaining one, and have some kind of current relevance.
<br /><br />That would also seem to suggest that it won't be a flag-waving, people-save-the-day ending. If he realizes that the story has relevance to today's world, I would think he would know that to do that kind of ending would be very shallow and completely undermine the message that the book was trying to send. He said a lot in there about his love and respect for the book, so I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. <br /><br />I also liked what he said about the radio play being such a good "distillation" of the book, to use his term. Wish someone would have asked him if there would be any homages to it since it's partially set in New Jersey. I'm sure they'll get something in there. Maybe Cruise's family passes through Grover's Mill as they're fleeing or something like that.<br /><br />One more thing. I also liked what he said about it being "as ultra-realistic as I've ever attempted to make a movie." As realistic as Private Ryan? As Schindler's List? Wow. It obviously won't be as graphic as Private Ryan was (he did say that it will be violent, but it will be PG-13), but if he can bring that kind of vividness to this film, we should be in for a good show.

Author:  rodnumber6 [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

From the interview, when talking about Cruise's character:<br /><br />
Quote:
Spielberg: He works with the...what was it called? <br /><br />Cruise: Cranes. These big cranes. These huge, giant cranes. <br /><br />Spielberg: They move the cargo containers off the ships and into the trucks.
<br /><br />So would it be straying from the book for the ending to have Cruise using his giant crane to smash all the tripods, ala Ripley & the power loader in Aliens? :P <br /><br />I certainly hope so.

Author:  rodnumber6 [ Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Found another Dark Horizons WOTW interview, this one with producer Kathleen Kennedy. She actually reveals a lot more about the movie than Spielberg & Cruise did. For example:<br /><br />
Quote:
Is this latest treatment of extraterrestrial life by Spielberg- is it pure imagination or does it come from science or theory in any way?<br /><br />First it comes from HG Wells. He wrote an extraordinary story in 1887 that has aspects today that are amazingly relevant, so we have to give him a tremendous amount of credit. Clearly staging the action sequences - yes Steven is making that up, but so much of the story was inspired by what was in the book. Almost the entire cellar sequence for instance is right out of HG Wells.
<br /><br />She really goes into a surprising amount of detail about what to expect from the film. One thing I'll go ahead and post here that will likely draw howls of protest:<br /><br />
Quote:
Are these aliens recognizable as aliens or are they reinvented in a way we've never seen before?<br /><br />I think they've been reinvented, but they're still inherently inspired by what Wells describes.<br /><br />Well he had octopuses?<br /><br />No they're not octopuses.<br /><br />Are they Martians?<br /><br />No they're not Martians. The feeling was that we know so much about Mars now that doesn't really fall into the realm of realistic expectations.
<br /><br />Yep. She said it. They're not Martians. Still, before you start making the letter bombs, read the whole interview. She talks a lot about the message and commentary in the book and how they're retaining that. If they get the message right, I can grudgingly overlook them not being Martians. If they were, they (the filmmakers) would have to come up with some explanation of why we never saw any indication of them with all the exploring of Mars that we've done. Any such explanation would have probably been pretty far-fetched. <br /><br />Anyway, that one thing aside, it's a very encouraging interview. So go to:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/warworlds2.php' target='_blank'>http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/warworlds2.php</a><br /><br />then report back and sound off!<br /><br /><br />

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:48 am ]
Post subject: 

right thats interesting for sure. I dont get why the Black Smoke isnt in, or at least not heavily featured. Thats got enourmous relevance to todays events. glad of the cameos from the fifties film but...<br /><br />theyre not martians. theyre not martians. do you hear me? theyre not martians!! im not sure what difference that makes, maybe it was just so they could fit the red weed in (since none is apparently forthcoming on Mars) but it just seems wrong, it seems like an extreme departure from the book for no reason. And it might also remove or change the alien motive for invaison. (if that gets explained and its important it does)

Author:  Fenris [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
So would it be straying from the book for the ending to have Cruise using his giant crane to smash all the tripods, ala Ripley & the power loader in Aliens?
<br /><br />A common Hollywood scriptwriting trick is to bring to the audience's attention - for no apparent obvious reason, and usually early in the movie - a building, location, upcoming event, or a particular talent/ability that a character has. Having planted this plot-device, the writer can have it play an important part later on.<br /><br />Apart from Aliens' powerloader, a few examples I can readily think of include the heroine's fencing skills in House of the Dead (2004), the homemade flamethrower in The Hidden (1988), the zeppelin in The Rocketeer (1991), the televised live debate in Virtuosity (1995), and the rifle above the bar in Shaun of the Dead (2004).<br /><br />Therefore, I think we can safely guarantee that the Paramount movie will have Cruise take on a tripod with a crane at some point (a homage to the film version of Quatermass and the Pit, perhaps?)<br /><br />
Quote:
They're not Martians.
<br /><br />Grr (gnashes teeth with rage). Curse you, Spielberg. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not Martians, it's not War of the Worlds. Just another 'alien invasion' flick (the Independence Day 2 description becomes yet more apt).<br /><br />Seriously though, the idea that 'we know too much about Mars' holds little weight. One of the most interesting aspects of the attempted Mars exploration projects carried out by NASA and the Soviets during the Seventies and Eighties, when several satellites or probes were launched to either scan Mars from orbit or actually land on the surface, was that most of them malfunctioned, suddenly stopped transmitting, or even exploded as they approached Mars. NASA scientists actually started referring to 'the Galactic Ghoul' that was determined to prevent Earth from discovering too much about it's nearest neighbour.<br /><br />Despite a few more recent NASA successes, I think the Paramount movie could suggest that it would be child's play for the Martians - having much superior technology - to keep their existance secret from mankind for the last few decades.

Author:  Leper Messiah [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

well indeed. They live underground because of the forbidding conditions on the surface, simple as.

Author:  rodnumber6 [ Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-Leper Messiah+Feb 12 2005, 09:48 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leper Messiah @ Feb 12 2005, 09:48 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->right thats interesting for sure.  I dont get why the Black Smoke isnt in, or at least not heavily featured.  Thats got enourmous relevance to todays events.  glad of the cameos from the fifties film but...<br /><br />theyre not martians.  theyre not martians.  do you hear me? theyre not martians!! im not sure what difference that makes, maybe it was just so they could fit the red weed in (since none is apparently forthcoming on Mars) but it just seems wrong, it seems like an extreme departure from the book for no reason.  And it might also remove or change the alien motive for invaison.  (if that gets explained and its important it does)<br />[right][snapback]799[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /> <br />I also wish they were doing the Black Smoke. It was very prominent in Welles' radio version and very creepy as well. But it's not critical; after all, it wasn't in Jeff Wayne's version at all, but since everything else was so faithful, it wasn't a huge deal.<br /><br />I still don't know about the No Martians thing. Mars must play into it somehow; they showed a distant view of Mars in the first teaser trailer. Maybe they'll say they used Mars as a point to prepare for and launch the invasion from. I think I could accept that okay, just so they at least acknowledge it somehow. After all, as you said there is definitely no Red Weed on Mars, os it may make that easier to explain. I still certainly have no concerns about it being ID4 2 or whatever you would call it. Spielberg and Kennedy said more than enough in their interviews to dispell that. At this point I'm just eager to see more footage, but I haven't heard any news about another trailer. Things have gone kind of quiet on the Pendragon front as well. Some good updates on either front would help take my mind off the immiment cancellation of hockey season (grrrrr....).

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:34 am ]
Post subject: 

<!--QuoteBegin-rodnumber6+Feb 12 2005, 06:55 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rodnumber6 @ Feb 12 2005, 06:55 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also wish they were doing the Black Smoke. It was very prominent in Welles' radio version and very creepy as well. But it's not critical; after all, it wasn't in Jeff Wayne's version at all,<br /><br />[right][snapback]807[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /> :blink: Don't you have a go at Jeff Wayne, he mentions the black smoke and the black dust several times. :P

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/