|
Post by Norris on Jun 6, 2005 1:22:50 GMT -5
Once again, Historical Inaccuracy has brought around my dark side.
As I said earlier, I've no longer any quarrel with the American people, but when its media corporations suddenly take the life out of great literary works and transform it into a lifeless image on the screen, then I get mad.
Although I'm glad that WAR OF THE WORLDS is being made into yet another film, I should stress several errors in comparison to the book, as Spielberg said he wanted to keep as close to the book as possible (Like heck as like!)
1) The book was set in 1894, not 2005.
2) The Martians invaded Sussex, not Central America
3) There was no girl involved in the book, just a priest who was driven to insanity by the goings on around him.
4) In the book, the Martians only got as far as the edge of Birmingham (England) in the book, not the whole world.
|
|
|
Post by Brian the Flying Penguin on Jun 6, 2005 2:30:12 GMT -5
It's a story. This sort of thing, while annoying, doesn't bother me as much as when they distort actual historical events. It's like the way that they rewrite comic books, despite the fact that the characters are popular because of the way the comic authors write them.
|
|
|
Post by Norris on Jun 6, 2005 3:53:45 GMT -5
Be that as it may, I just think it wrong that they should write a classic such as HG Wells. Rewriting comics is OK by me, but I just don't like it when they alter 19th C. Literature.
|
|
|
Post by Brian the Flying Penguin on Jun 6, 2005 3:56:04 GMT -5
Why? That sort of thing was the comic book of its day. There are few works so excellent that they could not benefit from some rewriting to bring them up to date. How would you feel if they had set most of it in Japan?
|
|
|
Post by Hush Mazmanos on Jun 6, 2005 6:18:30 GMT -5
If you think about it the reason why he changed the story in some way is to put some more excitement into the movie not that I read or seen the War of the Worlds. But if you thik about if ypou read the book already you know exactly whats gonna happen so what's the point of even watching if you know the story will be exactly like the books? SAme for Harry Potter and LotR. Lord of the Rings 2 the battle of Helm's deep didnt have the Elves interfere that battle. But they added them anyway. And in the Fellowship Tom Bombadil or whatever his name is didnt even appear when he did something important in the book. Harry Potter also suffers from this. But it gives the viewers a touch of excitement even though they know what happens. Hush Mazmanos
|
|
|
Post by Brian the Flying Penguin on Jun 6, 2005 8:03:27 GMT -5
In the case of Harry Potter I think it was more of a case of getting it down to a manageable length.
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz aka Dahaka on Jun 6, 2005 10:43:07 GMT -5
Maybe low budgeting?
|
|
|
Post by whitehind on Jun 6, 2005 11:53:11 GMT -5
I sincerely doubt low budgeting played a part in the War of the Worlds, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. The latter two were probably, mainly changed so that the audience could finish watching the film before they died of old age. War of the Worlds has a lot of influences from the old 1953 version, from what I’ve heard. It's a modern adaptation of the story; in the original the Martians land in England when it was the major world power and in the new one it's America.
Anyway, Norris, I've heard that a film is being made that is almost an exact depiction of the book.
|
|
|
Post by Norris on Jun 7, 2005 3:54:26 GMT -5
Well, I wish they wouldn't, it spoils the feel of the story. The powers thing doesn't bother me, but it does bother me when a classic story such as this is laid waste, regardless of low budgetting or not.
I've seen almost every War of the Worlds book, film, whatever, and the only thing even close to the book is JEFF WAYNE'S MUSICAL VERSION (A CD released in 1978).
I really don't want to make waves, but I really get p****d off when classic novellas are soiled like this, especially when it happens to be my favourite book.
|
|
|
Post by Pow! on Jun 7, 2005 6:14:50 GMT -5
I read LOTR's books and frankly I loved the movies more. Harry Potter movies? Bah, I wonder why I wasted my money watching in cinema. There's always some arguments whether something should be left intact or retouched to suit audience. Not only for classics, but for new books as well....
Steven Spielberg is the director? Perhaps you shouldn't worry too much, Norris. Well, there's always doubts until it comes out... If it's good, raise thumbs. If not? kick 'em.
Let's see how Hollywood plays his card...
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz aka Dahaka on Jun 7, 2005 12:00:37 GMT -5
Ok so maybe low budgeting was not the right term, how bout, not enough budgeting? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Norris on Jun 8, 2005 5:28:51 GMT -5
I'm not worried about the term of budgetting, the point is that they should at least try to stay faithful to the book and not wander off on a completely different path such as the 1953 film.
As I said, Pow, the reason I think little of this film is because it's set in the modern day and not 1894.
As for the location, I'm not completely bugged by that, it could've been filmed in Greenland for all I care, but for once I'd like to see a WOTW film set when the book was set, and not in the modern day. If they can do it for the radio broadcasts of Orson Welles (As it was shown in THE NIGHT THAT PANICKED AMERICA) then why is it so difficult to do it in the 19th C.? They had no problems with TITANIC or THE TIME MACHINE (Now that was a good film!)
|
|
|
Post by Brian the Flying Penguin on Jun 8, 2005 6:55:07 GMT -5
The Time Machine was also moved from England to the US.
|
|
|
Post by Norris on Jun 8, 2005 9:19:10 GMT -5
Yes, but as I said, I prefer if it sticks to the books. The only difference between the book and the film was what you said, Brian, it was set in America.
Personally, I couldn't care if it was set inside a toilet.
|
|
|
Post by Brian the Flying Penguin on Jun 8, 2005 9:29:37 GMT -5
Which version of The Time Machine are you talking about?
|
|