I just bought the Pendragon Pictures of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. I have read about this movie on the web for years.

The movie is too long, at 3 hours. Is is boring,slow and the effects are ok. The acting is pretty good, but if the movie was edited down to make it faster, it might be better.

I do not recommend this movie, unless you need some sleep.

But what do the martians look like??

So, this has been kind of a mystery film for me. Was it theatrically released or direct to video? Or, do you have a pre-release video version?

How accurate to the novel is it. Does it feel low-budget? I really want to see it, but am afraid I'll be really disappointed.

I love the book, the Orson radio drama, the George Pal film and the Wayne musical. I will probably enjoy the Spielberg version too. So, being the fan I am, I would probably really like the Pendragon film even if it is too long.

What time period does it take place in?

So, this has been kind of a mystery film for me. Was it theatrically released or direct to video? Or, do you have a pre-release video version?
I've not looked for it, but I've been hearing it's available at Wal-Mart and appears to be a direct-to-video release. At least here in The States. I'm thinking I might look for it this weekend. I heard it was going for about $10.
How accurate to the novel is it. Does it feel low-budget? I really want to see it, but am afraid I'll be really disappointed.

I love the book, the Orson radio drama, the George Pal film and the Wayne musical. I will probably enjoy the Spielberg version too. So, being the fan I am, I would probably really like the Pendragon film even if it is too long.
I've heard it's very accurate to the novel, set in Victorian Era England, which is likely why Lloyd found it slow and boring.

I bought a copy a couple of weeks ago for just under $9.00 at the local Wally-World. Here are a few of my thoughts:

The movie was indeed far too long at three hours. A good but brutal editor could have turned it into an interesting film at two hours to two hours fifteen minutes.

The acting was generally adequate, if stiff. Again, a good editor might have helped.

The Martians were indeed accurate to the book in design, though the animation needed work.

The war machines were excellent. realizing that they would be the focus of attention, a lot of work went into their dsign and execution.

The weakest part of the film, by far, was the Thunderchild sequence. It looked to me as if the effects people simply used a stock World War I era destroyer (completely wrong, as Thunderchild was an Ironclad Torpedo Ram) and didn't even bother to put a hint of crew on the decks (who would have been very visible on a ship that small). In fact, the sequence caused me to imagine Robert Ballard's voice saying "Tonight on National Geographic, we'll take a look at the loss of the famous British cruiser Thunderchild..." It had exactly the look of Discovery Channel forensic animation.

The rest of the effects were pretty much up to British TV standards, which is to say palatable, but not great.

On the whole, I'd say try to borrow a copy first, and decide if you really want it. On the other hand, it's probably the only version of the film as an actual "period piece" we'll ever see.

My personal fantasy is to somehow get the rights to Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds" musical, and hand it to Hayao Miyazaki, along with a check with lots of zeros on it, and come back in three years. It will never happen, but it's a pleasant fantasy.

:wave: The Rat

Rattrap, good review. The Jeff Wayne WOW is being made into a movie. Check out http://www.waroftheworldsonline.com/ for more info.

SPOILERS AHOY!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


The weakest part of the film, by far, was the Thunderchild sequence. It looked to me as if the effects people simply used a stock World War I era destroyer (completely wrong, as Thunderchild was an Ironclad Torpedo Ram) and didn't even bother to put a hint of crew on the decks (who would have been very visible on a ship that small). In fact, the sequence caused me to imagine Robert Ballard's voice saying "Tonight on National Geographic, we'll take a look at the loss of the famous British cruiser Thunderchild..." It had exactly the look of Discovery Channel forensic animation.

And the sad thing is, about a year or so ago there were some pictures of the people working on the CG of the ship and it was a hell of alot more detailed than the finished product.

There were people on board. As the ship is sinking you can see a LEGO man sliding down the railings...

Probably my favorite part was in the ruined house, with the Curate and the Writer. Best part of the entire movie, except for the blood draining scene in which a live person is changed into something that resembles a Goth Barbie Doll.

There were WAY too many scenes of people walking down paths, the sepia tone which was supposed to done throughout the movie is used off and on and other color filters get used.

I think the biggest problem with this movie, other than the poor editing and acting, was the CG FX. There is no point in making a movie in the vain of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and you only have 100k to spend. Green screen backgrounds were used throughout, hell they didn't even have a REAL horse and carriage so those were CG! And I'm talking CG like was done in video game cutscenes from the early 90's. There was even a scene where the Writer is knocking on his neighbor's door and the door is green screened!

The movie is probably the only Victorian era version that will be made unless someone makes a fan film like Star Wars or Trek.

Rattrap, good review. The Jeff Wayne WOW is being made into a movie. Check out http://www.waroftheworldsonline.com/ for more info.
There's a link there for the version made by The Asylum, too. It's another modern-day version, but appears to follow the novel fairly well, judging by the review that I had browsed it earlier today of the DVD that is to be released next week. It stars C. Thomas Howell, Jake Busey and a few others - HG Wells' War of the Worlds (IMDb Entry) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449040/). The site w/the review: http://dvd.monstersandcritics.com/columns/index.php/3 I had to do a search on "War of the Worlds", and turned up this two-page review: http://dvd.monstersandcritics.com/reviews/article_8596.php/DVD_Review_H._G._Wells_War_of_the_Worlds__The_Asyl ums_ Looks pretty interesting!

OK Found your thread, Lloyd. When I did my search, obviously I should have just typed in the movie title. I thought there was one already here somewhere and definitely remembered after seeing your first post. Oops....

I'm sure you'll be alright, tho. ;)

Borrowed a copy from a friend and have watched the first hour or so.

Yikes, it really is a mistake (at least in this case) to have the writer/director also working as the editor. It's obvious that this guy was in love with everything he shot and simply was incapable of cutting this down to something manageable.

The effects are poor and the colorization is inconsistent and really distracting.

It's a shame because I always wanted a WotW film accurate to the novel and done "right." With the Spielberg film and now this, it probably won't happen for many many years if ever.

Well, I'm tired and need sleep, so I'm going to pop it in and watch the second hour...

Jeffery, didn't mean to be so forceful, but just trying to keep it all in one thread.

I will have to keep an eye out for the next WOTW movie on DVD. I like all of the movies,radio,TV,CD,and DVD. I also liked TRIPODS from the BBC.
But, this DVD needs some more work to be watchable. I think alot of the colorization was to hide the problems with the effects and green screen shots.

Borrowed a copy from a friend and have watched the first hour or so.

Yikes, it really is a mistake (at least in this case) to have the writer/director also working as the editor. It's obvious that this guy was in love with everything he shot and simply was incapable of cutting this down to something manageable.
That or he was just trying to be as faithful to the novel as he could. I'm thinking it's a combination of the two, personally.
The effects are poor and the colorization is inconsistent and really distracting.
As Lloyd said above, I think the color thing was to cover up the CGI inconsistancies w/the real-life footage and possibly other mistakes.
It's a shame because I always wanted a WotW film accurate to the novel and done "right." With the Spielberg film and now this, it probably won't happen for many many years if ever.

Well, I'm tired and need sleep, so I'm going to pop it in and watch the second hour...
Be sure to watch the section w/the Curate in the collapsed farmhouse! Definitely the best part of the movie, IMNSHO. Rather unnerving when he shows what the Martians do with the captured humans and such.

Jeffery, didn't mean to be so forceful, but just trying to keep it all in one thread.
I know and I agree with you on that. It bugs when there are twenty different threads about the same subject. I screwed up and am more than willing to admit it. I just had to be a smart-ass, tho. ;)
I will have to keep an eye out for the next WOTW movie on DVD. I like all of the movies,radio,TV,CD,and DVD. I also liked TRIPODS from the BBC.
But, this DVD needs some more work to be watchable. I think alot of the colorization was to hide the problems with the effects and green screen shots.
Definitely agreed on the latter. I, too, want to get the C. Thomas Howell & Jake Busey version from Asylum, I think it is. I checked Wally World again on Sunday and they still didn't have that version in. The clerks were too busy w/customers, so I didn't want to bug them for a stock check. I also still haven't seen the Spielberg WotW yet. Possibly on Thursday during a morning matinee.

I'll probably be branded a heretic for this, but why would anyone want a movie faithful to the novel? Admittedly, it's been quite a few years since I've read it, but if I rememember correctly, the book has no real story. At least not one that would translate into a dramatic medium. The "protagonist" is just a plot device to tell the story as a first person narrative. Not only does he do nothing to effect the course of events, neither does the entire human race!

The problem is that the story is just not workable. Essentially, the aliens invade, overrun everything, then are wiped out by a deus ex machina. The only way to make it work as a movie is to keep the premise, keep the hardware, and invent a completely new story. Which is pretty much what the Spielberg movie did. But even then, we are left with an anti-climatic ending that I'm afraid is inherent in the material.

The only people I can imagine who would want a faithful version are those who believe that film is an inherently inferior and is only good when it is like some other medium.

I'll probably be branded a heretic for this, but why would anyone want a movie faithful to the novel? Admittedly, it's been quite a few years since I've read it, but if I rememember correctly, the book has no real story. At least not one that would translate into a dramatic medium. The "protagonist" is just a plot device to tell the story as a first person narrative. Not only does he do nothing to effect the course of events, neither does the entire human race!

Kind of the same story Spielberg told with amazing effectiveness. Spielberg did not invent a completely new story. Read the book again. He was actually quite faithful to the original. The aliens arrival is different, but the basic beats of the story are intact and reaffirm why WotW has been so popular for over 100 years. Substitute minivan for horse and wagon, Tim Robbins for the artilleryman/curate, etc.

I would argue that the Speilberg film is more accurate to the novel than the George Pal film.

The only people I can imagine who would want a faithful version are those who believe that film is an inherently inferior and is only good when it is like some other medium.

Not at all!

I want a film that is set in the time of the book with victorian-looking tripods and all the set-pieces that I loved. That said, it's a huge mistake to simply film a book. I think that can be plainly seen in the Pendragon film.

Take Lord of the Rings. Extremely faithful to the novels and truly amazing films. It can be done.

I think what you're really saying is that the novel just isn't that good. On that we will simply disagree.
:)

Well, at the time it was written, it was very innovative. You do realize that it was written originally almost 110 years ago, right? Before the widespread use of electricity, telephones, cars, radio, television, computers...? It's also the first Alien (extraterristrial) Invasion story ever produced that I'm aware of. By today's standards, it's very "old school" because it's the model that a number of SciFi stories since were based upon.

As to whether the primary character effects the course of events or not, why does that really matter? There are a number of stories told in a very similar fashion. Plus, in the grand scope of things, do all the protangists have to be the one to end the alien invasion? Should The Writer have perhaps opened up his laptop, produced a virus that was instantly compatible w/whatever computer systems the aliens were using and then destroy them from "within"? :rolleyes: That, or use a super-uber-gigantically-enormous gun to blow up all the aliens he sees. Or maybe they should discover ancient human technology from a thousand years before, learn how to fly it and use it to destroy the alien invaders before the end of the week...?

Sorry... Please don't take this as a bag on you, you've just sort of hit a raw nerve that I've heard before recently with folks bagging on the original story premise. So, it ain't shoot-'em-up HollyWeird stuff with lots of explosions, topless wimmen, car chases, topless wimmen, gunshots ricocheting all over the place and lots of topless wimmen. That stuff is what turns me off to most movies these days.

"As to whether the primary character effects the course of events or not, why does that really matter?"

Because you don't have a story otherwise. Having a character who only observes events that would play out exactly the same way if he wasn't there is simply bad drama. To have the antagonists simply fail because of an outside force is bad drama.

I'm not arguing that the book is bad, but you need to recognize what it was: a philosophical allegory showing England at the height of its empire what it is like to be conquered by a technologically superior force. Things like the aliens succumbing to disease may make sense philosophically, but they don't translate to compelling drama.

And Griffworks, I think your point about it being "old school" is exactly the problem. This is not the 1890's. The story has been copied and rip-offed so often, that we've seen it all before. (Except for the tripods. Which is why it was wise to use them.)

As for following the plot of the book, I don't remember the narrator of the book trying to protect his children. I think that makes all the difference in terms of story. It gives him an objective other than simple survival.

"As to whether the primary character effects the course of events or not, why does that really matter?"

Because you don't have a story otherwise. Having a character who only observes events that would play out exactly the same way if he wasn't there is simply bad drama. To have the antagonists simply fail because of an outside force is bad drama.
Bad drama by your standards, but there have been many stories that successfully tell the story - and do it well, if only by my standards and that of a lot of other folks. Personally, I like those stories that have a character who mostly observes, having little enough effect on events around him. After all, how many people in a standard "War of the Worlds" storyline can actually have that much of an effect on their environment? As I said before, not many, for the most part. :)
I'm not arguing that the book is bad, but you need to recognize what it was: a philosophical allegory showing England at the height of its empire what it is like to be conquered by a technologically superior force. Things like the aliens succumbing to disease may make sense philosophically, but they don't translate to compelling drama.
And that's the point of the original novel! No matter how might Man thinks he is, there's likely to be something out there bigger and badder than he is! As well as the whole David & Goliath aspects of the end of the novel - and by extension the end of the various movies that "borrow" from the original story. I think the drama angle is just fine, it being a drama and all. Now, it doesn't translate well from an action line of thinking, tho.... ;)

And Griffworks, I think your point about it being "old school" is exactly the problem. This is not the 1890's. The story has been copied and rip-offed so often, that we've seen it all before. (Except for the tripods. Which is why it was wise to use them.)

As for following the plot of the book, I don't remember the narrator of the book trying to protect his children. I think that makes all the difference in terms of story. It gives him an objective other than simple survival.
I was talking about the original story and not the movie, so no, he had no children to protect. It makes it for more of the same old same old same old storyline if you have a guy trying to protect his children - same stuff we see in a great many movies these days. Sorta like how we see lots of alien invasion stories, or "gotta go to the center of the world to save it", or giant lizard/reptiles, or gun battles, or... You get the point. It's only as "new school" as we indivudually think it to be. Besides, there are no new stories anymore. ;)

As for following the plot of the book, I don't remember the narrator of the book trying to protect his children. I think that makes all the difference in terms of story. It gives him an objective other than simple survival.

The protagonist in the story had a motivation to reach his love and protect others around him in his community. As I said, a "literal" translation of the book into a film is a bad idea. That doesn't invalidate the book, rather it confirms the earlier point you made about film and literature being uniquely different. They are and should be. However, one can be translated into the other (either way) quite successfully.

"Bad drama by your standards,..."

And Aristotle. And practically every dramatist since then.

"but there have been many stories that successfully tell the story - and do it well, if only by my standards and that of a lot of other folks. Personally, I like those stories that have a character who mostly observes, having little enough effect on events around him."

For example? And just to be clear, when I say drama, I'm talking about a story played out before an audience by actors. Books may have dramatic elements, but they are not drama.

"After all, how many people in a standard "War of the Worlds" storyline can actually have that much of an effect on their environment? As I said before, not many, for the most part."

Which is my point. The very premise of WotW presents some fundamental problems when translating it into a dramatic presentation. I think the Spielberg movie did about as well as they could with the material, but I'm not the only one to point out that the ending was dramatically weak.

I hope I haven't come across as bashing the book. The point I was trying to make is that not every story (real or fictional) can be successfully translated into a movie. I guess I'm reacting to a larger attitude I often see that complains when things are changed from a book, or defend dull, lifeless, or just plain silly aspects of a movie by saying that it is "true to the book." My feeling is that if the choice is between effective drama and fidelity to the source material, effective drama should win out every time.

I completely agree with your final point. I'll go back to Lord of the Rings again as an example. Many reacted negatively to word that the films would alter certain characters and situations from the books.

"Did you hear they are giving Arwen a sword? I've lost all respect for them now!"

This, of course, before anyone had seen the film. I agree with most of Jackson's changes from the source material and believe they add to the final product. Some disagree. Some view the source text as sacred and unalterable. I think that's a shame. A film must condense the "essence" of a book onto the screen. Changes are mandatory. But, I'll be the first to tell you that I longed for a few favorite scenes from the books up on the screen. I agree that they would ultimately detract from the pacing, but I still miss them.

So, back to WotW. It's a fine line. As a fan of a book, I want to see as much of it on the screen as possible. But more than that, I want the spirit of the book on the screen. The plotting may differ, but if I can feel the same tension, joy, fear, etc. watching the film as I did reading the book, that's success. With WotW, I want as much of it in a screenplay as possible with the above caveats. Spielberg did an excellent modernization while maintaining the spirit of the book. Now, just set it in the 1890s and I'll be happy.

When Ann Robinson (female lead of the George Pal WotW) said at Wonderfest in 2001 that Tom Cruise was possibly working on a WotW project and that she thought it was supposed to be based in the time period of the book, the crowd was ecstatic. As much as I like the new film, I wish it had been done as a period piece. I'm sure it probably wouldn't have been as successful because audiences can relate more easily to Tom Cruise playing in this century.

Another mention of LOR. I have read the books, and listened to the audio dramas, so I knew LOR. When I saw Fellowship,I was shocked by the changes. Three times I almost left the theatre. But when I understood on the changes were to get more than fans to watch it, and that Peter love the books, I gave in. Now I love the LOR movies.

The Speilberg movie I can accept, because, set today, the fear is more intense.

No one wants to see an H.G. Wells book filmed as it's written with all that Victorian stuff. I mean, who'd pay good money to see a film version of the book "The Time Machine" for example?

Oh. They have?

;)

Jim

No one wants to see an H.G. Wells book filmed as it's written with all that Victorian stuff. I mean, who'd pay good money to see a film version of the book "The Time Machine" for example?

Oh. They have?

;)

Jim

I'm guessing they did in 1960. Apparently not so many did in 2002.

As much as I like the new film, I wish it had been done as a period piece. I'm sure it probably wouldn't have been as successful because audiences can relate more easily to Tom Cruise playing in this century.


While I agree with your observation about Tom Cruise, it misses the point.

Good science-fiction/ horror films exploit societal fears in order to better understand those fears (and hopfully make a lot of money).

Spielberg's WotW is a monster hit because the contemporary setting resonates with post 9/11 audiences. To remove the film from its modern context would be to lesson its impact, both artistically and financially.

I'm not the only one to point out that the ending was dramatically weak.

If the climax of Spielberg's WotW hinged on humankind defeating the aliens I'd agree with you. However, from a purely dramatic standpoint, the film is about the lengths a repentant father will go to protect his family, and the lengths an frightened mob will go to protect itself.

I for one found the ending to be elegant, poetic and completely satisfying.

While I agree with your observation about Tom Cruise, it misses the point.

Good science-fiction/ horror films exploit societal fears in order to better understand those fears (and hopfully make a lot of money).

Spielberg's WotW is a monster hit because the contemporary setting resonates with post 9/11 audiences. To remove the film from its modern context would be to lesson its impact, both artistically and financially.

True, and it's almost certain that if the film was to have originally been set in the 19th century, the decision to move it to the present was probably made soon after 9/11.

Oh, and the 1960 version of The Time Machine is awesome! Just ask the lucky Wonderfesters who saw it on the big screen in May. Bob Burns described it as a perfect film.