Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDShttp://us.imdb.com/ne - Director used 1938 script.

[Glenn Anders]

An item in the 22 March 2005 issue of IMDb News states that Director Stephen Spielberg regrets taking so long to make his new production of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, just completed. He says that, over 12 years ago, he bought "the last copy" of the Koch/Welles 1938 Mercury Theater on the Air Radio script, and immediately, he thought that it would form the basis of a great movie. He praises how it translates H.G. Wells' novella to a different medium. He laments that the successful appearance of INDEPENDENCE DAY, a film containing similar elements, forced him to postpone his own production, starring Tom Cruise, so long.

TOM CRUISE?!!

He must have taken treatments to deepen his voice.

And Spielberg might have presented this proposition to Orson Welles, long ago, when the creator was still alive.

Still, the new movie will put Welles in the public eye again.

Glenn

[Orson&Jazz]

Here is something from the memorable quotes section of IMDb.

Memorable Quotes from
War of the Worlds (2005)
[from trailer]

Narrator: No one would have believed in the early years of the twenty-first century that our world was being watched by intelligences greater than our own. That as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they observed - and studied. With infinite complacency, men went to and fro about the globe, confident of their empire over this world. Yet, across the gulf of space, intellects vast, and cool, and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes... and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us.

Sounds a lot like the radio show. Now, I never read the actual H.G. Wells book, so I don't know if this section was taken from the book, or from Welles and Koch's radio script. But, it sounds a lot like the radio show to me.


But, TOM CRUISE!!??


Yes, I do hope it puts Orson back into the public eye again. I wonder how many out there of the newer generation even know the history of the story? I wonder if they even know who Orson Welles is?

[Roger Ryan]

The passage, adapted by Koch for the radio play, is taken directly from the opening paragraph of Wells' book. I'm curious as to why Spielberg and others are saying this new film is based on Welles' radio play and not the novel itself. Perhaps they've incorporated some of the "we interrupt this programming..." stuff unique to the radio play and not found in the original novel for obvious reasons. Since the new film takes place in modern day, is the martian invasion detailed by bloggers and through phone-cams?! Tom Cruise may be playing a version of the Princeton professor or maybe not, but I certainly hope he's not trying to play Welles.

[GM]

Why do you hope that, Roger? I'd love to see Cruise try to do Orson; could be good for some laughs. Reportedly, the new WOTW is shaping up as the most expensive film ever made, even costlier then Cameron's Titanic. I think it opens in June, head to head with the new "Fantastic Four" (which was my favorite Saturday morning show as a kid). Should be the battle of the summer: The "Fantastic Four" vs. the other Fantastic Four: H.G., Orson, Spielberg, and Cruise.

[Glenn Anders]

Because there seems to be some interest, I've looked into this matter a bit. Though he denies it, Spielberg appears to have fashioned his version of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS rather closely to the 1953 George Pal production, substituting a family (Tom Cruise, Miranda Otto, and Dakota Fanning) for the original characters. Tim Robbins plays a character named Ogilvy, but I am unable to nail down just who he is in the film. If there is a counterpart of Welles' Professor Pierson, Robbins would seem to be it.

Thanks to Orson & Jazz, we have Spielberg's narration from the trailer. For comparison, here is Orson Welles' beginning, followed by the opening paragraphs of H.G. Wells' Novella:

ORSON WELLES:
We know now that in the early years of the twentieth century this world was being watched closely by intelligences greater than man's, and yet as mortal as his own. We know now that as human beings busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinized and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.

With infinite complacence people went to and fro over the earth about their little affairs, serene in the assurance of their dominion over this small, spinning fragment of solar driftwood which, by chance or design, man has inherited out of the dark mystery of Time and Space.

Yet across an immense ethereal gulf, minds that are to our minds as ours are to the beasts in the jungle, intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.

In the thirty-ninth year of the twentieth century came the great disillusionment. It was near the end of October. Business was better. The war scare was over. More men were back at work. Sales were picking up. On this particular evening, October 30th, the Crosley service estimated that thirty-two million people were listening in on radios.

------------------

H.G. Wells' Opening Paragraphs:

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.

------------------

My guess is that because of the heavy use of CGI, Spielberg's film will be rather wearisome because of necessary overuse of close-ups for the main characters. But if his trailer narration is in the actual picture, he is tipping an up-to-date hat to Mr. Orson Welles.

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

I would agree that Spielberg is probably remaking the George Pal version as opposed to adapting the original novel or Welles' broadcast. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the film had a scene where an on-location correspondent is cut off abruptly! There will probably be one or two jokey references to the Welles' broadcast, similar to the allusion made in last year's "Sky Captain & The World Of Tomorrow" (a film filled with allusions to other movies - anyone notice that the newspaper photo of the villain's mansion glimped briefly near the film's beginning was a dead-on copy of Xanadu?).

I wouldn't want Cruise, Robbins, or anyone else for that matter, trying to mimic Welles simply because this new "War Of The Worlds" should be based on the H.G. Wells' story and not on Welles' broadcast, although I doubt it will resemble either (imagine how bizarre this new film would be if set in 1898 like the novel!).

[Jaime N. Christley]

Please forgive me if my two cents doesn't correspond with what seems to be the party line around here. I think Spielberg is an enormously talented director, Tom Cruise is an enormously likable actor, and that pre-judging their most recent and only collaboration (Minority Report) based on trailers and such was a mistake I came to regret, because it turned out to be one of the best films of that year. I await Spielberg's War of the Worlds eagerly, and even if I don't end up liking it, if one critic in all creation takes it upon himself to compare this film with Welles' radio broadcast and finds something more interesting than "I find Spielberg and/or Cruise tiresome," then some good will have come of it.

Again, just my two cents.

[Glenn Anders]

Dear Jaime: I would like to make clear that I am not criticizing Stephen Spielberg, per se, nor Tom Cruise unless, as appeared to be the case earlier, that he was perhaps going to play Professor Pierson. Spielberg is technically an enormously talented artisan, if a rather "boy adventure book" directior -- who often spoils his work with callowness and lapses of taste. My last point was simply that the CGI process tends to create tiresome movies, no matter who directs them.

If Spielberg's THE WAR OF THE WORLDS is worth anything like the money expended upon it, I'll certainly say so, as I'm sure others here will. The bar set by Cameron's largely forgotten and juvenile TITANIC is, after all, not a high one.

Glenn

[Harvey Chartrand]

If only Welles had given RKO what it wanted from the outset – a film version of the WAR OF THE WORLDS radio play. We may not have had CITIZEN KANE but Welles' career would have been jollier with a hit instead of a miss first time at bat.
Speaking of lost opportunities, Alfred Hitchcock (yet another fat genius filmmaker) was lured to America to direct TITANIC. Hitch spent months working on the script, but producer David O. Selznick cancelled TITANIC and reassigned Hitch to REBECCA. What Hitchcock could have done with the TITANIC story! Even the Nazi version of the film (TITANIK) is better than Cameron's effort. I mean, come on, Billy Zane chases DiCaprio with a gun as the Titanic sinks, and we're supposed to worry about Leonardo getting a bullet in him when the worst disaster of the century is unfolding all around him!
In 1997, Cameron proved that you can make a record-breaking hit movie with no script, and since then Hollywood product has been going steadily downhill.

[Jaime N. Christley]

...

[Roger Ryan]

I believe Spielberg is the finest mainstream director working today. While some of his films suffer from poor screenplays ("Jurrassic Park II: The Lost World"), he inevitably provides some unique directorial idea to make the material exciting. "Jaws", "Close Encounters", "Raiders Of The Lost Ark", "E.T.", "Schindler's List" and, yes, "A.I." are masterpieces of their respective genres. "Minority Report" was a solid effort, but I was disappointed with its formula plotting and unneccessary attempts at humor (the jet pack frying the burger comes to mind) when there was sufficient situational humor to be mined. I trust that "The War Of The Worlds" will be an exciting, well-made film. My only concern is that the film was rushed into production by the studio almost two years sooner than Spielberg had planned; I'm hoping the lack of pre-production doesn't hurt the overall effort. Tom Cruise doesn't always pick the best projects, but he is terrific in some of them (his performance in "Magnolia" deserved the Oscar). At the American Film Institute award ceremony, Welles made a toast to good films of every possible kind; Spielberg has made many of these.

[R Kadin]

Greetings, inhabitants of the planet Welles!

Having been something of a Wellesnet alien for quite some time, perhaps this is a fitting thread in which to break radio silence.

For my part, I just think it's great to have a big, bona fide Welles-related event close in the offing, period, however oblique the tie-in.

Whatever one's misgivings about Spielberg, there's no argument that, as a filmmaker, his order of magnitude is far more appropriate to that of our main man than other directors who have, of late, taken uneven stabs at Welles-oriented projects (e.g., George Hickenlooper, Alfonso Arau and even - ironically enough, given the above speculation that he might be taking on a roll akin to Welles' own Professor Pierson - Tim Robbins).

I suspect that, if nothing else, he will pay his homage to OW by trying to create in his film's audience the same thrilling sense of immediacy and threat that enshrined Welles' radio broadcast as a signal event of the twentieth century.

In so doing, I say he's welcome to call on every cinematic tool at his disposal - including all the CGI effects his instincts tell him are right for the task. Had CGI existed in Welles' day, OW would likely have exploited it unapologetically and I believe he would have had enough professional courtesy to respect Spielberg's choices in that regard, notwithstanding that his own would inevitably have been different.

Last, but not least, if all that Spielberg accomplishes is to relegate the likes of an "Independence Day" to the back catalogues and supplant it with a far more interesting and enduring, Welles-connected effort, then more power to him.

Until next time, "Klaatu barada niktu," one and all.

[tony williams]

Due to these "fundamentalist" times I doubt whether we will see a new version of Uncle Matt incinerated by a Martian laser. I also read somewhere that there would be no space invaders. So are we in for new Eastern enemies such as those ludicrous Al-Fatah types firing UZIS in an American high school yard in the Spielberg produced BACK TO THE FUTURE? Perhaps Spielberg may have recruited Osama who has been mysteriously silent for some time to play the chief "Martian"?

[maxrael]

Welcome back R Kadin!

imho spielberg's made some good films and some dross... it's the fact that during the 80s he could have financed a new Orson Welles picture with less budget than he would spend on the catering for one of his films, but chose not to, thus depriving the world of one more OW film that makes him one of the enemy in my little book!

[Wilson]

If this brings some attention to Welles, that's fine, but I imagine this movie will have little to nothing to do with the Mercury production. The radio version was an adaptation uniquely suited to its format, and no movie can duplicate that. From the interview I read with Spielberg and Cruise, it's about a family struggling to survive after the invasion, so it's already vastly different. My opinion about Spielberg is one of indifference at this point; I've seen enough of his movies to know that he doesn't interest me in any way, and I have no desire or intention to see any more of his films.