|
Post by Notumyoaliketroftdonhere on Jun 23, 2009 7:58:28 GMT 1
Incidentally........Ive just watched both seasons of the BBC's dramatisation 'The Tripods' again after all these years and im now a member of the 'league of free men'.I quite liked that series and considering i disaprove of nearly everthing 'not of the book' i think i did because it still is 'english' if you know what i mean.Maybe its that simple for me...............Its an English story so 'hands off' the rest of the world you got star wars,Transformers and the Matrix..............this belongs to us.
|
|
|
Post by poyks on Jun 23, 2009 11:43:16 GMT 1
Incidentally........Ive just watched both seasons of the BBC's dramatisation 'The Tripods' again after all these years and im now a member of the 'league of free men'.I quite liked that series and considering i disaprove of nearly everthing 'not of the book' i think i did because it still is 'english' if you know what i mean.Maybe its that simple for me...............Its an English story so 'hands off' the rest of the world you got star wars,Transformers and the Matrix..............this belongs to us. "The Tripods" is absolutely superb, even the French are very English in it!
|
|
|
Post by Notumyoaliketroftdonhere on Jun 23, 2009 14:31:09 GMT 1
Its a shame they cancelled the third series.I can remember at the time i was gutted
|
|
|
Post by waltp on Jul 17, 2009 19:59:41 GMT 1
C'mon, people, all the versions of WotW have merit.
1) 1938 Mercury Theater When Koch was given the book by Welles the week before the episode was to be aired, he read the book and said it could not be done -- in it's book form. Therefore he had to come up with a device to make it work. Hence the 'broadcast' form. Did it follow the book? Not well, but it was a great adaptation.
2) George Pal's version It wasn't an adaptation of the book. It was an adaptation of the radio play. Therefore it couldn't follow the book. It was a very good version with great 1950's effects.
3) Jeff Wayne's version 'nuff said. I think we all agree.
4) Speilberg's version It's far from an abomination. In fact it has most of the key elements. Just because it doesn't follow page by page the Victorian feel of Wells writing, it was a great update, bringing it into this time period. It gave us a conflict that is needed in today's drama -- the dynamic of the Father protecting his Children. It would have fallen flat if 'the hero' had no other reason to fight than to simply "stay alive" like the newspaperman in the book. Today he needs more to lose than is own life.
5) Pendragon's version Yes, the effects were crap. My wife liked the movie better than even I did -- which wasn't all that much. But he did give us the closest version to the book yet. He simply needed to finish it before releasing, and be dammed riding on the Spielberg shirt tails. I really appreciated what he tried to do. The execution just fell far short.
|
|
|
Post by Lonesome Crow on Jul 17, 2009 21:32:22 GMT 1
Hi 'waltp' and welcome to the forum.
I do agree with you about Spielberg's version, he may not have made an accurate period piece but he had many of Wells' key elements and he also captured the spirit of the book.
As I have said before - many times - I have not seen Hines version so I can't really comment on the actual film, though the short clips I have seen were awful. But The reason there is so much animosity towards Hines is because he made the BIG mistake of raising the hopes and expectations of WotW fans with spurious claims which he must have known he could not achieve, We feel he has treated us with contempt (These people are fans, they will buy any rubbish as long as it has WotW on the cover) Well yes we are fans but we're not idiots, so he shouldn't be surprised if we treat him with the same contempt he's shown us.
|
|
|
Post by waltp on Jul 18, 2009 3:30:51 GMT 1
I do realize he hyped the movie without delivering. I was on the WotW-online board before it closed. But was it contempt, or did he simply have no concept of his limitations or limitations of his 'staff/project' and his pride got in the way? I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. But still approach with caution. I'm not a fool, after all.
|
|
FALLINGSTAR
Been Here a while!
Zippy, George, Geoff and Bungle....Hey everyone...it's RAINBOW!
Posts: 222
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 18, 2010 1:10:37 GMT 1
C'mon, people, all the versions of WotW have merit. 1) 1938 Mercury Theater When Koch was given the book by Welles the week before the episode was to be aired, he read the book and said it could not be done -- in it's book form. Therefore he had to come up with a device to make it work. Hence the 'broadcast' form. Did it follow the book? Not well, but it was a great adaptation. 2) George Pal's version It wasn't an adaptation of the book. It was an adaptation of the radio play. Therefore it couldn't follow the book. It was a very good version with great 1950's effects. 3) Jeff Wayne's version 'nuff said. I think we all agree. 4) Speilberg's version It's far from an abomination. In fact it has most of the key elements. Just because it doesn't follow page by page the Victorian feel of Wells writing, it was a great update, bringing it into this time period. It gave us a conflict that is needed in today's drama -- the dynamic of the Father protecting his Children. It would have fallen flat if 'the hero' had no other reason to fight than to simply "stay alive" like the newspaperman in the book. Today he needs more to lose than is own life. 5) Pendragon's version Yes, the effects were crap. My wife liked the movie better than even I did -- which wasn't all that much. But he did give us the closest version to the book yet. He simply needed to finish it before releasing, and be dammed riding on the Spielberg shirt tails. I really appreciated what he tried to do. The execution just fell far short. The first 3 on your list have different merits but the last 2 I'd dump in the atlantic ocean for the rest of time.
|
|