What could have been

[Xymon]

I heard a rumour recently that now Cruise and Paramount have parted ways, Paramount said that they were unhappy with Cruise/Spielbergs interpretation and were looking do to another, more authentic version of the movie.

My source, however, couldn't locate where he found this information, but thought it was on a forum somewhere. Has anyone else heard about this? I can't see Paramount re-filimg it, so I think they got confused with Jeff's movie, or heard about a Paramount Special recut edition (with Camelot)?

[Methos]

I don’t see why Paramount would do another adaptation so close to the last one. I doubt that the rumor is true; it’s most likely just wishful thinking.

[FALLINGSTAR]

I doubt that's true as well. I can't remember the exact circumstances but there were those rumours a few years back that Cruise was buying up certain WOTW rights [ maybe Cruise was buying them for Paramount ]. Mind you - if Paramount did decide to do that and they produced a stunning authentic adaptation of Wells book then I don't think you'd find many fans complaining!

[Commandingtripod]

I agree.

They have all the means to do it........they just haven't.

[rusti]

its all part of Cruises Religeon for mental defectives.

[Lensman]

Some studio did fire Cruise-- was that Paramount? I don't know, nor particularly care. I enjoy good acting when I see it, but don't have much interest in movie stars' offscreen lives, which after all aren't more interesting just because they're "celebrities".

Re yet another remake of WOTW from Paramount? I'd be *extremely* surprised if that's true so soon after the last. In fact, I'd say it was unprecedented for a movie studio to do that.

[bayne]

[glow=red,2,300]I can quite enjoy a decent adaptation... the Orson Welles broadcast is a favourite for example and that changed quite a lot...

But where the Speilberg film really fails for me and it does so on a collosal level is that it fails to effectively carry almost all of the themes!

The artilleryman... nope. The curate, both as the failure of organised religion, the failure to drop old and flawed worldviews when clearly insupportable data emerges or the degeneration of civilised men to an uncivilisded state. Gone. The Tim Robbins character... very different theme. The biology and comparison to the eventual fate of man.. stuffed. The comparison to the treatment of the tasmanian aborigines or any such.. nowhere to be seen. The insignificance of man in the universe.. destroyed by the action man and rocket launcher scenes. Having the 'everyman' character suceed in destroying the tripod just didn't gel, diluting his 'everyman' status, it would have been better served if it was somone else beside him. Almost all the subtext, almost all of the themes are gone or twisted out of recognition. It's also scary when a century old book appears to be more scientifically plausible.

Sure it had some good parts and carried some powerful impressions and I did enjoy it, I did find it in itself a good movie but as an adaptation of Wells book it is possibly the weakest I've encountered, and that includes comic books... even the superman one.

Speilberg has often spoken about his attitude to adapting the work of others and because of his comments I fear for Transformers and Tintin. I don't think he should ever do another adaptation. Ever.[/glow]

[bradhig]

browse.deviantart.com/?q=war%20of%20the%20worlds%201953&order=9&offset=24&offset=24#/d274ega

I found this on deviantart while looking for fanart of the 1953 movie. This person claims Jeff Wayne is the reason the Tom Cruise movie sucked. They claim Jeff Wayne pressured Paramount not to make a fateful version of WOTW and that Jeff Wayne wanted his to be the only fateful version.

[Deleted]

Wow. That person's a bit...bitter.

In all seriousness, the fact that the Paramount film failed to stick to the plot or themes of the book (they had a few nods to it, but that's all) is Paramount's fault, not Jeff Wayne's, as far as I know. They had the money to do it, and didn't.