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

[L French]

Here's what Ray Harryhausen had to say about Orson Welles and H.G. Wells WAR OF THE WORLDS:


LAWRENCE FRENCH: At one point you tried to interest Orson Welles in your test footage of War of the Worlds.

RAY HARRYHAUSEN: Yes, I had heard Orson Welles famous radio broadcast of War of the Worlds (1938) and the H. G. Wells book had always been one of my favorite stories. So right after Mighty Joe Young I made ten big sketches and took them around to the studios, but I couldn’t peddle it. Paramount owned the rights to the book and I took it to Jesse Lasky and he was interested, but he had difficulty in raising the money for it. I even went so far as making a test in 16mm to show what the Martian creatures would look like –all based on H. G. Wells descriptions. Today, I think I might change the concept, because the octopus-like creatures that come out of the machines might get a laugh. But I showed the test footage to George Pal, long before he made his version of the story. Pal made his picture as an up-to-date, modern version, while I wanted to keep it in the Victorian period, because you run into this problem in the present day of using the atomic bomb. Then you destroy everything and there’s nothing left to photograph. Finally, I wrote a letter to Orson Welles, because I wanted to show the test to him and thought maybe he’d like to make the movie. But I never got an answer from him. Later on, Welles was going to do the voice of the Oracle in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, but at the last minute he doubled his fee. We were fortunate at the time that Robert Shaw was vacationing in Spain and under contract to Columbia, so he agreed to do it on very short notice. He did a very good job – I thought it was very effective.

LAWRENCE FRENCH: What’s bizarre about that is apparently Robert Shaw was staying at Orson Welles’ house in Spain and one night while he was smoking in bed he started a fire.

RAY HARRYHAUSEN: Oh really. I didn’t know that.

LAWRENCE FRENCH: Yes, and Welles’ always claimed he lost a lot of material in the fire, including some of his unfinished films. Anyhow, The War of the Worlds is now being re-made by Steven Spielberg.

RAY HARRYHAUSEN: Yes, and from what I hear, I don't know why they are calling it H. G. Wells War of the Worlds, because apparently the invaders are from the center of the earth, they aren't Martians at all.

[Harvey Chartrand]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1504523,00.html
From Green Cine Daily write-up:
"In the Observer, Peter Conrad recounts the various tellings of HG Wells's War of the Worlds, noting along the way how each interpretation has reflected its own times, including Spielberg's. "His Martians, [screenwriter David Koepp] claims, are merely conducting the belligerent foreign policy of the US, even though this time they happen to be stomping into New York. What stops the armoured, insensitive global power is 'a local insurgency'; the film, he says, is his commentary on the Iraq war."

[etimh]

Why so bitchy Christley? I was frankly enjoying O&J's enthusiastic rantings.

As someone who teaches Welles' radio broadcast of WOTW as part of a broader discussion of media and popular culture, I can tell you that, in fact, a surprising number of undergrads are quite familiar with the circumstances surrounding the infamous program--it has entered into popular consciousness in a very surprising way. And from my experience I would agree with O&J that of my students who have some recognition of the WOTW narrative, far more associate it with Welles than H.G. Wells.

As incomplete or flawed as their knowledge may be, simply dismissing those with limited historical background as "stupid" fails to recognize some very compelling questions about how and why certain knowledge gets communicated within popular consciousness. What does it say, for instance, that so many do have at least a basic recognition of the WOTW radio incident and that Welles had a hand in it? And perhaps equally important, that they are more likely to be able to discuss Welles, but not Wells, when the subject is raised.

Perhaps marking me as the newcomer that I am, I frankly enjoy any and all discussions that are generated on this board. Some posts are good, some are bad. But the only tiresome ones are those that shut the dialogue down. Every issue has a multitude of unexplored angles and possible perspectives to be added to the mix. The only thing that I don't want to read is cranky and dismissive "reprimands."

[jaime marzol]

i also have always associate WOTW with welles more than wells, and i very much see it as a welles product more than a howard kotch product. welles didn't write it, but he formed it, pulled it in here, let it out there, and really made it what it is, as houseman begrudgingly admits. it's like saying rear window is not hitch's film because all he did was direct it. welles very much was the person that directed the radio broadcast from that podium in the radio studio.

first houseman said it's definatly a welles product, then 2 sentences later he said welles ripped off kotch because he could not stand to see a $75 a week scribbler get credit. i absulutely think that kotch's script in another director's hands would not have had the same impact the welles directed broadcast had.

[Jaime N. Christley]

etimh, are you actually arguing a point or are you just saying I shouldn't criticize anyone because la-de-da, la-de-da, why so bitchy Jaime [C.]? If you have an argument, WHAT IS IT?

[Jaime N. Christley]

Why so bitchy Christley? I was frankly enjoying O&J's enthusiastic rantings.

As someone who teaches Welles' radio broadcast of WOTW as part of a broader discussion of media and popular culture, I can tell you that, in fact, a surprising number of undergrads are quite familiar with the circumstances surrounding the infamous program--it has entered into popular consciousness in a very surprising way. And from my experience I would agree with O&J that of my students who have some recognition of the WOTW narrative, far more associate it with Welles than H.G. Wells.

As incomplete or flawed as their knowledge may be, simply dismissing those with limited historical background as "stupid" fails to recognize some very compelling questions about how and why certain knowledge gets communicated within popular consciousness. What does it say, for instance, that so many do have at least a basic recognition of the WOTW radio incident and that Welles had a hand in it? And perhaps equally important, that they are more likely to be able to discuss Welles, but not Wells, when the subject is raised.

Perhaps marking me as the newcomer that I am, I frankly enjoy any and all discussions that are generated on this board. Some posts are good, some are bad. But the only tiresome ones are those that shut the dialogue down. Every issue has a multitude of unexplored angles and possible perspectives to be added to the mix. The only thing that I don't want to read is cranky and dismissive "reprimands."

Why so bitchy Christley? I was frankly enjoying O&J's enthusiastic rantings.

Great.

As someone who teaches Welles' radio broadcast of WOTW as part of a broader discussion of media and popular culture, I can tell you that, in fact, a surprising number of undergrads are quite familiar with the circumstances surrounding the infamous program--it has entered into popular consciousness in a very surprising way. And from my experience I would agree with O&J that of my students who have some recognition of the WOTW narrative, far more associate it with Welles than H.G. Wells.

Okay, that's not an argument. It's a completely useless second-hand telling of a non-scientific non-survey. You're not going to get anywhere basing a discussion on the shortcomings of undergrads (or their profs).

As incomplete or flawed as their knowledge may be, simply dismissing those with limited historical background as "stupid" fails to recognize some very compelling questions about how and why certain knowledge gets communicated within popular consciousness. What does it say, for instance, that so many do have at least a basic recognition of the WOTW radio incident and that Welles had a hand in it? And perhaps equally important, that they are more likely to be able to discuss Welles, but not Wells, when the subject is raised.

You're raising questions, not answering them. Their knowledge is incomplete and flawed and that's "okay" because it raises "interesting" "questions." Now everybody take out a circle of paper...

Perhaps marking me as the newcomer that I am, I frankly enjoy any and all discussions that are generated on this board. Some posts are good, some are bad. But the only tiresome ones are those that shut the dialogue down. Every issue has a multitude of unexplored angles and possible perspectives to be added to the mix. The only thing that I don't want to read is cranky and dismissive "reprimands."

Oh, what a crock.

Yeah, our consciousness was flowering thanks to Orson&Jazz's "interesting questions" until I appeared in my dominatrix outfit.

Of course, now that Tom Cruise has revealed himself of late to be a wingnut on par with his character in Magnolia (surprising not everyone), I doubt I need much help shutting the discussion down.

---

In any case, I reject Orson&Jazz's ravings because they're based on a highly selective ignorance of culture and history; an "argument" built on a mud foundation. And I reject your apologist line.

---

In matters of actual interest, as opposed to Gee, why can't we all get along interest, Spielberg has acknowledged his WotW to be a 9/11 film. Interestingly enough, HG Wells wrote a 9/11 story almost a century ago:

http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/warinair/

Particularly prophetic passages are highlighted here.

[etimh]

Yeah Jaime, that's the spirit! It hurts SOOOOOOO good.

By the way, how do you do that cool off-setting of "quotes" within the body of your message?

Tim

[etimh]

jaime marzol:

Interesting comments and perspective on WOTW discussion--can you help me out with some further details? What text are you referring to when you mention Houseman's thoughts on the controversy? I think I've already read it, but would like to go back and check this out.

And sorry, my last post was for Jaime CHRISTley--don't want to get you two confused. Much respect for you marzol.

Thanks in advance.

Tim

[jaime marzol]

houseman wrote several books about his experiences in hollywood. The first one is the best, i think it's called A RUN THROUGH. first he calls welles a credit theif for stealing the work of the $75 a week scribbler, then he says welles took that radio script and with his manipulation really made it his own. so basically he's saying welles took what could have been a standard radio drama and turned it into something that made world news, and not on the entertainment pages. that is quite an accomplishment.

also, we must never lose track of what houseman was; a bitter homosexual that was rejected by welles, and who had an undynamic carreer compared to what he could have had had he worked better with welles, which meant taking verbal abuse and being pelted with cheese burgers now and then

[jaime marzol]

clinton heylin's view on that houseman book is that after houseman gave charles higham completely destructive information, houseman tried to whitewash himself with that book. I think houseman's book is as destructive to welles as the higham book, he's just not as overt as higham.

who knows, but what the hell. we have the books, we have the films, we have the radio dramas, lets enjoy them and celebrate them, not slam each other over the head for a difference of opinion. every great work of art has many interpretations, they just depend on your perspective, and life experience.

[Jaime N. Christley]

It's not a case of difference of opinion, but quality.

This thread was begun as a gesture of bad faith towards the upcoming Spielberg film. For what I think is the third or fourth time, I don't consider that sort of thing an argument or even an opinion. It's just an attitude, and a lousy one.

[etimh]

Well its good to know that we now have the final definitive word on the "difference/quality" debate--I've been waiting for someone to clarify the distinction with such gripping lucidity and rhetorical force.

And you mean to say, Christley, that I've missed the other THREE times that you've graced the board with your opinions about the nature of "bad faith gestures?" Too bad, I'm sure it was as fascinating each and every time.

Setting aside the feeble argumentation, questionable moralizing, and shrill paranoia of your own recent contributions to this and other threads, the most glaring and continual gesture of bad faith would seem to be your obnoxious attitude and lack of basic social communication skills. C'mon, did you get picked on as a kid? Do you need a hug?

Yeah, you're right--we don't "all have to get along." But if you're just bad mouthing then go the hell home and stay out of my way. I'm sure we'll all survive without the "quality" of your self-important blathering. And it'll be a more pleasant and productive place for the rest of us.

And thanks again marzol for the details on the writings. Much appreciated.

Tim

[jaime marzol]

Quality of opinion? Man, that is a tall order. Who is to judge?

How about if we exercise tolerance of opinions regardless of their quality when stacked up beside our own superior views? If not we begin to sway towards brown shirts and shiny boots, and lets not forget, that if you carry brown shirts and shiny boots far enough they will lead to the murder of jews, because their opinions are not as good as ours.

-A gesture of bad faith towards the upcoming Spielberg film-

i don't think anything posted on this board is going to sink Stevies film. if it could, stevie would have visited wellesnet, seen the damaging posts and contacted the godfather, george lucas.

ext. tims house - early dawn
after a long silence we hear a scream from inside.

int. tims bathroom
3 lucas family torpedoes are dunking tims head in the toilet over and over while one screams, -go to wellesnet and remove those posts- tim finally agrees

int. tim's living room
we see tim at his computer desk removing the posts while the 3 torpedos look over his shoulder with satisfied smiles. when the torpedos leave they set on tims cocktail table the dvd of the new starwars. tim pops it in the dvd player, but the new star wars sucks. tim logs on to the web and begins to rank the new star wars dvd, then signs jaime christley's name to the review.

[Jaime N. Christley]

I don't tolerate mediocrity. Comparing me with the Nazis because of this trivializes the Holocaust and is JUST STUPID.

Tim, let's get down to brass tacks. What's so compelling about Orson & Jazz's posts? I'll grant that Marzol's posts are somewhat interesting because he relates what he's read, what he's heard, etc. A lot of second-hand stuff, but nevertheless rooted in Reality. What you're defending in OJ's case (and in the case of your nitwit students) is: "If you don't know too much, you might come to this conclusion." To me - and I know we've been over this ground before - this is not an argument. I'm not interested in what people don't know, can't see, or won't hear.

[jaime marzol]

well, i tried to offset the agression with a bit of humor but the burr in jaime c's ass is not coming out, so i bow out of this thread