Aren't we due for a big-budget theatrical remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS?

[The Burgomaster]

I'd like to see a remake that is fairly true to the book . . . set in the 1800s and everything. I'd like to see a substantial portion of the budget spent on decent actors, sets and costumes rather than on over-the-top CG effects.

I think that either Pierce Brosnan or Hugh Jackman would be great in the lead role.

*
*
*

[Damien01]

It would be cool... Late 1800's, England... and a good portion of the movie is where our hero and a drunk (not a woman) was stuck in a house where the Aliens has crashed (I think they were inside there for almost a week... and they almost tried to kill each other... very cool... very unexpected.)

[Foywonder]

Tom Cruise's production company was planning a remake but it got scrapped after 9/11.

[Evan3]

Man Hugh Jackman would be terrible for that role. I could see Pierce. I would say Jude Law would be the best main character. Steve Buscemi as the drunk could work.... I would have Marlon Brando as the alien inside the death machine.

[Creepozoid]

Dammit man. Don't say that. Some cash-milking klutz from Hollywood may read this.

[Anonymous User]

So far there is just talk, here is the IMDb link for the almost-maybe-a-remake:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0324497
The War Of The Worlds (2004)
Status: Announced
Updated: 31 May 2002
.

[Todd R.]

No spaceships! I want a crashing Martian cylinder, followed by giant TRIPODS!

[Skaboi]

Read this book my senior year for Honor's English (my teacher was a huge science fiction/horror nut-we got along very well, natch).  What I thought was going to be a boring book turned out to be a kick ass novel that had some truly frigtening parts.  We do need a remake!  It would so completely rule!  

And as for Jude Law as the main character, I'm all for it.

[Chris K.]

I guess I might be in the minority, but I feel George Pal's version is still the best adaptation of H.G. Wells novel. Yeah, it was updated (i.e., This was made in 1953, but as I remember the original treatment was intended to take pace back in the 19th Century, but the executives at Paramount Pictures felt that a science-fiction film needed to be placed in the 20th Century instead. And at that time, science-fiction themed films were more accepted in moden time settings; the audience wouldn't understand why a sci-fi flick is taking pace in 1888.) and the setting is somewhat dated by today's standards, however the dated setting gives the film a nostalgic look and the religious elements and themes really hold up well (oh, and the special effects are still GREAT after all these years). And even so, when one looks deeper into the book and Pal's film, we can see that it wasn't all about aliens from Mars trying to take over the world. Their are other messages that can be discovered, but the religious theme of hope and courage still lives on in the film and book. Pal did give his film and Wells book justice, no matter how different the setting is or how different the characters were.

If this were to be remade or a new adaption of Wells' book in this century, be prepared for the typical one dimensional action crap and also expect it to be reworked with little care or concern for the original theme. At least Pal treated the original themes of the book with consideration and thought.

And if you want to take a good look at a bad remake/updated version of H.G. Wells work, I do suggest THE TIME MACHINE with Guy Pierce. George Pal's version is still superior due to Pal actually sticking with the original intentions of the book (with a few small modifications, but they did not interfear with the original theme), while the new version is just a re-worked nightmare with little to no imagination. And hey, I just can't turn down Rod Taylor and Sebastian Cabbot, two great actors, in the Pal version.

[The Burgomaster]

Chris K. wrote:

> I guess I might be in the minority, but I feel George Pal's
> version is still the best adaptation of H.G. Wells novel.

Don't get me wrong, Chris. I LOVE the 1953 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS. In fact, I have mentioned it at least 2 other times on these message boards (once as an example of a classic sci-fi movie, and once as part of my list of the movies I have seen the most times). I had it on VHS, and I now have it on DVD. It's a great movie to watch on Saturdays around midnight.

I'm just surprised that all this time has gone by and no one has made an honest (and serious) attempt to remake it. I would like to see the remake take place in the 1800s and stick as close to the novel as possible. (An update was okay for 1953 because they were able to get solid actors like Gene Barry and Ann Robinson to star in it. If they made a modern version of it today, we'd probably get either cheapo exploitation stars like Christopher Lambert and Dolph Lundgren, or we'd get snotty, "in-crowd" stars like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Love-Hewitt).

The 1953 version remains a sacred sci-fi classic. But I think we're ready for another version . . .

*
*
*
*

[kriegerg69]

Although I haven't seen it yet, the previews for the TIME MACHINE remake really not only LOOKED liked it sucked, but that's all I heard about it in various places....it sucked.

[Damien01]

Unless you have read the book you should know that War of the Worlds is a "What If story" The story was an Idea of What if we were attacked by sources outside of our earth.

Also, it would be nice to see a story that isnt "History Correct"

[The Burgomaster]

The remake of THE TIME MACHINE is awful. When the movie ended, I said, "that's it? Where the hell is the REAL ending."

I foolishly bought the DVD without knowing much about it. I have since placed myself into "adult time-out" until I learn my lesson.

*
*
*

[Chris K.]

The Burgomaster wrote:
>
> I'm just surprised that all this time has gone by and no one
> has made an honest (and serious) attempt to remake it. I would
> like to see the remake take place in the 1800s and stick as
> close to the novel as possible. (An update was okay for 1953
> because they were able to get solid actors like Gene Barry and
> Ann Robinson to star in it. If they made a modern version of it
> today, we'd probably get either cheapo exploitation stars like
> Christopher Lambert and Dolph Lundgren, or we'd get snotty,
> "in-crowd" stars like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Love-Hewitt).

Well I'm suprised too. But considering that the sci-fi genre is at a stand-still at this particular time, I could see why Wells book hasn't been tackled yet. And with the premere of THE CORE and it's huge share of disappointment for audiences/critics, sci-fi still seems to be at rest. Somebody needs to hire underrated Italian director Luigi Cozzi to tackle some sci-fi here in the U.S., otherwise...

I'm all for it as long as whoever is going to be involved with it does a bit of justice to Wells story like Pal did, and if their is a director out there that can do serious sci-fi and do a good job with Wells material then by all means, "Do it". If so, then I'll give it a chance. But if it does happen, I really hope Ben Affleck or Jennifer Love-Hewitt are not interested in performing in it (believe me, it would make us very happy if they didn't). As for the updated THE TIME MACHINE, I am also one who has felt that we really didn't need it. But, that's Hollywood!

[Flangepart]

Its all in the script and the actors.
Remakeing the film today would be problomatic. What approach would work? Period piece or current time frame?
I'd like to see the 1800 version. It can work if its done right. So, who should direct it? Hummm....who directed the best of the Hammer period flicks? Someone like Jimmy Sangster, maby? Oh, yeah...the Quatermass series! Them boys could pull it off.
Also, might any memories of that T.V. show, "W of the W." be a barrier?