I read this news (see below) on MSNBC earlier today. I've got to hand it to David Koepp- he's sparked my interest now in WOTW. If he's truly delivering something smart and original then I might have to break my "No Dakota Edict" and buy myself a ticket.
When you're making a $135 million movie about aliens invading Earth, it's good to have some rules. So in 2003, while Steven Spielberg was shooting "The Terminal" in Montreal, screenwriter David Koepp flew north with a list of cliches that he believed "War of the Worlds" had to avoid. "Here are the things we could not have in this movie," Koepp says. "One: no destruction of famous landmarks. Two: no unnecessary beating up of New York City. Three: no politicians or scientists or generals as main characters. Four: no shots of military leaders pushing ships around on a big map with sticks. And five: no shots of world capitals." If they'd been able to peek into the future, they might have added six: no star who's going to have a Howard Dean moment on "Oprah," and turn prerelease publicity into a referendum on his love life.
If Spielberg had the balls, he'd not have a big name actor in the role of the lead character. He'd also not have his trademark bratty kid in the movie.
And I fear the movie might have a tidy, happy ending.
The book has the definition of a tidy ending, even if it is a good one.
Damn Alen. You can even bash the stuff that hasnt come out yet. : )
"Games without frontiers,
Wars with cliches"
Think Spielberg will avoid his own cliches? The ads make it look like it's not his typical summer action blockbuster. But unless he's working hard to be "serious" in one of his WWII films (it's like some combo of him having Greatest Generation-fever and still trying to make up for "1941" ) he can be terribly formulaic on his own.
Between the trailers, the Cruise factor, and the annoying Dakota Fanning factor (still want my money back for "Man on Fire") I think I'll give it a pass.
But good for him if they follow through though. Nobody's OP has basically names most of the reasons Roland Emmerich is a s**tty director who repeats himself too much.
There was a review posted over at AICN (from Germany I think) that said this movie is really about the characters reactions to what is going on. It also said that there were no big aerial scenes of major cities being destroyed. Seeing it from the characters personal points of view would make it far more terrifying than seeing the kind of stuff that was in Independence Day.
It sounds like they are attempting to capture the atmosphere of the book, but I will wait to see it before I make any judgments.
i hope they keep the homeless man with the shopping cart or the dog out too.
oh - and really bad dialogue with scenes where the start wants to kick some alien ass
Dammit Jim, i just don't think it's possible. Btw what happened to ugly kid actors? What i loved about older movies, particularly spielberg movies is he never had :"cute kids" in the movie. The kids were bucktoothed, they were everybody's kids. My favorite real movie kids were in Close Encounters. Even the kids in jaws were pretty homely ;-) I guess hollywood doesn't want ugly children onscreen unless it's a comedy
As long as there's some serious carnage I'll be happy. Seeing cities get wiped out always gives me a chubby.
I'm to the point now where I want to pretend Cruise doesn't exist, so I guess I'm going to have to pass on this.
I don't see how comparisons to Independence Day are particularly valid: Independence Day had the basic idea behind the novel War of the Worlds, but made it a hollywood-ised action film, and for that I enjoyed it, but it sure as hell wasn't what War of the Worlds is.
For those who don't know, the novel is about a man who wanders lost around the English countryside, avoiding Tripods, running into others affected by the crisis and generally observing the end of civilistation as we know it. He doesn't know what is going on in terms of governments and such. And it is all the more scary because of that fact.
I find it hard to believe that Speilberg will refer much if at all to Independence Day. Sure, the wholesale destruction of a city may look pretty cool, but it takes away from the personal stories that occur at ground level, and Speilberg has a preoccupation with telling family stories, so he'll focus on that rather than the 'nuke em' attitude of Independence Day.
Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning actually don't bother me. I'm just glad that Will Smith is miles away from this.
why can't the lead actor in movies like this ever be someone like steve buscemi?
Isn't having an a-list actor with muscles and sex appeal in itself....the biggest cliche for this type of movie?
Post Edited (06-23-05 21:29)
I'm with Susan on this one. Sadly, Buscemi has about as much chance of getting top billing in a big budget action movie as Ron Perlman sans full body makeup.
"why can't the lead actor in movies like this ever be someone like steve buscemi?"
Or could you picture the great Lance Henriksen?