| dysan 22.10.2019 08:23 |
Anyone seen it yet? I think it's only been shown on BBC Canada so far (edit: OZ). Having watched the first 2 episodes I honestly doubt it will get a wider release. As a huge fan of most incarnations of the story, this might be the worst especially after promising so much. |
| Holly2003 22.10.2019 10:06 |
I was looking forward to it until you posted! I've seen all the main adaptations of the book, listened to Jeff Wayne's album, the updated version, and seen his live stage show (with Liam Neeson as narrator and featuring Kerry Ellis among others). |
| dysan 22.10.2019 10:28 |
Same. Give it a go though! |
| Dr Magus 22.10.2019 10:35 |
I'll wait till they're all available then binge-watch them. Much prefer WotW in it's original setting so am looking forward to this. |
| dysan 22.10.2019 10:49 |
Agreed. It's weird that I think the best version on screen has been the Tom Cruise one. Sadly it still is. |
| dysan 22.10.2019 11:16 |
I guess most people's idea of how it 'should' look is from the artwork of Jeff Wayne's album which I think is fair enough and tbh there were parts I was thinking 'ah yes! good!' But I can't help thinking there will be someone one day who takes the original illustrations by Henrique Alvim Correa and puts them onscreen. |
| Holly2003 22.10.2019 12:35 |
The original book is a bit like Wyndham's Day of the Triffids and Jack Finney's The Body Snatchers in that various movie versions can be updated to take account of contemporary fears e.g. Cruise's version had 9-11 vibes, the 1950s film version of Body Snatchers (Invasion of the Body Snatchers) had anti-communism overtones, the 1978 version had post-Watergate conspiracy themes, Pod People had echoes of the Aids crisis, whereas the Nicole Kidman/Daniel Craig version had some feminest/ male power themes. |
| dysan 22.10.2019 13:05 |
Aye which is great, but also a shame :D |
| dysan 22.10.2019 13:10 |
...only because I can imagine the media grad in the think tank they've employed getting all excited in the pub about his great idea and the heavy handed approach to tick all the boxes. |
| dysan 22.10.2019 19:49 |
WTF? Another one! link |
| Day dop 22.10.2019 20:05 |
I thought this might've been alright. At least, I was hoping so. I didn't like the Tom Cruise movie, set in the wrong country and completely in the wrong time compared to the original story. Aside from the book, Jeff Wayne's seems to be the best version of the story there is (the original with Richard Burton, not the updated version). |
| dysan 23.10.2019 06:43 |
Agreed. But the Cruise movie retained plot points and characters - and more importantly felt like War Of The Worlds. Like Holly said, it worked because it was full of post 9-11 paranoia whether that's good or bad. This new one (the BBC one) was basically an excuse for them to raid Angel's costume shop again and make a sunday night romance with a strong female lead (spoiler: the male lead dies). That they went to the trouble of setting it at the correct(ish) time makes it even worse. Do check it out though. It's fun trying to explain to friends what mash up of characters and events each scene is trying to do. So I'm now looking forward to this new NEW one - I don't think it's pretending to be too faithful. You wait years for a WOTW TV series and suddenly 2 turn up... |
| Holly2003 23.10.2019 08:29 |
You could always watch that C. Thomas Howell series ... I'm not recommending it as it's terrible, but .. it exists. |
| dysan 23.10.2019 08:34 |
Was that 'War Of The Worlds 2'? Wasn't great if I remember it correctly. |
| Holly2003 24.10.2019 08:45 |
dysan wrote: Was that 'War Of The Worlds 2'? Wasn't great if I remember it correctly.That's the one. I think it was shown in 2 parts of the scifi channel, which made me think it was a series. I couldn't get through it. Very cheaply made, with poor cgi. |
| Dr Magus 24.10.2019 10:56 |
Probably the same company that made Titanic 2. Utter shite! |
| dysan 24.10.2019 11:01 |
Well this BBC one has been on that sort of level. Anyone checked it out yet? It's on the usual -ahem- outlets. |
| dysan 24.10.2019 11:02 |
One good think though, it made me dig out the Jeff Wayne WOTW box set for the first time in years to listen to the out takes etc. Lots of fun. |
| Dr Magus 24.10.2019 11:03 |
dysan wrote: But I can't help thinking there will be someone one day who takes the original illustrations by Henrique Alvim Correa and puts them onscreen.Those illustrations scared the shit out of me (not as much as the music) when I was a kid. Probably the closest we'll get is the cgi footage at the live shows. I'm sure I remember Jeff Wayne announcing a cgi film but that was 14 years ago. |
| Dr Magus 24.10.2019 11:05 |
dysan wrote: One good think though, it made me dig out the Jeff Wayne WOTW box set for the first time in years to listen to the out takes etc. Lots of fun.Same here! Greg did a good job with that box. Shame QPL won't let him do the same for Queen. |
| dysan 24.10.2019 11:09 |
Some annoying omissions (as always) but yes a wonderful set. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.10.2019 11:18 |
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that Sir Richard Burton is/was awesome! |
| dysan 24.10.2019 11:19 |
Yes. I think Jeff Wayne has a bit of a Q&AL vibe going on with all this New Generation malarky. |
| dysan 24.10.2019 17:35 |
I'd add too that on that box set it might have been nicer if they composited some of the performances rather than 'fade in - play a bit left off the album - fade out'. Some of the dialogue, while nice, isn't worth an extra track but would make sense and given more value added at the end / start of a track. I'm sure there was some discussion about it and they went with that way. Fair enough I guess. But would be nice to present it as a concise complete 'alternate' album. I'd have dropped a few of the Udubulla remixes in favour of some contemporary 70s single edits that in most cases are totally different - EG TEOTW single had Chris T singing rather than Justin H, and BNW was totally different with the backing being the music from Epilogue 1. |
| Dr Magus 26.10.2019 10:07 |
dysan wrote: I'd add too that on that box set it might have been nicer if they composited some of the performances rather than 'fade in - play a bit left off the album - fade out'. Some of the dialogue, while nice, isn't worth an extra track but would make sense and given more value added at the end / start of a track. I'm sure there was some discussion about it and they went with that way. Fair enough I guess. But would be nice to present it as a concise complete 'alternate' album. I'd have dropped a few of the Udubulla remixes in favour of some contemporary 70s single edits that in most cases are totally different - EG TEOTW single had Chris T singing rather than Justin H, and BNW was totally different with the backing being the music from Epilogue 1.I've never listened to the remix disc. Never will either! |
| dysan 26.10.2019 17:15 |
Very wise! I decided to watch the 1953 and 2005 films again to redress the balance. Listened to the audiobook of Day Of The Triffids too (first time since school). Most pleasing. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.10.2019 10:27 |
If anyone is interested, here's a link to the famous 1938 Orson Welles radio play: https://archive.org/details/WarOfTheWorlds1938RadioBroadcast256kbps The audio quality isn't fantastic, but hey, it's a 1938 recording. Enjoy! |
| dysan 27.10.2019 13:21 |
Yeah it's worth a mention on here. There's a great documentary about it (I think I had it on DVD). Fascinating stuff. |
| Dr Magus 28.10.2019 12:13 |
Those who listened from the start enjoyed a fine piece of radio drama. Those who tuned in five minutes late thought the world was about to end. Hilarious! |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.10.2019 13:27 |
Actually, that seems to have been greatly exaggerated years after the fact. |
| dysan 28.10.2019 13:30 |
Indeed |
| Holly2003 18.11.2019 10:18 |
The new BBC series isn't very good. They've spent a lot of money on costumes and the remainder of the budget on poor CGI. Plus the flash-forward scenes are very jarring and disrupt the flow of the narrative. But I'll probably watch the remaining episodes anyway. |
| dysan 18.11.2019 10:30 |
Yeah I caught a bit of it again last night just to see. If I'm honest, that first hour is probably the best. Nice bits in Horsell Common and the village. Did you notice how London was blatantly not London? |
| Holly2003 18.11.2019 11:12 |
To be honest, no. But I googled it and, as you likely know already, most of the London scenes were set in Liverpool. Which is a bit odd. |
| dysan 18.11.2019 12:47 |
Yeah. They just need to try a little bit harder. Oh and that Spaff bloke has been on TV twice in 2 days telling the same joke about how "acting with dinosaurs and aliens is the same.. you just go *pulls same face*" |
| Holly2003 25.11.2019 21:07 |
The 2nd episode was better. The scenes in London and on the coast were good. Obviously the beaches were meant to evoke Dunkirk although they spoiled that a bit by mentioning Dunkirk as a destination. It was stirring to see the Royal Navy take down the tripods. I didn't pick up on any mention of Thunderchild but I may have missed it. The scenes in the tunnel were spooky. But then it time shifted forward again and the episode lost pace. Oh well. Fox are advertising their version of the story, coming soon. |
| brENsKi 25.11.2019 23:05 |
I'm really not too impressed with it: (some of my points will echo others, i'm sure) ¦ too far "off script" while still looking very familiar (hard to explain this without spoiling). ¦ the de-linear nature of sticking in flash-forwards ain't unnecessary - the original book chronicled events nicely. ¦ the cgi is woeful - think all the budget was spent on period clothing and props, and making Liverpool look like London, 1904. ¦ and the alien craft - FFS how do they even stand upright - i've seen new-born foals look less awkward when trying to stand for the first time personally, I think that if you do "a classic" it has to be done in one of two ways: loyally - almost to the point of prescription, or completely divergent where it becomes "inspired by" rather than "adaptation of" books like Stoker's Dracula, Shelley's Frankenstein and Wyndham's Day of The Triffids spring to mind as other good examples. for me, the War Of The Worlds (as a theme) works well when it's an allegory for the time in which it's set. the book itself was set against a backdrop of 1890s worldwide conflict: Wounded Knee Massacre, USS Maine explodes off Cuba - not to mention some major conflicts that the USA, UK, France, Spain and the Ottoman's were dealing with throughout their "empires". The Tom Cruise version (2005) was a perfect example, as the "Martians" were an excellent fit for the (still very fresh and raw.) post-9/11 world. I'm finding it hard to understand how such an excellent canvas can end up so underwhelming. |
| dysan 26.11.2019 07:50 |
Agreed. Although the discussion here about other works has sent me off on an audiobook adventure. I did all the Wyndams (brilliant - I was only aware of Triffids, Midwich and Chocky) and am now nearly done with JG Ballard (exhausting!) So thank you |
| . 26.11.2019 14:32 |
Did anyone watch His Dark Materials just before this on BBC One on Sunday? I had a little snigger when the Polar Bear said "I'm not for sale". |
| dysan 26.11.2019 18:07 |
ha |
| matt z 27.11.2019 18:52 |
^had no idea there was such a keen interest in the book on this site. I'm of a mind that the book is the proper way to experience it, And yeah those original drawings were pretty frightening and striking. The imagery evoked in the text always resonates with me. Love that book. |
| brENsKi 30.11.2019 11:16 |
dysan wrote:Yes. I think Jeff Wayne has a bit of a Q&AL vibe going on with all this New Generation malarky.well it would be impossible to field the 1978 line-up. With Richard Burton and Phil Lynott long departed and the original cast well into their 70s, I suppose WotW-NG is the only option? |
| Dr Magus 30.11.2019 12:29 |
Don't think I'm gonna bother watching this BBC series after what I've read about it. No interest in the beeb's politically correct, sjw preaching shite. The book didn't have a strong female character so they just 'wrote one in'. Load of shite. |
| brENsKi 30.11.2019 15:20 |
Dr Magus wrote:Don't think I'm gonna bother watching this BBC series after what I've read about it. No interest in the beeb's politically correct, sjw preaching shite. The book didn't have a strong female character so they just 'wrote one in'. Load of shite.you don't miss out on much. nobody will remember this self-righteous pile of virtue signalling "Aunty Beeb" shite in ten years time. For me, my only pity is I can't unsee/unhear this mess. |
| dysan 30.11.2019 21:26 |
brENsKi wrote:That was my point I think.dysan wrote:Yes. I think Jeff Wayne has a bit of a Q&AL vibe going on with all this New Generation malarky.well it would be impossible to field the 1978 line-up. With Richard Burton and Phil Lynott long departed and the original cast well into their 70s, I suppose WotW-NG is the only option? Although they used Burton's voice over when they took it to the stage in the mid 00s. I might have mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I'm rather tempted to re-edit this series just to see if it could be saved. A nice sunday project. |
| . 02.12.2019 09:52 |
Well I must say, I was not keen on that BBC adaptation at all. |
| dysan 02.12.2019 15:02 |
It's strange how these things get made. Too many cooks I guess |
| Holly2003 02.12.2019 15:15 |
The final episode was boring. That's the worst criticism that can be levelled at a WoftW adaptation. Not sure why someone of the calibre of Robert Carlyle would get involved with something so low class. |
| . 02.12.2019 17:22 |
I think the term "loosely" based on an H. G. Wells novel is more than appropriate in this instance. |
| dysan 02.12.2019 20:06 |
This seems even looser but I'm quite looking forward to it. link |
| . 02.12.2019 20:21 |
Even if it's looser, hopefully it will also be a bit less crap. link |
| dysan 03.12.2019 08:07 |
I started the backlash :D I think I'm looking forward to this other one primarily because it's not pretending to be faithful. Which I think IMO generally was the strength of the previous film versions. I'm guessing we'll not get a faithful version now because those in power will just see the poor reviews of this BBC one and not realise that it's purely another Get woke go broke and not because no one wants the tale told properly. |
| dysan 07.12.2019 15:48 |
First impressions of the Fox / Canal version: Great. Moody in vibe like one of those BBC4 foreign serials. |
| dysan 03.01.2020 11:32 |
Anyone watching the new BBC Dracula? |
| dysan 03.01.2020 11:34 |
Dracula on the BBC, not a new channel called BBC Dracula. Although that would be amazing. |
| . 03.01.2020 11:48 |
Yes, it's in a different class! |
| brENsKi 04.01.2020 15:55 |
sorry, just noticed this - having just started a Dracula thread. As a Drac enthusiast, I'll (usually) enjoy most, but not this one. |
| Holly2003 13.03.2020 08:37 |
The new series is just okay. No tripods (yet) possibly for budget reasons, so it feels more like a generic post-apocalypse story. Characters are a bit thin and unmemorable. But while it is interesting enough to keep watching, I'm don't really know where they're going with the story or if they can keep up that interest. |
| brENsKi 13.03.2020 10:38 |
Holly2003 wrote: The new series is just okay. No tripods (yet) possibly for budget reasons, so it feels more like a generic post-apocalypse story. Characters are a bit thin and unmemorable. But while it is interesting enough to keep watching, I'm don't really know where they're going with the story or if they can keep up that interest.it feels like it could be good. but there's a couple of "sub-agendas" in there that are completely unnecessary. |