At Enigma Con recently, Harlan Ellison had this to say about the upcoming “War of the Worlds”:
“What annoys me is that Spielberg is such an egomaniac these days that it has to be ‘Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. No, you puss-bag. It’s H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, and it wouldn’t kill you to put his f–king name on it.”
I think Harlan’s right about that. I certainly think the authors of such classics deserve to be acknowledged up front.
On the other hand, I can just see William Shakespeare seeing the Baz Luhrmann-directed “William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet,” calling his agent, and saying “Get my name the hëll off this thing.”
PAD
• 
Ellison commenting about the size of someone’s ego is comparable to George Bush commenting on someone’s accent – it just doesn’t compute 🙂
That brings ou the question of whether or not “Kurt Busiek’s Astro City”, and “John Byrne’s Next Men” are examples of popular creators using their name recognition to sell books, or is it just egomania? In the case of creator owned properties I would think the former applies. It also brings up the question of where to alphabitize these books. I tend to ignore all adjectives “Incredible, Uncanny, Sensational, New, etc.” when sorting my comics. One does have to wonder if “Peter David’s & George Perez’s Sachs & Violens” would have sold better than it did.
Then, inevitably, we’ll also have “Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds — The Novelization.”
I take it you won’t be writing it, Peter…?
Of course, this can backfire — remember “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” which was sure as hëll really Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, to such an extent that there was a novelization written by Fred Saberhagen, instead of just a tie-in repackaging of Stoker’s novel.
I must be a sick man.
Am I the ONLY one who’s bothered by the misprint “puss-bag”? I’m pretty sure that he meant ‘pus-bag’.
Of course, then I imagine someone putting a bunch of cats in a bag and swinging it against someone else’s head, and maybe that’s what Mr. Ellison DID have in mind.
But I kinda think it was the former.
Then again, I’m suffering from being nearby the local hydrocarbon festival (for some reason, there are a bunch of stock cars and muscle cars revving their engines, and the main street is blocked off, and someone’s playing “Wooly Bully”), so what do I know?
I might be willing to cut Spielberg some slack on this since A-it looks like it will be radically different from what HG Wells wrote, taking little more than the invasion idea, the tripods, and the red vines and B- it’s possibly more of a marketing decision than an artistic one (especially since there is a second War Of The Worlds movie coming out shortly–I guess it’s in the public domain now?).
I mean, if someone ever talked David Cronenberg into doing a version of Frankenstein they’d be brain damaged not to call it “David Cronenberg’s Frankenstein”, which is something I’d consider camping out in front of a theater for.
So, I’m guessing that Harlan doesn’t own a copy of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. (The film’s posters referred to it that way, and the DVD is titled that way.)
In fairness, though, I haven’t seen anything that promotes the new film as anything other than War of the Worlds with the phrase “A Steven Spielberg Film” in smaller type above the title.
Does it even matter? Hasn’t Tom “Tried to Kill Oprah” Cruise destroyed this movie’s box-office chances already?
Bill, I’d go see David Cronenberg’s Frankenstien too. I’d be to scared to watch it but I would try anyway.
I *love* Harlan Ellison. I can just see him ranting away about this 🙂
I think for ‘younger’ viewers, it might be edifying to know that Steven Spielberg *didn’t* write the book or come up with the concept for the film, but, in the trailer, it *does* mention H.G. Wells’ name. When I was a kid, I used to watch old movies and I’d always check the credits to see what book the movie was based on. So, here’s hoping that when kids see this, they might be engaged enough to actually go and find the book.
I can dream, can’t I?
Harlan is a strange man. You’d be hard-pressed to find any trailer, advertisement, or promo that refers to this movie as “Steven Speilberg’s War of the Worlds.” That’s just not the name of the film nor how it’s ever been refered to. Sure, the words “A film by Steven Speilberg” are up there in tiny letters, but even mediocre, unknown directors like Jay Roach or the guy who did Hidaldo get that same credit.
Also, H.G. Wells will get a screen credit. There’s no doubt about that, though — for all intents and purposes — this film will probably owe more to Spielberg’s and his writers’ ideas than anything Wells put in his actual novel.
And then, if you read the rest of Ellison’s comments, he burries himself even more by dismissing Spielberg’s entire ouvre with the sole exception of Temple of Doom, saying it was the only film he made with any visual or creative style. Huh?!
I’m sorry, but if you have to dismiss the work of one of the industry’s indisputable geniuses in order to defend the memory of an author who hasn’t actually been offended, then you’re on very shaky ground indeed.
I am glad to hear (be reminded?) that Mr. Wells is mentioned in the trailer. I am of two minds on this topic: I was similarly annoyed when “I, Robot” came out with nary a mention of Issic Asimov. But, as it turned out the movie took a lot of liberties with the source material (as I understand – I haven’t actually read “I, Robot” yet 🙁 ) – not presenting it AS “Issic Asimov’s I, Robot” made more sense. Similarly, while I haven’t actually seen much of “Starship Troopers”, I feel safe in saying the movie changed a LOT of things from Robert A. Heinlein’s original novel. My first feeling is that “War of the Worlds” will be a similarly loose “adaptation”. Ultimately, I guess that I feel if the film strays wildly from the novel on which it is based, then not featuring the author’s name as though it were their presentation is acceptable (and probably preferable). Something like “Inspired by the works of Wells/Asimov/Heinlein/whoever” [I’d say “David”, but hopefully any filming of PAD work will be a close enough adaptation that it will be representative :)], prominently and repeatedly featured, might be better in these cases.
I personally found “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” to be the cinematic equivalent of a partial-birth abortion. I read the unabridged original with Bernie Wrightson’s spectacular illustrations in the 80’s, and THAT was a novel. The Kenneth Branagh adaptation was a respected actor taking a fantastic wark of cautionary literature and turning it into several hours I’ll never get back and one of the worst liteary adaptations before Bicentennial Man. THANK you, Peter Jackson.
I’ll give WOTW a shot. It’s not SUPPOSED to be the Wells original novel directly translated to the screen. It’s Speilberg’s admittedly egomaniacal vision, but I think with some of his accomplishments he’s got a right to have a larger-than-norm ego.
On the other hand, Steven Spielberg also directed “The Lost World”, which wasn’t really like the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel at all.
Sorry. Bad joke.
By the way PAD, I’m the guy who noticed you sitting in the HoJo’s in Times Square this past Tuesday. I stared for a second and said “I’m sorry. You’re Peter David”. To which you replied “I’m not sorry that I’m Peter David”.
As a scholar of 17th Century British Literature, and having spoken extensively with other scholars of the genre, I think it’s probably worth noting that most of them thought Baz’s R&J was pretty good. The more you study the text, the better (I’ve found) the adaptation is. I don’t know what other people have against it, but among other things, for my money, it’s probably the best Mercutio on film.
“But it has modern music and clothing and dancing!” you protest. So did, at the time, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. It was a modern play. The TV frame is something Shakespeare likely would have enjoyed.
Personally, I was very glad to see the ‘I, Robot’ movie *not* have Isaac Asimov’s name in front of it. Or even to have a ‘based on’ credit, as it was so different from the novel as to be totally unrecognizable. (The Three Laws being about the only concept of Asimov’s that they used. And even that, they twisted.) It actually brought a smile to my face to see the credit listed as ‘Inspired by the work of Issac Asimov’, because that was the most accurate credit possible for the film.
ALl that aside, I should mention that I did actually enjoy the movie, taking on it’s own merits, and not as an adaptation of Asimov’s work. Not a classic, by any means, but still a highly enjoyable entry in Will Smith’s light, action ouvre.
I remember (and agree) with the same things that were said about disney putting its name before classics like “The Three Musketeers, “Beauty and the Beast”, etc. While they have put theor own unique stamp on such, the stories are not theirs alone, which putting the ‘Disney’s’ tag before the title seems to suggest.
Its a shame he won’t be at this years DragonCon (at least I don’t see his name on the guest list yet).
“I’m sorry, but if you have to dismiss the work of one of the industry’s indisputable geniuses in order to defend the memory of an author who hasn’t actually been offended, then you’re on very shaky ground indeed.”
I’ll dispute Spielberg’s genius ’til doomsday. A nifty storyteller, no question; a sold filmmaker, without a doubt. But genius? Forget it. Anything that approaches genius in a Spielberg film, a n y t h i n g you can think of, he stold from Orson Welles. In fact, one could make a strong and convincing arugment that Spielberg’s career has been built on his endless borrowing of the Thatcher Memorial Libarary scene from Citizen Kane.
And if you don’t believe me, go make a case for Speilberg’s genius with Lucius Shepard and see how far you get.
Mark
I don’t know what posters or trailers Harlan Ellison has seen for that movie, but I have never seen “Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds” written anywhere.
Besides, H.G. Wells is dead. I’m sure acknowledgement for a movie loosely based on his book is beyond his realm of concern at the moment.
It sounds like something John Byrne would say.
I still haven’t been able to watch very much of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers (I start getting very angry, very quickly, at what that SOB did to a defenseless dead man’s work), but form the parts I have seen, about all that Verhoeven kept from Heinlein’s original classic was the names of the characters. He turned the Terran Federation from a democratic republic with a limited franchise into a military dictatorship; he (like some before, admittedly) mistook “federal service” for “military service”, even though the novel clearly states that the vast majority of those signing up for federal service wind up as bureaucrats or the equivalent of the Forest Service (Carl wound up as a researcher at Pluto Station, until the Klendathu destroyed it on their way to bomb Buenos Aires; in the movie, they decided to make him a telepathic sensitive, in a Nazi-derived costume that has led an acquaitance of mine to refer to the movie as “Doogie Himmler, SS”); he turned the Bugs from a technological insectoid society into creatures that could use bombardier-beetle abilities to hit a ship in orbit (and thus, changing the fighting part from “defense of humanity” into the tired “man against nature”); essentially, he turned a meditation on duty, honor, courage, and exactly what they might mean, into a clumsy anti-war screed. (And, of course, perhaps my least-favorite line in any film ever, near the end, when they’ve got a Brain Bug at the bottom of a crater, with MI lining the rim, pointing everything from automatic rifles to pony nukes at a creature that can barely move, and Doogie Himmler, SS, touches the Bug with his amazin’ mental powerses and announces, triumphantly, “It’s afraid!” And then the schmucks all start to cheer! It’s supposed to be among the most mentally advanced of its kind, it’s surrounded by its mortal enemies, it’s defenseless, it’s threatened with all manner of nastiness, and everyone’s surprised that it’s afraid???? What kind of mental defectives did Verhoeven’s MI recruit, anyway??)
“In fact, one could make a strong and convincing arugment that Spielberg’s career has been built on his endless borrowing of the Thatcher Memorial Libarary scene from Citizen Kane.”
Yeah, E.T. was a complete rip off of Citizen Kane! And clearly Jedediah Leland was the inspiration for Indiana Jones. Schindler’s List? Wasn’t that based on the life of William Randalf Hearst?
Spielberg’s career (which, I’m sorry to say, has earned more critical and commercial respect than Ellison’s) was built on his talent as a storyteller and visual artist.
“Yeah, E.T. was a complete rip off of Citizen Kane! And clearly Jedediah Leland was the inspiration for Indiana Jones. Schindler’s List? Wasn’t that based on the life of William Randalf Hearst.”
I guess you’ve never seen Citizen Kane or else you would have noticed the continual streams of light shots that Spielberg uses in ET and the Indiana Jones films and Jurasic Park and Schindler’s List and all hhis other films, not to mention his borrowing of deep focus shots or using the camera to shoot the characters from the ground up. You should really check out Citisen Kane when you have the chance: ti’s a good film.
This “War of the Worlds” is, to my knowledge, based more on the radio play by Orson Welles that scared the snot out of many Depression era citizens, who thought Martians were landing in New Jersey (I’m living in New Jersey and I’m not so sure there aren’t Martians here – nobody would notice). The book by H.G. Wells is boring – too much of Victorian England in it….
Mark, while nobody here is a bigger fan of the great Orson Welles than I am, it seems to me that it is too much to claim that Spielberg is ripping off Welles through the use of deep focus or camera placement–any more than it would be valid to claim that Welles is ripping off DW Griffin for using editing techniques straight out of BIRTH OF A NATION. Welles invented some of the very gammar of film so it should be no surprise that most filmmakers owe him a debt (and those that don’t usually suck).
I have to give Spielberg credit–it takes a level of genius to make successes of films as disparate as JURASSIC PARK, SCHINDLERS LIST, THE COLOR PURPLE, ET, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, CLSOE ENCOUNTERS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, JAWS and DUEL. That’s a hëll of a list right there. Yeah, subtract a few points for 1941, HOOK, and AI, it’s still impressive.
Why are you wasting time discussing a movie when you could be pointing out how Bush sucks? Get to work!
“By the way PAD, I’m the guy who noticed you sitting in the HoJo’s in Times Square this past Tuesday. I stared for a second and said “I’m sorry. You’re Peter David”. To which you replied “I’m not sorry that I’m Peter David”.”
Actually, I said “I’m sorry I’m Peter David, too.”
By the way, if one of your group left behind a net carrier with several bottles of fruity beverages, the restaurant people found it.
PAD
I met PAD a few years back and mentioned that I missed him on the Hulk, to which he immediately responded, “That’s because I’m no longer on the Hulk.” I’m guessing he had heard that acknowledgement a million times and had allows that to become the standard response.
If Shakespeare were alive and well and living today, he would have written IT.
Heh, Heinlein fans ALWAYS hate the Starship Troopers movie. That’s understandable, since the movie is more of a parody of the book than an adaptation. I’d be pìššëd, too, except that I didn’t like the book, and much prefer the movie and the satirical spin it put on it.
If Shakespeare were alive and well and living today, he would be desperately clawing at the inside of his coffin.
An old joke but a classic.
Along these lines there’s an excellent cyberpunk story by Bruce Sterling and Lewis Shiner called Mozart in Mirrorshades where Wolfgang Amadeus gets the opportunity to explore music trends unavailable to him in his own timeline.
“Anything that approaches genius in a Spielberg film, a n y t h i n g you can think of, he stold from Orson Welles. In fact, one could make a strong and convincing arugment that Spielberg’s career has been built on his endless borrowing of the Thatcher Memorial Libarary scene from Citizen Kane.”
Nonsense. There’s much more to a Spielberg film than light streaming in through a window (it’s not like it even takes talent to do that). You’ll have to do better than that.
“And if you don’t believe me, go make a case for Speilberg’s genius with Lucius Shepard and see how far you get.”
Who the hëll is Lucius Shepard, and what makes him the arbiter of genius?
First, I must mention this conversation a friend of mine overheard at a theater years ago, not long after was released. Two kids (I’m guessing middle school age) were looking at the poster for the movie.
First kid: Who’s Mary Shelley?
Second kid: She’s the director.
Then, there’s my generation which grew up thinking (at a young age, that is) that Walt Disney wrote Bambi, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Peter Pan, etc.
I was a teacher for a brief time, and one of my greatest triumphs, in my mind, was reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to my combined seventh and eighth grade classes. About two weeks after I finished, NBC ran the Disney version. Every kid in my class came to me the next day telling me how different the movie was, and how much more they enjoyed the book.
Of course, I suspect every kid who’s read the Harry Potter books, the Lemony Snicket series, The Princess Diaries, and Ella Enchanted has discovered the same thing. (The novel Ella Enchanted does not have an evil uncle in it and does not end with the characters singing Elton John.) It’s got to be an education for them.
But, what I’m meaning to get to, is that, if the kids like Spielberg’s movie enough, they’ll go pick up the original novel and read it to compare. And, in my opinion, War of the Worlds is a work that is hard to do a bad version of. I’ve read the original book, I read the Classics Illustrated adaptation, I’ve listened to the radio version (both the Orson Welles’ original, and the remake done by Alien Voices, which means it was directed by John DeLancie and starred Leonard Nimoy and some other Star Trek people in various roles), I saw the 1953 movie. All of them were well-done. (Didn’t follow the syndicated TV series, so I can’t comment on it.) I’d have to say Spielberg’s version is the movie I’ve been most looking forward to this summer.
So because Spielberg uses techniques originated by Wells, that discounts his achievments?
I suppose the same goes from scientists who followed Edison or Einstein and comic artists after Kirby.
As for Ellison’s rant…I’m all for ’em, but I suppose if the movie was called “Steven Spielberg’s War of The Worlds” it might be more credible. From the posters, it looks more like Tom Cruise’s War Of The Worlds.
“You should really check out Citisen Kane when you have the chance: ti’s a good film.”
So because I don’t agree that every shot Spielberg ever set up was a rip-off of Citizen Kane, I must not have seen the movie? Even though my previous post was full of specific references to the film in question? You’re as out of touch with reality as Harlan Ellison!
Here’s the deal: Harlan Ellison is a fine writer but every now and again he says things that, frankly, don’t make much sense. That’s part of his appeal. He was a cranky old man even back when he was young. But while Cranky old men are fun to laugh at (or with, to be kind), they don’t always offer food for thought.
I say Harlan deserves a Gold Star.
Look at it more closely. I don’t believe that H.E. is saying that the posters and ads are printed “Steven Spielberg’s …”. My problem from the beginning with this movie (leaving aside Tom Cruise) was Spielberg’s involvement. Spielberg’s immense, overwhelming ego will get in the way. He will have said, just as he did with the dinosaur movies, that beyond some of the bare bones, he knows better and will have changed the story a great deal. The only virtue that his and Tom Cruise’s involvement brings is that the movie got a large budget.
All of the mentioned movies: “Starship Troopers”, “I, Robot”, “War of the Worlds”, “The Time Machine” and any others I’ve left out should all open with a disclaimer/apology that they are only loosely and possibly only in name, based on the books of the same name. At the end should be the snippet from the Tick cartoon where the character says “Are you still here? Go read a book!”.
As I’ve mentioned here before, I work in a bookstore. I know from past sad experience, mostly the kids won’t seek out the book after seeing the movie. We’ve had a stack of the new Penguin Classics edition at the counter for the last two weeks. The only folks to pick it up have been adults.
Kim: You left out the basically rock opera version of the Orson Welles radio broadcast. Heard that one?
Am I the only one who wishes someone would to a TRUE adaptation of the Wells book? The idea of these monstrous machines stomping through Victorian London … wow.
I’m no fan of rock music, generally speaking, but I still LOVED Jeff Wayne’s musical adaptation of WOTW, if only because it was the truest to date. And makes me sadder still that Richard Burton is dead. His voice was perfect for the central character. He’d have been great for a film version early in his career.
As for Baz’s R&J, sorry, the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli version beats the crap out of any ‘modern adaptations’.
I’m a big fan and supporter of Harlan’s, but I have to say he’s out to lunch on this one. The only people referring to it as “Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds” are, well, people.
And in a year giving us three, count ’em, three WOTW remakes, I thinkit’s as useful a distinction as any.
Am I the only one who wishes someone would to a TRUE adaptation of the Wells book? The idea of these monstrous machines stomping through Victorian London … wow.
Well, ask and ye shall receive. Sort of.
http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html
(although I must say that this site, the trailers on it, and various on-line commentary about it doesn’t inspire much confidence in the result…)
Bummer, Mr. Fuller! Not only haven’t you seen Citizen Kane, but you also haven’t read Lucius Shepard, one of our best writers of sf and fantasy in addition to being an insightful film reviewer. There’s a whole new world out there waiting for you – go!
___________________________
Welles and Toland, through their collaboration on Citizen Kane gave film makers their cinematic language; I can’t think of anyone who has made more use of this language than Spielberg. As I said before, I enjoy Speilberg’s films but have never come out of one thinking that he brought something new to the party.
Mark
The issue of billing in regards to how it reflects the actual book is kind of an iffy thing. I find it hard to believe that anyone would not know that War of the Worlds was originally based on a novel by H.G. Wells. Then again, maybe I’m giving the literary knowledge of the general public too much credit. After all, I’ll admit that I didn’t know that Starship Troopers was a book until I read the responses to this blog entry.
However, if your looking for an interesting acknowledgement of a writer’s original work, check out the credits to the sequels to Universal’s classic Frankenstein. Instead of “based on” or “inspired by” or “inspired by characters from”, it says “suggested by Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein”, or something like that. “Suggested by”. That’s about as close as they could come, because most of those movies came largely from the minds of screenwriters.
Mark Walsh wrote:
“Welles and Toland, through their collaboration on Citizen Kane gave film makers their cinematic language;”
Sorry if this is picking nits, and no offense meant if you’re a Welles fan, but as influential as the film was, there’s much more to “cinematic language” than what Welles and Toland did in Kane.
Plus, I dunno, “stole” is kind of a harsh word, isn’t it? Spielberg comes out of a generation of directors that were very aware of and self-consciously built upon the works of earlier directors.
This whole flap (the WotW one, not the Spielberg-Welles one) seems kind of silly, anways. If we take Ellison literally, then it seems like there’s little ground for his accusation, since the film’s title isn’t “Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds.” The movie’s official site lists it as “War of the Worlds” followed by “A Steven Spielberg Film,” which seems fair enough. There’s a “Based upon the novel by H.G. Wells” credit in there too. I’ll bet when the film’s opening credits role, it’ll get its own title card.
If, as cal suggests above, Harlan’s complaining about Spielberg’s movie being different from the book due to Spielberg’s “immense, overwhelming ego,” I dunno, I don’t see how making changes in an adaptation, or even simply transplanting it to a modern setting is simply or necessarily an act of ego.
Could (or would) the same accusation be made against someone, say, radically adapting a Shakespeare play? For example, were Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellan’s stage and film versions of Richard III acts of overwhelming ego? Or, alternately, would there be as much of a fuss over a comic book adaptation of War of the Worlds, set in the present day in the U.S., featuring a handsome young lead, etc.?
Changes always crop up in adapting a book to a film, for reasons of running time if nothing else. Sometimes the resulting film is good, sometimes not.
Stew
(Oh yeah, in regard to Jonathan’s comments on the Starship Troopers thing – this won’t appease Heinlein fans, but Verhoeven’s film is a satire. It’s not meant to be taken at face value. He filtered the book through old, patriotic, jingoistic WWII movies in order to take a jab at blind patriotism, propaganda, etc. Try thinking of the brain bug scene at the end in this light – it fits perfectly well with the narrative logic of the kinds of war propaganda films that Verhoeven is satirizing.
I dunno, maybe he did Heinlein a disservice by using his novel as his raw material. Personally, I think it’s kind of brilliant in it’s way, and more timely now than when it was first made. But hey, what do I know.)
I love Harlan Ellison’s work and agree with him on a lot of things but I think he’s a little off base here.
The remake thing has been addressed above. My take on this thing is marketing and creative staff. To me it’s not really different then how most fans and fan press talk about things. It’s Peter David’s Hulk, John Byrne’s Fantastic Four, Steve Martin’s (upcoming) Pink Panther, Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, John Carpenter’s Vampires, Tom Baker’s Doctor, Bill Shatner’s Captain, etc. It’s how so many of us and them ID something in short hand. It’s a lot easier then saying Person A presents the Work of Person B as reimagined by Person A, C & D. Marketing wise it’s a wee bit more snappy to just say, “Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds.”
Plus, as mentioned above, it does make it stand out from the news of and fan press about the other WOTW films. Besides, how many times have people complained about a film or TV show that listed its creator as part of the name (Dracula, Earth Sea, Vampires) and was almost nothing like what the creator created?
I used to joke that thanks to the I, Robot movie Harlan Ellison must be rolling in his grave. The black humor in the joke is, Ellison’s not dead.
I liked I, Robot. No, it’s not Asimov, not entirely. It owes just as much to Philip K. Ðìçk as it does to Asimov. And there’s not a dámņ thing wrong in that. Ðìçk’s brand of science fiction is as influential as Asimov’s.
Like Will Smith or hate him for what I, Robot did to Asimov’s text, the film put the Asimov name in front of moviegoers who may not have known who Asimov was. The film put Will Smith’s smiling mug on the cover of a whole new print run of I, Robot. People picking up the book aren’t going to find Del Spooner anywhere, but they will find Susan Calvin. Maybe not quite the character Bridget Moynahan played (I found her too conventionally pretty and too poised to be Asimov’s Calvin), but there are conceptual links.
I’ve read Ellison’s screenplay for I, Robot, and he wanted to make an art-house science fiction movie. I just don’t see that being successful in the wake of Star Wars twenty-five years ago. I don’t see that being successful today–witness Solaris. I don’t know if Ellison gets that.
I wonder if Ellison’s rant against Spielberg arises from resentment, even anger, toward I, Robot. He wanted to write I, Robot, he did, and it never happened. He was true to the text of Asimov’s book. Will Smith’s film was a variation on a theme. Spielberg’s film is another variation on a theme.
Alas, that’s Ellison’s loss, not ours.
Bring on the popcorn! 🙂
Allyn,
No offense, but I, Robot was directed by Alex Proyas and written by Jeff Vintar…I’m not sure where or why Harlan would or could be mad at Spielberg for I, Robot. Sorry if I’m reading your post wrong.
>http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html
It figures. The guy who’s got the budget to get it right doesn’t and the ones who don’t, do … sort of.
As for overwheling ego for bringing the story up to modern times and changing it, what about George Pal’s version? Again, all things considered, it wasn’t THAT bad. Even if it did leave me wishing for an authentic version, too.
Sorry, James. Perhaps I was muddled in my argument.
Ellison wrote a screenplay in the 1970s for an adaptation of I, Robot. He took four stories from Asimov’s novel, wrote a framing sequence that was inspired by Citizen Kane, and watched as Warner Brothers passed time and again on the project, wanting either rewrites that in Ellison’s opinion took the film away from its Asimovian roots or wanting to make the robots “cute” in the wake of R2D2 and C3PO of Star Wars fame.
Fifteen years later, Warner Aspect published Ellison’s I, Robot screenplay. It would have made an interesting movie. I’m not sure it would have made a good movie. It certainly wouldn’t have made much money. It’s an art-house movie.
And then along comes Will Smith’s I, Robot. A film owes some to Isaac Asimov. A film that owes nothing to Harlan Ellison. (And, as I mentioned, it’s a film that owes a lot to Philip K. Ðìçk.) But it’s a story that Ellison, to judge by his introduction to his screenplay, he desperately wanted to be a part of. He wanted to bring his friend Isaac out of the sci-fi ghetto. Instead, it’s a story based on nothing Asimov ever wrote that placed the words “I, Robot” before the public. It’s Will Smith’s face, plastered on covers of the novel’s re-release to coincide with the movie.
Maybe Ellison has made his peace with I, Robot. I somehow doubt that.
But now, War of the Worlds. Here’s a book, a famous book, being turned into a film. And it’s a film that has a tenuous connection to its source material. Perhaps Ellison’s anger at Spielberg arises from his own anger at his vision for I, Robot being passed over for a shoot-’em-up.
That‘s what I was trying to suggest above.
What I think Ellison forgets is that Orson Welles adapted The War of the Worlds to his own ends. George Pal adapted War of the Worlds to his own ends. Welles’ story played on American paranoia and isolationism. Pal’s story played on Cold War paranoia. I suspect that Spielberg’s story may play on the Age of Terror because that‘s a paranoia we know all too well in these dark days. And such an adaptation of the themes of Wells’ book are much in line with his own thinking.
Wells didn’t write a book about an alien invasion. He wrote a parable of British imperialism. He couldn’t write about how African nations felt about Britons coming, taking over their nations and their resources. But he could cast it in the veil of fiction, and make Britain the African nation, make the Martians the “enlightened” Britons.
So, Ellison’s anger is misplaced. Spielberg acknowledges Wells in the teaser, on the posters. Spielberg’s name is no larger than Wells’. And Ellison conveniently forgets the very message of Wells in trying to stand up for a writer who isn’t alive and would understand the need to update a parable about imperialism into another time.
Maybe Ellison should find a hobby. Like finishing up Last Dangerous Visions.
Right, I’m aware of Harlan’s I, Robot screenplay and have read it (and I agree with you that it might have made a good film but not a successfull (in terms of money) film, I just wasn’t sure how you were tying that into his rant against WotW.
“Not only haven’t you seen Citizen Kane”
No, only about ten times, most recently just last week.
“but you also haven’t read Lucius Shepard, one of our best writers of sf and fantasy in addition to being an insightful film reviewer.”
I generally don’t read sf and fantasy (I tend to read older stuff, like Dickens). But thanks for answering my question. Of course, now it seems even more bizarre that you brought up his name.
“I generally don’t read sf and fantasy (I tend to read older stuff, like Dickens). But thanks for answering my question. Of course, now it seems even more bizarre that you brought up his name.”
I see. If a writer is not on your cultural radar, it’s bizarre for me to reference him. That’s airtight logic. What’s more, here we are posting on the website of a writer best known for his work in fantasy and sf. Whoa! How did that happen?
Best,
Mark
Frankly, I would not mind if Spielberg put his name in front of the title. I did not mind buying and enjoying JEFF WAYNE’S WAR OF THE WORLD, either. It is no big deal either way.
By the way, I recommend the double cd JEFF WAYNE’S WAR OF THE WORLDS to anyone who like 70’s rock music. Besides Richard Burton, Wayne drafted into the project a number of great musicians such as Justin Heywood of the Moody Blues who did the beautiful song “Forever Autumn”. Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy also appears as well as David “Rock On” Essex.
(Oh yeah, in regard to Jonathan’s comments on the Starship Troopers thing – this won’t appease Heinlein fans, but Verhoeven’s film is a satire. It’s not meant to be taken at face value. He filtered the book through old, patriotic, jingoistic WWII movies in order to take a jab at blind patriotism, propaganda, etc. Try thinking of the brain bug scene at the end in this light – it fits perfectly well with the narrative logic of the kinds of war propaganda films that Verhoeven is satirizing.
I dunno, maybe he did Heinlein a disservice by using his novel as his raw material. Personally, I think it’s kind of brilliant in it’s way, and more timely now than when it was first made. But hey, what do I know.)
Well, Verhoeven went on the record as considering Heinlein a Nazi, and that he made his movie as he did to demonstrate that Heinlein was a Nazi.
Yeah, I think that classifies as doing him a disservice.