Jump to content

Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

[edit]

fix link (broke by move of article?) Naaman Brown (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

There's currently a tedious back-and-forth battle going on in the Controversy section, between 24.18.239.200 (who's been adding comments on what Hines said or did, without citing reliable sources), and 71.210.220.162 (who's been adding comments on Hines being a liar, without citing reliable sources). As of now, this section contains five references, only one of which (an article at videobusiness.com) has anything like direct relevance to a "controversy". I'm considering purging the section entirely, so if anyone has good reasons why that shouldn't happen, now's the time to discuss it. Thanks.--Nalvage 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable because a large (ass load, if you want my specific term) portion of the attention this film has gotten was/is mainly due to what Hines has said and claimed. I can produce some sources for some of this - Hell, even some that specifically use the word "controversy", but it may take time in trying to track some of this down as I have to figure out what got started on a forum somewhere and what are legitimite claims. I'll try to random searches in betweens things to prove that there's some merit. Let me know if this is acceptable. --Bacteria 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are good sources out there, excellent. My fear was that it didn't get beyond message board claims and counter-claims, and that removing the section would be the only way to stop it devolving further into a he-said-she-said anecdotal evidence fest. I'm not part of the fandom, or clear where this controversy may have been covered, but I'll see if I can rustle anything up myself. --Nalvage 16:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.syfyportal.com/news421674.html and http://www.syfyportal.com/news422156.html look useful. --Nalvage 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to integrate the information in the first link into the article and/or tag it as a source sometime soon. The second one is actually in the external links section, but I'll see if I can fit it in as well. The confusion in some of this is that forums (namely those of the three oft-visted War of the Worlds sites and the IMDb page) is where Hines' comments and actions have really been picked apart, and am sure have entire threads dedicated to debunking and ridiculing his claims. So the hard part is getting to what are actual statements on his behalf. It's not like he's been less than suspicious in all of this, but I'm sure some of this has been blown out of proporition or even entirely fabricated by pissed off fans. --Bacteria 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised this section again as old articles have vanished from the web. I've removed anything that I can't find a source for. Mark Grant (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V and WP:LINKROT, it's best not to delete refs, just to indicate that their URLs are {{deadlink}}s, and seek copies from web.archive.org. We assume good faith about cited sources.
Necro-update: Archive copies of the above SyFyPortal sources: www.syfyportal.com/news421674.html www.syfyportal.com/news422156.html --00:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

$42 million?

[edit]

The article says that Hines had raised $42 million from Microsoft employees: I'm not aware of any evidence of this other than Hines' claims. If that's the case, I don't think it should be phrased in that manner, and earlier in the article it says 'Hines claimed' when referring to the same sum, rather than stating it as a fact. Mark Grant 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern or period

[edit]

Can someone who's seen the film edit the article? The introduction says it's a modern retelling set in Seattle, the synopsis says it's a period piece set in Victorian England. I'm fairly sure it's set in Victorian England, but not having seen the film myself, I don't want to make a cock up. Optimus Sledge 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. I blame myself because when I did the initial draft of the production history, I seemed to have done what I always do - work on an floating assumption, that being that everyone knew they changed directions from modern to loyal adaptation. I addressed this both in the production history and intro so, hopefully, this makes it soundly clear. --Bacteria 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

There seem to be a lot of screenshots on this page which don't meet the fair use licensing requirements for 'identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents'. Does anyone have any opinion as to which should stay and which should be removed? I think it's hard to claim that more than a fraction of them are being used in a valid manner here, though I'm willing to be convinced. Mark Grant 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one else has any opinion I'm going to remove about half of them shortly, because right now it seems like overkill. Mark Grant 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at the other War of the Worlds movie pages and they have far less images than this one. I've removed all but the most significant, and put most of them into a gallery showing examples of the movie effects shots, which seems relevant to the discussion of critical reaction to those effects. Hopefully what we have is now fair use. Mark Grant 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Claims

[edit]

There are a lot of unsourced claims in the 'Controversy' section, some of which have been flagged for months, and I've just added a couple more. Is there any reason why we should keep them if people can't find a source for them after they've been flagged for so long? Mark Grant 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed those too. Feel free to add them back if you have a source to support them. Mark Grant 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

Can people please stop changing the budget to $5,000? Now, I can certainly believe the movie was made for that amount, but unless you can cite a reliable source, it's just going to keep getting deleted. Mark Grant (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PendragonWotWposter.jpg

[edit]

Image:PendragonWotWposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is FUBAR

[edit]

It looks like Timothy Hines or someone from Pendragon has been edting the hell out of this article. There is such a riduculous amount of mis-information that it has become useless as a reference. Someone needs to some in and clean up this mess or this article needs to be deleted. Andy120290 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some tidying, but it could certainly do with more. I don't think I've made anything worse than it was, and removed a bunch of duplicated and uncited information, while adding cites for some others; of course most of the sources in the article are interviews with people involved in the production, which may not be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Mark Grant (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Accuracy

[edit]

Now, it appears to me that what is regarded by many as the film's main saving grace is how true it is to the novella. I've actually read the story, and the thing that hit me was how different it was to the film... Some scenes in the film, like the guy getting locked in the shed, are nothing more that throw-away muses of the narrator in the book warranting nothing more than a couple of lines. Also, I don't recall seeing so much walking in the book. Obviously, when you create a screenplay, you have to change elements of the story so that they "look" right, but it seems as though key bits have been left out whilst other more trivial stuff has been featured. The "Black smoke" (the key weapon in the Martian's arsenal) is barely touched upon. also, the reason that the highly localised invasion of the south east of England is regarded as a war of "Worlds" is partially due to the development(by the Martians) of heavier than air flight during the course of the conflict, thus potentially enabling the hostilities to spread to other countries. I'll go back and re-read the book just to make sure that I am not going loopy... Paul-b4 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In a literary work of fiction such as this, there are multiple layers and the story works on multiple conscious levels too. I have to say that although the writers of the screenplay of 'H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds' (2005) were enthusiasts, they were naive writers. Their callowness manifests on several levels, ironically enough. It was no secret that Wells used Mars as a metaphor for the technologically advanced British Empire in its wars of attrition against the more primitive cultures. There is internal evidence for this early on in the text where Wells mentions how the Tasmanians were coldly wiped out by the British. Wells, incidentally, regarded the Tasmanians as not quite human; he was not unusual in this, even for a biologist. In the text he even says, "...the Tasmanians, despite their human likeness...' Although Wells calls his novel 'The War of the Worlds' we should bear in mind that he has in mind the war between the First World - represented by Mars in the novel but in reality by Britain - and the Third World - represented by earth in the novel but in reality by Australia, Africa, India and other countries being dominated by the British (I am simplifying things of course as other countries were involved but the novel was primarily aimed at the British). In effect, the power of the story at that time was derived from the fact that the comfortable Victorians could not imagine a technologically superior army overrunning the Home Counties and London with no effective opposition. The story therefore functions not so much as a 'what if' story but a 'how would you like it?' one. Any adaptation of a novel such as this really needs to take into account the literary metaphors and either update them or rework them in some other way. For example, the first adaptation of Pierre Boulle's satirical novel, 'Monkey Planet' as "Planet of the Apes" (1968) abandoned the original metaphor of the French tripartite class system and instead concentrated on the American social conflicts of creationists v. evolutionists; religion v. science; etc. This was probably - in part - due to budget constraints. Pendragon were undeterred by budget limitations and attempted to do something that even companies like Paramount baulked at - setting the film in the fictional world of the nineteenth century novel. The original metaphor had lost much of its power. While Spielberg used the events of 9/11 as a basis for his metaphor, Timothy Hines ran away from making any kind of association with modern day terrorists by a kind of escape in the past. We know he did this, by the way, because he said so. A reader can enter the world of a great writer of the 19th or early 20th century and share his vision. It is less easy to do this when the story has fantastic elements. We know that there was no Martian invasion in the 1900s. We might be entertained by a depiction of such an invasion but it no longer has the raw power. Independence Day could shock us by blowing up the White House but there is not the same frisson at seeing an old ironside being sunk as the New York Ferry in the Spielberg version of 'War of the Worlds'. The trick is getting people to identify with your characters. There is just not enough in the characters in 'H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds' (2005) for people to invest in. The novel also contrasts the world view of the scientists in the person of Ogilvy and Stent against the religious in the character of the curate and also the cold blooded world view of the artillery man. There are other 'worlds' at 'war' in this novel. Reading it repeatedly brings fresh discoveries about the 'worlds in conflict'. This is not true of Pendragon's movie which is hard enough to endure once and where the word-for-word carrying over of the original text actually weakens its effect; particularly as the screenwriters apparently failed to grasp some of the metaphors Wells used and shoehorned them clumsily and inappropriately into dialogue. Zawia (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse

[edit]

I removed the section about Pendragon's statements about the Dark Horse settlement on their web site; I can't find it on the current web site, and can't find any reliable source elsewhere.

I did find a few mentions which imply that it was true, but without a source that we can cite, I think it has to go. To be honest, it's probably too much detail in any case, the remaining paragraph pretty much sums up what happened. Mark Grant (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This has been out and in a few times. Anyways, the settlement announcement page is archived at web.archive.org, as listed in the citation; now the news source and the primary source agree. If a WP:RS is found which refutes, we'll revisit. Yet another argument for avid use of WebCitation to capture pages used as sources in articles - it's for easy future revivification of dead links, and they don't have an embargo period! --Lexein (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative reviews

[edit]

I noticed that someone changed the intro from 'mostly negative' reviews to 'mostly mixed'; I can't see any justification for that change, though I wonder whether that line should be in the article at all as it's rather subjective unless you only look at articles which give some kind of star rating. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, has four reviews and three of them look negative to me. Mark Grant (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Flynn book

[edit]

The Flynn book is used as a source for the film's budget of "approximately $25 million" (p.111). It also states "somewhere in the mid 20-millions" (p.108). Neither figure is listed as a quote, nor are sources cited. The book is self published: Galactic Books (hosted at a free hosting provider) hosts only Flynn's books, Galactic's address (Owings Mills,MD) is the same city as that listed by Flynn, and I'll let the partially correct but also abusively wrong "Michael Valdivielso" review of the book at Amazon speak for itself. Bottom line: is this a WP:RELIABLE enough source for the film's budget? Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, pick a different word than "Dispute"

[edit]

Pendragon did dispute with Dark Horse. Historical fact, not "agenda." Yes, it's resolved. And sourced. So, we report the whole thing, sourced, neutrally. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground, nor a P.R. outlet. All companies have warts. It is in _everyone's_ best interest not to shy away from the simple, unvarnished verifiable, sourced, truth. Here, it makes Pendragon look good, for publicly acknowledging the end of the issue. IMHO. Another example: Vonage. That company once tried to, but stopped, attacking that article, but instead has tried for NPOV wherever possible, no matter how bad the reported news. If I have read the article history correctly. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse (again)

[edit]

In this edit, an anonymous IP user edit summarized "This is placed here by a cyberbully who is a business competitor and has made himself a self appointed steward over this page. The statements are defametory and untrue. This was a legal case that was settled privately". This edit summary is false (except for the last statement). I am not a cyberbully, and have never engaged in any such behavior, as supported by my edit history. I am an impartial, independent, volunteer Wikipedia editor, the facts of the claims are true and supported by primary and secondary sources (including Pendragon's own website - see the footnotes), nothing here is defamatory, the details of the settlement are not detailed, only the announcement that there was a settlement. Facts straight, the section, in my opinion should remain. It's part of the history of the development of the film, and goes to the nature of the complexities of the development process. --Lexein (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it - should the IP remove it again, I suggest we treat it as vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it some thought. We can paraphrase, or we can quote. In my opinion, the paraphrase of the press release is considerably less inflammatory than a direct quote. I did not even cite the press release directly, considering its title too inflammatory. Here's the ref, which I will not revert if inserted:
"Did Dark Horse Comics Rip Off Pendragon's WAR OF THE WORLDS?". thefreelibrary.com. Farlex Inc. PR Newswire. July 26, 2006. Press release. (Also at HighBeam Research.)
My choice to quote the settlement announcement was to address the press release and the web image comparison in one go, concisely, without bias, or repetition of the competition's name, or lengthy paraphrase. Matter of fact, I still can't think of a shorter, fairer paraphrase to replace the quote. Anyways, in my opinion, apology for any possible misunderstanding does not imply wrongdoing, just good sportsmanship. --Lexein (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SFCrowsnest - not summarily unreliable

[edit]

The magazine was a print pub which moved online, and is still published, with an editorial staff. It really is in the Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, so it has at least that much notability. --Lexein (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced, since the original story has been removed from their website - the idea that this guy actually thought he could get name actors of that caliber for sometime this poor is laughable, though. However, if you can find another source that backs up the claim, I'll consider it. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 IP deletions

[edit]
  • I don't see a quote from the film's director as undue weight of any sort. If it's balance that's needed, discuss that. I've expanded the quote, just in case that was the issue.
  • Separately, I don't see SFCrowsNest as non-notable. The review comment was a positive comparison.

A bit of help, preserving the integrity of this article, would be appreciated. --Lexein (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I asked over at WP:RSN and SFCrowsNest received support there as a source, though two similar SF zines and webzines are listed as "better" sources. --Lexein (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Worlds 2005 sources

[edit]

War of the Worlds - The True Story sources

[edit]

Reviews:

Request for new article

[edit]

I think it would be good to create a new article based on War of the Worlds - The True Story, considering there is now enough information. I will create the article now and upload it. If you guys think it should remain on this article please write below.--Warner REBORN (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film)"

[edit]

The usage and primary topic of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film) is under discussion, see Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved both pages to the titles that include the director's names. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– No need to disambiguate by using the years. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:F982:AF26:A63C:B753 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal

[edit]

We have two films with similar titles, both American and both released in 2005. Clearly the current disambiguation is of no real help so I suggest that we distinguish these films by either studio or director instead. PC78 (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an established convention on whether to disambiguate using the director's name vs. the studio's name? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte and Jujutsuan: WP:NCF doesn't really offer any guidance for situations where the standard disambigation (ie. year, country) doesn't work, so we're flying blind here. I'd say use the director's name though. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that the directors' names are preferable in the absence of a guideline. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Three direct-to-video?

[edit]

Article says this is "the first of three reworked direct-to-video film versions." Another is H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (David Michael Latt film). What is the third? Goustien (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film) → The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film) H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film) – In line with this recently closed move request, and the fact that I have not been able to find sources that include HGW's name in the official film title, I propose that this article be retitled without HGW's name and qualified with the production company's name in parentheses. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  05:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requester's note: as of now, this request is altered to include "H. G. Wells'" in the requested title per reliable sources. At this moment, the first two supporters below added their existing support before this change. The other supporters are explicitly okay with this change, as of now. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Pendragon Pictures film), after all.
Pinging Gonnym, MapReader, Roman Spinner, Lugnuts and Hunter Kahn to get your thoughts and to grant the favor of clarifying your support so the closer's job will be easier. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  05:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H._G._Wells%27_The_War_of_the_Worlds_(Pendragon_Pictures_film)&oldid=1217241645"