Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpo  Just for comparison, albeit on a smaller scale, "War Of The Worlds" was created as a novel in the 1890s, then performed as a radio play in the 1930s, then made into a film in the 1950s (and again recently), and as a musical version in the 1970s (recently turned into a stage musical).
Imagine the late 19th Century readers of the novel, wondering if it might be "performed" in whatever way in the decades to come. We in the early 21st century know that it was done, successfully, many times. Was there no point in telling the story again? |
It may depend on how good the original story is. With
WOTW, there is great material for all kinds of ideas. And the original was a book, not a movie to be remade endlessly, ala
Beau Geste. Nevertheless, Spielberg's remake was a do-over of the George Pal movie,
not a new version of H.G. Wells' book. At some point, it becomes pointless to try to do another film version.
Case in point: In 1962, Peter Ustinov directed and acted in a film version of Herman Melville's tale,
Billy Budd, Foretopman. Entitled simply
Billy Budd, it starred Ustinov, Robert Ryan, Melvyn Douglas, David McCallum and Terrence Stamp in his film debut in the title role. With a fine score by Sir Antony Hopkins as recorded by the London Philharmonic, this B&W film had much to recommend it. Stamp was nominated for an Oscar. Nevertheless, Stanley Kaufman, the acerbic film critic for "The New Republic" panned it and bemoaned his conclusion that the release of the film took away all hope of a definitive version of Melville's story ever to be released. Well, sure enough, 46 years later, there hasn't been a remake. But I venture to say it's because the first film was sufficiently "definitive" that there has been no need.
This may well be the situation with
Star Wars also.
Jim