Our cover, and your discussion, of the story from Empire about the top Directors of all time (until the polls finished) has attracted the attention of Film Rot, great guys! Not because they want to cover the story, but rather they have a superb quote from the writer Harlan Ellison talking about his liking and total respect for the number one slotted Steven Spielberg
Science fiction writer Harlan Ellison told SCI FI Wire at Enigma Con in LA exactly what he thought about the best director of all time and his new alien flick…
“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.”
Oh that’s such a good quote there, and spot on too. I must admit I haven’t been giving it two seconds thought, and then it hit me like a brick. Where is H. G. Wells name in all of this? I think the same hard stamp has been placed on the Orson Welles radio play, but I’m sure that wasn’t the case at the time and has been a more modern change.
There is a lot of arrogance in Hollywood at the top end of the market. The practice of various stars, Directors, Writers, etc turning into one name says it all. They become a brand, and icon, and can they control that icon once it gets that big? Is it Spielberg placing that on the title or the studio?
“pussybag” can we say that
“Jeff Wayne’s War Of The Worlds” !!!!
Ellison has always been opinionated. He shoots from the hip and takes no prisoners and sometimes he sounds like an ass.
He also happens to be one of the best science fiction writers of all time.
Ellison is a jackass. The movie isn’t even called, “Steven Speilberg’s War of the Worlds.” It’s just called “War of the Worlds.” On the poster, above that, it says, “A Steven Speilberg film.” Big deal! I mean, first of all, it is a Steven Speilberg film; second, this line on a poster is about as standard as you can get; and third, the movie does credit H.G. Wells.
I think Ellison is pissed off because he KNOWS he’s just such a fucking genius, but those bastards in Hollywood just don’t see it, or else they’d be busting his door down, kneeling before the intellectual GOD that is Harlan Ellison.
Talk about pussbags…
I think Ellison is just being an attention grabbing windbag.
And this differs from his usual behaviour in what way exactly?
If you watch the trailer – at the end – where the brief credits are splashed on the screen H.G. Wells’ name is there. I don’t really have a problem with Spielberg’s name on the title. I think this movie is going to be lame anyway – which makes me sad because I love Spielberg.
Oh – I liked The Terminal too! A little long, but clearly enjoyable.
I say its the studio. Spielberg’s name is going to put people into the seats. Not H.G. Wells. No offense to Wells but it’s the truth. And from the look of it thus far, the movie doesn’t seem to have much in commen with the book other than the title and it has aliens. Really kind of a shame. I read the book several times when I was a kid and would have preferred a more faithful adaptation of the book. But Spielberg’s movie will be a “Spielberg movie” and for that, he’ll get my money.
I actually read somewhere that Spielberg’s script for the movie is extremely different than the book (I haven’t read it, so correct me if I’m wrong). Supposedly the book doesn’t really focus in on Tom Cruise’s family. If this is true then it’s almost necessary that it have Spielberg’s tag on it. I do agree that it should be acknowledged atleast somewhere that it’s based on H.G. Well’s books, but this movie really is Spielberg’s work.
Actually, since I sort of subscribe to the ‘auteur theory’ I actually agree with Steven Spielberg’s WAR OF THE WORLDS. It’s his version of the story. H.G. Welles will still get credit in the opening credits for his story…but it’s Spielbergs telling.
Much Like I refer to the film version of LORD OF THE RINGS as Peter Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS…If I want Tolkien’s version I’ll read the books…Jackson and company made a fine abridged and modified telling of the tale and it’s their version..
Likewise Kubrick’s THE SHINING is very much Kubricks vision of the story…
So the guy at Filmrot I believe is way off-base..
And, I still strongly disagree that spielberg should top that list…but It’s and empire magazine popularity contest, and has nothing to do with anything anyway..
my 2 cents.
I’d never heard of him before this but now he’ll be ‘that guy who called Spielberg a puss-bag’ so I would say a lot of his reason for this was publicity, but I do think that if Spielberg screws up with War of the Worlds (and I don’t mean box office wise, I mean movie wise), then he will be remembered for screwing it up because of the name Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. If it was H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds he might be able to iron it out. Though Spielberg has a very good track record and unlike everybody else I liked the Terminal so I trust Spielberg to make it good.
I think Ellison is just being an attention grabbing windbag.
Where is the rule that you have to put Well’s name on it? It only makes sense to call it “Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds” because it’s a different telling of the story and probably won’t look anything like the other renditions.
I’ll also bet dollars to dimes that it wasn’t even Spielberg’s decision to put his name on it. It’s probably a studio decision for marketing purposes.
It’s kind of the same thing Kubrick did with a lot of books, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining but he did them justice, I wonder if Spielberg will do the same for Worlds.
Though this is without a doubt the best quote I have heard in the past five years.
“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.”