MovieChat Forums > War of the Worlds (2005) Discussion > As Andy Richter once said....

As Andy Richter once said....

posted 18 years ago by whiteyfiskman
23 replies | jump to latest

...that was a 9 minute bit with about 3 minutes worth of action. Even though this was longer I still felt the same way.

By the way did anyone see what else this director has been producing lately? Not only did he try and rush his War of the Worlds to cash in on the Speilberg one. But "Pirates of Treasure Island" "666: The Child" "Hillside Cannibals" "The Da Vinci Treasure", all of these happen to coincide with the realeases of Pirates of the Carribean, The Omen, Hills have Eyes, and the Da Vinci Code. I can't wait to see what he does next year. Is David Michael Latt just sitting on IMDB, or watching TV and seeing what next big movie is coming out and saying hey lets make a move almost like it at the same time just so we can cash in on the hype too. I know most of the movies above are remakes which is sad in and of itself, but to copy a remake's release is even worse. And now the 9/11 commission report which he has almost completed, also happens to be showing in September on ABC. When pornos do this it's at least kind of funny but it just seems this guy doesn't want to take a chance on his own and he doesn't have any marbles.

I know people are trying to defend him on War of the Worlds, that he was making his first (which I doubt with how long it takes production to actually get going in hollywood), but this has to be more than a coincidence.

By the way I'm currently in production of Spiderboy due out sometime next summer.

[–] DirectorDave 18 years ago

Dear Whiteyfiskman:

Sorry that you're struggling with my slate of films. To make it easy, I've released over 300 movies, produced over 30, and directed about seven. About seven of these have been studio tie-ins. This seems to be the focus of national attention lately -- good and bad.

9/11 is a personal project of mine and I'm very proud of it. You were critical of the tie-in's, but this one is original and you might want to give it a chance. If you like it, great...if not...well...there you go.

And to rest your mind at ease...it is not a coincidence, and I haven't tried to hide it in any of my interviews with the national media. I am making movies to the largest audience possible. The films that tie into the studio slate do better within the marketplace than the other non-tie in films -- but that doesn't mean that I don't try and do the best film possible, and that I don't hire the best people possible. You might disagree, but that's what art is all about. Some will like it, some won't. This year, in addition to the tie-ins, we are producing HALLOWEEN NIGHT, ODDITIES, 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, and DRAGON.

Well, thanks for your comments, and good luck on Spiderboy. I don't know if this was appropriate to respond (I've tried to stay out of it until now), but I thought I'd stop on by to start the talking.
-David

[–] whiteyfiskman 18 years ago

This has to be a first for me, a director actually responding back. Trust me it's appropriate to respond and get some dialogue going, don't stay out of it. Thanks for the response though, it allowed me to look at even more of the tie ins “When a Killer Calls”, and "Snakes on a Train".

It doesn't take any talent or work to do the studio tie-in and I guess that's what I'm "struggling" with the most. And it's great to see you are trying to release other pieces, but even one tie-in seems to take any credibility away from those because of all the criticism and attention it draws. And it just seemed to be getting worse when I looked at 2006 and I saw tie-in after tie-in, is that going to be the plan from now on? I'm glad you are not trying to hide it though, I blame myself for not watching more of your interviews and getting all the info. I guess what sent me here was I watched the behind the scenes of "War of the Worlds" where you said that story was really personal to you and you were working on it and then you heard about the Spielberg one so you rushed to get yours out to beat it and everything about that seemed like it was your project first, which of course it wasn't like you said.

But another way to reach the largest audience possible, if that's the goal, is to make a great original and let the people do the talking instead of riding on the coat tales of Hollywood. Yes it may be a little harder to come up with an great movie all on your own, but isn't that the idea. Dozens of movies have been made with a budget less than "War of the Worlds" and have went on to gross tens of millions of dollars.

How can The 9/11 Commission Report be an original when it is based on a report by the exact same name? It even says that in the synopsis.

Maybe you can answer this too...I’ve also always wondered why directors always put “A Film by (insert their name here)” How can they do it when they know hundreds of other people worked on that same film, isn’t it kind of selfish?

But good luck to you and your future releases, and I hope you reach your goals.

[–] DirectorDave 18 years ago

WAR OF THE WORLDS was personal for me, and I'm very proud of this film. Regardless of your perception of the process, I know what was in my heart.

I don't understand why you would say, "It doesn't take any talent or work to do the studio tie-in." Perhaps from the outside looking in that's what it appears to be...but I'm sure that our hardworking talented crew of people working 20 hour days for months would have a different opinion.

I'm also very proud of the slate of films that I produce. Look, I'm in the thick of it. I have an idea what sells and what does not. When every film you do requires a miminum return it's important to find the common ground between the marketplace and the art. A studio can produce a $100 million piece of crap and that doesn't really effect their bottom line; they obviously can take a lot more risks.

But your notion of "Just make a great original film" is noble and romantic, but just doesn't hold true. I'm sorry to be a cynic, but there are plenty of bad movies out there that make hundreds of millions of dollars, and plenty of Sundance winners that never find distribution. Sure, there are the lottery winners (CLERKS, BLAIR WITCH, to name a couple), but you have to dismiss those as, well, lottery winners. Just because someone wins the Powerball, doesn't mean that 1) They deserve it and B) Everyone is going to win.

One of my "original" films, JANE WHITE IS SICK & TWISTED, won over 2 dozen top festival awards; was on a few critics top 10 films of the year, got major critical acclain; was developed by a major network to be a series, and received major distribution. To date, I've seen about $2,000. Gross, not net. Now, I'm not ashamed film, in fact, the opposite. But there was just no audience for this kind of "original" movie.

I can also tell you that because my studio has released over 200 arthouse films that won many awards...etc., etc., etc...they never made any of the filmmakers a profit. And these were amazing, original, glorious, "proud-to-be-a-filmmaker" kind of films. But, you say, maybe we suck as distributors. Fair enough...but rest assured that we were the only ones that picked up these original films. They were all turned down by all of the majors before they came to us -- an unknown distibution company at the time. These filmmakers were hoping for any kind of distribution.

I once read that there are over 2,000 features made every year. Out of those, only 5% ever find distribution, out of that only a small amount ever find an audience. Do the math. Most of these films made are "original." Most of these films are made by putting the filmmakers savings in jeopardy -- or losing money of their family and friends.

A friend made a film out of college, and her parents sold their restaurant chain and put in their retirement cash to see their daughters dream come true...and it did. It was a great film. A real remarkable film. They lost everything. That was 15 years ago and they still have no distribution.

And lastly, "A Film by...." is usually put on by the distributor because they feel that by highlighting the directors name, like putting a known actor on the art, will increase the sales. It's usually not dictated by the director unless its in their contract. For The Asylum we usually put that on the cover if the above is true and/or the writer and the director are the same person since they really are in control of the creative content of the movie.

Sorry, I'm rambling...it's the coffee...

[–] whiteyfiskman 18 years ago

I guess I misused the word 'work' when I said it takes no work or talent to do the tie in. I know it takes countless man-hours, blood and sweat to make a film during production and post, like you I'm in the "thick" of it also. But what I meant by work is that it doesn't take any mental work in the beginning because you are already using someone else's idea. And to me, coming up with initial idea is one of the hardest parts of filmmaking because everything after that is built upon the initial foundation of that idea. I still stand by the no talent though, that’s the way I am. I wouldn’t even call those 20 hour days ‘work’ either, because every movie I’ve worked on it just felt great to do it no matter how hard it was or how long the day got because it is always the best experience I will have.

And I guess I kind of shuddered when you said you know what sells and what doesn’t because like you said the tie-in’s seem to be selling better but that’s shooting fish in a barrel. Let’s see The Da Vinci Code is coming out this summer it will have hundreds of millions of dollars behind it, everybody knows about it, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding so let’s make a Da Vinci Treasure.

While you may say that my notions are romantic and noble about filmaking, I don't think you can say they just don't hold true, because there are dozens of cases where it is true. So it doesn’t happen every time someone puts everything they have into a film, I wouldn’t just give up and start doing studio tie-ins just so I can make more money and reach audiences by taking the easy way out. You say there are plenty of Sundance movies that never find distribution, but there are plenty that do. And I wouldn't compare that to the effort it takes of making a film to effort it takes to win the lottery because like you said I’m sure the people who worked on the film wouldn’t like hearing that their film didn’t always deserve the distribution deal or not.

I like how you say you aren’t ashamed of the Jane White movie, because obviously it turned out for the best for and led to more deals and more attention from critics. And I hope you get remembered for doing those kind of films rather than the studio tie-ins. I never said you guys suck as distributors and I'm sorry if it came off like that. And I’m sorry to hear that your friend hasn’t seen any gross after that big of a risk.

2000 feature movies are made, and 5% find distribution. I'd have to disagree with that take, or wherever you read it. Simply because 5% of 2000 is 100 and there are certainly more than 100 movies released nation wide a year and that’s just from the major studios not counting independents, international films, or the dozens that find audiences on video. But out of the hundreds of movies released a year not all of them are going to see a profit; good ones, bad ones, small budget, big budget, so why not take that risk and make something that’s true every time.

I guess I’ll always compare the studio tie/remake/adaptation to finding one of Hemmingway’s lost novels. Sure you found it and it could make you famous if you released it as yours but would it be the right thing to do? Would it really be yours?

I think it’s great to talk like this and really get a different view to how filmmaking should be done.

By the way what is your highest grossing film to date, how much did it make?

[–] DirectorDave 18 years ago

WAR OF THE WORLDS, a tie-in, was my most critically successful film that I made and the highest grossing. JANE WHITE was the least grossing film I ever made -- but still well reviewed. What about you, whitneyfiskman? What was your highest grossing film to date?

[–] warren-1976 18 years ago

Not to suddenly but in on the conversation... but I just wanted to say, it's great to see a film's actual director chatting about his work! :-D I think its highly admirable, and I rather enjoyed WOTW! Not a bad film at all! :-D

[–] creativearts_sa 18 years ago

hmm.

I caught this for the first time today on SciFi and yeah, I started off leaning towards Whitney's view on the originality issue. But I'll be damned if it didn't win me over. Yeah, it was a blatant tie in but I probably wouldn't have tuned in if it wasn't. And now I found myself on IMDB searching for other movies by DML to put on my list. That's gotta be a good enough reason for the tie-ins in the first place.

-Freddy
http://www.LopezStudios.com

[–] DirectorDave 18 years ago

Wow! Thanks. I'm proud of WAR, and a handful of other films I directed. JANE WHITE is very different, but a blast to make. As a producer, well...there's a lot to chose from. I like what Leigh Scott did on 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT in particular -- so I'd recommend to check that out.

Again, thanks for chiming in. Good or bad, it's nice to talk to a fan of film (and tv).

[–] AtrusDent007 18 years ago

I always thought it was a coincidence that this movie was made the same year as the Tom Cruise one. Then I saw your list of movies. For a moment I was infuriated. Then I realised how truely awesome all that was. Good job. I'm gonna have to check out some more of your movies.

[–] mikewarns 17 years ago

You should be proud. It was very nicely done. The "advantage" of a lower budget is that you are forced to work on character rather than spectacle and you did nicely with that. It helps that C Thomas Howell has grown into a pretty good actor; even his gauntness from his surgery helped his character. It was a surprisingly satisfying movie.

[–] whiteyfiskman 18 years ago

Sorry not to reply right away, it's been pretty busy with school starting. That's kind of weird question to ask me. Let's see I haven't had the opportunity to produce or direct any feature length movies yet. I did produce/film a short political documentary that screened prior to a feature length one so if we would count some of that box office maybe $200. But I wouldn't since they were probably there to see the other movie, but I was still happy that a packed house saw it. We were financed through the university so we didn't see any money or anything. The highest grossing movie I've worked on though is Mr. 3000 but The Last Kiss, which I also worked on, just opened I don't think it will pass it though. And I did question those producers, which probably isn't good for my future career, about doing the re-make and they unloaded the usual BS about to me on how its a universal theme, and they were making it for a different audience.

[–] brig13 17 years ago

I feel that if a small studio offered Whiteyfiskman a chance to make a knockoff of something he would. That's how we get choices in this world. Benchley ripped of Moby Dick for Jaws. Lucas ripped off some old Japanese fantasy for Star Wars. Sprite ripped off 7 up. And so on. I like being given the choice. Maybe one goes places the other didn't. Just a thought.

"That go*%amned Finkelstein sh!t kid!" - Up In Smoke

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rick-deckard45 17 years ago

Hey Dave how do you sleep at night!!! Ripping off other studio ideas with cheap knockoffs! How did you get your start in the business by going into theaters with a camcorder and bootlegging films?

Give the guy a break, *beep* They have some creativity in them. How do you sleep at night?(!!!) Ridiculing other (more successful) people in order to make yourself seem better?

Anyway, I got this version of War of the Worlds off of Ebay, and I loved it. Only bit I didn't like was during the big attack before Howell finds his brother, there were all these people conveniently stopping so acid could get spat on them.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] guitar_chick133 16 years ago

is this for real? is DirectorDave really the actual director??? if so then i guess I've just been on to many message boards where people like to lie. I don't trust anyone on the internet anymore. lol.

"Be kind to me or treat me mean.I'll make the most of it,I'm an extrodinary machine."
I am a natural born actress!!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DirectorDave 16 years ago

Yep. It's me.

How can I prove it? Uhm, my wife thinks it me. My kids, don't. Hmmm...back to square one. I look like me?
Hey, if you want... we can settle this by having a nice, spirited conversation on myspace:

www.myspace.com/directordave.

(yeah, I know myspace is soooooo last year...but I've been busy...)

-DirectorDave

[–] Sic Coyote 16 years ago

Just breezed through WOTW.(may watch it properly sometime)

It looks like a well made film for the budget.

I just think the energy and work could have gone into something other than a retread on a well trodden story.(I like Jeff Wayne's one myself)

But as you said it's a harder sell, and it's a business. I don't know what the answer is and I'm sure it's harder than ever now to turn a profit.

I wouldn't turn down the opportunity to work on a movie even if it was hitching a ride on a bigger one. I just might think twice about watching it.

Maybe blame the millions of idiots who don't appreciate non-UniparromaxBros films.

Snakes on a Train was kind of entertaining though, in a very different way to Plane.

[–] BB-15 16 years ago

First, due to the economics of filmmaking many people have gotten their start in making exploitation/"B" films and continue to be employed because of that genre. The 'king of "B" movies', Roger Corman, gave a career start to many people who later became famous in the film industry including; Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Peter Bogdanovich, Jonathan Demme, Gale Anne Hurd, James Cameron, and so on. So, there is no shame in working in exploitation/"B" movies.

Second, I saw the David Latt version of War of the Worlds on the sci-fi channel and thoroughly enjoyed it.
- For those of us who appreciate character development, it is the best movie version and has a feel closest to the book.
- And in comparing Latt's movie with the Spielberg version, Latt's film is also better in terms of the logic of the plot. This again is only important for those who care about that kind of thing which I do.

It has been a privilege to have read the comments by the filmmaker David Latt in this thread. He and his cast and crew did a great job with War of the Worlds and I wish him the best of luck with his future projects.

BB ;-)

it's just in my humble opinion - imho -

[–] edenney01 11 years ago

This is a very old thread, but that's often the case once a movie has been out for several years. Never the less after accidentally watching this low budget movie on cable, believing I was going to be watching the big budget movie of the same name (like everybody else), I wanted to chime in.

However good the acting or directing might have been (or not), it was just obliterated by the abhorrent visual effects, which were among the worst of ANY movie produced in the last 30 years imho. I kept thinking to myself how much this reminded me of an old Ed Wood film, and anybody who's familiar with Ed Wood's "work" knows that's hardly a compliment (although there are some in this day and age that might actually consider it to be). Seriously, I've seen much better effects in many of the movies made in the 1930's. This would definitely have been a perfect fit for Science Fiction Theater 2000.

Personally I felt bad for C. Thomas Howell having to act in such a low budget movie, it's a sad commentary on the state of his career. Not that he's made any really decent movies in the last 20 years that I've seen at least. I just can't imagine him not being utterly and completely embarrassed. Most of the other actors were nobodies, with the exception of a B or C list actor or two, and they'll probably be happy just to be working (and there's nothing wrong with that).

On the subject of the budget, a movie certainly doesn't have to have a budget in the 100's, 10's, or even millions of dollars to be great, not by a long shot. Nor does it have to have a slate of A-list actors (although everybody knows it help a LOT to have a least one big name for marketing purposes). However there's certainly a minimum budget that's required, particularly for a sci-fi movie that demands the use of special effects, and if a movie doesn't have a sufficient budget so as not to be laughable then it just shouldn't be produced. This was clearly one of those movies.

You know a sci-fi movie's budget is in trouble when most of the shots are extreme close ups of the actors and their surroundings. In the case of this movie there were a whole lot of very long close-ups of actors that were supposedly looking at an alien or some other special effect that they couldn't afford to actually show the audience. A great example is at the end when CTH walks up to one of the alien pods and begs for it to kill him, after which the pod spontaneously collapses. Nearly the entire scene consists of very long shots of CTH looking in the general direction of the camera at the alien pod, except for a couple VERY brief glimpses of the pod itself. Once you see those glimpses it's completely clear why that's all you get to see lol. I'm not even going to describe how ridiculous it looked, but it reminded me of Bella Lugosi writhing around in a puddle with a rubber Octopus in an aforementioned Ed Wood movie.

As far as the tie-ins with the blockbuster movies to try and ride their big budget marketing wave, I think it's an innovative way to maximize your audience and your revenue. However I wouldn't respect anybody that's producing a film solely for that purpose. If somebody has a strong desire to produce their own version a well known book or previously released movie, and they're not just throwing garbage on the screen in record time for the sole purpose of scamming people who think they're watching or renting the big budget movie, then more power to them.

[–] bureau203 8 years ago

I've never seen an Asylum film that was not laughably, cringe-inducingly bad. Bad like, actors looking directly at the camera, terrible acting, awful CGI... these are like caricatures of bad movies, they're so bad. I'd be amazed if I found out they ever took more than two takes of any scene.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]