# War of the World (1953) and stuff



## Al Jackson (Aug 9, 2018)

The George Pal , 1953, version of Well's *War of the Worlds* is a smart film. It keys off, kinda-sorta, the other Well's radio sensation. 
The film is only, wow, 85 min. long! Crisply directed by Byron Haskin This is the best paced alien invasion film ever made. I mean is a bolder going down hill at a rapid pace. A smart modernization by screenwriter Barre Lyndon it essentially uses the backbone of H G Wells novel , it is really the same story cleverly rejigged. Some scenes in this film are gems , Gene Berry and Ann Robinson trapped in a demolished house with Martians prowling, l always loved Les Tremayne's chalk talk about Martian tactics very crisp! The European scientists , a little off center characters, a vestige of World War II.
Special Effects are a wonder for 1953. This is a fun film that outclasses Stephen Spielberg's version by miles (and that was not a bad movie).

If you can find a DVD copy it will probably have two commentary tracks. One by Ann Robinson and Gene Berry. Gene Berry sound's drunk! Ann Robinson has her hands full trying to keep Gene from talking about other movies he has made , it actually kind of funny.

The real prize on the DVD is the 2nd track. The commentary track by SF film historian Bill Warren and collector Bob Burns is a gem, Joe Dantie is there too but does not contribute much. Warren and Burns have more insight into the film than almost anyone you could think of.

One take away is Bill Warren's question about the 1950s science fiction film. From about 1950 to 1956 there were some really good SF films, that is from Destination Moon to Forbidden planet. There was some crap Z movies too. Warren and Burns observe there is no good reason why the SciFi film was taken over by everything from Queen of Outer Space to Plan 9 From Outer Space. ( I remember when MST3K did Fire Maidens the robots revolting over how boring this Z movies was!) The success of the awful Z SciFi film is the 1950s is still a bit of a mystery.


----------



## Victoria Silverwolf (Aug 10, 2018)

Well, one can speculate that they were very cheap to make, and thus almost guaranteed to make a profit, in the days when teenagers had cars and enough money to fill drive-ins, no matter what might be playing.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity (Aug 10, 2018)

Victoria Silverwolf said:


> Well, one can speculate that they were very cheap to make, and thus almost guaranteed to make a profit, in the days when teenagers had cars and enough money to fill drive-ins, no matter what might be playing.



You nailed it. Most of the garbage sf flicks were from Universal International. They made really cool trailers that were usually better than the movie. This got the kids into the drive-in when the movie showed up, then bad word of mouth would get around and the reels would quickly move on to the next town. Universal International hit this formula repeatedly, and it worked well starting in the late 50s into the early 60s.

Having called it garbage, I have to admit I have a twisted sense of humor, so I love watching most of it and own quite a lot of it. Of course, the Pal color epics and a few others are a different category. Even many of the b&w films from the early 50s were a cut above the flood that came later.


----------



## Al Jackson (Aug 10, 2018)

Victoria Silverwolf said:


> Well, one can speculate that they were very cheap to make, and thus almost guaranteed to make a profit, in the days when teenagers had cars and enough money to fill drive-ins, no matter what might be playing.



It is interesting that they made enough money to make it worthwhile , in the 50s there were a shortage of movies for the number of movie theaters that existed. I was going to school in San Antonio in 1959 , SA had 5 big movie palaces downtown. They were so short on films that I saw *Plan 9 from Outer Space* at the Texan , a huge beautiful theater, seated 3000 people , I think. Even then Plan 9 was doubled billed with something awful. Still can't imagine those Z films where making that much money.
I think Warren and Burn's real question was why did good SF vanish so utterly after 1956. I mean *Forbidden Planet* was not a block buster but it did well enough. In fact there was no other real *Space Opera *until 10 years later with Star Trek.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity (Aug 10, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> I think Warren and Burn's real question was why did good SF vanish so utterly after 1956. I mean *Forbidden Planet* was not a block buster but it did well enough.



_Forbidden Planet_ was MGM's direct response to Disney's _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_. That type of studio pride used to be common, but the 50s saw the continued demise of the old studio system. I think that's the main factor.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Aug 10, 2018)

I love these old films, the good and the bad. I have a thought on one other aspect of this...why the cheapo movies were so prevalent, especially in the 50s.   

They were, as mentioned, cheap, and fast to make (the faster the cheaper). Many movie studios controlled product and distribution back then; they owned their own chains of theaters. And as a child of the 60s in the States, I still remember double feature horror/SF bills; I'm sure they were even more common in the 50s, before TV really damaged the movies.

So, in the 50s, movie studios could really grab a pretty chunk of change with these films, by grabbing hold of a neighborhood's children for 3-4 hours on the weekends, and in the summer. I remember even in the 60s, the concession stand prices were really high...must have been true in the 50s too. So, you get a bunch of kids paying for a double feature...then eating popcorn, soda, and candy for four hours, there must have been a fortune there for the taking for the studios. Even independent theaters must have been able to make good money off of the concessions, on Z-grade films for kids, that must have been very cheap to rent from studios. And some of the films came from Z-grade studios - even cheaper still!

I remember too that we never really noticed the quality of the films...I remember seeing _Mission Mars _in 1968 at a theater in Florida, and thinking it was the greatest movie ever made (and almost as good as _Lost in Space, _or_ Star Trek_!). You were hanging out with your best friends, eating popcorn watching a SF classic, and after the movie you'd go to the beach. We really weren't too critical. 

Any-who, the movies were cheap spectacle; they got kids out of their parents' hair, and they made the studios and the theaters a fair chunk of money for awhile; and the kids were ecstatic to see films their parents did not understand. How could these films not be mass produced?


----------



## KGeo777 (Aug 10, 2018)

The Pal film has some great moments like the opening of the cylinder and the army attack. As much as I like the tripods, the floating machines with the forcefield work. Even the scratch film lasers were really cool.

 Disney-United Artists' 20 000 Leagues showed that a big budget fantasy film could attract audiences but it would be a while before the big studios in Hollywood truly paid attention to crowd-pleasing genres. Not surprising FOX would lead the way among them (Fantastic Voyage-One Million Years BC-Planet of the Apes) since they had done the comic strip  Prince Valiant  which shares a lot in common with Star Wars.

The big studios got stagnant after 1960. It was AIP-Hammer-Toho--others that were leading the way in genre film with little money.  Innovations in film processing meant more people could get into the business and make films on the cheap--and there was always some distribution available-at least until home video.


----------



## Al Jackson (Aug 10, 2018)

Cat's Cradle said:


> I
> 
> Any-who, the movies were cheap spectacle; they got kids out of their parents' hair, and they made the studios and the theaters a fair chunk of money for awhile; and the kids were ecstatic to see films their parents did not understand. How could these films not be mass produced?



Have you ever seen *Fire Madiens from Outer Space*? (1956) 
That was industrial strength ennui  when I was 16 (in 1956). As I mentioned before MST3K was driven to distraction by it.
About the only good thing about the Z film from the 50s is how good fodder it made for Mystery Science Theater 3000. I do remember that me and my teenage friends having fun with stupid movies in the 50 however not as well as how MST3K did it. The years when founder ,Joel Hodgson. of MST3K were there are the best. Joel and the robots made mince meat out of stupid Z movies. I got a big laugh of their shredding Burt I Gordon's 'Colossal Man' movies, or most anything Bert I Gordon did.

MST3K raised my awareness of some bad stuff in films I had remembered as being fair SF films.
They did an insightful number of *This Island Earth* and* Rocket Ship XM* , those guys were sharp.

The one line criticism  of* From Hell It Came *..... and to hell it can go..... still stands!


----------



## Al Jackson (Aug 10, 2018)

KGeo777 said:


> Disney-United Artists' 20 000 Leagues showed that a big budget fantasy film could attract audiences but it would be a while before the big studios in Hollywood truly paid attention to crowd-pleasing genres. Not surprising FOX would lead the way among them (Fantastic Voyage-One Million Years BC-Planet of the Apes) since they had done the comic strip  Prince Valiant  which shares a lot in common with Star Wars.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> *20,000 Leagues Under the Sea *came out in 1954 the year after* War of the Worlds*. That was a cracker jack version of the Verne story and did well enough box office. Yet Disney did not follow up with other Verne or Well stories. I think there was a failure of imagination on that. 20,000 Leagues is sort of a Steam Punk movie (maybe the first?) , at least it has a peculiar place among science fiction films.
> ...


----------



## KGeo777 (Aug 10, 2018)

Would have been interesting to see what Disney might have done with something like MASTER OF THE WORLD. The Vincent Price film is a favorite but soooo cheap. With a higher budget would have been grand. Also, seeing how Disney's technical guru Ub Iwerks was loaned out to Hitchcock for THE BIRDS, have to wonder what he would have done if tasked to do Martian tripods or aliens with an A budget in the late 50s early 60s.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 13, 2018)

I own the 1953 version on dvd . It's way better then the 2005 remake.


----------



## Al Jackson (Aug 16, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> I own the 1953 version on dvd . It's way better then the 2005 remake.



The BBC is doing a In-Period War of the Worlds.

The War Of The Worlds: First Look at new BBC Adaptation

That should be interesting.

 Timothy Hines made a in-period War of the Worlds , but only had money up front for about a quarter of the movie , hoping when filming to get more. I just looks amateurish and awful. I have only seen parts of it.

The 2005 Spielberg was an awkward 'modernization' , it almost seem that Spielberg's mind was elsewhere , maybe it was , because he next made Munich which was a fine film.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 16, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> The BBC is doing a In-Period War of the Worlds.
> 
> The War Of The Worlds: First Look at new BBC Adaptation
> 
> ...



If its done by the BBC  it will be a very good production.


----------



## KGeo777 (Aug 16, 2018)

I have seen two retro versions of the story done for tv. One was for a series called The Great Books (narrated by Donald Sutherland with enthusiastic commentary from Brian Aldiss). They had montage clips of WW 1 and added very crude CGI tripods (this was the mid 1990s). Neat idea though.

The other was a few years ago-done for Canadian tv. Much more sophisticated CGI, with one scene I particularly liked--a Black and White  autopsy sequence of a martian corpse being dissected. 

The Spielberg movie--I thought the tripods themselves were creepy with a neat sound effect for them, but the rest of it, not so much.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 18, 2018)

KGeo777 said:


> Would have been interesting to see what Disney might have done with something like MASTER OF THE WORLD. The Vincent Price film is a favorite but soooo cheap. With a higher budget would have been grand. Also, seeing how Disney's technical guru Ub Iwerks was loaned out to Hitchcock for THE BIRDS, have to wonder what he would have done if tasked to do Martian tripods or aliens with an A budget in the late 50s early 60s.



They used alot stock footage from different films, some of which didn't match the historical period.  Its still an enjoyable film.

If they did a big budget remake , I would like to see some like Joe Johnson do the film .


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 8, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> The BBC is doing a In-Period War of the Worlds.
> 
> The War Of The Worlds: First Look at new BBC Adaptation
> 
> ...



The biggest missed opportunity was the 1988 War of the World tv series. That show had huge possibilities , but they messed it up in season 1 an season 2 was a complete mess.


----------



## Al Jackson (Sep 8, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> The biggest missed opportunity was the 1988 War of the World tv series. That show had huge possibilities , but they messed it up in season 1 an season 2 was a complete mess.


That show had an insane conceit. It pretended that events in the 1953 War of the Worlds actually happened!
(That puts in into an alternate universe.)  
Ok, but they did not seem to know what to do with the premise. Dead Martians were keep in barrels? 
They have psi powers to take over people.
Next season they change the whole concept into something that made no sense at all!
Funny thing in the end crawl credits no credit is given to H G Wells!!!!


----------



## KGeo777 (Sep 8, 2018)

LOL I remember that 80s show. Big disappointment.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 8, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> That show had an insane conceit. It pretended that events in the 1953 War of the Worlds actually happened!
> (That puts in into an alternate universe.)
> Ok, but they did not seem to know what to do with the premise. Dead Martians were keep in barrels?
> They have psi powers to take over people.
> ...



It could have been like the X Files.


----------



## reiver33 (Sep 8, 2018)

The alien weapons fire from the 1953 film - and reused in the 1988 series - still makes me shiver.

The 1953 scene where the first 'tripods' rise from the crater, the power 'thrums', and then the death ray - for me that's classic cinema.


----------



## Al Jackson (Sep 8, 2018)

reiver33 said:


> The alien weapons fire from the 1953 film - and reused in the 1988 series - still makes me shiver.
> 
> The 1953 scene where the first 'tripods' rise from the crater, the power 'thrums', and then the death ray - for me that's classic cinema.



The 1953 version is a smart film. A smooth transfer to modern times (1953!).  Barré Lyndon's screenplay is snappy with good dialog and Byron Haskin's direction is almost Howard Hawk's like , brisk pace , only 83 min. long! It is really best shoot-em-up alien invasion movie I know of.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 8, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> The 1953 version is a smart film. A smooth transfer to modern times (1953!).  Barré Lyndon's screenplay is snappy with good dialog and Byron Haskin's direction is almost Howard Hawk's like , brisk pace , only 83 min. long! It is really best shoot-em-up alien invasion movie I know of.



The 1953 version of War of the Worlds still looks pretty good. 

The 1964 film *Robinson Crusoe on Mars *also directed by Bryan Haskin  reused the Martian War machines albeit without the heat ray stalk on the top and painted white .  They also used used of the same sound effects too.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 30, 2018)

I always remember that  scene in 1953 film in  the farm house with the Martian.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 30, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> The 1953 version is a smart film. A smooth transfer to modern times (1953!).  Barré Lyndon's screenplay is snappy with good dialog and Byron Haskin's direction is almost Howard Hawk's like , brisk pace , only 83 min. long! It is really best shoot-em-up alien invasion movie I know of.



I could be mistaken , but wasn't Howard Hawkes one of the producers of the 1951 version of *The Thing*?


----------



## Al Jackson (Oct 1, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> I could be mistaken , but wasn't Howard Hawkes one of the producers of the 1951 version of *The Thing*?



Story goes that Hawks did let the director of that film do the directing  but so heavily  supervised that the movie was mostly directed by Hawks. I shows!


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 6, 2018)

Al Jackson said:


> Story goes that Hawks did let the director of that film do the directing  but so heavily  supervised that the movie was mostly directed by Hawks. I shows!



You will notice that often all the characters are talking at the same time. A Hawks characteristic.


----------



## Al Jackson (Oct 13, 2018)

I also like how the dialog is so crisp and to the point. Like the characters know what's going on , no dead space.
The only female character is no screaming mimi , she speaks directly and is part of the action, unusual for the period.


----------



## reiver33 (Oct 14, 2018)

She’s no Laura Croft though...


----------



## Jeffbert (Nov 13, 2018)

KGeo777 said:


> Would have been interesting to see what Disney might have done with something like MASTER OF THE WORLD. The Vincent Price film is a favorite but soooo cheap. With a higher budget would have been grand. Also, seeing how Disney's technical guru Ub Iwerks was loaned out to Hitchcock for THE BIRDS, have to wonder what he would have done if tasked to do Martian tripods or aliens with an A budget in the late 50s early 60s.


This was always one of my favorite films as a kid. the afternoon movie on the local channel 7 (don't know if it was a network or syndicated feature) played it frequently. I especially liked the part where Robur hangs the 'proper' gentleman out the bottom, & Bronson's character demands to be lowered also. The gentleman, who would never dream of lying to his captor, would end up dead if not for CB's intercession. They cobbled this film together from both *Master of the world* & *Robur the Conqueror*. Both are well worth reading.

To the topic: WOW was a great read, & while the 1953 version was the definitive one, there were elements that were omitted, but featured in the remake. Offhand, I do not recall the massed throng of people trying to escape to safety was in the 1953, but quite sure the alien plants were not. It seems to me, though the remake may have put too much emphasis of special effects, & not enough on the story.


----------



## Al Jackson (Nov 16, 2018)

Jeffbert said:


> This was always one of my favorite films as a kid. the afternoon movie on the local channel 7 (don't know if it was a network or syndicated feature) played it frequently. I especially liked the part where Robur hangs the 'proper' gentleman out the bottom, & Bronson's character demands to be lowered also. The gentleman, who would never dream of lying to his captor, would end up dead if not for CB's intercession. They cobbled this film together from both *Master of the world* & *Robur the Conqueror*. Both are well worth reading.
> 
> To the topic: WOW was a great read, & while the 1953 version was the definitive one, there were elements that were omitted, but featured in the remake. Offhand, I do not recall the massed throng of people trying to escape to safety was in the 1953, but quite sure the alien plants were not. It seems to me, though the remake may have put too much emphasis of special effects, & not enough on the story.



I am curious to see the new BBC production which will be done in period. The BBC usually does a good job with their TV productions.


----------

