MovieChat Forums > When Worlds Collide (1951) Discussion > Just Watched It

Just Watched It

posted 4 years ago by Gary O. (1009)
8 replies | jump to latest

Once more and it was a fair movie. The main disappointment was that it deviated from the book in ways that I didn't think were necessary or desirable. An example of this would be that there was one Ark built in the film and in the book, there were two. The outcome of Tony and Dave's rivalry over Joyce (Eve in the book) was different as well. The two men got along well, and there was no almost-fistfight between them. Tony was a stockbroker in the book and not a doctor.

There was no lottery in the book, and the ship of escape was atomic-powered.

I don't think that these changes, most of them admittedly fairly minor, were necessary or helpful.

This is one of the few films that need a re-make. There should be an adaptation of the sequel, 'After Worlds Collide'.

[–] thingmakersback (1369) 4 years ago

I'm quite fond of the novel and the sequel. I have thought for a long while now that When Worlds Collide would make a great series. You could get two seasons out of the first book, with the launch of the arks at the end of the second season or even the third. If it was still a success, you could continue with the sequel. The multiple arks (In the novels there were several being built and at least three landed successfully in After Worlds Collide) provide the potential for group conflict on the new world. There is also the possibility, in After Worlds Collide, that some surviving remnant of the ancient alien culture that inhabited the strange domed cities on the new world might still exist.
Possible setup.
Season One: The threat is revealed and, perhaps, a government conspiracy to conceal it has to be broken. The arks are begun.
Season Two: The arks are being prepared. Society in an uproar. Religious wars. Wars to take resources to build arks. The first body, Bronson Alpha, passes and the catastrophe is apocalyptic...
Season Three: In the ruins of the world, the arks are still being prepared. One or more fail before launch, overwhelmed by mob violence or nuclear accident. The whole season is an accelerating countdown to the launch. And - Worlds Collide.
Season Four: The arks reach Beta. Is the planet actually going to assume a stable orbit? Are the survivors of the various arks going to cooperate? Discovery of the domed cities...
Season Five: ?

[–] Gary O. (1009) 4 years ago

That's an interesting idea, and if it were made, I'd certainly watch it, but if it is ever done, I'd think two seasons max. The story is not all that long so two seasons will suffice.

Should the political orientation of the After Worlds Collide bad guys continue as Marxists or should they be members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? Personally, I'm getting way tired of the grossly over-used VRWC tripe, and favor having them as Marxists, just like in the novel.

[–] thingmakersback (1369) 4 years ago

I really like the idea of expanding the story and the ONLY reason I would consider shortening the run to as few as two or three seasons would be the manifest lack of apocalyptic material in season one... But I'm fairly certain some explosions of nuclear magnitude could accompany the revelation of the threat. Preemptive strikes by the governments in collusion to protect their nascent ark programs.
The politics have to be updated, but I'm afraid anything realistic might not be acceptable... And the simple division between evil commies and enlightened capitalists just isn't believable. Really the great powers in the world today don't have easily defined ideologies. China is a monolith that doesn't espouse communism but hasn't changed much from it. Russia is all about nationalism... And, what are we? Hell if I know. The most realistic answer is to depict the big three in conflict that is not actually ideological and evil is not the enemy, self-interest is - And that's something we all share. I see religious conflicts as secondary; Islamist terrorist "spoilers", fragmented Christian Identity loons similarly and, the Middle East, India and Indonesia pretty much on fire.
In the US, current racial identity and so on should be on display as politicians curry favor by trying to place quotas of people on arks... Countering that, it would be easy to go far in the direction of Ayn Rand with radical Libertarians as the heroes, and I'd like to avoid that.

[–] Gary O. (1009) 4 years ago

I still think that idea advanced in the book would work, that of the villains as Marxists. In my own novel, I portray the villains as human beings but they are still fanatical Marxist idealists who sincerely want the classless society as envisioned by Marx and Engels. They want what they see as the best system (fair, with no exploitation of the proletariat by the ruling class) and are willing to go to great lengths to achieve this. The problem is that they kill large numbers of the proletariat that they love so much in order to accomplish this.

The villains should be portrayed in a manner that is not one-dimensional, that is to say, 100% evil vs. 100% good, which, if I am reading between the lines of your post correctly, is one of your concerns.

...the simple division between evil commies and enlightened capitalists just isn't believable.

[–] thingmakersback (1369) 4 years ago

Well, I just favor trying to make the larger factions in the story mirror the current political situation. Neither Russia nor China fit the Marxist role and each government, authoritarian as it is, would likely monopolize resources and pick ark crews with their national interests at heart. The US, Europe and a coalition of other Asian states would likely be more internally factionalized and possibly less efficient. I don't think villains are the issue; just lots of people competing for the same goal.
Everywhere there would be people in power trying to save their own families and those of their friends and followers, no matter what political system they live under. I'm sure that where there is more freedom, Elon Musk and other, similar critters, would be mounting private arks unless the governments clamped down to concentrate resources on their own projects. It might be best to have the main point of view in one of these private ark projects, with all of the national governments, coalitions and "spoilers" as the closest thing to villains, seen from their viewpoint. Things could be pretty horrible even before the first global catastrophe. I would have to sort of game-it-out in my head with a timeline to figure what feels most real and balance it against what seems dramatically appropriate.

[–] huwdj (4566) 4 years ago

Always liked this film - a childhood favourite and I re-watch the DVD every now and then. But it didn't realize there were books (When Worlds Collide (1933) and After Worlds Collide (1934) co-written by Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer) so that's something to add to the lists.

[–] Gary O. (1009) 4 years ago

Try Barnes & Noble. That's where I got one of my copies. The book is in print from the U of Nebraska Press. Remember, they were written in the 1930s so don't expect modern ideas of political correctness.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 4 years ago

There was a remake planned for a while. I think either Stephen Sommers or Steven Spielberg was attached to it.