PDA

View Full Version : war of the worlds



flashgordon1952
2005-Jul-05, 05:02 PM
okay the film critics slated the film but then they dont really like spielberg much? But what if it was true how ready are we to fight back a alien invader. and what happened to reagans STAR WARS . weapons in orbit. maybe i am a bit paronoid on the subject .
chris :unsure:

antoniseb
2005-Jul-05, 06:01 PM
There were two copies of this thread, I deleted the older one.

Concerning the actual film, I thought it was visually compelling, but I didn't think that it made real sense to translate this film from the slow-information 1890's to the early 21st century. It should not be seen as a call to action.

Your concerns about how prepared we are for alien invaders seems odd. If there were an alien invader, what could we do? Perhaps a more interesting question is this: Once we have the technology to go to other Solar Systems, how should we best prepare to invade. What kinds of defenses will they have to stop us?

I suspect that the answer is, that for reasons expressed in WotW, we will mostly prefer to send robotic missions to lifeless Solar Systems.

Planetwatcher
2005-Jul-05, 06:21 PM
{I suspect that the answer is, that for reasons expressed in WotW, we will mostly prefer to send robotic missions to lifeless Solar Systems.}

Who is WotW? And what systems do we know of that is NOT lifeless?

aeolus
2005-Jul-05, 10:45 PM
I thought the movie was bad. Very, very bad. It had great effects, but I had problems with the directing/acting/story/everything-except-the-effects.

antoniseb
2005-Jul-05, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Planetwatcher@Jul 5 2005, 06:21 PM
Who is WotW? And what systems do we know of that is NOT lifeless?
WotW is an abbreviation for the movie this thread is about.
As to systems that are or are not lifeless, I'm guessing that most are lifeless (or at most, have some extremophile bacteria), but we can't know for sure until we examine them more closely. What system do you know of that is certainly lifeless?

Ola D.
2005-Jul-06, 10:16 PM
I watched the movie 2 days ago, and yes I agree it was bad.

Speaking of myself, good effects, but everything other than that was unsatisfying compared to the huge promoting campaign it had. I found the story plot very typical and predictable. It wasn't that exciting.

Was it a call for action? Nope, I didn't feel that this was the message of the movie. The main point the whole movie tried to make was that humans survived/will survive all through these years, but it didn't show specifically how in the future. In my opinion, the last message the guy spoke was direct and unnecessary.

antoniseb
2005-Jul-07, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Ola D.@Jul 6 2005, 10:16 PM
everything other than that was unsatisfying compared to the huge promoting campaign it had.
Being very familiar with the various places in the movie, they didn't come across as similar to how they looked in the movie.

Here's Athens NY:

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php...hp?locIndex=130 (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=130)

Darrrius
2005-Jul-07, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by aeolus@Jul 5 2005, 10:45 PM
I thought the movie was bad. Very, very bad. It had great effects, but I had problems with the directing/acting/story/everything-except-the-effects.
I too was very dissapointed with the film for the above reasons. The origional was far better!

astromark
2005-Jul-08, 08:18 AM
I dont like to agree with you lot to often, I like to chalange ideas. This film was not up to the standard that has been set. The bar has been lifted since the origanal radio broadcast of this story back in 1958 or when ever... it was. Was it Orson Wells? Jeff Wayne did a remake with Richard Burton as the story's voice. The music was great. As for this Spielberg version; Its full of holes.
The trypods have been here for how long?
Why hadent we ever found one?
Lightning without thunder?,but what was all the noise then?
The EMP that knocked out all the cars. would also have fried the hand cam and the TV crews equipment. I wotched her insert a vidio tape,`magnetic tape`and play it. could not have worked after EMP
I know they needed to tell the story but sorry Its not good enough any more to make such blunders; We are demanding more.

aeolus
2005-Jul-08, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by astromark@Jul 8 2005, 08:18 AM

Why hadent we ever found one?
Lightning without thunder?,but what was all the noise then?
The EMP that knocked out all the cars. would also have fried the hand cam and the TV crews equipment. I wotched her insert a vidio tape,`magnetic tape`and play it. could not have worked after EMP

I was puzzled that if the big tripods had been there for millenia, that we would have found them by now. Even if they were buried deep deep down, seismology would have shown something.

The EMP puzzled me too, but I concluded a possible explanation relates to the mention of the solenoid in the car being fried. Maybe their "pulse" knowcked out all the magnetic solenoids, which would stop anything electric, but not battery-powered stuff 9there is a scene where theyre leaving the house, and it focses on him grabbing batteries, a possible message to the audience that "batteries still work".

I was in disbelief that the son survived the huge explosion, then somehow made it to Boston.

Finally, It was shocked when out of the thousands and thousands of people at the roadside diner, only 2 had brought their guns.

This is just the realism i have a problem with. Im not even getting into the acting and writing.

galaxygirl
2005-Jul-08, 04:07 PM
Post contains spoilers- well I guess all these posts do, but just in case...







I didn't understand the ending- why did all the aliens/tripods just die out?






*

StarLab
2005-Jul-08, 04:32 PM
Good point, GG. What confused me is how (spoiler) the birds were on the spacecrafts when they were supposed to have shields...I mean, there was no explanation for that. There were a lot of holes, as a Spielberg movie it was okay, but in a real-life sense it was pointlessly overdone. I mean, what are the chances that (spoiler) at the beginning Tom Cruise would be running from the first spacecraft, and it would follow him instead of the other people on the scene, yet when it shoots at him it happenned to hit whoever was next to him?

Tinaa
2005-Jul-08, 04:46 PM
In the book the martians caught a virus. They had no antibodies against the common cold - much like the Native Americans when the Europeans brought diseases with them. Don't know about the movie haven't seen it.

aeolus
2005-Jul-08, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by galaxygirl@Jul 8 2005, 04:07 PM
I didn't understand the ending- why did all the aliens/tripods just die out?

That's easily explained: They were smart and advanced enough to master interplanetary travel, hide under our noses for millions of years, take out all our electricity and leave us vulnerable, not to mention research our habits and lifestyles to develop a systematic way of destroying us all, but whoops! they forgot to read biology textbooks!!! Our blood has little microorganisms that they were vulnerable to. They succumbed to the same fate as the Native Americans did with Smallpox. That premise would have worked when the story first came out, but in this day in age, it's very weak.

BobbyD
2005-Jul-08, 10:19 PM
I loved the Movie!!The aliens were WAY TOO MUCH like the aliens in Independence Day!!I liked the older movie's creatures better!!! The newer stilt walkers/tripods were really scary...and very realistically done!!I wasn't sure why we needed to know about why the aliens 'drank' human blood???Who cares about Tom Cruise or his newfound religious beliefs.I didn't really pay attention to the characters....but I did enjoy seeing the tribute to the original movie with Gene Barry and Ann Robinson as Grandpa and Grandma at the shows' end!! I'll definitely see it again,and also purchase the DVD when it comes out!!It'll go well with my DVD of the original film!!! :ph34r:

ag1f
2005-Jul-08, 11:55 PM
It was really bad and I am a science fiction and fantasy buff.
One thing that was really strange was the ferry and what river it was across.
As far as I know there is no ferry across the Hudson or Connecticut rivers.

MarQ
2005-Jul-08, 11:59 PM
Thanks for saving me a $7 ticket and $15 trip to the snack bar. I can wait for the 2 for $5 rental.

chicagoastronomer
2005-Jul-09, 12:20 AM
War of the Worlds - II


I had some free time this afternoon and thought I would take in the remake of a good movie. I was less than enthralled.

It's a good movie, but it just doesn't hit the mark. It focuses on Cruise's character much too much and his personal family life. He's a divorced with kids that don't respect him. I just didn't care and it spends agonizing time explaining this to us.

The movie deviates somewhat from the original by the invaders rising up from the ground, instead of from space. Now, the Godzilla-like battle cry from the machines is cool and rather scary and the special effects are nice...very nice, but the interaction and battle between the machines and humans is just too little too short. It almost gets it, but is unable to maintain the suspense and total superiority of the invaders. He takes out a tripod with two hand grenades...now c'mon! The writing and dialog is also weak. What happened Spielberg?

Also, the Tim Robbins segment was totally not necessary, as it did not add to the plot, and I think it took away valuable time from the conflict. The little girl with her paranoia is ok, she's smart, but I think they could have used her better. And the son who wants to fight the aliens was boring and uninspiring. Just a punk kid.

This isn't a movie about man vs. alien. It's more about survival and getting out of the way of the designator rays, the tripods and fighting in keeping the family close. What short encounters we see in defending the planet are good, and wish we saw more. But it stays in the Boston area throughout, so we don't get a full Earth invasion feeling. No mention that the invaders are from Mars.

In the original, the main character is a professor, smart as a whip and able to figure things out. Here, the main guy is a blue collar worker who is frail and unsure of his footing most of the time. The breakdown of society is here too, but better demonstrated 50 years ago.

I think Spielberg is slipping. This could have been a great film, man against the invaders, but it ends with a whimper. It will probably entertain the easily amused, but for those of us who read the book and saw the original...it falls way short.

It's an "ok" flick and worth seeing, but catch the original as it's much better...even with the antiquated 1950's special effects.

124C41
2005-Jul-09, 02:30 AM
About ten minutes into the movie I was rooting for the aliens. The humans were just annoying. Drat the bugs!

Maggiew
2005-Jul-09, 02:53 AM
WofW was ok movie. BUT no one under 12 should see it in a theatre. The movie is LOUD, with scarey critters, and a terrifying portrayal of humans as violent, mindless creatures. Hmmmmmm
We saw it with about 30 people at an afternoon show.5-6 very young kids in with stupid parents who think it's OK to terrify thier kids, and then the parents will explain it all away. Uh huh.
Not in this world !! I never trusted my parents that much. Dinos still live under MY old house !!

bossman20081
2005-Jul-09, 05:37 AM
Wow, it seems I'm the only one who likes this movie here.

I thought this movie was excellent; it's special effects were astounding, the storyline was decent, and the acting was nothing less then I expected from Tom Cruise.

*Spoilers

Why did their shields go down?

astromark
2005-Jul-10, 07:01 AM
According to the story line,. The aliens were dieing and thier tripods were in trouble by the time the birds could smell the rotting flesh, notting the red vine was dead also.
I scrolled back through all this and noted that some body asked what was the point of showing the hero grabing fresh bats as he was leaving the house; Cival Defence common sence tells you to have fresh battary's for ya torch or radio.
I enjoyed seeing this film and feel that the story has dated with our improved specal effects making this movie could and should have been much better. They rushed it.Spoilling what could have been a great movie.

aeolus
2005-Jul-10, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by bossman20081@Jul 9 2005, 05:37 AM
Why did their shields go down?
lack of immunity to all the microbial critters in our blood, which they used.

ie, They caught a cold.

bossman20081
2005-Jul-11, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by aeolus+Jul 10 2005, 10:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeolus &#064; Jul 10 2005, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bossman20081@Jul 9 2005, 05:37 AM
Why did their shields go down?
lack of immunity to all the microbial critters in our blood, which they used.

ie, They caught a cold. [/b][/quote]
I wasn&#39;t aware that machines could get sick... :unsure:

astromark
2005-Jul-11, 07:17 AM
The machines were not automated. They were driven, guided by the aliens. Like tanks. I suspect the red vine was also part of the attempt to tera form Earth. Also from the original story. As the aliens became sick they lost thier balance and co ordination. In the origanal version the aliens were Martians, and landed in round cyclanders, They opened to reveal the tripods. Spielberg should not have changed that.

bossman20081
2005-Jul-11, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by astromark@Jul 11 2005, 03:47 AM
The machines were not automated. They were driven, guided by the aliens. Like tanks. I suspect the red vine was also part of the attempt to tera form Earth. Also from the original story. As the aliens became sick they lost thier balance and co ordination. In the origanal version the aliens were Martians, and landed in round cyclanders, They opened to reveal the tripods. Spielberg should not have changed that.
I can understand that the aliens got sick, but why did they turn the shields off? It doesn&#39;t make sense....

antoniseb
2005-Jul-11, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by astromark@Jul 10 2005, 07:01 AM
They rushed it, Spoilling what could have been a great movie.
I think if they had done it as an end-of-the-nineteenth-Century piece the movie would have been bad because we know these events didn&#39;t happen, though it would have been nice in some sense to see it played out exactly as Wells wrote it.

On the other hand, in the twenty-first century, a lot of plot points no longer work, and the many complaints about the science of EMP, (for magnetic storage, car parts, etc) are very good criticisms. It was nice that AmTrak was able to get their flaming train working on the Hudson River line. Personally, if I were an AmTrak repair guy, with no working equipment, and I&#39;d seen what happened to Bayone NJ, and presumably all of greater NYC, I doubt I&#39;d be hanging around trying to get the trains working again. I&#39;d be taking my family on foot to the Poconos.

If these events happened today, you would not see such calm people continuing to try and do their jobs.

why?
2005-Jul-15, 04:54 AM
I haven&#39;t seen the movie b/c I was afraid it would turn out to be what it sounds from these posts that it turned out to be. The original book is one of my favorite reads and the 1950&#39;s era movie does a pretty good job of sticking with the original story line.

So many of the remakes that have come out in recent years have been a disappointment to me . . . seems about all they normally share with the original is the name. But it&#39;s probably not fair of me to critisize since I didn&#39;t go see it . . . my son and I watched Fantastic 4 . . . fun movie. Science was WAY hokey but then no one should expect M.I.T. stuff in a comic book~:?) I won&#39;t say that it changed my life but I had a good time.

As I get thinking about it some more, Antoniseb, you know they might have been able to make WotW work with the original story line in 21st century America. As I recall one of the points of the book was how Mankind is so arrogant in his dominion of the Earth and yet (in the book) is so easily brought low - usurped. If in the movie the invaders had landed in metal cylinders (like the book) the reaction of the government/populace could have realistically shown arrogance even pity towards the "invaders". That would have made it all the more powerful when (like in the book) they proceed to kick our tushie&#33; Just a random thought.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-15, 03:25 PM
With 207 reviews tabulated so far, War of the Worlds averages 72, a mild fresh perhaps, on the Tomatometer.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worlds/

Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-18, 03:25 AM
I saw "War of the Worlds" a few hours ago. Having read H. G. Wells book as a boy and having heard a replay of the 1938 Orson Welles radio broadcast and seen the 1953 George Pal movie version several times as well as being familiar with a number of reviews of the film, I wasn&#39;t quite sure what my reaction would be. As it turns out, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. Apart from the science fiction element, this is perhaps the best disaster movie that I&#39;ve ever seen. The special effects were quite impressive. The relentless onslaught of the invasion drove the movie forward at a breakneck pace until the farmhouse cellar scene (which paralleled scenes in the novel, the broadcast and the original movie version) when the tempo slowed. The final act was just a bit too abrupt.

There were changes in the plot to be sure (some of which were out of necessity and some of which I questioned) but changes were also made in the radio broadcast and the first movie treatment.

Here are a few reviews that echo my sentiments more or less.

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/turan/c...0,1011790.story (http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/turan/cl-et-world29jun29,0,1011790.story)

http://www.filmfocus.co.uk/review.asp?ReviewID=211

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movie...0,2749492.story (http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etwarworlds-review0629,0,2749492.story)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/movies/2...tten%20Tomatoes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/movies/29worl.html?ex=1151553600&en=ade5aecb87ff2d3f&ei=5083&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes)


Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-18, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by astromark@Jul 8 2005, 08:18 AM
I dont like to agree with you lot to often, I like to chalange ideas. This film was not up to the standard that has been set. The bar has been lifted since the origanal radio broadcast of this story back in 1958 or when ever... it was. Was it Orson Wells? Jeff Wayne did a remake with Richard Burton as the story&#39;s voice. The music was great. As for this Spielberg version; Its full of holes.
The trypods have been here for how long?
Why hadent we ever found one?
Lightning without thunder?,but what was all the noise then?
The EMP that knocked out all the cars. would also have fried the hand cam and the TV crews equipment. I wotched her insert a vidio tape,`magnetic tape`and play it. could not have worked after EMP
I know they needed to tell the story but sorry Its not good enough any more to make such blunders;* We are demanding more.
The prior existence of the tripods was a weak point to my way of thinking as well as the fact that the invaders didn&#39;t strike before humans had developed a technological civilization. For that matter, they could have merely lobbed a few asteroids at the Earth and waited for the dust to clear.

I don&#39;t think it was "lightning" at all, but rather the alien&#39;s transport system to the tripods.

The EMP was local, not worldwide, although I don&#39;t see why the camcorder wouldn&#39;t have been affected.


Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-18, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by aeolus@Jul 8 2005, 12:32 PM
I was puzzled that if the big tripods had been there for millenia, that we would have found them by now. Even if they were buried deep deep down, seismology would have shown something.

The EMP puzzled me too, but I concluded a possible explanation relates to the mention of the solenoid in the car being fried. Maybe their "pulse" knowcked out all the magnetic solenoids, which would stop anything electric, but not battery-powered stuff 9there is a scene where theyre leaving the house, and it focses on him grabbing batteries, a possible message to the audience that "batteries still work".

I was in disbelief that the son survived the huge explosion, then somehow made it to Boston.

Finally, It was shocked when out of the thousands and thousands of people at the roadside diner, only 2 had brought their guns.

This is just the realism i have a problem with. Im not even getting into the acting and writing.
I found the son&#39;s survival a bit too much to swallow too but I suppose it was called for due to the happy ending.

Your point about the guns was well taken. There would have been plenty of them.

Dave Mitsky

Spacebubby
2005-Jul-18, 10:30 PM
I had read the book as a kid and the original movie was one of my all time favourite movies. The problem I have found with the recent remakes, IS the special effects, etc. Nothing is left to the imagination. God help us all if any director (at the moment) ever decides to remake Hitchcock&#39;s "The Birds".

A lot of these old movies relied on shadows and the reactions of the actors to convey the "scariness" of the scene. We don&#39;t do this anymore. We create hideous looking monsters, with serious drooling problems and deformed bodies to scare the wits out of us.

I was really looking forward to this remake, but when I saw a trailer for it (it went for a few minutes), I decided that I didn&#39;t want to see it. There were bits that were completely wrong, the special effects leave nothing to the imagination and there is really no suspense.

Everyone is a critic, I know, and everyone can say that "I would have done this differently or better," but I think that if you remake a great movie such as WotW and you want to change things, then either call it something different or change it and make it WotW II. Spielberg could have make it a continuation; the next wave of aliens come from whereever and we go through the whole thing again&#33;&#33; It might have had a better response.

briklink
2005-Jul-19, 01:42 AM
this is a sci-fi fantasy story made to ENTERTAIN..of course there are inconsistancies in the "realism", duh&#33; how can any person suggest how an alien invasion would actually occur? it&#39;s all tounge-in-cheek entertainment and Speilberg is a master. I actually heard someone in front of me during the film lean over to a companion and comment, "no way", after a particular alien/human encounter scene. NO KIDDING&#33;&#33;?? REALLY??.. I had no idea...

lighten up folks...and dig in &#39;cuz there comin&#33; :lol:

gigawit
2005-Jul-19, 02:49 AM
The movie was embarassing for all involved. It lacked any suspense, character development, the plot was confused. The special effects were hackneyed. erupting streets, strange storms, aliens like have appeared in various films, etc. we have seen these and others that appear in the film a million times. I would expect more from Speilberg.

The story line was full holes too numerous to count. All this from a director, who made Close Encounters, one of the best Ameircan films, notice I did not say Science Fiction films ever made.

Considering who it came from and what it cost to make, the film was real garbage and even more damning, totally forgettable.

Don&#39;t even bother to pick it up on video.

onenorth
2005-Jul-19, 05:56 AM
I just recently watched this movie here in Singapore, and I&#39;d rate it 1/2 star (out of 5 stars total scale) overall.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-19, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Spacebubby@Jul 18 2005, 10:30 PM
Edit

A lot of these old movies relied on shadows and the reactions of the actors to convey the "scariness" of the scene. We don&#39;t do this anymore. We create hideous looking monsters, with serious drooling problems and deformed bodies to scare the wits out of us.

Edit
True enough but the directors of that time really didn&#39;t have much choice since special effects were rather primitive and often downright laughable in the case of many monster and science fiction B movies. It seems to me that one could logically extend your argument to say that radio is the only medium worthy of presenting such material, since the listener&#39;s imagination does all the work.

CGI is not going to go away. One can only hope that it is used effectively to enhance the story, as it was in much of Spielberg&#39;s latest flick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-gene...nerated_imagery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery)

Dave Mitsky

chicagoastronomer
2005-Jul-19, 04:07 PM
And even with the clunky and mechanical f/x of the &#39;50&#39;s...the original is still superior to the latest offering from Spielberg. It may entertain the simple mind, but it could have been a great remake.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-19, 04:33 PM
Why do you feel that it is necessary to resort to a veiled insult? In terms of visuals, which is after all what motion pictures are all about, there is simply no comparison, even though the 1953 version had fairly impressive special effects for that era. A person&#39;s cognitive state has nothing to do with it.

One can argue that the screenplay of the current film left something to be desired and I feel that it did to some degree but I say the screenplay of the 1953 version wasn&#39;t nearly as compelling as the script of Orson Welles&#39; 1938 broadcast.

http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~...2942487,00.html (http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~23516~2942487,00.html)

Dave Mitsky

bossman20081
2005-Jul-20, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by chicagoastronomer@Jul 19 2005, 12:37 PM
And even with the clunky and mechanical f/x of the &#39;50&#39;s...the original is still superior to the latest offering from Spielberg. It may entertain the simple mind, but it could have been a great remake.
It&#39;s funny you shuld say that because I rather enjoyed the movie, as did the rest of my family. I, personally, don&#39;t care if you think it only entertains simple people, but some people will take offense to that, especially considering it&#39;s all opinion. Just a friendly suggestion...

heyzeus321
2005-Jul-26, 08:32 AM
I liked the movie up until that one point right after the grenades. It was like "huh....the aliens what....oh....they&#39;re dead....oh....okay....well I&#39;ll see you tomorrow then.... Oh hey look my son didn&#39;t sie in that huge monsterous fireball that he ran towards...awesome." I&#39;ll have to watch it again on DVD, because it just tapered off in the end.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jul-27, 06:32 AM
I think most everyone agrees that the ending was anticlimatic at best, partly due to the plot device that H.G. Wells used in his novel and partly due to the somewhat clumsy way that ends were tied up in the movie&#39;s script.

Dave Mitsky