Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: war of the worlds

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    25
    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:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,928
    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.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  3. #3
    Planetwatcher Guest
    {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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    496
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,928
    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?
    Forming opinions as we speak

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    616
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,928
    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
    Forming opinions as we speak

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    168
    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!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    496
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    734
    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?






    *

  12. #12
    StarLab Guest
    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?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,562
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    496
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    26
    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!!! h34r:

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    64
    Thanks for saving me a $7 ticket and $15 trip to the snack bar. I can wait for the 2 for $5 rental.

  18. #18
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2
    About ten minutes into the movie I was rooting for the aliens. The humans were just annoying. Drat the bugs!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5
    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 !!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    671
    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?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    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.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    496
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    671
    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:

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    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.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    671
    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....

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,928
    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.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31
    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.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,750
    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

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,750
    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.filmfocus.co.uk/review.asp?ReviewID=211

    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movie...0,2749492.story

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/movies/2...tten%20Tomatoes


    Dave Mitsky

Similar Threads

  1. War of the Worlds
    By Lord Jubjub in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2009-Jun-30, 11:19 PM
  2. War of the Worlds
    By John Kierein in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Jul-06, 09:22 AM
  3. Worlds inside worlds
    By ChromeStar in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-27, 08:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •