• From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Topic: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Soo... if you need the spoiler warning, then I pity you. Go read the durn book! smile

Personally, I thought it was the best movie treatment of an H.G. Wells novel... ever.

But that might be due to my devotion to the source material; I will be the first to acknowledge that I may be blinded by this. The fact that this version pretty much stuck directly to the book was a Good Thing in my mind. (Don't get me started on the recent travesty of "The Time Machine" or Val Kilmer's "Island of Dr. Moreau".) We didn't see the equivalent of HMS Thunderchild's battle with a tripod -- the only omission of consequence...

What I can't understand is why some critics (and many in the theater) thought the ending "lame".

I mean, let's face it: you can't spend two hours showing just how dominating the aliens (Martians? Spielberg didn't say...) are, how overpowering their technology is, how impotent Humans are against them, and then suddenly have a guy with an Apple notebook upload a computer virus to the mothership...

Oh, wait... smile

Seriously. If that's what the critics (and the audience) wanted, then I say they deserve all the crap that Hollywood feeds them.

In my mind, there are only two ways "out" of this story:

1) The Humans lose. Game over.
2) Deus ex machina, in this case in the guise of microorganisms.

The book still scares the crap out of me... so did this movie. And I'm not the only one; if the basic plot is so lame, why did it spawn three motion pictures and start a national panic in 1938? Why is a book over 100 years old still selling like hotcakes?

The point of the story is not to show yet again how Human know-how can save the day and get the girl in some contrived yet focus-group-tested manner. The point of the story was to instruct Victorians on the horrors of colonialism from the point of view of the vanquished. In a more modern setting, the point is to show our insignificance, our vulnerability (I loved it when Dakota Fanning kept asking "Is it the terrorists?"), and, dare I say it, the debt we owe to even the tiniest part of our ecosystem.

It may not have been a great movie (heck, I can't say if it was even good -- although it sure as heck entertained me). But it was an excellent treatment of a classic story.

Why can't that be enough?

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

fan boy











:wink:

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

but seriously, your comments all ring true.

The story has serious value, across the ages.  And touches on a core cultural fear of every society with which I have ever worked.

We could turn this into a talk about colonialism, foreign invasion, globalization....

Suffice to say that, yes, Hollywood has set the bar pretty low for real story telling (How do you write a virus for a computer system you have never seen, in a language you don't know?). Just look at what happened to the potential of the Star Wars saga.

Don't worry about the critics or anyone else. If you enjoyed it that much, nothing else matters.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

cricket wrote:

>Soo... if you need the spoiler warning, then I pity you. Go read the durn
>book! smile

>Personally, I thought it was the best movie treatment of an H.G. Wells
>novel... ever.

I haven't seen it, my movie budget is limited - and no one else in the house seems pre-disposed to see it. Having Mr Scientology for the lead sorta ruins it for me...

Does anyone else have the duel between Max Sterling and the Zentradi lead female pilot going on in their head when you hear 'Danger Zone"?

cricket wrote:

>But that might be due to my devotion to the source material; I will be the
>first to acknowledge that I may be blinded by this. The fact that this
>version pretty much stuck directly to the book was a Good Thing in my
>mind. (Don't get me started on the recent travesty of "The Time
>Machine" or Val Kilmer's "Island of Dr. Moreau".) We didn't see the
>equivalent of HMS Thunderchild's battle with a tripod -- the only omission
>of consequence...


Hmm.. it would've been cool to see a Missile frigate open up, but honestly, the Thunder Child sequence would've been sorta lame looking without something like a battleship....

I'm personally waiting for the navy to commision those stealthy missile barges - but I ain't holding my breath about that.


cricket wrote:

>What I can't understand is why some critics (and many in the theater)
>thought the ending "lame".

>I mean, let's face it: you can't spend two hours showing just how
>dominating the aliens (Martians? Spielberg didn't say...) are, how
>overpowering their technology is, how impotent Humans are against
>them, and then suddenly have a guy with an Apple notebook upload a
>computer virus to the mothership...

>Oh, wait... smile

>Seriously. If that's what the critics (and the audience) wanted, then I say
>they deserve all the crap that Hollywood feeds them.

You mean our most powerful weeapon isn't the Apple Powerbook?
<gasp>

The idiots in Hollywood FREQUENTLY get their heads handed to them on a platter when it comes to writing. Just look at how many times we've re-done a movie in the last 20-30 years. Look at how many comic books are getting made into movies (though some have been good). Hollywood writers SUCK by and large - with a few notable exceptions.

Hollywood is writing propaganda nowadays as it's primary goal - not movies that people can enjoy....


cricket wrote:

>In my mind, there are only two ways "out" of this story:

>1) The Humans lose. Game over.
>2) Deus ex machina, in this case in the guise of microorganisms.

>The book still scares the crap out of me... so did this movie. And I'm not
>the only one; if the basic plot is so lame, why did it spawn three motion
>pictures and start a national panic in 1938? Why is a book over 100
>years old still selling like hotcakes?

It's the pride of men that is their downfall - even in Hollywood, apparently.

No one wants (in the case of your aforementioned critics) to acknowledge that we might have to bow to a higher power, or that perhaps we aren't the top dog in the universe.....

Lame would've been the earth doing something along the lines of the 'Independence Day'' ending...


cricket wrote:

>The point of the story is not to show yet again how Human know-how can
>save the day and get the girl in some contrived yet focus-group-tested
>manner. The point of the story was to instruct Victorians on the horrors
>of colonialism from the point of view of the vanquished. In a more
>modern setting, the point is to show our insignificance, our vulnerability
>(I loved it when Dakota Fanning kept asking "Is it the terrorists?"), and,
>dare I say it, the debt we owe to even the tiniest part of our ecosystem.

>It may not have been a great movie (heck, I can't say if it was even
>good -- although it sure as heck entertained me). But it was an excellent
>treatment of a classic story.

>Why can't that be enough?

Critics are critics - they look for 'deeper meaning' in everything. They've panned every movie that I've liked for years....

Sometimes, a movie is just a way to spend time with friends, and most of them are too wrapped up in 'their career' to see that and that the movies don't reflect on them personally....

Gary Cowgill (sp) - check him out - a pretty normal movie critic from around here....

5 Reply by Guest

  • Guest
  • Guest

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

I just saw it yesterday and I have one background question. 

Why didn't the martians either die or take over the Earth when they came to put the tripods into the ground?

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 65

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

spencercl wrote:

I just saw it yesterday and I have one background question. 

Why didn't the martians either die or take over the Earth when they came to put the tripods into the ground?

That's probably my one major problem with the movie.

I'd much prefer the 'martians'-arrive-and-begin-constructing-their machines version.

The pre-emplaced tripods just makes me scratch my head in frustration.

JP

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Just saw the movie, and I absolutely loved it.

1) I could care less what religion/psycho movement tom cruise belongs to. I think he did a pretty good job.

2) I disliked the framing the girl on screen when she screamed part.

3) the martian "people" ROCKED! I want minis. NOW

4) the martian tripods rocked too, I want minis for those too

5) I wondered why the martians didn't attack the rich side of town where grandma and grandpa lived. hm. I guess poor humans "taste" better.

6) the scene in the basement was right out of the original movie and it was awesome.  The suspense brought me back to when I was a kid and saw the movie.  That part frightened me more than anything else int he movie.

7) The scene at the end where the tripod opened and the three-fingered hand came out and the creature died in a puddle og it's own mucus was right out of the original move and it rocked too.

8) Spielberg is up one notch because of this movie.

9) great story, I wish I'd have written it.

I give it a solid A-

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Justin Crough wrote:

That's probably my one major problem with the movie.

I'd much prefer the 'martians'-arrive-and-begin-constructing-their machines version.

The pre-emplaced tripods just makes me scratch my head in frustration.

Me too.
I really enjoyed the film, but...

If they were here before: why not take over then? What were they waiting for?

And how deep must those have been buried? Surely running sewers, etc. they would have been stumbled on sometime, somewhere. Unless they were really deep? And how long ago? How would they have known they would need them, in so many places? And, so on.

I think I understand why they did it, from an "updating the story" perspective, but it seems like the lazy way out.

My only other beef was with using the humans as fertilizer for the "martian-fication" program. It was never stated that they were from Mars (that I noticed) so the red of the vines was a bit close the idea of blood and guts out of the bodies. It was completely lost on a few people that hadn't read the book with which I talked.

Great film adaptation, overall, though.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.

  • Registered: 2005-04-02
  • Posts: 16

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

I don't know, personally, the end of the movie felt abrupt to me. I personally feel like the first movie had a much smoother transition between darkest hour and resolution. I also missed the faith angle as well.
What was up with the fog horn noise? With that said, I really liked the rest. The energy beams were perfect.

Jerry

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

heh most peopl I talked to said they liked the tuba noise the walkers made and wished for the heat ray noise back

trust you to be an original thinker Jerry big_smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

I saw and liked the movie.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 65

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Thranac wrote:

I don't know, personally, the end of the movie felt abrupt to me. I personally feel like the first movie had a much smoother transition between darkest hour and resolution. I also missed the faith angle as well.
What was up with the fog horn noise? With that said, I really liked the rest. The energy beams were perfect.

Jerry

Its been a while, but didn't the book have the aliens communicate via deafening howls from tripod to tripod?  I think that would account for the 'fog horn.'

I always thought the heat ray noise from the older movie sounded a lot like the stuttering of a car ignition that just won't start.   I didn't miss that sound, except for a bit of nostalgia perhaps.

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

H. G. Wells wrote:

As it passed it set up an exultant deafening howl that drowned the thunder--"Aloo!  Aloo!"--and in another minute it was with its companion, half a mile away, stooping over something in the field.  I have no doubt this Thing in the field was the third of the ten cylinders they had fired at us from Mars.

so there you are big_smile

"exhultant" -- excellent use of the word.

Happy to help

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

But more still

H. G. Wells wrote:

They communicated with one another by means of sirenlike howls, running up and down the scale from one note to another.

So there's more than one way to talk to a martian.

And, for "flavor"

H. G. Wells wrote:

For so it had come about, as indeed I and many men might have foreseen had not terror and disaster blinded our minds. These germs of disease have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of things--taken toll of our prehuman ancestors since life began here. But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to many--those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance--our living frames are altogether immune. But there are no bacteria in Mars, and directly these invaders arrived, directly they drank and fed, our microscopic allies began to work their overthrow. Already when I watched them they were irrevocably doomed, dying and rotting even as they went to and fro. It was inevitable. By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain.

this one make the hair on the back of my neck stand up, "by the toll of a billion deaths has man brought his birthright upon the earth"

Man, that guy was good. 

Moral of the story: When invading earth from 60 million miles away and a million years ago, don't drink the water

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Thranac wrote:

I don't know, personally, the end of the movie felt abrupt to me. I personally feel like the first movie had a much smoother transition between darkest hour and resolution. I also missed the faith angle as well.
What was up with the fog horn noise? With that said, I really liked the rest. The energy beams were perfect.

The "faith angle" and a lot of other stuff mentioned here is strictly from the '53 movie. What I liked about this film (among many other things) is that it reached back to the original source material more often than to other versions of the story.

Although the scene in the basement was clearly an homage to the George Pal version... smile

And I LOVED the foghorn noises -- suitably alien and chilling.

The scene on the ferry was also extremely well done.

As far as the abruptness of the ending, yeah... it could have been smoothed over a bit. Basically, Spielberg did the first half of the book ("The Coming Of the Martians") and did very little from the second half ("Earth Under the Martians"). But that would have required a lot more scenes of relative inaction as Cruise et. al. wandered around looking at the destruction wrought by the aliens.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

jimbeau wrote:

Just saw the movie, and I absolutely loved it.
1) I could care less what religion/psycho movement tom cruise belongs to. I think he did a pretty good job.

It doesn't KEEP me from going, it just makes for an annoyance during the movie - and I dont go outta my way to see anything he's in. But then, I don't go to see a movie based on what actor is doing it....Cruise isn't the only one that annoys me, I can't stand Travolta either.... :-)

..and common opinion was that 'Battlefield Earth' DID suck....:P


jimbeau wrote:

2) I disliked the framing the girl on screen when she screamed part.

That made no sense....

jimbeau wrote:

3) the martian "people" ROCKED! I want minis. NOW
4) the martian tripods rocked too, I want minis for those too

All I've seen are the commercials and the little Quicktime movie on the net - is it the same tripod as in the QT movie?

What did the Aliens look like? The poster implies they were like the '50's version - with more 'goo-iness'....


jimbeau wrote:

5) I wondered why the martians didn't attack the rich side of town where grandma and grandpa lived. hm. I guess poor humans "taste" better.

6) the scene in the basement was right out of the original movie and it was awesome.  The suspense brought me back to when I was a kid and saw the movie.  That part frightened me more than anything else int he movie.

That's a cool sequence in the book...


jimbeau wrote:

7) The scene at the end where the tripod opened and the three-fingered hand came out and the creature died in a puddle og it's own mucus was right out of the original move and it rocked too.

Euuuwww.......


jimbeau wrote:

8) Spielberg is up one notch because of this movie.
9) great story, I wish I'd have written it.
I give it a solid A-

Spielberg is a decent director - hard to believe the original was written a century ago, but maybe not....

Looked at historically, once you get the syntax and technology outta the way, men haven't really changed.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

cricket wrote:
Thranac wrote:

I don't know, personally, the end of the movie felt abrupt to me. I personally feel like the first movie had a much smoother transition between darkest hour and resolution. I also missed the faith angle as well.
What was up with the fog horn noise? With that said, I really liked the rest. The energy beams were perfect.

The "faith angle" and a lot of other stuff mentioned here is strictly from the '53 movie. What I liked about this film (among many other things) is that it reached back to the original source material more often than to other versions of the story.

The faith angle was there in the original, but it was a narrative piece, rather than a church scene.....as in the 50's movie...


cricket wrote:

Although the scene in the basement was clearly an homage to the George Pal version... smile

And I LOVED the foghorn noises -- suitably alien and chilling.

The scene on the ferry was also extremely well done.

As far as the abruptness of the ending, yeah... it could have been smoothed over a bit. Basically, Spielberg did the first half of the book ("The Coming Of the Martians") and did very little from the second half ("Earth Under the Martians"). But that would have required a lot more scenes of relative inaction as Cruise et. al. wandered around looking at the destruction wrought by the aliens.

I may have to go see this, just to see the differences...when's it coming to the dollar theater....? :-)

Is the 'blood-draining' thing in the movie? I'm curious....

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

thedugan wrote:

Is the 'blood-draining' thing in the movie? I'm curious...

Yup.

Eww...

smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-04-02
  • Posts: 16

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

trust you to be an original thinker Jerry

Thanks Jim! Much appreciated.

As far as the abruptness of the ending, yeah... it could have been smoothed over a bit. Basically, Spielberg did the first half of the book ("The Coming Of the Martians") and did very little from the second half ("Earth Under the Martians"). But that would have required a lot more scenes of relative inaction as Cruise et. al. wandered around looking at the destruction wrought by the aliens.

Ok, this explains a lot. IMO, Spielberg should have spent around 10 minutes to get this "Earth under the martians" feeling to sink in. The movie is only around 110 minutes as it is. Spielberg has the chops to keep it from getting slow.

And I LOVED the foghorn noises -- suitably alien and chilling.

Ok, I'll give you that Dan, suitably indeed.

Jerry

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Kevin Smith wrote:

> It looks as though most of the reviews have been favorable.
> In the interest of fair play I'll offer up a couple of
> differing opinions. I had lunch with a couple of gaming
> buddies of mine, and was commenting on how the reviews of
> WotW seemed mostly favorable. They both rolled their eyes,
> and for most of our lunch proceded to expound on the
> wretchedness of the movie. At one point in time comparing it
> in quality to Star Wars Episode I, which hit home with me. As
> I think that is one of the worst films in history.

Huh.

It seems to me as if the negative reviews are coming from people who didn't get what they expected from the film... they expected another "Independence Day" or something.

But for me, it was precisely as advertised, and did not disappoint.

WotW was not about human ingenuity, or perseverance under fire, or anything like that. In the words of Spielberg, he wanted to convey the "American refugee experience", and he did that. He wanted to keep the essence of the original story, and he did that.

About the only disappointment to me was that Cruise's entire family survived... it seems as though dramatic necessity would be for at least the son to have died...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Kevin Smith wrote:

> Problem #1
> The martians being buried for milennia, to emerge when they
> did. The thought on this was it was ludicrous, and had no
> credibility whatsoever. Surely some sign of them would or
> should have been discovered. The fix was to keep it as it was
> in the original, with them simply landing.

We actually don't know how long they'd been there -- a character mentions that they were buried for "millions of years", but he was also clearly insane... smile

Still, the idea was pretty stupid. Makes much more sense for the "Martians" to land and immediately start blowing things up, as in the book. The only flaw in my opinion.

But the lightning scenes were durn cool...

> Problem #2
> The whole premise of the humans being fertilizer, and the
> fact that the martians kill some and harvest some.

Straight from the book. Maybe a poor concept, but there was precedent for it.

> Problem #3
> Tom Cruise was an idiot. Make his character a little more
> than a numbnut.

Why?

Again, I say the point was not to show how smart we humans are, that we can cope with anything...

I didn't think his character was an idiot (hell, he had the smarts to stay alive when many others didn't), but even if he was, so what?

> Problem #4
> The kids were annoying at best. Both of the guys found
> themselves rooting for the martians as the movie progressed,
> and wnated the humans to be exterminated. They were kinda sad
> when they weren't. smile

I disagree. The kids acted like kids. Yes, they are annoying, but that's what kids are for...

> Problem #5
> The armed forces (yet) again portrayed as imbeciles. One of
> the reviewers was army reserve, and served in Iraq though. So
> this may influence his opinion.

Don't know why they seemed like imbiciles. They did their best, got blown up.

> Problem #6
> The ferry scene. People act so stupid in movies. Why do they
> run TOWARD an obvious target, instead of hoofing in an
> obvious better direction?

They were running AWAY from the tripods. There was a river in the way. What else were they supposed to do?

Again, I state that Spielberg wanted to illustrate an American refugee experience... and the people certainly acted like the refugees in any newscast I've seen...

> Problem #7
> Why would the martians, who are an obviously superior
> intellect, come to earth and drink the water? smile

Why else would they have come here? The book (and the narration at the start of the movie) makes it clear the water was almost exclusively why the Martians came in the first place.

Now, a better question would be, why come to Earth and drink the water BEFORE testing for toxins? smile

> Problem #8
> Idiotic dialogue in general.

Can't say I cringed at any of the dialogue. Wasn't Shakespeare, but it was okay.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Not an unoriginal thought, however, if humans are fertilizer, then all the earth's creatures should be trapped in the cage with the people.

I really liked the red mist scene and how it parallelled the grey dust scene.

I wanted to shout the gray dust is PEOPLE! in the theatre (a-la soylent green), but thought the wife would be embarrased.

I did want the couple sitting next to me to be sucked up by martians during most of the movie on account of the incessant TALKING OUT LOUD.

I wish I could afford to buy all the seats in the entire theatre when I go to a movie.

like I said, A-

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 65

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

Now, a better question would be, why come to Earth and drink the water BEFORE testing for toxins? smile

It would seem to me, based on the narration of the book (as quoted a few posts above)  that the bacteria that killed the aliens was one that we, as humans, are now completely immune to, so long a we are living and breathing.

The Aliens had no such bacteria where they came from.  If it's something they had never experienced or imagined, it's likely something they couldn't have had the forethought to prepare for.  They couldn't even discern its existence by studying humanity.

Not unlike people dying of the bubonic plague...they had no clue how it spread, and thus had no effective way to protect themselves from it.

I'd be quite worried about the second impending invasion, now that they know better.  (Or perhaps knowing about the bacteria they might figure Earth is not worth the effort.)

But that's just my pondering on the subject now that you mention it.

JP

24 Reply by Guest

  • Guest
  • Guest

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

> Problem #6
> The ferry scene. People act so stupid in movies. Why do they
> run TOWARD an obvious target, instead of hoofing in an
> obvious better direction?

This just proves once again that if everyone were gamers the movies would be boring.  ;-)

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: [Slightly OT] War of the Worlds (spoilers?)

cricket wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:

> Problem #5
> The armed forces (yet) again portrayed as imbeciles. One of
> the reviewers was army reserve, and served in Iraq though. So
> this may influence his opinion.

Don't know why they seemed like imbiciles. They did their best, got blown up.

Given that the soldiers protrayed (portraying?) were actual soliders from the 10th Mountain, I can't imagine that they were being complete imbeciles.