War of the Worlds (Warning! Major Spoilers!)

god it sucked.

1. The aliens acording to this movie are not very intelligent to some how forget they cant breath out air. In other words, it makes no sense, seeing as they are far superior to us in all other ways.

2. Ok, so the bacteria killed, can bacteria penetrate thouse energy shields? and why are the birds attacking metallic machines!? or are they also organic?

3. hmm, they forgot to take of the transportation-protections on the stingers (or what ever they were) before firing. they say they should use the Gustaf, and it is shown in a 1/2 second. =D

4. The ending as to the one of the most dissapointing once ever... they got there, everyone survived in the family... even his son whom was cought in an inferno of fire and destruction.

well 5/10 from me.

Yes, the book was good, but I found it just didn't work too well set in 21st century America... Plus the ending was staggeringly abrupt.

I liked it. The effects where very good.

It did end very abruptly and there where a few odd things about it.

haven't seen it but i heard that the tripod machines were buried under the earth for centuries and cities grew on top of them? if the aliens had advanced technology centuries ago, wouldn't it make more sense to conquer the earth then, rather than lay dormant and watch us progress technologically?

The one thing I missed was the War of the Worlds music theme...

Ugh, ending sucked so bad. The pacing was off too. Those aliens must have OCD; how many times did they check that cellar?!

The ending was stupid. Hmm, they have been planning on attacking us for millions of years yet they never thought of making aintibotics to our diseases.

The son should have died too.


The special effects were very cool though.

The effects were amazing but the film should have been 3 hours long telling you what actually happened. Instead of aliens arriving and killing loads of people then all of a sudden they die and the film ends.
There should of been more of the film that showed you what the aliens did.

Other than that it was a great film. ~:cheers:

Was cool. Would have been cooler if everyone had died in the end though.

I liked it. I was confused about the birds, and the ending was wierd, though.

Quote:

---

Was cool. Would have been cooler if everyone had died in the end though.

---

It would certaintly have made more sense.

At the start, when the EMP had been fired and all the electronic circuits in the area have been fried....
How was that man able to film the whole thing on his camcorder?

D'ang they just had to use the old Holywood cliche not realising that their other old Holywood cliche had already invalidated it. Oh by the way, the Marsians father is Tom Cruise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

wouldn't it make more sense to conquer the earth then, rather than lay dormant and watch us progress technologically?

---

I have posted this idea somewhere else, but I'll rehash it.

I would suggest that the Earth is a farm, one of a great many, and that humankind - or more specifically, human blood - is a crop. And what do you do to crops when they're ripe for picking? You harvest! :evilgrin:

Also, perhaps the aliens' immune systems simply were not prepared for the new strains of virii, fungi and bacteria that had evolved since their last harvest. Or perhaps, over a million years of non-exposure, their previously robust immune systems had degraded to the point of uselessness. Taking this argument, you could then maintain that the aliens knew what afflictions awaited them down here, but believed they were prepared.

But I do realise that I'm making (valid) excuses for what are really ill-conceived and poorly considered elements of the adaptation's storyline. Spielberg, I'm rapidly losing faith in your abilities, and utilising references to the WTC attacks to sell your tripe is in the poorest of taste; in fact, it's borderline just plain sick.

And Tom Cruise = tosser.

A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Degtyarev14.5

And Tom Cruise = tosser.

---

~:cheers:

Thing about War of the Worlds is that Hollywood didn't come up with the ending H. G. Wells did. One thing that no movie version has changed was the ending. It's always the same, in the moment of their triumph the Martians catch a dose of the clap and all die(that'l learn' em not to rape the corpses).

We know that. But then Hollywood invented some crap about the aliens having been here before, to bury their Tonka toys. So, with respect to Hollywood's adaptation, we have to invent reasonably plausible storyline elements to accomodate the alterations.

I was quite happy with the original "space capsules lauched via Martian cannon fire" idea. I can understand that Hollywood wanted to modernise it, to bring it up to date, but the whole "they've been here before" element was completely unnecessary, and needlessly complicates things.

A.

Because naturally, nobody would have noticed something that large underground in a major city when they were performing geophysical analysis to determine where to build underground structures and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Degtyarev14.5

We know that. But then Hollywood invented some crap about the aliens having been here before, to bury their Tonka toys. So, with respect to Hollywood's adaptation, we have to invent reasonably plausible storyline elements to accomodate the alterations.

I was quite happy with the original "space capsules lauched via Martian cannon fire" idea. I can understand that Hollywood wanted to modernise it, to bring it up to date, but the whole "they've been here before" element was completely unnecessary, and needlessly complicates things.

---

I agree. It's a problem to bring H.G.Wells' story forward 100 years. Who's going to believe the aliens came from Mars shot out of cannons today, but it could have been portrayed as something like that from another galaxy. I believe the invasion was an expeditionary force, and it was obviously a one way trip. The germ theory for their demise at the end is also out of date and unlikely to happen. The aliens would either be very much like us and immune to common microbes that are all around us or they would be so different that microbes here wouldn't be likely to affect them. Of course, if they were so different, how could they be walking around breathing our air, and they certainly weren't concerned about coming into contact with human body fluids, but you probably wouldn't be 100 years ago.

It's interesting how in the 1953 movie adaptation religion is emphasized, and it's implied that the demise of the aliens was an act of god. The aliens are godless because they zap the priest. Does this imply that advanced species discard god because scientific knowledge replaces Him? In Speilberg's version, it seemed to me that evolution was being emphasized by the opening and closing bookends and absence of religion in the movie except to see the church ripped apart in the beginning. (Maybe a metaphor of our times.) At first I thought the evolutionary idea of adaptation made much more sense than prayer saving the earth, but now they both seem very unlikely. I guess the ending is just a way for H.G. Wells to save the British Empire from destruction. Even 100 years ago the "science" in this story was pretty far fetched, but Wells wasn't trying to write a plausible sci-fi story. War of the Worlds is a metaphor for British Imperialism intended to make people aware of what it's like for a country to be taken over and exploited by an imperialistic nation.

When I saw the alien machines coming up from underground, the thought I had was that Speilberg had a good earthquake special effects guy and wanted to use him. Aliens being beamed down on lighting bolts to these underground machines was too much for me. I had to erase the whole opening premise from my mind as I watched the movie. The movie is a kind of super 1950's style sci-fi movie, but I don't remember having to ever erase the whole opening premise of any 1950's sci-fi movie. Usually, the opening was the most plausable part of those movies. The machines in Spelberg's movie were exceptionally well done and terrifying, and reminicient of the machines in Wells' book.

Where this movie worked for me was in the actions scenes, pacing, and limited focus on Tom Cruise trying to save his kids. All we know is what he knows, so you can project yourself into his chracter quite easily, although, he is a bit crazy and you migh not want to be crazy. His plan so save his kids seemed crazy, but that's because I know from reading the book and seeing the 1953 movie version that the invasion is everywhere. Seeing Boston burning was interesting because I live there, and it got a chuckle from the audience.

I couldn't understand why civil defense was broadcasting their test message but not advising people what to do. When he got to his ex-wife's house the electricity was working, but they didn't turn on a radio or TV. All he did was throw a peanutbutter sandwitch up against the window. I thought, "His ex-wife is going to be pissed!", and then I had a deja vu flashback to the kitchen scene in Kill Bill 1 with the cerial and coffee flying all over.

It was pretty interesting how "sort of average guy" Tom Cruise started doing bad stuff to save himself and his kids. He stole the van, and the owner got killed trying to stop him. He pulled a gun on people, and someone ended up getting killed with the gun. He left that woman he knew and her daughter at the dock and didn't try to help them. He killed someone who had helped him, because the guy wanted to fight the aliens which he ended up having to do anyway. Maybe the ex-wife was on to this guy. Is it simple selfishness that allows someone to do stuff like this or does the situation justify it? I noticed she didn't invite him into the house when he got to Boston.

Overall I liked it . I was very entertained. ANd those fog horns made me almost jum out of my seat.

S for the birds: Since the birds could land on the tripod, the shield was obviously down.