War of the Worlds (Warning! Major Spoilers!)

**BDC** · 07-24-2005, 23:24

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.

**The_Doctor** · 07-24-2005, 23:30

I liked it. The effects where very good.

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

**nokhor** · 07-25-2005, 13:40

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?

**Sigurd** · 07-25-2005, 14:04

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

**Lehesu** · 07-25-2005, 21:29

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

**King of Atlantis** · 07-25-2005, 22:37

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.

**Taurus** · 07-25-2005, 22:52

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.

**Degtyarev14.5** · 07-28-2005, 18:44

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!

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.

**tibilicus** · 07-28-2005, 23:35

Originally Posted by Degtyarev14.5

And Tom Cruise = tosser.

**lars573** · 07-29-2005, 00:08

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).

**Degtyarev14.5** · 07-29-2005, 08:43

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.