War of the Worlds (Warning! Major Spoilers!)

[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.

A.

[Al Khalifah]

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.

[Puzz3D]

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 The germ theory for their demise at the end is also out of date and unlikely to happen.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.

[Tricon]

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.