PDA

View Full Version : War of the Worlds


Lurker the Second
29-06-2005, 18:18:34
Decent review in the NY Times. Some notable quotes:

Mr. Spielberg's extraterrestrials, who rampage across New Jersey in metal death-ray-shooting tripods are - I'm looking for the precise critical term here - wicked scary.

"War of the Worlds" is nerve-rackingly apocalyptic, offering an occasional reprieve but not much solace. It is, in other words, a horror movie, and one that does not, for the most part, insist too heavily on its own topicality.

My favorite is the last sentence in the next quote:

Once the aliens start vaporizing the neighborhood, Ray's reaction is less than exemplary, but he does manage to keep his family together and on the run, and thus buys a chance at the redemption you know is coming his way. Millions of deaths and incalculable property damage seem like pretty expensive family therapy, but it's heartening to know that even an alien invasion can provide an opportunity for learning and growth

And finally:

"War of the Worlds" is rated PG-13. Much of the earth's population is wiped out, leaving very little time for sex or bad language.

Diss
30-06-2005, 00:58:41
Ebert gave it a poor review. I usually agree with him, but his comments are unfounded.

Yes it is true, the aliens had a stupid design flaw in their ships. But they are staying true to the original work written in the 19th century.

But the plot about the ships being underground just seems silly. It looks like a long boring action fest with no plot. I don't plan on seeing it.

MDA
30-06-2005, 13:05:13
I heard it was bad. They use human blood to fertilize their gardens. They planned an invasion for over a million years, and never developed a basic understanding of Earth's biology?

They're right next to an asteroid beld, too - why not fling a few into the largest population/industrial centers? No one would think of that in like, a million years.

DaShi
01-07-2005, 12:13:08
More foolish human propaganda.

fp
01-07-2005, 12:16:28
The film looks shit, but it didn't have very good source material to work with in the first place.

Kitsuki
01-07-2005, 12:29:57
Yes it did - aliens vs the British Empire - that could have made a quality pulp film... Fuck the Hollywood producers for messing up such a great opportunity...!

Fergus & The Brazen Car
01-07-2005, 12:42:31
'War of the Worlds' umm, since when has the United States been a whole frickin' world ?

Sir Penguin
01-07-2005, 14:14:28
1902.

SP

MDA
01-07-2005, 18:32:41
Everyone should know that penguins are a greater threat to humanity than aliens.

Cumber
02-07-2005, 14:07:59
Originally posted by Fergus & The Brazen Car
'War of the Worlds' umm, since when has the United States been a whole frickin' world ?

In all fairness a) you could say "since when has Britain been a whole frickin' world" about the original and b) maybe the aliens are attackign the whole world, but we're seeing the story of one guy (or family) who is sadly limited to existing in only one place at a time, and is in the US?

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to. It won't be the War of the Worlds, but it could be a neat action film. And it can't possibly be worse than the 1950's movie version.

On that note, I saw some people reviewing it on the TV the other day. Over the course of the review it slowly became clear that they not only were not mentioning but were in fact completely unaware that there is a book of the same name. :(

Fergus & The Brazen Car
04-07-2005, 09:59:53
Originally posted by Cumber
In all fairness a) you could say "since when has Britain been a whole frickin' world" about the original and b) maybe the aliens are attackign the whole world, but we're seeing the story of one guy (or family) who is sadly limited to existing in only one place at a time, and is in the US?



I'm not asking for the miracle of bilocation for Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning, just a simple recognition of a simple truth- the U.S.A., despite its baseball series and a crappy charity record for Africa, isn't the whole world.

H.G. Wells was writing in a more imperialist arrogant time, and at least he had the excuse that the British Empire comprised a quarter of the inhabited globe, was incredibly ethnically diverse, and was the largest political unit the world has ever seen.

And in all fairness one could say that the earlier George Pal film version of 1953 managed to at least get some matte shots of the rest of the world outside of the United States with Martian craft in Paris, Agra, et cetera.

How much has the technology of film moved on since then ?

Spielberg does 'Independence Day' without the grotesque patronising bollocks of the U.S. military-industrial complex saving the whole world with a presidential fighter pilot and a laptop but with the same degree of myopia.

Lurker the Second
04-07-2005, 16:16:20
Saw the movie last night. Worth seeing, but not great.

:lol: at Fergus. Sometimes you gotta just sit back and enjoy the movie. In case you hadn't noticed, it wasn't much of a "war" either.

Cumber
04-07-2005, 19:53:49
A couple of my friends get bugged when American world-wide-disaster movies are centred on American characters and then don't portray what's happening to the rest of the world. But really, if it's centred on particular characters (and not all movies are so much, I will admit) there's no good reason to cut to shots of famous landmarks around the world blowing up. Is the main character seeing these distant events, or even being informed about them? Does stuff happen there that's relevent to the plot of the main character? There's usually no reason to do it.

There's enough REAL irritating Americentrism around that I think it's silly to be annoyed when American movies aimed at American audiences are about Americans in America, basically.

And likewise for the original War of the Worlds book. Yes, it was written in a more imperialist arrogant time, but it was the story of one single guy who never leaves Britain over the course of the book. As far as I can remember throughout the whole story you get almost no information that isn't found out by the main character as he finds it out. This is one of the things that makes it a well put together story. He is vaguely aware that the rest of the world is being invaded too, so it is briefly mentioned. What else do you want it to do?

Sir Penguin
05-07-2005, 01:52:30
Independence Day had shots from around the world.

SP

fp
05-07-2005, 12:06:40
But it sucked too.

Sir Penguin
05-07-2005, 14:40:12
Independence Day was awesome. :coolgrin:

SP

Venom
05-07-2005, 14:51:22
I actually think leaving out other parts of the world was part of the plot in this one. At least once in the movie people speculate about what's going on in the rest of the world and who got attacked worst. For me it added a bit of realism. No one knew what was going on, society was wrecked. And in this one, unlike Independence Day, they don't focus on landmarks blowing up, it's just about the people.

Also, you're telling me we didn't bump into one of these huge space ships while digging the subways or sewers? What the fuck were the ships doing here millions of years ago? Was Earth valet parking for Mars? They were waiting to invade for millions of years before mankind even evolved? Stupidest. Plot point. Ever.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
05-07-2005, 15:00:00
Originally posted by Venom
They were waiting to invade for millions of years before mankind even evolved? Stupidest. Plot point. Ever.


They were waiting for value meals to 'evolve' at McDonalds and happy hours to be introduced at tiki lounges with Laurence Welk playing in the background.


I'll watch 'Mars Attacks!' instead for a deliberately humorous film about invading Martians.

Cumber
05-07-2005, 15:21:14
Originally posted by Venom
I actually think leaving out other parts of the world was part of the plot in this one. At least once in the movie people speculate about what's going on in the rest of the world and who got attacked worst. For me it added a bit of realism. No one knew what was going on, society was wrecked. And in this one, unlike Independence Day, they don't focus on landmarks blowing up, it's just about the people.

Exactly.

Holy shit! I agreed with Venom! :eek:

Venom
05-07-2005, 15:36:27
Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Lurker the Second
05-07-2005, 15:38:57
And then pull the trigger.

Cumber
05-07-2005, 15:45:41
Which way is the gun pointing when I pull the trigger?

JM^3
06-07-2005, 08:20:21
I enjoyed the movie

yeah, there were a few strangenesses to the plot, but most of them were in the original work, and I was OK with them because of that

a few others, like the camcorder which shouldn't have worked, I found a bit jarring, but I didn't allow to ruin the movie

basically I think that if you appreciate the book, that you will probably like the film

I liked most of the scenes and thought it was reasonably close to the source material

JM

Funko
06-07-2005, 09:17:32
I saw on TV the other day that they are re-releasing the musical version, which I used to love as a kid.

Venom
06-07-2005, 12:58:02
Because you're gay.

King_Ghidra
06-07-2005, 13:47:49
:lol:

actually i just borrowed the musical version from a cowie, got to get round to listening to it

Funko
06-07-2005, 13:48:50
Originally posted by Venom
Because you're gay.

What were you listening to? New Kids on the Block?

Venom
06-07-2005, 14:02:56
Guns and Roses. My sister was the New Kids fan.

Funko
06-07-2005, 14:19:15
Sure, they were your sisters CDs. We believe you.

Venom
06-07-2005, 14:24:17
Yeah, like any shit talking is effective coming from a life long musical fan. Tell me, when did you first realize you were gay? Was it when you sucked your first cock, got bummed for the first time, or started enjoying musicals?

Funko
06-07-2005, 14:28:15
Oh now I see what you are getting at.

It's not really a musical like a musical. It's just some guy talking about death rays and battleships over some music.

The Higgelhoff
06-07-2005, 14:39:18
...and the music is awesome!

Funko
06-07-2005, 14:42:02
Den den duh dunaleh dunaleh
Den den duh dun deh dun deh dun deh dun deh...

The Higgelhoff
06-07-2005, 14:44:02
The chances of anything coming from Mars.... were a million to one they said!

But still they came.


*cool Van Halen style guitar solos*

Venom
06-07-2005, 14:45:03
Ahh, see I thought you meant musical musical. Not like a radio show.

Funko
06-07-2005, 14:46:46
It's got some singing...

The Higgelhoff
06-07-2005, 14:48:46
Knightrider - The Musical would me a manly affair; and not in a gay way.

Venom
06-07-2005, 14:57:55
You might be biased in that opinion though.

Lurker the Second
06-07-2005, 15:00:41
Originally posted by The Higgelhoff
Knightrider - The Musical would me a manly affair; and not in a gay way.

:lol:

Lurker the Second
06-07-2005, 15:02:04
Originally posted by Cumber
Which way is the gun pointing when I pull the trigger?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

The Norks
15-07-2005, 22:49:53
saw this with my mummy tonight. Both of us were jumping and cowering in all the required places. I thought it was excellently executed but strangely anodyne. It really scared the crap out of me and i was tense, but the ending was a bit quick and easily explained.

Tom Cruise always surprises me with how good an actor he is, but again I just can't engage with him.

what does this mean?

Greg W
16-07-2005, 16:56:50
He's already engaged?

Drekkus
19-07-2005, 12:21:27
:lol:

Colon
28-01-2007, 14:16:14
Just seen it and I thought it was surprisingly good. Ignoring typical hollywoodisms, Spielberg knows how to direct and Cruise is an excellent actor. The movie also took the effort to reflect on some of humanity's darker side, so it wasn't overly simplistic good vs bad flick. Sound and visuals (not just special effects) were magnificent.
Too bad there were some stupendously illogical situations. You can't use cams to film aliens after an EMP-attack, you boozus. And not considering microbes while planning an invasion for millions of years sounds pretty far-fetched too.

I'd also wish warfare in such movies would be a bit more complex. In both ID and WotW humanity is faced with invincible aliens, whom they defeat through an act of genius or sheer luck. Yet, beam weapons aren't that much of a distant prospect (even if it won't look like the movies) and EMP-weapons have already been utilised. The technological gap is a lot smaller than between humans and maggots (as is suggested), so it shouldn't be impossible to take down tripods.

PS: haven't read the book, so I'm purely talking in relation to Spielberg's version.

maroule
29-01-2007, 08:22:19
you can't take down tripods if you don't have:
- a wasp US president who is a former jet pilot
- a jewish scientist with a Dell laptop to hack Windows Aliens (c)
- a black jet pilot hero with an attitude

FACT

Funko
29-01-2007, 09:18:01
War of the Worlds was written over 100 years ago the concept of microbes was fairly new and man had barely discovered manned flight let alone space travel.

I think the ruthlessness of the superior Martians is meant to reflect Wells' views about how the technologically superior Europeans treated the natives in colonies in Africa and across the world.

It was a brilliant bit of work at the time and still well worth reading but I don't think the story really works translated into a modern era for the reasons you mention.

maroule
29-01-2007, 10:07:13
it would have been highly subversive if it made the same point (aka, the US good citizens treated like baghdad civilians by a blind and highly superior high tech force bumping in from a far off place), but Schpillberg isn't really strong on that agenda, and making the ETs pure evil blood gardeners made sure there was no analogy whatsoever

It would be interesting to see a sc-fi work along those lines: i.e. a superior alien race, with benevolent aims but misguided means, invade us to stop humans to slaughter each other (but also rape our ressources for their own benefit, which is fair enough), while the humans progressively resist and fight back, sometimes in barbarous ways... some BSG episodes of caprica II were along those lines, except that the Cylons are hardly benevolent... there was an old scfi soap, called "V" in France in the 80s', along the lines of a lizard race invading earth, under the guise of humans... but they wanted to EAT US the bastards

Funko
29-01-2007, 10:15:57
We had V here, American show (not sure if the French one was the US one or a remake...). Lots of people at school watched it, or said they did. I wasn't allowed to watch it. It was too violent and on too late, well, that and my Dad said it was crap anyway. Saw some repeats on a digi channel a few months ago, and it did seem a bit shit.

maroule
29-01-2007, 10:30:40
I meant it was called V in French (cos I didn't know if it was the US title)... no way the french TV could do something like that...

It probably aged very very badly but I was enthralled when I saw it! I loved it

Funko
29-01-2007, 10:41:59
Yeah, I reckon I'd have loved it at the time too, but I was only 9 or 10 or something.

Colon
29-01-2007, 11:02:51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_%28TV_series%29

The premises seem more interesting than what usually underpins human vs ET stories.

I've been entertaining myself a bit thinking about what would happen were an ET invasion force to land on earth (assuming they want to cultivate the planet and it inhabitants and not just wipe it all out). Numbers would probably on our side, equipment on theirs, so you'd probably be getting a lot of mass attacks as with the Soviets in WW2. Were that to fail insurgency would probably unfold in occupied territories, with all the shady business that comes with it.
Something that is never considered in sci-fi stories, is that the supply lines of an alien force must be humongously long. That means they can ill-afford any losses, whereas humanity will likely accept large sacrifices to push them out.

Anyhow, I'd love to watch something that's more thought out than usual.

King_Ghidra
29-01-2007, 11:13:32
at the risk of getting myself involved in something prepsoterously nerdy again, i'm going to take your posts seriously and take issue with a couple of points:

Something that is never considered in sci-fi stories, is that the supply lines of an alien force must be humongously long. That means they can ill-afford any losses, whereas humanity will likely accept large sacrifices to push them out.


depends how they get here. giant insta-teleporters? no problem then.

Numbers would probably on our side, equipment on theirs

same again. what if the aliens have huge homeworlds and insta-transport. they can supply endless troops.

also you seem to be assuming the alien force is humanoid and of a similar but more advanced technological nature. what if the invasion force is bacterial or animal or something? maybe the aliens have been mass breeding some kind of terifying beast and will just unleash shitloads of them on us to run wild. or, i don't know, what if they just bombard the planet with EMP or something to fuck up all our technology and then come down and mop us up. what if they're crystalline or jelly-like or something and our weapons don't affect them in the usual ways?

etc. etc.

Immortal Wombat
29-01-2007, 11:19:38
In most reasonably hard sci-fi, it's generally acknowledged that "conventional" space-bourne planetary invasions are flat-out impossible. The only ones which are really any good are when a large chunk of the alien civilisation comes and parks in orbit. The Borg, Independance Day, etc.

But as KG says, teleporters or subterfuge are always options.

Funko
29-01-2007, 11:20:45
I agree with Phil. Humans could already nuke the planet to death several times over, there's no reason to think a handful of aliens couldn't achieve the same goal.

If they can travel interstellar distances they will have access to technology we haven't even theorised. Even doing something relatively simple like capturing a local asteroid and sending it on a collision course with Earth could be fairly effective. I think we could achieve that if we wanted to, and spent the money on it.

Colon
29-01-2007, 11:22:47
Even so, why assume it's game over once the regular forces are defeated? The US ran over Iraq in a matter of weeks, but insurgency has been biting their ass ever since. Also see the resistance and partisan groups in Europe under Nazi-occupation. And why assume humans wouldn't be able to adapt the weaponry depending on the type of threat? And where there to be an enduring occupation it'd be probably that a good deal of knowledge would be passed on to the occupied, as has always been the case.

Colon
29-01-2007, 11:24:58
Originally posted by Funko
I agree with Phil. Humans could already nuke the planet to death several times over, there's no reason to think a handful of aliens couldn't achieve the same goal.

We're assuming the ET's intend to utilise the planet and its inhabitants, as a matter of decent economic policy.

Funko
29-01-2007, 11:28:29
If they want food (as in War of the Worlds) they are better off wiping out humanity and farming the much less intelligent and more controllable and domesticated animals we already farm.

A nice genetically engineered plague or something would do nicely.

If they just want the minerals or water there's no value keeping us alive.

MoSe
29-01-2007, 11:32:25
Originally posted by maroule
there was an old scfi soap, called "V" in France in the 80s', along the lines of a lizard race invading earth, under the guise of humans... but they wanted to EAT US the bastards

V - VISITORS!!!

Freddy Krueger played a good lizard there, IIRC

:D

MoSe
29-01-2007, 11:34:40
Originally posted by Funko
If they want food (as in War of the Worlds) they are better off wiping out humanity and farming the much less intelligent and more controllable and domesticated animals we already farm.

Unless, as in Liquid Sky, they feed off a unique endorphine only humans produce during their orgasms...

:)

King_Ghidra
29-01-2007, 11:35:54
Originally posted by Colon
We're assuming the ET's intend to utilise the planet and its inhabitants, as a matter of decent economic policy.

i would like to distance myself from funko's atempts to enmesh me in his armageddon. all of my arguments were based around colon's 'not wiping humans out' concept.

Funko
29-01-2007, 11:39:40
I wasn't trying to enmesh you, I was agreeing with your last paragraph about the 'invasion' not needing to be a conventional humanlike war as Greg was suggesting.

Colon
29-01-2007, 11:48:08
Originally posted by Funko
If they want food (as in War of the Worlds) they are better off wiping out humanity and farming the much less intelligent and more controllable and domesticated animals we already farm.

A nice genetically engineered plague or something would do nicely.

If they just want the minerals or water there's no value keeping us alive.

The populations of Africa weren't wiped out either during colonisation. Instead, they were put to work in the economy and even in the military. Why destroy a large pool of workers, who, if anything, are perfectly adapted to the planet's conditions? As a matter of a rational cost/benefits analysis it wouldn't make sense.

Colon
29-01-2007, 11:53:52
Originally posted by Funko
I wasn't trying to enmesh you, I was agreeing with your last paragraph about the 'invasion' not needing to be a conventional humanlike war as Greg was suggesting.

Asymmetric warfare such as guerilla unfolds exactly in situations where the capabilities of one side are completely superior to the other's. To get back to the costs/benefits issue, guerilla works because it pushes up the costs of occupation to such extend the venture becomes no longer worthwile.

Colon
29-01-2007, 12:03:26
Consider War of the Worlds for instance. So the tripods capture humans, stock them within their shield and then suck their blood, right? Well, one tactic that could be used is to stuff human corpses with explosives and let those detonate once within the tripod. If Cruise's heroism is any guide, it takes out the machines mighty fine.