War Of The Worlds

.

.

Machardi:

B. She was also critiquing a work that was meant to directly connect with a pre-existing and forthcoming work (volumes I and III), by the same 'creators'. She wasn't critiquing a work that was essentially a fan-film of previous works. So while expecting someone who is watching LOTRII to actually have seen LOTRI makes sense, expecting someone who is watching WOTW to have read the original WOTW and seen the original movie isn't entirely senseless, but it makes a lot -less- sense.

C. Part of the absurdity of Dowd's critique was her desire to assert her own contemporary value system (manliness,evil orcs, live and let live, et al) on the world of
Tolkien. The issue of disliking the ending is not one of cultural disconnect, it is one of structural narrative dissatisfaction. Given that the culture of WotW was supposed to be ours, I'm not even sure if a Dowdian mistake (dowdian, lol) could even be made.


Good points. Regarding B: why should we not expect a critical audience who is going to a REMAKE not to be familiar with the original material? And why can we have a greater expectation that LOTR people should have read the books, but not WOW people?

Regarding C: man, you have hit it right on the head about Dowd... she was imposing her contemporary value system on a story that doesn't possibly pertain to that value system. However, I can argue (weakly) that what would have been a more satisfactory ending? Happy survivors, waving goodbye? Scene after scene of people lending a helping hand to unfortunates buried in the rubble? Sounds like a plastic Hollywood ending to me, which is what a lot of us on this forum don't buy. I frankly don't have a clue about that until I see it; but it seemed to me to be surprising considering the original story.

no offense, but I went back and read the last couple chapters of WotW just so I wasn't being a complete ass (or maroon) by responding to your post without a fairly complete frame of reference, and I'm pretty sure you're -almost- entirely wrong.

After reading it, I don't think that "The book ends abruptly" can be used to defend "the movie ends appropriately."

The movie ends with the protagonist being reunited with his family, and then a 2 sentence blurb about what killed the martians.

The end of chapter nine, leaves the protagonist with -his- family, but there's more closure and commentary as Wells uses the opportunity to illustrate how meaningless the Prot's original life was (comparitively) and how impossible it is to try to resume it ( but then comes chapter 10, "The Epilogue" (The bit that was cut from our movie, allegedly)

In Chapter 10, Wells discusses the laboratory experiments on the corpses of the aliens, the attempts to reverse engineer their technology, which would've been interesting but not necessary, but also he discusses several ramifications of the invasion, my favorite being

Will the [Martians] invade again?


Well, maybe I am a maroon after all. I do not remember that material you talk about, my impression from the original was, boof! That's it?! Hmm, I'm going to take my own advice and check it out.
 
John_Hudson said:
Good call everyone; I'm kind of waitin' for someone to come in and say "It sucked man!" Haha. I dare you!

I'll take that dare.

Don't get me wrong . . . it was marvelously-filmed (though someone could tell Spielberg that copious bleach bypass is SO '98 . . . :evil: ); the FX were superb and I agree on the sound they made being wicked cool . . .

But the story was ridiculous. All the heroes did was . . . survive. Wait for it to pass. OK, Tom's Luke Skywalker moment was heroic, but it ultimately did nothing toward the larger conflict.

And the invasion story was inane. What is it about RIGHT NOW that's the right time for them to invade? Why not right after WWII when a good chunk of the planet is already devastated?

Heck, why not a million years ago when they came by to drop off their tripods?

And they're so much more intelligent than we are, and were actually ON THE PLANET, and they didn't bother to test for microbes?

Nope. Just didn't do it for me.

And I'm sorry . . . all the family crap? NOT necessary.

(And sorry if anyone made the same points; just replying to Hudson's post.)
 
fixitinpost said:
I guessing that they cut the film on an Avid. It's also likely that the FX were done in Houdini. The only way to find out for sure at this point would be to find out which FX house they used, and then see what the facility uses.

Spielberg cuts his film on film.
 
Well, I liked the fact that he roughly stayed with the original storyline. I had expected Spielberg to change it in ways to make it more "modern" per se, but he kept it roughly how the events took place in the original and that to me was an excellent choice. But some things did seem a little ... well ... how would I put it?

Like when we saw the aliens for the first time in the basement ... they came down and looked through the rubble while Tom and company hid ... didn't anyone find it strange that these extremely technologically advanced beings were so dumb as to drink water out of the broken sewage pipes? Yum, defacated-flavored water. Hello!!! Maybe technologically advanced, but they obviously had peanut sized brains in those big heads of theirs ...

Idiots I say ... I'm surprised they didn't just line themselves outside their tripods and blast themselves with their death rays ...
 
John_Hudson said:
Did you see the people during 9/11? Staring up; mouth's agape? It's a train wreck.

Aha! You remind me of one shot which WAS bone-chilling -- when the burning train went by.
 
Jubal28 said:
And the invasion story was inane. What is it about RIGHT NOW that's the right time for them to invade? Why not right after WWII when a good chunk of the planet is already devastated?

Heck, why not a million years ago when they came by to drop off their tripods?

If you had read my post you would have read this:

Next one is: Why were the tripods there for millions of years and the aliens didn’t do anything about it, why didn’t they attack earlier? – The aliens were growing a plant they use to survive, the human blood seemed the be the fertiliser, millions of years ago there would not have been enough people to grow the plant on. Hence why they waited millions of years until there was enough people. :grin:

Jubal28 said:
And they're so much more intelligent than we are, and were actually ON THE PLANET, and they didn't bother to test for microbes?


no race can predict nautre, (a purpose of the movie).
 
ST_ said:
If you had read my post you would have read this:

Next one is: Why were the tripods there for millions of years and the aliens didn’t do anything about it, why didn’t they attack earlier? – The aliens were growing a plant they use to survive, the human blood seemed the be the fertiliser, millions of years ago there would not have been enough people to grow the plant on. Hence why they waited millions of years until there was enough people. :grin:


Even if I bought that (which I don't), it doesn't explain why they didn't attack much earlier than now. After all, they vaporized God knows how many people. If human blood is their fertilizer, they wasted quite a bit of it -- which means they didn't need nearly as many people as there are on the planet. Hence, they should have attacked earlier.


no race can predict nautre, (a purpose of the movie).

We can generally predict that much. Seems like a no-brainer to check for.
 
Jubal28 said:
Even if I bought that (which I don't), it doesn't explain why they didn't attack much earlier than now. After all, they vaporized God knows how many people. If human blood is their fertilizer, they wasted quite a bit of it -- which means they didn't need nearly as many people as there are on the planet. Hence, they should have attacked earlier.

Its completely irrelevant non the less. They could have attatacked at any time frame and you could question "why didnt they attack sometime sooner/and or later".
 
Jubal28 said:
[/b]
We can generally predict that much. Seems like a no-brainer to check for.

I’m not keen on medicine but my family is so (and i studied evolution): viruses/microbes constantly evolve, perhaps the sudden unbalance of the earth caused this rapid change on the microbes that was deadly for the aliens. Or perhaps nature on purpose created this virus to fight back. It is impossible to predict.
 
Jubal28 said:
Yeah. And one of the first questions a writer should ask himself is "why NOW"?

I didn’t write it so i have no idea. I can't remember seeing anything that gave the time frame of the movie? there might have been a date at the start? if there wasn’t how do you know it wasn’t after an event that had previously wiped out a chunk of the earth?
 
Ok sorry, just making sure you were'nt against the movie because you’re against Spielberg. What demographic do you think it was made for? We are obviously different (age, location), and I have a feeling it was intended for younger audience members just to rack in the "mummy can I go see this" money (yet it was so graphical, not that that stops children from watching TV these days, so I’m not really sure).
 
I hear alot of questions being asked that just seem pointless to even ask them. This stroy was told from the point of view of the survivors; there are no scientists to explain every detail and nuance. Why do we need to know WHY they attacked? Does it matter? What does WHEN have to with anything? Who knows but the Alien's.

It's a story about an alian invasion with the main characters being the centerpice of the story. To me, this is the perfect 'sit back and enjoy' film. There is no need to know why this or why that. Would we know if it actually did happen? Not at all.

Do we have to have the aliens talking in their motherships with subtitles? To we have to have the clever JEFF GOLDBLUM character figuring it all out and racing to government headquarters to save the world?
 
Back
Top