War Of The Worlds

I really liked this film except the last 10 minutes or so... why Spielberg wanted to do it that way I have no clue and I'm sorta disappointed about it
 
ravinesedge said:
I really liked this film except the last 10 minutes or so... why Spielberg wanted to do it that way I have no clue and I'm sorta disappointed about it
Click to expand...

What specifically about the last ten minutes?
 
*Spoilers*







Just thought I'd cover my arse in case no one has seen the movie. I didn't like how there was no explanation on how all the tripods stopped working... (it's been a while since I've seen the movie, maybe there was and I don't remember) and I don't like how his son was just there in Boston with no explanation for him either ( i know there wasn't for him) even with all the death and distruction throughout the movie; to the main characters it was too much of a happy ending for me... that's just my opinion though
 
ravinesedge said:
*Spoilers*







Just thought I'd cover my arse in case no one has seen the movie. I didn't like how there was no explanation on how all the tripods stopped working... (it's been a while since I've seen the movie, maybe there was and I don't remember) and I don't like how his son was just there in Boston with no explanation for him either ( i know there wasn't for him) even with all the death and distruction throughout the movie; to the main characters it was too much of a happy ending for me... that's just my opinion though
Click to expand...


That's the ending in the book too. It basically abruptly ends when all hope seems to be lost and its something so small that caused us not to be wiped out. That said, it still didn't sit right with me. Like most of the movie, it was just off.

The condition of the son and the rest of the family and the family's block irked me though.
 
Taryllou said:
This film's awesome! whatever it is abour the story or the filmmaking, it's amazing!
Click to expand...

overall yeah i agree with you but those last 10 minutes really piss me off... my dad who doesnt even really like movies that much and knows jack about them even thought the last 10 min were crap.
 
Dakota Fanning is uber-creepy. Way creepier than Haley Joel Osment, and that kid was creepy.

Huh. Dakota . . . Haley . . . Heather O'Rourke . . . Spielberg likes creepy kids, that's for sure.
 
ravinesedge said:
overall yeah i agree with you but those last 10 minutes really piss me off... my dad who doesnt even really like movies that much and knows jack about them even thought the last 10 min were crap.
Click to expand...
yes I agree with you, the end isn't good at all actually, I forgot about it. it's too evident
 
David Jimerson said:
Dakota Fanning is uber-creepy. Way creepier than Haley Joel Osment, and that kid was creepy.

Huh. Dakota . . . Haley . . . Heather O'Rourke . . . Spielberg likes creepy kids, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

yeah...how fraking weird is that??!!!
 
"For a very high altitude detonation, EMP effects can spread over a wide area outside the range of flash burn and blast effects. But to be damaged, electronic equipment needs to be connected to fairly long unprotected exposed conductors in order for enough voltage to be induced to cause breakdown. The ARRL published tests on a number of amateur radios, tested in a military EMP simulator, to see what would typically happen in such a case. Battery powered VHF/UHF equipment using a "rubber ducky" antenna was immune to damage. Equipment connected to unprotected mains power suffered power supply damage. And HF equipment connected to unprotected outside antennas suffered receiver front end damage. For solid state equipment, this damage was to the first RF stage transistor, for tube equipment, it was damage to the first stage grid resistor. No transmitters suffered damage."

http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/emp.html

Maybe this is why the Video camera survived - also ITS A F*%KING SUMMER MOVIE FER CHRISSSAKES, JUST ENJOY IT, OR DON'T. If you want a physics lesson go to cal tech - moreover, to the dissenters on the thread, I look forward to when you are producing films as effectively as Spielberg. Not only is he prolific but also his films have brought into the public mind and popular media such issues as slavery, the holocaust and reintroduced the concept of the anti-war film to cinema - didn't See anyone else around here doing that. He is hardly the embodiment of the commercial sell-out. And now Munich. Good luck on your low budget features and I hope you are not treated to such pernickety nitpicking upon release of your flawless films.
 
jamestmather said:
...I look forward to when you are producing films as effectively as Spielberg. Not only is he prolific but also his films have brought into the public mind and popular media such issues as slavery, the holocaust and reintroduced the concept of the anti-war film to cinema - didn't See anyone else around here doing that. He is hardly the embodiment of the commercial sell-out. And now Munich. Good luck on your low budget features and I hope you are not treated to such pernickety nitpicking upon release of your flawless films.
Click to expand...

Just because someone is very successful, it shouldn't mean that they are beyond criticism, that's a crazy suggestion. People nitpick and attack my films just the same - It is my responsibility to make sure there aren't problems to attack. As far as the camera, I don't think it matters what is scientifically correct, if it "appears" incorrect" to an audience, it draws them out of the film and should be avoided.

Best thing is to satisfy scientific and and audience expectation. 2001 is a reasonable example of this.

Popcorn or not, I want a film to be believeable. :thumbsup:
 
further I notice that some of the movies posted on the site show a less-than-basic grasp on basic composition and editing and don't receive the flaying that War of the Worlds got in some of the previous posts. It just seems a little overzealous to be picking on such minor details in what is undoubtedly a well crafted entertinment movie - it's not like he's lying about a true event or misrepresenting something real.
 
jamestmather said:
further I notice that some of the movies posted on the site show a less-than-basic grasp on basic composition and editing and don't receive the flaying that War of the Worlds got in some of the previous posts. It just seems a little overzealous to be picking on such minor details in what is undoubtedly a well crafted entertinment movie - it's not like he's lying about a true event or misrepresenting something real.
Click to expand...

Not so... it is the "minor details" that ruined the movie for me, for the most part, and ruined any chance I had of believing in what was going. There were things that just didn't make sense, characters not thinking, etc.

From a technical standpoint, sure the movie LOOKED good and was polished, but what else would I expect from a 300million dollar piece?

The script needed some of that same polish, IMO.
 
jamestmather said:
further I notice that some of the movies posted on the site show a less-than-basic grasp on basic composition and editing and don't receive the flaying that War of the Worlds got in some of the previous posts.
Click to expand...


While I agree with you that picking on such minutiae might be...well...nit picky, I don't think you can really compare the critiques given to War of the Worlds with the critiques given to users' work on this site. It's just not a fair comparisson, they aren't in the same ballpark at all. We grade on the curve. If someone here had made 'Jaws' then you can be sure we'd be just as hard on them.
 
And I'm simply going to argue about the fashion in which you are arguing. You wanna debate the films; thats great but watch it with the personal attacks and bellittling of other members, please?

We all have opinions and they all differ; so lets please respect that.

Thanks :beer:
 
what personal attacks? against whom? I'm not disputing that people who are learning their craft should put their work up for criticism on the web nor am I suggesting that they should be criticised harshly for their efforts but why shouldn't the respect and consideration that they receive be extended to other filmmakers. I often think that filmmakers working within the studio system have far more pressure on their shoulders to "deliver" something and simply because they have access to high end equipment doesn't make them infallible. 100 million dollars in the world of high budget stars and location shooting doesn't buy you that much these days and the demands of the marketplace are such that the constant need to be new and groundbreaking in the marketplace when people don't see the need to practice it themselves smacks of hypocrisy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top