|
Post by Lensman on Sept 4, 2005 21:40:54 GMT
Moorkey:
Re Point 1 and Point 2: Okay, I'm not a military buff, I'll take your word for it. Please note re your Point 1, I did say I *guessed* it was a Comanche.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People who are quite knowledgeable in certain areas often spot mistakes in movies. I used to have a friend who was a WW II German military buff, and would complain bitterly about how every WW II movie he saw used the wrong vehicles, uniforms, decorations and insignia, etc. etc. Frankly I got tired of it. I've also gotten tired of another friend of mine's constant complaints about the historical inaccuracies of "Gladiator", despite the fact that movie got many things right that no other Roman Empire-setting movie has. I personally have similar problems with movies set in outer space; I know too much about the physics of accelleration, gravity, orbital dynamics, etc. to enjoy movies like "Mission to Mars" or "Armageddon".
So what's my point? That the overwhelming majority of movies are aimed at the mainstream audience, and that the producers don't worry too much about accurate details. I for one don't blame them for that. Making a successful "big" movie is a very hard endeavor, requiring many, many people working on it, and endless details. Trying to ensure accuracy on every single detail would make it that much harder, and therefore more expensive. James Cameron may have lavished that kind of accurate detail on "Titanic" as a labor of love, and ditto Tom Hanks and "Apollo 13", but don't expect to see that sort of thing too often. It's just too hard, and causes movie making to be that much more expensive.
|
|
|
Post by D.A.V.E on Sept 7, 2005 16:11:56 GMT
Well, me not being of technical mind, did not notice any of these mistakes with aircraft, vehicles or the like.. I did however wonder if there was a continuity error at the ferry scene.. When we see everyone rushing down to the ferry, we can see snow. When we see Robbie run ahead on the boat, up on to the little balcony, you can clearly see heavy rain. Then when he runs back, its snowing, then when we see the captain on the bridge, you can see rivlets of water running down the windows, and when he looks outside, its raining... then back to the boat... and it's snowing.... And it was definately NOT sleeting... Perhaps someone can explain if I missed anything
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Sept 10, 2005 15:52:09 GMT
It's ok lensman. I see exactly where you are coming from about familiarity exposing mistakes.(note-dont mention the Harrier scenes in Battlefield Earth, True Lies, etc... Then you will REALLY see me on my soapbox. Not something anyone should be exposed to for long. ) Hope I havent annoyed you too much. re. About the snow-rain-snow thing. I can't really remember that. Will have to wait till the DVD comes out.
|
|
|
Post by ometiklan on Sept 18, 2005 3:36:51 GMT
When Ray throws the grenade to get the Tripods attention after grabbing his Daughter. He was kinda close to the explosion made by that grenade don't you think?..... Also seems to be alot of people have seen this movie A great many times. Almost as if they already own A copy of this movie. Like A Russian version of this movie.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Sept 18, 2005 4:16:32 GMT
Nah, no one dodgy here. We're all respectable Wells fans, dontchaknow.
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Sept 18, 2005 14:39:52 GMT
Nope. First took myself too see it. Then my girlfriend. Then my dad. After I took my dad, i got thinking, and went to see it many weeks later. I also have an excellent recall for detail (when you are an aeronautical engineer you really have to have excellent recall. Not that I am sounding my own whistle there.)
To imply that we all have pirated DVDs may be a bit of a broad statement, which some people may (MAY) find offensive. I personally believe that pirated DVDs are wrong. It's pointless buying a DVD when you know it will be c**p quality, probably foreign, and definately ILLEGAL. I also agree that pDVDs are destroying the movie Industry.
(p.s. I am not offended. Just opinionated.)
|
|
|
Post by ometiklan on Sept 18, 2005 16:26:13 GMT
I wasn't trying to tear anyone down with that remark. It's just that I have seen A pirated copy of this move. I wont go into details but..... The Quality of the copy I have seen is DVD quality. It is in english with no subtitles. The only Russian in the movie is the Title "War of the Worlds" Whoever did the copy I watched even put Chapters in the Movie.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Sept 24, 2005 1:00:33 GMT
Moorkey: Re Point 1 and Point 2: Okay, I'm not a military buff, I'll take your word for it. Please note re your Point 1, I did say I *guessed* it was a Comanche. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People who are quite knowledgeable in certain areas often spot mistakes in movies. I used to have a friend who was a WW II German military buff, and would complain bitterly about how every WW II movie he saw used the wrong vehicles, uniforms, decorations and insignia, etc. etc. Frankly I got tired of it. I've also gotten tired of another friend of mine's constant complaints about the historical inaccuracies of "Gladiator", despite the fact that movie got many things right that no other Roman Empire-setting movie has. I personally have similar problems with movies set in outer space; I know too much about the physics of accelleration, gravity, orbital dynamics, etc. to enjoy movies like "Mission to Mars" or "Armageddon". So what's my point? That the overwhelming majority of movies are aimed at the mainstream audience, and that the producers don't worry too much about accurate details. I for one don't blame them for that. Making a successful "big" movie is a very hard endeavor, requiring many, many people working on it, and endless details. Trying to ensure accuracy on every single detail would make it that much harder, and therefore more expensive. James Cameron may have lavished that kind of accurate detail on "Titanic" as a labor of love, and ditto Tom Hanks and "Apollo 13", but don't expect to see that sort of thing too often. It's just too hard, and causes movie making to be that much more expensive. Good point there, i suppose the key phrase is "suspension of disbelief'. I would never go as far as criticising incorrect badge insignia, uniform etc. But when you have films such as Battlefield Earth that shows 'cavemen' using simulators and learning to pilot Harrier jets, then it takes the mickey.
|
|
george
Junior Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by george on Sept 24, 2005 2:21:43 GMT
Let's face it. The Spielberg movie was made so fast it is riddled with flaws. There was so few shots for the article in the new Cinefex that they actually talked extensively about the special effects in scenes that were not even in the movie. I had to laugh when one of the effects guys went on and on about what they WERE going to do with the red weed. It SOUNDED cool, but then he goes on to say that the red weed was finally realized with a prop about six inched in the celler scene because Spielberg thought the red weed would take the audience out of the movie. Ha! Sure. They didn't have enough time and it shows everywhere in this turkey.
|
|
x200
Junior Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by x200 on Oct 16, 2005 17:32:33 GMT
Im sorry, but I feel I must say something regaurding this realistic approach to why EMP doesnt effect certain things in the movie, while there might be a scientific basis for SOME of it, im quite sure it is purely accidental a film that cares less about scientific accuracy and more about mindless FX such as a heatray that vaporises human flesh but leaves the clothes alone, in one scene fires through a car (without damage) and in the next half burns a tank thats still able to drive back... such incidents that this or that works and what does or doesnt would most likely be either not ever picked up.. nor cared about.. altho I do admit its fun to apply scientific basis to movies such as this.. Personally, I think the scientific researching of what does what and why according to the laws of physics is best reserved to the original book, or a lesser extent JW version and.. following my heavy railway depedant review of this very movie.. and this very topic an AMD 104 Genesis locomotive as seen on the front of the amtrak superliner is on fire and seems to have met with a tripod (hence EMP too), while the prime mover itself is diesel (which turns the generator which powers the traction motors that provides locomotion) .. the electric traction motors, electrics grid, modern computer control and all associated safety devices, fuses, relays electronic controlers etc etc would have been non functional hence.. stopped quite dead and not in full song notch 8 and lets not get into the deadman pedal and or Vigilence control debate
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Oct 16, 2005 19:15:45 GMT
Spielberg just rang me, he said . . .
"Its got tripods in it, what more do you want?" ;D
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Oct 18, 2005 12:37:55 GMT
Spielberg just rang me, he said . . . "Its got tripods in it, what more do you want?" ;D How about a film that isn't rushed towards the end
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Oct 22, 2005 11:06:19 GMT
the whole film was a blooper
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Oct 22, 2005 15:48:29 GMT
Took the words right out of my mouth!
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Nov 26, 2005 8:09:36 GMT
Not so much a blooper as a confusing point.
This one had been playing on my mind for bloody ages. If the cylinders for these tripods were buried millions of years ago, why the hell didn't anyone notice them when,say, the foundations for the buildings they are underneath, were being dug? Or when the layers of soil were stripped to build the road? Or when gas/water/electricity conduits were dug in?
I am confused (admittedly, not a hard thing to do, confusing me!)
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on Nov 27, 2005 4:38:57 GMT
Not so much a blooper as a confusing point. This one had been playing on my mind for bloody ages. If the cylinders for these tripods were buried millions of years ago, why the hell didn't anyone notice them when,say, the foundations for the buildings they are underneath, were being dug? Or when the layers of soil were stripped to build the road? Or when gas/water/electricity conduits were dug in? I am confused (admittedly, not a hard thing to do, confusing me!) I agree, it was a bit odd. It also made no sense that the things had been under the ground for millions of years, and were not rusty from the dampness of the soil and worked perfectly. Spielberg would probably tell us that it's a movie so it doesn't have to make sense. Translation: a fancy way of saying "plothole" that producers frequently use.
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Dec 10, 2005 8:00:24 GMT
More to the point, why?
Logistically, the whole concept of planting the machines for "...millions of years..." seems tactically pointless. Why not just wipe out everything first?
Seconds to your point on the factory floor spankiness of the Tripes, if they had been there for millions of years, why hasn't the soil surrounding them solidified into rock, thus effectively fossilizing the machines?
I can see it now... all the flashy, sparky hollywoodness of their arrival, only to find that THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY MOVE.
Makes SS's 'aliens from the dark side of ET's universe' seem a tad thick to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by mightymandy2001 on Dec 30, 2005 16:23:40 GMT
never noticed that, i'll have a look next time i watch the movie
|
|
|
Post by misschicken on Dec 31, 2005 8:31:18 GMT
The only 'evidence' that the tripods were buried for a million years came from Harlan Ogilvy. Why so many people choose to take the rantings of a mentally disturb character as being gospel truth truly confounds me.
Truth is that they might have only been buried a few hundred or a few thousand years.
Also man has not dug very deep into the Earth. If the tripods had been buried 1000 feet or more below the surface of Newark they would not have been found easily. The only holes that go to those depth of more are mines and oil wells.
As far as the camera thing go - it has been suggested that if the camera was in an aluminium camcorder case it would have been protected. I am not sure if this is truly the case ot not.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jan 1, 2006 20:21:10 GMT
The only 'evidence' that the tripods were buried for a million years came from Harlan Ogilvy. Why so many people choose to take the rantings of a mentally disturb character as being gospel truth truly confounds me. Truth is that they might have only been buried a few hundred or a few thousand years. Also man has not dug very deep into the Earth. If the tripods had been buried 1000 feet or more below the surface of Newark they would not have been found easily. The only holes that go to those depth of more are mines and oil wells. As far as the camera thing go - it has been suggested that if the camera was in an aluminium camcorder case it would have been protected. I am not sure if this is truly the case ot not. Even though i agree the ramblings of a mentally disturbed man should not be taken as hard fact. It's still the only explanation given by the story of how long they've been there, more like a plot device. So because of that you have to accept it as it's presented. I've also read that if something was wrapped in an aluminium foil, then it may work. Although how true this is i'm not sure. However it is suggested that a construct such as a Farraday Cage would provide at least some protection. Apparently the US Military has done some tests with 'EMP simulators' with cars. They found that cars generally were more resistant to EMP, because the metal shell is insulated by rubber tires. So perhaps the camera was kept in some kind of metal box and shielded from its inside surface. I don't know if many people would keep a camera/camcorder in a box, but it would provide protection. Something such as a 'safe' for example. Also it may have been kept in a basement, or in an area which happened to be well shielded. You could come up with countless reasons why people had working cameras. Therefore you could just use any of them for the film.
|
|