|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 20, 2005 19:19:36 GMT
I saw this bit on Fox News today: Movie More Than Meets the Eye?
Actor Tom Cruise might not have known it, but in his new movie "War of the Worlds" he's playing someone that the film's screenwriter thinks represents the Iraqi insurgents. Screenwriter David Koepp, quoted by the Canadian magazine Rue Morgue, said, "…the Martians [in the movie] ... represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext." And, in an interview with USA Weekend, Koepp said, "You can read our movie several ways. It could be 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."[/b] www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163019,00.html[/quote] Alas, if that's the fact, its executing is a bit lame. -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 20, 2005 19:48:23 GMT
The message of this movie is a BIG F.U. to HG Wells and his fans. Love the way his name was stuck in the end credits where virtually no-one will see it!
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Jul 20, 2005 20:17:33 GMT
I personally think the message of the movie is this: DUHHHHH! BLIBBLE BLIBBLE! PLIPPPPPPPPPPPPP! seriously
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 20, 2005 20:19:55 GMT
The message of this movie is a BIG F.U. to HG Wells and his fans. Love the way his name was stuck in the end credits where virtually no-one will see it! Wasn't it near the beggining too, with the bacteria? I remember seeing it somewhere I'm sure
|
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 20, 2005 20:49:39 GMT
I personally think the message of the movie is this: DUHHHHH! BLIBBLE BLIBBLE! PLIPPPPPPPPPPPPP! seriously kind of makes sense actually
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 21, 2005 0:29:32 GMT
I always see the story as a religous and faith in god things as it does say that "god in his wisdom" when talking about the bacteria that kill the martians. I think thats what the entire story is saying. The narrator bludgens a curate (losing faith) then god forgives him for doing this selfish act by killing the invaders with little germies.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 21, 2005 1:09:01 GMT
Well... thats more the message of the Pal version - that God saved us all - I think H. G. Wells would hate that message coming across via his book.
|
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 21, 2005 11:16:39 GMT
Oh wasn't H.G Well's very religious? I mean I've read some of his books so I hate to sound ignorant but I really didn't know that.
|
|
|
Post by robkral on Jul 21, 2005 17:07:19 GMT
After a couple of viewings. I'd say that the movie isn't perfect, by any means. I'll agree with that. I agree that it could have been better and does feel rushed at times. But, the messages in the film are, I thought, pretty obvious.. it's a warning against complacency, just like the book. The message is put across both in the opening narration and within the story. Having said that, perhpas it isn't as clear as it could have been (except perhaps to people familiar with the story) but, short of clubbing moviegoers over the head with it, I'm not really sure how Spielberg could have made it plainer. It's also an invasion story from one man's perspective.. just like in the book. Spielberg has just given the man a family who are with him throughout the movie. He has also inserted what is something of a trademark for him.. dysfunctionalism of that family. I expected that anyway... anyone who knows Spielberg's movies should. I also expected some sort of an act of heroism on Ray's part.. that maybe because that is what the studio probably think that most ordinary moviegoers want to see. The basket scene was a little contrived, I admit, but it served it's purpose. if that was the case. I think, overall, that this movie is mostly a case of the people involved in a movie misjudging the audience a little. Whilst it's not a particularly a dumb movie, it could have been more intelligent in it's outlook and I think it would have been a bigger success. What I mean is, they have made a movie which has a brain and real messages to put forth but it's done in that, typical Hollywood 'the audience are all f*ckwits' dumbed down way. I think this was a mistake. It's sort of like a brain surgeon pretending to be a chav.... It doesn't work. I also think that there may be missing scenes.. I know others would agree with this. I have a sneaking suspicion that it could be a case of the old cherry that has dogged some pretty good movies in the past.. the studio imposed running time limit. Remember how much better was and how much more sense the 'Aliens' special edition made compared to the theatrical cut? I hope this film will get a special edition/director's cut too. I think Spielberg's heart was in the right place with this one but it could have been done better. The reasoning behind the mistakes is as yet unclear. Maybe we'll find out some day. You gotta love the Tripods though. I agree with you Nerfherder....you're summary seems about right. I just saw it again last night. You know what? It gets BETTER with evey viewing. Here's why I think it does: When you SEE it in the theater, its pretty darn AMAZING. You come out, and gradually you start nit-picking it in your mind. This is because there IS things to nit pick about, then you start to realise there ARE (I believe) some major things to gripe about in terms of movie making, story building / telling and the characters (in my belief especially Robbie). Robbie is the ONLY thing when I saw it lsat night the third time that by the time we get to the hill I was saying to myself: " He shouldn't be even IN this movie: he's the biggest element I don't like (see my reviews and much of my negative comments come down to him and what he says and does). I digress!! I spend time on these boards, critical of the movie etc, then go back into the theater and WOW!!!! (Apart from Robbie). SOME OBSERVATIONS on third viewing: THERE IS A MISSING DAY, which is the day that leads up to the night on the hill. Ray putting the rock into his pocket is SO OBVIOUS which means there's a later scene definitely missing. Ogilvy says " a couple days in a basement and you go nuts?" to Ray, meaning there's a day in the basement missing. (Yes, in these cases the film maker might be just jumping ahead instead of doing a Hinesy, but in these places it FEELS like we missed something (se my review). It irks me, this comment by Ogilvy, becuase the basement is obiviously edited to feel like one night only. No we DON;T need to show what happened all day, but they cut it to look one night and that contributes to the rushed feeling of the story. THE MESSAGE: To respect and live humbly in regard to our place in the universe, AND IN THE WORLD. The war is on all levels: between Man and Alien, between Man and Man, between microscopic organisms and the largest of tripods: the clash between the most DISTANT invader and the CLOSEST organism that breeds within your very mouth. That's the message, and it pretty much works due to the closing narration. BUt I did miss some possible extra message delivery from Ogilvy / curate charecter (ala ASYLUM).
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jul 21, 2005 23:26:26 GMT
Short of , of course, Ogilvy's 'Occupations always fail' line, which was thrown in as though someone in the production was embarrassed about it. A real blink and you'd miss it thing. The kind of thing you'd expect Tim Robbins to say in real life in fact. A question of this perhaps?... WotW PRODUCTION OFFICE. Tim Robbins: Steven, I'd really like to put an anti Iraq message in there.. Spielberg:No! This isn't a platform for your already well known anti-Iraq stance... It's a movie about a War of the Worlds, based on that thing by Orson Welles and Jeff Wayne.. oh and a book by some guy, fer Chrissakes! T.R: Hmm... FLASH FORWARD- DURING FILMING OF BASEMENT SCENE. T.R: Blah, blah, script line, rhubarb.. (mumbles) Occupations always fail.. (speaks up again) script, script, we aren't on the same page - Spielberg: CUT! Tim, What did you just say then? T.R: Eh? Oh I said, we should live underground as botchulism favours snails.. Spielberg: Was that in the script? Oh well.. and ACTION!
|
|
|
Post by robkral on Jul 22, 2005 17:14:46 GMT
Short of , of course, Ogilvy's 'Occupations always fail' line, which was thrown in as though someone in the production was embarrassed about it. A real blink and you'd miss it thing. The kind of thing you'd expect Tim Robbins to say in real life in fact. A question of this perhaps?... WotW PRODUCTION OFFICE. Tim Robbins: Steven, I'd really like to put an anti Iraq message in there.. Spielberg:No! This isn't a platform for your already well known anti-Iraq stance... It's a movie about a War of the Worlds, based on that thing by Orson Welles and Jeff Wayne.. oh and a book by some guy, fer Chrissakes! T.R: Hmm... FLASH FORWARD- DURING FILMING OF BASEMENT SCENE. T.R: Blah, blah, script line, rhubarb.. (mumbles) Occupations always fail.. (speaks up again) script, script, we aren't on the same page - Spielberg: CUT! Tim, What did you just say then? T.R: Eh? Oh I said, we should live underground as botchulism favours snails.. Spielberg: Was that in the script? Oh well.. and ACTION! Haha!! But to be honest: Not one single word from any of the actors, not a single cough or sniffle, is there without careful approval of the director. So a phrase like that: it's certainly there because Spielberg wants it there.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 22, 2005 19:17:13 GMT
Join the army to fight back? And you will live? The US army will prevail in the end? So the fact that the Military were not destroyed is not enough? It's only natural to fight back after seeing family & friends killed, your livelyhood destroyed and basically your neighbourhood shot to pieces. I'd like to think the instinct/will to fight back is not an American one but a Human one. Shame on the Army for killing a potentially dangerous Tripod and at fighting back to ensure survival of the Refugees
|
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 22, 2005 20:13:47 GMT
Join the army to fight back? And you will live? The US army will prevail in the end? So the fact that the Military were not destroyed is not enough? It's only natural to fight back after seeing family & friends killed, your livelyhood destroyed and basically your neighbourhood shot to pieces. I'd like to think the instinct/will to fight back is not an American one but a Human one. Shame on the Army for killing a potentially dangerous Tripod and at fighting back to ensure survival of the Refugees Not that I can be sure about this, nor can anyone else but I would have imagined that by the end of the movie the US (and most likely the worlds) military was completely obliterated. The Tripods countered every major offensive and would have destroyed every base, airfield etc in their wake. The military towards the end seems to be fragments of whats left trying to help the people and thus mankind survive, heck its the honest thing to do. Oh and not to take a stab at you, but if we really were invaded by tripods I wouldn't join the army and throw my life away, I'd stock up on supplies, steal a posh yacht and life in the middle of the ocean
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 22, 2005 20:42:48 GMT
So the fact that the Military were not destroyed is not enough? It's only natural to fight back after seeing family & friends killed, your livelyhood destroyed and basically your neighbourhood shot to pieces. I'd like to think the instinct/will to fight back is not an American one but a Human one. Shame on the Army for killing a potentially dangerous Tripod and at fighting back to ensure survival of the Refugees Not that I can be sure about this, nor can anyone else but I would have imagined that by the end of the movie the US (and most likely the worlds) military was completely obliterated. The Tripods countered every major offensive and would have destroyed every base, airfield etc in their wake. The military towards the end seems to be fragments of whats left trying to help the people and thus mankind survive, heck its the honest thing to do. Oh and not to take a stab at you, but if we really were invaded by tripods I wouldn't join the army and throw my life away, I'd stock up on supplies, steal a posh yacht and life in the middle of the ocean We don't know how much of the U.S was invaded, i think Spielberg apparently hinted that only the Eastern seaboard may have been invaded. Besides i HIGHLY doubt that the whole of the US Military/Armed Forces were destroyed. Which include the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps & Navy. The Tripods did not seem to actively seek out Military bases and such, they were going after the population centres and any Human they came across. What we saw was the initial failure of the Army/Air Force/Marine Corps to cause damage rather than their complete destruction, which wouldn't have been possible in only a few days. Here's an estimate of the total US Military Manpower - 1,427,000. For instance i don't see how the Navy or even the Coast Guard would've been destroyed considering the Tripods can't venture too far into the sea. Well considering the depth of the Ocean Floor. I wasn't saying you should go and join the Army regardless if we could kill them. I was merely saying it is NATURAL to want to fight back considering the circumstances, it's a Human quality. Considering the Bacteria weakens and consequently kills them it's only a matter of waiting it out. I highly doubt taking a Yacht out to the depths of the Atlantic would ensure survival, unless you're an expert in fishing.
|
|
stuka
Full Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by stuka on Jul 24, 2005 0:53:31 GMT
Well I have to say that this movie certainly didn't generate the massive income that they were predicting. While not a flop by any measure, they didn't break any records (as far as I know) and it certainly wasn't movie of the decade. well it may not be the biggest grossing movie ever, but acording to the box office site i went to, i'ts already made: $457,331,000, almost half a billion dollars in less than a month of release.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Jul 24, 2005 14:33:01 GMT
I personally think the message of the movie is this: DUHHHHH! BLIBBLE BLIBBLE! PLIPPPPPPPPPPPPP! seriously Stunning, sends shivers down me spine!!!
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Jul 24, 2005 14:37:09 GMT
Occupations always fail...but totalitarian rule where some mmmoooooooostaciowd tw_____at kills 300,000 of his own people and rips off the country most of it's medical aid doesn't...
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 6, 2005 9:30:20 GMT
Jeez Gorn-- you're entitled to hate the movie, but enough already! Some of us (including me) think it's an excellent film-- I give it 3 1/2 out of four stars. And the fact that you're getting tooth marks all over the furniture in this forum isn't gonna change that.
What's the "message" of the film? Well what's the "message" of the George Pal film? You're confusing the subtext of the film (references to 9/11) with a "message".
This isn't a "message" film, any more than the Pal version was.
|
|
|
Post by djmatt82 on Aug 6, 2005 13:15:39 GMT
Message of the Movie?
Dont ask teenager to pack up a box of food for survial in a Alien Invasion...........
I always thought that almost the message was that man is not as powerful as he belives (yes, i know the 9/11 subtext was there!), But thats what i thought. Great Movie, not my favourite WOTW spinoff, but still great none the less.
It was great to see a movie that was not about watching the military plan/stike back!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 6, 2005 23:12:24 GMT
Spielberg has said what the movie is "about" is an American refugee experience. There's no "message" there. It's an attempt to present in an emotionally convincing fashion something outside the American experience. As Spielberg says, being a refugee is something we as a culture have never experienced.
Those who slam this film concentrate on the intellectual aspects. Yes there are many things in the movie that don't make sense. But as Stanley Kubrick says, "A movie is not for the think of it; it's for the feel of it."
This movie's strength is its ability to make us feel, on deep, visceral level, the overwhelming panic, fear and trauma of living thru the experience of having our culture destroyed around us.
There's really not much point in debating this. Either it succeeds in affecting the viewer in a visceral manner-- or it doesn't. For those who weren't affected by this film-- and there are several in this forum quite vocally saying it didn't-- then I can certainly understand why you don't like the film, and I feel sorry for you because you entirely miss what most of us like or love about it.
For me, the film's strengths-- emotional, visceral-- vastly outweigh its many obvious flaws-- which are mainly intellectual. Again, that's an emotional reaction. So as I said, it's rather pointless to debate whether the film is "good" or "bad", or whether it had-- or should have had-- a message. Debates are intellectual, but whether or not one likes a film is emotional. And never the twain shall meet.
If anyone doubts that what I say here is true, let me provide supporting evidence: Someone recently reported in this forum that they thought the film was very good upon initial viewing, but after reading various arguments about the film's flaws they were persuaded that it wasn't all that good. Then they went back and saw it a second time-- and were reminded of why they loved it. It's the experience of this film-- the emotional and visceral experience-- that makes it so good.
Would I have liked the film better if it worked better intellectually? Of course. I only say it's an "excellent" film not a "Great" film. Spielberg came close to Greatness with this film but did not quite achieve that. With more sympathetic characters and better pacing, this could have been a Great film, despite holes in its science and/or logic.
|
|