Underground cylinders -

[Peter]

It was never explained or shown how the cylinders got buried.

I was thinking that Spielberg could have made the start of the film better by showing the cylinders coming to Earth and being buried.

They could have done it during the Morgan Freeman speech at the start, and shown a cylinder crashing into (say) prehistoric land - then showing how over time, the cylinder gets buried and eventually built upon.

What are peoples thoughts on it?

[Commandingtripod]

Sounds interesting.

I was wondering, did the TV series of WOTW have some tripod buried undergroud?
Maybe SS didn't invent the concept....
Or maybe it's just me that thinks that. ;D

[Lensman]

This has been discussed pretty heavily in older threads. There seems to be general agreement that this is a weak spot or plot hole in the movie; how is it that so many (dozens or even hundreds under every large city?) huge Tripods are buried for thousands of years (at least) without having even one of them unearthed by digging?

And more importantly, *why* bury huge machines in the ground and leave them for thousands of years (or more) and only after all that time suddenly have them dig themselves out and devastate the surface of the planet?

There's no good reason to believe Ogilvy's statement that they've been here for millions of years. But if the Tripods were buried before any of the major cities existed, it must have been at least several thousand years ago. If the cities had been torn up to bury the things, there would be historical records of the event.

I thought one forum member had an excellent suggestion: That the Tripods were carried here swiftly, presumably by faster-than-light travel, but for some reason the aliens couldn't travel that way (perhaps too dangerous... perhaps something about the FTL drive is harmful to living things) so they had to send the "crews" of the Tripods here more slowly. And that would go along with the aliens having watched us "keenly and closely" for an extended period of time.

Realistically, if aliens *did* come here to conquer, their technology would be so far in advance of ours that there very likely *would* be inexplicable things. However, that doesn't excuse the movie's failure in this regard. After all, Spielberg was telling a story, not making an excercise in speculative technology, and if his audience is distracted by repeatedly saying "Huh? That doesn't make any sense!" during the movie, then the movie has serious problems. If it weren't for problems like that, this would be a Great film. As it is, it's merely a very good one.

[Andy120290]

I heard an interesting idea once. The lightning that carried the aliens also carried the tripods. The idea was that the aliens used nanotechnology and the machines were assembled underground.

[beecus]

The question I always asked was..

If they had been underground for 10's of thousands of years, what were the aliens thinking?

''Hey look, a deserted planet...lets hope that a human kind of species evolves in a million years and we can invade them''

Seems like a plot hole to me or a complete oversight... or SS was hoping that the brainpower of his audience was so low that no one would notice ;D

[FALLINGSTAR]

It's complete nonsense. You can tell when a plot hole's a gaping one - as people start making up silly far fetched ideas to fit around it or to try and make sense of it.

[wastedyuthe]

"You can tell when a plot hole's a gaping one - as people start making up silly far fetched ideas to fit around it or to try and make sense of it."

Define 'far fetched'. If far fetched means aliens coming out of the ground in big machines killing or capturing us, and turning us into fertiliser, then any 'far fetched' ideas like the aliens not being able to travel faster than light like the tripods, or nano-technology seem quite applicable to that scenario imo.

Yes, it is a plot hole. But it is one of many in this film, and I believe it was decided to leave the plot holes in on purpose- not because they couldn't fill those holes, but because as we all know, we are viewing this scenario from one mans eyes.
If the same thing happened in real life would we get any answers? Do you think the aliens would stop and say 'Excuse us won't you- we've just used a worm hole to zap our space ships through space directly inside your planet, but we couldn't come as we get worm hole sickness. Sorry for being late!'

It has already been said- we only have one mad man's say that these machines were buried for millions of years. How would he know?

[Commandingtripod]

wastedyuthe said:

"You can tell when a plot hole's a gaping one - as people start making up silly far fetched ideas to fit around it or to try and make sense of it."

Define 'far fetched'. If far fetched means aliens coming out of the ground in big machines killing or capturing us, and turning us into fertiliser, then any 'far fetched' ideas like the aliens not being able to travel faster than light like the tripods, or nano-technology seem quite applicable to that scenario imo.

Yes, it is a plot hole. But it is one of many in this film, and I believe it was decided to leave the plot holes in on purpose- not because they couldn't fill those holes, but because as we all know, we are viewing this scenario from one mans eyes.
If the same thing happened in real life would we get any answers? Do you think the aliens would stop and say 'Excuse us won't you- we've just used a worm hole to zap our space ships through space directly inside your planet, but we couldn't come as we get worm hole sickness. Sorry for being late!'

It has already been said- we only have one mad man's say that these machines were buried for millions of years. How would he know?

True I'll second that.
We shouldn't take his word for fact.

Though on the topic of Nano tech used to assemble the tripods I'm a doubter there - probably because I think too 'humanish' at the moment - that's if you get what I mean.

I don't believe that the main purpose of any film is to have everything make sense (least in a Si Fi film) though like you say Wastedyuthe this could be a plot hole left on purpose.

[Killraven]

commandingtripod said:

I don't believe that the main purpose of any film is to have everything make sense (least in a Si Fi film) though like you say Wastedyuthe this could be a plot hole left on purpose.

It could be...or it could be due to lazy scriptwriting on the basis that the 'perceived' audience would be too dense/uninterested to pick up on it or be bothered by it...

...little did they know that the fans would be picking 'holes' in the film left right and centre!

KR

[wastedyuthe]

This is a quote from Imdb- make of it what you will.

"No plot holes. Just a lack of imagination and common sense on the part of the viewer."

[FALLINGSTAR]

wastedyuthe said:

This is a quote from Imdb- make of it what you will.

"No plot holes. Just a lack of imagination and common sense on the part of the viewer."

And pigs might fly! So it's all the viewers fault for not having decent imaginations. Nothing to do with lazy script writing as Killraven says then!

[FALLINGSTAR]

wastedyuthe said:

"You can tell when a plot hole's a gaping one - as people start making up silly far fetched ideas to fit around it or to try and make sense of it."

Define 'far fetched'. If far fetched means aliens coming out of the ground in big machines killing or capturing us, and turning us into fertiliser, then any 'far fetched' ideas like the aliens not being able to travel faster than light like the tripods, or nano-technology seem quite applicable to that scenario imo.

Yes, it is a plot hole. But it is one of many in this film, and I believe it was decided to leave the plot holes in on purpose- not because they couldn't fill those holes, but because as we all know, we are viewing this scenario from one mans eyes.
If the same thing happened in real life would we get any answers? Do you think the aliens would stop and say 'Excuse us won't you- we've just used a worm hole to zap our space ships through space directly inside your planet, but we couldn't come as we get worm hole sickness. Sorry for being late!'

It has already been said- we only have one mad man's say that these machines were buried for millions of years. How would he know?

I can't believe you're saying that it was decided to leave the plot holes in on purpose.

I mean - Far fetched - not as in "aliens coming out of the ground in big machines killing or capturing us, and turning us into fertiliser"

That's the easy bit!

I mean far fetched in the explanations people are making up in an effort to explain why all these machines have been buried underground, possibly for millions of years - when it's quite obvious that Spielberg and Koepp didn't think it through. And if they haven't been there millions of years - then how come nobody saw them arrive. If they've been here for only 'thousands' of years as opposed to 'millions' then still - why did the aliens leave them buried for so long before invading Earth - why not capture and breed a bunch of cave bods. Much easier taking on Neanderthals than a modern military.

Face it - it's a sloppy, rushed slung together film that wasn't thought through properly. I think this was just a gap filling project for Spielberg and the usual excuse for Tom Cruise to steal the limelight from the story.

[wastedyuthe]

"why did the aliens leave them buried for so long before invading Earth - why not capture and breed a bunch of cave bods. Much easier taking on Neanderthals than a modern military"

Come on now- have you actually watched this film? At any point during the film did you get any sense that the military were actually defeating or even slowing these aliens down? No. It has been discussed many times in other forums (and without looking yet, I assume also in this one). The aliens may have seen potential on this planet for humans to grow and grow- why fertilise a few thousand cave men when they can wait for the human race to grow and fertilise millions? So what if our armies have also advanced- we still have primitive technology compared to theirs.

Let's get one thing clear though- I do agree with one thing. This film WAS rushed. As much as I like it, it is not perfect, and I will be the first to admit it. However, I will defend the way things are not explained in the film. I like it that way. Not everyone does, obvioulsy. Some people like everything spelled out to them- some people like to use their imagination. So what if there are plot holes? Like I said, it's not like the aliens are gonna give us answers if it happened for real.

[FALLINGSTAR]

wastedyuthe said:

"why did the aliens leave them buried for so long before invading Earth - why not capture and breed a bunch of cave bods. Much easier taking on Neanderthals than a modern military"

Come on now- have you actually watched this film? At any point during the film did you get any sense that the military were actually defeating or even slowing these aliens down? No. It has been discussed many times in other forums (and without looking yet, I assume also in this one). The aliens may have seen potential on this planet for humans to grow and grow- why fertilise a few thousand cave men when they can wait for the human race to grow and fertilise millions? So what if our armies have also advanced- we still have primitive technology compared to theirs.

Let's get one thing clear though- I do agree with one thing. This film WAS rushed. As much as I like it, it is not perfect, and I will be the first to admit it. However, I will defend the way things are not explained in the film. I like it that way. Not everyone does, obvioulsy. Some people like everything spelled out to them- some people like to use their imagination. So what if there are plot holes? Like I said, it's not like the aliens are gonna give us answers if it happened for real.

Yes I have seen the film and if the aliens can leave tripods stuck on this planet for god knows how long - then they can surely find a way of breeding and harvesting cave men and women in their millions [ god this is starting to sound silly ]. I don't like everything spelled out to me in movies. Sometimes a bit of mystery is a good thing - but in this instance - it's just plain daft.

When a film is supposedly based upon such a respected work of fiction then you expect something a bit special - not lazy, ill thought out nonsensical film making. I don't want the aliens giving us answers - I want the people making the film to credit the audience with at least a bit of intelligence in the first place. Something they didn't do with this film.

[RustiSwordz]

The whole film is a plot hole big enough to sail USS Nimitz through.

[wastedyuthe]

Well we could keep banging on all week about it. We all have our opinions (which we have all shared), and it doesn't look likely that any one of us will be changing them. Wether you like it or not, the film isn't about to change either, so let's let it be shall we?

[Lensman]

wastedyuthe said:

This is a quote from Imdb- make of it what you will.

"No plot holes. Just a lack of imagination and common sense on the part of the viewer."

What I make of it is that the IMDb.com forums are full of trolls. If it was that easy to figure out we wouldn't still be arguing about this.

Yes, as I've said already, if we encountered alien conquerors with advanced tech in real life, they *would* do things inexplicable to us. But Spielberg's film is *not* real life-- it's a story. And there are a number of very clearly established techniques for story-telling. Stories, unlike real life, have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Long stories like movies have three acts, and the development of each is well-established. There are many story-telling techniques that differentiate a satisfying story from one that leaves the audience unsatisfied. For instance, characters should *earn* the fate they get at the end of the story. Villainy should be punished, and virtue rewarded. If they are not, the audience feels cheated.

And another story-telling technique is that you *explain* things to the audience. Sure if you're watching the news or a documentary you see things that don't make sense. But that cuts to the heart of *why* humans have a psychological need for stories. We have a fundamental *need* for the world to make sense, and for virtue to triumph and villainy to be rewarded. Since the real world often fails to satisfy these needs, we make up stories in which these things happen. And if you tell a story but fail to deliver on any of these things, your audience is left unsatisfied. The audience may not be able to say exactly *why* the story has failed to satisfy expectations, but a good storyteller should be aware of what makes a story work and what does not.

Spielberg is a good storyteller. He's proved that over and over. I put this movie's failures down mainly to the obvious rush job. Spielberg is better than this-- a *lot* better.

So no, I don't cut him any slack for being "realistic" or "trying something new". There were so-called "experimental" story-telling techniques tried out back in the sixties in written science fiction. And why don't we see that sort of thing anymore? Because they were failures. Either a story satisfies the audience's need for the world to make sense, or it doesn't.

[wastedyuthe]

Okay- I can understand your points about needing explanations. But let's take another film as an example. Donnie Darko. When the original version of this film was released, it was instantly a cult favourite, and many loved it. Why? Certainly not for giving the viewer any answers. Quite the opposite in fact. Many of it's fans loved the original version because it gave the viewer a chance to fill the gaps themselves, of which there were many. Was it all a dream? Did Donnie have supernatural powers? If so where were these powers coming from? What was the big terrifying bunny all about? The viewer chose. When the Director's cut came out, people hated it as it gave the viewer the story from the director's point of view, and explained things. It told the viewer 'this is happening because...'. Certainly there are more fans of the original than the directors cut, although I personally like both for different reasons.
What I am saying is this- cinema lovers should not be generalised into expecting a certain format in their films. Certain people on here, and there seems to be quite a lot of you, want answers. Fair enough- that's what I say. But not everyone is bothered about answers- me being one of them. I don't feel like that with EVERY film I see, just some. Donnie Darko was one of them, Spielbergs WotW was another. I really am not bothered as to how long their machines have been kept underground. Part of the impact of the film for me was the whole feeling of NOT knowing what was going on, and made the film more realistic imo. Of course we all are allowed to have our own opinions, and I am stating mine.

"There were so-called "experimental" story-telling techniques tried out back in the sixties in written science fiction. And why don't we see that sort of thing anymore? Because they were failures. Either a story satisfies the audience's need for the world to make sense, or it doesn't."

If you are seeing this film as experimental, then your statement suggests that it is also a failure. I certainly can't see that looking at box office and dvd returns.

[FALLINGSTAR]

It's not a case of film goers wanting or not wanting answers. Again some mystery and no answers in some films can be a good thing. It's a case of this being a stupid, ill thought out idea. There's no mystery in that - just bad film making.

[theredweed]

Maybe they were special tripods.

Add just one drop of water to your Tripod Bud TM and in five minutes you will have your own earth crushing machine (Bud not to be taken internally)