The battle scene.

[badwolf69]

Hey there I was just wondering what did you all think of the battle scene in spielburgs movie.

I thought "My god forget them 2 weirdos arguing point the camara at the bloody battle!!"

The Helicopter bit was good all those missiles firing at those tripods.

It was only half a battle scene really what do you think?

[Killraven]

Well it was probably predominantly done to

a) save money, and

b) save money ;D

KR

PS why does everyone round here seem to spell Spielberg with a 'u' He got a stage name or something??!

[wotwfan48]

Of course it was as a half of a battle, if you go on eve of the war, they have a section with art drawing, Copyright Paramount, showing scenes of the battle that we should have seen. It would help the movie a little, but even that was to much for Speilberg.

I liked the tripods very much, but the rest of the movie??


Chantale.

[RustiSwordz]

SS movie had 1 half hacked battle scene and 2 tripods shooting the crap out of everything scenes.

the book had 4 battle scenes: soldiers on horsell common battle of the pit, weybridge / shepperton battle, thunderchild battle, the tripod ambush. plus many more tripod encounters.

The book was a proper war book, the film was a bit of pushing and shoving.

[the Donal]

Honestly, Rusti- You'd really expect a book of a film to actually pay ATTENTION to the book at any point?

And in HOLLYWOOD?

;D

[Reppu]

Hello all, first post here but a book/musical/movie wotw lover for more than 25 years now.

To topic: i wouldn't even call it half battle. What we see is a number of helicopters & hummers releasing their whole firepower to something we don't see. Then a huge explosion. Then a burning Hummer or something and the tripod. I wouldn't really call it a battle, or at least, there's a battle but we never come to see it. As Rustiswordz said, this is not a war movie but a survival movie, if you like.

[Lensman]

a) Because that's not the story Spielberg was telling

b) Because then people would be criticizing it for being a ripoff of "Independence Day"

c) Because that's not the story Spielberg was telling

d) Because Spielberg wanted to try something different and *only* show things from Ray's point of view

e) Because that's not the story Spielberg was telling


That said, *I* wanted to see what was going on over that hill too!

[RustiSwordz]

lensman said:

a) Because that's not the story Spielberg was telling

then its not War of the Worlds

b) Because then people would be criticizing it for being a ripoff of "Independence Day"

No people would realise it was done to the proper book

c) Because that's not the story Spielberg was telling

then its not War of the Worlds

d) Because Spielberg wanted to try something different and *only* show things from Ray's point of view

err the battles in the book were seen from the narrators/ brother / eye witness accounts point of view. they saw all the battles why not Ray?

e) Because that's not the story Spielberg was telling

then its not war of the worlds, or maybe it is but a wish washy half arsed attempt.

That said, *I* wanted to see what was going on over that hill too!

that i agree with.

LOL a woman in the audience behind me said out loud as we filed out of the cinema... where was the war? And half the people grunted in agreement. i can get the gist of a films reaction this way, as people leave the cinema if it was agood film there is a buzz of chit chat and opinion as people leave. with WOTW there was nothing, apart from that one comment. It was very subdued.

[wastedyuthe]

Yes apparently Spielberg fought with himself to not show over the hill- for the reason that he wanted the cameras to stay with the family. Well, what happened to Robbie? He went over the hill didn't he? Couldn't we have followed Robbie over the hill and seen the spectacle then? I just really hope Spielberg decides to re-release in 2008 to counter Jeff Waynes version, with extra scenes like the hill, and of course the missing 'Camelot' scene. THEN it will be War of the Worlds.

[FALLINGSTAR]

wastedyuthe said:

Yes apparently Spielberg fought with himself to not show over the hill- for the reason that he wanted the cameras to stay with the family. Well, what happened to Robbie? He went over the hill didn't he? Couldn't we have followed Robbie over the hill and seen the spectacle then? I just really hope Spielberg decides to re-release in 2008 to counter Jeff Waynes version, with extra scenes like the hill, and of course the missing 'Camelot' scene. THEN it will be War of the Worlds.

But wastedyuthe - your obviously a fan of Jeff Waynes version from your discussions in the Jeff Wayne section - why would you want Spielberg to counter/ steal the limelight from Jeff Wayne if/when he releases his film?

I think that would be a real kick in the teeth for Jeff Wayne if that happens. Even if extra scenes are included - I still don't think that Spielbergs film will ever be a decent WOTW adaptation.

[wastedyuthe]

Steal the limelight? Are you kidding? There's no way it will steal the limelight from the more faithful and undoubtedly better version the Jeff Wayne film will be. But it would be a bonus for those who do think something of the Spielberg version for him to re-release it with the extra scenes. It would be a better film with the over the hill scene (following Robbie as he goes over), the Camelot scene, and the extra walking scenes where we see more of the red weed.
For all it's problems, Spielbergs film could be a decent film with the extra bits that should have been in, in the first place. And at the end of the day, there is room for this and Mr Waynes version. And that one will be in the cinema where as Spielbergs version will hopefully just be a dvd release if it does happen.

[Killraven]

wastedyuthe said:

Yes apparently Spielberg fought with himself

Now THAT I WOULD like to see!! ;D

KR

[Lensman]

rustiswordz said:

i can get the gist of a films reaction this way, as people leave the cinema if it was agood film there is a buzz of chit chat and opinion as people leave. with WOTW there was nothing, apart from that one comment. It was very subdued.

Yes, that was my experience, too-- the audience was *very* subdued as it left the theatre. That's so unusual that it stuck in my memory. And that's not because it was a bad film, but because it was a sobering, frightening film that caused people to actually *think* about what they just experienced. Unfortunately that's all too rare these days.

[Killraven]

Well the silence from the audience I sat with was definitely of disappointment!!

The films I have come out of where people gave the impression of being shocked at the impact were movies like "The Matrix", "The Sixth Sense" and "Saw"... nothing like a good twist at the end of a story!

KR

[Tripod]

The fact that Spielberg did not show what was over the hill didn't bother me that much. That moment wasn't about the battle but about Ray's struggle to keep his family intact. I thought the scene was dramatic enough even without the whole battle, the lights that we saw gave us a decent impression of the apocalyptic events that were taking place. Then again I am a great supporter of the less-is-more principle.
And this wasn't a war movie, this was a sci-fi/thriller/drama with a bit of political satire included. The messages it delivers are very strong. Naturally you can also bring a strong message to the audience with a lot of violence and spectacle, look at Starship Troopers.

Tripod

[AlmicheV]

tripod said:

The fact that Spielberg did not show what was over the hill didn't bother me that much. That moment wasn't about the battle but about Ray's struggle to keep his family intact. I thought the scene was dramatic enough even without the whole battle, the lights that we saw gave us a decent impression of the apocalyptic events that were taking place. Then again I am a great supporter of the less-is-more principle.
And this wasn't a war movie, this was a sci-fi/thriller/drama with a bit of political satire included. The messages it delivers are very strong. Naturally you can also bring a strong message to the audience with a lot of violence and spectacle, look at Starship Troopers.

Tripod

Why does hollywood do this? Use a title like 'War of the Worlds' and turn it into a film about people with very little war. Not to mention ignoring the book for the sake of not wanting to look like Independence Day.

[FALLINGSTAR]

almichev said:

tripod said:

The fact that Spielberg did not show what was over the hill didn't bother me that much. That moment wasn't about the battle but about Ray's struggle to keep his family intact. I thought the scene was dramatic enough even without the whole battle, the lights that we saw gave us a decent impression of the apocalyptic events that were taking place. Then again I am a great supporter of the less-is-more principle.
And this wasn't a war movie, this was a sci-fi/thriller/drama with a bit of political satire included. The messages it delivers are very strong. Naturally you can also bring a strong message to the audience with a lot of violence and spectacle, look at Starship Troopers.

Tripod

Why does hollywood do this? Use a title like 'War of the Worlds' and turn it into a film about people with very little war. Not to mention ignoring the book for the sake of not wanting to look like Independence Day.

Yes you've guessed it! Mainly $$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Plus the usual 'director, script writer etc wanting to put their own stamp on a classic story routine' - so it ends up not really being the same story!

[Anim8tr]

Just my thoughts, but perhaps Paramount kept this movie on such a tight leash both money and timewise, because they already knew they'd be cutting a certain actors contract? And given his antics at the time the movie would be an even harder sale?

Were that say the case, than is it impossible to believe a company like ILM just might not get that extra $40 mil. for an extra 7-8 minutes of truely mind blowing visuals? And by doing so the director and good buddy don't profit by proxy?

And that's 7-8 minutes of tripods, jets exploding, cities burned, soldiers stomped, and landmarks destroyed. True Ryan Church and Doug Chiang stuff. I'd sure loved to have seen more of it.

Still, a helluva job by ILM and a decent action movie considering what they were given.

[jeffwaynefan]

anim8tr said:

Just my thoughts, but perhaps Paramount kept this movie on such a tight leash both money and timewise, because they already knew they'd be cutting a certain actors contract? And given his antics at the time the movie would be an even harder sale?

Were that say the case, than is it impossible to believe a company like ILM just might not get that extra $40 mil. for an extra 7-8 minutes of truely mind blowing visuals? And by doing so the director and good buddy don't profit by proxy?

And that's 7-8 minutes of tripods, jets exploding, cities burned, soldiers stomped, and landmarks destroyed. True Ryan Church and Doug Chiang stuff. I'd sure loved to have seen more of it.

Still, a helluva job by ILM and a decent action movie considering what they were given.

I thought the main bulk of Cruise's antics leading him to be booted out from Paramount came after the film was released.

[Tripod]

fallingstar said:

almichev said:

Why does hollywood do this? Use a title like 'War of the Worlds' and turn it into a film about people with very little war. Not to mention ignoring the book for the sake of not wanting to look like Independence Day.

Yes you've guessed it! Mainly $$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Plus the usual 'director, script writer etc wanting to put their own stamp on a classic story routine' - so it ends up not really being the same story!

I think it's a lame argument to say that the films is called 'WAR of the Worlds' while the film featured little WAR. And films have always been made for money so I can't see why this one shouldn't. If there's ever a man or a studio who makes a faithful film adaption it will be for money also.

Tripod