|
|
Post by CrazyIan on Apr 23, 2005 1:33:58 GMT
[quote author=<[Iron Man]> link=board=1953&thread=1106103154&start=19#1 date=1114020053]
PMSL we could sing them back! What do you think Bread of Heaven ?, Men of Harlech? or Land of my Fathers? ;D
I forgotten i posted this topic! lol [/quote]
My god, it'd be like a sci-fi version of ZULU!
*Dons Micheal Caine accent* "Stop using those bloody heat rays, on me." ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Apr 23, 2005 20:51:52 GMT
[quote author=<[Iron Man]> link=board=1953&thread=1106103154&start=0#0 date=1106103154] To me a good battle is when both sides take casualities, not when one side is trouncing around untouchable. 1898 they had...  [/quote] And...  And...  And...  And...  And...  And...  Plently of destructive potential there... The fundametal diffrence between then and now, isn't so much the weapon, as how you tote it around and how likely you are to hit with it, and off the two, I'd say the toting bit has made more of an impact than the accuracy.. Personally I'd argue that a "good" battle -is- one where one side overwhelms the other with minimal casulties, (preferably to civilians as well), it may not be -entertaining- but entertainment isn't what war is about... |
|
|
|
Post by artillerymanfan on Apr 24, 2005 20:56:36 GMT
A good battle (if there even is such a thing) is one where two determined fighting forces meet for a showdown. One side EVENTUALLY wins, but not without taking casualties, so it becomes not a fight of firepower, but morale and tactics. Like in Jeff Waynes WOTW when the Fighting machine gets killed by the artillery battery at Weybridge, but then the battery is swept away. The humans had feebler weapons, but they stayed brave and at least killed one. Or in The Last Samurai, in then end when Katsumoto and the Yankee (forgot his name) charge against the Howitzers and the Japanese riflemen. One side wins, but takes casualties. The Samurai are defeated, but only by a small amount.  Thats my "good battle." |
|
keltiksylk
Junior Member
www.KelticSylk.com
Posts: 28
|
Post by keltiksylk on Apr 29, 2005 18:13:15 GMT
I have always thought that the invunerability of the Martians is one thing I dislked about the Pal film. In the book they have a setback but use their superior technology to overcome their weakness in a swift and terrible way. It makes them more fearsome in many ways.
I guess in context of the 1953 movie the Bomb's ineffectiveness is supposed to be terrifying. Back then very few knew the exact nature of the bomb, it was still a national secret. Most people just knew it was the ultimate weapon, the city killer.
To us "moderns" the thought of anything surviving in any fashion is nonsensical. The fact that they go completely unscathed stretches our credibility lightyears beyond the breaking point. I think the movie might have been better if the Bomb had worked, but Pal had come up with the real reasons why it couldn't be used to stop the Martians.
Slaughtering the Martians would have meant destroying mankind along with them. This is a very real scenario and one that brought the Cold War to a close.
Despite that, I must add that I enjoy the film every time I watch it. It's campy as hell and brings up thoughts of an earlier time when father knew best and you could "Leave it to Beaver".
|
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jun 22, 2005 14:44:06 GMT
[quote author=<[Iron Man]> link=board=1953&thread=1106103154&start=0#0 date=1106103154] To me a good battle is when both sides take casualities, not when one side is trouncing around untouchable. 1898 they had... And... And... And... And... And... And... Plently of destructive potential there... The fundametal diffrence between then and now, isn't so much the weapon, as how you tote it around and how likely you are to hit with it, and off the two, I'd say the toting bit has made more of an impact than the accuracy.. Personally I'd argue that a "good" battle -is- one where one side overwhelms the other with minimal casulties, (preferably to civilians as well), it may not be -entertaining- but entertainment isn't what war is about...[/quote] Well the fact that with each weapon i showed they were progressively more accurate agrees with your point  Where did i state the firepower wasn't enough? Personally I'd argue that a "good" battle -is- one where one side overwhelms the other with minimal casulties, (preferably to civilians as well), it may not be -entertaining- but entertainment isn't what war is about... No entertainment isn't what War is about but when it comes to films War is about entertainment. Obviously the best tactical outcome would be a battle with minimal number of casualities. However for a film that's prone to dramatics a more 'equal' contest where the fighting is more bloody and hardfought is the preferable choice. I happen to agree with the following statement... A good battle (if there even is such a thing) is one where two determined fighting forces meet for a showdown. One side EVENTUALLY wins, but not without taking casualties, so it becomes not a fight of firepower, but morale and tactics. Like in Jeff Waynes WOTW when the Fighting machine gets killed by the artillery battery at Weybridge, but then the battery is swept away. The humans had feebler weapons, but they stayed brave and at least killed one. Or in The Last Samurai, in then end when Katsumoto and the Yankee (forgot his name) charge against the Howitzers and the Japanese riflemen. One side wins, but takes casualties. The Samurai are defeated, but only by a small amount. Thats my "good battle." |
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Jun 23, 2005 3:10:06 GMT
This of course assumes that the -battle- is supposed to be the source of the drama and excitement in the film, just because a war is going on in the film, doesn't mean it has to be the source of drama in the film, or that it's supposed to be exciting, you can get plenty of drama from the tenseness and insecurity of being under seige, with no hope but waiting it out, and hoping the storm will pass.
In that sense the martians -wern't- to invincable, because Pal didn't obsess on the blood and thunder, he showed just enough to show how the tide was flowing, and left it at that...
|
|
Jehuty
Junior Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by Jehuty on Jun 27, 2005 17:34:10 GMT
I know it's a serious assumption but I would assume that if they are technologically advanced enough to manage interstellar travel(in spielbergs version) and are warlike then we probably don't stand any chance whatsoever of taking them down. We probably wouldn't even understand their weapons and defenses let alone be able to beat them.
I do think there will be a few 'victories' towards the end, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 8, 2005 13:50:30 GMT
This of course assumes that the -battle- is supposed to be the source of the drama and excitement in the film, just because a war is going on in the film, doesn't mean it has to be the source of drama in the film, or that it's supposed to be exciting, you can get plenty of drama from the tenseness and insecurity of being under seige, with no hope but waiting it out, and hoping the storm will pass. In that sense the martians -wern't- to invincable, because Pal didn't obsess on the blood and thunder, he showed just enough to show how the tide was flowing, and left it at that... It didn't assume anything about the battle 'supposing' to be the source of drama. I just stated it was the preferable choice, that i would see. May not suit others but that's fine. Well they were too invincible, since the General states that nothing was effective against them, not even the A-Bomb. If anything was effective then the Scientist wouldn't have been in a rush to create a new 'miracle weapon'. |
|
|
|
Post by Herulian Martian on Jul 9, 2005 2:07:50 GMT
I have always thought that the invunerability of the Martians is one thing I dislked about the Pal film. In the book they have a setback but use their superior technology to overcome their weakness in a swift and terrible way. It makes them more fearsome in many ways. I guess in context of the 1953 movie the Bomb's ineffectiveness is supposed to be terrifying. Back then very few knew the exact nature of the bomb, it was still a national secret. Most people just knew it was the ultimate weapon, the city killer. To us "moderns" the thought of anything surviving in any fashion is nonsensical. The fact that they go completely unscathed stretches our credibility lightyears beyond the breaking point. I think the movie might have been better if the Bomb had worked, but Pal had come up with the real reasons why it couldn't be used to stop the Martians. Slaughtering the Martians would have meant destroying mankind along with them. This is a very real scenario and one that brought the Cold War to a close. Despite that, I must add that I enjoy the film every time I watch it. It's campy as hell and brings up thoughts of an earlier time when father knew best and you could "Leave it to Beaver". In 1953, we had a deliverable hydrogen bomb...which can be over 1000 times more powerful than an atom bomb. Perhaps a multimegaton blast might have had enough power to blast through the forcefields! Also, nuclear mines might have worked as well since their forcefields were "bell" shaped and not spherical. There has to be an upper limit to what those forcefields can take. |
|
Thats my "good battle." 
![<[Iron Man]> Avatar](http://img8.picsplace.to/img8/18/BondA.jpg)
Where did i state the firepower wasn't enough?