|
Post by Bayne on Jan 15, 2005 1:09:47 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Just another example of the myriad hurdles in modernising the story. That said, I'm in favour of an underground Martian civilisation. Its plausable enough for a movie and at least keeps the martians from the book as martians. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by mars2005 on Jan 15, 2005 11:54:57 GMT
lol, stop assuming things, if you listen to jeff waynes story, they were watching us from mars with there hideous eyes, and slowly but surely they drew there plans against us!!!! obviously they were comparing our weapons and making better ones, and used a metal material from mars.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 15, 2005 12:01:59 GMT
lol, stop assuming things, if you listen to jeff waynes story, they were watching us from mars with there hideous eyes, and slowly but surely they drew there plans against us!!!! obviously they were comparing our weapons and making better ones, and used a metal material from mars. Its H G Wells story, Jeff Wayne just added the funky tunes, Burton and Essex.
|
|
|
Post by mars2005 on Jan 15, 2005 12:24:15 GMT
lmao.i haven;t read the book ya see. is the musical taken from the book? that would make sense.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 15, 2005 13:34:42 GMT
The musical is taken from the book almost word for word, what you dont get with Wayne is the chilling part of the book, that the martians drain our blood and inject it into their own veins, the music is very good though, it had a huge impact on me.
|
|
|
Post by mars2005 on Jan 15, 2005 15:59:08 GMT
im listening to it now, i wonder if the artillery man does start building a world underground? it makes you feel like ur there in dead london, creeepy v good story
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 15, 2005 17:04:34 GMT
David Essex was bloody ace as the artillery man!
|
|
alabaster
Full Member
Watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's...
Posts: 112
|
Post by alabaster on Jan 29, 2005 17:10:50 GMT
there is the red stop sign in space on the trailer, kind of gives it away, Cruise did confirm that 'the martians are scary as hell' I'm sorry to badger but could you tell me where he said that? I quoted it to someone else and he asked me for a page reference. I haven't been able to Google it. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Jan 29, 2005 17:15:26 GMT
I did read Cruise saying that the martians were coming to 'dominate us all'
|
|
CPP
Junior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by CPP on Feb 7, 2005 8:01:52 GMT
Not to beg the point, but let's ignore the Mars rovers for a moment. I do recall that contact with the last Viking lander was lost years ago. The official explanation is that it suffered a malfunction OR was shut off (it had been sending daily weather reports). The un-official talk from the JPL community was that an erroneous command string was sent up, rotating its dish to view its feet, and the older software was not instructed to go into "safing" mode (ie, search) like the new ones.
Or, a big nasty Martian FM took a dump on it...
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 7, 2005 11:40:38 GMT
Not to beg the point, but let's ignore the Mars rovers for a moment. I do recall that contact with the last Viking lander was lost years ago. The official explanation is that it suffered a malfunction OR was shut off (it had been sending daily weather reports). The un-official talk from the JPL community was that an erroneous command string was sent up, rotating its dish to view its feet, and the older software was not instructed to go into "safing" mode (ie, search) like the new ones. Or, a big nasty Martian FM took a dump on it... Actualy your spot on there, I dont know why I didnt think of that earlier. Only the recent missions have succeded ALL the earlier missions failed, there was even a story of a long object in orbit around mars, it was 20 Kilometers long if I remember. So a cover up by NASA or whoever as to the real reason the missions failed may also make a bit more sense out of the They're already here tag line: "An alien intelegence took out those probes! We have to be prepared!" "Too late!....They're already here!" BOOM! Besides there are loads of strange things on mars.... utenti.lycos.it/paolaharris/marsufo.htm
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 8, 2005 0:05:37 GMT
Actually, I've ranted about the 'modernisation' thing and the problems that it poses for verisimilitude in Spielberg's adaptation - especially given our knowledge of Mars today.
That said, I predict we'll have the same conspiracy angle that we've seen in all his other films. I'm thinking Poltergeist, here. I'm willing to bet there's gonna be a scence with Tim Robbins and Tom Cruise, just like in Poltergeist:
"You moved the gravestones but you didn't move the bodies."
Or in Jaws:
"You said you caught the shark but you didn't and you let the children go into the water on the 4th of July anyway."
Or in the War of the Worlds:
"Those were canals on Mars and you never told us, did you? You never told us there was life on Mars. You never told us about Martians. What else haven't you told us, Tim? Huh, Tim? Tell me what else we should know!" Dakota sobbing wildly in the background; John Williams's upteenth rip-off of Gustave Holst's _The Planets_ fades up.
But I digress. Our hubris, in launching the Mars probes, has ended us in this mess -- perhaps. But we'll find out there's all sorts of the stuff about Mars that has been covered up. There'll be the inevitable underground Martian civilisation, because they've screwed up the environment, or they've been hit by a meteor, or whatever. In the end, there'll be a scene in which Cruise will inevitably smack around some egg-head flatfooted Washington goombah pinko punk or capitalist developer for it all, just like in Jaws, just like in Poltergeist, just like in Jurassic Park, and on and on and on.
This should not be surprising. This movie, I'll wager, will be filled with self-references to Spielberg's entire career. The tagline - 'They're already here' - promises it for us.
OK, rant over. I'll go back to the 'novel' boards where I sometimes made thoughtful contributions about Wells, aesthetics, and the history of science.
|
|
CPP
Junior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by CPP on Feb 8, 2005 0:36:12 GMT
quaderni -
Interesting observations. I'd like to add that to date, I think WIlliams has "borrowed" from at least 12 Romantic-era composers. Then again, at least he admits he does it (as opposed to Jamie Horner, but that's another story). Too bad Goldsmith died...
Anyway, some interesting thoughts about plot possibilities. NASA has always been a perfect dumping-groud for conspiracy theorists (I for one think Hoagland is a perfect NUT...). BUt maybe, just maybe, they will comeup with something more clever.
We'll see!
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 8, 2005 1:56:06 GMT
I bet its never mentioned at all. They will leave it to us nerds to argue over for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 8, 2005 2:22:39 GMT
I bet its never mentioned at all. They will leave it to us nerds to argue over for years to come. Perhaps - but I guess that anyone watching the movie will want this cleared up; otherwise, they'll be sceptical about the film's story and its plausibility. 'What about life on Mars?' My sense is this will have to be addressed in order to achieve verisimilitude. Science fiction is about the reasonable suspension of disbelief, given the possibilities of current science, in order for the reader to engage the narrative and to accept it as 'realistic' ('reality' is beside the point). Otherwise the story is just an implausible puzzle. It would be the death of any film or story.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 8, 2005 3:15:02 GMT
I dont think it will be that important, the average joe will just presume and accept that they are martians from mars just as they accept ghosts and aliens and time travel and machine worlds were the 'real' world is computer generated and so on. Those who are left still craving an answer will end up presuming the martians live under ground.
If the story follows Cruise and co they would need some plot device to account for the actual explanation, like a handy scientist to explain to them that there has been a cover up or they lived under ground or in the worst case scenario not from mars at all. Unless of course there is a narration at the start like in the 1953 version explaining whatever excuse Koepp dreamed up for his script, if he did dream up an excuse that is.
Like I have said before, if an alien sent a probe to earth and it landed in the deep desert the alien may never know we are here, mars is a big place and only a couple of tiny, slow rovers are on the surface studying rocks.
People will just accept these are martians from mars because its war of the worlds. For most that will be enough.
|
|
CPP
Junior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by CPP on Feb 8, 2005 3:26:51 GMT
Well, as a well-placed executive from Paramount once told me (and a room full of creatives with more accomplished resumes than either him or myself), "What you guys need to understand is that this trade is all about the suspension of disbelief..."
Duh.
Personally, I think to continue our "suspension" they will need to address the fact that we have found Mars to be a vast, cold desert. It isn't so hard. They could ignore the rovers and go for some kind or evidence seen from orbit. Or from the Hubble. Or from Viking.
I think a shot of some gangsta graffiti would do nicely?
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 8, 2005 7:22:44 GMT
lmao.i haven;t read the book ya see. is the musical taken from the book? that would make sense. Time to hit the book store, I think!
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 8, 2005 7:45:24 GMT
Only the recent missions have succeded ALL the earlier missions failed... Well, talking just about landers, it's been a fairly even set of successes and failures. The first "successful" lander was the Soviet MARS 3 in 1972. Neat little beasty. Even had a little 'walking' rover. Transmitted about 20 seconds of picture from the surface before POOF! gone. Not ENTIRELY successful, granted, but they sorta got ONE picture for all those rubles. pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/mars3l.htmlMars 6 did a great impression of a Martian lawn dart. Made a nice, soft, landing at 61 meters per second. Ouch. (Mars 4 and 5 were attempted orbiters). nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1973-052AMars 7 in 1973 would have made a great lander, if it hadn't missed the planet altogether. Oops. Start thinking 'curse.' nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1973-053AThen came the two Vikings in 1976. One lander and one Orbiter each. Totally and completely successful, which I'm sure the Soviets thought was just grand. (Blasted show-off Americans. Let's see 'em land on VENUS!) nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/viking.htmlThen there were the two Phobos orbiter/landers in 1988. Strictly speaking, their landers were targeted at Phobos, not Mars. Nonetheless, they continued the happy Soviet tradition of throwing perfectly good landers (and rubles) at the Red Planet - and losing them there. (Maybe the Russians should stick to landing on Venus. They do so much BETTER on that planet!) Since it appears they didn't quite get the message, they tried again with Mars 96, with pretty much the same result - unless they INTENDED to sprinkle the thing all over Chile, that is! nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1996-064AThen there was Pathfinder in 1997. I think it did rather well, wouldn't you say? Granted, it didn't land on Venus, but it didn't land in Chile, either. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mesur.htmlWhich brings us to the Mars Polar Lander in 1998. Which flew all the way to Mars, only to have a software bug turn off the retro-rockets at about 120ft altitude. The Russians must've been laughing their Mars 6 arses off. Stoopid software. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1999-001ANot to be left out of the lander-crashing fun, the Europeans littered the landscape with Beagle 2 in 2003. Real shame about that, actually - I was looking forward to getting some confirmation or negation of the Viking life sensor results. All the NASA can think about is rocks. www.beagle2.com/index.htmAnd last, but most spectacular of all, the MER rovers. All kidding about rocks aside, does it get much better than this? (Except on Venus, of course.) marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.htmlSo you see, the Martians have been pretty even-handed about landers, old and recent. Every once in a while, one gets through. Unless you're Russian. ;D
|
|