|
Post by Spirit of Man on Jul 4, 2005 17:16:54 GMT
Then there's the video revelation of the alien's transport method, which was really stretching it to say the least. (Can a science person step in and explain if it may be possible for anything to RIDE lightning?). Lightning is nothing but a huge bolt of static electricity. Lightning is energy, and it travels at nearly the speed of light. It's nonsense to say that any material object could "ride" it. It's also nonsense to say that "riding" lightning would let a large object (one of the aliens) squeeze thru a crack in the ground in order to get to a Tripod. The only thing I can think of is that "riding the lightning" is supposed to be something like Star Trek's transporters. That is, a material object is converted to energy, moved to another place, and then converted back to its original material form. And if the aliens had tech *that* advanced-- and presumably had had it for the thousands of years the Tripods were probably buried-- then they should have been using that tech in other ways. Personally, I think the movie would have been better off without that. If we hadn't been shown the "riding the lightning" sequence, we could have assumed the aliens were in suspended animation inside the Tripods, and that the lightning strikes were just used to "wake up" the Tripods. I think the idea of them "riding the lightning" into the ground reflects how their technology is far more advanced than ours. Im guessing that the perceived lightning isnt lightning as we understand it, if you listen, it does sound very alien. My guess is that its a carrier beam which appears as lightning in our atmosphere, but is of a sufficient technological level for us to simply not understand it...........I think this also applies to all of their technology.
|
|
|
Post by RossH on Jul 4, 2005 17:37:00 GMT
"Exactly how would you expect them to come across, being aliens and all? They seemed curious but hardly unintelligent. I doubt if a group of human soldiers would seem especially intelligent in similar circumstances."
The more I think about it, "Gremlin-like" is a better description... and I still think the aliens would be completly indifferent to humans.
"The tripods had been in the earth for a million years (anyone take geology?) and the alien pilots came down the lightning into them... c'mon, is that the best you can come up with. LAME!"-"Again, we only have Ogilivy's word for it."
Yes I know, but the idea that aliens buried these FM's in the ground before people were around (for New Jersey, that could be only 500 years, ignoring native Americans of course) then they reactivate then and travel to them down lightning of all things is somehow more plausible than them coming from Mars. That was the reason quoted for the new origin of the aliens..
"Surely the tentacle in the cellar scene should remind of the '53 movie - It moved similarly to the tentacle to The Abyss but it was hardly copied from there."
Yes, very '53 movie, including the tentacles reappearance. The tentacle moved slowly and purposly in the cellar for WAY too long. It was easy for everyone to avoid it. It would've worked better if it occasionally turned around quickly so it was harder to anticipate. It wasn't threating enough IMHO.
"It looks to me like when the used the probe (No! not the probe!) they were spraying the blood but when they take the captives into the fighting machine they are 'eating' them."
Ah, good point. Didn't occur to me. Still don't like the sphincter though...
"Has it occured to you that the FMs were probably somewhat organic - I mean just look at the red sphincter of death! Does that look mechanical to you? The bacteria was probably affecting the FMs biological systems."
Apart from the sphincter, which I found out of place, I got no indication that the FM's were part organic. I always liked the idea that the FM's, like the Martians (I mean aliens) couldn't cope with Earths atmosphere. The unusual metal the FM's were made of basically rusted over time in the oxygen rich atmosphere.
But I should point out I did enjoy the movie, many other people have already pointed out the very cool stuff. I just wanted to discuss some of the stuff that didn't work for me.
Oh, if you're having difficulty reading black text, just highlight the text with your mouse (click and hold left mouse button and drag over all the text).
|
|
Jehuty
Junior Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by Jehuty on Jul 4, 2005 18:17:28 GMT
It occurs to me that It looked like I was trying to rip apart your post and that wasn't the intention I think one of the great things about this particular version of the story is that so little is actually explained - They might be Martians or they might not, they might have been underground for ages or not etc. etc. It really is open to interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Chappy on Jul 4, 2005 18:38:21 GMT
(Pasted from my other thread. Apologies.)
Saw the film Friday afternoon. Top quality film, IMO. Brilliant CGI work - loved the heat ray effects - and the tripods were actually quite scary.
The acting was superb (yes, even from Tom) and Dakota Fanning is going to have a glittering career ahead of her.
I loved the narrative - Morgan Freemen's voice worked perfectly.
The story itself was very well written and paid lots of little homages to the book, radio play and the '53 film. (It also had a couple of nods to Jurassic Park, which made me chuckle!)
A couple of criticisms:
1. Like others have pointed out, it did seem to finish rather suddenly - you weren't given a sense of time passing: one minute they were fighting for their lives, the next they were entering Boston. Maybe that was intentional, as in the book the narrator says about losing track of time, but for me it didn't really work in the film.
2. The aliens were not brilliant - too much like three legged ID4 creatures. Not nearly creepy enough.
All in all though, the best film I have seen for a long time, and thoroughly recommended.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 4, 2005 20:40:12 GMT
The more I think about it, "Gremlin-like" is a better description... and I still think the aliens would be completly indifferent to humans. Oh c'mon. You're an alien invader, you've put in your full 8.13 hour work shift toasting "monkeys" and sucking them dry, you're ready to stretch your 3 legs a bit and play tourist! Sure, you want to poke around a bit in that monkey dwelling. Everyone has a bit of curiosity, don't they? Wow, it's amazing they live in conditions so primitive. This is only a couple of notches above a grass hut! Hey, what's that funny thing hanging on the wall? Why, it's got wheels! How quaint; your species gave up using anything that primitive so long ago it's ancient history. So sure, you're gonna give that wheel a spin. Removing my tongue from my cheek... why wouldn't they be curious about humans? One could argue that any species which built an advanced technological civilization would *have* to exhibit curiosity. If they weren't capable of curiosity, they wouldn't have done the experimentation necessary to develop science and technology. Certainly one could construct a plausible scenario where individuals in an advanced civilization weren't motivated by curiosity, but I think it's more likely they would be. Curiosity doesn't equal compassion. An entomologist will show great curiosity in examining a species of butterfly he hasn't seen before... before he sticks a pin thru it and mounts it on a display board.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 4, 2005 21:44:54 GMT
*** GNORN IS VERY DISSAPOINTED :-( ***
I haven't read any of the comments before in fear of spoilers. Now I just saw the movie and I must say I was very, very dissapointed about the whole show. Probably a lot has allready been said, but anyhoo...
First, let's start with the stuff that was brilliant...
- It had freaking tripods! I mean, c'mon! - The howling sounds. - F*cking great CGI and FX.
Ehm... that 'bout sums it up for me...
Now my dislikes...
- There was nothing (well, except for Cruise and the two whining bratts) that linked the scenes together. One moment there is dead and destruction all around, and suddenly we are walking along some empty landscape. Again and again... - There was absolute no sense of total world destruction and anhillation. Nothing -to me- carried over the emotional stress people would be suffering from such huge trauma. I couldn't feel emotional about the world's end. I didn't even get the feeling the world was done for. - The machines lay dorment for centuries? And the aliens arrived by riding lightning? WTF!? That must be one of the lamest plots for alien invasion I have seen. Would fit nice in a 50's B style SF movie. - Total lack of suspence... the only moment I was really thrilled, was with the storm and when the first tripod was to appear and starting laying about it. And that only because I had no f*cking clue what was going to happen and what the tripods would be like. After that... nada... even the cellar scene wasn't thrilling. - WTF was that TV crew doing in the middle of destruction? - Freeman's voice... sorry, but it didn't do it for me.
Sooo... this was to be THE movie of the decade? Booaaah! I think I'd rather see ID4 than this so-called War of the Worlds movie. I'd rather see the Pall movie. Spielberg! You dissapointed me. Big time! I guess all my hopes now lay with jeff Wayne. He better not let us down.
-Gnorn ... a very dissapointed Gnorn :-(
|
|
|
Post by RossH on Jul 4, 2005 22:47:09 GMT
It occurs to me that It looked like I was trying to rip apart your post and that wasn't the intention I think one of the great things about this particular version of the story is that so little is actually explained - They might be Martians or they might not, they might have been underground for ages or not etc. etc. It really is open to interpretation. Never thought you were ripping my post apart- I posted on a discussion group and got a discussion! ;D Just posting what I thought didn't work (for me)... my wife left the theater wondering jokingly where she could buy a (real) tripod from. I want to know where are the toys...
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 4, 2005 23:16:32 GMT
I think someone pointed out early that the "Lightening Riders" is a stupid plot development. We are expected to believe this, more than the fact they came from Mars?
And that is the reason we were given for the lack of Cylinders. Because only from a close by planet could they come by cylinder, otherwise they wouldnt need Tripods, they would have flying machines, and most likly ones that could bombard us from orbit. So, what are people thoughts on the new way of invasion, compared to cylinders, in a completely "Well I can believe that more..." way.
Id say cylinders.
Also, did anyone think that the reason the martian was so curious about the wheel on the bike is that it hasnt seen one before, for, as Wells himself states the Invaders (Since their not from Mars) had never invented the wheel, they took alternative means instead.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 4, 2005 23:21:22 GMT
Hehe yes. Alien lightning riders is hella lot more convinceable than Martians... doh! Great point about that wheel, Marcus. Didn't think of it that way.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 5, 2005 0:43:51 GMT
Hehe yes. Alien lightning riders is hella lot more convinceable than Martians... doh! Great point about that wheel, Marcus. Didn't think of it that way. -Gnorn It also shows the contrast between our cultures, such as our wheeled/tracked vehicles against their 'walking' ones ;D
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jul 5, 2005 1:51:15 GMT
What Marcus said about the wheel is what I thought WAS going on. I mean, its stated in the book that they had never made a wheel, so I would assume they would be pretty darn curious, almost amazed at the fact that we thought of something even THEY didnt.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 5, 2005 4:10:01 GMT
I've seen it twice now, and although I am saving my reviews for the society publications first, I'll say this: Despite gaping holes in the revised plot exposing insufficient research/understanding of the source text, those were without a doubt the most beautiful (and accurate) fighting-machines we've ever seen on the silver screen. Leave it to ILM. The first appearance of the fighting-machine rising up where the Lutheran church once was, was simply beyond description. That and the nighttime shot of the machines by the ferry were the sort of images I had hoped to see. It was these sorts of SFX shots that resonated in me and brought me back to the theatre a second time. Very special effects. Loved their deep, groaning "ULLLLL AHHH," too. I wonder if I can get that sampled into my car's horn?
|
|
Jehuty
Junior Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by Jehuty on Jul 5, 2005 6:34:06 GMT
"well, except for Cruise and the two whining bratts"
Hmmm, I'm curious to know how YOU think they would have acted if the world was being blown up around them!
|
|
|
Post by MotoMAN on Jul 5, 2005 22:17:34 GMT
Thought the movie was great, has a classic feel to it. Not to drawnout, so you can see it again and again and still enjoy it , like an old movie would. If that makes sense.
But something I didnt like, was the battle on the hill. Sure, the scene was great. You can feel the intensity buliding up as they get closer and closer. The movies shaking by this piont. Rounds are going off overhead. Jets soar, tanks rumble off in the distance. And your stuck there wondering whats happaning!!!! The whole time I was waiting for a peek over the hill, would have been a great battle scene. Would have fullfilled the movie IMHO. All it really needed was one great scene between the military and tripods going all out at eachother like the 4th of july. To bad.
|
|
|
Post by AlmicheV on Jul 5, 2005 22:32:44 GMT
I couldn't agree with you more about the hill scene. More destruction needed. It would have added to the movie, and not taken anything away from it. The whole idea of seeing it from TC's point of view was taken to the extreme, to the detrement of the film imo.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 5, 2005 22:46:51 GMT
I very much wanted to see what was going on over the hill, too! It was certainly a courageous move on Spielberg's part to stick with the idea of only showing what Ray saw, even to the point of making his audience unhappy by frustrating us on that point. Whether that makes the movie better or worse, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 5, 2005 22:47:36 GMT
AlmicheV I couldnt agree more on that one point. While the personal story was superb, sometimes they went too far with it, and it seemed like they were holding back too much.
Thunderchild in the ferry scene, or following Rob over the hill. Imagine how cool that would be?
You could also buff out some of the film by showing his journey.
But yes, very anti-climatic and a little dissapointed.
I dont think the film will be a classic, as a lot are saying it will be. Maybe only between WotW fans, otherwise I dont think it will be remenbered at all. A lot of the people in my cinema found it dissapointing, and I blame the trailers for that. They advertised it all wrong, and it means that the audience who it appeared to be made for hated it. And I mean hated it.
Ive heard people say that people were silent and gripped, and thats definnatly not one I saw in my screening.
I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I think people are getting over optermistic by saying its a classic. Or will be.
Thoughts?
And thanks for agreeing with me on the bike all those that did. -L-.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 5, 2005 22:51:07 GMT
I very much wanted to see what was going on over the hill, too! It was certainly a courageous move on Spielberg's part to stick with the idea of only showing what Ray saw, even to the point of making his audience unhappy by frustrating us on that point. Whether that makes the movie better or worse, I'm not sure. Well if it frustrates the audience Id say its a bad thing. I also wouldnt call it courageous. Or Speilbergs move. Koepp wrote the script, and lets not forget to credit him with the story, both its flaws and its downfalls. Speilberg only directed, and while he did superbly, it was neither his move, nor a courageous one by any party to not show what was going on over the hill. But their just my thoughts. I can see why some people liked it, and if we had been given one fighting scene, then I could live with it, but it made the film seem anti-climatic. Even the novel had two scene of battles in them, and I think that added to its epic scope. But its still a damn good film.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 5, 2005 23:05:51 GMT
I also wouldnt call it courageous. Or Speilbergs move. Koepp wrote the script, and lets not forget to credit him with the story, both its flaws and its downfalls. Speilberg only directed, I've seen this described as the third in Spielberg's "alien encounters" trilogy, implying that he had creative control. But I don't see Spielberg listed as one of the producers, so I dunno. No doubt someone who's followed this production (I have not) can address this point.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 6, 2005 10:27:23 GMT
Yes, Koepp wrote the screenplay. But it is Spielberg who made the movie. He wanted to do it in the first place. So he had every change to say 'no, let's change such and so'. It is not like Koepp was pointing a gun to his head all the time.
-Gnorn
|
|