|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 1, 2005 23:29:57 GMT
Yes but they hadn't done so on Earth, therefore if they had known of disease and eradicated beforehand, they should have anticipated it on Earth surely?
It's only a minor gripe of course.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jul 1, 2005 23:31:24 GMT
As I said
They hadn't been ill for so long, they never really considred it. Like the Eloy in Time Machine, they got so used to who they were they convenetly forgot why they were.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 2, 2005 10:49:22 GMT
Sorry but just one last troll refference, a friend of mine thought it would be good to troll on eve of the war site, telling them it's just a film and to get over it. I gave the little guy an ear full, especially after his excitement at the batman movie. Sorry if he managed to offend anyone.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jul 2, 2005 12:17:28 GMT
Sorry but just one last troll refference, a friend of mine thought it would be good to troll on eve of the war site, telling them it's just a film and to get over it. I gave the little guy an ear full, especially after his excitement at the batman movie. Sorry if he managed to offend anyone. To be honest that's how I felt about the Revenge of the Sith too, ie why is everyone making such a fuss over a relatively dull movie! But each to their own as they say...
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jul 2, 2005 12:23:42 GMT
I loved the Spielberg movie, but just why wouldn't a period version be just as terrifying? Sorry I don't see the logic. If you are thinking it's because 19th century weapons are too primitive then think again, this ,movie doesn't make a lot of use of modern weaponry either. Everything in this movie, would have worked just as well in it's original setting.
I think he was right to leave the ending as it was, because everything else has already been tried and the big battle at the end is just so cliche as well.
Spielberg concentrated on the Cruise and his family and the Tripods and in the end that was enough.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jul 2, 2005 12:27:28 GMT
You'll see in my review that I had already mentioned this also, as well as the street sign with 'Van Buren' on it. While a very common street name in the USA, I couldn't help beleive it was a nod to Sylvia Van Buren in the original. Although EvilNerfHerder said we already knew they were going to appear, I agree, it is fun to actually see them in the flesh so to speak.
|
|
rich
Junior Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by rich on Jul 2, 2005 12:27:42 GMT
me again. if this was a separate film i agree it might well be considered as a good kick ass alien movie but i just fell that to use the title and some of the ideas is not being true to H.G. Wells' original work.
|
|
ClaytonForrester
Full Member
This kind of defense is useless against THAT kind of power!
Posts: 112
|
Post by ClaytonForrester on Jul 3, 2005 20:58:20 GMT
I hate to say I told you so,but.....
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jul 3, 2005 23:17:10 GMT
Indeed- as I have often been fond of pointing out, The War of the Worlds, as with the Time Machine and John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffiids all warn against how we could possibly end up- the martians in the book are described as brains with eyes, mouths and a few tentacles to operate the machines they use for bodies- if we all end up glued to computers (tapping messages into forums?! LOL), surely we will devolve into the same things. This is an increasingly common thread in science fiction- our over-reliance on machines and technology. Like in Frank Herbert's Dune- a galactic ruling against artificial intelligence- instead, Mentats- human computers. Our brains already have the potential to do this, but as we get more complex machines to think for us, we use them less and again reduce our own independance and possibly intelligence.
In the same way, as we sterilise our lives more and more- food, basic hygiene etc, we give our immune systems less and less practice, so they atrophie to the point where we become very vulnerable to the most basic infections. So, in essence, the martians in WOTW could be our futures come back to haunt us....
ps- I thought ID4 was a very cheap and contrived way of using that part of Wells original idea, not to mention shcokingly far fetched, but I won't start that rant again!
PPS- the film is not rubbish- by a long stretch- but if you're expecting it to be exactly like the novel, as will ALL other film adaptions, prepare to be disappointed.... Damn- where's all my Bat-Anti-Troll Spray gone?! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 3, 2005 23:22:22 GMT
As a devot WOTW fan it pains me to say this but the book had its flaws too, not the least gramatical, starting a sentence with "And," tut tut lol. Plenty of professional writers start sentences with "and". Despite what your English teacher may have told you in school, that's not a matter of "bad grammar", it's a matter of style. We were also taught that a preposition is nothing to end a sentence with . But modern style books grudgingly admit that it's preferable to using awkward, stilted wording to avoid it. And should we criticize you for misspelling "devout"?
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 4, 2005 0:49:58 GMT
I loved the Spielberg movie, but just why wouldn't a period version be just as terrifying? Sorry I don't see the logic. If you are thinking it's because 19th century weapons are too primitive then think again, this ,movie doesn't make a lot of use of modern weaponry either. Everything in this movie, would have worked just as well in it's original setting. I think he was right to leave the ending as it was, because everything else has already been tried and the big battle at the end is just so cliche as well. Spielberg concentrated on the Cruise and his family and the Tripods and in the end that was enough. You've missed my point or perhaps i didn't state it clearly enough. Yes at the time when Wells wrote the book it was 1898, and yes when people would read the book at that time people would be terrified by the story. For me the story can 'terrify' each new generation that comes across the story, however IMO this can only occur if the story is contempory and relevant to todays audience. Frankly i don't feel the original setting would scare anyone, it would only entertain. I feel that it would do more justice to Wells and the story if it was adapted for todays generation, so that the effect of being terrified circa 1898 will be repeated in 2005. Surely there is logic and sense in that? I don't remember stating that the weapons of Wells' era were too primitive, i like the idea of Artillery hammering the Tripods but the story can be more effective by using todays Armies and Weapons. The story is a timeless classic, which can be adapted for any time period. That's what makes the story so everlasting and powerful! When i mentioned the disappointment with the ending, i was just merely stating that he could've tried something different to surprise us that's all. That's another reason why i was hoping for something 'different', whether they drop dead from Bacteria or by a big battle they're cliche. Mixing those two endings could've worked or even trying something different with 'the big battle' that hasn't been done before.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 4, 2005 16:11:47 GMT
The word devot is french and spelt correctly lol. And I know that you can start a sentence with "and" my point was not everyone agrees with it, I was making a point about overly critical people missing the bigger picture by focusing on little things.
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 4, 2005 17:02:30 GMT
To be honest not many people give a s**t about bacteria on this planet, cos we have become immune to it, and if we were to go to another planet it would not be the first thing we think of, would it. So it is very much an ignorant thing.
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jul 4, 2005 19:51:49 GMT
I'l remind you again to read the book again and the Time Machine, to understand why it didn't occur to them. As I said They hadn't been ill for so long, they never really considred it. Like the Eloy in Time Machine, they got so used to who they were they convenetly forgot why they were. A pure example of a race not paying heed to history and the lessons there. When a race becomes too dependant on it's technolgy and forgets how and why it came about... well there we are It's more arrogance than ignorance
|
|
Chris
Full Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by Chris on Jul 4, 2005 20:01:06 GMT
Go watch the Pendragon movie. I DARE you to come back here and tell us it's a better film simply because it's more accurate to the book and then be taken seriously.
|
|
ClaytonForrester
Full Member
This kind of defense is useless against THAT kind of power!
Posts: 112
|
Post by ClaytonForrester on Jul 5, 2005 4:47:04 GMT
It has more of Wells' spirit to it than the other one.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 5, 2005 7:02:47 GMT
I think he was right to leave the ending as it was, because everything else has already been tried and the big battle at the end is just so cliche as well. There are ways the climax could have been done without having to have a big battle. The biggest problem IMHO about the way the (anti-)climax was handled was that Ray was *told* that the Tripods were dying before seeing it for himself. That violates one of the primary rules of storytelling: You should SHOW your audience what's happening, instead of TELLING them. Imagine how much less the impact would have been if Ray (and the film's audience) had not personally witnessed the earth opening up and the Tripod rising up and killing all those people around him with the heat ray/death ray. Imagine the movie had just shown one of his neighbors breathlessly running up to him and describing that. What would your reaction have been? Likely it would have been "*Yawn*...this is gonna be a really boring movie." Yet that's exactly what happens at what should have been the film's climax. Spielberg surely knows this; he's a great storyteller. So why the "telling instead of showing" thing? I'm guessing there was a sequence they planned that they just couldn't get to "work".
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 5, 2005 7:09:44 GMT
if we were to go to another planet it would not be the first thing we think of, would it. Actually it would. The crews returning from the first couple of manned lunar missions had to spend IIRC a couple of weeks in an isolation chamber in case they had picked up some lunar plague germ. IIRC after they had evidence from the first couple of missions how very very dead the moon is, they decided that wasn't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 5, 2005 7:18:55 GMT
I loved the Spielberg movie, but just why wouldn't a period version be just as terrifying? We've tried to convince Iron Man on this point before. I guess he's so in love with modern weaponry that he just can't enjoy a period piece. Too bad for him, but it seems it's pointless to debate him on this.
|
|
|
Post by bittersound on Jul 5, 2005 8:16:05 GMT
As a devot WOTW fan it pains me to say this but the book had its flaws too, not the least gramatical, starting a sentence with "And," tut tut lol. I hope that was a joke, right?
|
|