scififilmnerd said:

I totally agree. I was thinking "They have time to do that?"

Has anyone seen the original movie?

I was waiting for those big saucer like ships with the crook-necked eyes.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

gemini13 said:

I remember that it was a radio broadcast and that people who tuned in in the middle (after the disclaimer in the beginning) started panicking and really thought we were being invaded
[Edited 7/4/05 11:57am]

I saw WOTW this weekend and liked it.

While watching, I couldn't help but be amazed by Dakota Fanning. She is a very talented young actress. I see a promising future for her.

gemini13 said:

No idea what you're talking about. This was a remake?
























Of course, I know what you're talking about. It's a favorite movie of mine, and probably my alltime fave SF movie. This one doesn't come near it, but it's still a lot of fun, even upon second viewing.

RipHer2Shreds said:

I was kinda disappointed that they didn't have the same ships. I was actually terrified at one point in this new film. It was good, but I like when things stay true.

I want to go see this, someone come to florida and take my drunk ass.

gemini13 said:

The new movie is actually "truer" than the so called 'original'. Even though, like the first movie, the new one was set in the 'present day' rather than victorian England, the new movie is much closer to the original book.

I didn't really like it....

gemini13 said:

There are no ships in War of the Worlds, only Tripods. I guess they didn't have the know-how to make tripods look real on screen in the fifties, so they opted for flying saucers instead.

But then again... Was there flying saucers in the new movie, too? I mean, when the Martians arrived with the lightning, did they come from a ship hidden among the storm clouds - a ship that actually generated those storm clouds? And if they had spaceships, why didn't they just attack using those like in Independence Day?

So the new movie raises too many questions. It was simpler when they just arrived in meteors.

In the War of the Worlds musical, there is actually a "Sixpod" as well. The Tripods attack the humans and then six-legged monstrosities gather the survivors in "a basket on its back".

And then the Martians eat by transfusing the living blood of the humans into their own veins.

And the Martians are described as being masses of brain with no limbs, which is why they use machines - for mobility.

BorisFishpaw said:

Well, I haven't read the original book, but it is my impression that the musical is closer to the original book than any of the movies, but that both of the movies use elements from the book, and that the second movie use elements of the first movie that wasn't in the book, like the Tripods having force fields.

Also, I think that the reason why the Martians use disintegrator beams instead of heat rays in the new movie is that the movie makers wanted a PG-13 rating, not an 18. They chickened out of doing anything too horrific!

Anyways, I think the tripods are an idea born out of the Industrial Revolution and as such I still think the story would work best as a movie in it's original (steampunk) setting. You don't make Interview with the Vampire with other characters and in another time era, either, so...

Also, the new movie leaves too many questions hanging in the air. Besides the question of whether they had a ship hidden in the clouds, one also has to ask: Why do they come to earth, hide their war machines under the ground and then return millennia later to wipe out the human race?

If they were envious of our planet, as the opening speech says, why didn't they just stay, when they came to earth originally. Then the earth would have been theirs. Instead, their action suggest that it isn't really the earth that is of interest to them, but man. So they come back when man is ready for a harvest and they can eat them. But if they want to eat them/drink their living blood, then why massacre man instead of enslaving man?

Too many questions. Makes my head spin... and hurt...

And all this mass confusion in my head could have been avoided by sticking to them arriving on Earth and then building their machines upon arrival - like it happens in all the earlier adaptations of the story. But no. Someone probably said, "wouldn't it be cool if it came up out of the ground?" And then everybody said, "why, yes!" And it does indeed LOOK cool, but it doesn't make any goddang sense. It's like an Image comic = all flash and no substance.
[Edited 7/5/05 4:17am]

JediMaster said:

scififilmnerd said:

I think the real reason they didn't use that in this particular adaptation had nothing to do with a desired rating and everything to do with what would look cool on screen. Heat ray, disintegrator beam - it's all gonna make ash of 'em. I think what ended up on screen was plenty horrific. In some ways, I'm surprised they got away with a PG-13 rating for it, but that's not altogether uncommon for SF or fantasy violence. They tend to get away with more (the same applies to the Lord of the Rings movies). And they weren't Martians in this version.

RipHer2Shreds said:

Well, it's true that the movie doesn't exactly come out and say where they are from, but there are hints in there... The most obvious one being that their terraforming makes the landscape appear red.

Also, if the Tripods were buried on Earth millions of years ago that means that the aliens could have been watching for the perfect oportunity to strike - from Mars. Because if there was no space ship hidden in those storm clouds, from where else could they have orchestrated their attack, generated the magnetic storms and sent off the capsules that came down with the lightning, if not from close by?

scififilmnerd said:

You don't really think they shredding and gutting people to make the landscape feel more...homey?

RipHer2Shreds said:

No, I'm referring to the red weed which is also used for terraforming in the original book and the other adaptations where the invaders were indeed Martians.

But, yes, it certainly appears that red weed isn't watered with water, but, gasp... blended humans!
[Edited 7/5/05 6:36am]

scififilmnerd said:

Yeah, they should have explained the "weeding" more. It was pretty vague in the film, and clearly explained in the book.

scififilmnerd said:

Thanks for telling me these things. I had no idea

I wasn't going to go see this, but I may just have to check it out now after reading Kevin Smith's review of it over at his blog.

Good movie!

sag10 said:

That's EIGH....oh wait...

Nevermind.

2the9s said:

silly!

TMPletz said:

So that's why all his comic books are late? (If you can call five years delays "late".) He's busy writing a... blog!
[Edited 7/5/05 11:13am]

Byron said:

I think you just nailed it! I agree with you COMPLETELY.

COUGH, COUGH!

Lucas take note. Cough!

ufoclub said:

papaa said:

True, this he can do. Unfortunately, modern Spielberg has to ruin many of his films with sappy endings. He is also the king of the plot hole.

The ending of this movie SUCKS


Smooches;)

TRUE

I had the impression he became bored towards the end of the film and thought to himself: "I've entertained you guys enough. I'm off" and didn't bother tieing the loose ends properly, if at all. But Spielberg has been doing sappy endings for years now. In fact I can't remember the last Spielberg film which didn't have some sap thrown in at the end. Duel, perhaps?

JediMaster said:

papaa said:

Back in the day, Spielberg could pull off a movie without the cheese ending. Remember Raiders of the Lost Ark? THAT was an awesome ending! So many of his recent films have been good, but are then RUINED by some overly sappy conclusion (Saving Private Ryan springs to mind). The guy still has talent, but he isn't half the filmmaker he was back when he made Jaws.

I really liked this movie, it even made me like Tom Cruise again!