ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

War of the Worlds (2005)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 2001 to 2010
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bongopete
Interstellar Explorer


Joined: 17 Dec 2013
Posts: 76
Location: Dallas

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:23 pm    Post subject: War of the Worlds (2005) Reply with quote




Interesting film for a variety of reasons with those who hate it falling sort of on the anti Tom Cruise band wagon and those who like it not really being able to say exactly why (or so it seems).

Spielberg sets out to sort of make an up to date version of the novel . . . with our hero (Cruise) sort of taking the same trip that the narrator in the novel does . . . wanting to reconnect with his wife (in this movie, his ex-wife . . . very late 20th and early 21st century family dynamic here) and having the action that IS portrayed on the screen only be things that our hero can see.

In my opinion, here is one of the movies major failings . . . the bringing into the story of the two kids.

We see that Cruise and wife are divorced . . . very dysfunctional relationship between these two and then between Cruise and his kids. In this story of War of the Worlds . . . I'm not sure exactly what point Spielberg is trying to make with this dynamic.

Both of the kids are Spielbergian loud. Both are annoying and whiny. The son because he has a chip on his shoulder and later wants to get out there and mix it up with the Martians and kick their butt. The whole thing with the son and needing to get to where the action is just didn't come together for me. While I didn't care for either kid and their introduction into the story, I felt that the angle with the son was the weakest and should have been discarded. The daughter was a little know it all shrill.

The other major failing was in the movie's events only being those that could be seen by our hero. Since Cruise can't see what the battle over the hill looks like (since he doesn't go up there), WE don't see it either!!!!
It's an interesting idea, but for a big blockbuster movie I think a realllllllllly fatal one.

What action we see is almost ALL from a distance.

Tim Robbin's Ogilvy is a sort of combination of the books artilleryman and the curate. While in the book the curate is also a bit nuts, Robbin's really goes overboard in the role and hams it up.

I am still waiting for a big budget retelling of 'The War of the Worlds' and considering the special effects wizardry of today's films and the room to go crazy in showing the war . . . it's disappointing for this film to be about a man and his two bratty children who happen to be in the general area of the war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that Cruise is a good actor and this version of the story does offer some interesting ideas.

However, I kinda wish Spielberg hadn't tried to do what Signs actually did better -- tantalizing the audience with things NOT shown.

The battle that took place on the other side of a hill so we couldn't see it, and the people who were pulled inside a tripod which we never see the interior of -- these parts just frustrated me instead of making me try to imagine what I hadn't seen. The concept worked much better in movies like Signs and the original The Thing from Another World.

After seeing Man of Steel recently I was reminded of how special effects have replaced story in today's movies. Man of Steel was so determined not to give anyone in the audience a chance to go to the bathroom that it piled action FX onto action FX and rarely took the time tell a story.

Despite my frustration at things not seen in War of the Worlds, I'm beginning to think they erred less in that direction than I originally thought.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bongopete
Interstellar Explorer


Joined: 17 Dec 2013
Posts: 76
Location: Dallas

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's why I said that it was an interesting idea that we only see what Cruise's character sees . . . but I just don't know if that was a good idea in this film.

In the novel, the narrator character manages to see a fair amount of action. I think the narrator sees several fighting machines destroyed, one by the ironclad Thunderchild. I want to say another by a battery of artillery right before they themselves are destroyed.
It really seemed a cheat to me and what could have potentially been a sequence that made as big an impression as the combat sequence in the 50's version.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if it would have solved the problem if Cruise had barely gotten to the top of the hill, looked over, and seen about 30 seconds of the battle. That way we'd feel less cheated, but we wouldn't have to endure a long, loud, FX rich scene that just seemed to be showing off how terrific CGI can be — like so many movies are doing today.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:15 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bongopete
Interstellar Explorer


Joined: 17 Dec 2013
Posts: 76
Location: Dallas

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with that! Even a short pov of the hell going on over that hill would have been great! Instead we are left with a tease of the Marines going over the hill and a few seconds later a bunch of driverless Humvees driving back in retreat aflame.

While I agree that it seems that most movies today are all flash and no heart, I think a little less of the estranged family dynamic (in place of real story mind you) and a little more of what the title says the film is to be about . . . well, you get the idea.

ID4 would have been great (for me at least . . . hey, I still LIKE the movie) if it didn't have all the humor it had. ESPECIALLY Randy Quaids character!!!!! ID4 made a fun popcorn movie, but War of the Worlds seemed to be trying for something perhaps a bit more adult.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The hardest pill for me to swallow was the aliens "beaming down" into the machines that were buried underground. I didn't understand the rationale behind that approach. (That is, I understand from the standpoint of the aliens' sudden appearance needing to be a big surprise like it was in the book in an earlier era, but not from the standpoint of alien technology.)
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To me, the Aliens were a missed opportunity. They were CGI toons, so they could have made them look like the Martians from the book. Instead the movie had, monkeys.

David.
Back to top
Rocky Jones
Astral Engineer


Joined: 17 Dec 2014
Posts: 225
Location: North Texas

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My biggest problem with this film was the fact that the invaders didn't land in spacecraft, but just popped out of ground. Sure. That's gonna happen. A better title might have been "War with the Nasty Groundhogs".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, there's no defense for the dumb decision they made about how to present the Martian invaders. I'd love to see a video of the story session in which some genius said —

"Guys, I have a great idea! Instead of spaceships that streak down and disgorge cool aliens, like in the novel, let's have a big thunderstorm that zaps the ground with lightning and causes big tripod machines to bust up out of the asphalt!"

(Long silent pause while everybody at the boardroom table stares glassy-eyed at this guy, and then Spielberg says — )

". . . Perfect!" Smile

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:04 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
Right, there's no defense for the dumb decision they made about how to present the Martian invaders.

That was the basic problem created by updating the story to modern times. Nobody nowadays is going to buy the idea that these aliens come from Mars. We just know too much about that planet for it to be shrouded in mystery any longer. It happens whenever a classic 19th Century sci-fi yarn is modernized. We lose too much of The Unknown.

Any massive departure from Mars is going to be spotted right away with our technology being what it is. (I think it was even observed in the original Wells story, wasn't it?) So the story has to be tweaked to get around that problem. The tweaking just wasn't done very well.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
Any massive departure from Mars is going to be spotted right away with our technology being what it is.

That's very true . . . except for something which brilliant lil' old me thought of years ago, and I sure wish somebody would use it in a movie.

Here's my idea.

Optical telescopes based on Earth still give us fuzzy views of Mars, even today. That damned atmosphere of ours just won't get out of the way when we want to take a snapshot of our neighbor in space.

All the good pictures of Mars we have — like the one below — are acquired from devices like the space probes and the Hubble telescope, which transmit the images back to Earth.



And, as everybody can plainly see, Mars is just a big dead rock with a terrible climate and a bad attitude.

But wait a minute. Maybe it isn't.

Today we think nothing of watching stunning CGI special effects that look more real than real life. We know damn well all those planets we see in Star Wars were just created with computers. Right?

Well, guess what? The Martians have been doing the same thing to all those transmissions from the Hubble telescope and space probes, ever since the first pictures of Mars were sent back. Here's what Mars looks like through Earth-based telescopes.



And here's what we get from those devices out in space that send back pictures.



Well, don't look now, folks, but the second picture is a fake. It's one of thousands of images the Martians send us, in place of real images of their home planet! They're secretly hi-jacking our data signals and substituting elaborate fakes and tons of false data.

If we saw the real Mars, we'd see the planet-wide canal system and the domed super-cities and the whole hi-tech Martian civilization. But we don't see the real pictures being transmitted by our space probes and space-based telescops (even the ones that orbit right above us), because the Martian's advance technology allows them to block the real data streams and substitute false ones so they can hide their existence right under our stupid noses.

It's a conspiracy, I tell 'ya! A CONSPIRACY! Shocked

And why am I so sure, you may ask? Well, get this. That third picture above is actually NOT a faked image received from Hubble or a space probe. It's a recently released picture from an Earth-based telescope — despite the fact that it's astoundingly sharp, even though it was taken right through our fuzzy atmosphere!

How is this possible, you may ask? Well, friends and neighbors, that's the whole point. It isn't possible. That picture — supposedly from an Earth-based telescope — was created by the Martians, too!

They're living among us . . . disguised as astronomers . . . releasing more fake pictures directly to the gullible public . . . making damn sure we don't realize that any day now the Martian invasion will begin!

We've been duped for over a hundred years. We've been tricked into thinking that a barren CGI Mars is the real thing — while the advanced, super-intelligent Martians take there sweet time making preparations to crush us completely and take over our planet whenever they want!


We're doomed!

( * Okay, admit it folks. This is a great idea for a story. And if I can think up something this good, an idea that would allow an update of War of the Worlds to be about a real Martian invasion, why can't those dimwits in Hollywood do it?)

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rocky Jones
Astral Engineer


Joined: 17 Dec 2014
Posts: 225
Location: North Texas

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uh, right, Bud guh-great idea. Moving back to what Wayne said, though...

orzel-w wrote:
That was the basic problem created by updating the story to modern times. Nobody nowadays is going to buy the idea that these aliens come from Mars.

Well, let's see, they decided nobody would believe these creatures came from Mars, but we'd believe they came from Earth right under our feet? I'd be closer to buying that they popped out of the ground on Mars than on Earth, but whatever. You're right that this film looks like another great story mutilated via writing by committee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently only the machines had been buried, some time long ago. The "crew" were "beamed down" in those lightning bolts. Still didn't make sense.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rocky Jones
Astral Engineer


Joined: 17 Dec 2014
Posts: 225
Location: North Texas

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, it's been awhile since I saw this one and I'll admit it didn't make too strong an impression in spite of the fancy effects. Tom Cruise saved the world, as I recall (excuse the spoiler, but who didn't know?).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even for George Pal's 1953 updated storyline, Mars was still mysterious enough at the time to sell the idea of Martians sneaking up on us.

Rocky Jones wrote:
Tom Cruise saved the world, as I recall (excuse the spoiler, but who didn't know?).

Not the world; just his daughter. Saving the world still gets credited to germs.

Too many attempts to modernize the real classic sci-fi stories (from the era that now fall into the category of Steampunk) fail because of the changes to the basic story. And for what? ("Hey, yeah, but with today's weapons we could kick their alien butts, dude!") Once you modernize the plot, you've created a movie that will be dated within five years, tops.

But making a period piece, like Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) or George Pal's The Time Machine (1960), takes the risk out of being made to look foolish in short order, and removes the necessity of updating the basic plot elements. It's pre-dated. (Maybe not so much in the latter case, due to excursions into the near future with respect to the present day. The filmmakers just can't resist.)

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 2001 to 2010 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group