War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

[StarStuff]

War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

The reviewer in our local newspaper gave "World of the World" four stars (the highest number) and titled the article, New Jersey is toast! How cool is that?!

We saw it this afternoon and it kept our attention throughout. Because of the nonstop battle noise we weren't able to hear much of the dialogue, but it din't seem to make any difference.

Have you seen it yet? It was well worth the money - but then we get senior rates.

 

[Jonny_Fever]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

I watched it on Wednesday and thought it was an interesting movie. There are parts that I still dont understand but over all it was an entertaining movie.

 

[Recoil]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

I thought it was an excellent remake. They even kept some of the basic scenes from the original in the movie. I liked how everything followed Cruise and his family. The effects were great but not over-used at all. A lot of action seemed to be in the background, which was cool.

 

[MeadDrinker]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Now I haven't seen it judge so I won't judge it as a movie - but I wish they could have done a faithful interpretation of the novel with a big budget... It would be fantastic to see turn-of-the century people facing the Martians.

Plus the Thunderchild sequence is one of the most heroic and emotional moments, especially in the musical... Imagine seeing it build up steam, and attack...

Has an adaptation of that made it into the movie?

 

[Recoil]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Not familiar with the novel. What is the "Thunderchild" sequence?

 

[MeadDrinker]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Can we have spoilers for a 100 year old novel? ;-)

The Thunderchild is an ironclad warship that attacks the tripods in the mouth of the Thames in order to allow some steamers with refugees on board to escape. It does very well for itself... but the phrase 'noble sacrifice' is relevant.

 

[Recoil]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Cool.

That brings up another question. They were tripods in this movie (in fact even the aliens themselves, while looking a LOT like the aliens from Independence Day, had 3 legs, 3 fingers, etc) and the machines walked with 3 legs....I seem to remember the original movie had them as just hovering ships. In the book, were they really tripods that walked around?

 

[MeadDrinker]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Yeah, big tripods with metal tentacles to manipulate things, including heat ray guns. They had big baskets to put people they caught in - I believe you know what for.

This is a pic from the musical adaptation:

The book remains excellent, and its only a couple of hundred pages. I recommend it!

 

[Alluveal]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

The ending was a bit of a whimper, though. Loved the rest of it.

 

[Bab5nutz]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

I loved the soundtrack when I was a kid - still do.

I was a bit dubious when I heard that Tom Cruise was in the movie - although I know that he is a reasonable actor. But, it sounds as if this movie might be okay. I'm going on Tuesday.

Has anyone seen the original? It is rather corny - but the SFX were pretty good for the time.

I wonder if there will ever be a film/TV version that is actually faithful to the book.

 

[Recoil]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

The ending was a bit of a whimper, though. Loved the rest of it.

I've read a LOT of people are bitching about the ending. Below is my take on it, as well as a very good quote I snagged from some dude on IMDB.com who makes a great point.

SPOILERS BELOW

Well, it ended quickly and abruptly like the original movie (and I assume the novel). At first my impression was that the ending was "OK" since it was like the original. I did, however, think having the son survive was a major cop-out. Then, however, I read this write-up from some guy who posted it on IMDB.com. He had a different opinion of the ending. After reading his post, I had to totally agree, and have even more respect for Speilberg than I did before (as his camera work really displayed what this below post says:

I was talking to my girlfriend after going to see this movie, and if you think about it, the movie truly IS tragic.

Think back to when the son is trying to join the motorcade as it drives by (when they get out of the van because Dakota Fanning has to go to the bathroom). He says something along the lines of "You just want to drop us off with Mom so you can go on just worrying about yourself!"

He then spends the rest of the movie worrying solely about his kids, particularly Dakota Fanning's character.

He goes through hell for his kids, makes the heartwrenching decision to let his son (probably) die, finds out that BOTH of his kids are OK...then finds out that their mother is OK, too. He "drops them off" with the Mom and then has to go on...simply worrying about himself. He is alone, once again, BECAUSE of what we perceive as a "happy ending".

Face it - what you wanted was to see his son die, the family dead, and only Tom and Dakota trying to put the pieces of their life together while the world did the same. That, or you wanted to see Tom Cruise die valiantly sacrificing himself to destroy the Tripod that held his daughter.

But it didn't happen. Everyone around him survived, and because of it, THEIR life is still intact. Yes, there's rebuilding to do, but he's now got to do it alone - his family has all of their pieces, and that means he no longer has any.

At the end of the movie, he stands apart from all of them. He will remain that way because everyone survived. His prize for sacrificing himself for his family is that he will no longer have the family with him.

Truly tragic.

When I read his post, and though about how the camera work was done, Tom Cruise was in the background off in the distance, and remained there, when the daughter ran to the mother. He really did look isolated and alone. It really wasn't the happy ending people are complaining about, and I thought it was well done after thinking about it (or reading about it ).

 

[Jonny_Fever]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

That makes much more sense to me now after reading your post. Of course with movies like that, how exactly can you make a good effective ending that will satisfy everyone? I'll have to read the book because truthfully I didnt understand why they were capturing all the people and waiting aparently millions of years to attack.

 

[Vonbloodbath]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

I decided not to go see this, for two reasons.

1) no matter how good it may or may not be, its not war of the worlds.
2) I've been reading up a lot on Scientology; that and Tom Cruise's irresponsible outbursts have convinced me to stay away from his movies.

VB

 

[Recoil]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

I decided not to go see this, for two reasons.

1) no matter how good it may or may not be, its not war of the worlds.
2) I've been reading up a lot on Scientology; that and Tom Cruise's irresponsible outbursts have convinced me to stay away from his movies.

VB

Heh, I disagree with your analysis for 2 reasons:

1) It *IS* War of the Worlds. Although I've never read the book, I hear its a great adapation. It also very closely followed the original --- just from the POV of a "average guy" instead of that doctor/scientist.

2) It isn't *HIS* [Tom Cruise] movie, if anything its Speilbergs. I'd think that by now he has earned the right and respect for any of his movies to be worth watching.

 

[Alluveal]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Scientology is full of freaks. Some chachi on the Alias boards is going off on anyone that bad-mouths it. www.xenu.net is so fun. All the ammunition you'll ever need.

 

[MeadDrinker]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

I decided not to go see this, for two reasons.

1) no matter how good it may or may not be, its not war of the worlds.
2) I've been reading up a lot on Scientology; that and Tom Cruise's irresponsible outbursts have convinced me to stay away from his movies.

VB

Heh, I disagree with your analysis for 2 reasons:

1) It *IS* War of the Worlds. Although I've never read the book, I hear its a great adapation. It also very closely followed the original --- just from the POV of a "average guy" instead of that doctor/scientist.

2) It isn't *HIS* [Tom Cruise] movie, if anything its Speilbergs. I'd think that by now he has earned the right and respect for any of his movies to be worth watching.

Its no doctor in the book. He's a journalist / writer type fellow. Some philosophical stuff perhaps. From what I've heard of the film it doesn't follow the book that closely - no family for a start. The book is more concerned with the reaction of society than about the adventures of the observer.

In fact, the book makes quite a critique of organised religion... I wonder if our dear Scientologist noticed that when he read it, as he undoubtedly did for his preparation?

 

[darth_librarian]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Other than the book, I think the musical version that the cover above came from is the best way of distilling it into other media.
I'm a bit suprised some folks here never read this, we did it in school...

 

[jnk5y]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

No Tom Cruise was not alone in the background. His son who shouldn't have survived ran out and hugged him. Also if an alien race can produce lightning then I think they could learn to boil their water before drinking. Or at least send 1 guy to check if they place is ok. It was a cop out just like the movie Signs.

 

[Recoil]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Also if an alien race can produce lightning then I think they could learn to boil their water before drinking. Or at least send 1 guy to check if they place is ok. It was a cop out just like the movie Signs.

Try to remember when this book was written. I don't remember the exact date but believe it was the end of the 1800s or early 1900s. Back then it was a fantastic story and idea. Yes, today's movie-going audience would think that aliens dying off because of ecoli would be weak because if they had the technology they could have invented a space suit...but back before there was such a thing as a spacesuit this was a cool story.

It is also the SAME story over 100 years later that you had just watched. Sometimes with remakes that are this old and dated, things like that need to be kept in perspective.

 

[darth_librarian]

Re: War of the Worlds (SPOILERS)

Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemn retold the whole story in a slightly more convincing fashion for modern audiences, I won't spoil it but more than average bugs were used.

Wells invented the tank and loads of other stuff. i think in men on the moon they even used space suits, but am not sure, its been years since I read the lot. Off to see this tonight, looking forward to it..