War of the Worlds gets the thumbs down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the recent film adaptation of "War of the Worlds," exploring critiques of the movie, comparisons to previous adaptations, and reactions to its portrayal of the source material. Participants express opinions on the film's direction, special effects, and overall execution, as well as its historical context and significance.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants criticize the film for relying heavily on special effects without adding substantial narrative depth, questioning Spielberg's approach.
  • Others mention the film's reception on review aggregator sites, noting a relatively high percentage of positive reviews.
  • Several participants express their intent to watch the film and share personal assessments, indicating a mix of anticipation and skepticism.
  • There is a technical discussion about the plausibility of three-legged machines walking, with suggestions of dynamic balance or luck as possible explanations.
  • Participants reflect on the historical significance of the original novel and its adaptations, including the 1953 film and Orson Welles' radio broadcast, which caused public panic.
  • Some express disappointment with the film's modernized setting, preferring a more faithful adaptation of the original story's context.
  • One participant shares a detailed critique of the film, praising its suspense but criticizing its ending and plot coherence.
  • Another participant expresses extreme dissatisfaction with the film, labeling it a waste of time and lacking in artistic merit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of opinions, with some appreciating the film's execution while others vehemently criticize it. There is no consensus on the film's quality or its fidelity to the source material.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the historical context of the original novel and its adaptations, but there are unresolved questions about the accuracy of critiques and the interpretations of the film's elements.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in film critiques, adaptations of classic literature, and discussions on the intersection of technology and storytelling may find this thread engaging.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
At least from the critic in my town.

Something to the effect of "How can steven speilberg, the greatest director of our time, do nothing more to a 50 year old name-sake then add a few computerized special effects".

Anyone think that all this crap with Cruise was entirely for the movie? I mean come on, marrige... that crap with the psychology thing... that fake reporter... so much bs. I think its all staged because his acting isn't good enough to put seats in chairs :devil:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i'm going to see it either tonight or tomorrow, and i can give you all my personal assesment. I'm aslo seeing mr. and mrs. smith, which i heard was decent.
 
how can three legged machines walk without falling over?
 
stoned said:
how can three legged machines walk without falling over?

Well, they could be dynamically balanced, or they could have big feet.
(Humans have two legs, and have no trouble at all.)
 
NateTG said:
Well, they could be dynamically balanced,

or just reeeeeeaaaaalllly lucky.
 
Now that I think about it, it should be possible to have 3-legged walking with 5 joints: An actuator in each leg, and two (one-dimensional) hinges for two legs.

I doubt that's what the martians have in the move - the book calls for articulated appendages.
 
Pengwuino said:
At least from the critic in my town.

Something to the effect of "How can steven speilberg, the greatest director of our time, do nothing more to a 50 year old name-sake then add a few computerized special effects".
Hmm, I wonder if this critic even knows that the name-sake is actually a 107 year old novel?
 
Janus said:
Hmm, I wonder if this critic even knows that the name-sake is actually a 107 year old novel?
He's probably referring to the movie from 1953.
 
  • #10
Evo said:
He's probably referring to the movie from 1953.

I realize that, I was just wondering if that was the extent of his familiarity with the story.
 
  • #11
Janus said:
I realize that, I was just wondering if that was the extent of his familiarity with the story.
Probably never read the story.
 
  • #12
Janus said:
Hmm, I wonder if this critic even knows that the name-sake is actually a 107 year old novel?

Ah crap, the "namesake" part was a word i couldn't remember. I heard him say it and was trying to write this thread with his exact quote but i forgot what word he actually used. I am not sure if he's read it or not but he must have seen the first movie...
 
  • #13
didn't they have a radio brodcast about this in the 20s which people thought was a real news broadcast, not a story? i know something like that happened, i can't remember if it was war of the worlds
 
  • #14
1 said:
didn't they have a radio brodcast about this in the 20s which people thought was a real news broadcast, not a story? i know something like that happened, i can't remember if it was war of the worlds
Yes, it was read by Orson Welles in the 1930's.
 
  • #15
1 said:
didn't they have a radio brodcast about this in the 20s which people thought was a real news broadcast, not a story? i know something like that happened, i can't remember if it was war of the worlds


Yah and people went crazy! They had to get the police and army out to stop all the riots. Nice psychological incident that's still studied today according to whoever told me it :P
 
  • #17
Evo said:
He's probably referring to the movie from 1953.
Which, I just downloaded and am going to watch tonight. I plan on seeing the new one tomorrow so I'll give you guys a full review then.
 
  • #18
Smurf said:
Which, I just downloaded and am going to watch tonight. I plan on seeing the new one tomorrow so I'll give you guys a full review then.
Yes, let us know what you think. I haven't watched the 50's version in years, but I thought it was good. Best sci-film of that era was "The Day the Earth Stood Still", PLEASE do not let them re-make that film.
 
  • #19
While this incarnation War lacked the social significance that the novel, the broadcast, and the original movie had, I enjoyed it. The suspense and tension never let's up. Frankly, this movie is damn near terrifying at times. The ending sucks, partially because its Spielberg and he has to make everything neat and tidy in a terribly contrived way, and partially because the method of demise that the aliens meet as envisioned by Wells in 1898 just no longer makes a whole lot of sense, especially since the explanation given in the book is not given here. That said, the ending only takes up several minutes and I can forgive it.

All in all, I think Spielberg's still got it. This isn't a great movie by any means, but its the best action movie I've seen in a long time. The directing is top-notch, too, considering that the script is pretty bad (not the dialogue, but the plot just doesn't make much sense) and the movie nonetheless sustains interest virtually all the way through. On top of that, he's paid a great deal of attention to detail, something other directors, espcially action directors, could take a hint from. Even the extras in this movie really act, instead of just running and screaming. It isn't easy making such a convincing movie with a poor screenplay, and I hope he gets credit for doing so. I can't even think of the last effective alien invasion film that didn't resort to camp or fantasy to hide its implausibility. Kudos to Steve for pulling it off.
 
  • #20
Well. I just got back from seeing the movie, and all in all it wasn't bad. I still would have liked to have seen them shy away from the need to "modernize" the story and instead film it as written (taking place at the end of the 19th century in England). But that aside, I think this movie did a better job of maintaining the flavor of the book than the 50's version.
The Tim Robbins character seemed to be a combination of three characters from the book and I saw several other nods to the novel.

There is just one scene I wish that they could have worked in the film in some manner. (I had hopes during the Ferry scene, but they were dashed :frown:) and that is this :

http://home.earthlink.net/~parvey/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/martian.jpg

Thunderchild taking on two Martian tripods​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Evo said:
Yes, let us know what you think. I haven't watched the 50's version in years, but I thought it was good. Best sci-film of that era was "The Day the Earth Stood Still", PLEASE do not let them re-make that film.

Yah i heard someone saying "I really hope htey don't remake war of hte worlds" about 5 years ago. Thanks a lot Evo
 
  • #22
Evo said:
Yes, let us know what you think. I haven't watched the 50's version in years, but I thought it was good. Best sci-film of that era was "The Day the Earth Stood Still", PLEASE do not let them re-make that film.

Bonus question: Can you name the short story on which The Day the Earth Stood Still was based on? And what was the twist at the end of the story?
 
  • #23
wow what the hell

i want to sue every damned individual involved with this piece of crap of a movie - right down to the make up artist and his/her apprentices

this was the biggest waste of 2 hours of my broadband I've spent to download this p.o.s and it wasnt even worth burning this crap on 2 CD-R's

i mean wow.. is the book this crappy, talentless, and completely.. wait did i mention crappy already? no this is far worse than crappy.. it doesn't even deserve to be spoken of kind of crappy.. i mean wow - there is absolutely no plot line here, absolutely no science, and absolutely no freaking artistic expression whatsoever.

I mean wow, NYU kids majoring in Film could have done a much better job for a $100 bucks

No, no. You think I'm done yet? I mean Independence Day had a plot - they even based most of it on certain historic events, and had spatial representation to it - most of the second part of the movie is in a god damned basement. The robot scenes are an insult to Electrical and Mechanical Engineers everywhere around the world. The damn human phaser guns or what the crap was that thing anyway is an insult to all Physicists and Chemists around the world. I mean wow they even got around to insults Biologists with their crap of an alien kind of creature that has the most complex eyesight and yet, somehow, the worst possible muscleskeleton system

Wow. With all honesty - whoever wrote this script, directed this movie, and played in it, is, in fact, a retard.
 
  • #24
Whoa saying its better then independence day... thems fighting words you hear!
 
  • #25
Independence Day is 20 magnitudes better than WotW
 
  • #26
Janus said:
Bonus question: Can you name the short story on which The Day the Earth Stood Still was based on? And what was the twist at the end of the story?
What short story?? Oooh, do tell. I was hooked on that movie since I saw it as a child.
 
  • #27
Evo said:
What short story?? Oooh, do tell. I was hooked on that movie since I saw it as a child.

It was Farewell to the Master by Harry Bates. It came out in 1940. The plot line does vary significantly from the movie.
 
  • #28
Next:
cronxeh's scathing review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where he asserts that is is an insult to Geographer's around the world due to its assertion of the existence of Oompa-Oompa Land.
 
  • #29
Janus said:
Next:
cronxeh's scathing review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where he asserts that is is an insult to Geographer's around the world due to its assertion of the existence of Oompa-Oompa Land.


THEY DID WHAT?!
 
  • #30
Ok I just saw War of the Worlds. I think that it was too centered on the family and them surviving, not really how they are surviving, but just showing them going from town to town. They were always attacked in the same manner. Kinda repetetive. Aliens were really really really stupid, how can someone be able to balance something so huge on three legs yet not test to see if something on the planet you will take over can kill you? A lot of little things bugged me. It was an OK movie at best.
 

Similar threads

Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K