Did Wells's War of the Worlds suck as bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the HBO adaptation of "War of the Worlds," with participants expressing strong negative opinions about the film, particularly criticizing its plot and character development. Many question the logic behind the aliens' actions and the portrayal of advanced technology, suggesting it undermines the story's credibility. The performance of Tom Cruise is heavily criticized, with some participants boycotting the film due to his personal beliefs and perceived lack of acting ability. Comparisons are made to the original novel by H.G. Wells, with some arguing that the film fails to capture the essence of the source material. The ending of the movie is particularly contentious, with participants finding it unrealistic and poorly executed. Overall, the conversation reflects a broader dissatisfaction with modern adaptations of classic literature, highlighting issues of storytelling and character relatability.
Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
Well they just showed War of the Worlds on HBO. Basically, since I have never read the book... all i can say is... was the book as terrible as the movie? If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking aobut. If you haven't, don't. I'm absolutely clueless. Without giving away too much about the film, I must pose two questions.

1) How can such an advanced civilization be so stupid?
2) I hate this movie

Seriously... stupid... Wells or Speilberg should be shot/erased from history. I checked out the reviews and they say "an excellent homage to Wells". Thus, I believe someone needs to be erased from the history books. Or Speilberg should be shot. or both.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, most all movies these days are stupid...like your threads.
 
This thread is pointless, but just because I also hate this film, I won't completely trash it... congratulations
 
Both of you, out of my thread before i sick Smurf on you.
 
Tom Cruise = overpaid and horrible movie.
 
Hello, TOP GUN ANYONE?

Best airplane movie Ever made...possibly.

Torra Torra Torra comes in first though.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hello, TOP GUN ANYONE?

Best airplane movie Ever made...possibly.
Yeah, but do you think it mattered who the actor was? Tom Cruise is an awful actor. Anyway, I'm still boycotting War of the Worlds for Tom Cruise's idiotic scientology publicity stunt crap (then again, maybe he had to do that if the movie was too bad to promote it for its own sake).
 
Moonbear said:
Yeah, but do you think it mattered who the actor was? Tom Cruise is an awful actor. Anyway, I'm still boycotting War of the Worlds for Tom Cruise's idiotic scientology publicity stunt crap (then again, maybe he had to do that if the movie was too bad to promote it for its own sake).

Yah i always joked about his stupidity being for the movie but figured it wasn't true. After seeing the movie though, I'm almost convinced that was what happened.

You're so smart moonbear :!) :!) :!)
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hello, TOP GUN ANYONE?

Best airplane movie Ever made...possibly.

Torra Torra Torra comes in first though.

I use to respect you
 
  • #10
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hello, TOP GUN ANYONE?

Best airplane movie Ever made...possibly.

Torra Torra Torra comes in first though.
Top Gun was cool if you are a high school freshman. That movie was horrible with some good air scenes mixed in.
 
  • #11
I never respected you, what's your point pengwuino.

Yes, Tom WAS good in TOP GUN.

Trash top gun and Ill trash you!

(I already trashed Fred)
 
  • #12
Next you're going to say that Armageddon was cool too.
 
  • #13
FredGarvin said:
Top Gun was cool if you are a high school freshman. That movie was horrible with some good air scenes mixed in.

Man, I know you watched that movie 20x when it first came out.
 
  • #14
Top Gun, Rainman. Those movies are his best.
 
  • #15
cyrusabdollahi said:
Top Gun, Rainman. Those movies are his best.

Doesn't say much..
 
  • #16
The original War of the Worlds (the movie) was excellent. Spielberg's was mediocre, at best, but I think he can be forgiven for not making history with every film.
 
  • #17
SpaceTiger said:
The original War of the Worlds (the movie) was excellent.

What makes a movie excellent? :-)
 
  • #18
cyrusabdollahi said:
Man, I know you watched that movie 20x when it first came out.
Like I said...I was in high school when it came out. I quickly grew out of it.
 
  • #19
SpaceTiger said:
The original War of the Worlds (the movie) was excellent. Spielberg's was mediocre, at best, but I think he can be forgiven for not making history with every film.

He can but everyone else on Earth can't be for hyping it up and down the country. Actually what am I saying, of course he can be blamed. That movie wasn't just "mediocre at best", that was pathetic. If you're going to make a movie so disgustingly bad, don't go off and do it in a respected author's name.

It would be like John Woo making a Crime and Punishment based movie.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Pengwuino said:
He can but everyone else on Earth can't be for hyping it up and down the country. Actually what am I saying, of course he can be blamed. That movie wasn't just "mediocre at best", that was pathetic.

Well, I can't agree with you there, but then I usually don't. Nothing about the movie really bugged me, I just felt that the new elements of the story were uninteresting -- didn't capture my imagination like many of his previous films did. Spielberg was clearly trying to put a lot of emphasis on the family side of the story, but to be honest, I didn't really relate to the characters or care that much about what became of them. Actually, I think Shyamalan would have done a better job with the movie.
 
  • #21
Pengwuino said:
I use to respect you
No you didn't
 
  • #22
SpaceTiger said:
Well, I can't agree with you there, but then I usually don't. Nothing about the movie really bugged me, I just felt that the new elements of the story were uninteresting -- didn't capture my imagination like many of his previous films did. Spielberg was clearly trying to put a lot of emphasis on the family side of the story, but to be honest, I didn't really relate to the characters or care that much about what became of them. Actually, I think Shyamalan would have done a better job with the movie.

The family side was even stupider. I don't know how the book went... but the ending was rediculous. Cruise wasn't at all believable. That little girl pissed me off to no end. The older kid was a moron in every sense of the word. Oh oh, i have to go see it! I have to see it! Pathetic.

Oh and somehow he lives.

And all the aliens catch a cold. Come on now... I hope that wasn't part of the book... Even if it was, what, did the tripods catch a cold too and lose their shields?
 
  • #23
Pengwuino said:
The family side was even stupider. I don't know how the book went... but the ending was rediculous. Cruise wasn't at all believable. That little girl pissed me off to no end. The older kid was a moron in every sense of the word. Oh oh, i have to go see it! I have to see it! Pathetic.

Oh and somehow he lives.

And all the aliens catch a cold. Come on now... I hope that wasn't part of the book... Even if it was, what, did the tripods catch a cold too and lose their shields?

YES! SEE!? Now you get it. Watching that movie inflicts the same amount of pain to you as it does when the rest of us read your threads!
 
  • #24
cyrusabdollahi said:
YES! SEE!? Now you get it. Watching that movie inflicts the same amount of pain to you as it does when the rest of us read your threads!
AMEN!
party0053.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
i thought it had fun action scenes.. which is what the movie was about in the first place.. no secret there.
 
  • #26
Pengwuino said:
I don't know how the book went... but the ending was rediculous.

The ending was basically the same in the original, which was written in 1898 and had the aliens coming from Mars. Compared to most of the science fiction of the day (and even of today), I found the plotline to be believable. Apparently, so did a lot of Americans in 1938, when a radio adaptation was broadcast and a mild panic ensued.

It's just science fiction, though. I don't hold it to particularly high standards of plausibility. You don't have to believe in ghosts to like "The Sixth Sense".
 
  • #27
yomamma said:
AMEN![PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0053.gif[/QUOTE][/URL]

I LOVE THIS KID! :approve:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
SpaceTiger said:
The ending was basically the same in the original, which was written in 1898 and had the aliens coming from Mars. Compared to most of the science fiction of the day (and even of today), I found the plotline to be believable. Apparently, so did a lot of Americans in 1938, when a radio adaptation was broadcast and a mild panic ensued.

It's just science fiction, though. I don't hold it to particularly high standards of plausibility. You don't have to believe in ghosts to like "The Sixth Sense".

The plotline was believable, certainly.. its just the acting was horrible and the movie was empty of actual content. Comparing a movie to a radio address is not much of a comparison too best honest . Were the kids that insane in the book? And did the kid magically appear at home in the book?
 
  • #29
cyrusabdollahi said:
YES! SEE!? Now you get it. Watching that movie inflicts the same amount of pain to you as it does when the rest of us read your threads!

Go back to Jane.
 
  • #30
Pengwuino said:
Comparing a movie to a radio address is not much of a comparison too best honest .

The radio show had (approximately) the same plot as the movie and book, so it was a fair comparison until you changed your mind about the quality of the plot.
 
  • #31
Pengwuino said:
Well they just showed War of the Worlds on HBO. Basically, since I have never read the book... all i can say is... was the book as terrible as the movie? If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking aobut. If you haven't, don't. I'm absolutely clueless. Without giving away too much about the film, I must pose two questions.

1) How can such an advanced civilization be so stupid?
2) I hate this movie

Seriously... stupid... Wells or Speilberg should be shot/erased from history. I checked out the reviews and they say "an excellent homage to Wells". Thus, I believe someone needs to be erased from the history books. Or Speilberg should be shot. or both.

Remember, we are talking about a story originally written at the turn of the 20th century. If the movie suffered, it was due to having the setting moved to modern times.

I would suggest that you read the book. But if you do, keep in mind when it was written; don't fault him for not knowing things that we take for granted now. (Like those people who get upset with Huckleberry Fin[/i] because it contains the "N" word.)
Well's was, in many ways, ahead of his time.

On another note: Do you mean to say that until you saw this movie, you did not know how the story was resolved?
 
  • #32
Are you all ignoring the fact that most my complaints have nothing to do with the original story being written long before all of us were even born?

THE ACTING SUCKED. I really hope the book wasn't entirely about some guys relationship problems with his rather psychotic son
 
  • #33
Pengwuino said:
Are you all ignoring the fact that most my complaints have nothing to do with the original story being written long before all of us were even born?

THE ACTING SUCKED. I really hope the book wasn't entirely about some guys relationship problems with his rather psychotic son
I don't rememebr anything in the original storyline about the family, so if it was there, it had no impact on me.
 
  • #34
SpaceTiger said:
The radio show had (approximately) the same plot as the movie and book, so it was a fair comparison until you changed your mind about the quality of the plot.

Well I have my complaints about the plot but i CAN chalk that up to it being such an old story. Of course, it's a REAL stretch to think that such advanced aliens could not understand anything about biology. Even if biology as a whole was barely understood, we still had enough knowledge to be able to think "Ok we know how to cure a few diseases... its not too much of a stretch to think aliens could have figured this all out before us and not be prone to our diseases" and put it in a story to make it more believable. Then again one would suspect the original story would make the assumption that this was their first attempt at an attack on another planet... so they wouldn't have a chance to even realize disease needed to be accounted for. If they were whiping out planet after planet and then it was finally time to take Earth over, it wouldn't have been acceptable though. Since that wasn't the case, I guess that can be a realistic idea back in the day.

However, the idea that their shields stopped working because the operators had a cold doesn't make any sense and wouldn't have made sense back then either. Oh and the kid magically living. How did that happen? Did i blink and miss 20 minutes of the movie? Did things like that happen a lot back in the 1800's?

The acting can't be excused though, sorry.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Pengwuino, quit whining...If you want a REALLY BAD MOVIE to whine about, see ALIEN 51...


It stars Heidi Fleiss :
 
  • #36
yomamma said:
Pengwuino, quit whining...If you want a REALLY BAD MOVIE to whine about, see ALIEN 51...


It stars Heidi Fleiss :

or Pulse...
 
  • #37
Alright, just so we're clear.

There's no doubt that Airplane! is the quintessential airplane movie.
 
  • #38
Pengwuino said:
or Pulse...
:confused: :confused:
 
  • #39
Pengwuino said:
Well I have my complaints about the plot but i CAN chalk that up to it being such an old story. Of course, it's a REAL stretch to think that such advanced aliens could not understand anything about biology. Even if biology as a whole was barely understood, we still had enough knowledge to be able to think "Ok we know how to cure a few diseases... its not too much of a stretch to think aliens could have figured this all out before us and not be prone to our diseases" and put it in a story to make it more believable. Then again one would suspect the original story would make the assumption that this was their first attempt at an attack on another planet... so they wouldn't have a chance to even realize disease needed to be accounted for. If they were whiping out planet after planet and then it was finally time to take Earth over, it wouldn't have been acceptable though. Since that wasn't the case, I guess that can be a realistic idea back in the day.

However, the idea that their shields stopped working because the operators had a cold doesn't make any sense and wouldn't have made sense back then either. Oh and the kid magically living. How did that happen? Did i blink and miss 20 minutes of the movie? Did things like that happen a lot back in the 1800's?

The acting can't be excused though, sorry.

As far as the shields go, they didn't exist in the novel. In fact, in the novel, the Martians were not invincible to our weapons. A well placed cannon shot would take one out. One of the early strategies used was to lay in hiding with artillery and ambush them. The Martians countered this by laying out a poisionous gas before them to take out the gun crews.

The shields were introduced in the first movie. Wells' original Martians would have never stood a chance against even mid 20th century weaponry, so they had to up the ante.

This is one of the problems with changing the time period. You have to introduce changes that tend to unravel the storyline.

An example of this is in the Movie Starship Troopers(which BTW in my opinion is a much worse movie than WotW.)

In the original story the MI wore "powersuits" which were a mechanized type of armor/spacesuit with all sorts of built in weapons and electronic sensors (almost a one man tank). The "bugs" were also a technologically advanced, space faring race.

The producers of the movie felt that the powersuits would be too expensive, so they took them out of the movie. Without the powersuits, the MI would be no match for the Bugs, because the Bugs bred so fast they could throw vast numbers into battle. Now the producers could have equaled the score by down playing the Bugs' numbers, but they wanted those scenes with huge number of bugs. So instead, they downgraded the bugs to a pre-technological race.

But then, since a major plot line had the Bugs taking out the hero's home town, they had to have a pre-technological race somehow being able to throw an asteroid across half the galaxy and hit the Earth with it. (In the original novel, the city was taken out by a nuclear strike.). They also had to come up with that silly scene of Bugs shooting plasma out their arses and up to orbital height in order to take out ships.

Pull out a plot thread and the whole story unravels.

As far as the kid is concerned, this is most probably a nod to the orginal story. The main character is separated from his wife early in the story. (He takes her to a cousin's, where he thinks she will be safe, and by the time he returns, the Martians and through the area. BTW, they have no chidren in the novel). He doesn't know her fate until the end of the story when he returns to the remains of his home and finds her there too.

There are a lot of little nods to the orginal story.


The birds that give Cruise the clue that the shield is down. In the novel, it is birds circling a machines hood and picking at the dead flesh of the Martians that is the first indication that something has happened to the Martians.

The man in which they hole up with in the basement is a composite of two characters from the book and is given the name of a third minor character.

The "Hooting" or "howling" sound the machines make was how they communicated in the novel. (pre-radio)

The ferry scene is a nod to a part of the book where a steamer tries to escape to sea. (In the novel, the steamer escapes due to the intervention of an ironclad called the "Thunder Child". )

I won't comment on the acting, as I don't consider myself that qualified as a drama critic.
 
  • #40
All of Orson Welles' movies were atrocious. In particular "Citizen Kane".
That one is even worse than Coppola's "The Godfather"-movies.

"Jezebel", "Whatever happened to Baby Jane", "All about Eve", THAT's Hollywood (and Bette Davis!) at its very best. :smile:
 
  • #41
Pengwuino said:
The family side was even stupider. I don't know how the book went... but the ending was rediculous. Cruise wasn't at all believable. That little girl pissed me off to no end. The older kid was a moron in every sense of the word. Oh oh, i have to go see it! I have to see it! Pathetic.

Oh and somehow he lives.

And all the aliens catch a cold. Come on now... I hope that wasn't part of the book... Even if it was, what, did the tripods catch a cold too and lose their shields?

The book was written right as the germ theory of disease was being fully developed. The whole aliens being killed by bacteria thing was of great social significance back then.

Anyway, I'm going to one-up Janus and just say that this film speaks to the difficulty of writing an adapted screenplay in the first place. In the book, the narrator is mostly alone. The only way to film it faithfully and still have dialogue fill most scenes would be to use voiceover, which is not a device that generally works in action films, which is obviously what Spielberg was going for. The original intent of the story may have been to comment on the early development of germ theory and mechanized warfare, but modern audiences are not going to care about that. For an alien invasion movie to work today, it needs to either confront issues that are relevant now rather than 100 hundred years ago, or simply be an action-diversion flick, which is the easier of the two paths to opt for.
 
  • #42
cyrusabdollahi said:
Top Gun, Rainman. Those movies are his best.

His best performances are in Collateral and Magnolia. He plays a nihilistic sociopath assasin and narcissistic, arrogant, father-hating misogynist sex-fiend incredibly convincingly.
 
  • #43
loseyourname said:
His best performances are in Collateral and Magnolia. He plays a nihilistic sociopath assasin and narcissistic, arrogant, father-hating misogynist sex-fiend incredibly convincingly.


I loved his spiels in Collateral; briings back Harry Lime's ferris wheel speech in The Third Man. But for real consistent brilliant exposition of sociopathy from the inside, read Sarter's Being and Nothingness.
 
  • #44
loseyourname said:
His best performances are in Collateral and Magnolia. He plays a nihilistic sociopath assasin and narcissistic, arrogant, father-hating misogynist sex-fiend incredibly convincingly.

I didn't really like his performance in Collateral. Just something about him didn't cry out "cold-blooded assassin". Thankfully the movie didn't really try to depict him as much of a cold-blooded assassin. I HATED Jamie Foxx in that movie though. His character was unbelievable, annoying, and pathetic. If that's what Cruise's character had to interact with, they never had a chance of being an enjoyable pair to watch. If Foxx's character wasn't so pathetic, Cruise's character might have been a lot better but it's just so hard to be a really cool assassin when your driver is so annoying. It's like Foxx was born 40 and barely learned to walk the week before.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
11K
Replies
32
Views
408
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
35
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Back
Top