War of the Worlds gets the thumbs down

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
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 isnt good enough to put seats in chairs :devil:
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
639
2
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.
 
78
0
how can three legged machines walk without falling over?
 

NateTG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,449
5
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.)
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
NateTG said:
Well, they could be dynamically balanced,
or just reeeeeeaaaaalllly lucky.
 

NateTG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,449
5
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.
 

Janus

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,395
1,072
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?
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
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.
 

Janus

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,395
1,072
Evo said:
He's probably referring to the movie from 1953.
I realise that, I was just wondering if that was the extent of his familiarity with the story.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
Janus said:
I realise that, I was just wondering if that was the extent of his familiarity with the story.
Probably never read the story.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
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 couldnt 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. Im not sure if hes read it or not but he must have seen the first movie...
 
61
0
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
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
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.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
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

Yah and people went crazy! They had to get the police and army out to stop all the riots. Nice psychological incident thats still studied today according to whoever told me it :P
 
310
2
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.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
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.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
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 lets 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.
 

Janus

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,395
1,072
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 [Broken]

Thunderchild taking on two Martian tripods
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
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 dont remake war of hte worlds" about 5 years ago. Thanks a lot Evo :grumpy:
 

Janus

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,395
1,072
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?
 

cronxeh

Gold Member
949
10
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 ive 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 doesnt 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.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Whoa saying its better then independance day.... thems fighting words ya hear!
 

cronxeh

Gold Member
949
10
Independence Day is 20 magnitudes better than WotW
 

Related Threads for: War of the Worlds gets the thumbs down

  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
9K
Replies
43
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Posted
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top