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.

  • #31
Oh..GOD! This movie is the worst piece of crap I've ever seen.
I didn't like the fact that everything was centered one one person. The whole world is under siege, people are dying everywhere, we're about to lose our planet and existence so the survival of one particular guy didn't got much sentiment from me.

The plot is full of loopholes. The aliens planned this attack for years and hid space shuttles under ground even before mankind existed? Puh-lease.

Not once was there a reference that the aliens came from Mars. Spielberg probably thought that in these days, since we know now that there's no life like THAT on Mars, he didn't make a mention of it. Still, a classic element has been killed.

I missed Jeff Wayne's "Eve of the war".
I`m a fan of Tom Cruise (seriously, he makes good movies: "Last Samurai" anyone?), but he couldn't do much to improve this joke of a film.

...birds landing on a tripod... get serious Steven...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Here's another site with some information about the 1938 broadcast and panic.

http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/wotw.html

the site said:
The next day, newspapers across the country carried stories of terrorized people hiding in basements, panic flight from New Jersey and New York, stampedes in theaters, heart attacks, miscarriages, and even suicides. During the months that followed, these stories were shown to have little if any substance, yet today the myth of War of the Worlds stampedes and suicides persists as part of American folklore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Are you guys serious? Is it that bad?
Well, I'm seing it on Sunday. I expected it would be good, with Spielberg and all.
Now I'm bumped.
 
  • #34
its like a scifi version of Gigli
 
  • #35
I know this is probably going to sound real stupid to you, but what would 'Gigli' be?

And, well, a movie can be not to good, but still enjoyable. Is it?
 
  • #36
It was this absolutely HORRIBLE movie that received more jokes then ticket sales that starred ben afflick and one of his wives or something that really really really really really really sucked according to just about every human being on earth.
 
  • #37
Really? Never heard of it.
Guess I'm lucky then.
 
  • #38
Palindrom said:
Are you guys serious? Is it that bad?
Well, I'm seing it on Sunday. I expected it would be good, with Spielberg and all.
Now I'm bumped.

I think it depends on what you are expecting. I went in expecting an adaptation of a late 19th century novel, but not nowing how fatihful it would be to the original work (other than the fact that it was of course set in modern times). All in all, I came out pleased with how much of the original flavor of the novel survived.
I've heard people complain here about how the story was centered on just one family, But the novel was written in the first person and told of that persons experiences.
The tripod machines were taken from the novel, and something I, for one, would have missed if they had been left out.

Other elements were taken from the Fifties movie; The placement of the story in present time, The protective force field, Cruise's character attacking the probe with an axe, etc.

The moive was an attempt to pay homage to both these prior works and as such, I guess it is just not everybody's cup of tea.
 
  • #39
Well, I've unfortunately neither read the book, nor seen the first movie. So I guess I might enjoy it anyway.

Stupid question: H.G. Wells, Orson Wells. Are they related, or is it just an amazing coincidence?
 
  • #40
Palindrom said:
Well, I've unfortunately neither read the book, nor seen the first movie. So I guess I might enjoy it anyway.

Stupid question: H.G. Wells, Orson Wells. Are they related, or is it just an amazing coincidence?

It's Orson Welles, so no, they are not related.

If you are going into this movie without having read the book, just bear in mind that it is based on a book written in 1898, and that it was made with those people that had read the book in mind. As such, it is going to take a little bit more "willing suspension of disbelief" than normal.
 
  • #41
I can live with that. It's only more interesting that way.
I just regret not having read the book before going...
 

Similar threads

Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K