I would agree with you on the ship design but sadly this was one of In my opinion Speilberg's worst interpretation of a great book. The best part was the ships and Morgan Freeman's narrative at the films beginning and end. I also loved the 1953 version as well.Trekfreak said:What do you guys think is so far the best interpretation of the Tripod from WOTW? I like the Spielberg version myself but what do you guys think?
I have to agree with you on that. I think it would have been a much better film if we heard Freeman narrate through the whole film. Basically give the viewer a sense of what's happening in the world while Cruise and his kids are running for dear life.SPINDRIFT62 said:I would agree with you on the ship design but sadly this was one of In my opinion Speilberg's worst interpretation of a great book. The best part was the ships and Morgan Freeman's narrative at the films beginning and end. I also loved the 1953 version as well.
This is not a coincidence, Comet is producing the model as a licensed kit - so it IS the Jeff-Wayne version.Arronax said:My fave is also the Jeff Wayne version which, coincidentally, is very close to the tripod kit released by Comet many years back.
This is actually very true to the book. The book essentially shows England, at the height of its imperial power, what it is like to be conquered by a technologically superior power. And what in the movie do you find politically offensive? What the writer says was his intent is irrelevant. We can only deal with the text.CessnaDriver said:Admitted political slant from the writer of the film that the aliens represent the US military? So he admits manipulating classic literature for modern political purpose. Thanks. sigh.
In other words, the movie is about our general fear of being attacked by a powerful outside invader. In America, it is a fear of terrorism, in other countries it is a fear of being invaded by America. It's the same thing as people claiming that INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS was either an anti-communism or an anti-MacCarthyism allegory. It is about our fear of losing our individuality to a powerful, outside force, so it is about both.CessnaDriver said:Screenwriter David Koepp says,
"Certainly, there are a lot of political undertones and overtones. The political tones of this movie will emerge for themselves. In the '50s, 'War of the Worlds' was, 'My God, the commies are coming to get us.' Now it's about fear of terrorism. In other parts of the world, the new movie will be fear of American invasion. It will be clearly about the Iraq war for them,"......
. "It could be straight 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."
Which is exactly my point. He is saying, if you think what the Martians are doing is so terrible, what do you think we've been doing for centuries?CessnaDriver said:Speaking of the Martians in the book he writes....
"And before we judge them too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?"
One of the strengths of the movie is that it stubbornly and uncompromisingly tells the story from the first person point of view of the Cruise character, with the Morgan Freeman narration filling in a little exposition that would have been learned after the fact. Adding a prehistoric prologue would have weakened the film.SPINDRIFT62 said:I personally think it would have been really good story telling if the makers of the film did a prehistory ala Stargate of how the Aliens buried their ships or at least show the ship over earth depositing their aliens instead of being so vague like the film did, just my opinion.
Actually, we're probably not that far apart. I don't think this is one of Spielberg's strongest movies (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is my personal favorite), but I'm just a little tired of it being criticized for completely irrelevent things. And looking at mediocre movies from the past through rose-colored glasses.CessnaDriver said:Bottom line.
I did not like it for the reasons given. I cant change that.
I like Spielbergs older stuff. My god Close Encounters and Raiders were amazing.
There simply was nothing special at all about his WOTW. It was just like most of the Hollywood tripe that Hollywood pumps out and Spielbergs work has become so signature now that it is terrible cliche. Emoting childrens reactions to every event, dysfuncional family. etc.
The fighting machines were great. That's about it.
Everything else was half baked filler for a summer flick for the masses.
Very little at all intellectually there and salted with a little Hollywood standard issue libearalism.
Just not what I call enjoyable.