Rate Spielberg's War of the Worlds

[DonTadow]

Woah, woah, woah. Since when does the movie's rating have anything to do with it being logical or not? That doesn't make ANY sense at all...its very illogical to assume that rating has anything to do with internal logic of said movie.



And, again, cops are still human. The cop was keeping order. He was doing just fine backing people off and gathering information(i.e. There's no water main here). Its AFTER the ground started shaking that the chaos started. Do you really expect the cop to stand around while all that's happening and try to tell people to stay calm when he's as lost and afraid as they are?

Who said we're infering they got gas when nothing electrical was working? Who says they even NEED gas for the distance they drove? We don't know how far they went. We don't know the gas mileage of the van. And it doesn't matter, either.



But some of us didn't even take notice of these inconsistencies while watching the movie, and so we're giving you OUR insight. We inferred while watching it. They aren't excuses.

Popcorn movies have traditionally been pg movies or below. We're talking about the typical summer you don't need to think movie. It makes perfect sense. There was a good national story about how this summer has more pg-13 movies than any previous summer. In some ways it was the media trying to put out more intelligent movies that people would come out and see (to rebound from their slump). A pg movie is marketed and written for the whole family. A pg-13 movie is directed and geared for audiences over 13, an older audience whom can understand more sophisticated plots.

I just don't think that cops should lie to citizens. And lying to them does not keep the peace. An ordinary beat cop doesn't know what's under streets. So he is going to lie to the people for no reason that benefits them. That was so laughable. It was clearly Speilberg's way of telling the audience (it is something unnatural. ) All of the people hovering over this spot, he didn't do a good job of clearing the area. If Spielberg wanted the character to be "another human reacting" he wouldnt have had the cop there. He clearly made a mistake and wanted this cop to be "the authority figure" and thus the authority on what is and what isn't under the street. Again, this comes from rushing through filming and production of this movie. Even I, a novice writer, would have known the scene would have worked better if someone , a city worker, something said that statement,. It would have added credibility.

As far as the car, earlier someone printed the distance between the two places. Now, this is me suspending my belief that the mechanic did not remove the fuel from the car (as many mechanics do when they work on cars). The thing is that it doesnt explain how they drove such a long distance (and we know it was long because of the passage of time -night time when they arrived) without refueling atleast one time. Pumping gas is not an important thing. But going to a gas station that has/ or hasn't been effected is an important scene, Speilberg just didn't want to deal with. If its in the zone, how do they react to his car working, if it isn't in the zone does he stop and get snacks, warn them. The next scene proves he did not stop at a gas station. Everyone was hungry and they had no food. Surely if you're hungry and you stop at a gas station you buy snacks.

Everytime I come back to this thread, I'm imagining the scene from Land of the Dead where the fireworks are being shot into the air and all the zombies stop and stare. Such a reflection of humanity. We're so facinated by the pretty pods and light shows, we incline to not see the men on motorcycles with guns. I'm just not one of those watchers who says screw the story look at the pretty effects.

 

[Droogie]

As someone mentioned, the red weed wasn't explained too clearly, or maybe I missed some dialogue... can someone give me a better idea of what it was?

 

[Chain Lightning]

DonTadow, there's a lot of things you've brought up that I totally agree with. However, right now I'm gonna discuss things you're going bonkers over.

.... he could have done that a better way, but it shows how quick they wanted to "knock this movie out" to fit in with their schedules.

Again, this comes from rushing through filming and production of this movie.

Okay, did you read an article or know someone who worked on the movie and gave you the info that it was 'rushed'? Or are you just assuming it was because it has so many mistakes?

(I thought it was also silly that he grabbed batteries, but I thought he was going to use them for some "magyver type thing (they were never thought of again).

Are you talking about the scene when Tom Cruise's character Ray goes back home and starts asking the kids to pack? Where he grabs a flashlight and some batteries? What's wrong with that scene? I would grab a flashlight and some batteries too. Oh, and not everything has to be brought up again later in the movie. The ketchup and the mustard in the box never played an important role afterward either. Its not the writer's fault that you assumed that he was grabbing the batteries to do something clever with it later.

3. I hate when movies want me to assume things.

I agree. When certain sloppy movies come out, I sometimes hear fans explain away mistakes by saying "It was probably....blah blah blah". A good movie doesn't need you to fix its own mistakes on your end.

Even though I agree with your statements, some of the points you are bringing up aren't mistakes at all.

If a character goes to bed at the end of a day in one scene, then we cut to show him walking out of his apartment on the next morning, and he's wearing different clothes . . . it is okay to let the audience assume the man has a change of clothes. I mean, no sane audience member would complain that the director was sloppy because he didn't previously establish that the character had owned the different set of clothes.

With that example in mind. I think it was okay to assume the news van (at the plane crash scene) was not effected by the EMP because they news crew was lucky enough to not be near one of the lightning storms when they occured. The only info they gave as to where they recently were was that they were last filming a battle between the national guard and some tripods. The movie never tells us the journey of the van. It never showed the van at any of the lightning storms. Are you assuming that it was in the EMP lightning storm that went over the wife's house? The one that we assume brought done the plane?

Nothing in the movie shows that the van was in that storm. Or even in the one Ray was in either. It's perfectly okay to assume that the news crew was driving away from the failed battle earlier, they were on some road between that location and Ray's wife's house. The lightning went off and brought down the plan and it crashed into that neighborhood. Hours later they arrive in that suburb and see the crash. One of the crew obvious has the idea to scavenge through the wreckage for food & water. So they stop to do so. After getting food and water, they talk to Ray, then move on. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Your beef with the gas and needing at least a scene where the issue of refueling is brought up is legit though. It indeed would've been nice if at least something was shown.

Whether it was:
Version One: Robbie asks Ray, "Do we enough gas?" And Ray glances down at the gas meter and reponds with, "Should be just enough to get us there."

or Version Two: You see them stop somewhere at steal some gas from an abandon car in the country side. Or whatever.

9. I agree. This was not an inconsistency in the plot as much as the script writing. Speilberg wanted to show what a man does to save his family.

Again, Speilberg did not write this. Josh Friedman and David Koepp wrote this script. It is possible that Speilberg asked those guys to write it into the movie, but we really don't know now do we? Unless you have some insider info that I'm not aware of.

Everytime I come back to this thread, I'm imagining the scene from Land of the Dead where the fireworks are being shot into the air and all the zombies stop and stare. Such a reflection of humanity. We're so facinated by the pretty pods and light shows, we incline to not see the men on motorcycles with guns. I'm just not one of those watchers who says screw the story look at the pretty effects.

What part of any of my replies makes me seem like a mindless zombie easily distracted by special effects? Please, point them out to me. Also, you have yet to respond to any of my explanations to your points. Are you reading the replies or just only some of them? Or reading some...and just skimming others? I admit I've done that a few times myself.

Anyways...I say once again (like above), you make a few valid points, but some of your other ones are kinda out of there.

With my friends and I, we love sitting around talking back and forth about movies. Our opinions vary greatly lots of times. But its good fun debating back and forth on different aspects. One of the things we notice happens sometimes is something I term as "hate vision". Hate vision is when a person hates something (or several things) in a movie so much, (because it ruins the movie for him), that the emotion spills over to everything else. As he is watching the movie his 'eyes' are filled with disgust so much that he can't see clearly the other perfectly okay things going on. I'm wondering if you may be suffering from "hate vision" my friend. Not saying your are...but I'm saying you MIGHT be.

This happened with a few friends of mine who hated the Star Wars prequels. Actually, I don't like them either. But one time we were talking about the space ships. One guy said, "I hate the new space ships. They don't have that industrial charm that the original trilogy had. Everything is new, shiny, and smooth."

But it wasn't. There were plenty of old republic ships that matched the style of the original trilogy. Phantom Menace starts out with a precursor to the Blockade Runner. It's design is nearly the same. Really, only Naboo ships were sleek and clean. But that's because they're from Naboo and that's how their culture built ships back then. Yeah, I hated the dumb things in Phantom Menace too , but it doesn't keep me from appreciated any of the other small things that were kinda cool. I thought Ep. III was a turd, but I liked the Arc Fighter.

 

[stevelabny]

Um, who's out?

hmm. enworld musta eaten my response.

"hollywood" is out.

when so many movies in a row suck, the potential audience loses faith in "holllywood"s abilitiy to make good movies, and therefore doesnt go see movies that theyre on the fence about.

If Hitchhiker's Guide, Star Wars, Batman and WotW suck, the audience might avoid seeing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Chicken Little, Sky High, Brothers Grimm and Serenity.

Also, bad movies make for bad movie going experiences. After finally getting my friends to shut up about how annoying movie theatres are, the complains are back in full force. When you can't wait for a movie to end, you are more aware of people talking or the AC being shut off or the morons in the parking lot.

 

[DonTadow]

But it wasn't. There were plenty of old republic ships that matched the style of the original trilogy. Phantom Menace starts out with a precursor to the Blockade Runner. It's design is nearly the same. Really, only Naboo ships were sleek and clean. But that's because they're from Naboo and that's how their culture built ships back then. Yeah, I hated the dumb things in Phantom Menace too , but it doesn't keep me from appreciated any of the other small things that were kinda cool. I thought Ep. III was a turd, but I liked the Arc Fighter.

The movie was rushed into production and created last year within a span of 45 days to accomodate the busy scheds of Speilberg and Cruise
http://www.tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425828/595034/

I list both minor gripes and major ones. I will say that the news truck is a minor one as it was quickly overshaded by the fact that the van is still in one piece and working properly.

Writers can write the best scripts, but the director has the final say so over what gets on the screen and what doesnt get on the screen.

I in no way want you to think I think anyone who liked this movie is a mindless zombie. I'm referring to the replys that more or less state "great special effects, loved the movie". I think you raise some good points and, again, the ones you picked out about mine are minor ones as compared to major plot holes like the van.

I'll buy your argument on hate vision, but it didn't come on until the last two acts of the movie, when things seemed hurried and nonsensical. I will say that the first act was excellent with the exeption of the working van and the working home video recorder.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Popcorn movies have traditionally been pg movies or below. We're talking about the typical summer you don't need to think movie. It makes perfect sense. There was a good national story about how this summer has more pg-13 movies than any previous summer. In some ways it was the media trying to put out more intelligent movies that people would come out and see (to rebound from their slump). A pg movie is marketed and written for the whole family. A pg-13 movie is directed and geared for audiences over 13, an older audience whom can understand more sophisticated plots.

Revenge of the Sith was PG-13...that's definitely a popcorn movie. Sure, there's an underlying plot and some other things, but Star Wars is, at its heart, popcorn serials.

The upcoming movie, Stealth(which I've seen far too many previews of) is definitely NOT PG-13, but doesn't look to be anything more than an action filled popcorn movie.

In fact, most popcorn movies are just action films, and I can't think of a SINGLE ONE that's PG. The rating doesn't tell us anything about whether its a popcorn movie or not.

I just don't think that cops should lie to citizens. And lying to them does not keep the peace. An ordinary beat cop doesn't know what's under streets. So he is going to lie to the people for no reason that benefits them. That was so laughable. It was clearly Speilberg's way of telling the audience (it is something unnatural. ) All of the people hovering over this spot, he didn't do a good job of clearing the area. If Spielberg wanted the character to be "another human reacting" he wouldnt have had the cop there. He clearly made a mistake and wanted this cop to be "the authority figure" and thus the authority on what is and what isn't under the street.

Actually, it was a man NEXT to the cop(who was wearing a hard hat, and I therefore assumed him to be a city worker) that mentioned the 'no water main' TO the cop, who simply agreed.

But even then, look at thte SITUATION. Lightning(sans thunder) just struck multiple times in ONE SINGLE SPOT that created a large hole in the middle of the concrete street and now the electricity is dead. Obviously, the cop was doing his best to calm people and provide at least some form of authority, but one can only do so much in a situation like that.

Again, this comes from rushing through filming and production of this movie. Even I, a novice writer, would have known the scene would have worked better if someone , a city worker, something said that statement,. It would have added credibility.

It was a man in a hard that who was conversing with the cop. Also, maybe you're problem is the usual "The didn't do it the way I wanted, so its therefore bad and wrong". The scene DID work. Maybe not for you, but you're just one person. Hell, this is just one website, and out of all the complaints I've seen from major reviews, etc, NO ONE says a single thing about "the cop wasn't doing his job just right".

As far as the car, earlier someone printed the distance between the two places. Now, this is me suspending my belief that the mechanic did not remove the fuel from the car (as many mechanics do when they work on cars). The thing is that it doesnt explain how they drove such a long distance (and we know it was long because of the passage of time -night time when they arrived) without refueling atleast one time. Pumping gas is not an important thing. But going to a gas station that has/ or hasn't been effected is an important scene, Speilberg just didn't want to deal with. If its in the zone, how do they react to his car working, if it isn't in the zone does he stop and get snacks, warn them. The next scene proves he did not stop at a gas station. Everyone was hungry and they had no food. Surely if you're hungry and you stop at a gas station you buy snacks.

Its not something that is in any way important to the plot. The family needed to get to the ferry. THAT was important. So, who cares whether we see them refuel the car or not? Not all areas were hit by the EMPs, so its not hard to assume(which is something very common in movies, especially with such minor things like this) that gas was dealt with.

Again, there's nothing at all wrong with not liking the movies. And yes, there are tons of little inconsistencies in there(most notably the boy surviving and why there was always a clear path to drive on), but if those really ruined the movie for you...where you expecting a documentery and not fiction? There's a limited time for these movies, and you can only show what's important to the overall story.

Now, whether we agree or not on what is important is the key, of course. But, in the end, the person with the decision is the director. If you think you can do better, go do it and see how you fair. And really, if you look at any movie with the scrutiny you're nailing WotW with, you'll find tons of inconsistencies to tell the story. Its PART of storytelling. Always has happened, always will.

 

[DonTadow]

Revenge of the Sith was PG-13...that's definitely a popcorn movie. Sure, there's an underlying plot and some other things, but Star Wars is, at its heart, popcorn serials.

The upcoming movie, Stealth(which I've seen far too many previews of) is definitely NOT PG-13, but doesn't look to be anything more than an action filled popcorn movie.

In fact, most popcorn movies are just action films, and I can't think of a SINGLE ONE that's PG. The rating doesn't tell us anything about whether its a popcorn movie or not.



Actually, it was a man NEXT to the cop(who was wearing a hard hat, and I therefore assumed him to be a city worker) that mentioned the 'no water main' TO the cop, who simply agreed.

But even then, look at thte SITUATION. Lightning(sans thunder) just struck multiple times in ONE SINGLE SPOT that created a large hole in the middle of the concrete street and now the electricity is dead. Obviously, the cop was doing his best to calm people and provide at least some form of authority, but one can only do so much in a situation like that.



It was a man in a hard that who was conversing with the cop. Also, maybe you're problem is the usual "The didn't do it the way I wanted, so its therefore bad and wrong". The scene DID work. Maybe not for you, but you're just one person. Hell, this is just one website, and out of all the complaints I've seen from major reviews, etc, NO ONE says a single thing about "the cop wasn't doing his job just right".



Its not something that is in any way important to the plot. The family needed to get to the ferry. THAT was important. So, who cares whether we see them refuel the car or not? Not all areas were hit by the EMPs, so its not hard to assume(which is something very common in movies, especially with such minor things like this) that gas was dealt with.

Again, there's nothing at all wrong with not liking the movies. And yes, there are tons of little inconsistencies in there(most notably the boy surviving and why there was always a clear path to drive on), but if those really ruined the movie for you...where you expecting a documentery and not fiction? There's a limited time for these movies, and you can only show what's important to the overall story.

Now, whether we agree or not on what is important is the key, of course. But, in the end, the person with the decision is the director. If you think you can do better, go do it and see how you fair. And really, if you look at any movie with the scrutiny you're nailing WotW with, you'll find tons of inconsistencies to tell the story. Its PART of storytelling. Always has happened, always will.

Everyone has different reasons for liking anything. I could care less wheather you liked it or not, I"m just voicing that factually, the movie was inconsistant and the major inconsistencies hampered the plot. It wasn't just me, some things just weren't done well enough. Again this is because of the rush. I just think with a little more effort this movie could have made a bit more sense. THe thing that angers me about this movie is it had potential to be a smart movie, better than signs and Speilberg settled on a popcorn flick.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Everyone has different reasons for liking anything. I could care less wheather you liked it or not, I"m just voicing that factually, the movie was inconsistant and the major inconsistencies hampered the plot. It wasn't just me, some things just weren't done well enough. Again this is because of the rush. I just think with a little more effort this movie could have made a bit more sense. THe thing that angers me about this movie is it had potential to be a smart movie, better than signs and Speilberg settled on a popcorn flick.

But you're NOT stating fact. You're stating your own opinions and touting them as fact. The incosistencies were major, FOR YOU, but not for everyone. Obviously not, as I don't agree with you on them being major. Also, you can't say that this is because of the rush. It could very well have been this way given a more calm pace.

And it was better than Signs. I hated Signs. Any alien that dies from water while trying to take over a planet covered in so much water are complete and utter idiots. Bacteria is something that can be overlooked...but water?! When it covers 70% of said planet in plain sight? Sure, it sounds clever...but no.

Thinking about it, though, how could this movie have been more of a 'smart movie'? The real message I see is a look at the human condition. That we are, no matter how advanced we may think we are, just pack animals and not so wonderful and great. Life can easily be ended, but at the same time, Earth is our home and, according to Wells(and this movie), always will be ours. I'm not really sure what you're expecing from it.

 

[DonTadow]

But you're NOT stating fact. You're stating your own opinions and touting them as fact. The incosistencies were major, FOR YOU, but not for everyone. Obviously not, as I don't agree with you on them being major. Also, you can't say that this is because of the rush. It could very well have been this way given a more calm pace.

And it was better than Signs. I hated Signs. Any alien that dies from water while trying to take over a planet covered in so much water are complete and utter idiots. Bacteria is something that can be overlooked...but water?! When it covers 70% of said planet in plain sight? Sure, it sounds clever...but no.

Thinking about it, though, how could this movie have been more of a 'smart movie'? The real message I see is a look at the human condition. That we are, no matter how advanced we may think we are, just pack animals and not so wonderful and great. Life can easily be ended, but at the same time, Earth is our home and, according to Wells(and this movie), always will be ours. I'm not really sure what you're expecing from it.

But there are inconsistencies??? which are facts???. The only opinions i give is what they could have done instead of the inconsistencies. Again, if you are happy with inconsistencies fine. In my opinion they were a major distraction to enjoying the movie and I prefer for my movies to make sense throughout. In my opinion the movie could have been smarter by taking a bit more time and eliminating the major inconsitencies. I'm so curious as to how the original script for this read.

By the way, I"m sure percentage wise we have more bacteria than water . So if thats your reason for hating Signs it counters you reason for liking war of the worlds.

 

[Abraxas]

Just came back to this thread and had to comment on DonTadow's list.
Of those 14 items listed as an inconsistancy only #3 actually is.
Everything else listed are things you didn't like because they were an overly lucky coincidence (which occurr in just about every movie) or are just unexplained.

What I am most surprised by is the complaint about bacteria killing them - it is War of the Worlds afterall, I would have been ticked if it had been anything but bacteria that killed them off.

Oh, and don't we have a greater variety of bacteria than varieties of water (and of course you can see the water from space)

Oh well, off to see Land of the Dead now.