# War of The Worlds (Thread contains SPOILERS!) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 27, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990 "2005-06-27T03:39:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/41 "2005-06-29T19:47:19Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > Actually was going to ask that. I have some friends visiting from Germany and their English is zilch. Would they be able to understand the film if I took them along with me? (I don’t want to have to whisper translations in the theater.) > > In other words, if I give them the outline of the story before we go into the theater, would they be able to follow along and like the film? I think so. Especially if they know the basic story. Just explain that Tom is divorced from the kids mother and they are only visiting for the weekend. The boy and Tom don’t get along. Other than that, I think they if they watch movies they would do fine. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/42 "2005-06-29T20:02:27Z")
> [@The Hook](#): > > Mostly because it’s just another “blow’em up” movie. However, I don’t know how much I can trust Ebert’s review on this one. He doesn’t like it, basically, because he didn’t like the tripods. :dubious: Not only that, but he makes one of his characteristic gaffs[sup]\*[/sup]: > [@Roger Ebert](#): > > If evolution has taught us anything, it is that limbs of living things, from men to dinosaurs to spiders to centipedes, tend to come in numbers divisible by four. Three legs are inherently not stable, as Ray demonstrates when he damages one leg of a giant tripod, and it falls helplessly to the ground. Uh, Rog, plenty of creatures do will with six legs (not divisible by four), and I don’t know about your compatriots, but most of the people I know tend to rove about with the frightenenly diminutive and unstable number of two legs. Odd numbers are not preferred, not because they’re unstable, but because they’re unsymmetrical and virtually all land-based fauna tend to be symmetrical in construction. The rational for this can be speculated, but nontheless a tripod is not “inherently not stable”. One wonders why he doesn’t make the same argument against _The Empire Strikes Back_ and the ease by which the AT-ATs are disabled. But then, this guy also gave the universally-panned _Bewitched_ two and a half stars, putting it on the edge of watchability (in his estimation), so I don’t place a lot of credit into his rating system. At least he’s honest about what he doesn’t like, so you know where his bias comes from. Stranger \*It is my contention that in nearly every review, Ebert gets either some material fact from the film utterly wrong, or incorrectly states some physical principle that the film allegedly defies. I don’t know if he’s doing this to see if the reader is awake, or whether he’s just a lazy, inattentive, and bloated windbag, but it’s as annoying as heck. Stop it, Roger. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/43 "2005-06-29T20:05:18Z")
And if Ebert hates _WotW_ for it’s tripods, he might as just well go ahead and write his dismissive review for [this film](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441811/) now. Now, am I the only one wondering who would win in a “Celebrity Deathmatch” between Roger Ebert and Buckminster Fuller? 😉 Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/44 "2005-06-29T20:14:17Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Not only that, but he makes one of his characteristic gaffs[sup]\*[/sup]: Uh, Rog, plenty of creatures do will with six legs (not divisible by four), and I don’t know about your compatriots, but most of the people I know tend to rove about with the frightenenly diminutive and unstable number of two legs. Odd numbers are not preferred, not because they’re unstable, but because they’re unsymmetrical and virtually all land-based fauna tend to be symmetrical in construction. The rational for this can be speculated, but nontheless a tripod is not “inherently not stable”. One wonders why he doesn’t make the same argument against _The Empire Strikes Back_ and the ease by which the AT-ATs are disabled. > > But then, this guy also gave the universally-panned _Bewitched_ two and a half stars, putting it on the edge of watchability (in his estimation), so I don’t place a lot of credit into his rating system. At least he’s honest about what he doesn’t like, so you know where his bias comes from. > > Stranger > > \*It is my contention that in nearly every review, Ebert gets either some material fact from the film utterly wrong, or incorrectly states some physical principle that the film allegedly defies. I don’t know if he’s doing this to see if the reader is awake, or whether he’s just a lazy, inattentive, and bloated windbag, but it’s as annoying as heck. Stop it, Roger. Since Ray doesn’t take down a Tripod by damaging one leg. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/45 "2005-06-29T20:23:39Z")
I’ll take bloated windbags for $100 Alex. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/46 "2005-06-29T22:56:27Z")
My review is up. I’m mean to the universal you, but that’s just my writing style. Here’s what I think. [If you don’t agree, well, you know what you are.](http://www.livejournal.com/users/happy_scrappy/)😉 ---
**Author:** ![dare\_devil007](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@dare\_devil007](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dare_devil007)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/47 "2005-06-30T00:29:18Z")
It was really cool. I totally forgot that I was looking at Tom Cruise while I was watching the movie. All of the bad publicity and the backlash he’s received recently was completely forgotten while I was watching this. It was extremely intense, visually assaulting and spectacular, emotionally mind-bending…I could go on and on. I didn’t expect it to be extremely true to the book, of course, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I thought Tom Cruise’s character, Ray’s, son, Robbie, was extremely annoying, especially when he sees those soldiers and then tells his dad, “I HAVE to see this! You have to let me go.” Then, he gets separated from his dad and sister. Hello?! His life is in danger and he wants to see things get blown up?! Just go watch a movie, dude. Anyways, I was feeling really sick today and I could barely get up and move around. But, I really wanted to go watch this movie, so I decided to go, and afterwards, I was so surprised I didn’t die from emotional exhaustion. That’s how cool this movie was. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/48 "2005-06-30T03:00:05Z")
I’ve long been a fan of the 1953 version of _WotW_, and despite the well-known flaws of that film I have to consider it something of a classic, if not on quite the same tier as _Day the Earth Stood Still_ and _Forbidden Planet_. So I had some trepidations about going to see the new version, but not so much because it was Speilberg or Cruise or becasue it wasn’t set in the 1890’s (I’ve got no personal problem with updating the story), mostly because a) I wasn’t much impressed with the trailer b) it would mess with my fond memories of the earlier film. Well, I saw the new version tonight and it freakin’ _rawks_. IMO, within the thematic constraints of the movie (basically we follow three people from New Jersey to New England as everything around them gets blowed up real good) it’s an instant classic. The Tripods are awesome and horrifying; more or less what I envisioned when I read the book. Dakota Fanning is pretty wonderful, and the compositions and imagery are stunning. Most of all, for me at least Spielberg managed to get the all-important supsension of disbelief; throughout the film I could easily feel the fright, panic and horror portrayed by the actors. Spielberg has for once reigned in his sentimental streak; the whole movie, except for maybe the last couple of minutes, is almost unbearably harsh. Hey, but, we’re dealing with the attempted extermination of humanity by merciless aliens here; damn right it would be harsh. Lastly, Spielberg takes a few of the best bits from the earlier film and makes them his own while still respecting the source. It would be unfortunate, I think, if the growing legion of Cruise-haters gives this one a miss purely on the basis of who plays lead: yeah, he may come off as bit of an idiot in real life, but he nails his character (a feckless, not fully-grown up blue-collar dad) and not once during the film did I find myslef thinking about the couch-jumping, Scientology-shilling buffoon that has people so up in arms. Ok, so in the end it’s really just an effects-laden thrill ride (Shock! Horror! Tripods!) but as I said, within those limits it’s pretty damn good. One and a half thumbs up. One thumb up ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/49 "2005-06-30T03:03:02Z")
And one undeleted line from the draft post (the last). Whoops. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/50 "2005-06-30T06:43:39Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > It would be unfortunate, I think, if the growing legion of Cruise-haters gives this one a miss purely on the basis of who plays lead: yeah, he may come off as bit of an idiot in real life, but he nails his character (a feckless, not fully-grown up blue-collar dad) and not once during the film did I find myslef thinking about the couch-jumping, Scientology-shilling buffoon that has people so up in arms. I’m one of those Cruise/$cientology haters, and I loved the movie! I agree with your entire review. The movie is **INTENSE** so keep the little kids at home. I think my husband still has marks on his arm where I kept squeezing him. I even gasped and cried “OH NO!” outloud a few times. It grabbed me and, as they say, didn’t let go. My opinion of Cruise the man is in the gutter for his idiotic beliefs and anti-psychiatry big mouth, but I do like him as an actor, and I do think he is a good actor. I was able to suspend disbelief. He even had me crying a couple of times. I thought his journey from being a self-centered jerk to a warm human loving father was believable. Dakota Fanning is among the finest child actors around. She doesn’t have a whole lot to do in this besides act scared, but she does a good job of it. Anyone who bitches about her screaming would probably find themselves screaming like a little girl if they were in the same situation, so they should probably just STFU. Forget the nitpicking. It was exactly what a good summer popcorn movie should be, and then some. I can’t wait to see it again! And when I do, just like the 1st time, I’ll pay to see another movie and duck into WOTW again. Batman Returns got 2 extra tickets sold today, I’m proud to say. Go BR! ---
**Author:** ![Vision\_of\_Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Vision\_of\_Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vision_of_Love)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/51 "2005-06-30T08:59:55Z")
This isn’t very detailed, but here’s what I wrote about it in my blog: > [@](#): > > I’m not one to boycott a movie for its leading actor, so last night, I saw a 6:50 p.m. showing of the latest Spielberg blockbuster, War of the Worlds. > > After the previous sci-fi Spielberg & Cruise collaboration, Minority Report, I found the premise of War of the Worlds to be surprisingly simple: An extraterrestrial army attacks the people on Earth in order to take over the planet. The story follows a family’s (and other people’s) escape from the aliens’ destructive path. Tom Cruise is rather good in his role, but the highlight for me, as always, is the amazing Dakota Fanning. I had a laugh to myself thinking that in real life, the actress probably would not be as childish as the character she plays. > > So if you’re planning on watching the movie, do yourself a favour and don’t expect to see anything too thought-provoking or intelligent. It’s just a bunch of people fleeing from big, bad aliens. Instead, revel in a great aural/visual spectacle of immense machines, explosions, and flying dust and debris. Perhaps the only time the movie shows its science is in its conclusion, which you probably won’t see coming if you haven’t read the book. It is hinted at only once during the movie, and most will probably dismiss it as screen filler. > > The bottom line: For those seeking excitement, this movie really delivers. Take the film for what it is, a popcorn flick. If you are a sucker for science fiction films, special effects, and summer blockbusters in general (like I am), you will probably step out of the theatre satisfied. > > Grade: B There isn’t much to say about it to other people because the plot is so straightforward. It almost makes you wonder how the movie came to be nearly 2 hours long. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/52 "2005-06-30T11:36:41Z")
> [@](#): > > It almost makes you wonder how the movie came to be nearly 2 hours long. Agreed. After thinking about it overnight, there do seem to be some issues of pacing that belie the film’s apparently rushed production schedule: the sequence involving the Tim Robbins character seems to go on far longer than it needs to for story purposes, and the ending is very abrupt, giving the distinct impression that one or more scripted scenes were deleted due a lack of time to complete them. Add to that a number of lapses of logic in the story; without getting into spoilers, some of what happens in the film doesn’t square with what we are shown of the aliens’ capabilities. No matter; I hate to use buzzwords, but I don’t know how to describe the first two-thirds of the film other than some of the most propulsive filmmaking I’ve ever seen. Likewise, it’s pretty rare that I feel personally affected by action/horror films of this type, but there are some images in this thing that could easily give me nightmares for weeks. If you’re into that sort of thing, go for it, but as someone else mentioned you probably wanbt to leave the younger kids at home. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/53 "2005-06-30T11:48:55Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Since Ray doesn’t take down a Tripod by damaging one leg. Edward Hyde does, in the cracking The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen {the comic version, not the risible movie} take on War Of The Worlds. He also gets to anally rape The Invisible Man which I would pay good money to see up on the big screen. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/54 "2005-06-30T14:46:49Z")
I absolutely fucking _love_ this movie. Pure summer blockbuster of the highest caliber. One question that has bothered me since seeing the film, however, and maybe some of you Dopers can answer it for me: After the EMP hits, everything that runs on electricity is fried, right? So how the hell does that one guy have a working camcorder as the tripod is emerging from the ground? ---
**Author:** ![TwoTrouts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@TwoTrouts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwoTrouts)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/55 "2005-06-30T15:06:23Z")
I saw the movie last night and have to agree that it is terrific. Special effects aside, I especially liked the way Spielberg kept the focus on how this terror affected different people. Whether it was the mob, the slacker teenage son, or the ambulance driver Ogilvy, each had their own psychological demons to battle while the world crumbled around them. I may be alone here, but I loved the scene with Tim Robbins/Ogilvy. I believe it was very necessary to the movie, was wonderfully done, and drove the character development aspect of the film. The scene was an integral part of the book as well, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/56 "2005-06-30T15:12:06Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > I absolutely fucking _love_ this movie. Pure summer blockbuster of the highest caliber. > > One question that has bothered me since seeing the film, however, and maybe some of you Dopers can answer it for me: > > After the EMP hits, everything that runs on electricity is fried, right? So how the hell does that one guy have a working camcorder as the tripod is emerging from the ground? Well, there are nits to pick. You could say it was a mistake, or you could say that the camcorder was in a Fairaday (?) cage. (is that what they are called?) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Bird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Little\_Bird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Bird)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/57 "2005-06-30T15:59:28Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > I will wait for video because 1) movies are too expensive and 2) The Whole Tom Cruise thingie. > > However, it would be really funny if Speilburg slipped into the film a Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems gag. > HAH! Do not wait for the video. Unless your tv is garage door sized. You need to see the tripods BIG. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Bird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Little\_Bird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Bird)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/58 "2005-06-30T16:00:47Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > Actually was going to ask that. I have some friends visiting from Germany and their English is zilch. Would they be able to understand the film if I took them along with me? (I don’t want to have to whisper translations in the theater.) > > In other words, if I give them the outline of the story before we go into the theater, would they be able to follow along and like the film? I think they could follow it just fine. It could almost be a silent film. Big scary machines = bad, cute little blond girl = good. (sorry for the double post) ---
**Author:** ![dare\_devil007](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@dare\_devil007](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dare_devil007)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/59 "2005-06-30T16:11:50Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > I will wait for video because 1) movies are too expensive and 2) The Whole Tom Cruise thingie. > > However, it would be really funny if Speilburg slipped into the film a Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems gag. > HAH! Like **Little Bird** said, don’t wait for the video. This is one movie you should see in theatres because it’s a movie of high calibre (well, I think so). It’s just not the same if you watch it at home. And the whole Tom Cruise thingy? You’ll forget about it during the movie. I sure as hell did. ---
**Author:** ![Archergal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Archergal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archergal)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990/60 "2005-06-30T16:28:55Z")
We saw the movie at the 3:15 pm show yesterday. It didn’t suck, though emotionally it seemed overall to be a little hollow to me. But the aliens are pretty nifty, and it follows the original story better than the 1953 version did. I also think that the son surviving at the end of the movie was a sop to the happy-ending crowd BTW, did anyone else notice that the grandparents at the end of the movie were Gene Barry and Ann Robinson, the stars of the 1953 version? BTW, the original novel by H.G. Wells is available online for free at Project Gutenberg, [here](http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/36). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-thread-contains-spoilers/309990.md?page=4)