War of the Worlds

[djimon123]

Hey everybody i was just watching War of the worlds( spielberg version) and i gotta say i like it alot i feel it was a very unique take on alien invasion type movies if you take away dakota fanning and the son its a pretty decent movie imo


but reason i made this thread is i had a question about the end......how do the aliens get defeated i was a bit confused

[JBond]

Bacteria in earth's atmosphere diseased them and they died. The reason we are alive on Earth is that we've evolved for over billions of years along with bacteria forming a symbiotic relationship with them. The aliens didn't have this.

It's meant to be a very scientific and realistic solution to an alien invasion problem, but many people didn't liek it.

[Tolkien]

Many people are not that scientific. ;)

[Knerys]

I think it makes perfect sense. When people went to explore new parts of the world in ancient times, many got sick and died becasue they weren't adapted to that environment. Granted they also brought their own diseases. It's just not a ID4 ending most people expect these days. *shrug*

[Sora Kahn]

This movie was real bad. Very, very bad. AotC bad. Definitely Spielberg's worst.

[PsYkOoOoO]

I didn't like the movie initially, but on second viewing I actually liked it a lot more.

I didn't like how the aliens were killed by bacterias either. I mean, seriously. BACTERIAS?! I guess I was just too used to having alien ships brought down by a hail of missiles and stuff, which caused me to under-estimate those little bacterias that even we possess.

I think how the aliens overlooked this important detail on the human planet had a great analogy to how humans have taken a lot of things for granted ourselves. The aliens took the humans for granted, thinking that they are weaker and more vulnerable than themselves, thinking that it'd be a breeze taking over the world. They had so much confidence, so much so that they overlooked their nano-sized enemies.

Humans have taken a lot of things for granted as well, and I won't go into that in this forum. I'm sure you have read and heard enough about it. So in a way, I thought it was great way to teach us humans a lesson. Who knows, humans may perish one day because of bacterias as well.

It is definitely not one of Spielberg's best, but it was enjoyable.

And for some reason Dakota Fanning was less irritating on television too. Must have been the speakers in the theaters.

[Tolkien]

This movie was real bad. Very, very bad. AotC bad. Definitely Spielberg's worst.

Hey Kahny... How about you explain why you felt it was bad, instead of just saying it was bad, over and over again...

[PsYkOoOoO]

A lot of people blamed the movie for the ending, when it was actually really faithful to the book. Why not blame HG Wells instead.

[Tolkien]

I didn't like the movie initially, but on second viewing I actually liked it a lot more.

I didn't like how the aliens were killed by bacterias either. I mean, seriously. BACTERIAS?! I guess I was just too used to having alien ships brought down by a hail of missiles and stuff, which caused me to under-estimate those little bacterias that even we possess.

I think how the aliens overlooked this important detail on the human planet had a great analogy to how humans have taken a lot of things for granted ourselves. The aliens took the humans for granted, thinking that they are weaker and more vulnerable than themselves, thinking that it'd be a breeze taking over the world. They had so much confidence, so much so that they overlooked their nano-sized enemies.

Humans have taken a lot of things for granted as well, and I won't go into that in this forum. I'm sure you have read and heard enough about it. So in a way, I thought it was great way to teach us humans a lesson. Who knows, humans may perish one day because of bacterias as well.

It is definitely not one of Spielberg's best, but it was enjoyable.

And for some reason Dakota Fanning was less irritating on television too. Must have been the speakers in the theaters.

Same thing I felt. The end to WOTW and another example; Signs. Such a common element as water, in the end, defeated an entire race of higher beings. Of course people will hate those films because we don't kick the alien booty that they expect us to, but in the real world... I highly doubt we would stand a chance against higher begins, if they came to earth.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Same thing I felt. The end to WOTW and another example; Signs. Such a common element as water, in the end, defeated an entire race of higher beings. Of course people will hate those films because we don't kick the alien booty that they expect us to, but in the real world... I highly doubt we would stand a chance against higher begins, if they came to earth.

I thought War of the Worlds made a stronger point in comparison to Signs. But I enjoyed both films actually, and they were both very interesting take on the subject of alien invasion.

And as for aliens coming to Earth, let's hope that our cars and trucks are already equipped with transformation abilities.

[Ramplate]

SIGNS had a point?!!??!!??:confused: :eek:

[IanTheCool]

yeah, i really liked war of tjhe worlds. the ending made sense for the type of movie it was. this was more a movie along the lines of what would really happen if aliens invaded, instead of a comic book/action movie version like ID4. and the ending refleccted that also.
i also thought it was a vrey intense movie, non stop really. i love the ferry crossing scene in particular.

[PsYkOoOoO]

yeah, i really liked war of tjhe worlds. the ending made sense for the type of movie it was. this was more a movie along the lines of what would really happen if aliens invaded, instead of a comic book/action movie version like ID4. and the ending refleccted that also.
i also thought it was a vrey intense movie, non stop really. i love the ferry crossing scene in particular.

Nobody can do the scene when the aliens came down into the basement as well as Spielberg.

[Tolkien]

Nobody can do the scene when the aliens came down into the basement as well as Spielberg.

What can we say, the man knows his stuff.

[Andrey83]

I really dont get it why people are upset about the ending. Maybe you dont read or something. It had basically the same ending as the book....

People always b**** about movies not staying true to the books, however this one wasnt that far off in general.

[Steve from Indy]

The reason we are alive on Earth is that we've evolved for over billions of years along with bacteria forming a symbiotic relationship with them.

I'm only in my 40's. :D

[Steve from Indy]

I really dont get it why people are upset about the ending. Maybe you dont read or something. It had basically the same ending as the book....

People always b**** about movies not staying true to the books, however this one wasnt that far off in general.

My problem with the ending was that his son lived. I mean WTF?

[JBond]

I really dont get it why people are upset about the ending. Maybe you dont read or something. It had basically the same ending as the book....

People always b**** about movies not staying true to the books, however this one wasnt that far off in general.

Because it was in a book first, people can't be upset with the ending? I don't get it.

[djimon123]

i dont know i thought this movie was very realistic and unique


the aleins had been watching us for years and years and there weapons were already on earth underground..... very unique and cool idea


and the idea that mans missles and tanks couldnt defeats them but the smallest little thin defeated the invaders

[FranklinTard]

i dont know i thought this movie was very realistic and unique


the aleins had been watching us for years and years and there weapons were already on earth underground..... very unique and cool idea


and the idea that mans missles and tanks couldnt defeats them but the smallest little thin defeated the invaders



minus the part where the son lived... i want to see his story....

[PsYkOoOoO]

My problem with the ending was that his son lived. I mean WTF?

OK, I give you that one. I had the same problems too.

[FilmJerk]

i liked the movie. cgi was excellent. Spielberg knows how to create tension very well.

[djimon123]

i thought the son was a damn pain the ass and the whole him trying to act tough and wanting to " get them back" stuff was really cheesy and lame


oh yeah and Dakota Fanning was god awful in that movie shes so overated italmost seems that just because shes young she gets a pass or something

[PsYkOoOoO]

i thought the son was a damn pain the ass and the whole him trying to act tough and wanting to " get them back" stuff was really cheesy and lame


oh yeah and Dakota Fanning was god awful in that movie shes so overated italmost seems that just because shes young she gets a pass or something

I had problems with those on the first viewing.

But after watching it the second time, I learned to focus more on everything else.

Oh, and you got to give it to Tom Cruise in this one. Great performance, surprisingly good too.

[Matrix_Fan]

I don't know about everyone else, but I freaking loved WOTW. The first alien attack was intense. Though I think Spielberg should cut down on the film grain, I liked the camera work a lot.

I didn't really mind the son surviving because if he died, Tom would have to explain to his ex that he died. If they wanted to be totally bleak, the ex and her family would be killed as well. But hey, it's Spielberg, he doesn't really do that.

[Fiverrabbit]

I like Spielberg's WoW too.

[Andrey83]

Because it was in a book first, people can't be upset with the ending? I don't get it.

Dude, dont be such a duchebag. You know what I ment. The book is considered a classic and people love it. If you go into a movie based on WotW expecting ID4 fireworks ending then whatever.....

[JBond]

The son not dying isn't near as unbelievable as that man using a camcorder right after all electronics were wiped out from the EMP.

[JBond]

Dude, dont be such a duchebag. You know what I ment. The book is considered a classic and people love it. If you go into a movie based on WotW expecting ID4 fireworks ending then whatever.....

I'm not the one calling people "douchbag", so I'd watch it. This is what you said:

"I really dont get it why people are upset about the ending. Maybe you dont read or something. It had basically the same ending as the book...."

I don't know how I could read that any differently than you saying that because it followed the book, it's ok. You seemed to assume that that must mean no one has read the book, I get the feeling you just wanted to lay down the fact that you've read the book.

[Sora Kahn]

Dakota Fanning, the son, and the guy in the basement were damn annoying and brought the film down. Plus the fact the son lived after a big a** explosion seemed very illogical.

[halo7]

The main reason I liked WOTW is that besides a few little plot holes (the working camera, no one else figuring out the secret to making cars work). It generally proves that an action blockbuster doesn't have to treat its audience like it is full of dumb****s or have bad acting ( I didn't find any of the characters annoying, not even little Dakota).

[Fanible]

The book is a classic, but it's out-dated for a modern retelling. Come on, it was written in the 1800's. It was good for it's time and the ideas it put forth, but the same story has been retold and rewritten many times for a reason, and for the better. That's why I didn't like the ending. They modernized the story so much, but left in one of the dumbest parts.

The movie's values, comparisons and analogies are fine. The production value was great, and just about everything put in was dynamite in quality. But when we think of a threatening great invasion by an alien race, having them defeated after a couple days by our "germs" is extremely anti-climactic. Granted, I have no idea how I would have changed it, but it still doesn't change the fact. An alien race so beyond advanced would presumedly have visited other planets and have more knowledge on detecting what inhabits them, including our own. Those things would be on our space program leader's minds right now, and we haven't even been beyond our moon. Which is why, well... we'd have space suits, to keep out possible toxins or bacteria, just in case our pre-scans may have missed something.

So... I don't know. It was the same with Signs for me. Really fantastic movie, but just a very anti-climactic ending. I liked them both, but the endings just weren't all that to me, regardless of morals or metaphors you can attempt to justify them with. That's why both went from possible 9 / 10's for me, to just 7 / 10's.

I guess I'm one of the few in the thread thinking it, but in my opinion having the ending and final message of an alien invasion movie be "Huh... I guess the aliens were actually dumb asses all along" isn't all that appealing, interesting or entertaining to me.

[PsYkOoOoO]

I guess I'm one of the few in the thread thinking it, but in my opinion having the ending and final message of an alien invasion movie be "Huh... I guess the aliens were actually dumb asses all along" isn't all that appealing, interesting or entertaining to me.

I don't think they were dumb ass aliens. More like...ignorant aliens.

[Fanible]

I don't think they were dumb ass aliens. More like...ignorant aliens.

Ignorant... dumbasses. Take your pick, or combine them in a sentence. Being "ignorant" is just a slightly nicer way of saying "dumbass". Either way you want to put it, it was still a clear cut case of stupidity for not thinking about it. Besides, leaving the movie saying "Huh... I guess the aliens were actually just ignorant bastards" isn't a whole lot better.

Signs is even worse though when you actually think about it more deeply. What dumbass, ignorant leader of that race didn't know about or test H20 to see how their bodies handle it - when you consider he's just made the orders to invade a planet covered in 70 percent of it. If they had simply worn suits of any kind, we would have been screwed. Not only that, but if the crop circles are any indication of their visits, then they've already been here hundreds, thousands of times. Hmmm...

So yeah... I stand by my assessment that they were dumb asses.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Ignorant... dumbasses. Take your pick, or combine them in a sentence. Being "ignorant" is just a slightly nicer way of saying "dumbass". Either way you want to put it, it was still a clear cut case of stupidity for not thinking about it. Besides, leaving the movie saying "Huh... I guess the aliens were actually just ignorant bastards" isn't a whole lot better.

Signs is even worse though when you actually think about it more deeply. What dumbass, ignorant leader of that race didn't know about or test H20 to see how their bodies handle it - when you consider he's just made the orders to invade a planet covered in 70 percent of it. If they had simply worn suits of any kind, we would have been screwed. Not only that, but if the crop circles are any indication of their visits, then they've already been here hundreds, thousands of times. Hmmm...

So yeah... I stand by my assessment that they were dumb asses.

Come to think about it, why weren't the aliens in Signs fried by the H2O in the atmosphere?

Strange.

[Fanible]

Come to think about it, why weren't the aliens in Signs fried by the H2O in the atmosphere?

Strange.

That's just moving from illogical to unreasonable.

Don't add to my pain. =P

[kel thuzad]

Because they were inside the spaceships!!
You dumbasses...

[regina414]

This movie's nice... Spielberg's camera works are awesome, and the effects, too... Two thumbs up for Spielberg and Tom Cruise!

[DeadFlagBlues]

Dakota was extremely annoying.

[rosncranz]

Ignorant... dumbasses. Take your pick, or combine them in a sentence. Being "ignorant" is just a slightly nicer way of saying "dumbass". Either way you want to put it, it was still a clear cut case of stupidity for not thinking about it. Besides, leaving the movie saying "Huh... I guess the aliens were actually just ignorant bastards" isn't a whole lot better.

Signs is even worse though when you actually think about it more deeply. What dumbass, ignorant leader of that race didn't know about or test H20 to see how their bodies handle it - when you consider he's just made the orders to invade a planet covered in 70 percent of it. If they had simply worn suits of any kind, we would have been screwed. Not only that, but if the crop circles are any indication of their visits, then they've already been here hundreds, thousands of times. Hmmm...
So yeah... I stand by my assessment that they were dumb asses.

I hate this argument so very much. I respect you Fanible and you often have very valid points, but to me your comments here show a complete lack of your use of imagination.

I love both films and I think it is because they are both realistic depictions of alien invasion done through the eyes of a select few people, as such we know only what they know and nothing more. So when an alien race comes to earth in films like these we don't know why. It then becomes conjecture, some people simply take it as a plot hole and when someone offers a possible solution the naysayers say that they are stretching for an answer. It could very well be that the aliens knew they could not tolerate water but they needed to try for whatever reason, maybe their reason for coming to Earth was important enough to risk death. Does the military go somewhere they know could kill them if they find it necessary? Yeah they do. So with all due respect (and this is directed at anyone who makes the argument about Signs and water, and not just you Fanible) maybe instead of it being a plot hole, it is just your lack of imagination.

As for WotW, I loved the idea of bacteria killing the race instead of us ever so unrealistically doing it with our weapons or technology. It was a realistic and creative ending to a realistic alien invasion film. And why do the aliens have to know all of these things before they go to other planets like so many people suggest? Although the son being alive did kinda suck.

Also ignorant means lacking knowledge of a particular subject; so Fanible, does you not knowing anything about the Haitian government make you a dumbass? No, it means you are ignorant to the subject. There is a difference.

[JBond]

maybe instead of it being a plot hole, it is just your lack of imagination.

Ah, this is the cause of many arguments when it comes to movie discussion. Plot hole versus lack of imagination. Allow me to try and show why the other side is right for some people, if I could try.

A movie, is not real. No, I'm not saying you don't know that, I'm sure everyone who sees a movie knows it's not real. However, the difference bewteen some people is how far they want to trick themselves into believing it is. Some people, me included, need a plot that works the first time through, By that, I mean, assuming you're paying close attention, everything you're suppose to accept at the end of the movie should have a REASON for you to do so. I don't think there is a movie OUT there where someone watching couldn't fill in a plot whole with some toothpicks and duct tape and call it a bridge. THe point is, deep down, you knwo that's not what the writer/director intended, because you had to look deep for it and perhaps even create plot points or personality traits that weren't shown in the movie. Sure, you coudl do this, but to go back to my first sentence, the movie isn't real, so it's not like you're a dectective trying to fill in the pieces, because they don't exist. Now, some people seem to be ok with filling in a piece of a movie themselves to feel better about the movie, but some people, like me and Fanible, perhaps, depend on the writer to tell us this story the way its suppose to go, so it can exist as its own small universe where we don't have to fill it in with conjecture.

Hopefully this makes sense. In short, I'm saying you should give Fanible a break for wanting something out of movies a bit differently than you do. We have the right to be annoyed that aliens invade a planet with so much water when it's like acid to them. (Especailly with water vapor in the air, and the fact that the aliens would have to not be carbon-based. Sure, as they're not from Earth you coudl tell me it's quite possible for life to evolve a different way, but I think most scientists believe it's very unlikely life could be something other than carbon based and NOT depend on water to live)

[DeadFlagBlues]

Ah, this is the cause of many arguments when it comes to movie discussion. Plot hole versus lack of imagination. Allow me to try and show why the other side is right for some people, if I could try.

A movie, is not real. No, I'm not saying you don't know that, I'm sure everyone who sees a movie knows it's not real. However, the difference bewteen some people is how far they want to trick themselves into believing it is. Some people, me included, need a plot that works the first time through, By that, I mean, assuming you're paying close attention, everything you're suppose to accept at the end of the movie should have a REASON for you to do so. I don't think there is a movie OUT there where someone watching couldn't fill in a plot whole with some toothpicks and duct tape and call it a bridge. THe point is, deep down, you knwo that's not what the writer/director intended, because you had to look deep for it and perhaps even create plot points or personality traits that weren't shown in the movie. Sure, you coudl do this, but to go back to my first sentence, the movie isn't real, so it's not like you're a dectective trying to fill in the pieces, because they don't exist. Now, some people seem to be ok with filling in a piece of a movie themselves to feel better about the movie, but some people, like me and Fanible, perhaps, depend on the writer to tell us this story the way its suppose to go, so it can exist as its own small universe where we don't have to fill it in with conjecture.

Hopefully this makes sense. In short, I'm saying you should give Fanible a break for wanting something out of movies a bit differently than you do. We have the right to be annoyed that aliens invade a planet with so much water when it's like acid to them. (Especailly with water vapor in the air, and the fact that the aliens would have to not be carbon-based. Sure, as they're not from Earth you coudl tell me it's quite possible for life to evolve a different way, but I think most scientists believe it's very unlikely life could be something other than carbon based and NOT depend on water to live)

Now, I'm not going to defend Signs or War of the Worlds. But I think conjecture is very much an important factor of many films. Why must everything be so concrete as to never really be open to interpretation? Quite frankly, I'm insulted by most films that do not leave anything to thought. Thought-provoking films usually rely on the viewer to interpret as they want to. This allows a more personal, subjective experience.

A good example of this is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Can we ever say for sure we knew what happened at the end of the film? Hardly. Because its open to interpretation and should be left that way. David Lynch wholeheartedly supports this ideology. I think when a director tries to over-explain everything within a film, it insults the audience.

Sometimes I do tend to think that when the viewer wants everything to make sense and to have everything explained to him/or her, the viewer is scared of conjecture. The viewer would rather see the film finalized than be left open. That is not to say I support a director just doing half the work and just allowing every kind of plot hole conceivable, but there should be a limit.

[Steve from Indy]

The son not dying isn't near as unbelievable as that man using a camcorder right after all electronics were wiped out from the EMP.

Ha! Nice catch Jibbs. :)

[JBond]

Now, I'm not going to defend Signs or War of the Worlds. But I think conjecture is very much an important factor of many films. Why must everything be so concrete as to never really be open to interpretation? Quite frankly, I'm insulted by most films that do not leave anything to thought. Thought-provoking films usually rely on the viewer to interpret as they want to. This allows a more personal, subjective experience.

A good example of this is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Can we ever say for sure we knew what happened at the end of the film? Hardly. Because its open to interpretation and should be left that way. David Lynch wholeheartedly supports this ideology. I think when a director tries to over-explain everything within a film, it insults the audience.

Sometimes I do tend to think that when the viewer wants everything to make sense and to have everything explained to him/or her, the viewer is scared of conjecture. The viewer would rather see the film finalized than be left open. That is not to say I support a director just doing half the work and just allowing every kind of plot hole conceivable, but there should be a limit.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. You're talking about open-ended...endings. That's a whole other discussion. I'm talking about plot holes, or things that go bump in the smooth flow of a movie. A movie is a segemtn in a time line, whether a writer/director wants to imply or not imply what happened before or after is fine with me, if done right. But from the beginning to the end of the movie, I don't want to find a square peg and a round hole in which I have to McGuyver some sort of solution in my head.

[rosncranz]

Ah, this is the cause of many arguments when it comes to movie discussion. Plot hole versus lack of imagination. Allow me to try and show why the other side is right for some people, if I could try.

A movie, is not real. No, I'm not saying you don't know that, I'm sure everyone who sees a movie knows it's not real. However, the difference bewteen some people is how far they want to trick themselves into believing it is. Some people, me included, need a plot that works the first time through, By that, I mean, assuming you're paying close attention, everything you're suppose to accept at the end of the movie should have a REASON for you to do so. I don't think there is a movie OUT there where someone watching couldn't fill in a plot whole with some toothpicks and duct tape and call it a bridge. THe point is, deep down, you knwo that's not what the writer/director intended, because you had to look deep for it and perhaps even create plot points or personality traits that weren't shown in the movie. Sure, you coudl do this, but to go back to my first sentence, the movie isn't real, so it's not like you're a dectective trying to fill in the pieces, because they don't exist. Now, some people seem to be ok with filling in a piece of a movie themselves to feel better about the movie, but some people, like me and Fanible, perhaps, depend on the writer to tell us this story the way its suppose to go, so it can exist as its own small universe where we don't have to fill it in with conjecture.

Hopefully this makes sense. In short, I'm saying you should give Fanible a break for wanting something out of movies a bit differently than you do. We have the right to be annoyed that aliens invade a planet with so much water when it's like acid to them. (Especailly with water vapor in the air, and the fact that the aliens would have to not be carbon-based. Sure, as they're not from Earth you coudl tell me it's quite possible for life to evolve a different way, but I think most scientists believe it's very unlikely life could be something other than carbon based and NOT depend on water to live)

That is perfectly fine that you guys think this way, and I didn't mean to offend anyone with my comments. Fanible has a good point too, and I am not ragging on him at all for it. I respect his opinions and know that he is mature enough that I could engage him in this debate, otherwise I would have said nothing.

We seem to be arguing different sides of the same sword. I mean to say that instead of being a plot hole it could be the writer, director etc. intention for you to decide on what is not left entirely explained. You seem to be saying that it could just as likely be the opposite, which is fine. However I think when we are talking about Shyamalan and Spielberg it is pretty likely that their films will have more for an audience to get involved in. You say some movie-goers don't want to actively participate in a film, but some do, which Shyamalan knows as he put red indicators in The Sixth Sense to let people interact so to speak.

I am a very left brained person, I have been an artist most of my life as well a
writer and I live to be engaged creatively, so I personally love it when I am asked to put some of the pieces together myself, as long as they are provided or are reasonably suitable in the context. It could be said that Signs does not give these pieces, but the lack of any information on the aliens motivations leads me to believe one of two things 1. it's not important 2. it's up to you to decide. I for one think Shyamalan is smart enough that a plot hole as large as suggested in his film is improbable. Anyway my point is they are well constructed films with plot points that are feasible and leave some to the imagination. When it can just as easily be explained by the possibilities of things happening not shown in the film, but still could very easily and without reaching suit the film, which IMO both Signs and WotW do.

Also I didn't mean to imply you guys lack imagination I just think that a person will give a film/filmmaker the benefit of the doubt if they enjoy the film, and are much more inclined to say it is a plot hole if they didn't like it and then refuse to use their imagination.

A good example for this argument is the movie Donnie Darko. A film that on its surface is Lynchian in its lack of making any sense at all. However if you watch the film several times and pay attention it is all there for you to put together. I love being invited to interact, and obviously WotW and Signs are not nearly as severe as DD, but some people refuse to interact with their imagination if they are already critical of the film, my guess is that most people that don't like these two films because of the "plot-holes" already had decided they didn't like the films.

[JBond]

You make good points, and what I think it really comes down to is what we think of Shyamalan. ;)

I, personally, do not think he thought the water thing through. Evidence of this? The fact that he ignores in The Sixth Sense that a man could not possibly not notice no human interaction with anyone for 6 months while you are dead. Yeah, he wasn't talking much to his wife. But not a single word or mention? He didn't shop for groceries? Leave the house at all? Some people could ignore this, and I think I did until I saw it the second time. Sometimes I can ignore things like that for the sake of a movie, sometimes I can't. I can never tell which way it's goign to go. Is it the skill of a writer? Is the mood I'm in when I first watch the movie? I don't know. I just think Shyamalan finds what he wants in an ending and builds the rest of the movie the best he can. I think his mind is more tuned into ways of telling a story, which he does quite well at times, instead of tuned into science fiction. It doesn't seem to be his thing. Sure, Shyamalan is smart, but there are many kinds of smart. ;)

And yeah, Donnie Darko doesn't have plot-holes as much as it has "holes" in the story. but they can logically be filled. I think I'm more of a right brained person, though I'm working on my left. I would have to be to work in film in some way. Surely, there can be a correct mixture of right and left brains in movies.

[Fanible]

I love both films and I think it is because they are both realistic depictions of alien invasion done through the eyes of a select few people, as such we know only what they know and nothing more. So when an alien race comes to earth in films like these we don't know why. It then becomes conjecture, some people simply take it as a plot hole and when someone offers a possible solution the naysayers say that they are stretching for an answer. It could very well be that the aliens knew they could not tolerate water but they needed to try for whatever reason, maybe their reason for coming to Earth was important enough to risk death. Does the military go somewhere they know could kill them if they find it necessary? Yeah they do. So with all due respect (and this is directed at anyone who makes the argument about Signs and water, and not just you Fanible) maybe instead of it being a plot hole, it is just your lack of imagination.

No, you're quite right. There are many things I could "imagine" and fill in the blank with, like those examples given. I just don't enjoy movies as much where part of the film requires me to fill in the blank.

But to counter your claim that I lack imagination, I fail to see how what I'm doing is any different than what you're doing - filling in the blank with your imagination. I just so happen to choose to imagine that they both had alien leaders who were dumb asses and didn't know any better and rushed into invading a planet prematurely without taking precautions or proper testing - something our military would do, regardless of our desperation for something needed. I don't find that unreasonable to say they were either dumb for not simply wearing a suit if your taking over a planet where water is acid to your body, and that is if your filling in the blank is true that they knew it could kill them already. So in that case, it's more a toss up for my imagination, in that they were either too stupid for not knowing or testing how water would harm them, or they were too stupid for not making suits to protect them from it. Maybe they were trying to cut funding like we do with our space program sometimes at the cost of our astronaut's safety?

When you say what I'm saying is a nonsensical assessment, you're not telling me I have a lack of imagination, you're essentially saying my imagination is wrong, and yours is right. Everything I said in my first replies was completely - and totally - imagined scenarios.

But back to what I was saying to begin with, and this doesn't even really have much to do with my general dislike or disinterest for what I find to be anti-climactic endings (regardless of how you want to put a spin on their overall story, for better or worse, they were still anti-climactic)... but, in my opinion a movie isn't as enjoyable if the only way a plot makes better sense is by requiring you to fill in the blank in the first place. That's just the way I process films and stories in general. I can't help it. When a movie is over and I'm writing a review thinking back on what I just watched, and I'm repeatedly having to go "maybe this" or "maybe that", so that some things make better sense that I didn't find to be, it's going to lower my score overall, regardless of what I come up with.

Also ignorant means lacking knowledge of a particular subject; so Fanible, does you not knowing anything about the Haitian government make you a dumbass?

Sure, if I was invading the Haitian government and I was oblivious to some rather crucial and obvious information about the area, which caused my embarrassing failure as a result, you could call me a dumbass.

But don't be silly. I could argue against your definition of the word, but it's pointless, because semantics over words has nothing to do with my opinion one way or another. Besides, I was being mainly sarcastic in the first place.

[rosncranz]

You both make very good points. And Fanible I didn't mean to suggest you lack imagination, but that if you had really enjoyed the rest of the film you might have been more inclined to by into the idea that you might need to use your imagination for some of the experience and be happy with doing so. Then again as you guys are saying either way you are biased. If you like it then of course you are willing to do some guess work, if you don't like it then it is just a huge plot hole...so yeah I guess as you guys have said it clearly just comes down to how you watch movies.

For me however both Signs and WotW are very good but clearly flawed movies. I love the ideas involved in both films and with the exception of the son surviving in the end of WotW there really isn't much I disliked about either film when it is just one thing that could ruin the film if it can conceivably be put together in my mind with relative ease and commonsense I am ok with having to do that work.

[DeadFlagBlues]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. You're talking about open-ended...endings. That's a whole other discussion. I'm talking about plot holes, or things that go bump in the smooth flow of a movie. A movie is a segemtn in a time line, whether a writer/director wants to imply or not imply what happened before or after is fine with me, if done right. But from the beginning to the end of the movie, I don't want to find a square peg and a round hole in which I have to McGuyver some sort of solution in my head.

No, my fault. I misinterpreted your point. Perhaps I should read more carefully?

[halo7]

I, personally, do not think he thought the water thing through. Evidence of this? The fact that he ignores in The Sixth Sense that a man could not possibly not notice no human interaction with anyone for 6 months while you are dead. Yeah, he wasn't talking much to his wife. But not a single word or mention? He didn't shop for groceries? Leave the house at all? Some people could ignore this, and I think I did until I saw it the second time. Sometimes I can ignore things like that for the sake of a movie, sometimes I can't. I can never tell which way it's goign to go. Is it the skill of a writer? Is the mood I'm in when I first watch the movie? I don't know. I just think Shyamalan finds what he wants in an ending and builds the rest of the movie the best he can. I think his mind is more tuned into ways of telling a story, which he does quite well at times, instead of tuned into science fiction. It doesn't seem to be his thing. Sure, Shyamalan is smart, but there are many kinds of smart. ;)

.


I actually saw the Sixth Sense for the first time in forever about a week ago. I am sure its easy to forget but it is explained that the dead simply trick themselves into thinking they are still alive and they just seem to ignore or deny that they are dead. But yeah the water thing was stupid in Signs. Its easier to believe in War of the Worlds since it is possible that the aliens could have not known how the bacteria would effect them over a long period of time.

[JBond]

Oh no, I remembered that line. And to me, that line is jamming a square peg into a round hole and covering it with daises. The only reason it kind of works is because M. Night has the advantage of no one knowing what it's like to be dead. You can make up any properties about it that you want, eppecially ones that make movies work. The only way they will actually work though is if they are intuitive in some way. And if a "dead brain" can solve murders, I would think it could realize he has no interaction with the world.

[SaltyDog]

"War of the Worlds".....the special effects were awesome but the overall film was a second rate effort from an A-list director and cast. Major Disappointment.

[Panther2000]

The son not dying isn't near as unbelievable as that man using a camcorder right after all electronics were wiped out from the EMP.

Yeah, people really did not catch on to that one.


Frankly, being a massive fan os SS. He should have left WOTW alone.

The movie sucked big time. From the Updated version of 9/11 takeoff for this movie( Being a New Yorker who had a front row seat on 9/11, That kind of pissed me off to start with) :angry: & the acting & the characters themselves all SUCKED big time.

Frankly, the original movie was much better. Even with it's outdated visuals & stuff. It was still better than SS version.

& the fans pretty much felt the same way. It was a flop that was a hit( go figure).

[JBond]

The visuals for the orignal are outdated, but damn, if they're not good for the time. I was impressed.

[FVD]

I enjoyed Spielberg's take on WotW. I hadn't felt frightened in a long time when I saw the first attack in NY. That was well conceived filmmaking. As for the book well I do need to read it myself. I wasn't at all bothered by the ending. It thought it made perfect sense whether the idea was outdated or not. The Martians couldn't breathe in our atmosphere. Case closed.

Speaking on the subject of WotW, the Jeff Wayne WotW musical is coming to town at the end of the month. It's a classic album and I do hope I get the chance to check out the concert. Some new CG footage not to mention some revolutionary holographic projection of the late Richard Burton narrating what he did on the album. Also Justin Hayward of Moody Blues fame and Chris Thompson of Manfred Mann fame are returning to reprise their roles. It's gonna be spectacular. Been listening to the CD alot at the moment. Whoever it is that's filling the shoes of the late Phil Lynott better do a good job. :redface:

[Superchunk]

Bacteria in earth's atmosphere diseased them and they died. The reason we are alive on Earth is that we've evolved for over billions of years along with bacteria forming a symbiotic relationship with them. The aliens didn't have this.

It's meant to be a very scientific and realistic solution to an alien invasion problem, but many people didn't liek it.

Lies, there is no such thing as evolution and the Earth is only around 6-9 thousand years old!!! :alien: :csgrin:

[JBond]

I thought it was 6,000.

[raymond325]

I like this kind of movies very much, and these days I was watching it

[PsYkOoOoO]

I enjoyed Spielberg's take on WotW. I hadn't felt frightened in a long time when I saw the first attack in NY. That was well conceived filmmaking. As for the book well I do need to read it myself. I wasn't at all bothered by the ending. It thought it made perfect sense whether the idea was outdated or not. The Martians couldn't breathe in our atmosphere. Case closed.



Oh yeah, definitely. I remember thinking to myself "What if?" after that scene. Doesn't usually happen for other alien films.

[Escape]

Bacteria in earth's atmosphere diseased them and they died. The reason we are alive on Earth is that we've evolved for over billions of years along with bacteria forming a symbiotic relationship with them. The aliens didn't have this.

It's meant to be a very scientific and realistic solution to an alien invasion problem, but many people didn't like it.


I was first bothered by that idea because these are highly advanced Aliens traveling millions of light years to here to destroy at will. I at first thought "how the hell can someone so advanced never hear of bacteria and logically, check out an inhabited planet for deadly ones. But someone who read the book told me they never ever encountered Bacteria, even on their world so I suppose I can allow my imagination to get through it. But then there are bacteria's in space too so they surely must have encountered it during another planet take over in the past. Other than that, I loved the remake plenty.

My biggest annoyance was his kid's foolish desire to walk straight into the battle leaving his kid sister and father behind. What was he planning to do without a weapon of any kind anyways. :rolleyes:

[rosncranz]

My biggest annoyance was his kid's foolish desire to walk straight into the battle leaving his kid sister and father behind. What was he planning to do without a weapon of any kind anyways. :rolleyes:


The whole point was to show how young men often want to go off to war, this is made even more obvious by the fact that when Tom Cruise grabs his son's leg and you see he's wearing combat boots. In the rest of the film he is wearing something else, Converse's I think.

[Escape]

The whole point was to show how young men often want to go off to war,
Yeah I dunno. It just seemed out of place there is all. Why was that point needed to be made. I mean, there are allot of other young men out there who'd rather stay and help his family survive the attack rather than desert them. I think it could have went a few directions and that one bothered me the most I suppose.

this is made even more obvious by the fact that when Tom Cruise grabs his son's leg and you see he's wearing combat boots.In the rest of the film he is wearing something else, Converse's I think.
Hey, good eye on catching him wearing the army boots rosncranz. ;)

I've watched this film a few times and never noticed that once. I'll look for that the next time.

[drzarius]

I was first bothered by that idea because these are highly advanced Aliens traveling millions of light years to here to destroy at will. I at first thought "how the hell can someone so advanced never hear of bacteria and logically, check out an inhabited planet for deadly ones. But someone who read the book told me they never ever encountered Bacteria, even on their world so I suppose I can allow my imagination to get through it. But then there are bacteria's in space too so they surely must have encountered it during another planet take over in the past. Other than that, I loved the remake plenty.

My biggest annoyance was his kid's foolish desire to walk straight into the battle leaving his kid sister and father behind. What was he planning to do without a weapon of any kind anyways. :rolleyes:

I thought that was incredibly stupid of them as well and totally unbelievable. I found it as believable as Independance Day's premise of uploading a 'virus' into an advanced alien technology. Sure, you can explain and rationalize how it may or could happen, but that doesn't really make it more believable or acceptable.

Overall, I thought WotW was loud and boring. The characters were quirky, the acting was stiff and the plot and pacing were on rails. It felt more like a Disney ride ala Pirates of the Caribbean. Maybe if he (Cruise) had escaped/encountered certain death 30 fewer times than he had, it'd be more palatable/believable/less like a theme-park ride.

[Escape]

I thought that was incredibly stupid of them as well and totally unbelievable. I found it as believable as Independance Day's premise of uploading a 'virus' into an advanced alien technology. Sure, you can explain and rationalize how it may or could happen, but that doesn't really make it more believable or acceptable.

Overall, I thought WotW was loud and boring. The characters were quirky, the acting was stiff and the plot and pacing were on rails. It felt more like a Disney ride ala Pirates of the Caribbean. Maybe if he (Cruise) had escaped/encountered certain death 30 fewer times than he had, it'd be more palatable/believable/less like a theme-park ride.

Honestly though as much as I have some gripes with that film, I still enjoyed it immensely more so than a lot of other folks. Even Independence Day I liked though that uploading a virus deal was a bit much. Sometimes I just take many films for just plain fun so I can enjoy them more even if I do have complaints now and then. That is normal for me to look for illogical errors in movies anyways.

[IanTheCool]

I just finished reading the book and was impressed by just how much from the book was in the movie. I mean sure they are set 100 years apart and the movies in US not england, but a lot of it was very similar. There were a lot of little things too, like the birds pecking at the tripods when they're dying, the crazy guy in the basement he has to kill, the ferry crossing, the arm taht looks for them in the basement, the red vine growing everywhere, the "hoom" sound they make, all kinds of stuff

[PsYkOoOoO]

I just finished reading the book and was impressed by just how much from the book was in the movie. I mean sure they are set 100 years apart and the movies in US not england, but a lot of it was very similar. There were a lot of little things too, like the birds pecking at the tripods when they're dying, the crazy guy in the basement he has to kill, the ferry crossing, the arm taht looks for them in the basement, the red vine growing everywhere, the "hoom" sound they make, all kinds of stuff

Woah, I completely missed the part about the bird. Got to watch it again I guess.

[Clark Savage Jr]

The movie overall was pretty good....my main complaint was that Cruise's character was such a SOB.