1billsfan Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I just saw WOTW and realized why I never watch Sci-fi movies.....SPOILER ALERTthe movie was terrible...what in the hell did the aliens want? If you were an alien, wouldn't you go directly to the Playboy mansion??? How did they die? Did they all get HIV from some person they ate? How did crazy Tim Robbins house not get blown up, when they were blowing up everything in sight? How did 5 secretaries and some army dude pull Tom Cruise out of the alien? Did anyone else want to punch Robbie in the face? How ridiculous was the stealing of the van scene? Also how did they get a perfect route out of NYC, when 100,000 cars were broken down??? How was it that all of the east coast was devastated, yet Tom Cruises ex and her family look as if they just had crumpets and tea....I give it a 3/10.... 374600[/snapback] ...and what's up with that Superman guy? A man can't fly and have all them super human powers! Sheesh!! If you're going to pick apart what's non-realistic about sci-fi movies maybe you shouldn't bother in the first place.
Fan in Chicago Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 ...and what's up with that Superman guy? A man can't fly and have all them super human powers! Sheesh!! If you're going to pick apart what's non-realistic about sci-fi movies maybe you shouldn't bother in the first place. 374941[/snapback] I am one of those that ragged on the logic of the sci-fi. I love sci-fi movies and agree that they are not realistic cinema. But hey, can they atleast be logical ? See my previous post (with heavy spoilers) to see what my major complaints are. Spielberg's Minority Report was excellent so was Jurassic Park - niether of them were realistic (at least right now) but they held together very well.
taterhill Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I am one of those that ragged on the logic of the sci-fi. I love sci-fi movies and agree that they are not realistic cinema. But hey, can they atleast be logical ? See my previous post (with heavy spoilers) to see what my major complaints are. Spielberg's Minority Report was excellent so was Jurassic Park - niether of them were realistic (at least right now) but they held together very well. 375045[/snapback] exactly
rockpile Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 ...and what's up with that Superman guy? A man can't fly and have all them super human powers! Sheesh!! If you're going to pick apart what's non-realistic about sci-fi movies maybe you shouldn't bother in the first place. 374941[/snapback] Good science fiction begins with good science. Good fantasy begins by defining the "scientific" laws of the fantasy realm, and having your characters function within the laws you establish (which is why I, Robot was disappointing). I would say Supes is 90% fantasy and 10% science, btw. He was created by a couple of kids about 1939-1940. Not a great analogy. HG Wells was a scientist. The original term science fiction was coined (I believe) by Hugo Gernsback in the 1920's, and was an abbreviated form of scientific fiction. OK, now back to everyone's rants. WOTW could not have been butchered worse than Wells' Food of the Gods or the more recent The Time Machine.
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Good science fiction begins with good science. Good fantasy begins by defining the "scientific" laws of the fantasy realm, and having your characters function within the laws you establish (which is why I, Robot was disappointing). I would say Supes is 90% fantasy and 10% science, btw. He was created by a couple of kids about 1939-1940. Not a great analogy. HG Wells was a scientist. The original term science fiction was coined (I believe) by Hugo Gernsback in the 1920's, and was an abbreviated form of scientific fiction. OK, now back to everyone's rants. WOTW could not have been butchered worse than Wells' Food of the Gods or the more recent The Time Machine. 375067[/snapback] Now were getting into the percentages of what's science and what's fantasy? War of the Worlds was a very good, almost great, sci-fi film. Even down to it's "scientific" ending of what happens to the aliens. I'm glad I don't feel the need to view sci-fi movies with a slide rule and a protractor.
CosmicBills Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Now were getting into the percentages of what's science and what's fantasy? War of the Worlds was a very good, almost great, sci-fi film. Even down to it's "scientific" ending of what happens to the aliens. I'm glad I don't feel the need to view sci-fi movies with a slide rule and a protractor. 375207[/snapback] For me, it's all about story. Sci-fi or comedy...it doesn't matter. Give me a good story and I am a happy man. That's why WOTW fell flat for me. It had serious story issues that kept poping up. The surface stuff was great (special effects, sound, acting, etc). I was tense for a large part of the movie thanks to the digital wizardry. However, the story issues kept me from being fully engrossed in the film. The movie isn't so much about an alien invasion as it is about Ferrier's family (or lack there of). An interesting idea that makes for good drama, but they didn't go all the way with it. It just petered out into nothing (as did the alien invasion). When a story isn't sound, the holes appear to be much bigger. Ordinarily I wouldn't have minded the little plot holes (the whole "tripods were here before man" thing, the blood sucking plot that was never -excuse the pun- fleshed out fully, the bloody vines, how Robbie survives and makes it to Boston etc etc etc). All those things wouldn't be an issue if I was fully engrossed in the main story of Ferrier and his kids. But no, the movie never made up its mind about what it was really about. An invasion? A family? Thus, they wound up with two flapping strands of two seperate stories with no satisfying resolution in sight. That is why the end feels rushed...and that is what keeps it from being anything more than a special effects demo reel.
Simon Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Just got back from seeing it, and maybe I'm getting old and jaded but I was disappointed to repeatedly find myself trying to figure out how much of the 2hrs was left. I never found myself involved in it and as a result it was just sort of boring.
dib Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 anybody see "Watch the skies" on Turner classic tonight? I think I saw almost all of those old sci-fi movies.
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 For me, it's all about story. Sci-fi or comedy...it doesn't matter. Give me a good story and I am a happy man. That's why WOTW fell flat for me. It had serious story issues that kept poping up. The surface stuff was great (special effects, sound, acting, etc). I was tense for a large part of the movie thanks to the digital wizardry. However, the story issues kept me from being fully engrossed in the film. The movie isn't so much about an alien invasion as it is about Ferrier's family (or lack there of). An interesting idea that makes for good drama, but they didn't go all the way with it. It just petered out into nothing (as did the alien invasion). When a story isn't sound, the holes appear to be much bigger. Ordinarily I wouldn't have minded the little plot holes (the whole "tripods were here before man" thing, the blood sucking plot that was never -excuse the pun- fleshed out fully, the bloody vines, how Robbie survives and makes it to Boston etc etc etc). All those things wouldn't be an issue if I was fully engrossed in the main story of Ferrier and his kids. But no, the movie never made up its mind about what it was really about. An invasion? A family? Thus, they wound up with two flapping strands of two seperate stories with no satisfying resolution in sight. That is why the end feels rushed...and that is what keeps it from being anything more than a special effects demo reel. 375300[/snapback] Still haven't seen the movie but help me out - OK, if the tripods were here before man (which seems to be the big break from the book - where giant cylinders crash into the earth and slowly begin to unscrew their tops.....), doesn't that mean the classic germs ending won't work? If they've been here for "a million years" or whatever, they'd have the immunity to the germs or at least plenty of time to invent Martian Nyquil or whatever.
CosmicBills Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Just got back from seeing it, and maybe I'm getting old and jaded but I was disappointed to repeatedly find myself trying to figure out how much of the 2hrs was left.I never found myself involved in it and as a result it was just sort of boring. 375316[/snapback] That all goes back to the story problems IMO. It never decided what it was really about, so morphed into a story about nothing.
CosmicBills Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Still haven't seen the movie but help me out - OK, if the tripods were here before man (which seems to be the big break from the book - where giant cylinders crash into the earth and slowly begin to unscrew their tops.....), doesn't that mean the classic germs ending won't work? If they've been here for "a million years" or whatever, they'd have the immunity to the germs or at least plenty of time to invent Martian Nyquil or whatever. 375321[/snapback] They get around that by having only the machines there. The pilots are beamed down into them through the lightning storms. So you can assume the pilots aren't immune. The problem with the machines being there first, from a story standpoint, is that it makes no sense. If they wanted the planet badly enough to PLAN this invasion before man was ever here...why hide the tripods? Why not take the planet then when there was no resistence?
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 They get around that by having only the machines there. The pilots are beamed down into them through the lightning storms. So you can assume the pilots aren't immune. The problem with the machines being there first, from a story standpoint, is that it makes no sense. If they wanted the planet badly enough to PLAN this invasion before man was ever here...why hide the tripods? Why not take the planet then when there was no resistence? 375326[/snapback] Continuing the yellow text storm.... If they have the technology to "beam" the pilots down into tripods, why do they even have tripods? Wouldn't there be an even more mind-blowing way of taking over our planet than with buried tripods? Why not just beam cool, newer machines down along with the pilots whenever it does become necessary to take over? And, yeah, why bury the weapons there at all? Is there a storage problem on Mars? You're right. The whole thing is really, really stupid. Now, if this were a different movie and it was about 'aliens' coming out of the ground to take over the earth, that would be pretty awesome! You just can't use the germs ending....
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Continuing the yellow text storm.... If they have the technology to "beam" the pilots down into tripods, why do they even have tripods? Wouldn't there be an even more mind-blowing way of taking over our planet than with buried tripods? Why not just beam cool, newer machines down along with the pilots whenever it does become necessary to take over? And, yeah, why bury the weapons there at all? Is there a storage problem on Mars? You're right. The whole thing is really, really stupid. Now, if this were a different movie and it was about 'aliens' coming out of the ground to take over the earth, that would be pretty awesome! You just can't use the germs ending.... 375344[/snapback] The movie made a lot more sense than using yellow text on a white background.
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 The movie made a lot more sense than using yellow text on a white background. 375395[/snapback] We're using yellow text on the white background because we're discussing the plot (and ending) in detail so if anyone who clicks on this thread who hasn't seen the movie or read the book won't be spoiled. You're supposed to highlight it to read it.
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 We're using yellow text on the white background because we're discussing the plot (and ending) in detail so if anyone who clicks on this thread who hasn't seen the movie or read the book won't be spoiled. You're supposed to highlight it to read it. Use the internet much? 375465[/snapback] You got me Fletch...however, your bashing of WOTW, a film you've never seen, is much more embarassing than my faus paus.
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 You got me Fletch...however, your bashing of WOTW, a film you've never seen, is much more embarassing than my faus paus. 375509[/snapback] Uh-huh. I hardly think talking about major plot changes from book to movie that don't make sense counts as "bashing" but whatever. I haven't talked about the film one bit, except that I don't like that major plot change because I don't see how the ending could work or be as effective. Then again, I guess this is the trouble I'm asking for when I actually read books and understand how the internet works.
nick in* england Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 You got me Fletch...however, your bashing of WOTW, a film you've never seen, is much more embarassing than my faus paus. 375509[/snapback] hehehe a double 'faus paus' now...! you spelled faux pas incorrectly.
taterhill Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 You got me Fletch...however, your bashing of WOTW, a film you've never seen, is much more embarassing than my faus paus. 375509[/snapback] I have seen it...it blows
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Uh-huh. I hardly think talking about major plot changes from book to movie that don't make sense counts as "bashing" but whatever. I haven't talked about the film one bit, except that I don't like that major plot change because I don't see how the ending could work or be as effective. Then again, I guess this is the trouble I'm asking for when I actually read books and understand how the internet works. 375536[/snapback] Maybe you should re-read your yellow text storm again. You bashed the entire movie in that post. ...btw, sorry I don't understand every nuance of the internet, some people actually have a freakin life.
rockpile Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Now were getting into the percentages of what's science and what's fantasy? War of the Worlds was a very good, almost great, sci-fi film. Even down to it's "scientific" ending of what happens to the aliens. I'm glad I don't feel the need to view sci-fi movies with a slide rule and a protractor. 375207[/snapback] You missed my point completely. I was responding to a reference to Superman. I was trying to explain that a good author establishes the "rules" that apply to his imagined world (science ficton or fantasy) in order to make the story believable. I have not seen the movie, and was not criticizing it. I do not view movies with a slide rule and protractor (I use an abacus) but thanks for assuming I am that anal.
Recommended Posts