Talk:War of the Worlds (2005 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Oligvy Guy

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

At one point that guy, Oligvy, says that one of the tripods was brought down in Osaka, Japan. I thought perhaps that many people interperet that the character originally was captured by the aliens but escaped, or something like that. I think there might of been some critical interperetation of that part, is there?

Xaritix 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

There's one bit of trivia that refers to the trumpet sound of the Tripods as a minor third. How can it be a minor third if there's no key to reference the sound? If the note's an A flat, for example, it's a major first in the key of A flat or a major third in the key of E natural. If there's no citable source for this from someone on the development team of the movie who says the trumpet note is a minor third in the key of whatever, I'd suggest removing it, or at least stating the actual pitch of the sound.
Watemon 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that in "Other possible sources", the "Striders" from Half-Life 2 be mentioned, apart from looking like the tripods (although this is probably because the Striders themselves are homage to H.G Wells' tripods) the sound is quite similar. Enough to be a "possible source", I would have thought.


Note from a music person: A minor third is an interval, the relationship between two notes. It doesn't matter what key it's in. It's like measuring something as "an inch."

[edit] Liberal Borrowing Of Ideas?

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

There is a scene where Tom Cruise allows himself to be taken by the tripod so he can toss grenades inside the machine and save his human companions from their impending doom. That is not in the original book version of "War of the Worlds".

A very similiar scene however is in popular book "White Mountain" (of the "Tripod" Series) by John Christopher, first published in the 1960s.

One of the protagonists of "White Mountain" allows himself to be grasped by the alien tripod and brought nearly inside the tripod so he can toss grenades inside for the outer shell is impervious to attack. By doing so he becomes the first character to show the aliens can be defeated and he also ensures the survival of his companions for the time being. Is there any credit given in the current film to John Christopher?

The Tom Cruise character is taken by the tripod not in an attempt to destroy it, but rather, to try to save his daughter who has been taken by the tripod. He only thinks to take the grenades after he is picked to be sucked into the tripod from the cage. It really, to me anyway, was not so much a heroic act as quick thinking and a convinient opportunity, although he does grab the grenades, he only thinks to use them as he sees them as he is being sucked up. Bytebear 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, whereas in The White Mountains the characters deliberately use grenades in an attempt to bring down thr tripod. (Man, I loved those books). Battle Ape 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time frame

Exactly how many days go by in the movie? Also, what time is it when the film starts? Is it 8:00 AM or PM?- JustPhil 20:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, by my count about 4 days pass, but because scenes change and looking at how much the aliens have covered the ground, it could be longer and they just didn't show those scenes. In the beginning it's 8 AM, by the time Ray goes to bed about a hour could've passed maybe less, then he sleeps for a while, so it seems the aliens attack around mid-afternoon or so. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 20:32, 08 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remake?

All right, rather than keep bitching back and forth about this, I'd rather take the high ground and make an attempt for there to be some kind of discussion on whether this film is a remake because a certain person insists on it and seems awfully fussy when it's removed. I don't honestly believe that it is a remake, seeing as how using that word implies that Spielberg and Koepp made a film based heavily on the original 1953 film. But in all interveiws, both speak more of taking their influence (nearly exclusively, I dare say) from the original Wells novel than they do of the 1953 film (in fact, Koepp himself doesn't speak too highly of it in general); Hell, in an interview, even Ann Robinson distances the two films. Yes, there are a few visual connections, but this is what we call an homage to what many consider a classic film. This film clearly has more similarities with the book than with the previous film. And if this film should be listed as a remake simply because it relies on the same source material, than we might as well categorise the Pendragon film as such, which is also adapted from the novel, despite that it is a period piece and would look awfully odd tagged this way. And I don't see the person who keeps adding it touching The Thing, which is another film that is almost entirely different from its predocessors, but based on a similar source. And should I mention this article as a whole never alludes to the word "remake"? --Bacteria 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Remake" implies that the original film was the definitive source, but it is clear that the novel is the ultimate source of Spielberg's film. Yes, I would say that Spielberg was likely inspired here and there by the previous film version -- he is, after all, a director, not an author -- and that's to be expected. But since Spielberg's film clearly has more in common with the original novel than the 1953 film, it obviously can't be called a "remake" of the film. (i.e. You would never call Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings a "remake" of the Ralph Bakshi cartoon, even though some shots and plot changes are copied straight from the cartoon... it's still more about the original book than the movie.) - Mecandes 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Remake actually means making something again regardless if the origanal movie was followed or not. That's the same as claming as song isn't a cover version (or remake) because the singer never heard the origanal recording and based their version soley on hearing the writer sing it to them. Wheather people here see it as a remake or add it into the article or not makes no diffrence, it just goes to so wikipedia has little need for fact and is more an opnion based site based on the opnions of most of the people who take part on the site, rather than real facts. 74.65.39.59 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spielberg does put some specific homages to the the 1953 film, which should be taken into account as support for the term "remake". According to IMDB:

  • Gene Barry and Ann Robinson from the 1953 original play the Grandparents.
  • In the cellar, note the multi-colored lights just prior to the probe entering. This references the red, blue and green lights from the probe in the 1953 version of the film, though no part of the probe in this film emits any of those colors.
  • When Ray (Tom Cruise) first encounters the aliens, there is a street sign behind him displaying "Van Buren". Van Buren was the surname of Ann Robinson's character in the The War of the Worlds (1953).
  • [T]he news reporter's line, "Once they begin to move, no more news comes out of that area," is taken directly from The War of the Worlds (1953).
  • [T]he scenes with the probe examining the basement followed by the inquisitive aliens. Tom Cruise chops the head off the probe with an ax just as Gene Barry did in the original.
  • [T]he shot of the dying alien's arm coming down the ramp is a reference to a similar shot in the original film.

I have added these to the article. Bytebear 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "Trivia" section, much is discussed with similarities to both the novel and the 1953 movie. I think these points should be merged into the section "Source Material". Bytebear 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Inscriptions

After the Tom Cruise character and his daughter were captured by a Tripod, they were placed in a holding basket (one of two hanging from the Tripod's head). During that scene, some interesting alien inscriptions on the bottom of the Tripod's head can be seen (it looks vaguely like Arabic). Has anyone tried to make sense out of it?

Egg plant 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all,I think the inscriptions looks more like Korean...however,I don't make any idea of what is written,but I suspect to be just like "Holding Basket 1 & 2" or someting.

It just looks like any alien script that people often associated with UFO's and the grey's.- JustPhil 13:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who knows really. Maybe the point was to show the differences between our species. Also, in the novel, after the clyinder lands, the narator states how difficult it would be to translate inscpriptions, if any. jump5guy89 1:58p.m., 2 May 2006

Does anyone have any screenshot or something to show that? I never really caught that really. Also, at the end when that door thing opens and the alien guy comes out and dies, I noticed some inscription stuff on the inside of that door thingie

Xaritix 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reaction

Only the 1st paragraph in this section specifies who the critics are. The rest makes specific criticisms and attributes it to 'many critics'. The 'literary experts' para is especially dubious. These criticisms need sources to avoid being removed. Ashmoo 04:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, these tripods were already in the ground- had been so possibly for hundreds of years. How is it possible they were never discovered? And, the aliens were transported to them via the lightning?? Why would an invading force stage its weapons centuries ahead? Why not simply take the earth then? This whole thing implies these guys didnt need earth in any kind of hurry. Thoughts??

Martian

Hey Martian, Think it was actually MILLIONS of years. And yes youre right, that would have been found (you'd think). I didn't think about this but it really doesn't make any sense that this invading force pre-staged their weapons that far ahead. Unless they just forgot about them?/ I don't know? Glenfiddichriley - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.111.147 (talk • contribs).

Well, none of that was ever confirmed, it was all just people speculating. Heck, everything they said about origin was just people speculating. Whenever there are disasters people like to come up with theories which may explain things, but that doesn't ever really turn out to be true. Who knows, the martian machines may have been sent in through the lightning with the martians themselves, the martian weapon that took out electronic devices may have not just been an EMP, but something else... the problem with this movie isn't the plotholes, but more people having to take everything said to them literally. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw an interview by Spielberg where he confimrs the tripods were already in the ground. So its a plothole, a big one, and it doesnt make sense and is not worthy of Spielberg. Like the guy said before, if you invading a place, you're not wouldnt place your weapons there thousands to millions of years ahead of time!

Sad part was that Ogilvy's squizophrenic explanation of the tripods is actually the most logical explanation in explaining how the hell a tripod the size of building got underground to begin with. The logic of "oh but you dont know if those were plotholes they could be something else" could work pretty well in any other movie with plotholes and is more a sign of ignorance (sadly) rather than anything else (even for something as science fiction), you are basicly telling us not to question the movie, not to think but accept it or to create positive theories that could explain these logical plotholes in a summer blockbuster. The fact is that WOTW was rushed up, and a lot of things werent given much of a thought to begin with.


That actually says it best. They got rushed and started slapping things together. Parts of it were almost as bad as the dean emmerich (sp) crud (Godzilla, ID4,etc). Thanks for all the discussion!

Martian

Thought I'd chime in and note that the reason the "not explained" aspect is brought up so much for this film is because unlike most sci-fi films, it doesn't really attempt to offer a detailed exposition. The appeal is that this is basically the film's intent to stick to limited point-of-view, as it the novel (where the character, though more giving in information, is itself based much on theory and leaves a few unexplained details). Not that this defense will change opinions, but there was thought put into the ideas, even if they aren't logical from every angle. The goal was to approach the story, and alien invasion stories in general, from a different perspective and have the audience react to things different than how they've been depicted dozens of hunderds of times before. When the aim is drama over flawless details, the result always has critics. Take that however you want. --Bacteria 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] academy award ?

Really?, wow... man, i had no idea it was nominated for an academy award, in fact... no else had any idea it was nominated for an academy award!. The nominations were best sound and special effects and another one that no gives a crap either, so WHY, if it was just nominated (and didnt even won), does it say that it was "nominated" for an academy award??. A real nomination for an academy award is "best movie", "best director" or "best actor/actress" (or even script), THOSE are real nominations that people care about, that movie producers decide to place in posters when promoting a movie (any idea how lame it sounds "nominated for sound editing"?, i didnt even know that was a category).

A nomination is a nomination, regardless of category. There's no such thing as a "real" nomination any more than there is such a thing as a "fake" nomination.- jcomp489
No, but there are such things as less important nominations, the phrase is there just to defend the movie, everyone knows it, its amateurish no matter how you look at it. In a encyclopedic article, information is supposed to be based either in common knoledge or in actual important knoledge, while i would find strange that anyone would remember WOTW's 3 forgetable nominations, i also find it strange that its even mentioned at the start of the article (where we are supposed to mention a short summary about the most important things of a given article). By stating that it was nominated for 3 academy awards at the start of the article, we are basicly saying that one of the most important things that WOTW has going (i like it how they always use the criptic term "academy award nominated", without really specifiying any sort of nomination whatsoever, could be from best director to best actor, yet its not, its 3 little categories and it didnt even won). WOTW's article is clearly stuck in "B" for little fancruft details such as that. If we read articles that are better rated, better elaborated than this one, articles such as "Blade Runner", "Casablanca", "Jaws" or "Star wars episode 1,2,3". All of them listed as Featured Articles (the highest rating in wikipedia), NONE of them stating in their first line as an "Academy Award-nominated movie", Blade Runner had 2 oscar nominations, Casablanca won best picture (and 2 other awards), Episodes 1,2,3 were also nominated for oscars and Jaws won one Oscar and was nominated for another oscar (best picture). Yet in the summary, no such thing as the word "Oscar" or "nominated" can be found (as nominations are usually placed in their respective sections). If you want to keep this article as poor and as amateurish as possible, fine by me, keep it running that way, but if you wish and hope that one day WOTW will be rated as a featured article, a lot of the fancruft stuff's gotta go, starting for "academy award nominated".
Well, if you feel that strongly about it, be bold. Right? jcomp489

Yes this film was nominated and should have won those awards! Visual Effects are the thing as Special Efeects! To be nominated for best visual effects is considered a great honor! choir_geek

All this big fuss and the fact is that the little bit was added by someone did likewise to Batman Begins and several other films articles about the same time - none of which, as far as I can tell, they have done any other work on before or after. --Bacteria 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of trivia

Is there a particular reason that much of the trivia was removed, especially concerning the use of real military personnel and equipment? At one point the article stated the varying types of military equipment, the participation of real US Marines, Army National Guard, and 10th Mountain Division, something very rarely seen in any production as usually the military doesn't like participating, and yet it was removed for some reason. I propose adding this information again to the article.--SOCL 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a crackdown on trivia on wikipedia. Several articles have had trivia sections neutered or at least have had tags marking them for removal. To some extent, I can understand as this gives too much room for lazy additions. This article still needs a good deal of work, and I think some of it can be benefited by being integrated into appropriate parts of the article. Some of it, honestly, are too trivial and can be better served by removal all together. --Bacteria 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been much criticism against wikipedia for having sensationalist articles instead of encyclopedic ones. Trivia sections all in all are sensationalist in nature, little pieces of unnecesary information, usually presented in rather poor made lists, that usually are bigger in size than the rest of the article. Yeah, i got no problem with any trivia section being erased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.236.42.157 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm removing the trivia regarding posters being put up to find loved ones being similar to 9/11. I'd hardly regard this as trivia and more like stating the obvious. It also specifically states that this is similar to the aftermath of 9/11, when it actual fact this is common after any catastrophe that has occured in recent times and in no way unique to 9/11.--Santahul 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

By accident, I came across this script. It's dated June 16, 2001, which comes close to the time the first sign of the Spielberg film was announced. However, this Naven Bradford - forget looking for him on IMDb. I did a bear search of just his name, and got only about five or six results, all of which seem to relate to copies of this script. And I only recall three names in total who had any association with writing this film, none of which are him. Anyone have any idea about the origins of this script, or if it even has any relation to the Spielberg project? --Bacteria 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just flicked through that script and couldn't really see anything to suggest that it is anyway related to the Spielberg story. Granted the ferry scene is similar, but thats probably a coincidence with both being based on the evacuation of London by boat from the novel. The rest of the similarities I think are simply because they are both based on the original novel.--Santahul 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't word that right. What I meant, was this at any point connected to the Cruise/Spielberg project, much like Peter Briggs who never made it to the pre-production stages. Or this a part of another unrealised film? It's just the 2001 date that makes me thing there's a connection, but am put off that his name barely makes a dent in any searches and only associated with this script. --Bacteria 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Talk%7EWar_of_the_Worlds_%282005_film%29_13ca.html"