Spielberg- had a gun or two in his new movie!


PDA






CentralTexas
July 3, 2005, 04:37 PM
After going back and digitally erasing guns from the cops in E.T. and ignoring the fact Schindler also gave the Jews guns once again old Spiel berg hacks me off. In War of the Worlds (which is good for that sort of thing) Tom get's his revolver from under the bed and it's in a lock box which he was able to set the combination on and get it out in half a second. Message? It causes no delay to get a gun out of a locked box in an emergency. Tom later uses it in self defense and has it taken away by another man with a gun. It's then used by another man to commit murder. Tim Robbins (Yes, Susan Sarandons hubby) is the only other person out of thousands (Beside the cops/army) with a gun on the whole east coast! Hmmmm, maybe that's kinda true. ;)
Anyway he is a nut case with a shotgun who if he has his way and fights back may endanger Cruise & daughter, true in the situation but still...
The aliens have landed and are killing us all and they are traveling between NY and Boston and nobody is fighting back but the authorities- message for us all? I wish I had Spielbergs home addy i would buy the loser a membership in the JFPO just to annoy him.
CT :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "Spielberg- had a gun or two in his new movie!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RomanKnight
July 3, 2005, 04:57 PM
Propagenda for victim disarment! No citizens are armed, no "civilians" fight back. None. Well, except one: Tim Robbins' character, and he's a looney, deserving to be killed... I knew there was something wrong, something missing, but couldn't pinpoint it. Half-way through the movie it hit me: all the sheeple do is run, no one fights back, nobody had guns and shot the aliens. The "professionals" -the Army/AF/Marines- do all the fighting, without much success, while the surviving population runs away. Another thing: why do people go back into the cities destroyed by aliens (Cruises' character goes to Boston), instead of spreading out into the countryside, a better place for escape, survival, and resistance? Message for the sheeple: stay in your cities, and .gov will take care of you!

Cesiumsponge
July 3, 2005, 05:07 PM
I've always been annoyed with Spielberg's filming methods. I think the multiple and annoyingly false endings in AI and Minority Report pushed me over the edge and I've ignored everything he has done since.

It seems like War of the Worlds just reinforces stereotypes a lot of people already hold today in that everything will be taken care of and they just need to sit back and leech.

Hypnogator
July 3, 2005, 05:34 PM
Spielberg! :barf: Don't get me started! :cuss:

Too late! :uhoh:

The Jurassic Park Trilogy -- clever children outwit ferocious dinosaurs while adults who have firearms are too incompetent to use them! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Disney is another. Went to see "The Pacifier" awhile back, at the $1 theater. Kinda enjoyable if you buy into the idea that a SEAL Lt never carries a gun and can always defeat armed opponents with clever judo moves. And a duck. :what:

High on the list of my reasons for wanting to write fiction is that my protagonists would have guns, and know how to use them.

AZRickD
July 3, 2005, 05:38 PM
Like most movies, if the director allowed the victims to have guns, it would make for a rather short movie.

The children in each J-Park movie were as annoying as can be. "This is UNIX. I know this!!" With tons of facial close-ups of awed or frightened children. Yikes.

Rick

The_Shootist
July 3, 2005, 07:25 PM
Well, I guess if Spielberg had set the movie in Texas he would have had to to shorten it by an hour or two :D .

Aliens or no aliens - getting a face full of .38spl/9mm would likely spoil your day whatever your planet of origin.

TODD3465
July 3, 2005, 07:33 PM
Yep and here in ARkansas as well. :evil:

Mad Man
July 3, 2005, 07:43 PM
The children in each J-Park movie were as annoying as can be. "This is UNIX. I know this!!"

Actually, FSN was a pro-type for a Unix GUI developed by Silicon Graphics.

http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d_navigator.html



3D File System Navigator for IRIX 4.0.1+

http://www.sgi.com/fun/images/fsn.map2.jpg


As seen in "Jurassic Park"!

fsn (pronounced fusion) is a file system navigator in cyberspace. It lays out the directories in a hierarchy with each directory represented by a pedestal. The height of the pedestal is proportional to the size of the files in the directory. The directories are connected by wires, on which it is possible to travel. On top of each directory are boxes representing individual files. The height of the box represents the size of the file, while the color represents the age.

Fsn is intended as an investigation in information landscape navigation. Although the file system was chosen as a system to navigate through, similar paradigms could be applied to other trees and graphs, such as call graphs.

Keep in mind that fsn is a prototype and an experiment. It is neither a full featured product nor a replacement for a filesystem manager such as Workspace.

Note: FSN only works on IRIX versions 5.3 and below.

Fsn is available via anonymous ftp (ftp://ftp.sgi.com/sgi/fsn) from our ftp server ftp.sgi.com in the directory ~ftp/sgi/fsn. There are 2 files in this directory:


-r--r--r-- 1 root 0 4718 Apr 8 1992 README
-r--r--r-- 1 root 0 304484 Mar 27 1992 fsn.tar.Z


fsn.tar.Z is a compressed tar file containing all the files needed to install and run fsn. README contains instructions for uncompressing, installing, and running fsn.

To obtain fsn via anonymous ftp, use user name "anonymous" and your email address as a password:


%ftp ftp.sgi.com
Enter user name: anonymous
Password: me@myhost.edu
ftp> cd sgi/fsn
ftp> get README
ftp> get fsn.tar.Z
ftp> quit

Mad Man
July 3, 2005, 07:48 PM
After going back and digitally erasing guns from the cops in E.T.


Because we know that federal LEOs would never use guns when going after children.

http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=26078 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/elian/)

I'm sure when Speilberg makes E.G. : The Little Alien, the MP5 will be replaced with a radio.

(If I had any PhotoShop skills, I'd do it myself.)

Cosmoline
July 3, 2005, 08:06 PM
SS has degenerated in every respect since his early years. Watch "Jaws" again. It's not only an amazingly good film, it contains none of the PC bravo sierra which came to characterize his later efforts. Not only is it not anti-gun, there's one scene where a man screams out in vain--"doesn't anyone have a gun?" as the shark swims right under a bridge. The film features an array of classic Garands, the chief's S&W revolver and of course the modified Martini-Henry harpoon gun. He started going soft as he rose in status from an outsider TV director to Sillywood's A list. IMHO even "Saving Private Ryan" is tainted by his soft underbelly. After the opening sequence the film completely loses its spine and becomes a remake of bits and pieces of classic WWII films.

I haven't seen WOTW, but it sounds similar to the abortive "Signs", where the action took place in some sort of alternate universe midwest where nobody owned a shotgun or rifle.

The most realistic SHTF film in recent years as far as firearms goes was the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. And the only reason the firearms were realistic was because the director insisted on it. Most Sillywood efforts either give everyone a Deagle and five subguns or completely disarm everyone.

Cesiumsponge
July 3, 2005, 08:26 PM
I'm sure when Speilberg makes E.G. : The Little Alien, the MP5 will be replaced with a radio.

All your radio are belong to us.

Joejojoba111
July 3, 2005, 09:16 PM
They erased the guns in ET? I didn't know that. Well, I don't quite believe you, but I maybe 65% believe you. Enough so I have to rent it now to see. No offence, but it is the internet...

scratchy wilson
July 3, 2005, 11:04 PM
Han shot first! :fire:

horge
July 3, 2005, 11:39 PM
Greedo didn't even shoot, actually.
Pre-revisionism, of course

kwelz
July 3, 2005, 11:40 PM
Sorry guys, I think you are looking for things to go after that just arn't there in this case. The movie was not about some Average Joe going on a one man rampage and defeating the Aliens. This was about the last remnants of Society surviving and trying to escape. This was not about "victim disarmament" or anything close to it. The people that had tried to fight back were already dead and gone.

Nevermind. I give up. I could go on for hours but some people are going to insist that any movie/book/TV show that doesn't have 50 armed citizens, is just trying to take away our guns or make America Hate guns.

chris in va
July 3, 2005, 11:47 PM
I just saw the movie tonight.

I actually timed TC's lock box open at a hair over 2 seconds...plenty of time to open a manual safe. That was certainly in line with reality.

I did notice however SS's possible anti showing in the scene with TC dropping his revolver, then having it used on a guy that stole his van. Then everyone stole the van. :rolleyes:

Of course TR is a crazy dude with a shotty and another possible weapon on the hip (?). Oh well.

I thought the movie was pretty good, especially the first 1/4. The ending...definitely needed work. :rolleyes:

Cesiumsponge
July 4, 2005, 12:04 AM
The ending...definitely needed work. :rolleyes:

He botched the ending of another movie? At least he gets points for sticking to a template.

If you Google up "Spielberg ET erased guns" or something to those lines, you'll find a lot of credible sources that mention they were digitally removed from the new version they did of the original ET. They also redubbed some parts...notably where the word "terrorist" was replaced with "hippie"

hksw
July 4, 2005, 12:52 AM
Just saw the movie. IMO, I agree with Azizza. This is a movie for the general masses. I don't understand the logic of having hoards of avenging law abiding American gun owners saving the day in every movie, particularly when it is not the center of the plot. I can understand the logic when seeing no-doubt anti-gun movies but in this instance, it wasn't the case. How did the original movie go?

You drive into an angry mob, fire two rounds from your revolver to get attention, someone points a gun at your head and tells you to drop it while you have the responsibility of the safety of your two kids. How would you handle it?

Only problems I saw was the guy using the camcorder when every electronic device should have been fried and the idea of the aliens previously burying the tripods millions of years beforehand. What, they couldn't develop new technology since then?

With that last alien crawling outta the hatch, I think I would have plugged him with a burst and said, "Take THAT to your leader mofo."

Hurray for the microorganisms.

Joejojoba111
July 4, 2005, 01:07 AM
Lol, I didn't think it was anti, just stupid people. So many of them. And the buried machines idea, that's new and stupid both! On the radio their was a 'metal cylinder' that flew from mars and stuck into the ground, and then a 'metal monster' crawled out.

Anyway I thought it was crazy that there were no firearms, too. Then I realized it was New York, that Tom Cruise's handgun was actually illegal.!!

So I don't think it's anti-gun, I think all the anti-gun people watching the movie would have wished they had an illegal handgun too, in that situation. Maybe some people will think about it and change their minds a bit.

But the amount of stupid people was amazing. Big metal monster that shoots lasers coming, ok lets struggle to get onto the biggest target to cross the river, for no real reason. Ok children still acting like idiots, don't understand the situation? No problem kids will be kids. Ok people all stand around a hole in the ground as cracks form, then run away, but stop 10 feet later and stand around and look some more, then run away 10 feet, then stop and look, then a monster comes out, and they run away, then stop and look... I know Americans are out of shape but Come On!

The only realistic part was where he killed Tim Robbins. That was out of a good movie, with real characters and stuff, and they took the clip and spliced it into WOTW.

And I love how the monsters spend countless amount of time searching every ruined house and basement, but doing a very poor job of it, instead of just tossing some space grenades in there.

Nightcrawler
July 4, 2005, 01:30 AM
Anti-gun? I don't think so. Well, Tim Robbins had to get his two bits in about occupations and whatnot, but he's a dipstick and is wont to do stuff like that.

The aliens so rarely came out of their war machines that small arms were all but useless anyway. I mean, if a 120mm smoothbore isn't going to get through that forcefield, a five-five-six from your tricked out AR isn't going to, either. Heh.

Which brings me to my next point. These forcefields envelop the war machines, yet their legs can march through buildings and such. Perhaps the legs are unprotected? Or perhaps Hollywood has yet to really stop and think about the invisible forcefield idea (you know, the magic ones that anything except bullets and missiles can get through). And how come when the tripod's pilot became sick his machine's force field stopped working?

I honestly would've preferred to see the human forces having some success (no silly force fields), but being overwhelmed and driven back.

The war machines seemed to have some kind of microwave gun as an antipersonnel weapon. I don't know what else could theoretically poof a person but not touch their clothes (also makes cars combust). Again, a good old-fashioned incinerating energy beam would've felt less...B-Movie. But I think Spielberg was trying to nod to the B-List alien invasion movies of yore.

People complaining about the ending...well, it's the same ending as the 60s movie version, and is pretty close to H.G. Wells' novel. It's an abrupt Deus Ex Machina.

The mob scene was pretty realistic, I think. When you've seen half of your town get incinerated and shock kicks in, rational behavior isn't going to be yoru forte anymore. Something like an alien invasion would be so hard for people to accept that mass hysteria and shock would be the order of the day.

And when seeing a 300 foot tall alien war machine coming over the hill to kill you, yeah, it's time to beat feet.

I wonder about the spraying blood deal and the red plant. I don't get it. Were the martians trying to...um...mars-iform Earth?

The thing I really wonder about is, if they buried the war machines ages ago, why not launch their invasion then when the world's population was 500 million total and we were still throwing spears at each other?

Still, I liked the flick. Much powerful imagery. The burning train scene struck a cord with me for some reason.

Odd note. Saw the flick in the City Center Mall in Doha, Qatar. Mostly thobe-clad locals in the audience. Scene where the girl sees the dead bodies floating down the river? They were roaring with laughter. :scrutiny:

Malice
July 4, 2005, 01:32 AM
I am confused about Tim Robbins and his shotgun. Was it an unloaded shotgun that he places ONE shell into? Or was it loaded to max cap minus 1 and he was topping it off? I dont understand. I saw the movie 2 times (not cuz i loved it) and that still bothers the heck out of me.

I can see why you might keep the chamber empty while toting it around a basement with a stranger and her 10 year old daughter, but unloaded, then loading it with 1 shell while 3-4 aliens roam your basement?

:confused:

Optical Serenity
July 4, 2005, 01:36 AM
Isn't most of hollywood like this? Gotta take movies with a grain of salt sometimes... But informative post...

Jeff
July 4, 2005, 01:46 AM
Cosmoline:
I haven't seen WOTW, but it sounds similar to the abortive "Signs", where the action took place in some sort of alternate universe midwest where nobody owned a shotgun or rifle.

Boy, you've got that right. I noticed that, too. M Night Shamalot is definitely anti-gun. His movies are pure Hollywood garbage. Like you said, "shotgun" or "rifle"....... it's not like I would have expected Gibson to pull out an MP5 or a USP. But can't we at least have an old pump scattergun, or a Winchester 94? Nah, no midwest farmers would ever own any of them. :rolleyes:

The most realistic SHTF film in recent years as far as firearms goes was the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. And the only reason the firearms were realistic was because the director insisted on it.

That is probably the most pro-gun Hollywood movie I have ever seen. It's a great zombie flick, too. One of the best.

TarpleyG
July 4, 2005, 09:00 AM
Okay, okay...don't get your panties in a wad. If you haven't seen the movie yet, you have no business speculating whether it is right or wrong that the people (sheeple) are just fleeing and doing nothing.

First of all the entire movie covers the span of a weekend. Aliens populate buried tripods and start blasting away. Tripods, coincidentally, are armored/shielded somehow and even hard artillery is useless. So, I guess you POS Glock .40 is going to be effective, right? Now, had the movie covered a longer period, I am sure an effective resistance could have been mounted.

Secondly, it appears that the aliens only come out of the tripods once they are reasonably sure the area is clear of human life. How do you propose to make a stand against them with your pistols, rifles, and shotguns? I don't care for Tim Robbins but I think his is the only character that had the right idea. Hunker down and wait it out. He wigged out and started making all sorts of noise and endangered them but aside from that, he had the best plan.

So, now, instead of bashing a movie most of you haven't seen, either pony up the bucks to see it for yourself and judge or STFU.

Greg

71Commander
July 4, 2005, 09:13 AM
In "Independence Day" the police made an announcment for people to stop shooting at the alien ship as it could trigger a intergalactic war. :evil:

hksw
July 4, 2005, 10:01 AM
Still, I liked the flick. Much powerful imagery.

Personally, I liked it too. Only minor problems but overall a good flick to see over a long weekend, IMO. Also, I think TC did an OK job in depicting a dad whose main concern is the safety of his kids and isn't the bold hero type. The idea of going to Boston was odd though, and why wasn't it leveled?

What I liked the best was the low frequency tone the tripods emitted. Very eerie and foreboding.

benEzra
July 4, 2005, 10:26 AM
My wife and I watched the movie and really enjoyed it. As far as gun content, I actually thought it was gun-neutral, not anti at all. The fact that the protagonist actually OWNS a handgun, and keeps it loaded and locked up (since young children frequent his house--I do the same, FWIW), and grabs it when SHTF, is actually quite refreshing. The part where he loses the gun isn't so much about guns, but about mobs (and in the situation he's in, I doubt any of us would have handled it much different, except to have tried to avoid the crowd to start with).

The ending...definitely needed work.
The ending was faithful to the book (remember, Spielberg didn't write this, H.G. Wells did). It always ticks me off when screenwriters change a well-known story because they think they can write a better one, like whoever the director was that screwed up Tom Clancy's Patriot Games. :cuss:

The point of the movie is that the aliens are so far ahead of us technologically, had been planning this for hundreds of years, and took us so completely by surprise, that we were completely unable to counter the attack. What finally does them in is just something that they didn't plan for (I'm not going to say exactly what, 'cause I don't want to spoil it for the people who might actually LIKE to see it and be surprised), but it is EXACTLY how Wells ended it, and every War of the Worlds fan on the planet would be really upset if Spielberg had changed the story to a Tom-Cruise-Saves-The-World ending. Kudos to Spielberg for making it as true to the original story as any 21st-century remake of a late-19th-century story could possibly be.

As far as why the aliens are doing what they're doing--the quote from Wells' book at the beginning of the movie clues you in. Their world is dying and they have been planning to relocate to Earth for thousands of years. They didn't pull the invasion before because they weren't ready to relocate yet. As far as the spraying, I take that as they were using us as fertilizer (maybe the plants on their world need lots of iron, or even heme, judging by the color).

The whole point of this movie is to explore what a "First Contact" would be like if the alien civilization we encountered were way ahead of us, had as little compunction about wiping us out as we would over wiping out an anthill, and wanted our habitat for their own. Spielberg had already done possibly-powerful-but-completely-harmless aliens (Close Encounters, E.T.), and this is the other side of the coin; the aliens aren't so much hostile or malevolent as completely indifferent. I personally thought it was very well done.

Ky Larry
July 4, 2005, 10:51 AM
Saw the movie last night. I still can't figure out why the mini-van T.C. stole was the only vehicle in the city that would run. Also, why did one cam corder still work after the aliens had shut down all electric power? All in all, the movie was entertaining. I enjoyed the scene of the burning train.

TarpleyG
July 4, 2005, 11:19 AM
The van ran because the mechanic had just changed out the starter solenoid. Remember seeing that little exchange right before TC went to look at the hole in the ground. I guess he had it stored such that an EMP wouldn't bother it. :rolleyes: I doubt many mechanics had just fixed too many cars in the brief moments before the attacks began. I, too, was perplexed about the video camera. Why didn't the EMP disable it along with everything else?

Greg

chris in va
July 4, 2005, 01:04 PM
Anyway I thought it was crazy that there were no firearms, too. Then I realized it was New York, that Tom Cruise's handgun was actually illegal.!!

Actually, my friend watching the movie with me is from Jersey and pointed out it was in Bayonne, across from NYC. Not that it makes it any more legal, but anyhoo...

Cesiumsponge
July 4, 2005, 01:55 PM
Why didn't the EMP disable it along with everything else?

Maybe it was stored in a pseudo-Faraday cage-type environment? You can combat EMP, RFI, and a host of everyday (or doomsday problems) with a simple Faraday cage. It costs next to nothing to rig up too. I had to throw one together for my computer network hub/router/portal in the garage since I used to run tesla coils and it'd interfere with my Internet and kept cutting it off for extended periods of time. It'd completely screw up TV interference too...bet the neighbors didn't know what was going on :cool:

Mad Man
July 4, 2005, 02:01 PM
CentralTexas wrote:

After going back and digitally erasing guns from the cops in E.T. and ignoring the fact Schindler also gave the Jews guns once again old Spiel berg hacks me off. In War of the Worlds (which is good for that sort of thing) Tom get's his revolver from under the bed and it's in a lock box which he was able to set the combination on and get it out in half a second. Message? It causes no delay to get a gun out of a locked box in an emergency.


Robby (the teenage son) was prone to getting in trouble and stealing things. Ray (Tom Cruise) would have been foolish not to have some type of lock box.


Joejojoba111 wrote:

They erased the guns in ET? I didn't know that. Well, I don't quite believe you, but I maybe 65% believe you. Enough so I have to rent it now to see. No offence, but it is the internet...


Internet Movie Data Base page for E.T.: http://imdb.com/title/tt0083866/

In the left column, there is a link for Trivia: http://imdb.com/title/tt0083866/trivia

Scroll down about halfway: "Spielberg is reported to have spent $100,000 digitally removing guns from the 2002 20th Anniversary re-release of the movie. He regretted using the scene and said he would remove it if he ever re-issued the film."


Nightcrawler wrote:

Which brings me to my next point. These forcefields envelop the war machines, yet their legs can march through buildings and such. Perhaps the legs are unprotected?


Perhaps it's the forcefields around the legs that are wrecking the buildings, and not the legs themselves.



TennTucker wrote:

In "Independence Day" the police made an announcment for people to stop shooting at the alien ship as it could trigger a intergalactic war.


A few hours ago, "the Bush regime attacked an innocent comet nearly 100 million miles from Earth in what was described as a 'pre-emptive strike' by Bush loyalists. (http://www.peeniewallie.com/2005/07/bush_launches_p.html)"

GEM
July 4, 2005, 02:01 PM
In "Independence Day" the police made an announcment for people to stop shooting at the alien ship as it could trigger a intergalactic war.

That was in Los Angeles! So no wonder, Ah-Nuld banned 50 BMG as it would have really annoyed the aliens. Also, a 50 would have toasted the Terminator - except for the liquid one.

In the book, the tripods were vulnerable to guns, they just outfought the Brits.

jdkelly
July 4, 2005, 02:03 PM
If you haven't seen the movie yet, you have no business speculating whether it is right or wrong that the people (sheeple) are just fleeing and doing nothing.---TarpleyG

Why not, they know what basics of what happened from us?


The van ran because the mechanic had just changed out the starter solenoid. Remember seeing that little exchange right before TC went to look at the hole in the ground. I guess he had it stored such that an EMP wouldn't bother it.---TarpleyG
It must have been stored a metal box. I thought EMP distroyed the electronics (semiconductors) and would have less effect on a solenoid (high current coil).



As far as gun content, I actually thought it was gun-neutral, not anti at all.---BenEzra

1) Gunowner victim can not defend self/family and loses revolver via criminals uses of semi-auto handgun.-Not a neutral message

2) Revolver is then used to commit murder by 2nd criminal.-Also not a neutral message.

The message seems to be that guns can't help and will be used to hurt someone.



Respectfully,

jkelly

Mad Man
July 4, 2005, 02:11 PM
In the book, the tripods were vulnerable to guns, they just outfought the Brits.


It's been 20 years since I read the book, but didn't the Royal Navy successfully engage some of the Martians in the Thames river (with paddle-wheel gunboats, if I recall correctly).

In any case, it looks like there is another (low budget) version that was just released on DVD a few days ago (although I haven't seen it in the stores).

http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0009PW4D2/qid=1120500518/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/002-4259534-9721633?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846



H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds is a quirky if well-meaning, labor-of-love adaptation of Wells' seminal 1898 science fiction novel. A website for the film's production company, Pendragon Pictures, explains that this version of Wells's thinly disguised prediction of World War I actually began as a modern-day variation on the story. Terrorist attacks in America on September 11, 2001, however, convinced co-writer and director Timothy Hines to set the project instead in the late 19th century period Wells imagined.

By coincidence, Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's contemporary take on War of the Worlds began production shortly after Hines's adjustment. While hardly a competitive threat to Spielberg's movie, Pendragon's War might have made an interesting complement to it. Unfortunately, Hines and company seriously blew their opportunity. While there is some money and impressive special-effects wizardry on the screen, this embarrassing, seemingly endless feature is doomed by a crazy effort to marry the look and texture of Silent Era epics to Computer Age manipulation. Not that War is a silent picture, mind you. But much of it is tinted in expressive rainbow hues that were common in films a century ago; the cast of unknowns' performances are mannered and exaggerated in a silly impression of pre-optical soundtrack acting; and primitive effects (e.g., printing a scene backwards for an ethereal feel) are unflattering. As if that's not bad enough, no one involved with this movie appears to know basic editing principles for compressing time and action. On the plus side, the extraterrestrial killers and their awesome machines of destruction are startling to behold. The image of Big Ben's clock tower blown apart over a flaming London is persuasive indeed. --Tom Keogh

Mad Man
July 4, 2005, 02:14 PM
1) Gunowner victim can not defend self/family and loses revolver via criminals uses of semi-auto handgun.-Not a neutral message

2) Revolver is then used to commit murder by 2nd criminal.-Also not a neutral message.

The message seems to be that guns can't help and will be used to hurt someone.


Yes. As soon as Tom Cruise pulled out the snubby .38, the sky should have darkened, trees should have wilted, the mob should have fled in terror, and and the aliens should have retreated back to their home planet.

Bejeezus!!!! Will those of you who think that (1) there is some anti-gun message in the movie and (2) American gun owners would have defeated the aliens lighten up and get a sense of perspective!!?? It's not all about you.

I'm as pro-gun as anyone, but you people make me embarrased to be part of the gun culture.

Mad Man
July 4, 2005, 02:18 PM
Nightcrawler wrote:
I wonder about the spraying blood deal and the red plant. I don't get it. Were the martians trying to...um...mars-iform Earth?

The thing I really wonder about is, if they buried the war machines ages ago, why not launch their invasion then when the world's population was 500 million total and we were still throwing spears at each other?


Ares (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/ares.html)form?

I was wondering that if they had been to earth thousands or millions of years ago, why not just collect some humans then, take them back to their home planet, and farm them?

It makes no sense to come to earth, leave their equipment, and then come back later to hunt and gather.

Jeff
July 4, 2005, 03:35 PM
Mad Man,

I totally disagree with your attitude. It seems as soon as a gun is written into a mainstream movie script, including those guns owned by protagonists and other law-abiding citizens, it almost never develops into a positive, healthy conclusion.

It's as if the writers/directors find it impossible to put gun ownership into a favorable light.

I haven't seen WotW, but if what jdkelly describes is accurate, then I would also describe the treatment as anti-gun as well.

Also, your sarcastic remark........"Yes. As soon as Tom Cruise pulled out the snubby .38, the sky should have darkened, trees should have wilted, the mob should have fled in terror, and and the aliens should have retreated back to their home planet".........works both ways. Likewise, most mainstream Hollywood directors are not going to overstate their anti-gun message to the point where you don't have to think to know it's there.

jdkelly
July 4, 2005, 03:45 PM
1) Gunowner victim can not defend self/family and loses revolver via criminals uses of semi-auto handgun.-Not a neutral message

2) Revolver is then used to commit murder by 2nd criminal.-Also not a neutral message.

The message seems to be that guns can't help and will be used to hurt someone.


I don't know how a logical and rationally thinking person could go from my quote above and produce your rant below. Almost your entire rant has nothing to do with what I've said. Perspective? Not about you? Guy you're so far of base you're not even in the stadium.

Yes. As soon as Tom Cruise pulled out the snubby .38, the sky should have darkened, trees should have wilted, the mob should have fled in terror, and and the aliens should have retreated back to their home planet.

Bejeezus!!!! Will those of you who think that (1) there is some anti-gun message in the movie and (2) American gun owners would have defeated the aliens lighten up and get a sense of perspective!!?? It's not all about you.

I'm as pro-gun as anyone, but you people make me embarrased to be part of the gun culture.

If you are going to be embarrased about anything why don't you start with the thought process that produced your post above, it needs help!



jkelly

mcooper
July 4, 2005, 03:47 PM
I also Think Tim Robbn's charactor had the right Idea.
If I was in my basement and four of the S.O.B. aliens that had been wiping out my species came down, with out shields I would have taken my M1A and gunned them down.

Mad Man
July 4, 2005, 04:08 PM
It was a scene about mob violence, not a statement about guns.

Get over it.

jdkelly
July 4, 2005, 04:39 PM
There were guns in the scene and that is what I was comenting on. Try to stay focused.


jkelly

TNGO
July 4, 2005, 04:46 PM
I agree with Mad Man on this one. WOTW is simply an entertaining movie, not subliminal anti-gun propaganda.

However, I noticed with interest the allusion to terrorist sleeper cells.

benEzra
July 5, 2005, 10:07 AM
It must have been stored a metal box. I thought EMP distroyed the electronics (semiconductors) and would have less effect on a solenoid (high current coil).
You're right. IMO, the starter solenoid would have been fine, but the van's computer would have been fried. Meaning that Cruise's 68-ish Mustang would have probably started right up after it failed, and the mechanic should have changed the van's ECU rather than the solenoid.

That camcorder would've been fried, too--must've been an EMP-shielded CIA camcorder. :)

Tim3256
July 5, 2005, 11:50 AM
I"ll keep sayin' it until ya'll listen.

"Stay away from the talkin' picture box (or wall), boy. That damn thing is evil I tell ya!"

Rembrandt
July 5, 2005, 07:38 PM
Little known fact.....Steven Spielberg is a gun collector and has a very impressive personal collection of firearms. Won't tell you my source for this because he's a very public figure, but it is a fact.

Over the years many film makers followed Sam Peckinpaws lead ("Wild Bunch") by over using guns and violence as a substitution for poor writing and weak movie plots. Soon everyone followed his lead. Became a contest to see who could make the bloodiest and deadliest movie.....unfortunately forgetting that great movies require a story.

Spielberg has always concentrated on good story telling, excellent scripts, and special effects. Movies, as any business are made to generate money...you market the product to get the most people in the door and sell tickets. Not to editorialize your personal beliefs. The banker and financial backers don't care if it sends a pro-gun message....they are interested in the bottom line.

RavenVT100
July 5, 2005, 07:55 PM
The forcefield was reactive and designed to activate whenever a projectile was coming at it. That's why it blew up for shells, bullets, and the grenade that got thrown. But TC was able to carry the belt of grendades up to the tripod because he came in slow and it didn't register.

c_yeager
July 6, 2005, 02:35 AM
That [dawn of the dead] is probably the most pro-gun Hollywood movie I have ever seen. It's a great zombie flick, too. One of the best.

Filmed in Canada by a guy that used to make television commercials ;) By all accounts the guy is a shooter himself and hand picked the weapons as being things that "regular people would have around".

In the radio-play of WotW the machines were somewhat vulnerable to weapons. Several were destroyed/damaged by heavy artillery and bombardment from aircraft. Small arms were completely innefective.

I also seem to remember that they wiped out the population of New York with gas before they even bothered to set foot in the city, of course that would have been a boring movie.

Azrael256
July 6, 2005, 05:14 AM
You're right. IMO, the starter solenoid would have been fine Most of your electronics (the important parts, anyway) will cook off at around 10v. CMOS type stuff can handle a little more than most, but your CPU, for instance, will cook off (melting and dripping out of the case) at ~5v. A starter can handle an insane amperage at 12-24 volts, depending on just what it is. You can easily pump 300,000v through the wire that makes up the starter if you keep the amperage low.

but the van's computer would have been fried Maybe, maybe not. The computer in my car is inside a metal box, which sits in a metal box, which sits in the metal box that is the body. Any path to ground would have dumped the energy right off. Car computers have been known to survive lightning hits without the car even stopping. A lightning bolt is FAR more energy delivered right into the car. Also, there are a good number of components that are EM and radiation hardened. Anything that leaves the atmosphere is seriously hardened against radiation that will kill an exposed human. I'm not arguing that my car's computer will survive to the moon, but not all electronics are going to just cook right off.

That camcorder would've been fried, too Yeah, I'll agree on that one. It is certainly not impossible to build a shield to protect your camcorder, and maybe it was sitting in a toolbox or something, but I wouldn't bet on it.

RevDisk
July 6, 2005, 06:57 AM
Yeah, I'll agree on that one. It is certainly not impossible to build a shield to protect your camcorder, and maybe it was sitting in a toolbox or something, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Could have been in a tunnel, or near a very large metal structure (or mountain). Or simply out of range.

EMP's range is not that far, relatively. It loses energy rather quickly. I have the actual calculations here somewhere. But to be very generic, you lose energy exponentially as you increase distance geometrically. (ie, lose a square of the energy when you double the distance)

HankB
July 6, 2005, 09:08 AM
In any case, it looks like there is another (low budget) version that was just released on DVD a few days ago (although I haven't seen it in the stores).I picked up this version (By Pendragon Pictures) at Wal Mart for just over $8. I posted a review at Amazon. (If you like cheap - emphasis CHEAP - '50s sci-fi movies like "Beginning of the End" and "The Giant Gila Monster" you may enjoy the Pendragon version of War of the Worlds. Same production values. :rolleyes: ) But at least it's based in 1898 or so and the aliens don't have the obligatory "force field" . . . they ARE vulnerable to cannon fire, but are far more powerful and mobile than the armies of the day.

In that movie, one of the characters is given a revolver - he claims he's "an expert shot" - but still loses the Shetland pony pulling his carriage when some hungry highwaymen with a hammerless O/U shotgun steal it for food. (Did they make hammerless O/U shotguns circa 1898?)

Evil_Ed
July 6, 2005, 02:09 PM
But TC was able to carry the belt of grendades up to the tripod because he came in slow and it didn't register.

"The slow blade penetrates the shield." -- Gurney Halak, Dune

Travis McGee
July 6, 2005, 10:08 PM
One more reason to give this flick a skip.

bad LT
July 6, 2005, 11:02 PM
Just remember, if aliens decide to attack Earth, head to Boston. It won't be touched by the aliens.

Cesiumsponge
July 6, 2005, 11:11 PM
And if your kid runs off, he'll mysteriously rejoin you at the brownstone home unharmed and everyone hugs and comes in for a pot of coffee as if nothing happened.

I heard some more bitching about the movie from people here who saw it; I'll pass.

eab
July 7, 2005, 09:31 PM
Several of my friends saw it and thought it was good. I however have no desire to see it. Don't know why. The book never really apleaed to me, maybe the anticlimatic end or just the whole story never realy got into it.

moa
July 8, 2005, 01:06 PM
The movie is okay, but I would not recommend it unless there is nothing else to see.

The part about the pre-buried alien tripods turned me off. Did not seem logical. If I remember correctly, in the original book, the Martians fly to earth in their space craft or whatever and bring their weapons with them.

At the very end of the movie, set in Boston, TC meets up with his children's mother, etc. Is not the old, gray haired man at the door the actor Gene Barry, who starred in the original War Of The World movie circa 1953?

Anybody catch that?

denny
July 8, 2005, 02:31 PM
Azizza said

Sorry guys, I think you are looking for things to go after that just arn't there in this case. The movie was not about some Average Joe going on a one man rampage and defeating the Aliens. This was about the last remnants of Society surviving and trying to escape. This was not about "victim disarmament" or anything close to it. The people that had tried to fight back were already dead and gone.

Nevermind. I give up. I could go on for hours but some people are going to insist that any movie/book/TV show that doesn't have 50 armed citizens, is just trying to take away our guns or make America Hate guns.

Then, please explain the scene at the end were TC breaks a piece off of the Militiaman statue and looks at it as if it is empty?

kwelz
July 8, 2005, 03:06 PM
I am afraid I dont' really understand what you are talking about. Near the end of the movie he is not breaking a piece off the statue. He is breaking a piece of the dying plant the Aliens had been growing. I don't really see where you are coming from here.

denny
July 8, 2005, 04:18 PM
Azizza said:

I am afraid I dont' really understand what you are talking about. Near the end of the movie he is not breaking a piece off the statue. He is breaking a piece of the dying plant the Aliens had been growing. I don't really see where you are coming from here.

My mistake then- from the distance I saw it, it looked like a piece of the statue.

Tman
July 8, 2005, 07:37 PM
Azizza is correct. On one of the cable channels (HBO/TCM????? can't remember), Spielberg talks about making the movie. He wanted to bring up the roots or, as I think he called them (please correct me if I'm wrong) veins that the aliens are attempting to use to "terraform" earth into mars. However, at the end of the movie, TC breaks off a dead piece of it, showing the alien stuff dying, and at the same time we see the force fields disappearing.

It seems that many people have different interpretations of the movie. Reminds me of a Rohrschach (sp?) test...you see what YOU want to see in the picture (projection).

buy guns
July 8, 2005, 07:52 PM
here is my interpretation: the ending was fine if you think of the movie as being deeper than just aliens fighting humans. its about fighting for the right to live. humans pretty much just took over the planet once we started existing. if we saw someplace we liked, we killed everything that was there and built buildings over it but now its happening to us. the aliens came to earth to colonize it. notice that they never killed animals in the movie (ie. the rat in the basement and the birds at the end). it wasnt until tom cruise discovered how to destroy the tripods (plus the ones that were destroyed in japan) did the bacteria start killing the aliens. basically its like the universe was evening itself out. thats why the narrator said what he said at the end.

TheOtherOne
July 8, 2005, 11:07 PM
Odd note. Saw the flick in the City Center Mall in Doha, Qatar. Mostly thobe-clad locals in the audience. Scene where the girl sees the dead bodies floating down the river? They were roaring with laughter. :confused: Okay, for some reason I'm laughing at the visual image presented by your story but why exactly were they laughing?

benEzra
July 9, 2005, 09:04 AM
That wasn't a funny scene to me...what exactly was the audience finding funny about it? :confused:

Nightcrawler
July 12, 2005, 04:38 PM
Okay, for some reason I'm laughing at the visual image presented by your story but why exactly were they laughing?

That wasn't a funny scene to me...what exactly was the audience finding funny about it?

I have NO idea. Maybe because it was all white people/Americans that were dead in the river? The Qataris usually took the trouble to hide their contempt for westerners, but not always.

Honestly, I don't know. Different culture, I guess. Maybe to them dead people are funny if they're foreigners. Bet they wouldn't have been laughing if the tripods were shown marching through Doha or Riyad, incinerating mosques full of thobes and burkhas* instead of Americans.

Honestly, it's weird. I saw inappropriate laughter in a bunch of movies over there. Jackie Chan's New Police Story...scene where a captured police detective watches his whole team, including his brother-in-law, get killed. They were laughing then, too.

It's kind of creepy, actually. Messed up over there. One movie I saw, it was okay to show the scene where they were drilling a guy in the eye with a cordless drill, but the sex scene was edited out 'cause it was indecent. Violence and depravity are okay, but in the movie poster for The Pacifier they edited it to make the girl's skirt longer.

***, over?

Good to be home.


*The Qataris don't actually call the black overgarments their women wear burkhas. I cannot recall the actual name. A thobe is a traditional Arab item, being basically a dress shirt that goes all the way to the ankles.

jnojr
July 12, 2005, 06:12 PM
The Jurassic Park Trilogy -- clever children outwit ferocious dinosaurs while adults who have firearms are too incompetent to use them!

Y'know, I've always wondered... I've seen "Jurassic Park", and I know "Jurassic Park III - The Lost World" (I think) is out on DVD. I have never heard of, nor seen any sign of, a "Jurassic Park II".

c_yeager
July 13, 2005, 07:54 AM
Y'know, I've always wondered... I've seen "Jurassic Park", and I know "Jurassic Park III - The Lost World" (I think) is out on DVD. I have never heard of, nor seen any sign of, a "Jurassic Park II".

It was one of those movies that you can see 10 times on TV and never remember a single thing about it. Seriously, i will be browsing the chanels and find this movie and say to myself "hey this looks interesting" only to discover 10 minutes later that i had seen it before, and it was terrible. :confused:

jpIII
July 13, 2005, 10:04 AM
Did anyone notice that TC's snub nose changed from a chrome when he got it from it's box to a blued when the mob scene was taking place?

That stood out to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Spielberg- had a gun or two in his new movie!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!