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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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:
 
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."
 
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.
 
I see it differently

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
 
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/t...1/002-4259534-9721633?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846


[BLOCKQUOTE]
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
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
 
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.
 
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?

Aresform?

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.
 
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.
 
If you are going to be embarrased about anything...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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!"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top