War of the Worlds - Ozzy's Review

[OzzyKP]

Ok, I partially cede the point. Its a bit more muddled than my point said.

I did mean more conservative than simply Republican, and I realize the big realignment that happened in the last 50 years (because of civil rights mind you). I wouldn't really consider Ike to be a bulwark of conservatism. So you'd have to show a few more genuine conservatives (regardless of party) who were staunch defenders of civil rights.

And as I'm sure you'd guess, I don't say this with any animosity toward Republicans or even conservatives. I can see many arguments for youth rights (or any other civil rights movement) from a conservative perspective, and I simply lament the fact that more don't jump on board.

Not to say we don't, NYRA is actually full of Republicans. And there are plenty of very strong pro-Bush folks on the forums (and many anti-Bush folks as well of course). But Wiglaf just pissed me off and I uncharacteristically took a shot at him. He is just so obnoxious, I lost my cool.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap




Cause most Southeners still voted Democrat? Again, state the obvious.

Well, that's the crux of the matter. The Southern Democrats were the problem. They were completely uncooperative with progressive leaders like Johnson, but they were Democrats nonetheless.

The Republicans were never an impediment to Black Civil Rights in any way. In most cases, their votes were even required to push Civil Rights Legislation through. And they always delivered.

Ozzy, I think the point you were trying to make is that Social Conservatives are always on the wrong side of any Civil Rights Movement. Not Republicans, nor Conservatives in general. I think that's true by definition, though, because Social Conservatives, by definition, oppose any new social movement.

[Jaguar]

Oh, and if you don't think Ike is a conservative, that's your prerogative, but IMHO, he's an example, perhaps the example all conservative leaders should follow.

[Az]

My review on the movie:

Great acting, cinematography, etc.
UTTERLY ****TY writing.


Some more points:
He should've made a trilogy out of it.
He should've ditched the "the died from bacteria" idea.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Az

Some more points:
He should've made a trilogy out of it.
He should've ditched the "the died from bacteria" idea.

1) Not long enough.
2) That's the whole point of the story.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Az
He should've ditched the "the died from bacteria" idea.

And then pissed on H.G. Wells' corpse.

Advocating the rape of someone's work

Don't make a movie out of a book unless you are willing to follow the storyline already set forth by the author.

[JohnT]

Well, let's not forget that the novel was set in London. In the 1890's. And had nothing to do with car chases or US Army battle scenes.

If you're gonna rape the corpse, might as well have a good money shot at the end, don't ya think?

[Dr Strangelove]

Hey wait a minute, I just got home from seeing the movie and there were fountains of blood not to mention the rivers and pools of the red icky stuff.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Theben


1) Not long enough.
2) That's the whole point of the story.

Unlike in Well's book though, Cruise was able to bring one down via an ( almost ) suicide bomb, so Spielberg could have had al Qaeda come to the rescue of humanity by bringing down the beasts with a flurry of explosive martyrdom. Of course, this might upset the movie reviewers who seem to have decided that Spielberg's War of the Worlds is some sort of analogy to the 9/11 attack. If the Islamic Jihad saved humanity in the movie then that would have put a whole new twist on the analogy.

[JohnT]

There are scenes and shots that are reminiscent of 9/11, but the film isn't an analogy. Especially given that the source material was written 100 years prior.

However, I do think the case can be argued (perhaps not made, but argued) that the film represents a post-9/11 shift in Spielberg's acceptance of the alien. Almost 30 years ago he released a movie about space-beatniks who played disco music and dropped off artifacts in conveniently dry locations and only those people groovy enough to get the message were "called." 30 years later and there's no more space-hippies, no disco, no groovy human allies, just a bunch of death and destruction. It's kind of hard to believe the two movies, with diametrically opposite sentiments, came from the same director.

[Verto]

Originally posted by JohnT
Well, let's not forget that the novel was set in London. In the 1890's. And had nothing to do with car chases or US Army battle scenes.

If you're gonna rape the corpse, might as well have a good money shot at the end, don't ya think?

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure the movie was based more on the radio adaptation that he did, than the book itself, which explains the American setting.

Spielberg owns one of the few surviving, original copies of that radio program, BTW, which is what inspired him to do the film in the first place IIRC.

[Verto]

Originally posted by JohnT

However, I do think the case can be argued (perhaps not made, but argued) that the film represents a post-9/11 shift in Spielberg's acceptance of the alien. Almost 30 years ago he released a movie about space-beatniks who played disco music and dropped off artifacts in conveniently dry locations and only those people groovy enough to get the message were "called." 30 years later and there's no more space-hippies, just a bunch of death and destruction. It's kind of hard to believe the two movies, with diametrically opposite sentiments, came from the same director.

I disagree. That's like saying Robert Wise couldn't have directed Star Trek TMP, because he had previously directed Sound of Music - too very different movies. I think it just shows Spielberg doesn't treat every script the same, like some, especially when he is simply creating a film out of someone else's idea.

[Dr Strangelove]

Am I the only one who noticed that the aliens were virtually a rip off of the Independence Day aliens? Their heads at least were almost copies. Who knows, maybe Spielberg bought left over props.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Verto


I disagree. That's like saying Robert Wise couldn't have directed Star Trek TMP, because he had previously directed Sound of Music - too very different movies. I think it just shows Spielberg doesn't treat every script the same, like some, especially when he is simply creating a film out of someone else's idea.

But the sentiment in ST: TMP is just different from that in SOM. In the two movies I cited, it's a completely opposing viewpoint. Sorta like if Bergman made comedies featuring talking babies celebrating life - you're like "This is from the same guy who directed The Seventh Seal?"

(Not the best analogy, but it's nearly 1:00am here and that's as good an excuse as any. )

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Unlike in Well's book though, Cruise was able to bring one down via an ( almost ) suicide bomb, so Spielberg could have had al Qaeda come to the rescue of humanity by bringing down the beasts with a flurry of explosive martyrdom. Of course, this might upset the movie reviewers who seem to have decided that Spielberg's War of the Worlds is some sort of analogy to the 9/11 attack. If the Islamic Jihad saved humanity in the movie then that would have put a whole new twist on the analogy.

I just finished reading the book. In the book, the army took out one of them out with canons. The Tripods didn't have shields in the book. After that, the Martians started using the Black Smoke, some sort of chemical weapon.

Movie reviewers are idiots. One reviewer here wrote that Wells was thinking of the Nazis when he wrote the War of the Worlds. What an idot! He published it in 1898 for crying out loud! Some people see 9/11 everywhere, they're obsessed. And they seem to think that they're real insightful when doing so.