War of the Worlds: Spielberg Mutilates His Own Masterpiece (SPOILERS included)

[MarkG]

Originally posted by JohnT
**** happens. It was wartime. Surprisingly, not everyone dies, not even on the battlefield.

if you want to do drama, someone really close to the hero has to die. otherwise it's popcorn movie

[DanS]

the fact that Cruise is now a murderer, a decision he made coldly, cooly, and rationally.
still, without showing the actual act of killing (as it was done in the mob-vs-car scene) it seems as if nothing happened. cruise is not placed any blame for the murder

I'm confused. Did he murder two people? The one I remember was him murdering the creepy guy played by Tim Robbins.

[Dr Strangelove]

You'd think that critters capable of planning a meal one million years in advance would have considered the micro-organism angle. Surely they had them on their world at one time, and considering the sophistication of their efforts you'd think that they would have had a contingency plan to counteract infectious organisms. In Wells day the idea of microbial infections was still new. The scientific community hadn't given much thought to the role of microbes in the scheme of life or their place in the evolution of higher organisms. Now we can't imagine sentient life evolving anywhere without microbes evolving first. Critters capable of traveling across space, finding a planet that they know will one day host a lesser sentient species, and burying cloaked machines that remain operational for one million years really, really, really ought to have sufficient command of medical biology to prepare for just about any possible medical emergency, including parasites. Consider how we, though not yet having managed a manned mission to any neighboring planets, have mapped our entire genome and probably will have unravelled the basic "proteome" within a decade. Surely they would have progressed unfathomable eons further in their knowlege of medical biology.

Anyway, if someone could do all that they could do, why would they wait one million years for harvest time? You'd think theynwould have been easily able to come down here, grab some Australopithecines, make a few tweaks in their genome and voila: Homo sapiens delectus! Did they want to give us just a little head start? maybe they like to cheat on Masters of Orion?

[JohnT]

You're taking Robbins' word as fact, Dr., when it was anything but. He has no idea how long the things were "buried", or if they were actually buried in the first place. For all we know the machines were stealthed in (to coin a word) a month prior to the harvesting, dropped in Antartica, and then they tunneled their way to their starting positions.

In fact, one of the biggest mistakes people make about this movie is assuming that its a military operation on the aliens part (the title of the film plays into this misconception, but Harvest of the Worlds is a really stupid title. Imho. ) I think it is not, that the operation makes more sense seen as a harvesting/terraforming operation. Yes, the machines were built with some basic offensive and defensive capabilities (heat rays, shields), but the weapons they had were totally ill-suited for a "war" of extermination. The aliens were so superior that we were essentially field mice fighting off their version of a $500,000 John Deere harvester. So why the weapons? If our mice could fight back, we would equip the harvester with the armaments necessary to protect itself, but not so strong as to destroy the plot of ground that we wish to harvest. Which perfectly describes the weaponry aboard the tripods.

Again, the germs ending was kind of lame but given how we're conditioned to expect a proactive resolution in our dramas, any explanation that had the machines just stopping would be seen as lame by most who viewed it.

[Lorizael]

I agree with MarkG in that the son living spoiled the ending. The son made a choice, he made a choice that his father couldn't make. In order for the differences between the two of them to be meaningful, the choice the son makes has to have consequences. Choices have consequences. He runs over hill to meet onrushing alien horde, he should die. I think his living negates his choice and destroys the interplay between him and his father.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MarkG
it's not about understanding what goes on, it's about making a point. with the closed door spielberg treats us like cruise did with his daughter: dont see what's happening so that you dont get traumatized...

Not at all, Mark. Spielberg left it to the audiences imagination as to what happened behind the closed door. A far lesser director (Bey, Emmerich, Columbus) would've shown a knock-down, drag-out, and it wouldn't have added a thing to this movie. Detracted from it, even, as it would've totally ruined the pacing and turned the years best horror film into yet another action yawner.

You want to see people get killed, watch Friday the Thirteenth.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I agree with MarkG in that the son living spoiled the ending. The son made a choice, he made a choice that his father couldn't make. In order for the differences between the two of them to be meaningful, the choice the son makes has to have consequences. Choices have consequences. He runs over hill to meet onrushing alien horde, he should die. I think his living negates his choice and destroys the interplay between him and his father.

Again, you don't see the son running over the hill. Once he breaks away from Cruise, you see nothing more of him. The idea that he ran out into the battlefield is yours, and not supported by the film.

For all we know, ten seconds after Cruise lets him go some army guy, feeling a more than a little panicked, grabs Robby and says "We're getting the hell out of here son!" and doesn't let go. Or Robby saw over the crest, realized that this was no place for him, and fled along with the rest of the civilians. Or whatever... the point is, we don't know.

[Lorizael]

Implications. Just like behind the door. You know what happens. Anyways.

The point is, the son has made a choice. That choice needs to mean something. And, I'm also not the only person to think the son made that choice.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Implications. Just like behind the door. You know what happens. Anyways.

The point is, the son has made a choice. That choice needs to mean something. And, I'm also not the only person to think the son made that choice.

It doesn't have to mean his life, though. That's the easy way out, the emotional cheap-shot designed to draw a tear to the audiences eye.

What it meant was more respect for the father from the son, and more respect for the son from the father.

[Lorizael]

*shrug* I like killing off characters in my own stories.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Implications. Just like behind the door. You know what happens. Anyways.

The point is, the son has made a choice. That choice needs to mean something. And, I'm also not the only person to think the son made that choice.

I addressed this issue in one of the many dozen other War of the Worlds threads. But I disagree vigorously.

Allowing him to live is the greatest vindication of that choice. It means much more when we know he lives.

The whole movie the son had shown glimpses of heroism. But was always held back my his father. He wanted to help, he wanted to do something, he wanted to contribute in some way to the betterment (preservation) of mankind. His father didn't give a damn and just wanted to save his own neck and those of his two kids. Even if it meant killing others or leaving others to die.

These were the two opposing viewpoints of the film and their two characters. That critical moment on the hill sets these two viewpoints directly at odds. Cruise's viewpoint is that you shouldn't stick your neck out because its just going to end up hurting you or killing you. His is a very selfish viewpoint. Robbie's of course is more selfless. His safety is of less concern to him than the good of humanity.

To allow his character to die vincicates the father. At the end of the movie viewers will say "Cruise was right, if you stick your neck out to help someone, you're just going to end up getting killed. Cruise never helped anyone, and his approach worked. Robbie's didn't." That I feel is a bad message and one Spielburg didn't want to send.

Allowing Robbie to live made the point that helping others isn't stupid, reckless, foolish, idealistic or naive.

Because of that I am very happy Robbie lived.

[Vesayen]

I also really loved this movie.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by JohnT
You want to see people get killed, watch Friday the Thirteenth.

why didnt he leave it to our imagination when he showed hundreds of people being killed by the tripod's beams?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
These were the two opposing viewpoints of the film and their two characters.

...

Allowing Robbie to live made the point that helping others isn't stupid, reckless, foolish, idealistic or naive.

so as both are saved spielberg doesnt make a stand. if you're one of the lead characters, no matter if you're good or selfish, you get saved. how's that for a movie with a message?

[DanielXY]

Well it would be realistic for the selfish one to survive and the hero to die...

Sending the message "The hero survives even when his actions are foolish in this circumstances" is lame imho