Talk:War of the Worlds (2005 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Detail

Maybe I'm sounding stupid, but I'm just tossing this out...isn't it a bit exaggerated to go into such deep detail describing the movie to even name what brands of cars that were used? --213.66.196.7 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the third person to mention this. I am actually currently attempting to crunch things down right now - just over half-way done (I pretty much am rewritting it from scratch). It may still may come out a bit long, but be assured that it won't be as needlessly detailed. --Bacteria 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, all right. I apologize for that. --213.66.196.7 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Date

I'd like to know what made you say this is a 2005 movie, as the IMDb link at the bottom of the page states its release date as 2006. -- Grunt (talk) 02:23, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

• Uh, because it is out in theatres right now? jglc | t | c 13:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

which he asked in 2004, in which you replied almost a year later, and which im replying to even a year after that.

Sequel: Take the fight to the enemy

If War of the Worlds doesn't end with a climatic battle on the alien homeworld, will there be a sequel taking place on the alien homeworld? - John V--Ed Telerionus 01:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It's War of the Worlds. In all media, the story ends the same way. There is not battle on the alien homeworld and think about it: we don't have the technology to go 30 million lightyears to their homeworld (the aliens aren't from Mars this time). Why would they even make a sequel?- B-101 29 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

I saw nothing to suggest that they weren't from Mars. (MILD SPOILERS)The opening montage has the planet Earth turn into a red orb as the narration from the novel talks about our neighbors "across the gulf of space" watching the planet with "envious eyes." Also, as Tom's character surveys the land after leaving the basement and sees the whole area covered in the Red Weed, the image is pretty clearly a reflection of a Martian landscape. Boxclocke 30 June 2005 04:00

Spielberg himself said "We've been to Mars and there's nothing there" during an interview. Maybe the aliens are from a red planet, but not the Red Planet. They are just "aliens" this time and not Martians.- B-101 30 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)

but i just dont understand why do the tripods die at the end and whats the red root?¿ veins? or did ray kill theyre leader and then the others died?¿

they died because they couldnt handle some virus common to air and water but is harmless to humans. the narator, morgan freeman did say this exact same thing!--GregLoutsenko 1 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Once again, it's War of the Worlds. Read the book or see it again. As for the red root, the aliens must have been trying to terraform our world.- B-101 30 June 2005 21:53 (UTC)

There are things i do not like about the 2005 movie version: no enemy alien spaceships (as in the 1953 movie version), aliens do not have their own personal weapons and equipment, no main alien antagonist, no dialogue from the aliens, the war takes place only on Earth, and the main civilian protagonists didn't fight the aliens until the end. The name "War of the Worlds" refers to a war between (two or more) worlds. There was a late 80s-early 90s TV sequel to the 1953 movie version, but is there going to be a tv sequel to the 2005 movie version? What is the name of the alien species in the 2005 movie version? Do the aliens have their own homeworld (their homeworld is called Mor-Tax in the late 80s-early 90s sequel to the 1953 movie version) or they're just nomadic? -- Ed Telerionus 3 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Unless there's a book that gives some insight to the aliens, we can only know what know from the film. But I would assume that they have a homeworld because if they were simply nomadic, I can imagine that they would have taken Earth when they found it rather than wait and come back. The TV series claims that those aliens knew about Earth before the '53 invasion, having left an old tripod behind back possibly hundreds of years prior (gee, why does that sound fimiliar?), but didn't invade until later when their world was close to death (by my calculations, the colonists left for Earth very close to when the invasion force went to war). But some of your complaints wouldn't work within the film. The main point was that we are following average people who are just trying to survive, not do battle. In the TV series, they weren't following the same structure as that of the Wells novel, so they could get away with more, including giving the aliens a psuedo-identity, as well as be able to give more insight into their collective personality. Maybe there will be a TV series in the future, but I can only hope justice is served and the people behind the first season are allowed to take the show. If the show is in any way touched by Frank Mancuso Jr. I will protest its existence. I hated that so-called "Second Invasion" he crapped onto the air.--Bacteria 3 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

To anybody asking for a sequel - read the original, then whine. If H.G. Wells didn't see fit to write a sequel to his superb novel, I see no reason why there should be a sequel to this mediocre piece of cinema. jglc | t | c 13:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Leaving discussions about the quality of the movie aside (I liked it a lot, but this is not really the place for that), the book ends quite open for a sequel. The narrator mentions that "A question of graver and universal interest is the possibility of another attack from the Martians", and the Martians seem to be quite in continuing thir schemes, with their landing in Venus. Also, the expansion of the story is nothing unheard of. And no, I am not talking about the TV series. WAR OF THE WORLDS: GLOBAL DISPATCHES is an anthology of short stories based on Wells' novel, describing both parallel and posterior events.

There's no reason for a sequel to take place, because(SPOILER) the bacteria on Earth prevents them from ever being a threat again. I think the aliens were using the iron from human blood to give their plants nutrition. However, as in the novel, the bacteria killed them off, due to their unadapted immune systems.

I don't really know why you would want all that stupid stuff: alien dialogue, main alien antagonist, battle taking place on the aliens' homeworld and all that nonsense, Ed Telerionus. You know why its silly? First of all, alien dialogue. The aliens wouldn't speak our language!! They come from a different planet, they speak a totally ALIEN language! What would they do, take English classes before they began to invade? Yeah, right! Second, the aliens are the antagonists, therefore there is no need for a main antagonist! I mean, they may have a leader, but not one who is the "most powerful". They are all invincible to human weapons, and all are superly intelligent, so there's no need for a Sauron or Darth Vader in here! Then, as was mentioned above, we don't have the technology to travel to their planet, much less fight them there! If they are invading us, then why should there be a battle on their homeworld? They don't give a crap what happens to their world, most likely! Why do you think they leave it in the first place? You know, if they wanted to make a TV series based on H.G. Wells' novel, that's fine, but why'd they have to make it a continuation of the 1953 film? They're just trying to turn a perfectly good film into dog poop! If they're anything I really hated about this show, it's the aliens taking over human bodies! Is that crappy or what? Scorpionman 01:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood me. I enjoyed the first season of the season; I just hated the almost totally alien and messy second season. I thought the first season played more on some of the themes of the Wells novel and tapped into more multidimensional social commentary than the 1953 film did, which I will say made for a better than average sci-fi movie than it did an adaptation of the Wells novel. --Bacteria 20:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand you, I simply read your comment wrong. Anyway, so you liked the series. The second season was bad, but not any worse than the first. I really can't see why they had to make the series a continuation of the film. They could've just made the series without any relation to the film. The film was awesome, I think. The series would be a lot better if it didn't at all tie in the older film. Scorpionman 01:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If this keeps going on the line of off-topic, this dialogue might have to be taken to the TV series' talk page. Yes, the second season was worse. It had horrible continuity issues, uninteresting characters, even less engaging villains, and was mainly just plain boring filled with one-dimensional commentary while dropping the first season's clever wit and Biblical references. I could go on listing why the second season paled horribly to the first, but this isn't the place. As for its continuation of the film - well, it was War of the Worlds to put it simply. Having the events of the 1953 film embedded an immediate backbone to its mythology and was one of many references to its predecessors. Peronsally, I don't get the hang-up surrounding the 1953 film like that. Yes, the film had great special effects, sound effects, and a brilliant war machine design, but the film is a poor adaptation of the Wells novel. While the first season utilizes just as few concepts (tripod and a military man with a vision of a new world), at least it had more social commentary befitting of the novel dealing with issues of race, the environment, religion, and even built a nice little metaphor reminiscent of Wells' take on British colonisation. --Bacteria 23:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

We should probably move this to the TV series discussion page soon. But once again, I can just say the ways the series would have been better: If it didn't tie into the older film at all, and if it was simply introducing the aliens, not reserrecting them. Don't you think that that would have made the series a lot better? Not to mention if it didn't contain all that "melting aliens" junk. I can point out some more problems: the aliens didn't mutilate anyone in the film. That one lightly touched Sylvia van Buren's shoulder, it didn't grisily murder her. And where did the "super-strong Mortaxians" stuff come from? They were weak in the film! And what killed them if the bacteria and viruses didn't?Scorpionman 23:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Or,by the time a few tripods were destroyed,they began to malfunction or something like that.They were confused or something.Maybe Ray did kill thier leader,nut im not sure.

Template

Hi folks, Max Terry has reverted the Spielberg template back to the vertical format, which I think gives too much white space on either side of the box. Could we please reach a consnsus at Template talk:Steven Spielberg's films. Cheers, The JPS 21:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

THEM TRIPODS WERE BURIED ON EARTH HAS LONG AGO HAS A MILLION YEARS NOW THE BEINGS WHICH ARRIVED TO TAKE CONTROL I FEEL WERE MAKING A ONE WAY TRIP THATS THE WAY SPEILBERG WANTED IT TO BE BECAUSE THE ALIENS ONCE DEFEATED COULDNT TRY AGAIN THEY DONT USE STAR SHIPS MAYBE SPACE TRAVEL IN SHIPS IS IMPOSSIBLE THEY USED SOME TYPE OF VORTEX/WORMHOLE WHICH BROUGHT THE SOLDIERS HEAR TO CONTROL THE MACHINES THESE MACHINES MUST BE LIKE ANTIQUES THIS VORTEX MAY NOT BE ABLE TOSEND BIG OBJECTS IN TO SO THE TRIPOD I WOULD THEORY ARRIVED HEAR A VERY LONG TIME AGO MAYBE USING CONVENTIONAL SPACE TRAVEL THE WAY WE SEND PROBES TO MARS OR MAYBE TIME IS SO DIFFRENT TO THEM THE VORTEX SENT THE TRIPODS AND WHEN THE BEINGS WERE SENT TO DRIVE THE MACHINES A MILLION OF OUR EARTH YEARS HAD PASSED BUT ONLY A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME ON THEIR HOME WORLD. THE BEINGS LOOKED AT US LIKE WE ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT FORM OF LIFE MAYBE SPEILBERG WAS HAVING A DIG AT SOCIETY IN GENERAL WHERE WE ARE POISONING THIS PLANET AND KILLING EACH OTHER DAILY THE ALIENS MAY POSSIBLE FIGURED THAT THEY CAN MAKE MORE USE OF OUR WORLD THAN US

Dianetics

Am I the only one to think that the movie poster looks like the cover of a L. Ron Hubbard book ?

Nope, I was just about to add that, since it's been noted by the press: "In all the brouhaha, it has not gone unnoticed that the poster for War of The Worlds bears a distinct resemblance to an L Ron Hubbard book cover, with a fantasy-type image of a clawed Martian hand grabbing Earth in its palm." (New Zealand Herald, 03 June 2005) - resembles the cover of Mission Earth. Needs to go in a paragraph about Scientology and WotW 2005, since, y'know, that's what ALMOST ALL of the press coverage I've seen about the movie has talked about - David Gerard 10:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cut into sections, added "Scientology controversy" section. Cruise has REALLY hit the press lately for his notably batshit public behaviour since running off Kingsley's leash. Has anyone got his sister's name for the article? - David Gerard 10:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the book really worth mentioning? The similarity between the cover of the book and the movie poster is very small and the possibility of it being purposeful is highly doubtful. MechBrowman 03:58, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Call me a nutter, but when I had first laid eyes on that poster, it honestly reminded me of the trademark image from the TV Series [1] [2]. I know it's taken ahold of Earth on top as opposed to coming from below, but the image of a three-fingered alien hand grabbing the globe irked me since Paramount denied the show's existence, then slap something so similiar to promote a new movie. But now that I realize that it has another possible connotation, I'm kind of confused, but still annoyed. --Bacteria 3 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)

In France, Cruise came and heavily controlled every interview with his dianetics guys, inviting them for the premiere in Marseilles. The French movie poster (though with the same design) is slightly different in color, moving away from Hubbard's book cover. Plus, the promotional movie posters featuring Cruise on a hill with a tripod in the background coming towards him are miles away from Mission earth (and much more impressive..)

Ending

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the section of the article (Plot) which ends with "The aliens die in the end not by hand of man but killed by a virus" incorrect? The beginning and ending zoom in on a droplet of water on a leaf which magnified in the movie appears to show paramecia or some other creature, a living organism - not a virus. - Terra Matsu 21:57, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

viruses are organisms. 82.36.124.109 3 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Actually, they die from bacteria, not a virus.

Enfestid July 4, 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Oh great - viruses are organisms. If you like finding mistakes in other people's writing maybe you should check your own. Technically viruses have not been proven to be either living (organism) or dead. They are not classified as zombies either. I've heard many people complain about the ending of the movie, even from people who have read the book. I have even heard people think that the birds which land on the alien tripod are responsible for their deaths. They think that birds saving the world is a stupid idea, and if that scene in the movie was supposed to represent that then they would be right, but it doesn't. The birds landing on the tripod signify the absence of the energy shields that protect the aliens, the scene invokes imagery of vultures feasting of carrion, the birds are not attacking and killing the aliens. The movie and book should not be taken literally, the destruction of aliens by microbes signifies the power of nature over artifice and technology, that all things come from nature and can be destroyed by nature. The ending is supposed to make sense and have meaning, it is not supposed to be full of heroism or action.--Mohamo July 5, 2005 03:26 (UTC)

It also implies Divine Intervention, the religious notion that if all else fails, God will rescue us from evil forces... kind of a peculiar theme for the ultra-secular Hollywood to be either purposely or accidentally posing. Wahkeenah 7 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

How would viruses/bacteria destroy the energy shields on the tripods? It seems more reasonable that the pathogens would simply infect the aliens. Never heard of viruses destroying computers. --TheAznSensation 9 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)

It doesn't take much imagination to imagine a scenario. First, the ships weren't hermetically sealed. Just to name two scenes from the movie: 1) aliens get out of their ship and go exploring and 2) humans are harvested and sucked into the machine for processing. Since they didn't know Earth's microorganisms would kill them (the biggest suspension of disbelief, IMO), they wouldn't have followed some kind of disinfection procedure. Once the aliens were incapacitated, it would just be a matter of times before such complex machinery would break down due to not being properly operated and maintained. Viruses don't destroy computers, but imagine if the crew of a submarine, jet airliner or nuclear power plant suddenly fell seriously ill in mid-operation. Things would not go well.

I did get the impression that the Tripods were atleast partially biomechanical vehicles. The non-mechanical way they moved, the muscular-looking sphincter above the cages, the constant emmision of that liquid goo... it's not actually said in the movie (a common theme through the film, the invaders are a complete mystery), but I think it is heavily implied for the sci-fi oriented viewers. If the Tripods had biological parts on them, I guess the bactria also disrupted their functions.

I believe that only one of the Tripods lost its shield in a mistake (presumably a technological malfunction) that was not related to diseases the aliens succumbed to. Kombucha 18:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the ending, I have a question, this aliens did not realize their was bacteria on this planet? They were here before since the movie apperently claims they came here and buried the machines long time ago. The alien homeplanet doesnt have bacteria? I find that hard to believe. If it is so clean and they so technologically advance wouldnt they bring some anti-bacteria drugs and infection built-in first aid kits? I did not understand the bacteria ending at all, personally i though the movie going to end in a tragedy but after a slow 2 hours watching they just quickly say that the aliens die from bacteria and thats the end of it. I would like to hear your comments. Tutmosis 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the aliens had wiped out diseases on their own planet, and so perhaps forgot about bacteria. Maybe their military tacticians are not very good biologists. What is weirder is Signs which follows a similar story. However, in that film the aliens cannot take water. Why go to a planet that has a surface of 70% water water, than rains very often and has an atmosphere full of water vapour? It would be like as going to a planet that rained acid, we just wouldn't bother.Kombucha 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems and inconsistencies

I agree POV should be kept out of the article's plot but shouldn't critics point of veiw still be mentioned? Most movie articles have a critical review section. This movie in particular has had a lot of critics as far as inconsistencies. They should be mentioned in the critical review section

Critics argue such examples of major inconsistencies and coincidences are when Cruise's character:

• knows how to fix a car after an EMP.
• is one of the first to touch the ice cold hole of the aliens.
• dodges death rays in every instance where everyone around him is killed (Which is multiple times).
• has the only working car in the whole state (no one else knows how to fix a car besides him).

While Ferrier states it's the only working car, that doesn't make it true. Consider the news van. Also, consider all the Army vehicles. I think you can assume that working vehicles are rare, which isn't really that improbably. First, most of us wouldn't be able to fix them. Second, as demonstrated by the film, a car wouldn't last long when brought into a populated area with everyone trying to take it away. Third, a moving car would be the perfect target for a tripod.

• finds a way through all the wrecked cars in the road.
• his car is intact after an airplane crashes over it, he is able to find a way through the crash site and his car doesn't get a flat tire from driving over the crash site.
• is the guy right in front of the train on fire.
• is the guy right in front of the closed ferry (but manages to hop in)
• survives the attack to the ferry, while carrying his daughter and dodging death rays.
• kills a strong man with a shovel, using his bare fists.

as I recall, didn't Ray end up with the shovel? Marky1981 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• chops a thick metal alien tentacle with an axe.
• finds out that the tripods don´t have force-fields anymore and warns the military.
• gets to his ex-wife house alive and regains her respect, proving that he´s an awesome dad.
• His son Robbie survives a massive wall of fire. Critics further argue the fact that Robbie survived the massive wall of fire is not only inconsistent but also insulting. They feel he was "terminally stupid" and deserved to die.

7-11-05 24.4.136.19

I was incomplete accordance with this mindset regarding many movies for a long time... till I realized that this isn't about one of the many average broken family that was killed during the events of a movie; but rather one of the only ones that wasn't. If you look at movies as about an average person, rather than a specific singled-out exception of the mass majority, pretty much no movie is plausible. -ava

Is it worth it to mention that, in regard to electronics working after the EMP, there are perfectly valid reasons?

All that works after the EMP are the video camera, the 2 vans, the ferry, and military equipment.

• Electronics that are off at the detonation of an EMP are much less susceptible to damage, so it's presumable that the video camera was grabbed after the destruction started and turned on then.
• The first van was fixed by Ray, and the second news van was far away from the EMP.
• The ferry was also far away from the NY EMP.
• Military equipment, whether it was near the EMP or not, are constructed to be much less vunerable to EMP's, so its understandable that they would work.

Just some thoughts.

But, is that common knowledge? Hardly, and it's not explained in the script. Glad you know, but most people don't know crapola about EMPs or military vehicles, and can hardly be expected to realize the repairs to the minivan would make it the only workable non-military vehicle in New Jersey. Good writing does not assume specialized, technical knowledge on the part of an audience of lay people. 12.73.198.181 03:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if its not general knowledge... the fact that military equipment is generally not kept within high density regions is well known. Thus, areas targeted as high density would not be the same as areas with military equipement.

i doubt that the EMP blasts were so powerful as to actually damage electrical equipment rather then just destrupt it. if the EMP blasts were powerful enough to actually render EVERYTHING unworkable permenantly then most people would die from radiation as well--GregLoutsenko 7 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)

This is true. I just saw the movie again, and in the news broadcast at the beginning of the movie, the reporter says that the EMP only temporarily disrupted electronic devices. The cars didn't work because the electrical equipment that was actually in the cars were "fried." The van worked because its "fried" parts had been replaced. Boxclocke 19:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving the article's discussion below:

Note: They replaced the battery, alternator and solenoid in the minivan, which were fried in the other cars. The entire electrical system was fixed. This is why only the minivan worked.

another note: they were replaced with components that were within the radius of the EMP blast. so why werent they damaged?

another note, who the heck knew (besides the scriptwriters) that all those repairs were made, or that the minivan commandeered by Ferrier was the same one the mechanic was working on? 12.73.198.181 03:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Not so much an inconsistency as a plot hole: The machines were burried for at least 500,000 years (the advent of mankind) so why are the aliens only carying out the extermination of man today? they obviously had the technology to terraform the planet all that time ago, so why wait? and wouldnt the aliens who put the tripods on earth have exposed themselves to the bacteria that eventually wiped them out, thus warning them for the future that they should not expose themselves to the atmosphere.

--Gregb 7 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

The thing about the aliens burying the war machines is so open that it doesn't really fall as a plothole because there isn't enough information to really bring up contradictions in logic. We know next to nothing about the aliens, their technology, and certainly sod-all about their planet to really jump to a bunch of conclusions regarding the circumstances of why they buried them and then left them for later. And how the hell does anyone know they had the technology to terraform the planet way back then? No one even knows for certain how long those things had been buried. Did Morgan Freeman read off an exposition that I missed? Come on, people, use your imagination. --Bacteria 7 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

I'm thinking that they waited to attack Earth because they wanted to wait until there was a significatn population worthy of their harvesting efforts.

But the purpose of a script, of good writing, is to give you the important information, not leave you guessing. The actions of the aliens are not real; they're whatever the script writers wanted them to be, and apparently they did not feel it necessary to bother coming up with motivation for the aliens' actions. Or, for that matter, many of the humans. 12.73.198.181 03:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The movie is focused around the roles of Cruise and his two children during this time. We are given plenty of important information about them. The aliens attacking are the setting and the world conflict, but the movie is not focused around them.

I think it is important to distinguish between:

• true errors in the film (plot holes, continuity problems etc.)
• parts of the script which are very unlikely (e.g. amazing coincidences) but still technically plausable within the context of the film
• contradictory character actions (a character changing their mind about something may tell us about their state of mind but is not considered an error in the film itself)

I think we should only cover the first of the above cases but if we decide to cover any of the other cases, they should be separated. Marky1981 21:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole error section should be removed ASAP. Unless the errors/inconsistencies are based around a major plot point (like the ending of Planet of the Apes 2001), there's no reason to nitpick on each and every section of this movie. It's also a convenient place for certain writers to add POV comments, like (paraphrased) "on how Cruise avoids alien attack, drawing laughs from the non-Scientology audience." --Madchester 23:08, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

It should nto be removed, if for the only reason that we dont have to go through all of it once more.

The thing is, the "unlikely" coincidences are, in their aggregate, *not* plausible - unless we assume Ferrier and his kids have some kind of Divine Intervention working on their behalf - they defy the laws of averages given what is befalling the rest of humanity. Likewise, the noted contradictory character actions go without a "changing state of mind" frame of reference: they just happen, and don't even necessarily advance the plot so much as pad the runtime. 12.73.198.181 03:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Then it's just as "unplausible" for someone to enter WW2 on D-Day and live to tell the tale after the war In most disaster movies, the protagonists "defy the law of averages".--Madchester 03:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think removing the whole 'error' section would be a shame. I think it's fine so long as we stick to only true errors as I mentioned above, and not use it for POV comments or any potential errors etc. Marky1981 23:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best to move "POV"-related 'errors' from the list, as well as complaints of "handy coincidences" off the page, in order to keep the article factual. For posterity, here the removed comments, in case people wish to talk about them further:

• Ferrier leaves the farmhouse to find the runaway Rachel, and just happens to find a wrecked Humvee with a belt of hand grenades conveniently left behind, which just happen to be needed within a few minutes as he is captured by one of the Martian tripods. +
• When Ferrier reaches Boston, the only occupied house visible just happens to be the one he is seeking, that of his ex-in-laws, where the family is reunited.
• After avoiding violent response to the martians throughout the film, and even stopping Ogilvy from attacking the martian scanner-eye that explores his basement, Ferrier suddenly turns on Ogilvy, kills him (off-screen) to silence his crazed babblings, and takes the hatchet himself to the scanner when it returns to investigate.

Hope this helps. Boxclocke 01:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't help, really, if the intent is to identify the film's script (and other) problems. Which are abundant, and that is factual.

The film *runs* on "handy coincidences", happenstance things which only benefit Ferrier and the 2 kids, none of the other people in the world, beginning with the minivan (which not only survives a complete electrical systems shutdown by the aliens, but also isn't even dented though placed in the middle of ground zero for the crash and explosion of an airliner), to his happenstance finding of the grenades, his being sucked up into the Big Tit just far enough to set off the grenades, and his being able to be pulled back out before they go off by a single National Guardsman - and then surviving a five-story fall to the ground.

And repetitions - the teen wants to jump on the passing convoy on the country road & fight them martians; the kid settles down, then the next time he encounters a convoy, he runs off to join them - again - spouting the same lines. Cruise leaves the girl alone - again - to go chase after him. After all his bitching about his dad not caring about him, suddenly there's a big "let me go; I'm grown up" scene; Cruise lets him go and runs back to find his daughter being spirited away, retrieves her and they are the only two to take refuge in the farmhouse, where a crazy old coot fills in for the apparently killed kid, wanting to go fight them martians. Over and over.

Dallas acts her little heart out, but she just rotates from empty-eyed staring to screaming fits to teary eyes; over and over.

If you liked the film that way, well - but let's not suppress the realities of how the script works, which many people would see as being major problems, not just nitpicking. That's the POV problem here - whitewashing, which creates the film's image artificially as having only an occasional, minor, "nitty" writing flaw when it is factually awash in hackwork. 12.73.198.181 03:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Problems section should simply be condensed into the reference by Roger Ebert and a few examples from the film. If you overanalyze any film, "errors" are bound to show up by the bunches. The section is already an unweldy list; certain users are now adding inconsistencies on the film editing as being a major error in the film. This really affects the credibility of the entire article.

If anyone were to create an entire section on these problems/inconsistencies, then they need some external sources to validate their claims. Just look at the Jurassic Park article where the authors include references when discussing the feasibilty of cloning a dinosaur. W/o such evidence, the whole section is simply speculation; Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, which the section unfortunately resembles in its current state. --Madchester 03:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why should Roger Ebert and other paid critics be given the only credence as to this film's problems? I did no "overanalyzing": the script continuously slapped me in the face with one non-credible, clumsy, or repetetive event after another. It did the rest of the audience (of about 20 people), too, judging by the grumblings, catcalls, laughter and loud comments. That just did not happen with Jurassic Park; and anyway, the issue here is not scientific accuracy (most of us do not expect that in a sci-fi outing) but the lack of intelligent, inventive scriptwriting.

And what is wrong about noting sloppy editing: this was not some 40s b-film by a second-rate hack, this was supposed to be the film of the season sporting a big name star, producer-director, composer, special effects artist and other seasoned filmmakers, and they served up their talents against a piece of grade-school fiction writing.

The bottom line is, the film comes with numerous, major, obvious flaws, and these should be fairly noted. That establishes NPOV; otherwise, you end up with just one more fan-generated publicity tract in the guise of an encyclopedia article.

Stating they exist does not prove they exist.

PS - I note someone has not only revised the article overnight to eliminate much of the criticisms, but has also edited the History page to prevent reversion or even recognition that something was changed. Pray tell, how does that happen unless someone in the Wikipedia administration is wantonly out to suppress criticism of this film and all signs that it exists? 12.73.198.59 13:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You can't use the argument of "my audience of 20 other people laughed at the film"; it's simply unverifable. Another user could make a counter-claim using the same type of anecdotal evidence that "her 20 friends all thought the film to be an intelligent affair". Now then, who's source is considered correct?

Once again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it shouldn't be rife with speculation. Information has on the site has to contain reliable sources that are verifiable and appropriate. The problem is much of this section contains no reliable sources to back these errors appropriately.--Madchester 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The film has flaws but to categorically list each and every one is just ridiculous. I've visited multiple film articles on Wikipedia and not even Manos: The Hands of Fate had as many flaws listed as this film did. Backlash is understandable, but it should be reserved for Amazon.com, IMDB and message boards - not an encyclopedia.

More POV "errors" moved from the article - these are NOT errors in the film, these are potential design flaws of the alien craft or in the aliens' logic.

• It is unusual that aliens possessing superior and futuristic technology can not detect humans a few feet away (in the basement sequence), whether by heat, sound, odor, or x-ray, as this technology is already available today (FLIR). The first three are used by mosquitos to detect humans.

Tech wise, they likely didn't feel the need to use it with their massive advantage in firepower and with how inadequate we were at defending the planet to that point. Bio wise, is it also odd that we suck at locating others by heat, sound, and odor?

• The aliens apparently buried there vehicles on earth hundreds of years in the past. Why would they go to this length hundreds of years ago, just to wait and fight more humans years later. It would seem more reasonable to destroy or takeover earth initially, rather then wait for humans to develop further.

not to say to is suspicious that there vehicles could be undetected during hundreds of years : some are buried in city and could have been detected when digging/making test drills, others could emerge to surface with earthquake or other earth tectonic. --12nd July

• Famous film critic Roger Ebert specifically complained about the awkwardness of the alien crafts with their unstable "tripod" support system, claiming that if the aliens had, in fact, been of higher intelligence, they would have known three legs are not stable. Eliminate or injure one leg (although this never took place in the film), and the entire machine goes down. He said it might have worked if the movie were set when the book was written, so that the machines would appear more futuristic. [3]
• The alien technology seems inexplicably deficient in other ways as well. The aliens rely on an individual method of attack (death ray or tentacle), rather than the carpet bombing, gassing etc (weapons of mass destruction) that would be more efficient - but at least it's more advanced than Star Wars where they have swordfights! (The US military's behaviour also seems dated.) And despite their advanced technology, they haven't considered basic biological hygeine - one even laps out of a pool like a dog! In addition, using humans for food or fertiliser isn't particularly rational. Contrary to what we think, there are more animals on Earth than humans - and they're less troublesome. After all, that's why herding has predominated rather than cannibalism!

One of the few good points I've read so far... drinking from a puddle could support the idea that the aliens are not familiar with harmful micro-bacterium... but yes, a very good point none the less. Of course, concerning WMDs... wouldn't give us much of a movie :)

Just a few nitpicks of my own supporting the film:

• • Manni, Ray's mechanic friend, seems oblivious to the tripods and destruction. I think he represents an incident in the book. After the first use of the heat ray, the narrator finds a group of people who laugh when he tries to explain the heat-ray.
  • Maybe the alien's homeworld, if they had one and it was dying, runs on a different measure of time. Ten alien years could be one million human years.
  • Even then, Ogilvy was insane. We don't know if what he was saying was true. The aliens could have come in and buried the tripods in the middle of the night for all we know.

- B-101 11:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to removing the pov tag in the errors/inconsistencies section now? All the POV errors have now been moved to this talk page. Any other such POV errors should be moved here. Marky1981 09:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed and no-one seems to mind! Marky1981 16:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's one that I moved here:

• It seems unlikely that a civilization so much more scientifically advanced than our own (forcefields were used on the tripods) would not have taken into account that they were not immune to foreign microbes, especially as this oversight alone wiped out the aliens.

It just baffles me that many seem to think that they know so much about how these aliens operate, especially with so little to go on. The point is, at the least, that these aliens were so confident in their physical victory over mankind that they didn't bother to look at such minute details. Afterall, has humanity itself not fallen to ignorance over things considered too small to lead to demise? That's kind of the point of the story. --Bacteria 00:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the sections et. al, but it still reads like something from a messageboard or blog. It needs some verfiable sources (within or outside of Wikipedia) to back those claims. For example, not everyone is familiar with how a solenoid works. --Madchester 21:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Does anyone know why humans are vapourised but their clothes are perfectly intact? Marky1981 16:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was because the laser/maser "kills" organic matter, although i guess you could say clothes are organic matter sometimes (with the cotton and all.) Maybe the alien's weapon is designed for just living matter. Thunderbrand 16:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

for cinematic effect. 'Alien technology is so far advanced' can always be a trump card.

Some of the coincidences are very close to inconsistancies and I would support them being shown. For example all the escapes seemed unlikely. When the plane exploded all the windows in the basement exploded in, but the window in the boiler room(seen in the morning) didn't seem touched, and nothing touched the room? His fifty foot fall in the metal cage(previously mentioned) also seemed beyond reson. By the way, if the machines were planted so long ago, is it just a coincidence they happened to mainly hit major cities? You may be able to explain it away by saying so many of them were buried that it is logical some would be in cities.

---

This category is getting WAY too cluttered. It's starting to read like the Cliff Notes' version of the message board for this film at iMDB. And it's frustrating that most people's contributions to the "errors and inconsistencies" category are pointing out only things that SEEM like errors to them, because they a) don't understand the brand of science talked about in the film; b) didn't pay attention to key moments; or c) have a personal vendetta against the film to begin with.

Almost all the "errors", except cinematographic ones, are not true errors: 1) Auto parts that were not connected to any active circuit during an EMP would function later; 2) the same goes for video cameras and their batteries; 3) the machines were not necessarily there for even close to "a million years"-- Tim Robbins' character was nuts, and the machines could have been planted as recently as the Dark Ages without humanity catching on, especially if they were planted as efficiently as the aliens (via "lightning") were planted later, 4) True, Hudson Valley passenger trains currently only operate on the eastern bank, but there ARE railroad tracks on the western bank which might have accommodated passenger trains in view of the ongoing emergency, 5) The protective shields failing at the same time as the aliens' health could be related to their machines being bio-mechanical, 6) the cars on the ferry were not necessarily operational at all, hence the workmen telling the crowd they were going to unload the cars to makme more room; 7) The "continuity" bit about the gun not being tucked in many hours later? COME ON, hours passed and Ray may have re-adjusted the gun in between events. We didn't necessarily have to be shown this bit of action, etc. etc.

Why these "errors" keep making it to the main page, rather than this discussion page, is a mystery! Request that the editors move the recently added "inconsistencies" to this page instead, lest Wikipedia become iMDB's message board. Otherwise, nearly every error could be refuted on the main page (I have, out of obsessiveness, now refuted them here). We don't really need either, do we? Woodson 21:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You are pathetic man, the movie didnt explained by anyways what you are saying, you explain it but after trying to see it not like goofs on a movie, but as part of a greater scheme (riiiiiiight). In part, you have something called "the true believers syndrome", no matter how many times people tell you that in fact you are wrong, youll always believe that you are right, blindly. This happends very often on the real world, for example, its what keeps the UFO business alive. No matter how many times countless specialists (with real degrees) explain that in fact there is no actual evidence to support that aliens exist, and that thus is all actually a business, some people will still blindly believe in UFOs, no matter what. ( [4], here you go, read all about it. Youll be surprised how common it actually is.)

Why is anyone even pointing out these "plotholes." Have you ever seen an action film before? Have you never noticed how they are filled with amazing coincidences? This one is, if anything, more realistic. I have seen people talk about laws of averages. That means that some people will obviously be lucky. Millions of people were affected by the aliens' attack, it stands to reason that some would survive. Ray (the main character) could quite easily be the person followed throughout the story because he was lucky and survived.Kombucha 18:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a section for all the ambiguous and dubious explanations that fans have for each plothole. Its just a movie and yet fans treat WOTW as if it was a movie that has no plotholes or goofs whatsover (like if Kubrick directed it or something), even though they are far common in any movies (specially movies that were made so quickly such as this one). I find a deep lack of criticism for the movie, specially one that has a 6.7 rating in IMDB.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.64.106 (talk • contribs)

I think the most important inconsistence of the movie and which to me is completely absurd.... how is it possible that..

• The aliens did not know how to deffend themselves from viruses and bacteria when they're able to transport living matter via "lighting" without killing it. 201.129.240.39 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Voice over at the end implys that this affect(their existance, or their negative effect; depending on you POV) is unique to earth, thus the aliens would have no reason to suspect the micro-ogranisms as harmful.

Wait... Where were the aliens?

The machines are unmanned and were buried here on earth for millions of years, right? Right. Pods came down in the lightning strikes that carried alien passengers in tiny pods, which drove itself into the ground to reach the machines, to turn them on and pilot them, right? Right. So the aliens had to be waiting in the sky or in orbit of the earth, right? Right.

So my question is... are they still up there? There would be ships up there deploying shuttles and aliens living and/or waiting aboard. So after they saw what was happening below, how everything wasn't going to plan, what are they doing? Did they return home, stay in orbit planning... what? Some aliens “HAD” to survive up there... and if so, what is their next move?

There's nothing to worry about. It's only a movie. And who the heck removed my last comment from this page?!- B-101 6 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

The aliens did it, sir.

And what happened to the aliens? Well, they probably followed the time-honored axiom: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. They said, "We're outa here" and headed off to their next project. Speaking of which, their Project Terraform manager has been demoted to the mail room. Just for one little mistake. Corporate life is cruel, even in advanced civilizations.

Alternate theory: Tom Cruise starting lecturing them about Scientology, and they fled in terror. Wahkeenah 6 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Actually, to me the most annoying thing about the movie was Cruise constantly yelling "stay here" and they wouldn't stay, or "let's go" and they wouldn't go. That's not much better writing than Ed Wood would have come up with. Wahkeenah 7 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Alien Tech

By now everyone is used to aliens having energy weapons, mind powers and force fields, but does anyone actually know how the hell force fields work? In Star Wars force fields can stop lasers but normal light passes through very easily. In War of the Worlds the tripods are protected from the legs up by force fields, how about taking them down using mines or other buried explosives? The tripods obviously don't have a force field protecting the bottom of their 'feet' otherwise they would be walking around mid-air supported by them, which they don't. Everyone says to me "their aliens, you're not supposed to understand their technology otherwise it would already exist". My point is that I don't give a damn how alien tech works now because none of it makes logical sense anyway, except the Point Of View gun from Hitchhiker's Guide, damn force fields really annoy me.--Mohamo July 7, 2005 06:08 (UTC)

While I would say absoltuely nothing that in any way condones this awful movie, I must note the following: It would be theoretically possible to have a force field set up in a manner such that forces exerted on the machine's body via a normal operation of the machine (i.e. the normal force opposing the foot's stepping) would be ignored, but any force in excess of that normal force (i.e. an explosion or a projectile) would trigger the activation of the shield. I'm not a WotW apologeticist, but this is an explanation that is not particularly logically taxing. jglc | t | c 13:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Force fields as portrayed in sci-fi movies, i.e. "energy shields", work the same way as the matter transporter and super-light-speed work in Star Trek: through your imagination. These ideas have been kicking around since at least the 1950s, and none of them actually exist, at least in the ways they are used in sci-fi. Electromagnets emit a "force field" but it doesn't stop anything from coming through other than iron filings. By the way, Roger Ebert really took this movie to task for the amateurishness of the supposedly sophisticated aliens. He talked about how awkward the alien crafts look with their unstable "tripod" support system. He said it might have worked if the movie were set when the book was written, so that it would appear more futuristic. If you've ever seen the early 1950s movie, the alien craft hovered and moved around much more smoothly. [5] Wahkeenah 7 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

Any images?

This article could use some good images. Maybe one of one of the Tripods, perhaps? I've been looking but I can't really find a good one. Thunderbrand July 8, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

You may have to wait til it's out on DVD. Spielberg was clever to keep the tripods from being completely shown in the trailers. It might destroy the feeling of seeing them to people who have not seen the film.- B-101 9 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

I did find this image. I'm not sure if it should be used, so I didn't go and put it in the article yet. I guess it would be better than nothing, though.Thunderbrand 05:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

IM FROM THE UK AND I AM IN TWO MINDS ABOUT WAR OF THE WORLDS FOR ME THE FILM ENDED ARFTER RAY AND HIS DAUGHTER WENT IN TO HIDING ARFTER THAT BATTLE OVER THE HILL, BUT GOING BACK TO THE TRIPODS SHEILD IT MUST BE MORE ADVANCED THAN WE CAN UNDERSTAND LIKE THE USER SAID FIRSTLY ABOUT USING MINES TO REMOVE THE GROUND FROM UNDERNEATH THEM WOULD SURELY BRING THEM DOWN BUT THE REPLY ABOUT THE SHEILD BEING CLEVER ENOUGTH TO DECIDE WHAT A REAL THREAT IE MISSLES TO THE AVERAGE ROCK ON THE FLOOR MUST BE THE ANSWER YOU SEE WITH A FILM LIKE THIS IF WE IMAGINED IT REALLY HAPPENING 9/11 1000 TIMES WORSE ON A GLOBAL SCALE NO ESCAPE FROM PURE DISTRUCTION I DOUBT VERY MUCH THE ALIENS WOULD REALLY ANOUNCE THEIR NAME AND WHERE THEY ARE FROM

Red Sox v Yankees Theory

Removed reference to that completely. Some theorize that it is a retelling of the ALCS? Who? Why?

Considering that the film wrapped up filming in August 2004, that reference is just blatantly wrong. --Madchester 00:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I almost reverted it out when I saw it, but figured someone else would do so after a suitable interval. Don't y'all know a joke when you see one? I thought it was inspired. I wish I had written it... everyone's repeating it around the club. :) Wahkeenah 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Critical Reception

• Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else find the recently added "Mixed Critical reaction" extremely one-sided? For one, it's not exactly well-written (no offense), and all it does is repeat other sections later in the article that were already there. People can make up their own opinions on the movie, and I don't believe it should be an opinion article, as this is the online encyclopedia, and the new section seems to me to be that person's opinion, as I have read very few reviews that actually bring that up... seems to me like someone's just trying to drag opinions back into the article.

I already tried deleting it, but the person simply brought it back. Any opinions? Stay or go? Enfestid 05:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• If it were to be NPOV, then why is the title called "Mixed critical reception? It shold simply be "Critical Reception", with equal and fair references of good and bad responses to the film. Unless it's a film like Gigli. --Madchester 06:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd second all of this, and like to point out that the the critical reception has not been "mixed", but rather generally favorable. Take site for example. It gives the picture a score of 73, "generally favorable reviews". I think, given this, its hard to see why anyone could consider the critical recpetion ambivalent. Just because Roger Ebert doesn't like something, its not really any grounds to draw generalisations about the critical response from that. -- johnhpaulin

• Why would only an extremely bad movie need a mixed critical reception? And Enfestid have you read Roger Ebert's article (June 29, 2005) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050628/REVIEWS/50606007

"War of the Worlds" is a big, clunky movie containing some sensational sights but lacking the zest and joyous energy we expect from Steven Spielberg....The human characters are disappointingly one-dimensional....There are scenes in which poor Dakota Fanning, as his daughter, has to be lost or menaced, and then scenes in which she is found or saved, all with much desperate shouting."

And 24.32.101.199 please don't Wikipedia:Sock puppet

24.4.136.19 1:17, July 12, 2005 (PT)

I said no such thing that the critical reaction was great. I'm not defending it. But all that's listed is the negative, not the positive, and there are far more positive reviews than there are negative. Enfestid 14:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, I just edited the article to actually be "mixed" now. Before pretty much all you did were list the negatives -- I have now made it less one-sided. If you're going to revert it back, how about citing your sources about the characters, because that seemed far more like your opinion than actual reviews.

Oh, and sorry, I misread the sock puppeting comment... I just glanced it over and thought that was a signature, not stating who was sock puppeting.

Enfestid 14:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The whole section needs some references... Which critics claimed that the characters were unlikeable? Which critics thought that it had great visuals? Some external references would be helpful. --Madchester 21:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note on Anonymous user

Note,

12.73.198.181 (talk · contribs), 12.73.198.59 (talk · contribs) are the same user. --Madchester 16:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Notify the admins on the administration board. Scorpionman 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless Actors

I've been meaning to ask this, but why are Daniel Franzese and James DuMont even on the "also with" portion of the "Main Cast" when they're such minor actors in the film? Rick Gonzalez had a minor role, yet it was still bigger than both of those two gentlemen's roles. Enfestid 21:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

THere isn't many actors to mention,i guess

US Military Units in the Film

Dear All, I made some amendments to the plot summary page but were removed immediately. Would the original writer of the page be so kind to clarify why:

(a) "the national guards" units engaging the tripod on the "open farmland" are seen wearing US Marine MARPAT BDU.

(b) "the national guards" units seen engaging a tripod with downed shield wear the divisional sign of the 10th Mountain Division on both sleeves.

Wilson Chan, Sqn Ldr, Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps.

Tripods are giant monsters

I have added the following paragraph in the trivia section:

There is a widespread agreement in Japan that Spielberg has made a kaiju movie, in which, unlike American monster movies, indestructible giant monsters beyond understanding kill people mercilessly. At the world premiere in Tokyo, Spielberg said "Well, certainly the first tripod was taken down in Osaka, because Osaka has so much experience with Gamera and Godzilla." This explains why tripods appear from under earth after a million years of hibernation, why they are as tall as Godzilla, and why they roar.

It may not be a million years but millenia. Please correct if it is wrong.

Several sources report Spielberg's comment on kaiju differently.

• World ready for 'War,' says Spielberg
  "Well, Japan has had a lot of experience dealing with giant monsters like Gamera and Godzilla wreaking havoc on cities," Spielberg said.
• Spielberg, Cruise ready to launch 'War of the Worlds' (Google cache)
  "Well, certainly the first tripod was taken down in Osaka," Spielberg declared, "because Osaka has so much experience with [Gamera the flying turtle] and...very tall creatures that have preyed upon Japan since Godzilla. So they're very good at this, and Osaka is a very experienced city."
• Time is ripe for 'War of the Worlds': Spielberg
  `War of the Worlds'
  Spielberg said the first tripod is killed in Osaka, Japan's second-largest city. "Osaka has a lot of experience," he said, referring to the many scenes of urban destruction in Godzilla and other Japanese monster flicks. "I'm proud of the film, and I'm proud to bring it to Japan."

Spielberg also said he was influenced by the 911 terrorist attack and decided to make this film. This is important, because he is the first director who has tried to make more spectacular and disastrous film than the 911 WTC attack video. - TAKASUGI Shinji 03:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs A LOT of work. Movies need to be properly italicized, and claims about the film need appropriate references. It reads like a high school essay right now. --Madchester 03:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of material under "EMP Related"

The following section is both poorly written, as well as redundant with the line under "These are the known errors," "After the electromagnetic pulse stops most electronic equipment from working, we see a man using his video camera." As such, I removed the following:

A lot of errors in the movie are related to the electromagnetic pulse related damages caused by the 'lightning' bolts the aliens beam down in. At the IMDb, the widely-noticed glitch of a working video camera in a world of dead electrical equipment was originally listed as a goof, but has since been retracted. Instead, it has been posed that the camera worked because it was off at the time of the pulses. This is not right. All the cars that were turned off at the time of the pulses also fail to operate.

However, the presence of the camera is so blatent that it is not likely that a writer or director (with the possible exception of Ed Wood) could have missed it. It must therefore have a reasonable explanation.

The most likely is that the man holding it lived outside the radiation radius and came in with it between the period when the lightning struck and the tripod arose. Less likely is the still-plausible idea that the camera was somehow sheilded from the radiation.

jglc | t | c 13:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Today's cars' circuits are always ON, even when they're off. (That's the simple explanation; see various Internet sources for the complicated one.) That's why they fail. A simpler machine like a video camera, if it had no battery attached during the EMP, would work if you attached a spare battery.

--Ha, just realized I was refuting something the editor had already removed. Good work, jglc! Woodson 06:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually... batteries explode if exposed to an EMP, and TVs start to glow even if they are off. When it says that it shuts down any electrical equipment, it really meants it. Spielberg probably had no idea whatsoever that batteries were useless after being exposed to an EMP and thought that if the guy had the camera shut down it would work later. For those who think that theres an ambiguety here, Occam's razor is bullet proof for this kind of cases (the most simple of all explanations is usually the right one).

So, here are our options:

1-"Spielberg simply didnt knew much about EMPs when making the movie, and since the movie was running on a schedule, he just moved on"

2-"a complicated untold story about how a man was away from town at the momment the pulse and just arrived that morning"

3-"the emp is a special one, alien made or something, and even though no one has told us, it doesnt work on cameras or their respective bateries"

Number 2 is complicated and rather ambiguous, as theres no way to really tell if the man was away (and with his camera) at the time of the pulse, nothing in this movie tells us that he indeed was away, and number 3 suffers from the same logic (the movie just doesnt tell us any hint that it is like that). So, of course, knowing that its a movie and not exactly a documentary, the obvious answer is number 1. End of story, its just a movie and that one slipped away from Spielberg, thats all. It wouldnt be the first time in history it has happened.

Goof?

Is it a goof that the tripod at the end seems to be broken (its shield isn't functioning) when in fact it's only the alien inside that is ill? -ZA

Hmm, that could be a goof, but I'm not 100% sure. Maybe he hit the wrong button or something? Heh. Thunderbrand 22:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Question: If the first "EMP" blast took down all the cars in the city (including the repaired van). Why was that van it not affected after the second EMP storm that took the 747 down in the suburbs?

I'm pretty sure it was the heat-ray from an already operational tripod that took down the 747. Nothing was buried under the neighborhood where Mary-Anne's house was.- JustPhil 13:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with JustPhil! If you listen carefully during the basement scene in Mary Anne's house, you sort of hear the rolling of tanks or something. So in other words, it was probably a battle. Also, the news reporter said they say a battle between the Tripods and the military not too far away. jump5guy89 2:20, 2 May 2006

Yeah, the fact there are no passengers on the 747 indicates that the heat ray must've penetrated the aircraft right at the window area, disintergrating the passengers inside and taking the airplane down right onto the neighborhood. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While some of that may be true, but if you look very carefully, there are some bodies of dead passengers that can be seen flopped over seats and such. jump5guy89 7:46, 3 May 2006

Van

well, I noticed that it shid that the minivan was an 80s car.

Well, i'm an Automobile expert, and I can tell you that the Plymouth Voyager Ray has is a 1994.

how?

well first, the older vans have straight headlamps and they are giant boxes with not a singled curved part on the body.

the one on the movie has curved aerodynamic parts and the rear wiper embroidded into the glass, proving it is a second generation.

plus, the radio is another giveaway point.

starting in 1994 Chrysler offered a modern radio in it's vans, which was then carried over in the redesigned van fleet that appeared in late 1995.

I know that from expirance because I know someone who has a 1994 Voyager and the interior is completely identical of the one in the movie.

plus, Mopar vans have the cylanoids built into the starters, so i added it as a goof.

just had to get that out.

BOSTON NEIGHBORHOOD

Cruise's in-laws neighborhood was somehow immune to the destruction. The only evidence of something gone wrong were abandoned cars.

Good writing

"Then, all hell breaks loose." - it might be just me, but this is a wee bittie too slangy for an encyclopedia... There's a few other examples in the article of this kind of thing. --MacRusgail 19:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

there used to be a criticism section... it got deleted by fans alright. Also there wasnt that much Trivia on the page... yeah that was added by fans too.

Robbie's schoolwork about the French occupation of Algeria

Robbie has a schoolwork to do about French occupation of Algeria. Why this subject ? Is there something political behind this ? Namely the French/US opposition about Iraq.

you are not seriously suggesting that there is some kind of symbolism in the movie, are you?

There is symbolism and symbolism... ;) If this film is actively supporting the US politic, with Robbie extremely eager to fight against "invaders" after some kind of "terrorist attack", and bashing France in the process, it should appear in the page, don't you think ?

I simply interpreted it as a sly foreshadowing to the oncoming invasion. It reminded me of the metaphor of Wells' novel concerning the British Empire. --Bacteria 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alien motivation

With all the discussion about the plot holes on this page, I haven't seen any mention of the problem with trying to understand the motivation of the aliens. At first they are vaporizing people, but later they are harvesting them. If they want to harvest people, why would they start out by terrorizing them and vaporizing them? --Samuel Wantman 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the aliens could use 6 billion people for fertilizer. They needed to subject Earth and eliminate any remote/possible threat first before they began terraforming.- JustPhil 20:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Their basic objective is to crush resistance and use the rest, too weak and few to put up a good fight, to paint the world red with their own blood. I recall reading the same negative criticism in an Entertainment Weekly review, and simply thought that if they had adapted the film to the letter, many would still miss their purpose of using the Heat-Ray when they needed humans. It's another idea taken very heavily from the novel. If the Martians needed the blood, why kill their food? Because you can't be roaming around with an entire world filled with primitives creatures aiming to kill you all the time. --Bacteria 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

2 DVD versions?

I've seen this twice on 2 dvd's, and I seem to remember in the scene where the red plant is shown and the tripod fertilizing it, the first time I remember seeing some kind of tube that bodily sucked up the person, and the blood was shown being sprayed over the plant. Now watching it a person is dropped and the drained via a needle-tipped tube, and no spray is shown. Is it possible there are two versions with slightly different editting (maybe a director's cut or some such), or am I just remembering wrong?

I think you're just remembering it wrong. I've seen the film five times in theatres, and I don't recall what you describe originally seeing, and I've heard nothing about any alterations like this. The man is simply taken and stabbed offcamera with the needle follwed by a shot of his blood flowing through the tube. Your recollection of the spraying may be from Ray holding his hand out in front of the window and having it covered in a bloody mist. --Bacteria 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be right, Bacteria, but if you look closely, the machine is still spraying fertilizer as it gets ready to stab that guy.- JustPhil 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Goofs

I may be able to understand why the goofs section has been removed. The only ones that I noticed were when the tripod emerges. As it said, shots of Ray on his own are spliced into the shots of him with his friends. Another mistake I noticed is that it appears the distance between Ray and the opened pit appears to shift between the shot when the leg comes out (the leg also seems to disappear in the following shots of the machine climbing out) to when the tripod finally emerges. Additionally, we don't see (or perhaps hear) the other legs coming out of the pit.- JustPhil 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

i dont understand why the goof section was deleted, it all seems like fanboy invisible hands manipulating the page. I mean, come on!, goofs and plotholes are the mayor things going on in WOTW. They are too many, and the dubious answers are just far too unbeliavable.

Unanswered issues

First of all,I would like to apologize for my grammar/spelling mistakes.

I am going to delete some of the Unanswered issues,because they actually have answers.I am writting them here.

"Why the aliens' waited until the human race could actually put up a fight / and until the human race had ruined earth with pollution and such, when they could have just taken the planet for their own years before all of this happened. "

This issue suggests that they came here for the planet.But they capture people and suck their blood to fertilize their red weed.They must have a reason to do that.They waited until the humans appear in Earth and then waited until we reached a big population of almost 7 billion people.It should be humans enough for fertilizing.About the pollution,it is obvious that they don't mind about that,because the first Tripod seen in the movie emerged on a relativly polluted area,and just followed the plan,instead of moving back to it's hole.

"How Boston was mostly untouched by the aliens. "

The cities where the tripods appear aren't regular.For example,only because they emerged on New Jersey they don't need to emerge in other urbanized and high-habitated areas.

"How the tripod in Ray's neighborhood disappeared between when it first appeared and when it destroyed the bridge behind Ray's house. "

The Tripods can crawl,as everyone can see in the scene where Rachel is captured by one of those.The Tripod could have crawled towards the bridge to destroy it.

"How Ray and Rachel were able to get from the abandoned house that they hid in (it was near the Hudson River) to Boston. "

It is not sure if that house is near the Hudson River.Ray and his kids must have walked a long way,because when they reached the other side of the Hudson River it was night,when they reached the hill where the army was fighting some Tripods,it was evening.And it isn't that hard to walk a long way to Boston,even at the risc of being spoted by a Tripod.

A-Bombs

• Why don't the humans use nuclear weapons? You'd think they'd try them at least once in the film?

Yeah, that would work, I'm sure.

If you are defending your own planet, and there are billions of humans running around with a massively smaller number of enemies, nuclear weapons are hardly the best option. In order to defeat the aliens you would need to destroy Earth's ability to support life, killing billions directly, and the rest of the population indirectly. The tripods' shields may simply be able to withstand the impact of nuclear blasts anyway. Kombucha 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all using one nuclear weapon wouldnt kill the planet so it should have been tried as a last result considering the speed people were dying. Their was mass panic and considering the past I dont think their is much emphasis on human life preservation from the part of the government. And considering that the tripods killed everything that would come in sight i do not see any reason the government would make land-based warfare on the aliens. After seeing the energy fields i would definately start using mass explosive force insead of shooting at them with machine guns like the army does in the movie. Tutmosis 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you imagine that one nuke would destroy every Tripod on Earth, considering that they are all over the world? You would need to use hundreds of nuclear weapons which would kill millions, maybe even billions in the explosions alone. All other life on the planet would probably die within a year due to the fallout and inevitable nuclear winter.Kombucha 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You dont have to use nuclear bombs but no where in the movie did it mention bombings taking place or explosives being set up. Instead the heroic US army went to fight with machine guns and helicopter missiles which is quite pointless considering when the first tripod emerged It killed 50 people in limited time even a person trying hiding in his car. Dont you think a tripod wouldnt be able to defeat some troops? The only thing they could have done is do some bombing on the tripods which they never tried. Tutmosis 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You only saw one battle that happened in one place, early on in the invasion. It is obvious to you that the Tripods have shields against smaller weapons, because you are watching something that you know is not real. In reality it is unlikely that military leaders would seriously consider those kind of shields as existent. The first choice in warfare would not be huge bombs, but more conventional weapons such as missiles from helicopters and heavy machine guns. Presumably once the military realized that they would need to use more power, they would have attempted to do so.Kombucha 22:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take for the military to understand this, they've been riding around for couple days now trying to kill them. The movie battle took place on like day 3. Tutmosis 14:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it's a FILM it's not REAL. Maybe they had never fought the Tripods before, they just spent time gathering forces together. If I were fighting machines like that I would try to do what I could. Nuclear weapons would not work, quite clearly, and apart from some kind of guerilla warfare, this was the only option. Kombucha 16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the military's aim was to protect civilians from the oncoming tripods, I believe employing the A-bomb, especially considering their potential proximity and the blast range, would render their major objective rather futile. I think at that point, they weren't really aiming to bring them down (though I'm sure doing so by some mircale would have been a hoot of a victory), but rather give them enough of a fight so as to stall them from reaching the refugees. And who's to say that they didn't try nukes? The film sticks to a limited POV and Ray was not in the position to be watching the army drop bombs. You just have to assume they did and failed or at least considered it, but if they did succeed, it wouldn't be an overall success considering the moral dilema. Didn't anyone see the original 1953 film, or at least its suck rip-off Independence Day? --Bacteria 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Bacteria. In the 1953 film, the Defense secretary says that the army held back the a-bomb because they were afraid about radiation exposure to civilians. And also, the tripods came out of the ground over the span of a few hours. They most certainly would have immediately disrupted communications so that we couldn't plan a defense fast enough, which should explain why we only see tanks fighting the aliens.- JustPhil 13:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

References to 9/11

I believe this should be deleted. Hardly any of these points, if any, should be there in my opinion. Most of these references seem to be very unlikely at best, and appear to have been deliberately searched out and forced to match events of 9/11, rather than neatly fitting.

Agreed. This section is a joke, unluckily, not a funny one.

Original points with my responses:

• The film starts with a shot of Lower Manhattan.

The point being what? That the WTC was in Manhattan too?

• Nearly every house in Ray's neighborhood has an American flag out front, mirroring the patriotism expressed after the terrorist attacks.

This shows patriotism, but I fail to see how it "mirrors" anything. It could just as well mirror the patriotism shown after the Declaration of Independence.

• In general, no one has any sense of the impending doom that awaits until it is too late.

Just like real disasters in most forms. If people knew about it, it wouldn't be much of a disaster, would it?

• Police officers tell civilians in danger to "Clear the intersection!" This was ordered by police officers in the Manhattan area on 9/11.

Granted, this reference makes sense.

• Large crowds on the street all look upwards towards something horrifying.

There is a huge alien craft towering over them, what do you expect them to do? Of course they will look up and be horrified.

• Masses of people running down the street away from certain death.

Again, what do you expect them to do? This kind of scene is in many films that involve some kind of danger in a town/city. Godzilla being an example. People ran away from aliens in War of the Worlds long before 9/11.

• The dust that covers Ray after the initial attack.

Maybe you're right here, but dust is often formed in disasters, and it fits in with how the rays are supposed to work.

• The clothes of heat-ray victims float through the air, similar to how office papers floated from the World Trade towers after the planes' impact.

So your link is that things float? This is simply a good image, not a reference to anything.

• Rachel and Robbie asking Ray during the attack, "Is it the terrorists?"

This is simply a realistic question that would probably be asked by children after being constantly assaulted by tales of terrorists and enemies of America. If anything it is a reference to the exaggeration of the media.

• Robbie's comment, "Why are there no helicopters or airplanes?"

How exactly is that a link to 9/11? It's a reasonable question to ask.

• Upon entering Ray's ex-wife's house, a photo is shown on the table. In it, the family is pictured in front of the Brooklyn Bridge, with the World Trade Center site slightly visible in the background.

That is almost certainly an image chosen with no particular intention.

• A civilian aircraft crashes next to the same house.

The only similarity there is that a plane crashed, every other aspect of that event was different from the events of 9/11.

• In the small town where the family's minivan is stolen, walls of posters are shown with pictures of missing people.

This would probably happen in any similar disaster, it shows realism and perhaps is intended to bring the viewer closer to the victims. However, it is possible that this idea was influenced by similar events after 9/11. I doubt it is a reference to it.

• Civilians use a river ferry to move away from danger areas.

Did this happen in 9/11? I don't know to be honest. It's a good idea though, and a significant part of the plot, too significant to likely be a reference to anything. It would be a very loose reference if it were one.

• The main characters watch horrific destruction unfold from the safety of the other side of the Hudson River.

Simply because some people saw destruction from the other side of the river on 9/11, when some other people see some completely unrelated destruction from the other side of the river (the destruction has little attention paid to it) it is a reference to 9/11?

• Most shots (including those of Tripods) are taken from waist level.

How does that fit in with 9/11? There is very little footage of 9/11, I doubt any of it is from waist level, it makes no sense for amateur or professional film makers to film from waist level. I also don't see why you particularly mentioned Tripods. To my knowlege, they did not feature in 9/11.

• When the reporter shows Ray a video of a city being destroyed by Tripods, one building is shown collapsing in a way that echoes the collapse of the South Tower.

That is how tall buildings collapse, not just how the WTC South Tower collapsed.

Kombucha 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, that was pretty much what spielberg wanted to do, to mimic the 9/11 effect to follow the tradition from the last movie. I dont know... still, this article has WAY too much useless info for a movie that sucked so badly.

You forgot to sign your comments. Anyway, I agree, my vote is delete the section. --fataltourist 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I did. Well, they're signed.

how sad, the only interesting section of this page and you want to erase it. Most of your responses for each of the points are overly simplistic... you use the pragmatic card one too many times there.

I am just being realistic. I'm not saying that there was no intention to reference 9/11, but all of the points above (except one) are not real evidence of this as far as I am concerned. Perhaps Spielberg just wanted to make a film that looks good... --Kombucha 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really an issue of it "looking into what you want to read" that Spielberg did make allusions to 9-11. According to IMDb, he filmed the introduction of the tripods based on amateur footage of the attacks. And there are certainly other mirror images that cannot be escaped and were done exclusively for the film. However, I agree that many of these may be simply coincidence. A good example is the angle on human complacency and total lack of preparedness before the assaults since this is taken from the novel and maybe better acknowledged as a testament to Wells' uncanny prophetic visions than a direct reference. Koepp did more or less allude to the fact that the film takes place in a post-9/11 world (hence why Rachel asks about it being terrorists), so other listed examples are simple consequences of setting the story in such a world, like the strong presence of American flags (which doesn't really fit into the allegory, if you think about it). I think in order to keep it neat and tight and spare the problem of jumping onto coincidences, it would be better redone as a simple note either in the trivia section or as a total retooling of the same section. --Bacteria 13:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I simply hide the information for now. Like I said, it seems relevant, but some of it is reaching. At the least, I don't think we need a comparison list done. --Bacteria 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple: this section needs to be sourced or deleted per WP:NOR. -- MisterHand 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absoloutely right. I added the appropriate tag now. If no one can provide sources within a week, I'm simply going to cannibalise it. --Bacteria 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bayonne and Ironbound 50km away?!

"In the movie, Ray Ferrier's house is located in Bayonne, New Jersey right near the Bayonne Bridge. The shot of the first tripod coming out of the ground was filmed in the Five corners intersection in the Ironbound neighborhood of Newark, New Jersey. The two places are about 25 miles (50 km) away but in the movie they are a couple of blocks away from each other (it appears that in the movie five corners was used to play a random intersection in Bayonne and not supposed to be the five corners located in Newark)."

According to Google Earth, Five corners and Bayonne bridge are under 6 miles (10km) away, or 15km by car, but that's still far from 50km! Allright, it is not exactly few blocks away, but anyway...--Nije bitno... 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Plot writing style...

The plot section of this article is needlessly over-descriptive and long...why do we care what specific car models were smashed by the tripods? Def. needs to be condensed. Scott 110 23:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Heat-Rays

OK! What bothers me is how do these heat-rays work? They are totally different in the book because in the original novel, the Heat-rays just set things ablaze and leave bodies charred beyond reconition. In the 2005 version they hit a person and they disintegrate instantly.

Perhaps they use a maser or a kind of radiation that is yet to be discovered by humans. The way that the rays work isn't really the point of the film. While we're wondering how things work, we could perhaps ask how Tripods walk on tentacles and how aliens are transported in lightning.--Kombucha 11:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its completely ficticious, no real-life ray would work like that. And even if they discovered some type of maser, most likely an advanced civilization would not use a ray to deliver it (then again, this is the same race of aliens who never heard of space suits). As the novel was written nearly a century ago, death rays were pretty popular and considered to be the gun of the future (eg: lasers, tesla coil guns, phasers, blasters or whatever). Today we know that lasers or rays just plain wont be the gun of the future for budgetary reassons (both the amount of power needed for a laser to destroy something and because of the tremendous amount of heat the laser would produce when fired, wich would need a sofisticated cooler system too) and for tactical reassons (heat=sitting duck for heat-seeking missiles). The effect is supposed to work like microwave hovens work. Wich is why the clothes are left floating (thus, the *poof* gun was born)

Trivia section

The Trivia section seems a bit bloated with useless information to me -- for example, many of the items which are said to be homages to the old film or television show are, in fact, from the original novel. That these scenes straight from the book appear in other media is not at all suprising or noteworthy "trivia." Anyway, I've boldly deleted a couple of particularly useless bits: it's not really interesting trivia that child star Dakota did her first stunt in this film (if it is, it's trivia for the her Wikipedia article, not this one), and comments about Tom Cruise's methods of signing autographs hardly seem to be War of the Worlds trivia, either. - Mecandes 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.
Watemon 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Robbie reappearing and the Explosion

What is it with Robbie reappearing and that explosion that destroyed the house Ray, Rachael and Robbie were staying in? Was it an added feature, the ending I mean? And what was it that caused that explosion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punk18 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

It's not that hard to believe that Robbie could have easily been kept safe by the miltary forces when they retreated. The other thing to remember is that this is another reference to the novel in which the narrator believes his wife had been killed during the invasion, only for her to show up alive and safe in the closing of the story. I'm not sure what you mean by the explosion as "an added feature" or what it has to do with the ending. The house they were staying in was destroyed by a crashed plane, brought down by the tripods. By the way, please sure to sign your comments. --Bacteria 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Plot section

This section's extremely bloated. It's supposed to be a summary, not a minute-by-minute retelling. Over 3000 words is far, far, far too long. You can tell it's gone over the edge when vital plot details including "Mary-Anne tells Ray that she will leave her cell phone on in case of an emergency and Ray reassures her not to worry." are commonly seen. Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies, such as mentioning Robbie taking Ray's car twice, and introducing the narrator/Morgan Freeman at the end as if his speech at the beginning didn't exist. -- Viewdrix 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentions this above, and I have to agree - there is far too much detail. Even the plots for each Star Wars episode aren't as long and detailed as this! As big as nerd I am for all things War of the Worlds, I am fully aware that we simply don't need so much information. Any more descriptive and we might as well post the film for download. We don't need to know the make and model of every freaking car that gets destroyed and we don't need to have a blow-by-blow detail of events (unless they are strongly related to the story or characters). Unless someone beats me to it, I'm going to try sometime this week to sift through a crunch, remove, and (when necessary) add to the plot so it'll look and flow a lot better. --Bacteria 13:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Plot redone

All right, I redid the entire damn thing. I barely consulted the previous summary, working virtually from scratch. I can understand that it may still be a bit long, but I accomplished the main objective of disassembling the blow-by-blow details, compacting as much as I could, coming close to cutting the wordcount by almost half. There was difficulty in crunching it even further as the story unfolds in a single POV, thus no dual plot threads to wrap together. But it is most definitely shorter than the previous summary. And I apologise with immense sarcasm for the absence of the specific names and titles mentioned. There's no need to name exact military divisions - calling them soldiers is sufficient here. I also removed some wanking in it, such as needless sidenotes about the plot and characters. And I also took out some sub-ish details, the most obvious being the complete removal of the roadside scene, keeping things broad. The only details I expanded on were the bookends, as I felt they were shamefully shortchanged. The original summary was also faulted by the use of such phrases as "pissed off" and "pedal to the metal," as well as a couple of minor story errors. It took me hours just to write the entire thing and days just to shave it down, and I may keep picking at it, but this is an improvement. I hope everyone who has been bitching about the details (myself included) help to keep it from reverting back to its gratuitous state.--Bacteria 05:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Its still long and has those unnecesary fanboy titles (wich are becoming really popular in wikipedia recently)

Well, like I said, it's hard to crunch much further given the single perspective of the film's story, but I have been doing some summaries lately and feel I've developed a knack for condensing, so I'll give it another go sometime soon, and we'll see how much can be done. But I feel the need to bitch the fact that it seems that despite everyone bemoaning the length, I'm the only who seems to be trying to shrink this thing down. And please elaborate on "fanboy titles." It might help my next edit. --Bacteria 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Smoke

OK... What I don't understand is why didn't the movie have the Tripods using the infamous Black Smoke? I found that so weird! It's a very important part of the original story and it's plot!!! Why cut it out? --jump5guy89 8:31am, 18 May 2006

They cut it out of the 1953 film too...not to mention the other two 2005 remakes as well as the tv series. They probably felt that it didn't contribute any action to the plot. Scorpionman 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is there as a green smoke in the Asylum film and it appeared in the Pendragon film. It's only really been employed in the radio play. I don't really believe it contributes to the plot, not like the red weed; it's simply a powerful weapon. Koepp may have simply had trouble integrating it into the story, and he more or less states that time was certainly a factor. The film does run about two hours already. --Bacteria 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rumor has it, they couldn't alot screen time for it over other material.

External link

Why doesn't this link work? It only directs to the main site; it should direct to a sound clip! Scorpionman 13:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you visted the site before now? The site, after being frozen in time since the film's release, just recently had a makeover. I scanned, but couldn't find any access to it, and there is no longer a "downloads" page there, so I can only assume they removed it during renovation. --Bacteria 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The urge to explain

What a lot of speculation there is here about the aliens, how their technology worked etc. The best thing about this movie is that the aliens are wholly unexplained. We can speculate widly all night if we like. For instance, the aliens might have known all about the earth bacteria, but they believed that their alien gods would protect them in some divine supernatural way, like snake handlers believe that God will keep them safe from snake venom. Do you see? We can come up with ideas and rationales for ever. The beauty and power of this movie is that nothing on screen is explained.

I think this may be unique for a Hollywood SF film, to leave the aliens as unexplained (perhaps unexplainable), and ideally there would be something about this subtlety on the main page somewhere, but I can't source it anywhere so I'm putting it here instead.

--Spring rain 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"speculate widly all night"?, i think the longest conversation i had about WOTW was

"have you seen it?"

"yeah, it sucks"

"oh, cool"

may i remind you that:

a)this is no message board for TEH RULZ movies

b)"alien gods"?, "snake handlers??"... and those are supposed to be "rational answers"??. You are just confusing yourself there.

No, it says "rationales" not "rational," as you will see when you read it more closely.

I have had many interesting conversations about this version of WOTW, one of which was last night, when someone pointed out that the derelict spacecraft in Alien (film) is also unexplained within the context of the movie. So WOTW is not unique at all. Ah well. --Spring rain 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is just one of those movies that's going to be a lightning rod for negative criticism, no matter how many defenders it has. I'm used to that. People are going to hate it, and the lack of details is more ammunition. I myself can speculate all night, though I tend to narrow their defeat down to simple oversight due to their own hubris, arrogance being a vital theme to the story and prevalent even in the TV series. But the idea that the aliens' motivation, their history, and methods remaining largely cloudly is a unique element; maybe not to science fiction, but it's different to the alien invasion film genre where here the mysteries are motivation to a continually moving plot. The holes in logic would have less wiggle room if their was trust-worthy exposition, and there's nothing that really makes it too bold to render any theory irrefutable. --Bacteria 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Boston

I changed the trivia fact of Robbie being a Boston fan because he lives with his stepfather and mother in Boston. This isn't possible, as the mother and father were going to Boston to visit her parents and left the children with Ray. Also, this is where they end up at the end of the movie. If they lived in Boston already, why drive all the way to New Jersey to drop off the kids? The must obviously live in one of the affluent bouroughs of New York.Flibbert 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Error in Trivia

The trivia section of the article states that the jets were an F-22, an A-10, and two F/A-18 hornets. However, the planes are actually an F-22, an A-10 and two F-16s. You can tell because the F/A-18 has a two tail structure that come together like a V, and the F-16 has a single tail that comes straight down. There is also another A-10 that can be seen when the helicopters attack and Mr. Ferrier is on the ground with Robbie.