Eve Of The War

A forum for all 'War Of The Worlds' fans
Home Page Home Page Home Page Home Page
Login 
View unanswered posts View active topics

Delete all board cookies

All times are UTC




Home Page Home Page  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page
 Previous << 
1, 2, 3, 4
 >> Next 
  Print view
Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:43 am 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 114
Location: Schwäden :P
<!--QuoteBegin-Lonesome Crow+Mar 5 2005, 01:09 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lonesome Crow @ Mar 5 2005, 01:09 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Several members seem shocked to see a woman stripped half naked in the Pendragon clip, I posted a site-address last week showing a couple of pictures from WOTW, one of which showed a Martian feeding off a half naked man, there where many comments on how creepy the picture was but no one seemed bothered that the man had been stripped :huh: strange that you accept a man being stripped but get all coy when its a woman :P<br />[right][snapback]1790[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />A shirt is easy to strip, but as braw is quite hard and thats AFTER the shirt. And neither does it say anything about it in the book...<br /><br />Wells was socialist, which probably means that christianity does not play much of a role in his life.<br /><br />Einstein mentioned many things from the bible, and used the expression "god" many times. But he also said that religion are for no-lifers, and bad for everyone. He was Atheist and Humanist. Not believing jew. ;)


How to make a tripod:
1. Take a small wooden toy wheel (cheap in hobby stores)
2. Take three nails.
3. Figure the rest out yourself.

Pretty crazy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:01 am 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
Wells also suggests that its not just men that The martians feed on whilst on Earth but that they seemed to favour men. The Journalist thought this had something to do with the fodder the Martians brought with them to feed on jouring transit from Mars. Creatures discussed in "Martian Takeaway" post. So perhaps they fed on cows and pigs and all manner of animals, but mostly humans. It would be interesting to see, them catch a heard of cows. <br />Wells was anti religion and that is why the character of the Curate is the way he is.<br />


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:44 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 5 2005, 04:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 5 2005, 04:01 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wells was anti religion and that is why the character of the Curate is the way he is.<br />[right][snapback]1798[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />"Anti religion" can become a slippery slope topic, perhaps best started as a separate thread. However, I did find it interesting that Wells' own beliefs allowed for a personal god, and even a redeemer god (in the Arminian/Unitarian sense), but he admitted that he really could not get his head around the idea of a Creator God.<br /><br />Yet, in his 1898 text, he clearly gives God the credit for wisely creating nature to include germs. I hadn't thought about it until now, but it seems like even Wells was catering, somewhat, to what he knew his audience would accept. (He was writing fiction to sell, after all, not ivory tower manifestos) Pal did the same thing in '53, in that sense, just times-ten.<br /><br />The Curate is a very interesting character, given other of Wells' writings. Wells was very clearly hostile towards the Church of England and especially the dogma that its priests were God's chosen sole representatives -- man's only conduit to reach God. This really rubbed Wells the wrong way. While he allowed that many priests were very nice men, he said he'd seen many who really took this too far, and imagined themselves as little gods -- holy, perfect, and incapable of sin -- but which Wells saw as really only very flawed men pretending to be holy.<br /><br />The Curate is a good study of this Wellsian view that priests are really just men -- non-perfect, non-holy, and sometimes not even all that noble.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:49 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
Also and I can say this being a published writer myself, when you write you can't give the main character al of your beliefs. Or it becomes a rant. So you create characters who think and behave differently to yourself. It was normal for the Journalist to have faith. Wells uses other ellements of the story to bring it into disripute.


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:14 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 3365
Location: N.Humberside.UK
<!--QuoteBegin-The Improved Trog+Mar 5 2005, 07:43 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Improved Trog @ Mar 5 2005, 07:43 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A shirt is easy to strip, but as braw is quite hard and thats AFTER the shirt. And neither does it say anything about it in the book...<br />[right][snapback]1797[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />It seemes common sense that you would strip a body before you drain the blood, the biggest artery in the body is the femoral, on the inside of the thigh. not as handy as the jugular vein but a better bleeder.


Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DldFBFJgWmw&feature=player_embedded


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:12 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
With all those tenticals and nimble handling machine prehensiles and pincers, the Martians would be able to whip a bra of quicker than Joey off Friends.


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:05 am 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:27 am
Posts: 158
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 5 2005, 10:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 5 2005, 10:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With all those tenticals and nimble handling machine prehensiles and pincers, the Martians would be able to whip a bra of quicker than Joey off Friends.<br />[right][snapback]1819[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /> :D :D :D :D :D :D ...lmao..


"did i miss a meeting" ... bill hicks


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:10 pm 
Advanced Member

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:06 pm
Posts: 98
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 5 2005, 02:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 5 2005, 02:49 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also and I can say this being a published writer myself, when you write you can't give the main character al of your beliefs. Or it becomes a rant. So you create characters who think and behave differently to yourself. It was normal for the Journalist to have faith. Wells uses other ellements of the story to bring it into disripute.[/quote]<br /><br />Fully agree. It's important to remember that when the narrator refers to the bacteria as being placed on Earth 'by God, in His wisdom', it's the narrator talking. A character created by Wells, expressing views that were not necessarily Wells' own. The narrator, being a Christian, desperately wants to believe in a God that watches over & protects Mankind, and so interprets the Martians' downfall accordingly.<br /><br />Personally, I think the religious aspects of Pal's movie were a disappointment. The final voiceover practically transforms the 'God saved us' delusion/belief of Wells' narrator into a statement of fact.<br /><br />And another alien invasion movie, Signs (2002) took it further still. In an amazing cop-out ending that ruins the entire film, it's revealed that everything that has ever happened to Mel Gibson's farmer - including his wife's death in a car accident, his son's asthma, and his daughter's fixation with leaving glasses of water all over the house - are all part of God's plan. <br /><br />


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:27 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 241
Location: Manchester.UK
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.......GYPSYWLF......I have to beg to differ as regards ''two studios'' doing the story.Theres only one my friend.Paramount are doing something entirely different and its most certainly NOT the book that i've read by a Mr H G Wells. -_-


Bloody Martians nicked my bible..!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:44 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-The Curate+Mar 7 2005, 09:27 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Curate @ Mar 7 2005, 09:27 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh dear oh dear oh dear.......GYPSYWLF......I have to beg to differ as regards ''two studios'' doing the story.Theres only one my friend.Paramount are doing something entirely different and its most certainly NOT the book that i've read by a Mr H G Wells. -_-<br />[right][snapback]1859[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Curate,<br />Yes, I know there is a sizable degree of pesimissm among this forum's members, that Paramount can do -anything- that they'll like. I'm no Cruise groupie, nor do I quiver at a chance to meet Spielberg, but I'm reserving judgement, and not condemning Paramount to fan hell -- just yet.<br /><br />But, "...entirely different"? <br /><br />That seems too similar to Frenchmen claiming that only wines from France qualify as "real" wine, or a Texan claiming that only corn-fed texas beef qualifes as 'real' beef, etc. A bit too drastic of a dichotomy for the real world. (though I think I understand the sentiment)<br /><br />The two studios are producing movies with the title WotW. One claims to be following the book (in setting and period) but this doesn't guaranty perfection (IMHO), any more than Paramount's opting for 2005 America guarantees automatic suckville.<br /><br />I know this will only get me branded as a non-purist heretic, but I would still consider the Pal film to have been a valid adaptation of WotW. Not the original, certainly, but some totally different beast either. Pal, in my opinion, kept the spirit and theme of Wells' WotW, if not all the details. Some might regard the Pal film as a bastard son, but it's a son just the same, not a total stranger. Perhaps this is the best Paramount can accomplish -- a newer, bigger, bastard son of Wells. But, it would still be a son.<br /><br />Personally, that may be best I can hope for. (A) that Pendragon does a good job of making the 1898 book into a credible film and that (B) Paramount will produce a reasonable modern adaptation. There's still room for Pendragon to drop the ball, and still room for Paramount to produce a travesty. I'm not counting any chickens, just yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:28 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
GYPSYWLF! please stop using the phrase heretic in relation to what fans of the book/anti-Paramount people might say to people of the opposite opinion. Nobody on this forum has or is using it and its a very unfair way of tarnishing peoples point of view by making them look unreasonable.[/rant]<br /><br />now then, ive been through many times and hope never to have to go through it again why the 1953 film is a good adaptation. It got the "feel" of the story, to an extent at least. Paramounts new version is concentrating on things other than the real story, its going off on tangents about family relationships and Ford Mustangs. I doubt itll find time to recapture the book.


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:40 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
At least the pal version had Martians and they died from bacteria. At least they arrived in Cylanders. Take those things away and you've strayed too far! They even had a cylander land on a house like in the book!


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:49 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Leper Messiah+Mar 7 2005, 11:28 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leper Messiah @ Mar 7 2005, 11:28 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->GYPSYWLF! please stop using the phrase heretic in relation to what fans of the book/anti-Paramount people might say to people of the opposite opinion.  Nobody on this forum has or is using it and its a very unfair way of tarnishing peoples point of view by making them look unreasonable.[/rant]<br />[right][snapback]1869[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I won't use the term any more.<br /><br />I did so to make a point, -not- simply to insult. Rather, it was extremism to make a point about extremism. I have felt my views tarnished and have seen a few others tarnished for extending some hope that Paramount will produce something worth seeing -- perhaps not the ultimate all-time best -- but not total garbage either. Perhaps there should be less tarnishing. It certainly isn't conducive to Wells-fan diologue.<br /><br />A modern adapation still capturing some of the spirit of the book, is still possible, IMHO, but such a view has been rather regularly treated as a totally unreasonable opinion by those who insist on book-fidelity. I have no grand love of Spielberg or Paramount, or Cruise, but the constant bashing gets a bit tedious, and doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose.<br /><br />Now, on to comparitive matters. <br /> I'm glad you agree that the Pal film captured some of the spirit of the book. I have not found enough real info on what the current Paramount film will really include. Pal added the Silvia character, but that did not destroy the spirit of the story. Spielberg could add a daughter and similarly not destroy the spirit by that act alone.<br /> I've seen much wild speculation, but most of it seems so flamingly pessimistic as to be unreliable. I've heard much quibbling over details, but Pal strayed in details and yet still captured the spirit. Where are the Paramount plot details, or overall plot outline, to be found?<br /><br /> As I've said several times too, Paramount could botch the job completely. I'm not saying whatever they touch will be gold. They could crank out some father-daughter love story punctuated with some million-dollar explosions having something vaguely to do with aliens, and little else. It could be another Waterworld -- 95% effects, 5% plot.<br /> On the other hand, I still (for lack of contrary evidence) stay hopful that they will produce a film that captures what I consider to be the essence, the spirit of Wells' tale.<br /> Where can I read about what is -really- in the Paramount film?


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:50 am 
Super Member

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 241
Location: Manchester.UK
As regards 'Pals' version i enjoyed it as an alien invasion kind of thing but the fact remains that this film is just 'regurgetated ideas'.This applies to lots of things in life not just film making.Its just the same as copying your english homework off the lad sat next to you in class and putting it in your own words so the teacher doesn't ''suss it''.Film makers and writers...........open your wings and try and fly by yourselves instead of riding on the back of other people coz you have been well and truly sussed........(jesus, its like 'bolt-ons' from O2)originality....do these people have any concept of that word....oh yeah,silly me its all about making money isnt it...........DERRRRRRRR! :lol: :lol:


Bloody Martians nicked my bible..!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:42 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
well Pendragons effort is the bigger challenge in my book, having read the book again the difficulties of making a 100% as written film version are insurmountable, you simply cannot make a film told in exactly the same way as the book and have it make sense, things need to move around and things that are hinted at in the book need to find a visual or audio hint thats not present in the book, doing things exactly as is in the book is simply not possible. <br /><br />However thats not to say the story can't be done but even with Pendragons version it has to be told at the very least in a slightly different order.<br /><br />now then, next issue :D<br /><br />
Quote:
by gypsywlf<br />Pal added the Silvia character, but that did not destroy the spirit of the story. Spielberg could add a daughter and similarly not destroy the spirit by that act alone.<br />I've seen much wild speculation, but most of it seems so flamingly pessimistic as to be unreliable. I've heard much quibbling over details, but Pal strayed in details and yet still captured the spirit. Where are the Paramount plot details, or overall plot outline, to be found?
<br /><br />The Silvia character in the Pal version was not the be all and end all of the story though. A love story was and still is required in most hollywood productions, a character like her had to be in there. It simply wouldnt do for the guy to be married and have his wife just disappear of to Letherhead (or American equivalent) for the duration. Now the difference is, is that while Pal put the emphasis on the Martian invaison and humanity getting rolled over by it on all fronts (as it should be) the released plot details (available on the Paramount WOTW website in brief and in more detail in interviews) for the new film place the emphasis away from the Martians (or indeed just Aliens as they are here) and their effect on human society and place it on one family. This is the story of a family first and an Alien invaison second.


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:37 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 107
With regards to religion in the George pal version: Pal was a devout catholic, and it's quite possible that this influenced the shaping of the script. The ending does definitely take things in a different direction than the book. While Wells' germ deaths can be seen as part of "God's plan", in the Pal movie the timing juxtaposed with the people in the church elevates things to "Divine intervention". (Also, the extent by which evolution played a part is largely removed.)<br /><br />


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:16 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Leper Messiah+Mar 9 2005, 08:42 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leper Messiah @ Mar 9 2005, 08:42 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->well Pendragons effort is the bigger challenge in my book, having read the book again the difficulties of making a 100% as written film version are insurmountable, you simply cannot make a film told in exactly the same way as the book and have it make sense...  <br />[right][snapback]1892[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />A point I have always agreed with. Movies, as a story medium, just have more limitations than a book does. A movie 100% faithful to each word would, I'm pretty sure, leave too many viewers saying "huh?" <br />Yes, Pendgragon will have to make some allowances and adjustments to keep the story intact. I hope they do. I can even live with occasional deviations such as, 'they're after our women' as long as the overall theme survives. I'll just chalk it up to movie industry stuff.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Leper Messiah+Mar 9 2005, 08:42 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leper Messiah @ Mar 9 2005, 08:42 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />now then, next issue :D<br />The Silvia character in the Pal version was not the be all and end all of the story though....Now the difference is, is that while Pal put the emphasis on the Martian invaison and humanity getting rolled over by it on all fronts (as it should be)...<br />[right][snapback]1892[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Agreed. Even though Pal (or Haskin?) added Silvia, he kept the true essence of the story -- martians rolling over humanity. He didn't, as you point out, let the man/woman love story bit compete with the main theme. In fact, Forrester/Silvia was pretty trivial. Upon reveiwing the Pal film, it almost seems like Silvia is there to (A) give Forrester someone to talk to in lieu of mental musing. and (B) to provide a foil for danger/risk which a guy on his own has a harder time generating. But not as a romance story unto itself.<br /> Silvia, even though a non-original character, managed to be useful towards the original theme -- in the movie format. <br /><br /> I wonder how Pendragon plans (planned?) to deal with all the mental musing the narrator of the book had done.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:40 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 9 2005, 09:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 9 2005, 09:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With regards to religion in the George pal version: Pal was a devout catholic, and it's quite possible that this influenced the shaping of the script.  The ending does definitely take things in a different direction than the book. ...<br />[right][snapback]1897[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Yes, the Pal version (whether it was the director or the screenwriter) did play up the religious angle more than Wells did. But, since Wells had it in the book, you can see where Pal didn't add it so much as magnify it (a lot).<br /><br />Again, the context of the 50s is important. With the 'godless' evil empire looming out there, being especially god-ful was patriotic.<br /><br />However, even Pal's exaggeration didn't ruin the story, as it was clearly NOT man's own buff-ness and cleverness that defeated the invaders (as in ID4). It was a humble germ we all consider so 'inferior' as a life form. Whether it was the Biblical God, or a darwin-god that provided the germ, that was less important. It wasn't US humans that defeated the invaders. The humility of the ending seems the key. Pal tweaked it, but didn't break it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:11 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
indeed Pals ending is what i would call "good enough". Yes it was strong on religion but thats not sheer invention. Despite he himself not being the most religous man in the world, Wells' narrator does indeed make several references to humanity receiving devine deliverance. I imagine that he did so because thats what he knew his audience would want and accept, humanity being saved basically by a fluke wouldnt have done for a highly moralistic and religous society like Victorian Britain. <br /><br />In one of my Professional Writing lectures this week my lecturer was emphasising the importance that the Narrator of a piece was not the author, but a character just like any other and this does hold true in War Of The Worlds, i don't think the Narrator is Wells, although there are numerous similarities but he is different enough so its not just Wells having a rant with a hint of story. Likewise the way Pal presented the ending may not just have been down to his own beliefs but what his audience would want and accept.


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:31 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
This thread of Pal versus the book or the new version needs a reminder that although as The Curate has said either the pal version or in fact the parramount version are enjoyable sci fi movies. They are definately not as good as they could have been having sticked closer to the book. Pal version would have been better had the Martians used tripods. If the scene in the house had been with the Curate and showed us the Martians at work. The new version will likely suffer from devaiting from the actual end and not having the aliens as Martians, having them already here etc...<br />Good films they maybe but not the ultimate War of the Worlds film. Which as Lepper says will have to be a bit different from the book, because its a different medium but how different does it have to be before you have the perfect film. I also think the effects have to look good by the way, so Pendragon may not pull it off either.<br />The Jeff Wayne CGI version is going to show us Martian perspective and begin on Mars, I think thats a good idea and something I'd like to see based on what the Narrator hypothersises in the book. It would be great to see the gun fireing on Mars.


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:41 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Leper Messiah+Mar 9 2005, 01:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leper Messiah @ Mar 9 2005, 01:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->indeed Pals ending is what i would call "good enough".  Yes it was strong on religion but thats not sheer invention.  Despite he himself not being the most religous man in the world, Wells' narrator does indeed make several references to humanity receiving devine deliverance.  I imagine that he did so because thats what he knew his audience would want and accept, humanity being saved basically by a fluke wouldnt have done for a highly moralistic and religous society like Victorian Britain.  <br />[right][snapback]1904[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Quite so. This is where we can wonder if the Pendragon version will keep that mix -- the germs saved us, with a hint of God's wisdom behind them. Where Pal was, perhaps, catering to his 50s audience's expectations, I suppose it's just as possible for Hines to cater to the 21st century penchant for anti-God. You know, "What a great stroke of luck for mankind, that millions of years of god-free evolution just happened to make some tiny germ that would save us."<br /><br />Such a modernized variation on the ending wouldn't necessarily break it, but would kind of strain it in the opposite direction Pal did.<br /><br />I know this thread is in the Pendragon category, but I was somewhat encouraged to hear Spielberg say (in the Latino interview) that his ending would not be the gung-ho sort in ID4 (where mankind saves itself -- w/o germs or God) I have a hard time imagining Spielberg including anything of God (as Pal did), so perhaps he'll go the darwinian route -- similar to the book, but not exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:58 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
Where was God when the Native Americans needed him or the Austrailian Aborigiones? God didn't help them from their exterminators why would he help us against the Martians? Are The Martians not God's creatures also? Older ones in fact.<br />The wisddom of God placing bacteria into the ecolagy of life is about leaving it their. don't erradicate it completely as the martians did. The Martian science went to far and left them vulnerable to extinction. I think thats what Wells was hinting at. We could whipe out all bacteria from life and pay for it later. Funny thing is its happening now with anti biotics making germs evolve into super germs.


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:22 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 107
H.G. Wells was an atheist. I think people may be overreading the narrator's turn of a phrase.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:19 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
<!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 9 2005, 07:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 9 2005, 07:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->H.G. Wells was an atheist.  I think people may be overreading the narrator's turn of a phrase.<br />[right][snapback]1911[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />Is an atheist rarer than a topaz? I was thinking of getting my lady one for Easter? :wacko:


Bah bah black sheap April diamond spheres, Rigsby, Rigsby, Eight sided Pears.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:00 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 9 2005, 01:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 9 2005, 01:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where was God when the Native Americans needed him or the Austrailian Aborigiones? God didn't help them from their exterminators why would he help us against the Martians? Are The Martians not God's creatures also? Older ones in fact...<br />[right][snapback]1910[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Well, I guess you'd have to allow that God hasn't seen fit to save all groups from conquest. The Bible certainly bears that out. On the one hand, he saves the Jews from the Assyrians (the Sennacharib reference made by the narrator), by wiping out 180,000 Assyrian troops in one night. But a bit later in history, he has the Babylonians conquer the Jews and haul them off as slaves. Caprice? No. The common denominator was that whenever the Jews got to thinking all high and mighty about themselves, God would raise up some outside power to give them a rather humbling kick in the pants. "Think yer such hot stuff, do ya? How ya gonna handle...THIS!?"<br /><br />Perhaps some intended parallel in HG's text -- even if he didn't believe in the God of the Old Testament. God's nearly-complete judgement tended to fall upon the snooty who thought they were all it. (like the last king of Babylon getting God's 'handwriting on the wall' saying that he was going to get stomped that night by Persia) An interesting parallel to Wells warning Victorian empire Britons what it could be like to get stomped.


Top
 Profile  
 
Search for:
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Home Page Home Page  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page
 Previous << 
1, 2, 3, 4
 >> Next 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to:  

cron
Powered by Skin-Lab © Alpha Trion