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: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:14 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
<!--QuoteBegin-gypsywlf+Mar 9 2005, 09:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gypsywlf @ Mar 9 2005, 09:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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? [right][snapback]1922[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />If I pray hard enough will God make Caprice my slave?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:27 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 9 2005, 02:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 9 2005, 02:22 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 /><br />Don't know. Have a read through HG's "God, The Invisible King" book. He certainly didn't like the established (Anglican) church around him, but his cosmology is a bit less cut and dried.<br /><br />True, HG outlines what he thinks God is -not-, but then goes on to describe what he thinks -his- god IS. "God is courage, God is a person, God is youth..."<br /><br />He also does a bit of analytical debunking of a Professor Metchnikoff, who was apparently a fairly notable athiest of HG's day. HG points out how the professor can't help but admit to the existence of spiritual things while trying to refute them.<br /><br />A salient quote from HG is:<br /> "Almost all Agnostic and Atheistical writings that show any fineness <br />and generosity of spirit, have this tendency to become as it were <br />the statement of an anonymous God. Everything is said that a <br />religious writer would say--except that God is not named. Religious <br />metaphors abound. It is as if they accepted the living body of <br />religion but denied the bones that held it together--as they might <br />deny the bones of a friend. It is true, they would admit, the body <br />moves in a way that implies bones in its every movement, but --WE <br />HAVE NEVER SEEN THOSE BONES."<br /><br />HG wasn't easy to pigeonhole. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:37 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 9 2005, 04:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 9 2005, 04:14 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I pray hard enough will God make Caprice my slave?<br />[right][snapback]1925[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Hehe. I rather doubt it.<br />"Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."<br /><br />


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:08 am 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:09 am
Posts: 112
Location: Northern Ireland so I am
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 9 2005, 08:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 9 2005, 08:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is an atheist rarer than a topaz? I was thinking of getting my lady one for Easter? :wacko:<br />[right][snapback]1915[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />Yes Loz, an atheist is rarer than a topaz. I bought my Mrs one last easter. Unfortunately I hid it in a cadburys cream egg and she ate it on accident. I was going for the 'put the engagement ring in the champagne glass' effect but it backfired horribly. Literally. <br /><br />Sorry, too much? :alien5:


"We've gone on holiday by mistake....."


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:20 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
<!--QuoteBegin-Gone for a BURTON+Mar 10 2005, 09:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gone for a BURTON @ Mar 10 2005, 09:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes Loz, an atheist is rarer than a topaz. I bought my Mrs one last easter. Unfortunately I hid it in a cadburys cream egg and she ate it on accident. I was going for the 'put the engagement ring in the champagne glass' effect but it backfired horribly. Literally. <br /><br />Sorry, too much?      :alien5:<br />[right][snapback]1939[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Thanks for that I'll get the rarer one of the two but I won't put it in any cream eggs, so thanks for the warning. I'll put it on the toilet role and when she wipes her arse she'll thing she's shitting precious stones. :rolleyes: <br /><br />Not too much, things are getting pretty heavy round here! ;) <br />


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:15 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 107
<!--QuoteBegin-gypsywlf+Mar 9 2005, 05:27 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gypsywlf @ Mar 9 2005, 05:27 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't know. Have a read through HG's "God, The Invisible King" book.  He certainly didn't like the established (Anglican) church around him, but his cosmology is a bit less cut and dried.<br /><br />True, HG outlines what he thinks God is -not-, but then goes on to describe what he thinks -his- god IS. "God is courage, God is a person, God is youth..."<br /><br />He also does a bit of analytical debunking of a Professor Metchnikoff, who was apparently a fairly notable athiest of HG's day.  HG points out how the professor can't help but admit to the existence of spiritual things while trying to refute them.<br /><br />A salient quote from HG is:<br /> "Almost all Agnostic and Atheistical writings that show any fineness <br />and generosity of spirit, have this tendency to become as it were <br />the statement of an anonymous God.  Everything is said that a <br />religious writer would say--except that God is not named.  Religious <br />metaphors abound.  It is as if they accepted the living body of <br />religion but denied the bones that held it together--as they might <br />deny the bones of a friend.  It is true, they would admit, the body <br />moves in a way that implies bones in its every movement, but --WE <br />HAVE NEVER SEEN THOSE BONES."<br /><br />HG wasn't easy to pigeonhole. :)<br />[right][snapback]1926[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />"God, the Invisible King" was written in a later period where Wells flirted theism. (As a reaction to the big wars of the early 20th century.) He was definitely an atheist when he wrote "War of the Worlds". At any rate, use of the word "God" does not necessarily imply that someone is trying to press a "Religious" theme. In either case, Wells doesn't seem to be going any further than the Deists in suggesting that there is a God, but not that humans can have any special knowledge of God beyond observable nature.<br /><br />Otherwise, WOTW runs quite contrary to positive religious themes.<br /><br />1) The Curate is portrayed as a weak minded fool. It's interesting that you're suggesting that Wells might have an intended parallel with Old Testament retribution. That's what the Curate is arguing in the ruined house as he descends into insanity. The text doesn't seem very sympathetic to this point of view.<br /><br />2) When the artilleryman talks about the sheeplike manner in which people would accept the Martian yoke, he describes them as becoming religious about it, chanting psalms from their cages.<br /><br />3) Contrary to the teachings of Western religions, mankind is depicted as not occupying an elevated status in the universe. Humans are reduced to the level of dogs and cattle, and ultimately the simplest organism on earth is shown to be better able to conforont the invaders.<br /><br />If having the line "God in his wisdom..." makes you feel better, fine...but there is little indication that it's absence would greatly change the thrust of Wells' themes.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:29 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 107
With regards to the topic in hand: the woman doesn't look all that naked. (Chicks back then wore a lot of undergraments.) I found the scene less jarring for implied sexual content, than I did all for the Frankenstein meets Metropolis staging. It really looked more like something from Pendragon's other movie trailer CHROME.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:39 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
Thunder,<br />Thanks for the insightful comments<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 10 2005, 09:15 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 10 2005, 09:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"God, the Invisible King" was written in a later period where Wells flirted theism. (As a reaction to the big wars of the early 20th century.) He was definitely an atheist when he wrote "War of the Worlds".<br />[right][snapback]1960[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />Guess one could wonder then, was Wells just flirting with atheism in the late 1890s? ;)<br /><br />Still, his expression of a sort of new-age deism in 1917 fits into a larger pattern around him. (sorry for getting all heavy again, Loz) WWI was a huge culture shock to a lot of folks. The mainstream religious institutions of their day (like the Anglican Church) had really aligned themselves with both the state and progressivism. The terrible disaster of the world war kicked that illusion of 'progress' in the head. Lots of folks got all disenchanted with the official established churches, but instead of there being a big upsurge in total atheism, there was an upsurge in mysticism and spiritualism.<br /><br />Back in 1898, the Victorian world was still knee-deep in that idealistic feeling of progressivism. The church (then) was more of a feeble shell institution which was prone to joining in the 'mankind is top dog' pep rallies. In his "Invisible King" book, he's still spitting tacks at the dogmatic shell -- much as he had his characters do so 20 years earlier in WotW.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 10 2005, 09:15 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 10 2005, 09:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Otherwise, WOTW runs quite contrary to positive religious themes.<br />1) The Curate is portrayed as a weak minded fool. ...<br />2) ... the artilleryman talks about the sheeplike manner....<br />3) Contrary to the teachings of Western religions, mankind is depicted as not occupying an elevated status in the universe.  Humans are reduced to the level of dogs and cattle, and ultimately the simplest organism on earth is shown to be better able to conforont the invaders.<br />[right][snapback]1960[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />You're quite right. WotW is not religious booster book. (wasn't supposed to be, of course)<br /> Your point 1 is correct, but I saw him more as an indictment of the Anglican Church's notion of an infallible semi-holy clergy. Compare with "Invisible King". Wells really dislikes the institution of a 'holy' clergy.<br /> Your point 2 is good too. Compare, though, the artilleryman's gung-ho survivalist plans to what actually stopped the invaders. He scoffed at the psalms, but his vision of science-man triumphing didn't do it either.<br /> Your point 3 is one of the things I was citing (above) about that progressivism of the late 1800s, early 1900s. The major churches back then, were pretty much in line with the "Man is #1" chant of the day. WWI shot that illusion dead. The supposedly-superior man really botched things.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 10 2005, 09:15 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 10 2005, 09:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If having the line "God in his wisdom..." makes you feel better, fine...<br />[right][snapback]1960[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Wellll, it's not so much that it makes ME feel better, as I find it interesting that Wells (supposedly a staunch atheist at the time) opted to put it in his book at all. Not a major point, or a theme breaker, but an interesting tidbit. Instead of taking one more dig at religious thinking, he throws in a last minute curve. Curious, eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:45 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
<!--QuoteBegin-gypsywlf+Mar 9 2005, 09:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gypsywlf @ Mar 9 2005, 09:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<br />[right][snapback]1922[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />actually there is a quote in the book where the Writer first meets the Curate that has relvence here. The Curate in his insane way was going on about why God might have sent the Martians upon humanity and why his town has been destroyed and the Narrator reminds him of various other places afflicted by war down the centuries and says "Do you think God has exempted Weybridge? He is not an insurance agent man".<br /><br />HG Wells was not a fan of the church, but in WOTW he found other ways to express that than making his Narrator basically him. No fiction author writing in first person is actually writing as himself, there might well be strong elements but a first person narrator is always just another character in the scheme of things.<br />


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:22 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
Ahmen.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:27 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
But then, there's a quiet subcurrent in sci-fi. (see attached pic)<br /><br />They're after our scantily clad young blondes!<br /> (who have a habit of sleeping on rocks?)<br /><br />:D<br /><br />[attachmentid=53]


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:35 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 107
Love the big tripod feet.<br /><br />I guess my point was just that the original book seems closer to being non-religious than it does to the level of the Pal film. (Apparently there's a cover story about the transition of the book to screen in a 1998 issue of American Atheist <a href='http://www.americanatheist.org/spr98/T1/' target='_blank'>http://www.americanatheist.org/spr98/T1/</a> ) Not tthat I think that's a real big deal. While I thought it was a bit hokey having the fighting machine crash just outside the church, overall I enjoyed the film and it at least captured the FEEL of the book, even if it missed many of the thematic points.<br /><br />One point that's worth bringing up in the context of some of what's been said on this thread: We've been talking about how the narrator isn't precisely Wells' own voice. It occurs to me that this somewhat justifies the Paramount film's decision not to explain why the aliens are invading. When you think about it, the narrator really could only conjecture as to why the Martians invaded based on what he saw. The 1953 film sidestepped this issue by structuring the story in a less first person manner with a narrator who isn't a character in the film. If you are structuring things in a way that all information flows through the main character though, it should be less clear why things are happening. (God knows, I'd hate for there to be an english speaking Uber-Alien who explains everything to Tom Cruise.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:51 pm 
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 107
P.S. Deism isn't "New Age". It's an Enlightenment era philosophy favored by many key figures in the American Revolution. It amounts to little more than believing that there is a God, but that God cannot be understood through religion. They felt that science was a more appropriate means of understanding creation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:21 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 11 2005, 09:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 11 2005, 09:35 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...While I thought it was a bit hokey having the fighting machine crash just outside the church, overall I enjoyed the film and it at least captured the FEEL of the book, even if it missed many of the thematic points.<br />[right][snapback]2003[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Yes, it was rather contrived looking. The whole Pal/Catholic thing shows how a director (and screenwriter?) can 'spin' a story while still following the basic feel of a story. It will be interesting to see what spin Hines and Spielberg impart. They almost can't help but spin somehow.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 11 2005, 09:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 11 2005, 09:35 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...the narrator...structuring the story in a less first person manner with a narrator who isn't a character in the film.  If you are structuring things in a way that all information flows through the main character though, it should be less clear why things are happening.  (God knows, I'd hate for there to be an english speaking Uber-Alien who explains everything to Tom Cruise.)<br />[right][snapback]2003[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Quite so. A film (much like a stage play) relies very heavily on dialogue between actors for audiences to know what's going on. Visuals are okay, as long as it's really obvious. A picture can only tell a thousand words if you understand the picture. Wells' book had a huge advantage in having a narrator who could just think stuff -- and with the benefit of hindsight, since he's telling the story -after- all has happened. Wonder how Pendragon will handle that hindsight aspect.<br /><br />If Paramount keeps the first-person experiential angle, then Ray won't know who the aliens are, where they're from, or what they want. A bit like in Signs.<br /><br />Yes, it would be tragic for there to be an english-speaking alien to fill us in. That was one of the major travesties (IMHO) of the 2002 Time Machine. The totally-contrived albino-goth uberMorlock explained it all just near the end. Bogus. Only proved that the writer/director failed to tell the story through the actors and plot. They wimped out.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:30 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 115
Location: Boston
<!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 11 2005, 09:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 11 2005, 09:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. Deism isn't "New Age". ...<br />[right][snapback]2004[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Quite right. I meant Deism AND New-Age. Although much new-age stuff is really rather old, going back far older than the 60s, 70s, 80s in which it was getting a lot of press. Some of the spiritualism that rose up after WWI, had a lot in common with more recent *isms.<br /><br />I'll be watching both Pendragon and Paramount to see what sorts of *isms they weave into their stories. Where Pal was pretty heavy-handed with his mainstream Christian spin, others seem to spin to their own *ism. The PC-agenda tends to get into movies a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:01 pm 
User avatar
Super Member

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:27 am
Posts: 158
I think the bit with the machine stripping the woman is one of the high points of the trailer which hopefully will be part of one of the scarier parts of the movie and not just a cheap bit of nudity to get the pervs watching.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:59 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
<!--QuoteBegin-Thunder Child+Mar 11 2005, 02:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thunder Child @ Mar 11 2005, 02:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Love the big tripod feet.<br /><br /><br /><br />One point that's worth bringing up in the context of some of what's been said on this thread: We've been talking about how the narrator isn't precisely Wells' own voice.  It occurs to me that this somewhat justifies the Paramount film's decision not to explain why the aliens are invading.  When you think about it, the narrator really could only conjecture as to why the Martians invaded based on what he saw.  The 1953 film sidestepped this issue by structuring the story in a less first person manner with a narrator who isn't a character in the film.  If you are structuring things in a way that all information flows through the main character though, it should be less clear why things are happening.  (God knows, I'd hate for there to be an english speaking Uber-Alien who explains everything to Tom Cruise.)<br />[right][snapback]2003[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br /><br />does it hell justify not explaining anything. Independance Day is one of the films Speilberg enjoys trashing once in a while pretending his movie being better is a forgone conclusion but that had an explanation. You cant have motive-less invaders it doesnt make any sense. The narrators conjecture was a plot device to explain the motives of the Martians, they are not meant to be taken as a "maybe this is why" but as a solid "this is why"


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:22 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
In the book we know that they come from Mars and we know Mars is an older world. Some putting together of the peices is possible to form likelehoods.<br />In Mars attacks they do it for fun.<br />In ID4 They do it to strip us of our assets and move on.<br />In V its for water.<br />In Childhood's End they come to guide us on to a more spiritual being.<br />In War of the Worlds they come to take our land and set up home, whilst turning us into live stock.<br />


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:58 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
Quote:
By Loz<br />In the book we know that they come from Mars and we know Mars is an older world. Some putting together of the peices is possible to form likelehoods.
<br /><br />Loz, the fact their planet is dying <span style='color:red'>IS</span> the reason they invade, its not just conjecture, it is definately their reason.<br /><br />The narrators opening chapter is a plot device, a way to inform the audience of the reasons for the Martian invaison. The only other way to do it would seem to be to have been an untidy, ill fitting scene on Mars where the Martians themselves give their reasons. Dont mistake the Narrators speculation as giving room for some element of doubt, it is simply the device Wells used.


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:21 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
Yeah I agree, always did. They even try Venus. Must be a bit backward trying Venus. You land there you get crushed, burned, poisoned, and corroded soon as you put a tentical out of the Cylander!


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:38 pm 
User avatar
Tripod King

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:24 pm
Posts: 467
well, Wells wasnt to know that, and amusingly enough neither were the Martians so its entirely possible thats what happened to them :D<br /><br />perhaps they could go to Mercury and get fried :shock: <br /><br />in fact you could do a sitcom about the Martians bungling landings on all nine planets :afro:


Image

Bow To Leper Messiah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:54 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
What about the Moons?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:00 am 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 3365
Location: N.Humberside.UK
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 14 2005, 08:21 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 14 2005, 08:21 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah I agree, always did. They even try Venus. Must be a bit backward trying Venus. You land there you get crushed, burned, poisoned, and corroded soon as you put a tentical out of the Cylander!<br />[right][snapback]2072[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />Right up to the 1950s it was widely thought that Venus may by covered in lush tropical jungle. so it's not surprising that Wells suggested it as a possible second home for the Martians.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:30 am 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Posts: 2870
Location: Liverpool, UK
<!--QuoteBegin-Lonesome Crow+Mar 15 2005, 12:00 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lonesome Crow @ Mar 15 2005, 12:00 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right up to the 1950s it was widely thought that Venus may by covered in lush tropical jungle. so it's not surprising that Wells suggested it as a possible second home for the Martians.<br />[right][snapback]2105[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />I know but do you think that a film maker should lose ellements like that or embrace them?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Offline 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:02 pm 
User avatar
Martian War Lord

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 3365
Location: N.Humberside.UK
<!--QuoteBegin-Loz+Mar 15 2005, 08:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loz @ Mar 15 2005, 08:30 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know but do you think that a film maker should lose ellements like that or embrace them?<br />[right][snapback]2116[/snapback][/right]<br />[/quote]<br />In one respect yes, ellements like that should be lost. we now know that Venus is a hostile world with searing heat, hot enough to melt lead and acid rain that would dissolve you in minutes and pressures so great they would crush you to a sticky puddle.<br />If a Film maker included ellements of a habitable Venus, he would get laughed at and called naive, I'm sure this is why Spielberg isn't calling the aliens, Martians, Because we know that there is no life on Mars. and he doesn't want to appear gullible or stupid.


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


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: Google [Bot] and 0 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