Talk:Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds)

Comments
If Half-Life 2 is to be included then I would suggest a section on John Christopher's Tripods be included, since they are even closer to those described by Wells.

We need more info and good pics!
 * Dunno...someone could throw in this picture I found. Thunderbrand 05:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I know where the sound of the horns from the tripods in Spielberg's film can be heard (as a link or uploaded). Could that be something that useful to the article? By the way, the article makes mention of an illustration that Wells vehemently hated. But does anyone have this image available for us to see for ourselves? --Bacteria 15:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the tripod horn sound could be linked in the article. I can't find a drawing of the Warwick Goble tripods on the internet, but I'll keep looking. I've only seen his drawings in a book I've been reading called The Complete War of the Worlds. Thunderbrand 16:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did find this drawing. Also, I think the article name sould be changed to Tripod (War of the Worlds) instead of Martian Tripod. Since the ones in the new movie aren't from Mars, its kind of sending a mixed signal. Thunderbrand 17:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the tripod horn. I'm not familiar enough to be trusted with the uploading process. I also agree that the article title should be changed because not every version of the story uses Martians. By the way, I was thinking that with all of these War of the Worlds related articles springing up, couldn't there be a War of the Worlds category? I ask because it's another one of those things that I haven't learned how to do yet (although I bet it's embarassingly simple). --Bacteria 14:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved the article and created a . Also, I think the sound file has to be an .ogg file to upload. I have no idea how to do that, so maybe just link it under an ==External links== section. Thunderbrand 15:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

In the book, the tripod only had one Martian as a pilot, while the movie tripods apparently require a crew of 26.

It wasn't explicitly specified in the 2005 movie that a tripod only had one pilot, although there was only one Martian shown travelling down a lightning. However, it was mentioned that there were 26 lightning strikes in each spot (possibly hinting that each lightning transported one Martian?) --RicoStaCruz 07:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added the link that the above user Bacteria gave to the article. It is located in the section about the 2005 film. Scorpionman 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Crysis Exo-suit?
Needs to be removed, it as zero to do with tripods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.62.14 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

bad picture
I think, like Wells, that the first picture on this page stinks. I can't even make it out! There needs to be a better tripod picture in place of this one. Scorpionman 01:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture
I think we need a new picture of the 2005 tripods. I do like that image (it gives a feeling that the tripods are there and you can't do anything), but you can barely see them.- JustPhil 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the original novel
The article is missing the most pertinent reference of all: to Wells' original novel. I suggest the inclusion of quotes from the narrator about the tripods from Wells' War of the Worlds. For example, as the narrator first sees a tripod, on Maybury Hill:

"And this Thing I saw! How can I describe it? A monstrous tripod, higher than many houses, striding over the young pine trees and smashing them aside in its career— a walking engine of glittering metal, striding now across the heather, articulate ropes of steel dangling from it, and the clattering tumult of its passage mingling with the riot of the thunder." [45, WOTW, Modern Library, Random House, 2002]

Also perhaps a note on the reason Wells gave for the unusual method of walking transport:

"And of their appliances, perhaps nothing is more wonderful to Man than the curious fact that what is the dominant feature of almost all human devices in mechanism is absent— the wheel is absent; among all the things they brought to earth there is no trace or suggestion of their use of wheels. One would have at least have expected it in locomotion. And in this connection it is curious to remark that even on this earth Nature has never hit upon the wheel, or has preferred other expedients to its innovation." [129, WOTW, Modern Library, Random House, 2002]

The tripods in the novel are, in fact, an ingenious metaphorical shorthand for the intellectual remoteness of the Martians from man. It is ironic therefore that the demands of an ill-thought out contemporary 'realism' has debarred the tripods from appearing in science fiction adaptations of Wells' book-- until Spielberg's movie. The alien tripods have been considered too alien, and at the same time too uncannily naturalistic, to be employed by filmmakers as a fantastic method of transport for contemporary film audiences.

--Gareth Griffiths, 1st March 2006
 * Wikiquote is for quotes, not Wikipedia. Thunderbrand 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Alteration of title; and reflection on use of quotes
Searching Wikipedia I find that the search 'tripods' does not immediately bring up this reference; we are instead directed to the John Christopher section. This seems strange, given that Wells' tripods precede and inspire Christopher's own; I suggest that the title for this entry be changed to 'Tripods (War of the Worlds)'? Or at the very least a link be placed on that entry to this one.

As for Wikiquote being for quotes, it seems plain wrong that in an article about Wells' tripods there is no reference to the original text, where, after all, the tripods were first dreamt up. But there we are; if it's a rule, it's a rule. But if it is a rule, then it seems to me that the quote from Wells in the article about Goble's illustrations should be removed too: which would be a great shame, in fact, because it's one of the most interesting aspects of the piece. Some direction here would be welcome.

Can I ask for a reference for that quote from the article author? It's fascinating. I could discuss a (very minor) mistake of fact in an overall interesting piece too, and suggest some information that might be usefully added, too.

Humans: Not just fertilizer anymore!
I may be mistaken, but at one point in the movie, "War of the Worlds", I observed that the tripode appeared to be "Eating" humans out of the basket. It had an organic-looking "mouth" on the underside leading me to believe that the tripods were organic as well as mechanical.

Can anything be added to this? Nothing in this article mentions any of the above.

Suggesting move (2006)

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd like to put it to a consensus for moving the article to fighting-machine. The reasoning is that this is predominately what Wells (and his narrator) call the machines throughout the book. The term is used at least 17 times (yes, I counted!) while "tripod" is actually used only 8 times in total. Hell, the application of the generic "Thing" (note the captialisation) is more on par with the usage of "fighting-machine". Agree or disagree? --Bacteria 12:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I believe that "Tripod" is a more common term, especially in later adaptations. Andy120290 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that heart attack is a more common term, but that redirects to the less common myocardial infarction. Additionally, the head and bulk of this article concerns the machines that Wells created in the book while the material on the adapated versions are supplemental. I also find "fighting-machine" to be more generic; "tripod" is a bit prejudice towards the floating and six-legged machines of two adaptations (or any other anomalies I'm missing). I'm still waiting for a concrete concensus on this, but am also adamant on the naming issue as I think the title as is gives a wrong impression in regards to the original novel. --Bacteria 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Dish cover"
Tripods in the books are described as a "Thing like a dish cover". I have never seen anything like that in film. I've seen one that looked like a huge beetle, and a swan- shaped one, but never one like a dish cover.

Could use different picture
Would it be possible to use a different picture next to the lead? The current one (Image:War of the worlds illustration pearson.jpg) does not seem appropriate. Wells himself stated he hated Goble's tripods, so why is it that that picture is the first one seen? Andy120290 04:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WOTW 9.jpg
Image:WOTW 9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WayneTWOTW.jpg
The image Image:WayneTWOTW.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the title is wrong
I think that the title of the article should be "Fighting-machine" instead of "Tripod (The War of the Worlds)

--¡Brandon was here! 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brany321 (talk • contribs)

Requested move (2012)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tripod (The War of the Worlds) → Tripod (War of the Worlds) – Removing the article The for consistency with Martian (War of the Worlds). Both articles' topics are character elements that span a range of derivative titles that share only "War of the Worlds" in their titles: "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds", "War of the Worlds 2", and simply "War of the Worlds". This proposed move follows on the one made at Talk:Martian_(War_of_the_Worlds). ENeville (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support shorter title. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the original title used "the", so it's fine as-is. Powers T 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, keep original title as a common name, Move Martian (War of the Worlds) for consistency with this title. (What if a less similar derivative comes along? Should we continue to trim the qualifier to only the common letters/ordering? Reduction to absurdity, I know.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same logic as Talk:Martian (War of the Worlds). If that move does not occur then I'll revisit this. Andrewa (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2013)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved: Tripod (The War of the Worlds) → Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) Prhartcom (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tripod (The War of the Worlds) → Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) Fighting-machine – Propose renaming this article to Fighting-machine to be consistent with Flying-machine and Handling-machine. In his text, Wells describes it as a tripod but refers to it as a fighting machine. Note that we may have to modify the unrelated redirect of fighting machine. Prhartcom (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "fighting-machine" without disambiguator and "flying-machine" should be renamed to something else. "Fighting-machine" and "fighting machine" mean genericly, the military of a country, or specifically, a tank or other armored fighting vehicle ; you should use Fighting-machine (The War of the Worlds) if you move this. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) is also acceptable to me. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose (withdrawn following amendment to proposal 18:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)). In my copy (Pan, 1975), a quick scan shows Wells referring to it as a "Fighting Machine" (capitalised, no hyphen - p. 171). Unless other editions differ or Wells' editor varies his grammar, the primary article should be moved to Fighting Machine (The War of the Worlds) and others should redirect to it. FYI I also find in there "Handling Machine" (pp. 177 ff.) but cannot quickly find the flying variety. No sign of any hyphens for the "Machines", just for the Heat-Ray. It is abundantly clear that Wells or his Editor used the terms and grammatical forms current at the time, and the exact word forms used have no encyclopedic status. Some Wells fan has got everything in a muddle and it all needs a dose of good, strong daylight to clear it up. 13:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
 * I've tracked down a scan of the first edition, and confusingly enough, it uses the forms "Fighting Machine", "Handling Machine" and "flying-machine" (the latter on page 284). —Flax5 15:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That paragraph is on p. 180 of my Pan edition. It differs in that it lacks a hyphen as well as capitals, being just plain "flying machine". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Restated proposal:
 * I agree with those who suggest this article should be renamed to "Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds)" and rename the other two articles to "Flying machine (The War of the Worlds)" and "Handling machine (The War of the Worlds). If you agree to this, please give your support in the discussion below, and I will be glad to rework the proposed move request and handle the moves themselves. Note: Of course the "F" of "Fighting" and the "m" of "machine" would be upper and lower case respectively like any Wikipedia article title. That was a good idea about removing the hyphen for all three as Wells did not use it. If necessary we can post a hatnote at the top of the article for any non-War of the Worlds articles. I will post a similar statement on the other two article title discussions. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support modified proposal by Prhartcom. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as per the other two !voters. Red Slash 05:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steelpillow. Red Slash, sorry, I cannot tell if you oppose the clarified restating of the proposal above starting with "I agree with those..." or the original proposal (from which we have moved on and no longer support). I am agreeable to hear everyone's opinions; I hope to hear from IP editors 65.94.78.70 and 186.206.68.99 also. Does everyone support the more sensible restated proposal? Flax5, GraemeLeggett, and 220, what do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm most inclined to support Prhartcom's modified proposal, with one caveat – wouldn't it be more appropriate to capitalise the names, as in the source text? Wells appears to treat the machines as proper nouns, which would seem to support moving to Fighting Machine (The War of the Worlds) and Handling Machine (The War of the Worlds), as initially suggested by Steelpillow. —Flax5 16:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red Slash's comment was on the original proposal, as indicated by the lack of indent (before I made my indented comment above it). Wikipedia generally only capitalises the first word, unless the title is a proper name or similar. Here, as I said earlier, there is no significance and it is a matter of editorial style - so we run with Wikipedia's (just as the Pan's edition differs occasionally from the First Edition. None of this is Wells' personal style, it is all editorial). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I remove my opposition to the new proposed title and have retitled the move request accordingly. I now vote neutral. Red Slash 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for that bit of housekeeping! Prhartcom (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no great significance to the capitalisation, but even allowing that it wasn't Wells's choice, wouldn't it be more historically accurate to defer to the spelling used in the first edition? "Fighting Machine" and "Handling Machine" are capitalised in running text, which WP:LOWERCASE specifically cites as a reason to capitalise a word in an article title. Remember, this isn't just a generic "fighting machine" subject to real-world grammatical standardisation, but a very specific fictional concept known as a "Fighting Machine", with its own proper noun status within the story. A precedent would be the Doctor (Doctor Who) article, which consistently capitalises the word "Doctor", per its source text. —Flax5 18:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment my preference is for the uncapitalized form with "(The War of the Worlds)" disambiguator attached. I also do not see the attachment with the usage in the first edition, as we do use modern tertiary sources in preference to original primary sources, per WP:RS and WP:UCN in determining the current modern usage for topics. However, I will lodge a neutral on the restated proposal "Fighting Machine (The War of the Worlds)". -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

""
The usage of and flying machine is under discussion, see talk:flying-machine. "flying machine" is currently used for a real world aeronautical topic. "Flying-machine" is a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of and handling machine is under discussion, see talk:handling-machine. "handling-machine" is currently a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231123037/http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/ to http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523155249/http://picasaweb.google.com/sfscalemodels/WarOfTheWorldsDiorama to http://picasaweb.google.com/sfscalemodels/WarOfTheWorldsDiorama

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303174259/http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_of_the_worlds_tv_pal.htm to http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_of_the_worlds_tv_pal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing Hunters with Hunters
I think this sentence is confusing: "Creatures and machines similar to the fighting machines are featured in many video games, such as the Striders from Half-Life 2[17] and their companions, the Hunters from Crysis and its sequels and spin-offs"

There is a three legged Hunter in both Crysis and Half-life 2 Episode Two, the latter is a companion of the Striders in the final battle (nowhere else actually, AFAIK). So, it's a bit confusing, because when I read "and their companions, the Hunters", I assume it's talking about the companions of the Striders called Hunters. 80.98.184.139 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead image
Which should be the lead image?

My personal preference is B, but more than happy to let others have a vote. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wells' opinion of Warwick Goble illustrations?
This article claimed in an image caption that Warwick Goble's illustrations were "personally criticized and disowned by H.G. Wells" and a recent edit added similar claims to the body of the article. The recent edit summary quotes a section of the novel which appears to be frequently referred to as a reflection of Wells' opinion of these illustrations. Several previous comments on this talk page reference Wells supposedly hating these illustrations.

The article provides no source Wells' opinion of the illustrations. In trying to find one, I came across this book, which appears to describe part of the novel as a critique of the illustrations, but also quotes Wells later describing them as "done very well by Mr Warwick Goble" and says he agreed to their use in a new edition of the book.

The claim that Wells disliked the illustrations and the claim that the section of the novel is a reference to that dislike both appear to be quite widespread, but they need a suitable source, and if he later called them "done very well" that would also need to be reflected. AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)