Talk:War of the Worlds (2005 film)/Archive 2

Rachel Ferrier Description - correction greatly needed
Rachel Ferrier: Ray's young daughter. Despite her age she is incredibly self-reliant, and even seems to possess more maturity than her father at times, and putting more trust in her brother as her caretaker than Ray. However she is strongly claustrophobic.

Really take issue with this description of this character -

From the Oxford Dictionary

Self-reliant - Reliance upon oneself, one's own powers

Maturity - Of a person or human faculty: the state of being physically and mentally mature; fullness or perfection of growth or development.

A much better better description would be:

Rachel Ferrier: Ray's young daughter. She is a spoiled rotten, whinning brat who thinks her obnoxious screaming and bratty ways is an acceptable method of getting her own way. However she is strongly claustrophobic. Audience cheered when she is captured by the invaders.

Obnoxious - Offensive, objectionable, odious, highly disagreeable. Now esp. (of a person): giving offence, acting objectionably; extremely unpleasant, highly dislikeable.

Screaming - A shrill piercing cry.

Whining - The action of the verb WHINE; the uttering of a low somewhat shrill cry or sound, or of a complaint in a low querulous tone.

Bratty - Of a child or adolescent: spoiled, badly-behaved; of an adult: immature, given to behaving like a spoiled child.

These are much better descriptions of Rachel Ferrier then Mature. This character spends the entire picture complaining about her father - there is no way this can be considered mature!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I was actually disappointed that that spoiled brat didn't die when she was caught by the aliens. I was really disappointed when I found out that her brother survived too - up to the end the best part of the movie was when I thought the brother died in that explosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.38.203 (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oligvy Guy
At one point that guy, Oligvy, says that one of the tripods was brought down in Osaka, Japan. I thought perhaps that many people interperet that the character originally was captured by the aliens but escaped, or something like that. I think there might of been some critical interperetation of that part, is there?

Xaritix 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

 * 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, or at least stating the actual pitch of the sound. Watemon 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that in "Other possible sources", the "Striders" from Half-Life 2 be mentioned, apart from looking like the tripods (although this is probably because the Striders themselves are homage to H.G Wells' tripods) the sound is quite similar. Enough to be a "possible source", I would have thought.

Note from a music person: A minor third is an interval, the relationship between two notes. It doesn't matter what key it's in. It's like measuring something as "an inch."

Let me reiterate the suggestion, re-reading it doesn't really make any sense: Is the interval harmonic or melodic? If the tripods only sounds a single pitch than it certainly can't be labeled as a harmonic minor third because there is no secondary pitch sounding along with it. If the Tripod is sounding two pitches at the same time then it would be a harmonic minor third. I haven't seen the movie in a while and don't own a copy so at present time I am unsure of what pitch(es) the tripods sound. But if that's the case, i would specify whether or not the interval is harmonic or melodic. That was my suggestion. Watemon 09:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Borrowing Of Ideas?
There is a scene where Tom Cruise allows himself to be taken by the tripod so he can toss grenades inside the machine and save his human companions from their impending doom. That is not in the original book version of "War of the Worlds".

A very similiar scene however is in popular book "White Mountain" (of the "Tripod" Series) by John Christopher, first published in the 1960s.

One of the protagonists of "White Mountain" allows himself to be grasped by the alien tripod and brought nearly inside the tripod so he can toss grenades inside for the outer shell is impervious to attack. By doing so he becomes the first character to show the aliens can be defeated and he also ensures the survival of his companions for the time being. Is there any credit given in the current film to John Christopher?


 * The Tom Cruise character is taken by the tripod not in an attempt to destroy it, but rather, to try to save his daughter who has been taken by the tripod. He only thinks to take the grenades after he is picked to be sucked into the tripod from the cage.  It really, to me anyway, was not so much a heroic act as quick thinking and a convinient opportunity, although he does grab the grenades, he only thinks to use them as he sees them as he is being sucked up.  Bytebear 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, whereas in The White Mountains the characters deliberately use grenades in an attempt to bring down thr tripod. (Man, I loved those books). Battle Ape 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Time frame
Exactly how many days go by in the movie? Also, what time is it when the film starts? Is it 8:00 AM or PM?- JustPhil 20:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, by my count about 4 days pass, but because scenes change and looking at how much the aliens have covered the ground, it could be longer and they just didn't show those scenes. In the beginning it's 8 AM, by the time Ray goes to bed about a hour could've passed maybe less, then he sleeps for a while, so it seems the aliens attack around mid-afternoon or so. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 20:32, 08 December 2005 (UTC)

Remake?
All right, rather than keep bitching back and forth about this, I'd rather take the high ground and make an attempt for there to be some kind of discussion on whether this film is a remake because a certain person insists on it and seems awfully fussy when it's removed. I don't honestly believe that it is a remake, seeing as how using that word implies that Spielberg and Koepp made a film based heavily on the original 1953 film. But in all interveiws, both speak more of taking their influence (nearly exclusively, I dare say) from the original Wells novel than they do of the 1953 film (in fact, Koepp himself doesn't speak too highly of it in general); Hell, in an interview, even Ann Robinson distances the two films. Yes, there are a few visual connections, but this is what we call an homage to what many consider a classic film. This film clearly has more similarities with the book than with the previous film. And if this film should be listed as a remake simply because it relies on the same source material, than we might as well categorise the Pendragon film as such, which is also adapted from the novel, despite that it is a period piece and would look awfully odd tagged this way. And I don't see the person who keeps adding it touching The Thing, which is another film that is almost entirely different from its predocessors, but based on a similar source. And should I mention this article as a whole never alludes to the word "remake"? --Bacteria 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Remake" implies that the original film was the definitive source, but it is clear that the novel is the ultimate source of Spielberg's film. Yes, I would say that Spielberg was likely inspired here and there by the previous film version -- he is, after all, a director, not an author -- and that's to be expected. But since Spielberg's film clearly has more in common with the original novel than the 1953 film, it obviously can't be called a "remake" of the film. (i.e. You would never call Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings a "remake" of the Ralph Bakshi cartoon, even though some shots and plot changes are copied straight from the cartoon... it's still more about the original book than the movie.) - Mecandes 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Remake actually means making something again regardless if the origanal movie was followed or not. That's the same as claming as song isn't a cover version (or remake) because the singer never heard the origanal recording and based their version soley on hearing the writer sing it to them. Wheather people here see it as a remake or add it into the article or not makes no diffrence, it just goes to so wikipedia has little need for fact and is more an opnion based site based on the opnions of most of the people who take part on the site, rather than real facts. 74.65.39.59 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spielberg does put some specific homages to the the 1953 film, which should be taken into account as support for the term "remake". According to IMDB:


 * Gene Barry and Ann Robinson from the 1953 original play the Grandparents.


 * In the cellar, note the multi-colored lights just prior to the probe entering. This references the red, blue and green lights from the probe in the 1953 version of the film, though no part of the probe in this film emits any of those colors.


 * When Ray (Tom Cruise) first encounters the aliens, there is a street sign behind him displaying "Van Buren". Van Buren was the surname of Ann Robinson's character in the The War of the Worlds (1953).


 * [T]he news reporter's line, "Once they begin to move, no more news comes out of that area," is taken directly from The War of the Worlds (1953).


 * [T]he scenes with the probe examining the basement followed by the inquisitive aliens. Tom Cruise chops the head off the probe with an ax just as Gene Barry did in the original.


 * [T]he shot of the dying alien's arm coming down the ramp is a reference to a similar shot in the original film.

I have added these to the article. Bytebear 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "Trivia" section, much is discussed with similarities to both the novel and the 1953 movie. I think these points should be merged into the section "Source Material". Bytebear 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alien Inscriptions
After the Tom Cruise character and his daughter were captured by a Tripod, they were placed in a holding basket (one of two hanging from the Tripod's head). During that scene, some interesting alien inscriptions on the bottom of the Tripod's head can be seen (it looks vaguely like Arabic). Has anyone tried to make sense out of it?

Egg plant 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all,I think the inscriptions looks more like Korean...however,I don't make any idea of what is written,but I suspect to be just like "Holding Basket 1 & 2" or someting.

It just looks like any alien script that people often associated with UFO's and the grey's.- JustPhil 13:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who knows really. Maybe the point was to show the differences between our species. Also, in the novel, after the clyinder lands, the narator states how difficult it would be to translate inscpriptions, if any. jump5guy89 1:58p.m., 2 May 2006


 * Does anyone have any screenshot or something to show that? I never really caught that really. Also, at the end when that door thing opens and the alien guy comes out and dies, I noticed some inscription stuff on the inside of that door thingie

Xaritix 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical reaction
Only the 1st paragraph in this section specifies who the critics are. The rest makes specific criticisms and attributes it to 'many critics'. The 'literary experts' para is especially dubious. These criticisms need sources to avoid being removed. Ashmoo 04:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, these tripods were already in the ground- had been so possibly for hundreds of years. How is it possible they were never discovered? And, the aliens were transported to them via the lightning?? Why would an invading force stage its weapons centuries ahead? Why not simply take the earth then? This whole thing implies these guys didnt need earth in any kind of hurry. Thoughts??

Martian

Hey Martian, Think it was actually MILLIONS of years. And yes youre right, that would have been found (you'd think). I didn't think about this but it really doesn't make any sense that this invading force pre-staged their weapons that far ahead. Unless they just forgot about them?/ I don't know? Glenfiddichriley - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.111.147 (talk • contribs)

Well, none of that was ever confirmed, it was all just people speculating. Heck, everything they said about origin was just people speculating. Whenever there are disasters people like to come up with theories which may explain things, but that doesn't ever really turn out to be true. Who knows, the martian machines may have been sent in through the lightning with the martians themselves, the martian weapon that took out electronic devices may have not just been an EMP, but something else... the problem with this movie isn't the plotholes, but more people having to take everything said to them literally. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw an interview by Spielberg where he confimrs the tripods were already in the ground. So its a plothole, a big one, and it doesnt make sense and is not worthy of Spielberg. Like the guy said before, if you invading a place, you're not wouldnt place your weapons there thousands to millions of years ahead of time!


 * Sad part was that Ogilvy's squizophrenic explanation of the tripods is actually the most logical explanation in explaining how the hell a tripod the size of building got underground to begin with. The logic of "oh but you dont know if those were plotholes they could be something else" could work pretty well in any other movie with plotholes and is more a sign of ignorance (sadly) rather than anything else (even for something as science fiction), you are basicly telling us not to question the movie, not to think but accept it or to create positive theories that could explain these logical plotholes in a summer blockbuster. The fact is that WOTW was rushed up, and a lot of things werent given much of a thought to begin with.


 * That actually says it best. They got rushed and started slapping things together. Parts of it were almost as bad as the dean emmerich (sp) crud (Godzilla, ID4,etc). Thanks for all the discussion!

Martian

Thought I'd chime in and note that the reason the "not explained" aspect is brought up so much for this film is because unlike most sci-fi films, it doesn't really attempt to offer a detailed exposition. The appeal is that this is basically the film's intent to stick to limited point-of-view, as it the novel (where the character, though more giving in information, is itself based much on theory and leaves a few unexplained details). Not that this defense will change opinions, but there was thought put into the ideas, even if they aren't logical from every angle. The goal was to approach the story, and alien invasion stories in general, from a different perspective and have the audience react to things different than how they've been depicted dozens of hunderds of times before. When the aim is drama over flawless details, the result always has critics. Take that however you want. --Bacteria 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the disapointments of the movie to me (even though I havent read the book). The tripods would have definatly een discovered (people dig holes for subways and waterpipes) Wells cylinder crashing is much more likely. Entering the ground via lightning? I mean come on... T.Neo (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They need the people as food so like Ogilvy explains: they bury the tripods way before humanity and then wait until there are enough people to eat before they invade. They don't really show how deep these tripods are buried so you don't know if they could have been found. They way these things easily get to the surface lets me believe they can dig pretty and they have buried the tripods deep enough not to be found. (even the deepest subways aren't deeper than 100 meters so I bet aliens with forcefields can easily deep deeper than that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.25.181 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

academy award ?
Really?, wow... man, i had no idea it was nominated for an academy award, in fact... no else had any idea it was nominated for an academy award!. The nominations were best sound and special effects and another one that no gives a crap either, so WHY, if it was just nominated (and didnt even won), does it say that it was "nominated" for an academy award??. A real nomination for an academy award is "best movie", "best director" or "best actor/actress" (or even script), THOSE are real nominations that people care about, that movie producers decide to place in posters when promoting a movie (any idea how lame it sounds "nominated for sound editing"?, i didnt even know that was a category).
 * A nomination is a nomination, regardless of category. There's no such thing as a "real" nomination any more than there is such a thing as a "fake" nomination.- jcomp489
 * No, but there are such things as less important nominations, the phrase is there just to defend the movie, everyone knows it, its amateurish no matter how you look at it. In a encyclopedic article, information is supposed to be based either in common knoledge or in actual important knoledge, while i would find strange that anyone would remember WOTW's 3 forgetable nominations, i also find it strange that its even mentioned at the start of the article (where we are supposed to mention a short summary about the most important things of a given article). By stating that it was nominated for 3 academy awards at the start of the article, we are basicly saying that one of the most important things that WOTW has going (i like it how they always use the criptic term "academy award nominated", without really specifiying any sort of nomination whatsoever, could be from best director to best actor, yet its not, its 3 little categories and it didnt even won). WOTW's article is clearly stuck in "B" for little fancruft details such as that. If we read articles that are better rated, better elaborated than this one, articles such as "Blade Runner", "Casablanca", "Jaws" or "Star wars episode 1,2,3". All of them listed as Featured Articles (the highest rating in wikipedia), NONE of them stating in their first line as an "Academy Award-nominated movie", Blade Runner had 2 oscar nominations, Casablanca won best picture (and 2 other awards), Episodes 1,2,3 were also nominated for oscars and Jaws won one Oscar and was nominated for another oscar (best picture). Yet in the summary, no such thing as the word "Oscar" or "nominated" can be found (as nominations are usually placed in their respective sections). If you want to keep this article as poor and as amateurish as possible, fine by me, keep it running that way, but if you wish and hope that one day WOTW will be rated as a featured article, a lot of the fancruft stuff's gotta go, starting for "academy award nominated".
 * Well, if you feel that strongly about it, be bold. Right?  jcomp489

Yes this film was nominated and should have won those awards! Visual Effects are the thing as Special Efeects! To be nominated for best visual effects is considered a great honor! choir_geek

All this big fuss and the fact is that the little bit was added by someone did likewise to Batman Begins and several other films articles about the same time - none of which, as far as I can tell, they have done any other work on before or after. --Bacteria 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of trivia
Is there a particular reason that much of the trivia was removed, especially concerning the use of real military personnel and equipment? At one point the article stated the varying types of military equipment, the participation of real US Marines, Army National Guard, and 10th Mountain Division, something very rarely seen in any production as usually the military doesn't like participating, and yet it was removed for some reason. I propose adding this information again to the article.--SOCL 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a crackdown on trivia on wikipedia. Several articles have had trivia sections neutered or at least have had tags marking them for removal. To some extent, I can understand as this gives too much room for lazy additions. This article still needs a good deal of work, and I think some of it can be benefited by being integrated into appropriate parts of the article. Some of it, honestly, are too trivial and can be better served by removal all together. --Bacteria 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been much criticism against wikipedia for having sensationalist articles instead of encyclopedic ones. Trivia sections all in all are sensationalist in nature, little pieces of unnecesary information, usually presented in rather poor made lists, that usually are bigger in size than the rest of the article. Yeah, i got no problem with any trivia section being erased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.236.42.157 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm removing the trivia regarding posters being put up to find loved ones being similar to 9/11. I'd hardly regard this as trivia and more like stating the obvious. It also specifically states that this is similar to the aftermath of 9/11, when it actual fact this is common after any catastrophe that has occured in recent times and in no way unique to 9/11.--Santahul 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this?
By accident, I came across this script. It's dated June 16, 2001, which comes close to the time the first sign of the Spielberg film was announced. However, this Naven Bradford - forget looking for him on IMDb. I did a bear search of just his name, and got only about five or six results, all of which seem to relate to copies of this script. And I only recall three names in total who had any association with writing this film, none of which are him. Anyone have any idea about the origins of this script, or if it even has any relation to the Spielberg project? --Bacteria 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just flicked through that script and couldn't really see anything to suggest that it is anyway related to the Spielberg story. Granted the ferry scene is similar, but thats probably a coincidence with both being based on the evacuation of London by boat from the novel. The rest of the similarities I think are simply because they are both based on the original novel.--Santahul 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't word that right. What I meant, was this at any point connected to the Cruise/Spielberg project, much like Peter Briggs who never made it to the pre-production stages. Or is this a part of another unrealised film? It's just the 2001 date that makes me think there's a connection, but am put off that his name barely makes a dent in any searches and only associated with this script. --Bacteria 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Aliens
I~have seen this movie like,5 times already!I ve noticed that it doesnt seem like it was directed by an American,because every science fiction movie that its director is American,in the movie the aliens get killed by guns and stuff like that.In war of the worlds,the aliens get killed by nature.They die because of the germs and the water and stuff like that.

The aliens die cause of the germs and water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.48.140 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * it was both in the original book and movie... again, i dont think you are supposed to use this page for discussing things like this.


 * They were taken out by bacteria, but their machines were destroyed by the weaponry.

24.76.185.79 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ERRORS
The cast list is all wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.153.33.2 (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Aircraft
I've watched the scene at the hill when the aircraft go over Ray and the other's heads, and it appears that what first flies over is an F-22, then two F-16's, then an A-10. Oh, it's already been confirmed on the last archive, but it still stands. Anyone else object to this before we could mark this down on popular culture sections on those aircraft pages? Hoboron 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt the EMP render any aircraft useless? Modern fighter jets are heavily reliant on electronics. T.Neo (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Modern Military equiptment is supposed to be hardened against EMP pulses - would not be a great to not be able to fight a war if you set off a nuke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side comment, the tripod shields seem to protect against force (i.e. bullets, explosions, birds) but let other things therough (such as people grabbed by tentacles). Wouldnt it be possible that an anti-tank mine, buried underground could remain unaffected by the shield and then detonate once one of the mighty feet land on it, therefore sending the bloodsucking aliens crashing to the ground? T.Neo (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)]

I think it's already been discussed that the alien machines are vulnerable to sabotage and traps, but with the war going how it was, military engineers probably wouldn't have any time to set up effective minefields or traps with the possibility of them being outflanked within minuets, or with little to no intelligence of where the tripods were headed. As for the state of the aircraft, perhaps they're from an airfield that was out of the range on an EP blast, or were repaired (if this is possible?).Hoboron (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As the guy said above, Military technolgy is designed to resist EMP devices. The shields interest me because they let tenetacles through but not explosions, bullets, etc. The things the aliens do are confusing: vaporise people but use them for fertilizer/food afterwards (why waste your time killing non-miltary humans?), bury their war machines in the ground and return thousands of years later, use humans for fertilizer/food while they arent really (believe it or not) the best option, have only the tripods as war machines where WMDs or carpet bombing could be a better option, getting out of your craft without protection (namely a space/biosuit) and, the piece de resistance, lapping up water from a germ infested puddle (never mind drinking blood, Im sure all the aliens would have gotten HIV if puddle bacteria hadn't killed them first). The idea of burying the machines underground and reaching them by lightning is absoloutly ridicuous (the alien invasion would have been thwarted by the guys that dig holes for water pipes) So, the guys took wells classic book (a lot of that book was very accurate, especially the invisible heat rays, which were dropped in the case of electron beams in the movie probably for visual effect) and turned it into an illogical piece of crap. Fun movie, but crap. Besides, as another note I saw a dead cow in the scenes leading up to when the Tom Cruise caracter gets abducted by the aliens, Im sure that the (really stupid) aliens sucked the cows blood. After all, why not? T.Neo (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the idea the movie is to give is that the Aliens may have created humanity in the first place, as a means to teraform earth. Eg - They create maybe 2 humans (Adam and Eve, lets call them), but also leave mechanical machines in the ground. Come back a million years later, and voila, your 2 humans, have become a lovely source of ferilizer. You say it would be stupid to vaporize your source of fertilizer. However, think of it like this. The Humans in the movie outnumbered the Aliens 1000000 to 1 (guessing). If you went up against a bee hive, a bee hive, full of bees can potentially kill you before you get to the hunny. However, kill a few of them with bug spray, then you can harvest in safety. Its conceivable that the aliens needed to thin the human herd to ensure a safer harvesting. 167.127.24.25 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Aliens vaporised non-military humans. These humans would not have had any real adverse effect on the invasion. I understand the need for defense against military action. The most effective way for the aliens to invade a planet would be to somehow kill all life with

gamma rays and then use nanotechnology to use the irradiated remains as fuel for terraforming. Or course, this would not make for a very interesting movie. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact you can actually see the cow in the "red weed" picture in the article. T.Neo (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Alien planet of origin
The aliens planet of origin in this article is stated as being unknown, however in the extra features on the DVD, it's said, though somewhat jokingly, as being in the same area, neighbors to, next to, something along those lines, to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial's. I would like to point this out, as if it's to be considered to be so in canon, then we do have some idea, yes? -User Detective P


 * Koepp's script does not give a name and it actually opens on their home planet. I think people take Spielberg's comment too literally. So I'd say it's not canonical unless supported by another source, which I have yet to find.--Bacteria 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember it, it's a red barren wasteland and it changes between views of it and Earth int he script, but never gives a name nor location. -User Detective P


 * The aliens are from Hell (Luke 10,18). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.255.27 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other movies?
Were the other two WotW 2005 movies done on purpose or its a casuality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.126.153.25 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Depends on who you ask. The production of the Pendragon film, dating back to 2001, in parallel to the Spielberg film runs a little too close to be coincidence, in my opinion. The Asylum film was a late-comer, but their production studio has made no secret that they produce all sorts of films with similar plots to big Hollywood, name them in similar fashion, and at least in the case of War of the Worlds and I believe in their King Kong cop-off, release them close to the same time. However, I should note that, the directors of both films seem to have made their films based on their own respect for the Wells novel (I doubt a small time studio would make a film with the story's plot and set it Victoria England unless they had sincere reasons). Regardless, I think it they were honest attempts at filmmaking working in conjunction to captialise on a big 'H' film based on the same book of work. --Bacteria 06:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does the scene of the battle take place?
Where does the battle in that valley take place? I know that Ray and his family were headed towards Boston from Athens, so it's gotta take place somewhere there. Anyone know the exact location? Wolcott 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the 747 plane crash in the plot summary?
Just thought it was a pivotal moment in the movie. Sunil060902 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that came out of that was that Ray learned how the aliens got into the tripods from the reporter, other than that it has no impact on the story. Psycholian (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disaster film?
Is this really a "disaster film"? I have a feeling that such a film deals with natural disasters. Shouldnt this be called an "invasion film". T.Neo (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more like a science-fiction type of film. -- Vh o scythe chatter-sign 22:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Alien machine?
i dont get how the machine got underground? there was only lightning.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.28.138 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think someone said that the machines were buried in the ground hundereds of years ago. it was the ALIENS who traveled to the machines in lighening. T.Neo (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

--There was never any direct reference to how the alien machines came to be underground. Yet various evidence in the films posters (They are already here), indirect reference by Cruise in the movie itself and the pods that come down in the lightning storm lead us to conclude that the machines must have been placed underground sometime in the distant past (before the birth of man, I would assume, since nobody knew about the machines in history. James Random (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Plot, Characters, Differences
All of the these sections are unnecessarily long. Need to be trimmed. Wikipedia is not here to provide the entire movie in writing. Elisa EX PL OS i ON talk.  14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so I tagged the Source material section. This article is about the 2005 War of the Worlds film. This is not a message board or fan site, so I don't see the relevance of "comparing" the movie with other tv-series or books. Concentrate just on the film. 08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.49.6 (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:Payoff poster.jpg
Image:Payoff poster.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 ensure 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) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Character section?
I notice that the names are incorrect under the characters list, and the character descriptions are rather lacking. Could somebody fix this? I am not familiar enough with the movie to feel confident enough to make such corrections. DaniDaniDanica (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Tim Robbins character
No one, either on this page or in the professional film critics sphere, seems to have commented on the fact that Tom Cruise's character murders a member of his own species to "protect" himself and his daughter. He prevents Tim Robbins' character from fighting (and thereby alerting) the aliens. He then falls asleep and is discovered by the same aliens, negating any perceived benefit from the killing. The fact that this character (the protagonist, the one we are supposed to sympathize and identify with) acts in such a cowardly manner throughout the film and tops it all off by murdering another human, is to me fairly disturbing. What message is Spielberg trying to get across here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.246.61 (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not the place for asking why characters or directors did certain things, this is about the article.

2. Ray cared a WHOLE LOT about his family, enough to kill a guy who was obviously going bonkers and was going to do more harm than good. He didn't know another probe would come so his reasoning for killing oglivy still stands.Psycholian (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Film Logo vs. Fifa trophy
Did anyone notice that the movie's logo has a striking resemblance to the fifa world cup trophy? Montgomery' 39 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So what? It's completely irrelavent. Psycholian (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't the film begin with a meteorite crashing on Earth from Mars?
Why didn't the film begin with a meteorite crashing on Earth from Mars? That was taken from the H.G. Wells novel of the same title. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tripods come from underground, somehow placed there by the antagonists long ago. The Aliens then reach the Tripods via a bolt of lightning. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 07:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor plot error
Section 2 (Plot) says: "Robbie attempts to join the battle, and Ray reluctantly lets him go in order to save Rachel from being taken away by a married couple nearby ..." The "in order to" is wrong. Ray does not know about the married couple when he lets Robbie go. 58.174.242.29 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, when he had Robbie pinned to the ground, Ray did look back to see Rachel getting dragged away. Thats where the cinematic 'pause' came in which had Ray and Robbie looking at each other, to be broken with Ray running back to reclaim his daughter. The sentance is correct. Watch the movie/clip of that scene, I'm confident that I'm right. Blooded Edge  Contact  18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just seen the film on the telly, and you are. Britmax (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

J. J. Abrams
J. J. Abrams was asked by Steven Spielberg to write the screenplay but was unable to as he was working on the pilot for Lost. Count de Ville (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Releases
Why were there three different versions of War of the Worlds released in 2005? Was this in any way planned, or did three separate studios just happen to arrive at the same decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.132.28 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The plot description is horrible
It not only contains several factual errors, it doesn't even really fully describe the plot accurately. It's like someone who doesn't know SF history, and doesn't really care to, watched this on video one night, when they were tired, and the next evening wrote this up from memory. This is encyclopedic quality?

I corrected the number of aliens in the basement scene from 4 (ridiculous, if you know WOTW history and, you know, have actually seen this film)) to 3. There are other points ranging from the extremely weak to the just plain wrong, in this section.

I don't really edit, except for "minor" corrections. Like changing 4 to 3 when needed.

Do I need to actually do this and get it right? Someone cared enough to write it in the first place... if it were me, I'd like my own chance to get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.169.183 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Deus ex machina?
Why is "Deus ex machina" listed in the "See also" section? Is this a snarky In-Joke?"

albabe -  The Writer /Artist Formally Known as  Al Gordon 22:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Fertilize red weed"
Plot section: Can we really be sure they're taking blood to "fertilize" the red weed they're obviously spreading? It seems much more likely to me that they're already sick and dying inside their three-legged pods and try to take blood samples in order to create some kind of vaccine against earth diseases. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film)"
The usage and primary topic of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film) is under discussion, see Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The War of the Worlds (1953 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War of the Worlds (2005 film). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5rzOtC8n9?url=http://www.mania.com/sith-leads-nomination-list-for-32nd-annual-saturn-awards_article_50679.html to http://www.mania.com/sith-leads-nomination-list-for-32nd-annual-saturn-awards_article_50679.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512032708/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

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) 21:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of the Worlds (2005 film). 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/20110718114530/http://www.worldsoundtrackawards.com/awards2.cgi?go=history&category=&year=2005&type= to http://www.worldsoundtrackawards.com/awards2.cgi?go=history&category=&year=2005&type=

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) 03:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just who is responsible for the atrocious grammar?
There's some really poor grammar in this article, especially the "Cast and characters" section (and I'm not even talking about the information itself)... I'm guessing someone who's not too English savvy, which makes me wonder why they even tried to update/edit the page in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.184.166 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-war
I noticed that under the "themes" section that someone mentioned the film was anti-war. It then goes on to state that Speilberg believes America is threatened by a very real evil today. Those two points seem almost contradictory when put into the context of the film, specifically when the Army fights and destroys the crippled aliens, as well as the scene when the soldiers fight to buy time for the unarmed civilians. How is that anti-war? It seems to convey a need for armed conflict to defend the weak, and the victims of oppression. If someone could explain the anti war theme to me that would be great, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Yo40 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)