War of the Worlds

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
azskyman
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4104
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:36 am
Location: Scottsdale Arizona
Contact:

#21 Postby azskyman » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:41 pm

Hope to see this movie this weekend. Even if every Spielberg film is not Academy Award bound, it is always an "event."

Tom Cruise is a lot of things. But if he pulls off a good part in a film, I can leave it at that and walk away happy.

And besides, after her part in Man On Fire, I gotta believe that Dakota Fanning will do a great job at capturing Spielberg's emotion of fear through her.
0 likes   

User avatar
CentralFlGal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

#22 Postby CentralFlGal » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:46 am

Just got back from the movie - I can't believe I actually liked it. My daughter and her friend enjoyed it too, so we Googled Wells' work. We're listening to it now - the original radio broadcast. Enjoy!

http://www.earthstation1.com/WOTW/War_of_the_Worlds.ram

(Found on this page: http://www.whatwasthen.com/wow.html )

Edited to include: you need Realplayer to hear the broadcast.
0 likes   

User avatar
azskyman
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4104
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:36 am
Location: Scottsdale Arizona
Contact:

#23 Postby azskyman » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:28 am

We did go too, and while it wasn't our favorite Dreamworks film, it was good, and we enjoyed it. The premise of the movie was interesting...and Cruise did an admirable job...but no Oscars for anything here except special effects. Perhaps Tim Robbins was good enough for a second look.
0 likes   

User avatar
alicia-w
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6400
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:55 pm
Location: Tijeras, NM

#24 Postby alicia-w » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:55 pm

I LOVED the movie and Scientology isnt wacko, in my opinion. Those who think it is probably havent read many facts about it. It isnt any stranger than some of our more fundamentalist factions...

anyway, Tom Cruise is a good actor, a consistently excellent performer and this movie is no exception. and he's cute AND American! Who needs more than that?!?!?
0 likes   

User avatar
HurryKane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi

#25 Postby HurryKane » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 pm

alicia-w wrote:I LOVED the movie and Scientology isnt wacko, in my opinion. Those who think it is probably havent read many facts about it.



I've read a great number of factual articles, survivor accounts, and legal documents that expose $cientology for what it is: a dangerous cult. Like this story from someone who was able to get out before it got her: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/

But if paying $500,000+ to have some soup cans rid you of a personal infestation of 75 million year old aliens is not considered "wacko" then I guess I want off this planet, pronto.
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#26 Postby feederband » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:19 pm

HurryKane wrote:
alicia-w wrote:I LOVED the movie and Scientology isnt wacko, in my opinion. Those who think it is probably havent read many facts about it.



I've read a great number of factual articles, survivor accounts, and legal documents that expose $cientology for what it is: a dangerous cult. Like this story from someone who was able to get out before it got her: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/

But if paying $500,000+ to have some soup cans rid you of a personal infestation of 75 million year old aliens is not considered "wacko" then I guess I want off this planet, pronto.


The basis of Scientology is no more wacko then the other religons. All religions to me have a bit of wackeness about them....All of them have to many holes and they are all just hearsay...IMO


Also if you want to think of a dangerous cult think about what the christians did during the crusades.....
0 likes   

User avatar
HurryKane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi

#27 Postby HurryKane » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:42 pm

feederband wrote:
HurryKane wrote:
alicia-w wrote:I LOVED the movie and Scientology isnt wacko, in my opinion. Those who think it is probably havent read many facts about it.



I've read a great number of factual articles, survivor accounts, and legal documents that expose $cientology for what it is: a dangerous cult. Like this story from someone who was able to get out before it got her: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/

But if paying $500,000+ to have some soup cans rid you of a personal infestation of 75 million year old aliens is not considered "wacko" then I guess I want off this planet, pronto.


The basis of Scientology is no more wacko then the other religons. All religions to me have a bit of wackeness about them....All of them have to many holes and they are all just hearsay...IMO


Also if you want to think of a dangerous cult think about what the christians did during the crusades.....


Perhaps the basis is not any more wacko than other religions. But $cientology's practices do far more harm to those in its grasp than do most well-established religions today. $cientology's practices are that of a cult which has little care for its members except to drain them of every last penny they have, even killing some of them in the process and destroying the lives of others as well. It is $cientology's aim that psychiatry and psychotropic drugs be abolished, and they're pushing legislation to do just that. So they're not just out for themselves, they're out to affect your life, too.

The vast majority of organized religions today do not require you to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to achieve a state of grace; most simply require faith and minimal tithing. There's a difference there--to me anyway.
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#28 Postby feederband » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:50 pm

HurryKane wrote:
feederband wrote:
HurryKane wrote:
alicia-w wrote:I LOVED the movie and Scientology isnt wacko, in my opinion. Those who think it is probably havent read many facts about it.



I've read a great number of factual articles, survivor accounts, and legal documents that expose $cientology for what it is: a dangerous cult. Like this story from someone who was able to get out before it got her: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/

But if paying $500,000+ to have some soup cans rid you of a personal infestation of 75 million year old aliens is not considered "wacko" then I guess I want off this planet, pronto.


The basis of Scientology is no more wacko then the other religons. All religions to me have a bit of wackeness about them....All of them have to many holes and they are all just hearsay...IMO


Also if you want to think of a dangerous cult think about what the christians did during the crusades.....


Perhaps the basis is not any more wacko than other religions. But $cientology's practices do far more harm to those in its grasp than do most well-established religions today. $cientology's practices are that of a cult which has little care for its members except to drain them of every last penny they have, even killing some of them in the process and destroying the lives of others as well. It is $cientology's aim that psychiatry and psychotropic drugs be abolished, and they're pushing legislation to do just that. So they're not just out for themselves, they're out to affect your life, too.

The vast majority of organized religions today do not require you to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to achieve a state of grace; most simply require faith and minimal tithing. There's a difference there--to me anyway.


Point accepted....No religon will affect my life..I'm not into Scientology but I do think some of their beliefs are good. Specialy the parts of self esteem.. But just like anything else and any religion it gets corrupt.
0 likes   

User avatar
HurryKane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi

#29 Postby HurryKane » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:55 pm

feederband wrote:Point accepted....No religon will affect my life..I'm not into Scientology but I do think some of their beliefs are good. Specialy the parts of self esteem.. But just like anything else and any religion it gets corrupt.



Ok, so we'll agree to sort of disagree and kind of agree and...back to your regularly scheduled WOTW movie topic :)

(I really liked Batman Begins, myself)
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#30 Postby feederband » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:17 pm

HurryKane wrote:
feederband wrote:Point accepted....No religon will affect my life..I'm not into Scientology but I do think some of their beliefs are good. Specialy the parts of self esteem.. But just like anything else and any religion it gets corrupt.



Ok, so we'll agree to sort of disagree and kind of agree and...back to your regularly scheduled WOTW movie topic :)

(I really liked Batman Begins, myself)


8-)
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#31 Postby GalvestonDuck » Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:28 pm

Can we drop the anti-Scientology stuff? I think it's a given -- most, if not all, of us don't follow it and most of us disagree with it. But those who do follow it have that right. We wouldn't allow such slamming of other religions here, would we?
0 likes   

User avatar
HurryKane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi

#32 Postby HurryKane » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:25 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:Can we drop the anti-Scientology stuff? I think it's a given -- most, if not all, of us don't follow it and most of us disagree with it. But those who do follow it have that right. We wouldn't allow such slamming of other religions here, would we?


I'll drop it because you've asked, but not because it's impolite to bash a religion. 'Cause it's not a religion. And that's a viewpoint I'm allowed to have.
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#33 Postby feederband » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:27 pm

I thought it was already dropped. 8-)
0 likes   

User avatar
AussieMark
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5858
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:36 pm
Location: near Sydney, Australia

#34 Postby AussieMark » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:58 pm

What u guys think of the scene where Tom sings in it. :lol:
0 likes   

User avatar
CentralFlGal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

#35 Postby CentralFlGal » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:44 pm

tropicalweatherwatcher wrote:What u guys think of the scene where Tom sings in it. :lol:


ugh! Snaggletooth can't carry a tune.

I'll never be able to listen to "Little Deuce Coupe" again...
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#36 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:58 pm

Image
0 likes   

Miss Mary

#37 Postby Miss Mary » Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:05 pm

LOL!!! That's too funny.....

Thanks for the laugh Shawn.
0 likes   

TazzyD
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:47 pm
Location: Indiana

#38 Postby TazzyD » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:05 am

azskyman wrote:We did go too, and while it wasn't our favorite Dreamworks film, it was good, and we enjoyed it. The premise of the movie was interesting...and Cruise did an admirable job...but no Oscars for anything here except special effects. Perhaps Tim Robbins was good enough for a second look.


I think Dakota Fanning is a phenomenal little actor. Was her role meaty enough to be considered for an Oscar? I've not yet seen Spielberg's version of the movie, though I hope to soon. I really like about anything that Spielberg is involved in, anything that Tim Robbins is involved in, and anything Dakota Fanning is involved in. She's a little treasure!
0 likes   

User avatar
cswitwer
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:22 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

war of the worlds

#39 Postby cswitwer » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:16 am

War of the Worlds was initially intended to make us think about our humanity and how fragile it is. Did ya'll get that from Spielberg's take on it? I had already read too much to go in without thinking about it, but I think it was supposed to be like Schindler's List in a way-- showing what extremination of human life actually looks like. Scary, and hard to think too hard about.

Anybody?
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests