Independence Day vs. War of the Worlds

They’re actually totally different vibes, I guess. Independence Day is more of a sci-fi action comedy, whereas War of the Worlds is definitely a sci-fi disaster movie.

northerncrane4 said:I mean, how do you not get it? It’s because Steven Spielberg is a genius. And he’s a genius simply because he writes letters to the editor saying so.

And then there are those ghost directors supposedly calling the shots on his "brilliant" movies, right?

and he just happened to stumble onto a few good ones, I guess?

it's just great being part of this crew of brilliant, ultra-cool people like northerncrane4, isn't it? yeah, totally... we know everything, we basically discovered cinema ourselves, we're the gods of celluloid, we all follow this super strict arithmetic-logarithmic approach to filmmaking—heaven forbid anyone frames a shot slightly wrong, because if it's not written in some textbook by Dušan Stojanović or Ante Peterlić, then northerncrane4 and I will immediately jump down their throats and claim we have a massive headache... yeah, for sure, man, that's exactly how it works. 🙄 🙄 🙄

As for those poll results: 👎 👎 👎 👎

I mean, people seem really confused about how Resident Evil could ever pull in over $100 million... I guess it’s pretty obvious, though. It feels like there was just some massive, questionable clearance sale happening somewhere, and from what I can see, everything just flew off the shelves 😛

Maybe War of the Worlds is a bit lame, but honestly, Independence Day is just a whole herd of dead horses... actually, scratch that... it’s more like a bunch of poorly disguised pigs pretending to be horses.🙂

quietdriver3 said:So, does he have some ghost director behind those "genius" films of his? Is that the deal?

No. Steven Spielberg doesn't have a single genius film to his name—but then again, that's just my pissed-off opinion.

quietdriver3 said:He managed to hit on a few good ones, though, right?

Give Harold Ramis a break, too.

quietdriver3 said:I'm just thrilled to be part of such a smart, cool crowd alongside people like northerncrane4, isn't that great?

Who invited you?

quietdriver3 said:We all know the drill—we discovered the film, we're the gods of celluloid, we're lovers of the mathematical-logarithmic approach to filmmaking... I mean, heaven forbid someone frames a shot wrong (since some book by Dušan Stojanović or Ante Peterlić says you aren't allowed to).

Everything you're describing is the definition of Steven Spielberg and his crew. Craft—5/10. Inspiration—2/10. Every frame is technically perfect, but you'll never find that certain "something extra." But you don't get it yet. It's fine—the average lifespan is about 73 anyway, so there's still time.

northerncrane4 said:Nah. I don't think Steven Spielberg has a single genius film in his entire filmography. But hey, that's just my grumpy opinion, I guess.

He's got three geniuses in there, and one perfect
one.

northerncrane4 said:Give some credit to Harold Ramis, too.

you've got illegitimate kids and premature ejaculation, but good movies? Not really... 😉

northerncrane4 said:Who asked you anyway?

i'm a shit sweeper... consider yourself swept 😁 😁

northerncrane4 said:but you won't find anything "above" that level.

ok... I guess I know you're just messing with me now 🙄

northerncrane4 said:No way. Steven Spielberg doesn't have a single genius film to his name.

So you don't think Indiana Jones is a masterpiece?

What about Jaws?

Or Duel?

mirrorball said:..and how does it differ from War of the Worlds😕

Well, it’s pretty simple: Independence Day is trash and War of the Worlds actually has substance. I already laid out all the reasons why Independence Day is garbage, whereas I can't even think of a single major flaw in War of the Worlds that holds up. Sure, we can pick apart War of the Worlds—it isn't some perfect masterpiece—but trying to compare it to Independence Day, which basically treats its audience like idiots even if you try to frame it as a comedy, just isn't happening.

BTW, do you honestly believe kids would stay that composed in a real-life situation like that? To me, the kid is actually a decent character; you see it during that ferry scene where Jack Cruise is busy hiding inside the ship thinking only about himself and his own skin, while the boy is out there sprinting to help the crew hanging off the railing. It doesn't sit right with me that the kid actually makes it out alive, because by any realistic standard, he should've been toast, and it feels cheap that Steven Spielberg forced such a 100% happy ending on us.

Eric Jackson43 said:but comparing it to Independence Day, which basically insults the audience with its approach, is just wrong.

That’s spot on. You can't even put Independence Day in the same conversation as War of the Worlds. The first one is just a fun popcorn flick—an action comedy meant for the masses that keeps you entertained for two hours. The second one, though? It’s a mess because it tries way too hard to be something it simply isn't.

redowl90 said:That’s spot on... You can't even put Independence Day in the same league as War of the Worlds because the first one is actually a "fun" flick, you know? It's basically an action comedy made for the masses—just two hours of mindless popcorn entertainment that flies by...

Clearly, you haven't sat down with Independence Day in a long time. If that movie was trying to be some lighthearted action comedy, they wouldn't have included those heavy, gut-wrenching scenes where a farmer sacrifices himself for the greater good or when Jeff Goldblum is mourning the fallout from those nukes. No, Independence Day was aiming to be a serious drama, nothing less than War of the Worlds, but it just ended up being pretentious garbage. By the end, it isn't even an action comedy anymore; it’s just a straight-up insult to the audience's intelligence.

Even back in the early South Park days, they were tearing Independence Day apart wherever they went. Honestly, just grab the movie and watch it again.

😂 😂

The results? It's a total tie!

Eric Jackson43 said:They weren't always garbage—look at those early South Park episodes where they mocked Independence Day. Seriously, go rent the movie and actually watch it properly.

Fortunately, when you factor in Steven Spielberg, they aren't.

northerncrane4 said:Luckily, thanks to Spielberg, they aren't at all.

😂
They probably are, but definitely not to that extent.
Look, I honestly have no clue if Spielberg's movies actually hold up from a technical or critical standpoint, but I do know that, unlike most other Hollywood junk, his films actually stick with me as something that genuinely moved me.

Eric Jackson43 said:😂
They probably are—but certainly not in those quantities.

The entire episode was dedicated to her.

Eric Jackson43 said:Look, I honestly don't know if Spielberg's movies hold up from a technical standpoint, but unlike most other Hollywood productions, Spielberg's films stay with me as something truly moving.

Fair enough. Personally, I find them repulsive—mostly because I despise the manipulative way they try to win the audience over.

northerncrane4 said:Fair enough. I can't stand them either, mostly because the way they try to manipulate me into watching is just insulting.

In what sense, though? Like, personally, I feel more insulted when I'm stuck watching Will Smith's overacting in ID, you know, like when they spend five straight minutes zooming in on his face just to show his ridiculous expressions the first time he spots a flying saucer.

Eric Jackson43 said:In what sense—layman's terms?

The characterization is pure cliché—their relationship dynamics and how they react to the situation lack even a shred of originality—yet it tries to pass itself off as some profound insight into the human psyche and interpersonal connections.

Eric Jackson43 said:For me, it’s more insulting having to sit through Will Smith's overacting in ID—like those five minutes of nothing but zoomed-in shots of his facial expressions when he first spots the flying saucer.

I’d appreciate it if someone noticed I haven't uttered a single positive word about this movie.

northerncrane4 said:From my perspective, the way they handle characterization, the relationship arcs, and how everyone reacts to the situation feels like pure cliché. It’s got zero originality, yet it tries to pass itself off as this deep, profound insight into the human psyche and interpersonal connections.

I totally agree 👍

Like, for instance, when I went to see Jurassic Park, I was kind of expecting a movie where the dinosaurs served as an allegory for the aging psyche—you know, where the whole park is actually just a cleverly packaged Bergmanesque analogy for a nursing home and the heavy stuff people deal with in their later years (like, how to manage incontinence, which brand of hip replacements is actually reliable, or if those high-tech hearing aids are even a real thing?). But instead, what I actually got was just a really well-directed, fun action movie. 👎

... I mean... the genre... what even is that... 😕

northerncrane4 said:In my view, the characterization is just pure cliché—the way they develop relationships, how they react to one another and the chaos around them feels totally recycled, yet they try to pass it off as some profound insight into the human psyche and social dynamics.

I’m going to have to disagree there. Personally, when I sat down for WotW, I wasn't looking for deep character studies; I wanted to see what happens when Martians decide to take over Earth. As far as clichés go, I actually found the characters pretty believable, which suggests that even if they are tropes, they’re tropes done right. It's not like Spielberg was trying to reinvent the wheel here. You mentioned earlier, if I recall correctly, that WotW is just pure craftsmanship without that extra "soul," and honestly, I'm with you on that—it doesn't touch something like Arrival, where N. S. manages to turn a quirky scene about an alien in a backyard into something genuinely haunting. But look, Spielberg isn't N. S., and it's a bit much to expect every single one of his movies to be "something more." WotW isn't that kind of movie, but IMHO, it's a solid piece of work—sure, it has its flaws, but it's the kind of film you rarely see being made these days.

quietdriver3 said:[For instance, when I went to see Jurassic Park, I was expecting some deep dive where dinosaurs serve as an allegory for a retiree's psyche—instead, the whole park is actually just a cleverly packaged Bergmanesque analogy for a nursing home and the grim realities of aging (think: dealing with incontinence, finding the best brand for artificial hips, or whether hearing aids are even worth the hype). Instead, what I got was just a well-directed, fun action flick. 👎

What exactly were you looking for when you sat down for "Schindler's List," "The Birdcage," "Amistad," "A.I.," "Catch Me If You Can," "The Color Purple," "Always," or "Terminal"? Or maybe you were hunting for that primal father-son connection in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"? The chemistry between ex-spouses in "Jurassic Park"? That trope of viewing the "adult world" through the eyes of innocent children that shows up in every other movie?

If so—fine. To me, that's just pathetic.

northerncrane4 said:So, is there actually any chemistry between the exes in "Jurassic Park"?

yeah, I was kind of hoping for that when I sat down to watch Jurassic Park

I mean, I was really looking forward to seeing a movie about the dynamics of former spouses, but instead, it’s just jungle, dinosaurs, and genetic engineering

And then you have Indiana Jones III, where he spends so much time obsessing over his relationship with his dad that the title might as well have been Indiana Jones and his Legitimate Father 😛

...

Does every single movie have to be this massive dramatic tour de force with perfectly polished characters to actually be good? 😕

Like, is Evil Death II even a good movie? 😕