War of the Worlds screenwriter says Martians slaughtering humans are metaphore for U.S. military

Larry Elder Talk Radio Show on KABC AM 790 Los Angeles ^ | Tuesday, July 19, 2005 | Larry Elder

[FraudFactor.com]

War of the Worlds screenwriter David Koepp admits political propaganda in movie

KABC talk show host Larry Elder said today that David Koepp, one of the two War of the Worlds screenwriters, stated in a recent interview for a Canadian publication that the Martians slaughtering the humans are a metaphor for the adventurism of the American military forces, i.e., for the Bush Administration's war on terrorism, and the human civilians are a metaphor for the Iraqi people. He stated that this is going back to the original H. G. Wells book upon which the movie is loosely based.

However, the original story took place in England, and as Larry Elder pointed out, the book was written in the late eighteen hundreds (first published in 1898) at a time when British imperialism was at its peak, when the British Empire had authority over one out of every four human beings on Earth. Clearly, the United States is not an imperialist country, especially when compared to England, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, and the communist Soviet Union, Turkey/The Ottoman Empire, and the Arab Muslims.

One of Larry Elder's callers pointed out that we should expect leftist political propaganda in any movie directed by Steven Spielberg and including actor Tim Robbins, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration.

Tim Robbins played a survivalist named Ogilvy, who is the Hollywood-left's stereotype for a conservative - a distasteful "red neck" character portrayed as a crazy shotgun-wielding suspected child molester. He was in one of the two anti-gun scenes in the movie. This is another example of the bigotry of the Hollywood-left.

[asp1]

Oh my gosh, a soul-mate. I love MST3K. Do you know that Tom Servo is a Freeper? That show is the best.

Have you ever seen Target Earth (1954)? I saw it when I was a kid and didn't sleep for a month. Last week I bought "14 Features Sci-Fi." The set contains: Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet, War of the Robots, The Brain That Wouldn't Die, and so many more. These movies are the worst I've ever seen. I love them.

Journey to the Center of the Earth is one of my favorite movies. How about Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea? James Mason stars in both of those movies. He has the most incredible voice. Most of the girl's were swooning over Pat Boone. Me? I was in love with James Mason. I think I have seen Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Is that the one where an astronaut is stranded on Mars with a monkey?

[Darkwolf377]

Do you know that Tom Servo is a Freeper? That show is the best.

Are you kidding me??? Cool! I know Mike Nelson is a very vocal Bush fan.

Have you ever seen Target Earth (1954)? I saw it when I was a kid and didn't sleep for a month.

I may have to do a search on that one, it's vaguelly familiar.

Last week I bought "14 Features Sci-Fi." The set contains: Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet, War of the Robots, The Brain That Wouldn't Die, and so many more. These movies are the worst I've ever seen. I love them.

I think the same company put out the one I have, which is a set of *50* flicks, including those, I LOVE ...Prehistoric Planet, which was a Russian flick which was re-used in ANOTHER movie. (I bet you know which one.)It was re-cut for American release by Peter Bogdanovich.

Journey to the Center of the Earth is one of my favorite movies. How about Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea? James Mason stars in both of those movies. He has the most incredible voice. Most of the girl's were swooning over Pat Boone. Me? I was in love with James Mason.

I'm assuming you're a woman... :) I get my MSTs from a site with good prices, btw. (No I'm not connected to it.)

http://www.mstjunkie.com/

I think I have seen Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Is that the one where an astronaut is stranded on Mars with a monkey?

Yup. It's got this sense of alienness most pricey FX movies can't touch.

[finnman69]

Not to mentioned the movie was not that good.

I was very disapointed and left feeling like I feel after watching most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. empty and robbed.

[FraudFactor.com]

Thanks for the feedback.

---

"I liked it. :)"

Did you like it primarily for the special effects? There was not much of a plot and it had an anticlimax ending.

I thought the early special effects looked jerky, but there were some good special effects later. I thought Terminator 1 and 2 and the Lord of the Rings were superior "chase" movies.

---

"There's no room for me to go into this here, but the truth is (and this may shock you) that almost no movie really makes sense when you look at it."

Thanks. I am aware of this. In the industry, this falls under the subject of "voluntary suspension of disbelief" on the part of the audience. When a movie contains too many or too extreme logical holes and inconsistencies, it is more difficult for the audience to engage in voluntary suspension of disbelief, resulting in distraction from the plot and a lower quality of entertainment.

---

"The movie industry is selling us a lot of junk with a few real gems in the mix (e.g., the three Lord of the Rings movies). The movie industry gets their bad movies into the theaters by forcing the theater operators to buy packages of movies in order to get the good movies."

"Nope--that's illegal now."

"The theater operators cannot cherry-pick only the good or best movies. They have to buy the junk movies to get the good ones. To help make up for this, the theaters jack up their prices on the food concessions and show paid advertisements for up to twenty minutes after the official start time of the movie. What a racket!"

"That's not really true. Block booking is illegal, and has been since the fifties. Some claim that the practice of offering movie X to get movie A still exists, and it does, but it's not the same thing because movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix. It's more complicated and subtle than I'm saying, but it's not really the same thing as block booking, a practice that died in anti-trust litigation in the 50's or 60's. Now it's more a case of the theaters NEEDING the shows because they need twenty films at a time."

It should be illegal. However, the owner of a chain of movie theaters told me some time in the mid-1990's that he had to buy (i.e., rent) blocks of movie prints, including the bad movies, to get the good movies. I assumed there have been no legal changes since then, which may be incorrect.

He did not state the specific details, such as the method that was used to impose this scheme on theater operators. Perhaps the scheme is imposed through the price structure and "discounts" for buying the suggested blocks of movies. I believe the cost to rent a movie print includes some fixed price plus some amount per ticket sold. I don't know if it includes a percentage of profit from concessions sold.

---

"movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix"

I have sat in movie theaters that had an audience with only six to ten people including myself. Perhaps they were waiting until the particular day of the week when they change their movie schedule, but this has happened a number of times, usually after the movie has been in the theaters for a while.

[asp1]

Do a search on FR for Tom Servo and you will see his latest postings. (I love the little puppet, too.)

Target Earth is about a robot invasion from Venus. The entire city is evacuated except for a few stragglers, who must hide from the occupying robots. The funny part about the movie is the fact that there is supposed to be this huge invasion except you only see one robot. Special effects really weren't involved in this one. :o)

Richard Denning is the star of Target earth. Denning is also in The Creature From The Black Lagoon. Ok, I give up what is the American release of Prehistoric Planet? I should know this and I'm ashamed that I don't. :o)

Thanks for the MST site. I will check it out.

I only saw half of Robinson Crusoe on Mars. I have never seen the end of the movie. I will have to keep an eye out for it.

[Darkwolf377]

Did you like it primarily for the special effects? There was not much of a plot and it had an anticlimax ending.

I enjoyed it overall, with some qualifications, but I really liked the ending, which was accurate to the book. It breaks the "rules" of drama, but it speaks to the theme of the book, and I thought it was oddly appropriate in this time of debate about religion. Think about it, the ending is basically God watching mankind almost be vnaquished and then calling the fight. ;)

I thought the early special effects looked jerky, but there were some good special effects later. I thought Terminator 1 and 2 and the Lord of the Rings were superior "chase" movies.

I liked all of them to varying degrees. I also think Terminator 3 was an adequate follow-up, and in fact had a very brave ending in that it pushed the series to the point of no return and dealt with the idea that the machine takeover was inevitable.

In the industry, this falls under the subject of "voluntary suspension of disbelief" on the part of the audience. When a movie contains too many or too extreme logical holes and inconsistencies, it is more difficult for the audience to engage in voluntary suspension of disbelief, resulting in distraction from the plot and a lower quality of entertainment.

Yeah, it's a basic concept, but there's no fast and loose rule. Certain movies are "realistic" and strain credulity, and it's not like there's a one-size-fits-all standard. Movies some folks love I find ridiculous; movies others hate I love because for all their flaws they have value.

It should be illegal. However, the owner of a chain of movie theaters told me some time in the mid-1990's that he had to buy (i.e., rent) blocks of movie prints, including the bad movies, to get the good movies. I assumed there have been no legal changes since then, which may be incorrect.

Again, it depends on how you look at it. You have to buy books you don't think are gonna be hits--midlist books--to fill out your shelves so you don't just sell Harry Potter. Same for movies.

He did not state the specific details, such as the method that was used to impose this scheme on theater operators. Perhaps the scheme is imposed through the price structure and "discounts" for buying the suggested blocks of movies.

Yep, and there's nothing illegal or unethical about it, IMHO.

I believe the cost to rent a movie print includes some fixed price plus some amount per ticket sold. I don't know if it includes a percentage of profit from concessions sold.

If you check out your favorite movie house's profit statements you often find they are listed as food vendors, because that's where their $$ comes from. To the best of my knowledge no movie studio gets a cut of that; if they wanted a cut I imagine they'd just jigger with the amount they take from the rentals.

"movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix" I have sat in movie theaters that had an audience with only six to ten people including myself. Perhaps they were waiting until the particular day of the week when they change their movie schedule, but this has happened a number of times, usually after the movie has been in the theaters for a while.

Sure, that's expected for the reasons you say. You have to remember that outside of the weekends, the theaters have to survive and pay their employees, give them 40 hours or whatever a week, etc. Twenty years or more ago, a movie like Star Wars was in theaters for one solid year. Now they have these massive theaters and can show the same movie a half dozen times, then cut back as the crowds thin out. Movies simply don't last as long, which means they have to get as many shows in EARLY as possible, but then what do you do? You can't show nothing during the week when fewer people are going. And there aren't that many Star Wars movies showing. But if you have 10 people in there, that's ten people buying your food that you wouldn't have if you showed nothing, and you were obliged to keep the movie there because the movie company agreed to spend X amount of money on advertising, tie-ins, etc. If the studio is spending an agreed-upon amount on ads, you're obliged to have the movie THERE for the potential audience.

Nice chatting with you!

[Darkwolf377]

Target Earth is about a robot invasion from Venus. The entire city is evacuated except for a few stragglers, who must hide from the occupying robots. The funny part about the movie is the fact that there is supposed to be this huge invasion except you only see one robot. Special effects really weren't involved in this one. :o)

Doesn't it take place in a bar for the most part?

[bnelson44]

thank you

[FraudFactor.com]

I agree with you about having the right tools to do the job.

However, Hollywood is directing their propaganda at those who do not have your knowlege or position. The conservatives and leftists tend to be quite firm in their positions. The political battle and culture war is to win the hearts and minds of those who are undecided, or malleable.

In the car theft scene, Tom Cruise was in control of the situation but did not employ the correct tactics and situational awareness to prevent the car thief from gaining control.

Here is an excerpt from my review on FraudFactor.com ( http://www.fraudfactor.com/reviews/movies/ffmoviereview0502.html ):

Leftist Propaganda and Rhetoric

As expected, War of the Worlds contains the typical Hollywood-left obligatory anti-gun scenes, dysfunctional broken family, distasteful "red neck" character (represented as a crazy shotgun-wielding suspected child molester), and out of place, awkwardly inserted anti-President Bush rhetoric with anti-Iraq war statements criticizing military occupation. The movie even starts off with unnecessary labor union rhetoric. Tom Cruise, a dock worker who operates a crane, is confronted by his boss who tells him to come back to work another shift without enough time to sleep. Cruise grins as he tells his boss that would violate the union rules.

<snip>

The anti-gun scenes conveyed the dangerously inaccurate and irresponsible message that you are worse off having a gun than not having one. And that even if you do have one, you will not be able to use it effectively for self-defense, and it will only fall into the wrong hands and be used for criminal purposes. The lack of military battle scenes helps to reinforce the primary theme of the movie, that pacifism is just as effective as fighting against evil with military weapons and personnel.

In one anti-gun scene, Tom Cruise has driven a long distance to escape the aliens, but is stopped by a large impassable mob of people who want a ride or want to steal his car. The mob is banging their fists on the car windows in a threatening manner. Cruise tries to push some of these people out of the way by driving forward. The mob then attacks the car, breaking the windows and trying to pull Cruise and his two children (or was it just his daughter?) out of the car. Cruise stands outside the car, and fires two warning shots into the air with his revolver handgun. The crowd stops attacking him and steps back. But a man with his own handgun steps forward on the left side of Cruise, points his gun at Cruise's head, and orders Cruise to drop his gun. Cruise complies and the man steals Cruise's car. But before the car thief drives off, another man grabs Cruise's revolver from the ground, runs up to the car, and shoots the car thief several times. He gets in the car, pushes the car thief out of the car, and drives off, stealing the car himself.

In another anti-gun scene, Cruise uses an axe rather than an available shotgun to attack the alien war machine's probe tentacle. This scene was constructed in a way to make an axe attack seem more feasible than a shotgun attack.

The political propaganda message here is that guns are evil and of no use to good people. Also, as usual in Hollywood-left movies, firearms are shown in irresponsible and criminal misuse, rather than responsible and safe use which are significantly more common in real life. The last twenty-five years of scientific criminological research has shown that gun control increases violent crime, costing thousands of lives each year, and endangering everyone including those who choose not to own firearms. Defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method. And firearms are used at least five times more often for self defense than they are misused in all crimes, suicides, and accidents combined, usually without having to shoot the attacker. Mere possession and display of a firearm is almost always an adequate defense. Yet the Hollywood-left wants everyone to believe the opposite.

[FraudFactor.com]

Thank you for the excellent information.

Very nice chatting with you too!

"If you check out your favorite movie house's profit statements you often find they are listed as food vendors, because that's where their $$ comes from."

The owner of the chain of movie theaters also told me that without the food concession sales, the theaters could not remain in business, due to the overhead costs including the movie print rental costs.

[FraudFactor.com]

It is interesting how the ending can be viewed as leftists anti-military/anti-defense propoganda, or, as you suggest, a favorable religious message. I believe Hollywood intends for this to be an act by "Mother Nature" from an atheist point of view.

I suppose an ideal movie would be crafted in a way that allows each member of the audience to interpret it in a way they find favorable. This might be analogous to the famous Mona Lisa painting staring back at you from any angle that you gaze upon it.

Mona Lisa

[Darkwolf377]

Yep. I don't know if you saw recently a theater chain was offering to refund tickets for Cinderella Man if the ticket buyer didn't like the movie. I welcomed this return to the showmanship style, as it's a great advertising gimmick and only 100 people in the whole chain asked for a refund, which they probably made up for in ten minutes' worth of junk food sales.

[Darkwolf377]

I hear ya, though I don't like those endings--I prefer the author to have the guts to make his case and leave it like that.

But the novel was written when Wells was still a christian, I believe (may have to check that) and before he went left and his books became unreadable.

I find it one of the best SF endings ever because it's unique--you can't end another story of this kind like that, the way you can have, say, a thousand movies end with big space battles.

[FraudFactor.com]

I complained at one movie theater, either about being unhappy with the quality of the movie, or about excessive noise in the audience, babies crying, or something - I don't remember the details.

The manager was really good about it and said we could pick another movie and watch that one in addition to the movie we already saw, without paying extra. Of course, being in the theater longer, and being appreciative for their good treatment of customers, we did buy more food. However, it was a discount theater and the food was reasonably priced.

I suppose that is one good reason to go to a theater early enough, so if you don't like one movie you may be able to watch another.

Also, if you see a movie is really bad in the first 15 - 25 or 30 minutes (e.g., Election), walk out, and ask for a refund or a ticket to see another movie. It doesn't hurt to ask.

It surprised me to see people bring young children to movie theaters as though it is cheaper than a baby sitter or a baby sitter is not available.

I saw what looked like an entire family in the theater, including several young children, for the Matrix Reloaded (Unloaded) movie. This movie contained gratuitous frontal nudity and sex scenes that did not belong in or add to the movie. The mother and father did not seem to have any concern for their young children seeing these scenes.

It is interesting to note that these nude and sex scenes, together with the excessively long (or looping?) fight scenes, filled out half a movie into a full-length movie.

I felt cheated by the movie producer and as a result, did not see the third Matrix movie, and I did not buy the DVDs.

Based on conversations I had with friends who saw the second and third Matrix movies, the two movies should have had half their footage cut out and the remainder made into one real, complete movie.

[MoochPooch]

"I was very disapointed and left feeling like I feel after watching most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. empty and robbed."


My feelings exactly about the current state of Hollywood. I don't know, but the films nowadays just don't grab me anymore. Maybe I've just outgrown them.

[Darkwolf377]

I suppose that is one good reason to go to a theater early enough, so if you don't like one movie you may be able to watch another. Also, if you see a movie is really bad in the first 15 - 25 or 30 minutes (e.g., Election), walk out, and ask for a refund or a ticket to see another movie. It doesn't hurt to ask.

I've never had that experience, probably because I've always been such a fan, and have worked with very independent film on and off, so I probably read and hear more about movies than most normal people do, so I have a good indication about what I'm getting in for. I also have a personality that allows me to enjoy just about any movie in some way--I love film scores, for example.

I've never walked out of a movie. The one time I might have was Armageddon, but in fact it's one of the best times I've ever had in a theater, because my friend and I started a running commentary five minutes in. Usually I hate people who talk in movies, but the people around us were laughing at our comments, so we kept it up and had the whole joint laughing. (My favorite moment was when Paris blew up, and in the silence that followed, thinking no one could here me, I mumbled "Good" and the whole row in front of me died laughing--French hatred was pretty high even back then!)

It surprised me to see people bring young children to movie theaters as though it is cheaper than a baby sitter or a baby sitter is not available.

A major peeve with me!

I saw what looked like an entire family in the theater, including several young children, for the Matrix Reloaded (Unloaded) movie. This movie contained gratuitous frontal nudity and sex scenes that did not belong in or add to the movie. The mother and father did not seem to have any concern for their young children seeing these scenes. It is interesting to note that these nude and sex scenes, together with the excessively long (or looping?) fight scenes, filled out half a movie into a full-length movie. I felt cheated by the movie producer and as a result, did not see the third Matrix movie, and I did not buy the DVDs. Based on conversations I had with friends who saw the second and third Matrix movies, the two movies should have had half their footage cut out and the remainder made into one real, complete movie.

Ah, The Matrix Trilogy, I could go on and on about those. The third one DID have a great battle sequence, but this is probably the single most overrated cultural THING since Woody Allen movies.

[FraudFactor.com]

Here is another photo of the backwards Islamic society where women are forced to cover up all of their body, including their heads and faces with veils or burqas, and even their hands when possible.

Afghan women were beaten with sticks and clubs by Talaban "religious police" if they were caught outside their homes without covering the bodies with their burqas. Yet many leftists who claimed they support women's rights either failed to support or opposed the War Against Terrorism in Afghanistan.


Women with entire bodies including hands covered, and heads and faces covered by burqas, cross a market in Parwan Province, Afghanistan.

Photo by Staff Sgt. Derrick C. Goode, USAF. (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.)

Source: DefenseLINK Information presented on DefenseLINK is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.     http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09272002_200209264.html

[FraudFactor.com]

Sometimes I end up seeing movies I don't want to see because other people I go with want to see them. Sometimes it is difficult to talk them out of a particular movie.

In other cases, we do not do our research, and become victims of what I call "audience ambush", where we are exposed to bad quality movies and/or in-your-face offensive themes, including leftist political propaganda and homo-centric characters and themes.

Election (1999) was a movie we both wanted to walk out on after only fifteen minutes. We looked at each other, and asked if it was going to get better. We made the unfortunate mistake of giving it some more time, and then even more time, and then we saw more than half the movie. After than, I felt it was a bit late to ask for a refund. However, that movie was so bad we should have asked for a refund.

The plot was incredibly bad, with no real beginning, middle, or end. It just plodded along. The acting was excellent, but could not rescue the plot.

The movie Election also committed "audience ambush" by including an unnecessary lesbian high school student, and a high school teacher having an affair with a student. The movie critics gave this movie very positive reviews, but, if I remember correctly, neglected to mention the gratuitous lesbian high school student and teacher having sexual relations with a student. Thus, an audience ambush resulted.

The movie included Reese Witherspoon as Tracy Flick, who is cute, but she is a flaming leftist and anti-gunner. She has been an outspoken advocate for firearm confiscation and is actively involved in the (Less Than) Million Mom March for firearm confiscation (which should have been dubbed DUMB, for Dangerous Uninformed Mommies Brigade).

Another bad movie resulting in "audience ambush" was The Crying Game (1992), where a heterosexual IRA terrorist falls in love with a woman that turns out to be a man with full accessories, that looks like an attractive woman (i.e., a cross-dresser or a partial transvestite). The terrorist is at first repulsed, and then overcomes the repulsion, falls in love with, and goes to prison for a crime committed by this other man.

Despite a bad plot and bad quality movie with highly offensive material, the movie critics gave The Crying Game very positive reviews, and covered up the homo-centric characters and themes, in order to ambush trusting and unsuspecting movie customers.

Many movies have political propaganda themes or are entire propaganda movies (e.g., the Michael Moore movies and others).

The movie industry is alienating more than half their audience and potential customers.

Because I am familiar with the leftist political agenda, the political propaganda in movies stands out, is distracting, and detracts from the quality of the movie.

Also, I will never watch another movie with Julia Roberts in it because of her bigoted statement, "Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant." I would keep remembering her statement while watching her on the screen.

Besides, I find her scrawny and unattractive, even when they try to doll her up. Michael Medved said that in Pretty Woman, they had to use a large number of body doubles for different parts of her body (I seem to remember twelve or more - don't ask me why so many).

[Darkwolf377]

I agree with so much of what you said--now get out there and get a movie critic's job!

I really enjoyed the other two movies by the director of Election (I wasn't offended, just bored--ditto The Snoring Game). About Schmidt and Sideways were very entertaining, though of course the latter had a ridiculous, blatant Bush-bash in it. But I just chuckle at how stupid these people are and move on. So to speak.

As for the liberalism of movie makers, my personal belief is that it's truly funny to hear all these liberal sentiments, these lessons on how to live with our fellow man, coming from people who live in gated communities with personal security details.