@mechajutaro said:

Not a troll. And you haven't replied to my question; you were really surprised that Spielberg re-imagined War of the Worlds as an allegory for the Holocaust?

There could very well be a good amount of validity to Spielberg seeing WOTW as an allegory to the Holocaust. He is, after all, Jewish. That would not be at all unusual. But keep in mind that he merely adapted the HG Welles, story, written if memory serves, in the 1890's, to the screen.

Now, I answered your question; you answer mine. What evidence is there to support the idea that there was a sex scene between Cruise and Dakota Fanning?

@mechajutaro said:

@Gary O. said:

This brings to mind a situation in another film where a poster insisted that a scene was filmed where a grown man 'comforted' a little boy as they showered together. He kept alluding to a 'gay' theme in this film and finally it came upon us that this person was deriving some sick thrill out of thinking of such a scene and most people in the board ignored him.

Admit, sick as what you are describing is, what movie were you all discussing?

At risk of feeding what could be a troll, you have yet to answer my question. On the off-chance that you have forgotten it, here it is:

What evidence is there to support the idea that there was a sex scene between Cruise and Dakota Fanning?

@mechajutaro said:

Apparently you didn't read one of my prior replies, which contained this passage:

Regarding your question; admit now that I don't have concrete proof. Similar to River Phoenix's final film and those videos Bernardo/Holmka recorded of their own crimes, word of it's circulated for many moons now, all the while remaining unseen. Stood to reason that the only way anyone could find this ho-hum adaptation of WOTW "surprisingly disturbing"(no offense Drooch)was if the scene in question was included in the director's cut.

Missed that; sorry. Now, since you admit there is no proof, and you have yet to provide any convincing evidence, I think we can safely say that no such scene happened.

Now, as to the alleged 'shower scene', the claim was made that this was filmed for the 1979 mini-series, Salem's Lot. Two of the male leads were supposed to (according to the one poster) be showering together and the man 'comforted' the boy (in the book, he was 12) by hugging him real close during this episode. If you want to go to moviechat.org, they have preserved much of the old IMDb boards and I believe that you will find it there if you dig deep enough. The poster deleted his posts on the board a few days before IMDb shut it down, but there might still be a few that were quoted and he was not able to erase.

I think that your best bet might be the longest thread there. It has over 300 posts.

If you are interested, knock yourself out.

@mechajutaro said:

Now, since you admit there is no proof, and you have yet to provide any convincing evidence, I think we can safely say that no such scene happened.

Not safely, no. Logic dictates that we designated this one "unsolved" until more definitive evidence appears. We can only pray to live long enough to see Fanning elaborate on this in her memoirs. Or Cruise, in a desperate bid to remain culturally relevant, hang the clown suit worn on that fateful day from his hotel balcony ala. Jacko and that baby.

If you are interested, knock yourself out.

My search for that Salem's Lot thread was by no means exhaustive, and probably won't go much further. Did find a thread for a separate King flick that seemed to have stoked a similar controversy, and I'm banking that both this and the ST thread you're referring to were created by the same dude Yes?

Actually the SL thread was started by a different person than the poster in Silver Bullet. (I am assuming a typo when you posted 'ST' rather than 'SL'). In that thread the poster in SL was mentioned as another example of someone who sees stuff that others don't and is very firmly convinced in their way of seeing things.

The person's posts are all gone but there is a long thread with the final post more than 2 years on p.6 called 'Who Said this?' It was actually more of a quiz thread than anything else. I believe that I mentioned that the person deleted all of his posts and to his credit, said that he would leave us in peace but some of his posts were quoted and these remained. I'm not going to find the posts for you, but if you are interested, be my guest. And in case you haven't deduced it by now, I am the Gary in the SL and SB boards.

@mechajutaro said:

Now, as to the alleged 'shower scene', the claim was made that this was filmed for the 1979 mini-series, Salem's Lot. Two of the male leads were supposed to (according to the one poster) be showering together and the man 'comforted' the boy (in the book, he was 12) by hugging him real close during this episode.

While I've never even heard a rumor of such a scene's existence in Salem's Lot and Tobe Hooper didn't strike me as the type of guy who'd commit such an act to celluloid, that folks believed such an outlandish tale isn't entirely surprising, when you consider some of the criticisms that were hurled at Starsky and Hutch during it's original run in that same decade: See Seasons 1-2; first paragraph

No such scene was filmed and the poster full-well knew it.

As far as Starsky & Hutch goes, the main thing I remember from that was that David Soul carried a 6" Colt Python and and Paul Micheal Glaser drove a red Ford. I know guns better than I know cars.

Surprisingly dull. Apparently, an alien race, far superior to our intellect, spending millions of years planning an eradication didn't think of........ bacteria? Everybody lives? Jeez.... I was more attached to the woman at the bridge since she in a brief moment seemed to care for Cruise's character. Certainly one of the weaker films in Mr. Cruise's filmography.

This movie really just cements what the Superintelligence said about humanity destroying itself in the movie Superintelligence. The scene with the guy pointing the gun at Tom Cruise saying he's going to take the car is what cements it for me. Instead of working together to find shelter and help other survivors, these idiots are fighting over a car that probably won't even make it that far. This just shows that at the end of the day people will only do what's best for themselves. It's sad that during an Alien invasion that could potentially destroy humanity that people would rather fight over things than work together.

@Drooch said:

Spielberg uses cars a lot in his films - the jeeps in Jurassic Park, the vehicles in Duel, the Truck fight in Raiders, and the many cars that get tossed around in this film, often with the characters still inside - we can all relate to being in a car and it's a great domestic prism through which to shoot action, it connects us to the threat.

Interesting!

But yeah, disturbing film that brings home the horrors of mass extermination, and has something to say about our connection to the planet.

Alien invasion movies bug me for one very simple reason - why do they always depict these obviously intelligent creatures as so stupid that they plan to exterminate humanity by picking us off one by one?

If you had a wasp problem near your house, would you embark on a mission to kill all the wasps in the wasp's next one at a time? Nah, you'd find a solution that obliterates the entire nest at once, right?

Some cosmos-traveling beings with the knowledge and technology to move through time and space and contemplate an exercise in exterminating the top population of a distant world gets here and then starts taking pot shots at individual people?

The far more likely truth is, if some alien species was intent getting rid of us, it'd happen so blindingly fast we'd have no opportunity to respond (again, think of that wasp's nest - you wouldn't even let them see you coming, right? And by the time they realized you were upon them, it'd already be too late) and that would make for a movie that lasts as long as the rolling of the opening credits.

Honestly I didn't like this AT ALL. The kids were annoying especially the little girl. And instead of working together people were all looking out for themselves. The one guy pulled a gun on the father and openly stated that he's taking the car in front of the daughter. That to me is APPALLING. It shows just how selfish and corrupt man has become. If aliens REALLY attacked up we wouldn't stand a chance as we are not a united race.

Honestly? The film even promised to be good, the initial effects may not have been the best, but still, Tom Cruise is an actor who knows how to act. However, the ending itself? Will never understand it, the sudden attention to the disease that allowed us to free ourselves from the aliens (as if someone had no idea of the ending, zero plot or storyline about how it happened).

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Alien invasion movies bug me for one very simple reason - why do they always depict these obviously intelligent creatures as so stupid that they plan to exterminate humanity by picking us off one by one?

Same exact gripe here! If an alien race is advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel, a godlike feat compared to our 1 rickety visit to the moon amid many failures in the last 70 years of space exploration, then the idea of these gods giving us any more thought than they would to an insect hive--or more likely a mold infestation--is ridiculous.

Granted, the original HG Wells book was written over 100 years ago when it was theorized that there was life on Mars, so it may have been believable back then. But the whole alien invasion genre should've died out by the 70s when we learned that all our neighboring planets were barren. We should've put the alien invasion genre to bed, just as, after Magellan, we stopped believing superstitions about sailing over the edge of the world.

To me the only realistic portrayal of extraterrestrial visitors is in 2001: A Space Odyssey where they are so far above us that we can't conceive their physical presence, and the encounter between a human & the extraterrestrials nearly results in him going insane.

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Alien invasion movies bug me for one very simple reason - why do they always depict these obviously intelligent creatures as so stupid that they plan to exterminate humanity by picking us off one by one?

Same exact gripe here! If an alien race is advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel, a godlike feat compared to our 1 rickety visit to the moon amid many failures in the last 70 years of space exploration, then the idea of these gods giving us any more thought than they would to an insect hive--or more likely a mold infestation--is ridiculous.

Granted, the original HG Wells book was written over 100 years ago when it was theorized that there was life on Mars, so it may have been believable back then. But the whole alien invasion genre should've died out by the 70s when we learned that all our neighboring planets were barren. We should've put the alien invasion genre to bed, just as, after Magellan, we stopped believing superstitions about sailing over the edge of the world.

To me the only realistic portrayal of extraterrestrial visitors is in 2001: A Space Odyssey where they are so far above us that we can't conceive their physical presence, and the encounter between a human & the extraterrestrials nearly results in him going insane.

How can you possibly know that all the other planets are barren? Do you know how vast space is?

@Adammm said:

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Alien invasion movies bug me for one very simple reason - why do they always depict these obviously intelligent creatures as so stupid that they plan to exterminate humanity by picking us off one by one?

Same exact gripe here! If an alien race is advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel, a godlike feat compared to our 1 rickety visit to the moon amid many failures in the last 70 years of space exploration, then the idea of these gods giving us any more thought than they would to an insect hive--or more likely a mold infestation--is ridiculous.

Granted, the original HG Wells book was written over 100 years ago when it was theorized that there was life on Mars, so it may have been believable back then. But the whole alien invasion genre should've died out by the 70s when we learned that all our neighboring planets were barren. We should've put the alien invasion genre to bed, just as, after Magellan, we stopped believing superstitions about sailing over the edge of the world.

To me the only realistic portrayal of extraterrestrial visitors is in 2001: A Space Odyssey where they are so far above us that we can't conceive their physical presence, and the encounter between a human & the extraterrestrials nearly results in him going insane.

How can you possibly know that all the other planets are barren? Do you know how vast space is?

see bold above. All our neighboring planets are barren. Voyager I showed us images in the 70s.

The next closest planets would require interstellar travel. To put it in context:

We've reached the moon 248,000 miles away. The next closest star is 5,880,000,000,000 miles away.

That's like like saying yay we traveled 1 millimeter! while the aliens say dude we traveled 20 miles.