God's wisdom doesn't apply universally - The War of the Worlds (1953) Discussion

[–] notmtwain 15 years ago

Hey don't take it so hard. Maybe the swine flue will kick in this fall, wipe out humanity and cheer you up.

reply

God created man in His image (and we're to presume that we have dominion over the aliens as well). Many of the 1950 sci-fi movies had slight religious overtones. The Incredible Shrinking Man, esp at the end. I thought it was pretty freaking cool and a lot "deeper" than most of what passes for sci-fi today...

reply

[–] jety2k 12 years ago

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. ;)

reply

[–] doughazelrigg 15 years ago

Hey the Martians were invaders, they DESERVED for God to whip their asses

reply

[–] XenoBoi 15 years ago

I agree.

reply

[–] bighalsy 9 years ago

Yeah, and he only let them wipe out most of humanity in the process first. Boy, he sure showed them, huh?

reply

[–] ObscureAuteur 8 years ago

God hates invaders?

Where was your God when the Spanish invaded the Americas? Do you really expect me to make an exception there on the basis that God is Catholic and the Spanish were looting the Americas and killing the natives (both intentionally, and incidentally with disease) on "His" orders? There was a real bunch whose asses deserved to be kicked.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

reply

[–] MartyMoose1977 (94) 5 months ago

"You know, my child, for the good of our Lord, the Church was always on the side of the strong." ~Aguirre, The Wrath of god. Werner Herzog.

reply

[–] TimeTunnel (4589) 5 months ago

Hi Marty! 🦌

reply

[–] Jasons_Argonaut 15 years ago

Apparently the Christian God's wisdom that saved the Earth from the invasion of the Martians only applies to the Earth and doesn't matter to the rest of the same God's creations in the cosmos ... Have I.Q.'s dropped? God didn't do anything in the film. That was merely man's interpretation of how things played out, much like in the novel by H.G. Wells. People always apply their personal beliefs to any give situation, and in a Christian setting, the survivors saw their good fortune as God's intervention. Are people so offended by the notion of God that they can't understand something so simple? I am sure that if the movie depicted the story set in the Middle East, then they would have been claiming that Allah defeated the Martians.

reply

[–] jonjax71 15 years ago

I have no problem with a moral ending stating that God, Allah, Jehovah or the Supreme Being given credit for defeating an invading force from another planet. It just makes me chuckle at the myopic view of God, that God's wisdom only applies to the Earth, after all there is only one God the Creator despite the different views and names given to him by mankind, the same Supreme being who created all of the cosmos, all of existence, not just the Earth, but Mars, the Milky Way, Andromeda, black holes, quasars etc etc

reply

[–] Jasons_Argonaut 15 years ago

While I understand that, what did you really expect? This is what humans do, and it simply reflects that very true trait. I mean, the original story and the 1953 movie come from Christian backgrounds, hence the god of Christianity getting the credit. These days, the plot would be reworked to remove god, but this film was a reflection of the era it was made.

reply

[–] latnok 15 years ago

The reference to God at the end of the script was taken directly from the original H.G. Wells novel published in 1898. Wells was no Christian, so the mention of God was very likely intended to be prosaic. "God" could easily be understood as a metaphor for nature. The Creature from the Black Lagoon, released after The War of the Worlds, invokes both creation and evolution in its opening narration, and is therefore more an ambiguous 1950s period piece than the older movie.

reply

[–] OeditpusRex 15 years ago

Orson Welles — or, Howard Koch, who wrote the radio play — also used it in the 1938 Mercury Theater broadcast:

Later, when their bodies were examined in the laboratories, it was found that they were killed by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared — slain, after all man's defenses had failed, by the humblest thing that God in His wisdom put upon this earth.

reply

[–] rgcustomer 15 years ago

So? It just weakens a science fiction story by tacking on a religious fiction ending.

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

How does it do that, Rg? It mentions in literally one throwaway sentence and never addresses the issue again. I hardly see how that weakens the movie.

reply

[–] Navaros 9 years ago

It mentions in literally one throwaway sentence and never addresses the issue again.

No, it doesn't. The whole plot hinges on the godly people gathering in church and playing to God for help. That is the only thing that motivates God to help them and to defeat the aliens for them. In other words, God is central to this film's plot.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman

reply

[–] Ite 9 years ago

Did we watch the same movie? God didn't help anyone in this movie. They even killed a priest.

reply

[–] rfischer-4 9 years ago

It wasn't so much God helping anyone, but that the whole film is permeated with Christian morality. "Only seven days" the female scientist keeps repeating. Yeah, right. I don't think any modern scientist would be mumbling that while trying to figure out what to do next. And that's only one of many Christian morality lectures and references scattered thoughout. It makes this movie more dated and somewhat religiously overbearing.

The killing of the priest by the Martians made him a martyr figure to gain the audience's sympathy and vent anger. The Martians became the evil to be fought by Christian civilization

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

Did we watch the same movie?

I know I watched this movie. Did you? If so, did you fall asleep for the last 8 minutes of it? And/or were you drunk and/or high as you watched it?

I revisited this movie again before making this post just so everything is fresh & clear in my mind.

God didn't help anyone in this movie

Oh yes, He surely did! As the world was being destroyed, the churches a.k.a. God's houses, were the only safe places.

All the godly people prayed for help and a miracle from God. God listened. Then the aliens had the hubris to fire on a church and break its window. A few seconds later, that outrageous act, in conjunction with the prayers, provoked God to smite first the alien who fired and then all the aliens dead. In case all of that wasn't obvious enough - even though the last 8 minutes or so of the film are completely about seeking safety in church and turning to God for help - the closing voice over narration also confirms that God destroyed the aliens. That is further reinforced by the hymn that is sung during the last shots of the film to praise and thank God, and by the film's very final shot being one of a church.

So yup, God did almost everything in this film. Mankind with all its tanks and A-bombs etc. did precisely jack all, except for the one good thing it did, which was to ask God for help.

They even killed a priest.

Yes, but he was an evil priest, and they killed him a few seconds after he associated the demonic aliens with God. Associating demonic power with God is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is the worst sin of all! Of course God is not going to protect an evil priest who blasphemes Him like that.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman

reply

[–] RbSnedlap 11 years ago

While I understand that, what did you really expect? This is what humans do, and it simply reflects that very true trait. I mean, the original story and the 1953 movie come from Christian backgrounds, hence the god of Christianity getting the credit. These days, the plot would be reworked to remove god, but this film was a reflection of the era it was made.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the original story and author H.G. Wells views.
The character of `The Curate` in the original story gives a rather unflattering picture of how a Christian cleric behaves under pressure.

"Any plan that involves losing your hat is a BAD plan.""

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

Nowhere in the story does it state that Earth's microbes are unique. Maybe if the Martians invaded Venus, Venusian bugs would get 'em! But since we are ONLY discussing Earth, why would there be speculation as to what might happen elsewhere? On 9/11, were people discussing what possible damage would have been done if the planes flew into the Eiffle Tower? Or the Kremlin?

reply

[–] vestdennis 11 years ago

jonjax71- you seem to think that b/c there is some massive, near-ending universe out there that there must be other "gods" or other alien life. Why?

Why is it so hard to believe that God (in whatever form you may think) was able to create this massive universe with just the snap of the fingers or a spoken word (as in the Bible)?

Just b/c there are billions upon billions of galaxies, black holes, and other truly amazing mysteries of outer space doesn't mean that God didn't create them just for His own pleasure. The novel and the movie aren't "preaching" or trying to convert anyone. The movie (and novel) are just explaining how it is sometimes the smallest thing that saves the day, as opposed to some ray-gun created just in time to destroy the invaders. Frankly, if the original had ended like "Independence Day" or some other modern "shoot-it-out" version with the invaders the ending would be too bland and predictable.

Just b/c Dracula or vampires are repelled by crucifixes doesn't mean the writer/directors are trying to preach to the audience. It's just part of the culture that we've grown up in. Believe it or not, not every Christian is some evil, Bible-thumper anymore than every Muslim is a terrorist. Enjoy it and quit gripping b/c of some perceived Christian angle...

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 11 years ago

Why is it so hard to believe that God (in whatever form you may think) was able to create this massive universe with just the snap of the fingers or a spoken word (as in the Bible)?

Because the way such a feat could be accomplished is completely inconceivable?

---
Sad story. You got a smoke?

reply

[–] vestdennis 11 years ago

Oh I see. But it's "conceivable" to believe that out of total chaos comes complete order? That from nothing comes human, animal and plant life? Or that human life emerges from tadpoles, one cell organisms or some pond scum?

Sorry. That requires a heckuva lot more faith to believe than believing God created life. God might seem "inconceivable to some but to believe the ever-changing accounts of evolution requires far more faith.

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 11 years ago

It's a matter of perspective, and I gave you mine. That's how I see it. I don't believe in a god figure because I cannot fathom how its existence could be made possible. The idea answers one thing but creates a thousand new questions. I observe nature daily, and I see no sign anywhere of anything beyond the material world. I certainly don't see any sign of a benevolent God, either. In any case, I wasn't telling you your beliefs are wrong. Nor mine right. But to me, it's indeed easier to believe it came about naturally (though it should be noted that the universe is hardly unchaotic, nor is our planet!). As for evolution, the evidence for it is more than a little compelling. Perhaps none of it is "definitive", but there's surely enough pointing towards it that there's little faith involved. From where I'm standing, it's comparable to gravity.

Whether it is true or not is another matter, and I'm not here to convince anyone. But I believe it for good reasons. I'm not just trusting someone's radical ideas.

"Sorry. That requires a heckuva lot more faith to believe than believing God created life. God might seem "inconceivable to some but to believe the ever-changing accounts of evolution requires far more faith."

Actually, the ever-changing nature of any science is exactly what makes it trustworthy, if you ask me. People admit mistakes when proven wrong and advance the field accordingly. This is not seen in any religion; all the different ones out there stick to their ancient stories. That certainly doesn't prove them right to me. Conviction speaks only of the person.

---
Sad story. You got a smoke?

reply

[–] vestdennis 11 years ago

The fact that science and evolution is always changing tells me that the scientists are not very firm in their belief. They don't want to admit that God might exist (although a recent survey showed that over 65% of US scientists believe in God) b/c they know they can't put that in a textbook.

Sorry, we agree to disagree. I feel very strongly that my family tree doesn't include tadpoles or frogs. To make the stretch that we somehow transformed as such to our present state requires a LOT of faith- in a theory that has even come under attack by many scientists. To me trying to swallow the idea of the complex human design coming from lower life forms is not only silly but simply unbelievable. That is a radical concept to say the least. There is NO evidence of these changes still taking place in nature.

I appreciate you at least debating w/o personal attacks or insults. That's rare on here.

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 11 years ago

I don't think it shows that. It just shows a willingness to change in the face of defeat. Science has always been about the truth, no matter what that truth is. There is no "scientific agenda", and there's nothing to be gained from a lie. If evidence of God was found, it would surely be presented. But what form would it even take? I think you'd find that most scientists do not outright deny God's existence, but take an agnostic standpoint. God is unknowable, and perhaps even irrelevant for the most part. Most sciences relate to how things within the universe works, created by God or otherwise. (There are also a handful of religious people who believe in evolution.)

But yeah, agree to disagree. I simply see no other way than evolution. The idea, and the evidence for it, clicks with me. It makes sense. A key thing to remember is graduality; only now after millions of years are we smart enough to even appreciate the complexity of the world around us, which like us arose over time, not unlike a grand, meticulous painting. That first stroke wasn't noteworthy, perhaps even downright unimpressive. But after hours upon hours of tedium we have an awe-inspiring whole.

---
Sad story. You got a smoke?

reply

[–] jonjax71 11 years ago

The fact that science and evolution is always changing is part of its greatness as scientists and evolutionists never declare they know everything, it's an on going process and has been since the beginning, the knowledge of medicine, mechanicization, electronics, communications etc etc change, they are not invented at its peak level, they are continuously revamped and improved, yet relgionists in particular fundamentalists don't have room for change, it's still all the same despite proof to the contrary. Don't confuse scientists belief in a god or a higher intelligence/supreme being with religion, they are 2 sepearate issues and subjects.

There is prrof in human genes and DNA of our reptilian past, evolution is not a guess or is it surmising, most people misunderstand the definition of the word theory

reply

[–] vestdennis 11 years ago

"Don't confuse scientists belief in a god or a higher intelligence/supreme being with religion, they are 2 sepearate (sic) issues and subjects."

If you look up the word "religion" you will find this: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

You CANNOT separate "religion per se from belief in God (whoever that God may be). The scientists that I listed elsewhere were men of faith. It wasn't some quasi set of devotionals or flimsy principles that guided these men. It was a firm belief that God existed & had created the universe in some manner. Of course, almost everyone has some idea or belief as to how God created the world & us. We don't have to agree on every point b/c no one will know which is correct until it is revealed to us (if ever).

Scientists cannot explain how the universe came about w/o a huge amount of faith in something (I'm not referring to God). Despite their education and instruments it is all just an educated guess, and in many cases what they say today will change years from now, just as science is always changing. This proves that we should never take what any scientist says as 100%.

Faith doesn't change as it is based on God- we don't profess to know how God created everything (at least I don't). We just believe He did.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rfischer-4 9 years ago

Just to let you know. 97% of your DNA is the same as the gorilla. The key here is to understand that all life forms on earth are related, That's not faith, but science. The case for evolution is almost indisputable. To believe that you are a special entity on earth created separately from all other creatures by a magic friend in the sky defies science, logic, and is both egotistical and childishly silly. I truly believe human arrogance is why we abuse the planet and other life forms.

reply

[–] vestdennis 9 years ago

The 97% means nothing. We also share 70% of our DNA with a banana. 97% of our DNA is considered "junk DNA" anyway.

reply

[–] Prannock 11 years ago

I couldn't agree more, and I would extrapolate your thinking to the entire universe (universes?)
Additionally, I think that in fiction we have to allow the characters to believe in stuff like God and immortality, in order to give them personality. After all, lots of people still believe in God, Allah, or Harry Potter, and clear-thinking people have to live and work alongside them. To do otherwise would be to play their game.

Let's live for freedom of thought, and no one is right until they die and (well, there IS no and.)

º¬
Be seeing you

reply

[–] Navaros 9 years ago

God didn't do anything in the film

Yes, He did. He eliminated the aliens after all the godly people in the town went to church and prayed for His help. Without them having done that, God wouldn't have done jack, and the aliens would have won. In other words, God saved humanity in this film and as much as you hate God, there is nothing you can do to change that fact. 

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman

reply

[–] Ite 9 years ago

Nope. The people going to church did not make God help, God did nothing in the movie. You are mental.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

You are mental.

I think you are saying that because you are mad that this film strongly opposes your atheistic worldview. Howvever, over thataway --->

...is the board for the atheistic Tom Cruise piece of crap remake.

I think you will be much more happy with that turd of a film. Have fun.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman

reply

[–] aintalf 14 years ago

God is a fictional character in a best selling book. That's all, no more. The character does not exist in real life, no more than Gandalf, Holly Golightly, John Rambo or Captain Kirk exist in real life outside of their fictional environments. Message ends.

reply

[–] PACman66 14 years ago

Obama is also a fictitious character...
>:o)

Trust me,
Swan

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

All hail Irving Berlin, King of the Jews!

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] kkhsiivonen 14 years ago

Even people in far away coutries are heathens, so fellas from another planet are most definately heathens. God doesn't help heathens

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

God doesn't help anybody. There is no God unless one is speaking of

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] gallileo60 12 years ago

Of course not...We created "our" God, and he takes care of us...On their planet perhaps their god takes care of them..lol

You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..

Better Living Thru Chemistry

reply

[–] Mick1994 11 years ago

Being an atheist, it was the ending that really annoyed me.

reply

[–] jcbestrd 8 years ago

Keep in mind when the movie was made, during the Cold War, when most of these sci-fi alien invasion movies were metaphors for invasions by the godless Communists from the Soviet Union.

reply

[–] Mick1994 8 years ago

... And they added In God We Trust to their dollar notes!

Favourite movie of all time: "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"

reply

[–] Felixthecat34213 10 years ago

Yeah you'd think the concept of bacteria and disease would completely contradict the concept of god. I mean he's the guy who's in control of everything right? He created every form of life right?

Well where's the control during disease epidemics? Nowhere to be found...because such things are completely random and out of anyone's control. And you can't use the free will argument here because bacteria exist whether people live on this planet or not. Why stop there? What about weather disasters and climate shifts? Some things are just totally random, we have a hard time accepting that as a society. Even our most intelligent scientists want to categorize, organize, and analyze everything. I guess it's just human nature, we like to put things in boxes.

As a species we can see God as a part of the picture when it suits us, but we totally blank out anything that doesn't fit into the picture. That's one reason why I've always had trouble finding this whole God or Creator thing as a rational explanation.

I can understand why people wanted to be coddled in a warm blanket of religion after World War 2, but now there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for it other than our own desperate attempt to maintain a tradition. (one which I think does a disservice to the concept of God)

I think HG Welles was simply using it as a saying. We forget that people used more religious imagery at the turn of the last century, I even wonder if he did it ironically.

I can't say I was really annoyed by it, in some ways it's meaningful in a "quaint" sort of a way. If everyone in the film was an atheist, I don't think I'd find anything believable about it. Just look at the sentimental religious posts on this board. It was a tad corny, but if one is going to watch a film in the 50s you expect three things: ham, cheese, and corn. Otherwise why watch older films?

reply