America - Then and Now

Pretty much sums up society, doesn't it?

MARANATHA!!!!!

 

In 1953 a if a preacher walked into a bar, the people would hide their cigarettes and drinks out of respect. Today they would tempt him to fall, ridicule him and or beat him up. In 1953 preachers were treated with respect on tv. Today christians are made out to be fools...Go figure.

 

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Pretty much explains it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the original post, but there is more going on causing the differences between both films than just the decline of the appreciation of God in Western Civilization.

The Novel
-the alien invasion is played as a metaphor for the evils of Colonialism.
Disease defeating the invaders mirrors the fact that the real colonialism could only get it's start after defenses against tropical ilnesses were discovered.
The aliens as vampires are a metaphor for the sucking dry of the colonies by the motherland.
The battle between the tripods and the Thunderchild showcases how a native army can get a temporary edge over the invaders because of terrain, but in the end it's not going to be good enough.
-God is mentioned less often than in the 1953 film.

The 1953 film
-the alien invasion is played as a metaphor for the fear of Godless Communism.
Notice how the preacher who tries peacefull communication get's slaughtered.
How actually using nuclear weaponry turns out to be pointless.


The 2005 film
-the alien invasion is played as a metaphor for the current fear of Islamic terrorism.
Notice that the alien warmachines have been right under the feet of the humans for who knows how long without them noticing the threat.
Notice the discussion in the background in one scene about which continent has been hit hardest Europe or America.
Notice how there is no real story in the film, much of the time it's just Tom Cruise wandering from one disaster area to another, mimicking the completely random feel of terrorist violence.
At times those areas resemble the result of a recent terrorist attack, like the crashed passenger plane and the burning train out of control.

 

While I agree that the spiritual/moral focus from the 50's has shifted for the worse, this 1953 line about "germs" in effect makes God the villain and perpetrator of disease (all the while bowing to his "wisdom") not Adam through whom sin and death entered the world.

Also, did the movie industry contibute to (at least in part) or follow after the moral decline of society?


HankD

 

Just for the record, H. G. Wells, author of War of the Worlds, was an atheist. The story was not meant to be a religious one.

 

I would also throw in that we often project into a movie, book, song, etc. what we want to be there. This movie may or may not have a deeper meaning. It is most likely just for entertainment value (which I'm not sure it has much of).

 

The issue to me, would be how closely each version sticks to the Wells book.

 

Back in the old days, people didn't have all this techonolgy to take up their time with. They didn't have all these fun things to do or places to go. THEY COULDN'T GO ANYWHERE! God is/was on the back burner.

It will all get worse. Remember, this all has to take place b-4 God returns.

 

I don't think that it was so much about God being part of life back then. What goes on today was going on then. You have to remember that during that time, movies were heavily regulated for content, and the man in charge of it all was an extremely devout Catholic (I can't remember his name, but I watched a documentary on censorship in the media and they discussed this).

I don't think the movies produced in 1953 were in any way reflective of life in that era. Men were still beating their wives and children, people cussed, drank, did drugs, fornicated, took the Lord's name in vain, etc. TV was an escape from all of that. TV was about Mayberry's, Beaver Cleaver, etc.

I don't think that 1953 was any different than 2005 is. I just think that the film industry has put a little more of the off scourings of a filth-based society into it's movies, because they have been given almost free reign to present such things.

 

Yup -- Just hope that I am home with Father God when it gets worse.

 

AdrianDavila
"It is most likely just for entertainment value (which I'm not sure it has much of). "
"
I was unimpressed, individual scenes are very well crafted but as a whole....
The whole film feels like a montage of nightmarish visions and then it just stops...

Texassky
"Mioque, we did notice the thing with the priest, and in fact, we talked about the fact that the priest storming up holding up a cross did nothing, but prayer stopped them in their tracks."
"
Ofcourse the people who actually wrote and filmed the priest being killed scene most likely would have been very surprised by your interpretation of it.

 

Oh, you are correct Tex, that's exactly what the film portrayed and I'm not disputing that point.

As a teen sci-fi fan I saw this film when it first came out and several times thereafter.

Even then I thought this ironic turnaround that germs were the "heroes" as an unusual one.

Later I realized the distortion of the truth and that is my point.

All those elements such as disease which play a role in the arena of sin and death are the consequence of Adam's sin and not God's wisdom.

The ending statement in the 50's movie IMO is/was a subtle ploy to place the blame for disease and death upon God.

Logical difficulty:
While people don't normally die from a cold as did the Martians, there are a myriad of other disease which kill us.

Wait a minute, is this part of the wisdom of God?

If the wisdom of God protected us by his creation of the germs that killed the Martians, who is God protecting by killing us with the other abundant diseases here on planet earth?

Then again it is just a sci-fi movie and one that I enjoyed as a boy.

My favorite was the forerunner of Star-Trek The Forbidden Planet (though it also had several logical black holes).

HankD

 

I think your comparisons are unwarranted.

The 2005 movie was not based on the 1953 version. It was based on the book. I've read the book, and the 1953 movie bears little resemblence to the book. In fact, the 1953 movie is filled with the anti-communist propaganda of the time, the reason that God's mentioning is infused in the movie. However, it should be noted that while the 1953 movie infuses the word "God", it does not infuse Godly values any more or less than any other typical movie.

The '53 movie was typical 50's era sci-fi. However, the '05 movie is much more faithful to the book. If one wants to watch the better adaptation, it is clearly the current film.