Stop interrupting my screed on War of the Worlds in a thread about Minority Report
.
I haven't had a chance to take on Gn2Dlnd yet. He's the second person I know (after Gemini Cricket) to have a problem with War of Worlds, a disaster film taking place across the River from Manhattan, evoking remotely connected imagery of 9/11.
First of all, I think it's all in their heads that the imagery is of 9/11. Disintegration Ray Guns were in the 1953 version of War of the Worlds and are, of course, stereotypical staples of Martian invasion movies. The fact that they were presented more realistically, with humans having "residue" instead of disappearing altogether, does not make it a 9/11 reference when Tom Cruise and other characters have human residue on them.
That was not human residue on 9/11. But ok, yeah, that's where we (Americans) became visually aware that people in a disaster zone end up with residue all over them (people in other parts of the world have known this for a much longer time).
Let's say, just for argument's sake, it
was a 9/11 visual cue. What's the problem with that? Cloverfield used dozens of such visual cues, specifically because, since 9/11, they've become part of our visual dictionary for large-scale disaster.
Where is the problem?
* * * *
As for plot holes, in either of the Spielberg/Cruise match-ups, what are some? I've seen each movie a dozen times or so ... and yeah, maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't know what they are. Please fill me in, and fill in some of those gaping holes.
Oh, I'll grant there are some major implausabilities in the two SCIENCE FICTION movies, but I don't know of any plot holes, per se.