Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "We shall fight on the beaches! 💥🛸💥👽💥 | The War of the Worlds - BBC" video.

  1.  @MushroomFleet  How do you know? By your comment you obviously never read the book in the first place.
    6
  2. Firstly, the aliens do not have "faster than light" speed travel. They're MARTIANS for crying out loud not interstellar travellers. They barely have interplanetary travel technology. At best they're a few decades ahead of us now (circa 2019). Secondly, those naval guns were in at least in the 10-12 inch calibre range . That is far bigger (more than twice) than any modern main battle tank TODAY and nothing in our current arsenal (be it M21A2 tanks of nuclear powered super carriers) can withstand multiple pummelling from those warships. In short: Yes , it make plenty of sense. At least far more than them dying to microbes bullshit.
    5
  3.  @ethanvallance3437  To be fair. It did destroy some of the warships firing at it.
    3
  4. This actually happens in the book. The human military (including the Royal Navy) did managed to bring down several of the tripods. In fact it was noted that the human warship are the only thing that can go toe to toe with those things.
    3
  5. @UCbTPPt5zJGeYxB0jQHXKtyQ We can clearly see that not all the shells initially hit the tripod in this scene (hence why it take them so long to take out the first tripod despite having more ships firing at that time. Once they manage to work out the kinks and score a hit , it is quite simple to follow the same firing solution and score hits after hits .
    3
  6.  @dirkbogarde44  So you're saying that because they were no "clips" of black people in London at that time (late 19th to early 20th century, they must not have existed?
    3
  7.  @nigelbrown8319  Come one, even I know that is load of bullshit. Almost all his movies have white leads and even white heroic characters (important distinction because Tarantino likes grey/amoral and even immoral characters) . Even Django Unchained had one (funnily enough he played a ruthless Nazi officer in his previous movie).
    3
  8. Just like in the books. It's the movie adaptations that make the alien war machine invincible.
    2
  9. migrant=/= invaders
    2
  10. Are you saying Africans don't exist in the UK in the late 1800s -early 1900s?
    2
  11.  Hobarth McShane  Only a moron would equate immigration as a hostile invasion.
    2
  12. Yes, in the original source material they can be brought down by sufficient firepower.
    2
  13. That not how you spell Fox News.
    2
  14.  Hobarth McShane  Only a moron would equate immigration as a hostile invasion.
    2
  15.  @MushroomFleet  By your previous post I doubt you ever read the book. You didn't even seem to know that human did managed to take down the Tripod in the source material.
    2
  16. Where do you thin Half Life 2 got their inspiration from?
    2
  17. To be fair at least one of those Royal Navy (those were the British navy right?) were destroyed by the Tripods return fire. I mean I doubt small boats would give out that huge plumes and explosion in the middle of the video
    2
  18.  Lee J  Yes, unlike the OP you clearly have read the book or familiar with it.
    2
  19.  @MushroomFleet  You are also the same guy who insisted that the Tripod were invincible (they weren't) in the books . Stop wasting everyone's time by pretending you know the source material.
    2
  20.  @nigelbrown8319  Don't know. I only ever watched one of his movies so far (Reservoir Dogs).
    2
  21. I suggest you google Royal Navy (HINT: not colonial America) ship design/types in the late 19th century/early 20th century.
    2
  22. To be afir the Tripod in the movies (both the 1953 and the 2005 version) had impenetrable energy shields.
    1
  23.  @curseofgladstone4981  To be fair The Thunder Child fired its weapon at near point blank range at the Tripods so it is more likely to hit them.
    1
  24.  @curseofgladstone4981  It been a long time since I've read the book (decades, literally ) so my memory might be a bit fuzzy , but I'm pretty sure it take out one of them with cannon fire and the other with ramming . Not sure whether or not it took out a third one (it did said that all three were gone when the smoke clears). I know pretty zilch about the musical.
    1
  25. Just like in the original novel.
    1
  26. So many people( like the OP) commented without reading or knowing anything about the book at all. HINT: humanity did manage to take down a few of those Tripods in battle. Apart from one missing ship, this battle scene was directly lifted from the book.
    1
  27.  @Halo4Lyf  Only a moron or somebody complete detached from reality (a.k.a insane) would make a claim such as yours. What's next in your ridiculous claims? The Earth is flat?
    1
  28. It's set in the original book timeline 1890s to early 20th century).
    1
  29.  @sarez1559  Yes , warships and heavy artillery pieces were effective against the tripods in the original book (the source material) to the point they mange to bring down multiple Tripods with them. It's only in the Hollywood production do they turn the alien warmachines into this invulnerable things that can't be harmed even by nukes( 1953 version).
    1
  30. They miss plenty of time in the beginning. One they score a hit (accidentally or not) it's just a matter of following the previous firing solution to zero in on those guys.
    1
  31. Those so called "comparatively ancient" technology still are bigger and more powerful than any modern battle tanks around today. Those old warship packs at least 10-12 inch guns.
    1
  32.  @ethanvallance3437  The term "advanced civilisation capable of invading earth" is too broad of a term . Even a space faring species that is only a couple of decades more advance than we are right now (circa 2019) can easily subjugate an early 20th century Earth thus fulfilling the requirement for " an advanced civilisation capable of invading earth. Heck, 2019 human militarily would easily count as "an advanced civilisation capable of invading earth" if we go by early 20th century standards. You must account for the fact that the alien in War Of The World aren't even an interstellar species. They are at best an interplanetary species (they are from Mars , after all) hence not really that much more advanced than we are right now.
    1
  33.  @ethanvallance3437  " I disagree on a civilisation like us being able to invade another planet successfully, we just don’t have the resources or man power to invade a planet at the moment but we can invade countries" That mainly hinges on two factor : A) what is the comparative tech gap between our victim target to our own and B) our political will (which affect how much resource we are willing to allocate into any project). I'm pretty sure that if the survival of our species is at stake (something they suggested about why the Martians invaded in the original book), we can easily muster the political will to launch an invasion of a Mars distance planet with our current space tech. " What would you rate this? And is it worth watching?" I haven't even watched a single episode of this so I can't rate it at all . In fact until today I never even knew there is a BBC WoTW adaptation. It is currently on my "to watch list" .
    1
  34.  @MushroomFleet  Stop pretending you have ever read the books. If you have you would've known that the human did manage to bring down multiple tripods in battle (HINT: google Thunder Child ) in the original book.
    1
  35.  @bobbywog  MusroomFleet repeatedly claimed that the Martians were invincible to human tech in the novel despite the human manage to take them down on a couple of occasion (Thunderchild eg).
    1
  36.  @bobbywog  "where did he claim that?" Look at the date in which I responded to his post and then search the comment section here for his post on that day (and possibly the day before). You'll find that the guy repeatedly claims (in multiple thread s by different posters) that this clip is bullhsit because the Martians were completely invulnerable to human weapons (which is a movie adaptation element) in the book (which is completely false). Several people (including myself) called him out for his claim that he have read the book and we (human) couldn't harm the tripods in the book. The fact that he never came back here again after we shot down his lies underlines the context of his post even further.
    1
  37. To be fair, the Tripods being downed by the Roya navy actually happened in the original book, ergo they're being kinda faithful to the source material there.
    1
  38. Based on the smoke plumes in the background, quite a number of ships were at least hit (or destroyed ) by the tripod's return fire.
    1
  39. We can clearly see that not all the shells initially hit the tripod in this scene (hence why it take them so long to take out the first tripod despite having more ships firing at that time. Once they manage to work out the kinks and score a hit , it is quite simple to follow the same firing solution and score hits after hits
    1
  40.  @MushroomFleet  This scene is more faithful to the source material (they Royal Navy did manage to destroy several tripod in battle in the book) than any scene from the 1953 and 2005 Hollywood movies.
    1
  41. We did see multiple huge plumes and explosion in the sea here which indicate some of the ships were hit (or even destroyed) by return fire from the Tripods.
    1
  42.  @sorcererberoll4641  Doubtful for a few reasons: 1) we didn't saw those plumes at the beginning of the scene. They only appear after the battle starts. In fact one (directly behind the swimming lady) appeared immediately behind her after we heard a loud explosion(not from the guns firing) and as she turns around toward that direction. 2) the size of those plumes. Unless the ship that release them have smokestack s a big as the ships themselves, they can came only come from a burning wreckage of ships.
    1
  43. To be fair even a 10inch gun is far bigger than anything a modern main battle tanks (M1A2 , Challenger 2 etc) can field let alone what ever they have on land at that point in time . Not counting for ammunition type that is.
    1
  44.  @fairwinds610  Yes, I remember that... And The HMS Thunder Child too.
    1
  45.  @ethanvallance3437  I would call anything that can take multiple pounding from 10-12 inch guns as "going down easy" .
    1
  46.  @timaustin2000  I think most people confuse the movie adaptations with the book, in the movies they are truly invincible .
    1
  47.  @darkblood626  Energy shields have been a usual tropes in sci for for ages, though. Don't see why you should be complaining about this aspect.
    1
  48.  Lee J  I see. So you are more of an adaptation purist.
    1
  49.  @darkblood626  How am I being obtuse? The crux of his objection is that the adaptation changed too much from the source material (by changing the era and adding energy shield), that is very much a purist school of thought (and adaptation must be as faithful as it can to the source material).
    1
  50.  @darkblood626  How is that not lazier than just making them invincible (which is far more ridiculous) to any weapon like the the 1953 version of the movie? In what way does adding shielding breaks the pacing and tension? This complaint make less and less sense. In we want to go to the source material than the alien warmachine weren't invincible at all (the y were taken out multiple times in the book).
    1
  51.  @darkblood626  And how is that in any way breaks the pacing and tension?
    1
  52.  @MushroomFleet  Again you keep on repeating this bullshit and I keep on debunking it . The human did manage to destroy multiple tripods in battle in the original novel (the source material) .There is a reason people in the comment section lamented the missing Thunder Child in this scene.
    1
  53.  @darkblood626  I would disagree. In the source material there was not really much a question that humanity was on a losing side and as the story progress it became more and more clear how futile the effort was to the point our protagonist ( sorry, i forgot his name . It been too long since I'v e read the book) actually lose his mind. The 2005 version was more accurate to the book in terms of event and plot points.
    1
  54.  @darkblood626  I have to disagree (there is no true right or wrong in subjective opinion) there. Again, I remember distinctly the sense of dread the book conveyed and we slowly see the narrator and people around him descend into madness and chaos . That is the essence that very should be in every adaptation .
    1
  55.  @darkblood626  I forgot to add in my previous post that the same "hope spot" existed in the 2005 version. Remember when Tom Cruise's character manage to take down one intact and fully functional tripod at the end of the movie?
    1
  56.  @darkblood626  I would : like Thunder Child ,that scene shows that the alien warmachine can be brought down by human tech( a grenade belt) and we can save ourselves if we work together (the prisoner making a chain to save Tom Cruise.
    1
  57.  @darkblood626  It's fit the definition of hope spot and it mirror the Thunder Child sequence in many way( allowing the refugees to escape) . I would even say it was a bigger hope spot than in the book because in the book that "victory" was followed by the annihilation of the human army ,the world completely falling into the alien's hand and our MC/narrator slowly losing hope and losing his mind.
    1
  58. You forgot top add ARREST TRUMP.
    1
  59.  @MushroomFleet  Is this true or just your hyperbolic assumption?
    1
  60.  @ethanvallance3437  You guys need to remember the calibre of gun on those ships (even the smallest one are bigger than the largest ones used by battle tanks TODAY) . Unless they have huge fortification with large guns (anti warship types) emplacement , nothing on land at that time can hurt those Tripods .
    1
  61. What Death Stranding reference? All I see are War Of The World reference.
    1
  62. In the source material(the book) l the humans did manage to bring down a couple of those tripods(one in a naval war like in this scene).
    1
  63. They did miss a lot during the first few minute of this skirmish.
    1
  64.  @animeturnMMD  Hence why they kept on missing during the opening minute . Once they scored one hit they can just adjust their firing solution based on that.
    1
  65.  @MushroomFleet  What is the point of the story by your interpretation?
    1
  66. In what way?
    1