War of the Worlds: Discuss

[meansnoworries]

I was having an... argument with some of my friends over the oddest of issues: the plausibility of the movie "War of the Worlds" (the Spielberg one, not the original). In the interest of preserving both anonymity and objectivity, I won't say what side I took. However, the points were presented in this order, the statement then the refutation

Comments

[ajacazz]

I concur.

[meansnoworries]

Do you concur?

[ahhhmyneck]

You chose B. Because you're a romantic :o

[meansnoworries]

I'm not a completely ungrounded romantic. I daresay I've got a strong hold on reality and how it should be portrayed.
And this isn't a guessing game, so I'm not saying which one I chose, nor will I verify any guesses of the kind. I want your opinions.

[ahhhmyneck]

Hrmm. Well If i had to pick, A. But i don't believe anything of the sort would/could happen so... neither. I think the entire movie is impossible

[achurchkid]

I agree, that's what I thought when I read it too, mainly because he described the point better and because it used the same type logic Peter uses.

[blueeyebabe2004]

I think it's just a movie and the whole argument is pointless.

[wizwar_guy]

Well, either way, they survived and the street was clean. Therefore it's plausible on whatever level makes it so.

[crazychica22]

You know my opinion. And I would state it, but then everyone would know which side you were on.