MovieChat Forums > Ghosts of Mars (2001) Discussion > Why did they blow up the place?

Why did they blow up the place?

posted 15 years ago by acustomer
19 replies | jump to latest

Are they some kind of idiots? The situation with these "ghosts" is basically like the bad guy in the movie Fallen. So clearly you don't want to just kill their hosts because they'll just find new ones, right? Except that's EXACTLY what they do! Aaaaah! Why? Who ARE these people?

Wouldn't that seem like a pretty logical conclusion? "Hmm... every time we kill these guys they just find new bodies. Maybe we should just get the authorities so we can capture them all and imprison them so this stops, rather than blowing stuff up at the cost of life and property damage." But they blow up the goons anyways!

It's like they thought to themselves: "But it's an action movie... we HAVE to blow stuff up."

[–] disciple_of_christ_jesus 15 years ago

I don't think a second passed while I was watching this movie that I wasn't asking myself the same questions you've just asked.

____________________

Proof God Exists! http://www.thercg.org/books/dge.html

[–] moviefreak2010 15 years ago

Thats a good question. I didn't really think about it till now. Maybe just because John Carpenter wanted to blow something up and really didn't think about the plot anymore since at this point in his career, he stop caring. I love John's movies and I hope The Ward brings back the true Carpenter.

[–] laflic 15 years ago

How ignorant. Ghosts Of Mars couldn't perhaps expose any truer Carpenter, imo. Imo, it's the best film of his career. I hope The Ward is as great as this film.

[–] moviefreak2010 15 years ago

laflic.....when I mean true Carpenter. I'm talking about the days of Halloween and The Thing, not the days of Escape From L.A. and Vampires (I love that film by the way). Ghosts of Mars only proves that John can still make a and that's it.

So, I hope The Ward is about as great as The Thing.

[–] laflic 15 years ago

Well good luck then, because those days are far in the past, that's what i was trying to say, to me it seems that some people are still living in the past and that's the real problem. To be perfectly honest, if anything, i believe as anyone of us is getting old we're also getting to the core of essence of who we really are, because we are constantly developing and learning, so i believe Carpenter is only truer to himself with each new work in a way. Fans who are stuck in a certain period will never truly appreciate new things to come. For many years i also wanted him to be like when he was younger, working with A.Howarth, and so forth, but it took me a long tome to realize that my wishes were totally unrealistic and immature, for example, his work with Howarth only reflected disco-influenced period that is long gone, therefore it would not be the same if he worked with him again. If he consciously tried to make films the way he tried to do The Thing i'm sure he would be completely dishonest to himself, because he's obviously a different man now, he's no Hitchcock in his filmmaking approach, he's an instinctual filmmaker following only his heart and instincts, and not some written by-the-numbers book. That's why i think he's always true to himself and that's why we feel and witness a certain progress in his filmography.

[–] moviefreak2010 15 years ago

Now you have explain this in detail to me, now I perfectly understand where you're coming from.

I would of reply to you sooner but I was too tired to type anything.

But the thing about me is that Im young so I was immature when I said his new movie should about as good as The Thing. I understand now what you had been talking about and I think you're right.

At the same time however, I don't Ghosts of Mars at all. Not because its Escape From New York or Assualt on Precient 13 but it just sucked, thats all. I thought his previous film Vampires was a great movie and that too me couldnt expose more of Carpenter.

What I truely meant about The Ward is I hope its at least better than Ghosts and thats all I want. It may not be the best film but I hope Carpenter makes a movie that I will enjoy.

[–] FlintleyBont 9 years ago

If you think this movie was the best of his career, you must have been smoking the best weed of your career. Am I right? You can admit it. We're all friends here.

[–] FlintleyBont 9 years ago

Carpenter found some dynamite and decided to write a film script around it.

[–] Last_Conservative 14 years ago

Exceedingly off topic, but I have a question.....

You posted:
"Proof God Exists! http://www.thercg.org/books/dge.html";

Just out of curiosity, even if this DOES prove something scientifically, how do you know it's YOUR God that has been proven to be real, and not MY God? Personally, I pay homage to and worship a third century (BC, not AD) pagan goddess of war and enlightenment, Badb (or Badb Catha in the formal). I could just as easily say your document provides absolute proof that Badb exists. Just curious how you differentiate.....

[–] Brother_h 15 years ago

Sounds a helluva lot more logical than what they were thinking. LOL Helluva is a word LMFAO.

Anyway, didn't they state that the Ghost have to find Bodies immediately after their host are killed or else they'll die for good.

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

Did they state that? If that were to be true, how had the ghosts survived all those millenniums (or whatever) on the planet?

PS. I am surprised as you are that "helluva" is actually a real word (just looked it up).

[–] Acrimonious 13 years ago

1. As we saw in the flash back from the scientist, they must have killed the hosts at the original mining town so they could float across and find more hosts. This was a scorched earth (err, mars) approach to getting rid of the invaders. Invaders here being the earth folks.
2. Wouldn't you try a nuke to kill whatever the hell they were? Best case scenario, whatever keeps them together is disrupted by the blast and potentially the EMP blast prevents them from staying together.
3. They were not ghosts. They were explained as biological entities that were made to survive over time. For all we know, the martians were naturally this way and were only in suspended animation until the cave was opened. Mars has been stated to be the perfect example of green house gas going wrong. (not in the movie, but current theories) The martians, in a last ditch effort buried themselves until such time as the planet became habitable again. For all we know, the first wave of folks was the army of mars. There could have been a second wave of civilians.

I am extrapolating somewhat, but its not a stretch.

[–] O-Face 11 years ago

2. No because how would I know if it would work and look it failed!

[–] fiore2 13 years ago

Because it's a DUMB movie and like you said action action to feed people who love these dumb movies.

[–] Dream_Demon 12 years ago

In the defense of this movie, the characters explicitly stated that they didn't know whether blowing the place up with a nuke would've destroyed the "ghosts" (as in the entities themselves, not just the hosts) or not, and as the ending shows, it didn't work.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

[–] Rick-34 12 years ago

fiore2 has the best explanation.

They could have simply ridden the train with most of them surviving, and gotten the authorities to deal with the issue themselves. Or they could go back with a handful of people and a hare-brained scheme to cause a nuclear explosion.

Which sounds more logical??

I'm reminded of the short version of Tristan and Isolde, when the kids realized that it would cause too much trouble if they tried to pursue a romance, so they just went on with their own lives. The End.

[–] inuimari 12 years ago

As the film states, it's about domination. The humans showed who the boss was.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FlintleyBont 9 years ago

Now I'm confused. Was the movie about dominion, domination or dominoes?