War of the Worlds

[warlock]

Hey, it's topical! Can't imagine there's many people here who haven't read it yet, but if not then get yourself down to a library and get it. I think it's still one of the best novels of alien invasion and social commentary in one go, and it dwells more on the humbling of a great power than the Spielberg film did. I think it is easily HG Wells' best book, and some of the scenes have stayed with me after all these years - tripods picking up men and smashing them against trees, people being boiled alive as the heat rays hit a river, trains ploughing through screaming crowds on the tracks. Chilling.

There's also a couple of interesting continuations which are good books in their own right. The Space Machine by Christopher Priest is an amalgamation of War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, and lets you see the invasion as it was planned from Mars, and The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter, which is a straight sequel to The Time Machine and shows the Morlocks in a far better light

 

[Rich]

War of the worlds.
This was the first 'real' book that I read. Got it from the school library.
I agree with your comments on Baxters The Time Ships. Enjoyed that a lot.

 

[Jimmy]

I think it's still one of the best novels of alien invasion and social commentary in one go

Well, being far from exagerrating, I must say it's classic which moder sf fan still can read without being rejected (like Well's "Time Machine" which is sf only in very little degree, and got very old as a social deliberations). But it still can bore. I don't know how it is in English, but in Polish translation, because of tries of writing it as archaic (is such a process called "archaization" also in English?) it sounds strange and funny. Anyway, I don't deny that "War of the Worlds" is classic, one of the first novels of "true" sf, that every real fan should know it, but... one shouldn't feel guilty if he doesn't have fun reading it - it's normal

 

[Foxbat]

I love this book. Yes, the language has changed a tad since it was first published but it is still a great read.

As for Christopher Priest - I've just started reading Inverted World and quite enjoying it so far

 

[ucp]

It's very good book, it's classic, but I can't say the same thing about film. Yes, It's quate good, but not so good as book is. And I think Spilberg did a wrong thing when he'd changed time of book from 19 century to nowadays. The film isn't so realistic than book...

 

[Alia]

Actually... I disagree ucp. I think Spilberg did a wonderful job with the book. He stayed very true to it and the circumstances that Wells wrote about. You could almost put anyone in the shoes of the main character. Does it ever mention the man's name, or am I just missing it everytime I read it?

Anyways, I think Spilberg did a wonderful job especially compared to the older movie.

 

[Cyril]

War of the worlds is a great book. And in french, I didn't feel any archaization, perhaps due to the translation.

Concerning the Spielberg's film, I didn't like it. It's true he kept some of the best scenes of the book, but he made some addings to the plot that disrupted the harmony of the story. More generally, I think that the will to transpose Wells story in the present days of the film (I'm refering of both Spielberg's and the old attempts) instead of keeping victorian age period is a mistake, because some acceptable facts at the end of the XIXth century are becoming ridiculous nowadays.

In fact, for me, the less catastrophic adaptation of the War of the worlds is ID4 by Roland Emmerich because he tried (awkwardly, indeed) to adapt the story to modern science -- transforming natural viruses to data-processing ones for example.

 

[littlemissattitude]

It's very good book, it's classic, but I can't say the same thing about film. Yes, It's quate good, but not so good as book is. And I think Spilberg did a wrong thing when he'd changed time of book from 19 century to nowadays. The film isn't so realistic than book...

I haven't seen the Spielberg version, so I can't comment on that. However, I have seen the 1953 version of The War of the Worlds, and it really is a classic. I know it scared the crap out of me when I first saw it, right from the beginning when a hatch begins unscrewing from what first appeared to be a meteorite....You should try to see this version, if you can.

 

[Alia]

I haven't seen the Spielberg version, so I can't comment on that. However, I have seen the 1953 version of The War of the Worlds, and it really is a classic. I know it scared the crap out of me when I first saw it, right from the beginning when a hatch begins unscrewing from what first appeared to be a meteorite....You should try to see this version, if you can.

I haven't seen the old black and white version. But from what I understand is that it doesn't end the same way the book does. Is that true?

 

[Marky Lazer]

My flatmate knows her movies, and said I shouldn't watch it because it's horrible, so I think I'm going to trust her opinion.

On a side note, I'm still ashamed when I have to admit I haven't read the book yet. It's been laying on my desk for over a year now...

 

[Rosemary]

The book was marvellous as was the older version of the movie. Then put the head phones on and listen to the soundtrack of the older movie...

I haven't seen the Spielburg version and I don't think I would bother...for some reason I always find the newer versions are never as good.

 

[Alia]

War of the worlds is a great book. And in french, I didn't feel any archaization, perhaps due to the translation.

Concerning the Spielberg's film, I didn't like it. It's true he kept some of the best scenes of the book, but he made some addings to the plot that disrupted the harmony of the story. More generally, I think that the will to transpose Wells story in the present days of the film (I'm refering of both Spielberg's and the old attempts) instead of keeping victorian age period is a mistake, because some acceptable facts at the end of the XIXth century are becoming ridiculous nowadays.

In fact, for me, the less catastrophic adaptation of the War of the worlds is ID4 by Roland Emmerich because he tried (awkwardly, indeed) to adapt the story to modern science -- transforming natural viruses to data-processing ones for example.

cyril... I feel that Spielberg did a good job by putting it in a modern day setting. One reason why I prefer that rather than the older era is because it makes it more real. More likely to happen. I believe it gave it that more SciFi touch, then in an era of horses and buggies were still in style.

Marky, don't feel too bad, I just read it for the first time. You should read it.

 

[Foxbat]

You have to bear in mind that War Of the Worlds when it was first written was as much a comment on the seeming invincibility of the British Empire. To transfer into modern day (and stay true to the spirit of the book) another power was needed to replace the defunct British superiority - hence the American setting. Also, although the craft in the fifties version were nothing like those in the book, but they were true to their own time (the sleek sweep-winged jets that were appearing and the Martian war machines were obviously a product of this new delta-winged age). Again, the Martian force-field was a balance to our own threat of nuclear weapons.... sign of our times.

It seems to me that it makes sense for these films to be updated in such a way - but what I can't understand is why Spielberg went back to the tripod design and yet kept the modern setting (that is, if you eliminate reasons of aesthetics.

 

[Cyril]

cyril... I feel that Spielberg did a good job by putting it in a modern day setting. One reason why I prefer that rather than the older era is because it makes it more real. More likely to happen. I believe it gave it that more SciFi touch, then in an era of horses and buggies were still in style.

I would agree if Spielberg adapted the marsian technology to fit our modern knowledge. I think obvious that if you want to adapt this book to our days you must refer to United-States (and perhaps at the end of the century to China) but you must adapt marsians too. Spielberg didn't do that job. And I don't speek about tripod design (an unimportant detail and a good point of the Spielberg's film) but of the fact that they die of a virus contamination so easily (I know it's in the book, but this point is important... acceptable in 1894 due to medical knowledge at that time, it becomes ridiculous nowadays if you refer to a civilization smarter than ours), the fact that alien war machines were buried for a long time under our cities as said in the film (sic), the adding of the children which break the balance of the story and many other details like that, etc.

Compared to Spielberg's version, the 1954 film is far better precisely because they made this adaptation effort of marsian technology.

 

[Marky Lazer]

Marky, don't feel too bad, I just read it for the first time. You should read it.

I know, I know, and I will, but you don't want to see the pile of books waiting to be read on my desk when I return home...

 

[Alia]

I would agree if Spielberg adapted the marsian technology to fit our modern knowledge. I think obvious that if you want to adapt this book to our days you must refer to United-States (and perhaps at the end of the century to China) but you must adapt marsians too. Spielberg didn't do that job. And I don't speek about tripod design (an unimportant detail and a good point of the Spielberg's film) but of the fact that they die of a virus contamination so easily (I know it's in the book, but this point is important... acceptable in 1894 due to medical knowledge at that time, it becomes ridiculous nowadays if you refer to a civilization smarter than ours), the fact that alien war machines were buried for a long time under our cities as said in the film (sic), the adding of the children which break the balance of the story and many other details like that, etc.

Compared to Spielberg's version, the 1954 film is far better precisely because they made this adaptation effort of marsian technology.

I see your point, Cyril and you make a valid arguement. The one thing I didn't like about the movie, even before I read the book, was the fact that the alien war machines were buried under the cities. To me I thought, why would an alien nation bury their war machines underground and wait? Just didn't seem real to me.

 

[steve12553]

I finally got around to reading the book after owning it for something like 25 years. I enjoyed it and I enjoyed it even more in context. At the turn of the last century space travel was a new concept. To try to make it believable to the Victorian audience reqired a lot of imagination. I saw the first movie as a child in the early 1960's and it was really impressive. It was suspenseful and fascinating to me and most audiences back then. The special effects were great for 1953. The second movie was disappointing. Spielberg is a better filmmaker that that. For 2005 it was average. If you can't blow them away with visuals, you have to amke it up with character and story. The modernization was week and thecharacters were one note. (Oh No, It's a monster. Run.) And I'm glad to see someone else realizes ID4 was an unofficial remake. It was almost too slick to be caught. [Obviously, this place is a little smarter the the places I've hung around for years.]

 

[Clouddragon]

I recently read it for the first time after listening to the cd by Jeff Wayne.

I was particularly intrigued as the tale began near my home town and many of the places mentioned are familiar to me, although, obviously much in the past. I found it fascinating.

Clouddragon

 

[Quokka]

Jeff Wayne's 1978 musical adaption of War of the Worlds is amazing and an interesting story in its own right. In some ways its more true to HG Wells than any movie could be, at least in my opinion .

I remember hearing prior to Speilberg's film that an english company was planning on releasing a version that stayed truer to the storyline and setting, not sure if that's been shelved or not but there is a 'live stage' version of Jeff Wayne's adaption that is almost finished auditioning for parts.

I have fond memories of lying down the beach late at night when I was young and stargazing whilst listening to this on my walkman... and scaring myself stupid in the process .

 

[Clouddragon]

Hi Quokka,

Thinking of you scaring yourself, there was a movie called 'the Night that Panicked America' which was based on the story of a radio broadcast of the tale in the 30's read by Orson Welles. It was presented as a newscast, and many people abandoned their homes, thinking it was real, not a play!

Clouddragon