War of the Worlds

[BAYLOR]

A favorite of mine I liked the 1953 film alot , The 2005 films decent but flawed though I did like the Tripod machines

Of interest. In 2013 they did an animated steampunk sequel to War of the World, called War of the World Goliath which takes place 15 years after the wells book, , in time period men like Nicola Tesla has reverse engineered martian technology , se we now have tiposd battle machos, heat rays air battleships and higher planes. In this one the Martian having solved the bacteria problem which defeated them the first time have come back with more advanced battle machines. This is a wonderful film.

Also of interest War of the Worlds Global Dispatches edited by Kevin J Anderson and his novel The Martian War .

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

. . . 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. . . . one shouldn't feel guilty if he doesn't have fun reading it - it's normal

It didn't translate well into American either. ;-)

 

[BAYLOR]

I like the Journalistic style that it was written in, It gave it a sense of believability.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Much of the charm of WotW is its Surrey setting, expanding out to London. It's still a great read, even so long after it was published. I re-read it every few years or so.

 

[John Thiel III]

Wells is literature, war is one of the Great Themes. I think his inspiration came from the First World War, with the possibility of a Second World War. That's what the warfare going on was called, and he stepped over all that with two worlds in conflict.

 

[hitmouse]

Wells is literature, war is one of the Great Themes. I think his inspiration came from the First World War, with the possibility of a Second World War. That's what the warfare going on was called, and he stepped over all that with two worlds in conflict.

War of the Worlds was published in 1898. WW1 did not start until 1914. WWII was not even a twinkle in the milkman's eye.

 

[Vince W]

War of the Worlds was published in 1898. WW1 did not start until 1914. WWII was not even a twinkle in the milkman's eye.

Hitler was born in 1899 so the twinkle for WWII may have been there...

 

[BAYLOR]

Hitler was born in 1899 so the twinkle for WWII may have been there...

Hitler was born 1889 .

 

[Ray McCarthy]

But HG Wells wasn't involved.

 

[Vertigo]

So his lawyers say...

 

[Vince W]

Hitler was born 1889 .

Doh.

 

[Frost Giant]

No mention of the TV Show? The first season of the War of the Worlds TV Show was entertaining before they ruined it.

 

[John Thiel III]

No mention of the TV Show? The first season of the War of the Worlds TV Show was entertaining before they ruined it.

S---. In Ch----'s name, I didn't know there was a TV show running War of the Worlds. I got rid of my satellite TV because there was nothing good on it anywhere and the bills were too high, then I find out there was a War of the World series. I'll bet that was really worth watching.

 

[Frost Giant]

It was an old 1980's series, amusing but hardly a classic.

 

[russ2]

Thank you for informing me about these sequels by new authors to books I loved as a teen. HG Wells is just the best, and i think the old Edwardian language is good exercise for the reading brain.
I think First Men in the Moon is great. I first saw this really old movie on afternoon telly. It was old but kinda fun so I got the book from the library. Awesome. That led onto WOTW and TTM though of course I knew them from the movies too. (Thanks to Tom Cruise and Guy Pierce). And then his short stories. He did one about ants taking over the world which is cool. But his other stuff like the non SF leaves me cold. Sorry. So dated!
Why doesn't someone write a book with all of them in it? Prof Cavor, the time traveller, the Martians, throw the ants in for good measure. Heck that would be a hot read.

 

[russ2]

It was an old 1980's series, amusing but hardly a classic.

Wasn't it the 90s? Or are there more than one. Used to scare the bajeezuz out of me. But then the second series went a bit far fetched and i lost interest. First one with those rotting people with martians inside them was ace.

 

[BAYLOR]

Wasn't it the 90s? Or are there more than one. Used to scare the bajeezuz out of me. But then the second series went a bit far fetched and i lost interest. First one with those rotting people with martians inside them was ace.

If they made it less gory and better writing and avoided the destructive reboot of seasons 2 , this series could have been like X Files.

 

[russ2]

Well both series started the same time didn't they. TBF it was the gory element that kept me watching. From today's vantage point it wasn't really that gory. I think TXF just adh better scripts and a format that was open to more story ideas. And great casting. Mind you I watched TXF last night, again, and was so confused about the storyline.

 

[Frost Giant]

Wasn't it the 90s? Or are there more than one. Used to scare the bajeezuz out of me. But then the second series went a bit far fetched and i lost interest. First one with those rotting people with martians inside them was ace.

The series started in 1988 and finished up in 1990. The 2 seasons were drastically different, though. The first one was surprisingly well done, the second season was an abysmal mess. Removing characters like Ironhorse was a huge mistake on their part. When it started out it was a gritty, late night Walking Dead-ish show (as you pointed out, corpses animated from the inside by the aliens) but when Mancuso took over in season 2 he really trashed it. Too bad, these days a show like that could've found a home on any number of cable channels.

If they made it less gory and better writing and avoided the destructive reboot of seasons 2 , this series could have been like X Files.

Yeah, just three years after cancellation X-Files was doing similar story lines. The X Files episode Folie à deux (one of my favorites) was a story that was along the same lines as War of the Worlds (when it was good.)

 

[clovis-man]

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 know I'm quite late getting into this, but had to make one comment at least. Spielberg's movie was actually a remake of the George Pal 1953 film, not an attempt to replicate Wells' original tale in a modern setting. A fact that surprised me a little on viewing it. Both movies transferred the action to a "modern" setting. So to compare either of them point by point to the printed story is not a useful exercise in my view.