# "War of the Worlds" trailer **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 9, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-trailer/302998 "2005-05-09T02:03:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-trailer/302998/41 "2005-05-13T13:46:28Z")
Hey, I \*like[/i the Turtledove books (I’m finishing up the last one now), and I think he makes it very plausible. Besides, if he didn’t give the aliens such limited weaponry the books would have been a ten page pamphlet, not a 2000+ page series. Wells was doing siomething similar – his aliens, at least, didn’t have to travel light years to get to the earth. It was believable that they had technology not very much advanced over human technology (The martian heat ray – the first Ray un in SF – is actually amazingly similar to a CO2 laser, right down to the description of its appearance and effects) The discussion about books vs. films given above is absurd in its reductionism – the dichotomy between absolutely faithful vs. completely different is artificial. The point is that there have been plenty of films that have been acceptably close to their source material without slavishly following it. What people hate are films that depart so wildly from the nominal source that you wonder why they even claim there is a relationship. (Wanna start an argument on this Board? Mention **Starship Troopers** or **I, Robot**. As I’ve noted before, spy thrillers seem to get this “seriously departed from the original book” treatment, although those fans aren’t so vocal – The James Bond films, **Ice Station Zebra** , a lot of Tom Clancy novels, **The Osterman Weekend**. But note how , for instance, the James Bond films or the Alistair McClean novels that adhere more closely to the books are more satisfying and more successful.) Audiences _loved_ the Lord of the Rings adaptations, and the Harry Potter books, and Gone with the Wind. A more faithful War of the Worlds would, to me, have the _attraction_ of a period feel. The limitations on the Martians’ power would make them more comprehensible, and would make the war clearer. And you could easily expand on the fighting between the two sides that is actually described in the book but thus far hasn’t been adequately depicted on the screen. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-trailer/302998/42 "2005-05-13T17:44:26Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Yes, but the major complaint I’m hearing in re: to the new film (not just here, but other places) is “Why don’t they ever do a version like the book, set in 1890’s London?” Adding/updating the aliens weaponry is not what the complainants desire - they want a version _just like the book_. > > And to make myself clear: my point isn’t about the aliens weaponry, it’s about what mankind had in _its_ arsenal in 1890. To the modern audience there will be no means of _seemingly_ effective resistance on mankinds part - no tanks, no gas weapons, no nukes, no aircraft, no missles, just Maxim guns and dreadnaughts with 12-inch shells. > . As opposed to giving the Aliens shields so our best weapons, even nukes, are useless anyway, so you either have a deus ex machina(WoTW) or idiotic weak point(ID4). This has been done…twice. THat’s a lot of the the reason so many people want to see it set in the 1890’s like the book. Because they’ve already done the updated version. At least that way, humanity does get to kick some ass even if they still are unable to defeat them. Makes it a trifle less one-sided. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-trailer/302998/43 "2005-05-13T17:49:37Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Yes, but the major complaint I’m hearing in re: to the new film (not just here, but other places) is “Why don’t they ever do a version like the book, set in 1890’s London?” Adding/updating the aliens weaponry is not what the complainants desire - they want a version _just like the book_. > > And to make myself clear: my point isn’t about the aliens weaponry, it’s about what mankind had in _its_ arsenal in 1890. To the modern audience there will be no means of _seemingly_ effective resistance on mankinds part - no tanks, no gas weapons, no nukes, no aircraft, no missles, just Maxim guns and dreadnaughts with 12-inch shells. > . As opposed to giving the Aliens shields so our best weapons, even nukes, are useless anyway, so you either have a deus ex machina(WoTW) or idiotic weak point(ID4). This has been done…twice. THat’s a lot of the the reason so many people want to see it set in the 1890’s like the book. Because they’ve already done the updated version. At least that way, humanity does get to kick some ass even if they still are unable to defeat them. Makes it a trifle less one-sided. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-the-worlds-trailer/302998.md?page=2)