BBC's War of the Worlds

[JohntheBike]

I guess if you didn't know the underlying plot from the novel, you wouldn't have worked out what it was from this rendering. The 1953 film version, albeit a loose rendition of the novel, is still the definitive portrayal for me. The special affects in this film and also in the Forbidden Planet, were excellent for the period.

[Amanensia]

Stick with the 1978 version.

[Hobosapien]

There's another TV version imminent with Fox. Seen the trailer while watching The Walking Dead but from what I've seen not sure which version they'll be sticking to. Certainly won't be the UK period drama style. Foreigners must think the only TV programme the UK produces is the bloody period drama.

The Tom Cruise film version was underwhelming too.

So yes, the 1953 movie or the 1978 musical/soundtrack are still yet to be bettered.

[original PM]

Main problem is that in the official story the earthlings were getting their asses handed to them - and would have lost had the invaders not died off due to bacterial infections...

and therefore not really a great story for gung ho americans and american film makers.

[Platypus]

The Tom Cruise film version was underwhelming too.

Oh I quite liked it.

So yes, the 1953 movie or the 1978 musical/soundtrack are still yet to be bettered.

Agree.

Haven't been watching the new BBC version, it looks underwhelming from the trailers.

I'll keep an eye out for the Fox one.

[ladymuck]

I detested the Tom Cruise film version. I can't stand him at the best of times but I just wanted him and that whiny child to die. Seem to recall walking out in the intermission and going to the pub so have no idea how the second half panned out.

[woohoo]

I detested the Tom Cruise film version. I can't stand him at the best of times but I just wanted him and that whiny child to die. Seem to recall walking out in the intermission and going to the pub so have no idea how the second half panned out.

The aliens died of complications arising from bacterial infection. One alien sneezed in Curises face and decapitated him, apparently it was voted the best moment in cinematic history, according to IMDB.

[malvolio]

To be fair to Cruise, he was acting against type for once, not playing the invincible snarky supoer hero but an ordinary man with flaws and a load of self doubt. He's a far better actor than most of the films he's been in deserve. That said, the film was an OK affair with great CGI but not a lot to do with the original book.

Wayne's version was true to the book and managed to convey the horror element really well, given it was basically a rock opera

But if you haven't, read the original. It is a superb piece of literature.

[JohntheBike]

To be fair to Cruise, he was acting against type for once, not playing the invincible snarky supoer hero but an ordinary man with flaws and a load of self doubt. He's a far better actor than most of the films he's been in deserve. That said, the film was an OK affair with great CGI but not a lot to do with the original book.

Wayne's version was true to the book and managed to convey the horror element really well, given it was basically a rock opera

But if you haven't, read the original. It is a superb piece of literature.

It is a superb piece of literature

as are the Time Machine and the Invisible Man, no doubt, although I haven't actually read any of them. My English Lit teacher preferred a Tale of Two Cities and Robinson Crusoe! I did read large parts of the Count of Monte Cristo in French though!

I had to read the book of 2001 a Space Odyssey to work out what was happening in the film!

[BR14]

as are the Time Machine and the Invisible Man, no doubt, although I haven't actually read any of them. My English Lit teacher preferred a Tale of Two Cities and Robinson Crusoe! I did read large parts of the Count of Monte Cristo in French though!

did you get your blue peter badge?