*Yawns like Hippo*
Sep. 3rd, 2007 10:28 pm
Just been re-reading War of the Worlds, although I suppose it could be classed as "reading" as I don't remember any of it, having last read the original text when I was about 10. I do remember how very much I was impressed by it, but it was as an adventure story and not for the huge imagination.
Now, as I read it, I find that all the taint of the film versions, 50's 90s (probably more but those are the ones I've seen) drop away and I wonder - in dumb amazement - why the smeg didn't Speilberg make a true version of it? Written in 1898 there weren't even any cars (or maybe one) in England. The local regiment had nothing more deadly than rifle and horse drawn cannon. Hell, he could have had Tom Cruise in it with a bad Woking accent.
I personally would have found that far more terrifying to watch as a child. Even now. But bloody hell, talk about a good book. *waves fist at HG Wells for nicking all the good plots 100 years ago*
Why is there nothing on the TV?
no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 09:41 pm (UTC)A film without Cruise and that bloody shrieking blonde thing would have been even better!
no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 10:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 10:21 pm (UTC)Re: War of the Worlds
Date: 2007-09-03 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 11:21 pm (UTC)The Tom Cruise version? BLEH. Then again, I can't stand the man to begin with, so anything with him makes me cringe.
I personally would LOVE a real version of the book, though. *sighs* But...Hollywood loves the shiny, new things.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-04 06:32 am (UTC)I realise now that there's never BEEN a big screen version of it even set in England! Blinking Hollywood. Hits them with my remote control.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-04 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-04 06:22 am (UTC):))
A
xxx
no subject
Date: 2007-09-04 06:30 am (UTC)