Tuesday, March 20, 2007

HG Wells Hit

I have come to a decision.

I like what Stephen Spielberg did to War of the Worlds.

I realize that comment alone could get me lynched, but I plan to back it up with fact. My previous opinion, which was polar opposite, was formed having never in fact read the original novel. I simply listened to the opinion of my brother, my father, and I agreed wholeheartedly with them.

I should not have.

The primary point of contention around everyone's dislike of the adaptation is the fact that in the movie, the tripods were already deposited in the Earth, under its crust and only the aliens were delivered via some kind of energy tube.

Well, having now read that particular scene in the book, I can quite honestly say there is nothing in the book to contradict that interpretation. The cylinder that deposited the aliens in the original novel is described as having a diameter of approximately 30 yards, which calculates to 90 feet in diameter. Length is not described but if we assume that the cylinder is as long as it is wide we're looking at a total volume for the cylinder of approximately 500,000 cubic feet. That sounds like a massive number? It's about twice as big as big in terms of sheer volume as our space shuttle at 250,000 cubic feet.

I grant you that means these cylinders were very large, but were they large enough to carry enough equipment and materials to construct three TITANIC tripods, as well as the nine martian pilots, their life support equipment and supplies? These cylinders would also have to be extremely well armoured to withstand both atmospheric re-entry and impact with the earth's surface at extremely high velocities, so much of that cubic volume would be taken up purely by the shell of the cylinder itself. Remember as well that the tripods based on HG Wells description seem to have an organic component as well, which would probably require care and tending and special facilities inside the cylinder. Fuel would not have been an issue since Wells describes the cylinders as having been shot as though from a gun.

HG Wells never describes the actual construction of a tripod, never goes into distinct details about how it is assembled, what type of equipment is used to put it together, or where the parts come from. It is entirely likely that all the cylinders were for is transport of the pilots to very specific landing points, where equipment to build the tripods had been readied long in advance, and that upon arrival all that was necessary for the pilots to do was to dig out the materials and assemble them using what few tools it was necessary to carry onboard the cylinder.

So in my personal opinion Stephen Spielberg simply took this possibility and went one small step further with it, and I agree with his interpretation. I've been able to reassess the movie based on reading the book and I truly think Spielberg was as honest to the book as anyone could like while still putting in his own particular creative flare.

Disagree with me if you like, but read the book before you do.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Jeremy,
You have a flair for writing but I see that you are still having difficulty with homonyms! According to the OED, "Flare" has both a noun and a verb form. The definition:
• noun 1 a sudden brief burst of flame or light. 2 a device producing a very bright flame as a signal or marker. 3 a gradual widening towards the hem of a garment. 4 (flares) trousers of which the legs widen from the knees down.
• verb 1 burn, shine, or be revealed with a sudden intensity. 2 (flare up) suddenly become intense, angry, or violent. 3 gradually become wider at one end.

The word "flair" on the other hand exists only as a noun : noun 1 a natural ability or talent. 2 stylishness. Perhaps you could change this; verb that noun!

Stephen Spielberg may have creative flair but he cast Tom Cruise (Tom Cruise I ask you, with emphasis!) in War of the Worlds, thereby totally negating any suspension of disbelief that might have been possible, for me at least. That would be akin to casting Jennifer Lopez as Emma.

I think you would enjoy this page by Alan Cooper about homonyms http://www.cooper.com/alan/homonym.html He says "The best part about homonyms, though, is that they are the raw material for puns, a truly sublime form of humor. With a robust knowledge of and appreciation for homonyms, you will never be embarrassed when a pun-battle breaks out in public."

That's all she wrote,
Love from your mother

Anonymous said...

I know, I know, technically flare and flair are homophones and not homonyms but I did not want to be accused of being homophonic.
LFYM

Jeremy said...

How can you be sure my use of the homophone "flare" was not in fact intentional? Perhaps I intended to assert that Stephen Spielberg's creativity was indeed a sudden brief burst of flame or light, short lived and not soon to be repeated? Perhaps I was JUST that smart.
Not likely, but I bet you didn't even consider the possibility I may have in fact been punning, did you?

Jeremy said...

Oh, and don't think just because you have a better vocabulary and understanding of the English language that you can lord (or would it be lady?) it over me like I lord mine over others.
Besides, riding my back about language just makes me feel like you're being un-fare.
Did you see what I did there?