BBC's War of the Worlds and the problem of online toxicity

This article does NOT contain spoilers,

The original War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells is one of the seminal pieces of science fiction, which has been adapted into different mediums countless times. Multiple movie adaptations, stage shows and radio productions (none of which caused people to commit suicide, believing the story to be true, as is often claimed for some reason). The latest of these adaptations is the new three-part series by the BBC.

Having just watched the first episode I can say I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the show. The characters are likable and multi-dimensional, the aliens are sufficiently terrifying and the vulnerability of the victims really comes across, particularly with the show's traditional early 20th century setting. The scale of the behemoth of a machine which towers above the British landscape is incredibly exciting and awe-inspiring to behold - until the people start exploding of course.

But sadly, I'm not here to talk about the show. Originally, I had set out to write a review, until I stumbled across an article on The Sun website. I won't link to the article, since I wouldn't want to accidentally give them any extra views, but here is the headline:

Without pasting the entire article, here is the summary of what The Sun believes is wrong with this interpretation of the new adaptation:

What that short summary doesn't include is the article's main focus. No, somehow, they managed to write an article so distasteful that they didn't even want to put their main focus in their conclusion. No, the real focus of the article is on the show's inclusion of a female lead character, who wasn't present in the book.

What?! Jesus Christ, women eh? We give them the vote and it still isn't enough for them! Suddenly they want universal equality. Universal?! I mean, what sort of a world do these small-headed women think we live in where people can actually treat others with respect and grant them the same opportunities that we give to ourselves.

Sorry. I may have accidentally been channeling any member of the Sun's comments section. If you think I'm being dramatic then you clearly haven't been on the Sun's website. I don't want to have to dignify these comments about women's role in modern media with a response, since we all know it's misogynistic toxic nonsense, so the best alternative I can think to give you, is some of the abhorrent comments left by visitors to the article, to show you the caliber of human being we are dealing with:

Firstly, yes, that would be sexual assault, he doesn’t even try to wake her up first. Just because the President of the United States gets away with it, doesn't make it right.

If these comments have absolutely boiled your blood then you're not alone. Additionally, if you found yourself even remotely agreeing with anything said here, then you may as well click away now, because you won't enjoy the rest of this very much, and I don't want you here.

Anyway, aside from the obvious sexism, what else does this article have to offer. Well, as we saw in the summary statements, this show condemns the British Empire, the military and the church. Well fair enough, I'm sure that isn't in the spirit of the original novel. After all, Wells was a British Gentleman. He probably liked nothing more than going to church and laughing at the death of Gunga Din.

Well no, actually Wells was an incredibly progressive author, who held many views which could now be equated with modern liberalism. He was an advocate of human rights. His religious views were somewhat complicated, but he was certainly not Christian. He said that he was "neither atheist nor Buddhist nor Mohammedan nor Christian". Despite his complicated views, he certainly wasn't pro-organised religion. But surely he supported the British Empire, and everything it had done. Erm, no actually. In fact, the Martians in the original novel are meant to represent the British Empire, invading helpless civilisations to conquer them or wipe them out.

So it's definitely beginning to feel like this article, and these bigots, don't have a leg to stand on. Obviously, the next group of comments begin to bring up Islam, saying the BBC would never take a swipe at them, and to be fair, the show does fail to address the growing Islamic community in Surrey... in 1905.

As for the comments about how the show chooses to 'confront climate change deniers', the show has yet to address this issue in any real way, except for small teases of what is to come. However, the fact that this show has the audacity to try to make people challenge their pre-existing beliefs and make us re-evaluate the world and our impact upon it, is ludicrous (Sorry, again, I've been in those comments too long).

It's hard to know how to cap off this tirade against the Sun (there goes any chances of a job there, as if I could remotely care). And yet, there was one last comment thread I wanted to highlight, which caught me by surprise:

Yeah, good one Travis, typical reader of the Sun. Typical comment. But check out the responses:

Oh my god. Did a reader of the Sun just take on board someone's reasonable response to their view, re-evaluate their own views, undertake extra research around the issue and then leave an entirely reasonable follow up comment of their own thanking the person opposing their argument?

This comment was honestly such a genuine ray of sunshine in this whole article that it actually let me regain just the tiniest bit of hope for humanity. More than anything, the ability to re-evaluate our own beliefs is one of the most important things we can do. Importantly, this isn't something we can just rely on others doing, we need to do it ourselves as well. Knowing that one man, Travis Bickle, can take the initiative to challenge himself in this way, leads me to believe we all can, and lets me think maybe the world isn't such an awful place as I had thought.

God bless you Travis Bickle.