nor seen the 1960's film but after watching Time Machine 2002 I couldn't help but to think that many changes were involved. I think I will read the book first and then watch the 1960's film and make my final judgement. I did want more from this movie as well.

 

I watched original as a kid. Always loved it. I watched it recently and I'm still impressed by it. The video was very good, sound was good and of course the story is great.


Deron

 

The original 1960 version of The Time Machine is a great movie. The DVD is also good quality and it has some extra features that are fun to watch. I saw this back when it first came out in theaters when I was 14, and fell in love with Yvette Mimieux. It's a great story though, and very good acting as well. The special effects aren't up to today's standards, but they are still very good.

 

The new one is alright but nothing compared to the original, anyone who loved the original is going to be disappointed in the remake..

 

I beg to disagree - now that the DVD version of the 2001 Time Machine is out, I consider it to be superior to the 1960 George Pal version (which the moviemakers pay homage to in this film).


At first, I was considerably upset to see the realization of the machine itself - as a US Coast Guard veteran who has seen many lighthouses and lightships, I recognised the Fresnel lenses used in the machine construction as pieces of a light! However, it turns out (and is so documented in the production notes) that they used polycarbonate lens reproductions, no historic light was sacrificed (as may have been - probably was - the case in the 1960 version, as the two time machines bear more than a striking resemblance to one another).


IMHO in general, the new version is superior in every aspect of filmmaking and plot to the original film. The first film was in fact a film version of the H.G. Wells novel, while the second film is a new and more elaborate script with a different plot, is transported from London to New York, and there are but a few superficial resemblances between versions.


Purely as an action film, the new version is very much better. The Morlocks are scarier, and cannibals. The time travel scenes benefit greatly from computer animation and morphing software. As SciFi, the new version goes places the original never dared, and even addresses the basic paradox of time travel.


It's a keeper for me - and I'm going to pick up the 1960 version as well, as I've always been fond of it. They are a pair. For those letches amongst you (and I include myself in the classification) the girl Mara in the new film is not the leggy Yvette Mimeaux, but she's quite sexy enough, and wears an intriging sort of see-through top.


I think perhaps the only thing that is missing versus the 1960 version is that sense of wonder that comes from a new concept - had we all seen the 2001 version first, the 1960 film would be a poor imitation by comparison. But they are after all, seperated by 41 years in our lives.


The only downside to the new DVD (2.35:1 anamorphic, and I listened to the DTS soundtrack) is there has been a healthy dose of edge enhancement applied to this film - but the plot kept me well enough enthralled not to notice.


Gary

 

Glad to see someone really liked the film around here (it apparently did earn some money and it has some staunch defenders). The people involved with its production include Arnold Leibovit, who was responsible for the excellent soundtrack of the original film's score, released a decade or so back. Enough love for the original meant that the makers knew that they needed to do something other than just slavishly remake it. In some respects this one addresses things in the book (some aspects of Eloi vs. Morlocks, f'rinstance) better than the original.


But ultimately the film fails to pay off. The ending is simply rushed- I was crushed when I realized the film was over. It seemed the studio lost faith in it and squeezed it into an hour and a half. The film lost the arc of departure, return and irrevokable departure that the book and the original had. The music is no good. The photography alternates between brown and blue. Guy Pearce is distressingly distant in contrast to Rod Taylor's emotional, totally committed performance.


Yet I will still get the DVD. I find enough in it to like to have it. It's just that it should have been so much more.

 

Well, although all of the reviews I've read of the new movie aren't very supportive, I just put it on my Netflix rent list, so I'm anxious to compare. Since the 1960 version was one of those on my all-time favorite list, it will be a tough sell, but in the previews, the special effects look promising. In the original, the acting was so good and convincing that it really made the movie a classic. Sure, the special effects were sort of hokey, when compared to today's, but it was a great story as well.

 

Highlights of new version: Much better special effects. The Orlando Jones hologram is a winner. Guy Pearce's stopover in 2030-something was very interesting. There was a nice-looking blond chick who referred to Pearce's outfit as retro. He should have invited her aboard for a ride. The cave was ok but not that dramatic. Jeremy Irons' character provides a new slant on the history and breeding of the Morlocks.


Strong points of old version: Rod Taylor has more screen charisma than Guy Pearce. A British scientist (turn of century) seems more colorful than a US scientist in the early 20th century. Guy Pearce looks unhealthy and uncomfortable in his role. It was like he stepped out of the set of Ravenous. There is no strong female character in the new movie. In the old movie, Yvette Mimieux was a delight to watch, and you could understand how Taylor would risk his life to save her. This is not to say that Mara is bad looking, she just wasn't as appealing. Emma was completely forgettable.

 

Perhaps because we had "lowered our expectations" before watching the new Time Machine on DVD, but frankly we really enjoyed it. Though a number of homages to the first film occur in the new version, this is a very different story and that helped keep our interest. Though clearly dealing with budgetary constraints, (i.e. lack of major stars...except Jeremy Irons), the producers spent their money well.


I've been a fan of the first film since I was a kid. After renting the new version and watching it last night, I'll be placing an order for the DVD today. Not GREAT, but an enjoyable entertainment.


Comparing it to the original is almost apples vs oranges.

Good Viewing,

John G

 

Bob...WAKE UP!...I think you may be suffering from narcolepsy...pretty funny.


Thanks to all the dreadful reviews I skipped this one in the theatre in anticipation of the dvd. Although I enjoyed this new version, I found the story pretty lacking. I absolutely love the topic of time travel, and am a sucker for all related topics.


The original George Pal production will always remain a special film that I remember fondly and still love today for its charm, attention to certain detail, and the performances. It was nice to see Alan Young again...I wish his part had been bigger!


I still find myself waiting for the ultimate time travel film. I think we need a story truly grounded in science, that cleverly bends back around itself, and still provides us with plenty of action and surprises.


H.G. Wells was a very good story teller, and his stories were some of my favorite as a child. Most recently, Michael Crichton's 'Timeline' has come across as one of my new favorite time travel stories...the upcoming film adaption of his novel may finally provide what these other films are lacking!


Howie

 

I'm glad someone else noticed Alan Young. That was a nice touch; that and the dress shop. Of course, only those who have a warm spot for the George Pal version have any idea what we're writing about

Good Viewing,

John G

 



Quote:
Originally posted by Digital Howie


I still find myself waiting for the ultimate time travel film. I think we need a story truly grounded in science, that cleverly bends back around itself, and still provides us with plenty of action and surprises.


H.G. Wells was a very good story teller, and his stories were some of my favorite as a child. Most recently, Michael Crichton's 'Timeline' has come across as one of my new favorite time travel stories...the upcoming film adaption of his novel may finally provide what these other films are lacking!


Howie

Digital,


Have you read some of the classic stories? I think John Varley's "Air Raid" is one of the best ever (although the subsequent novel and movie were so-so.) And Heinlein's "All You Zombies" is very clever. "Timescape" by Benford is an excellent time travel novel in the hard SF vein. (And by the way, the vanity plate on my 911 says TACHYON, so you can see I enjoy physics and SF a little too much.)


Oh, and of course Kip Thorne's book is a terrific factual source of info on the possibilities of real time travel using wormholes (but what if we meet the worm while we're in the hole, eh?)

 

If you are talking about Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", I definitely agree that its a great book, and would recommend it highly. Its not very technical at all, though you do need to have that 'visualizing a 2-D representation of 3-D' gene to get the embedding diagrams used throughout the book, or in some cases 'visualizing a 4-D representation of 4-D'.

 

Dean,


Yup, that's the book. Guth's recent popular book is VG also, if you're attracted to gravitation...


But we're way off topic.


Back on topic, I only give The Time Machine 2 stars. The effects and art direction were fine. The new machine was a nice blend of the 1960s conception with modern effects (and Fresnel lenses are always popular with us RPTV owners), but I thought the hacked up plot was inferior to Wells' original and I don't think they bothered to think through the logic as pertains to causality and the relative immutability of past vs. future.


I know, it's just a movie.

 

R. Aster,


Thanks for the reading suggestions...great vanity plate...I'm sure you've gotten more than the average response on that one...excellent.


Robert,


The practical applications for real time travel seem endless. The question of when travel in time will be (or was) invented is quite intriguing.


When I think of how this entire concept could better unfold in a film, I imagine the scientific discoveries that will ultimately lead to it;


As a starting point I am often reminded of the classic David Lean film The Sound Barrier. As technology continues to allow us to move forward at higher rates of excelleration, the closer we get to "light speed" etc. At the same time there is an obvious need for generating enormous amounts of energy to support this technology, and so on.


I mention all this in terms of being able to watch a film that provides us with technology we can at least begin to swallow...versus a guy who simply jumps in a chair and poof!... he's four years in the past. My own reaction to the success of such an experiment would lead to a multitude of reactions (not to mention plot devices)!


Although not necessarily a time travel film, I think pictures like Stargate have done a much better job of building up the early suspense/explanation factor. Even the George Pal version included a little demo of the time machine for the assembled dinner guests.


I'll continue to keep my fingers crossed.

Howie

 

Bob,


Your very argument has been often expressed by skeptics -- we'd expect to see great crowds of curious time travelers at, say the launch of Apollo 11 or Kennedy's assasination or at the Cavern Club in 1961. Where are they (echoing Enrico Fermi in his question about putative ETs)?


Couple thoughts, also not orginal: Many physicists seem either to think time travel must be impossible, primarily because it would seem to lead to tremendous paradoxes that we have no way of resolving.


The other school has pointed out there are relativistic solutions of time travel all of which apparently restrict you to traveling to the future or to past times only after a time machine/portal has been built. (See Thorne's book for a discussion of a wormhole based scheme.) So they're not here because we haven't invented the machine yet.


And in any case every discussion I have seen seems to depend on feats of engineering that would appear to be thousands of years away, if not impossible (e.g, the wormhole solution or massive rotating cylinders in space of a hyperdense substance.) No one think a time machine can be made from a leather chair and some prisms.


I didn't explain all that very well, but there are now lots of good, serious books on time and time travel (Davies has written a few, in addition to Thorne.)


And lastly, there's the "They're already here." idea--Who do you think flies around in those glowing round and triangular objects? To me, this is slightly more likely than the thought that they're ETs, maybe a .5% chance vs. .1%.

 

Bob,


Physicist David Deutsch believes that we live in a "multiverse", that is composed of quite possibly billions, trillions or more number of universes. In some of these universes, Abe Lincoln wasn't assassinated, the dinosaurs were never made extinct and Nazi Germany won WWII. In some of these universes, you exist. In others, you do not. In some of those universes in which you do exist, you are quite possibly president of the United States. Anyway... David Deutsch believes that time travel is possible. But, if we were to travel into the past, it would be the past of another universe!

Hopefully I haven't mis-stated his position. Check out his book, "The Fabric of Reality", for more details. I wish Art Bell would interview David Deutsch. That would be awesome.

 

Bob,

When I look back into history, I see all kinds of indications that the past is loaded with time travellers. Like the US Patent issued to the inventor of the junction transistor on January 28, 1930. It's quite clear - the instructions for fabricating the devices, and radio receiver circuitry based on such devices, are described in the documents on file. It's true that the semiconductor materials available in 1930 were crude - these devices had a beta (current gain) figure of 3-5 or thereabouts, whereas a similar device fabricated from silicon might have a beta of 40+. (They used Selenium and Copper Oxide, and the only large-scale application was power supply rectifier diodes, not transistors.) Check it out:

http://www.jmargolin.com/history/1745175.pdf


Think about what it would have meant had someone realized the importance of the "discovery". World War II fought with portable, solid state devices. Lightweight radios for aircraft and foot soldiers - and robust and accurate guidance systems for turning German V1 "buzz bombs" into precision-guided cruise missiles. It would have been a very different war. A more primitive point-contact transistor was instead fabricated in 1947 by some Nobel-winning physicists at Bell Labs, along with a wildly improbable description of sub-atomic "holes" in a crystal lattice. Damn shame they didn't listen to the time traveller trying to "fix" WWII in 1930!


History is just loaded with anachronisms that can satisfactorily be explained only if time travel does in fact exist. But what do we do with a Good Samaritan time traveller who stops people on the street to warn them of the giant asteroid which will strike the Earth in February 1, 2019? Why, we put him in an insane asylum, while "cooler and wiser" heads publish follow-up stories that say, "We've refined our calculations, and it's definately going to miss us!"


Gary

 

Adding to the above postulation...there really is no reason to not believe that any number of past events have been either directly or indirectly changed via a displacment of matter through space.


For example, who's to say that the assasination of a prominent figure is not the result of a planned changed event. Our understanding of the universe is at best primitive, and subject to mere speculation.


Time travel hypothesis always leads me to the bigger question: How the hell did everything come into existence? I can comprehend how various types of molecules inadvertantly met to form what we know to be the basic building blocks of life...but how did these base structures come to be?


The answer to this question falls back upon the basics of quantum physics and trying to understand how time travel might actually work...events folding upon themselves. One day our planet will cease to exist...this in turn will eventually lead to the birth this same world.


I imagine a practical use of folding/bending time in order to record significant events in the time stream...formation of stars, the history of our world etc...now what were we saying about that new film?

Howie

 

What film is that?

Oh now I remember. You must mean that film whose entire script was far less fascinating than the thoughts expressed in the posts of Mr. Aster, Larry, Gary and Howie (not to mention those which might be awaiting in the "future").

Bob

 

Time travel, huh?


Well, Einstein made provisions for it in his work. I believe that given enough time ( If we don't blow ourselves up first) Everything that is physically possible will be practical.


Imagine what a roman emperor would say if you told him we have the power to destroy a city by virtually just wishing it was gone? Tell that to a 10 year old now and he will say " Oh, you mean nuke it?"


Now imagine how utterly primitive we will seem to a person living in the year 3000? or 5000? Imagine the things that will be possible to them??



Gus

 

Man,

You guys are DEEP. But I gotta tell ya', that movie sucked!!! Guy Pearce looked like a stunt double from "The Goofy Movie". Nice hair. No character development, no historical explanations. Completely choppy and random. Worse still, after then watching the almost equally wretched "Collateral Damage", (and I'm a big Arnold fan) the lamp on my PJ blew up right in the middle of LOTR. I think it was my PJ's response to making it endure showing the entire length of "Machine" and "Damage". The irony was not not lost. If I had a time machine, I'd go back to the day I rented those two turkeys, NOT rent them, and at least get to see the whole "Rings" movie.

Jim S.

 

I find this thread very interesting and enjoyable. It just occurred to me yet one more possible explanation, not yet mentioned, as to why we have not yet seen time travelers yet.....


If I had the ability to travel back in time I would be extremely careful about maintaining stealth and a low profile as to not change the progression of events as they will in fact occur. More likely, I would not even consider going back in time unless my life depended on it. There would be just to much peril, too much uncertainty and risk involved. An inconsequential action on my part might very likely cause later events to cascade into causing me not to even exist. And once I accidentally erased myself, I would be totally gone... unable to recover myself back again. A very dangerous technology with lots of wild cards.


So to me, that would be good reason (assuming the time travel technology will be invented) why the time travelers would be rare events and that these people would take extra effort and life threatening concern not to be noticed.


Just a couple of thoughts I had.

 



Quote:
Originally posted by RVonse
find this thread very interesting and enjoyable. It just occurred to me yet one more possible explanation, not yet mentioned, as to why we have not yet seen time travelers yet.....


If I had the ability to travel back in time I would be extremely careful about maintaining stealth and a low profile as to not change the progression of events as they will in fact occur. More likely, I would not even consider going back in time unless my life depended on it. There would be just to much peril, too much uncertainty and risk involved. An inconsequential action on my part might very likely cause later events to cascade into causing me not to even exist.

RV,


This has been the plot of more than one SF tale -- I recall one that had two scientists operating some time machine that sent an instrument to the past in a sort or pendulum or cyclic manner every few minutes. With each roundtrip of the device, subtle and then gross changes in the lab and the scientists took place until finally they were two unrecognizable blobs of protoplasm gibbering incomprehensibly, apparently continuing their earlier discussion of the unlikelyhood of the tiny device changing anything important in the past.

 

Time travel, though interesting to think about, is one of those things that is likely to remain completely out of reach, and is probably inherently disallowed by the physics of any universe which remains in existence for any amount of time. The problem is that time travel is like a chain reaction. Once it becomes possible, and its being possible assumes that time is laid out and that we just travel along it, then almost 'immediately' (in the sense of immediate in a world where time travel can occur), all of time would be filled with travelers. Anyone who goes back and who knows the mechanism can then offer people further and further back in 'time' the ability to travel as well. It would effectively almost immediately (from any one person's real 'time' perspective) self destruct due to a massive feedback loop. Because, if time is already there in a linear path, then the entire future was there from the start, which means that time travel would have been possible from the very start as well.


Of course, its completely possible that time is not laid out in a row, and that it doesn't exist at all. i.e. that its purely a experiential side effect of the laws of thermodynamics coupled on a self aware storage mechanism. It could be perfectly likely that there is only now, and that's it. In that case, there would no such thing as time travel, period, because there's nowhere to go.


Or, as some well known physicists have said, the chair you are sitting in right now is a time travel machine. Just sit it in for an hour, and you will have traveled into the future one hour. But it doesn't have a reverse gear.


On the 'many universes' theories, which have been put forward by many people, I don't buy it. Its not just that its irrelevant to us even if it happens, but the problem is that the many universes don't just branch off on major, macrosopic events, such as Lincoln getting killed or an asteroid hitting the earth. They have to happen in response to every phsysical event, and for every possible outcome of every physical event, down to the deflection of one molecule off another in a gas. Do you have any idea how many variations that would be? I would have created so many alternative universes just typing and sending this e-mail, than there would be atoms in our universe right now. That is profligacy of gargantuan proportions, when you consider that an (at least) 15 billion light year radius universe must duplicate itself for everyone one of those possible futures, and every one of those must duplicate itself for every possible future, and so on. It is pretty inconceivable that such a thing could be possible.