*** Official "THE TIME MACHINE" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

The newest trailers I am seeing on television adverts leave me a bit cold and bewildered. This upcoming movie (not ready to call it "film") appears to bear no significant relation to Wells's original novella or to the excellent George Pal film from 1960.

Is the sexily attired woman I am seeing in these trailers supposed to be "Weena"? She looks more like some Amazon queen out of a 1990s flick.

And special effects: lots and lots and lots of CGI in those trailers. Will they be what drives this movie? What does experience tell you?

Seth Paxton, forgive me: I think this incarnation of The Time Machine is going to prove typical of the dumbed-down product the studios so cynically spew out these days.

I'm not sure I even want to check out the eventual DVD, much less pay $10 to see it in a commercial theater.

Ugh.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Since I veiw The Time Machine as a film ripe for today's special effects capabilities, I am quite eager to see it. Will it stand up to George Pal's original? Will it surpass it? I don't know. I haven't seen that much promo for it, myself, to make that kind of judgement yet. But, yes, seeing that it is a 2002 film, I am expecting some gaping logic holes and razzle-dazzle eye candy. I'm just hoping that they don't dumb it down too much.
Bruce

 

[Tino]

I dunno Jack. It looks kinda interesting to me, although it still may be horrible. Hard to tell from the ads.
I don't think it's based on Wells' novel is it? In the trailer I saw in the theater, the hologram mentions both the novel and the George Pal film, so who knows? Then again, it is a time travel film, so I suppose anything is possible.
I'm definite;y gong to see it, since I'm a sucker for any Sci-Fi, and I do think it looks entertaining. I just hope it doesn't disappoint.

 

[Bill J]

I was thinking the exact same thing, Jack. The teaser trailer was fine, but the theatrical trailer really discourages me from seeing The Time Machine.

 

[RobertR]

Jack's post piqued my curiosity, so I just viewed the trailer in Quicktime. Based on what I saw, my reaction is not as negative. I actually feel quite neutral about the film. It IS loaded with CGI of course, but I don't particularly object to the portrayal of the Weena character. Pierce looks pretty good in the role, and the basic Morlocks vs. Eloi conflict seems to be there, with an apparent added element of trying to bring back a loved one who died. I'll sit back and evaluate what the consensus is before deciding to see it. If the reaction primarily focuses on the FX ("kewl CGI and good sound"), I'll pass. If there are interesting comments about the STORY, I'll check it out.

Jack, have you seen AI yet?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Oh, the Ai.I. thing--a spear driven into my side! But guess what: I will be seeing that thing soon. And I will definitely find somewhere on this board to comment about it.

Robert, your open-mindedness should serve as an inspiration to me. But, man, what I'm seeing does indeed look like so much eye candy.

 

[cafink]

This upcoming movie (not ready to call it "film")

What on earth does that mean?

 

[RobertR]

I specifically mentioned AI because it is that rarity of rarities--a science fiction film in the age of CGI that, whether you like it or not, is commented on almost entirely in terms of its ideas and its STORY, NOT the FX. We can at least hope that the STORY in The Time Machine gets some interesting comments.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Carl: It's sort of an unspoken distinction made by film buffs--i.e., "film" and "cinema" are the words often used to describe those works that merit serious consideration as art in some way, while "movie" is what the elitist snobs say when referring to popcorn fare. Showin' a little snobbishness there, I was. JB

 

[Tino]

Damn Jack, how long have I been telling you to see A.I? It is, IMO, the best film of 2001. Shame that you missed it in theaters, but please see it soon and report back ASAP. I think you are going to LOVE it.
BTW, I agree completely with your definitions of "films" vs. "movies". There are plently of movies being released, but far too few films.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Tino, Robert: I have that friggin' film on friggin' preorder at friggin' DVD Empire. I will, as soon as the friggin' thing arrives, give it a screenin' and report my findings back to you, the HTF faithful. And that's a friggin' promise! JB

 

[cafink]

So, on what medium are movies stored?

 

[Jack Briggs]

What do you mean, Carl? They're stored on tape, optical disc, etc. BTW, Carl, you going to see The Time Machine?

 

[cafink]

BTW, Carl, you going to see The Time Machine?

Probably, but in my defense, I never have to pay to see movies, so I'm willing to see damn near anything.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Ahh, Carl: I see--you played a fast one on me! Sly one, you. Yes, the medium upon which these things we love are stored is film. Yes, but of course. But the semantical, aesthetic distinction remains nonetheless. Which, since we're off-topic anyway, makes one wonder what we are going to call these things when digital imaging becomes the norm. Now, wouldn't it be nice to have a time machine so's we can find out! JB

 

[Josh_Hill]

I think this flick looks really good and the FX look amazing. Its gonna be interesting to see I think.

 

[Frank Anderson]

Trailers are a horrible way to review a movie. I would not be surprised if someone actually starts doing so one day. I think it would be fair to dislike a movie once you have seen the entire product. To not go see one based on the trailer is appropriate but until you see it opinions of it should wait.

To many times in the past have I thought a trailer sucked and the movie was great. But of course many more times have I seen a rotten movie which had a great trailer. For me, this looks like it might be a good popcorn flick and I look forward to seeing it.

 

[Dave F]

The first trailer presented a movie that was different, but interesting. The latest footage looks like the typical way-too-much-cgi with the typical hero-narrowly-avoids-fakey-looking-cgi-monster/character scene(s). It could end up being a good film, but I'm betting it will be a bad movie.
After 100's or 1000's of movies, I think most of us can spot a turd a mile away. Sure, there are exceptions, but I bet we have a pretty good hit rate.
-Dave

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I posted the following on January 2nd in another Time Machine thread:

I was not impressed by the Time Machine trailer. The action sequences looked like something from The Mummy 3, and the Stargate music is out of left field. Plus the plot seems a whole LOT like the Planet of the Apes remake.
I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, but this one looks pretty weak to me.

Nice to see you guys are coming around to my way of thinking!
I'm kidding of course. The closer this one gets, the more tentatively excited I am to see it. I love big blockbuster flicks, as long as they're not predictable and lazily-written retreads of movies that weren't so hot to begin with. Of course that's not exactly the case here, as I think that the original Time Machine is a fantastic movie, the quality of which makes me a bit "hesitant" to see a remake.
At the very least, it's GOTTA be better than the movies we've all gone to see in the last six weeks!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Most of the 1899 NYC stuff was filmed locally, so I'll probably see it for that... Oh yeah, I love the 1960 version as well.

Probably, but in my defense, I never have to pay to see movies, so I'm willing to see damn near anything.

Even "Freddy Got Fingered"?