Your choice do you like old or new version of The Time Machine?

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Mike Click, Feb 17, 2003.

  1. Mike Click

    Mike Click Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the 1960 Version with Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimeux. Which version do you like, optional why?
     
  2. Robert_V

    Robert_V Agent

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original version of the Time Machine is a much better quality film.

    Not only for the directrial aspect of the film, but the screenplay and overall presentation of H.G. Wells concept.

    The "remake" is a pure attempt at bringing the Wells novel to life.
     
  3. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,769
    Likes Received:
    2
    Moving this to Movies and editing the title, since the thread focuses on the movies, not the discs.

    M.
     
  4. Travis Olson

    Travis Olson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Travis Olson
    I also prefer the 1960 version. The 2002 version is good for what it is, but the old one had better storytelling, I thought.
     
  5. Bill J

    Bill J Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't seen the 1960 version for a very long time, but I would have to favor it over the 2002 version. I was very displeased with the newer version because it ignored the world's evolution from the 1890s to 800,000 years later. It seemed to focus too much on the Morlocks and not enough on the events that occur in between (like war and exploration). I was fascinated by the whole concept of the moon drilling operation, followed by its explosion, but that aspect appeared to be down-played significantly.

    If I recall correctly, the 1960 version developed these concepts more clearly.
     
  6. Tom Blizzard

    Tom Blizzard Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 1999
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guess I'll join the group...............
    I vote the 1960 version............[​IMG]
     
  7. Dennis Pagoulatos

    Dennis Pagoulatos Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    Real Name:
    Dennis
    I like the 1970's version with that actress that played "Terry" on Three's Company in the Samantha Mumba role... [​IMG]

    Actually, I prefer the 1960 film, but even the 70's version kicks the ass of last years...


    -Dennis
     
  8. Joe Reinwald

    Joe Reinwald Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    I, too, prefer the 1960 version. The newer one was a big disappointent to me, except for the actual time travel scenes. Watching the vines grow, the landscapes change--those almost made the movie worth watching!

    -Joe
     
  9. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't seen the 60s version

    The 2002 version is totally blasphemous. HG Wells is spinning in his grave faster than those lenses knowing his grandson blasphemed so badly

    Unneccessary wholesale alterations
     
  10. Steve Christou

    Steve Christou Long Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2000
    Messages:
    15,535
    Likes Received:
    325
    Location:
    London, England
    Real Name:
    Steve Christou
    The classic 1960 version easily. I thought nearly everyone was miscast in the 2002 version, Jeremy Irons appears for 10mins as a SuperMorlock looking like an albino David Bowie. Best thing about the new version is the music by Klaus Badelt, which has similarities to Jerry Goldsmith's score for The Edge.
     
  11. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,588
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this just some sort of trap to catch the few "bad taste" HTFers around here? I can almost hear the cage door closing on the first sucker that says "I like the new version best". [​IMG]
     
  12. Randall Dorr

    Randall Dorr Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2000
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the new version best.
    (clang [​IMG] )

    Having actually read Wells's novel, I can say that both version are abominations of his tale, but the 1960's one I find to be much more offensive.

    1) Names: Wells's protagonist didn't have a name: He was simply referred to as the Time Traveler. The Time Machine is a first person narrative, but not from the Traveler's point of view. Presuming that the story is true, Wells is an anonymous narrator who, along with several other persons, has dinner with his friend(the Traveler), who relates his adventures building and using a time machine. At the end of the novel, the Traveler uses his machine again, while the narrator waits in vain for his friend's return. Wells gave the reader a "this could have happened" feeling. He tells a story that he does not claim to be true, but he faithfully reports everything that was told to him by his "friend". In the 60's film he is idiotically called H.G. Wells, as though it was Wells who traveled through time, etc. Both film adaptations dispensed with the "story told to me" thing, but the new version at least had the presence of mind to give the Traveler and outside name (Alexander Hartdegen).

    2) Reaction to the Future: In the book, when he finally finds himself 800,000 years in the future, he doesn't dream of going back immediately. He's a man of science, he is there to learn, to see what the world is like in this far flung future. It's only after the machine goes missing that he begins to panic. In the Pal film, he decides that he wants to return home, why? Because he's annoyed by the fact that Eloi have no laws, government, or written language. (But how convenient that they still speak English.) He can't stand that fact that people no longer behave the way they did in Victorian England. (though really 1950s America.)

    As a fan of the Wells novel, I can't recommend either version, but the new version seems to declare itself an adventure film. It isn't trying to say "Here's a screen version of the novel". It takes the main story and does it's own thing.
     
  13. Rob T

    Rob T Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the 1960s version.
    The DVD is pretty good for 1 disc, too. [​IMG]
     
  14. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,690
    Likes Received:
    159
     
  15. Dan Brodin

    Dan Brodin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2000
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    1960s version.

    The new one just seems to fall short for me.

    -Dan
     
  16. Randall Dorr

    Randall Dorr Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2000
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,690
    Likes Received:
    159
     
  18. Dan Rudolph

    Dan Rudolph Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone seen the wishbone version? They changed the ending with no mention of the Eloi and Morlocks being human. Without that, the story has no point. I'd recommend that anyone who liked the original story also read Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships. It's perhaps the best unauthorized sequel to anything I've ever seen.
     
  19. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,067
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    I'll take George Pal's version any day of the week and twice on Sunday! I was so eagerly awaiting the new version last year, well with HG Well' great grandson directing and all, but when I saw it I was both disappointed and sad, this could have been so much more than what it was. [​IMG] The only two things about the new one I liked were the machine's new design, and the Morlocks, they just seemed scarier running and leaping like that. Except Jeremy Irons ridiculous 'Morlock leader'. [​IMG]

    I'm in agreement about Rod Taylor's reaction to the future, he was very curious and almost child-like enthusiastic about being their. I also understand his anger at the Eloi when he saw the state of the books and their apparent lack of interest in the worlds history, I mean to him history is very important, and the Eloi don't give a second thought to hundreds of thousands of years of wars, struggles, and achievements, I would have been pretty pissed off too I think.

    That's another thing I disliked with a passion about the new film, Guy Pierce seemed to give a rats ass about where he was or the Eloi's history, he wasn't even concerned about the whereabouts of his machine at first! [​IMG] That would have been priority one if it were me!
     
  20. Joseph Tidline

    Joseph Tidline Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will also agree with the majority and say that the 1960's version was much better than the remake. I had never seen the original until I saw the trailer for the new version. So, like I do with all remakes, I decided to watch the original first and found that I liked it very much. Then I saw the new version and was disgusted with it. Like someone else has already mentioned, I liked how in the original they dealt with wars and how he met a relative of his friend.
     

Share This Page