-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
46 replies to this topic

#1 of 47 OFFLINE   Mike Click

Mike Click

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 93 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 31 2003

Posted February 17 2003 - 03:54 AM

I like the 1960 Version with Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimeux. Which version do you like, optional why?

#2 of 47 OFFLINE   Robert_V

Robert_V

    Agent

  • 25 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted February 17 2003 - 05:22 AM

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 of 47 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 05:25 AM

Moving this to Movies and editing the title, since the thread focuses on the movies, not the discs.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#4 of 47 OFFLINE   Travis Olson

Travis Olson

    Supporting Actor

  • 936 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 07 2001

Posted February 17 2003 - 05:32 AM

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 of 47 OFFLINE   Bill J

Bill J

    Producer

  • 3,970 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2001

Posted February 17 2003 - 07:13 AM

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 of 47 OFFLINE   Tom Blizzard

Tom Blizzard

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 06 1999

Posted February 17 2003 - 07:46 AM

Guess I'll join the group...............
I vote the 1960 version............Posted Image
Still A LD and Vinyl FAN !!

#7 of 47 OFFLINE   Dennis Pagoulatos

Dennis Pagoulatos

    Supporting Actor

  • 867 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 1999

Posted February 17 2003 - 07:48 AM

I like the 1970's version with that actress that played "Terry" on Three's Company in the Samantha Mumba role... Posted Image

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


-Dennis
He must have died while carving it!...

#8 of 47 OFFLINE   Joe Reinwald

Joe Reinwald

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 65 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2002

Posted February 17 2003 - 08:22 AM

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 of 47 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted February 17 2003 - 08:52 AM

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 of 47 OFFLINE   Steve Christou

Steve Christou

    Executive Producer

  • 14,347 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2000
  • Real Name:Steve Christou
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted February 17 2003 - 11:53 AM

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.

Dave hören... auf, wille stoppen sie Dave... stoppen sie Dave... Mein gehirn geht... Ich bin gefühl es... Ich bin gefühl es... Ich bin ängstlich Dave... Guter Nachmittag. Ich bin ein HAL 9000 computer. Ich wurde funktionsfähig am HAL-Betrieb in Urbana, Illinois auf January 12 1992.


Lord of the Hubs


#11 of 47 OFFLINE   Seth Paxton

Seth Paxton

    Lead Actor

  • 7,588 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 12:38 PM

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". Posted Image

#12 of 47 OFFLINE   Randall Dorr

Randall Dorr

    Second Unit

  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2000

Posted February 17 2003 - 02:42 PM

I like the new version best.
(clang Posted Image )

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.
8 Ball gave it a 9:
Yo, Martin and Will are my boys, you know what I'm saying? They make jokes I understand. The car chase is dope! I give it a 9 but I'm still 8 Ball.
-user review of Bad Boys II from Metacritic.com

guzzlefish

#13 of 47 OFFLINE   Rob T

Rob T

    Screenwriter

  • 1,991 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 26 2001

Posted February 17 2003 - 02:48 PM

I like the 1960s version.
The DVD is pretty good for 1 disc, too. Posted Image

#14 of 47 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,510 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 03:12 PM

Quote:
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.


But that's exactly how the character in the Pal version behaves initially. He wants very much to learn, to "see what the world is like in this far flung future". Recall how eagerly he tries to read the books in the library, to ask questions of the Eloi, to listen to the talking rings. It's only after he realizes that the Eloi are so oblivious to everything that he becomes disgusted.

#15 of 47 OFFLINE   Dan Brodin

Dan Brodin

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 141 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 28 2000

Posted February 17 2003 - 03:42 PM

1960s version.

The new one just seems to fall short for me.

-Dan

#16 of 47 OFFLINE   Randall Dorr

Randall Dorr

    Second Unit

  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2000

Posted February 17 2003 - 04:40 PM

Quote:
It's only after he realizes that the Eloi are so oblivious to everything that he becomes disgusted.

But a real scientist would NEVER get disgusted. (Or at least not so disgusted that he would voluntarily leave.) He has created the greatest invention in the history of humanity, and he decides to throw away the fruits of that invention just because they don't meet his expectations. (What colossal fool. How can someone that stupid even dress themself in the morning, let alone build a time machine?)
8 Ball gave it a 9:
Yo, Martin and Will are my boys, you know what I'm saying? They make jokes I understand. The car chase is dope! I give it a 9 but I'm still 8 Ball.
-user review of Bad Boys II from Metacritic.com

guzzlefish

#17 of 47 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,510 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 05:02 PM

Quote:
a real scientist would NEVER get disgusted.


Well, since people get disgusted, and since scientists are people.... Posted Image

#18 of 47 OFFLINE   Dan Rudolph

Dan Rudolph

    Producer

  • 4,042 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2002

Posted February 17 2003 - 08:47 PM

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.
My Collection

#19 of 47 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted February 17 2003 - 10:50 PM

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. Posted Image 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'. Posted Image

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! Posted Image That would have been priority one if it were me!
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#20 of 47 OFFLINE   Joseph Tidline

Joseph Tidline

    Supporting Actor

  • 568 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2003

Posted February 18 2003 - 09:51 AM

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.
"Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try." - Yoda





Forum Nav Content I Follow