What's new

Your choice do you like old or new version of The Time Machine? (1 Viewer)

Robert_V

Agent
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
25
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.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Moving this to Movies and editing the title, since the thread focuses on the movies, not the discs.

M.
 

Travis Olson

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
941
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.
 

Bill J

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
3,970
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.
 

Dennis Pagoulatos

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 3, 1999
Messages
868
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... :D

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


-Dennis
 

Joe Reinwald

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
65
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
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
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
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, 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.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
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". :laugh:
 

Randall Dorr

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
267
I like the new version best.
(clang :D )

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.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
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.
 

Randall Dorr

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
267
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?)
 

Dan Rudolph

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
4,042
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.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
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. :frowning: 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'. :rolleyes

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! :confused: That would have been priority one if it were me!
 

Joseph Tidline

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
568
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,005
Messages
5,128,192
Members
144,228
Latest member
CoolMovies
Recent bookmarks
0
Top