Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

*** Official "THE TIME MACHINE" Discussion Thread


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 of 97 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 05:20 AM

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.

#2 of 97 OFFLINE   Bruce Hedtke

Bruce Hedtke

    Screenwriter



  • 2,249 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 05:30 AM

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
The Mads are calling

#3 of 97 OFFLINE   Tino

Tino

    Producer



  • 5,625 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999
  • Real Name:Valentino
  • LocationMetro NYC

Posted February 23 2002 - 05:31 AM

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.Posted Image
It's gonna be a hell of a ride. I'm ready. .

#4 of 97 OFFLINE   Bill J

Bill J

    Producer



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

Posted February 23 2002 - 05:32 AM

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.

#5 of 97 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,539 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:03 AM

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?

#6 of 97 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:07 AM

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.

#7 of 97 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,043 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:14 AM

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

What on earth does that mean?
 

 


#8 of 97 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,539 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:22 AM

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.

#9 of 97 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:22 AM

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

#10 of 97 OFFLINE   Tino

Tino

    Producer



  • 5,625 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999
  • Real Name:Valentino
  • LocationMetro NYC

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:34 AM

Damn Jack, how long have I been telling you to see A.I?Posted Image 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.Posted Image
It's gonna be a hell of a ride. I'm ready. .

#11 of 97 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 06:53 AM

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 Posted Image

#12 of 97 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,043 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 07:03 AM

So, on what medium are movies stored?
 

 


#13 of 97 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 07:08 AM

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

#14 of 97 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,043 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 07:48 AM

Quote:
They're stored on tape, optical disc, etc.

But not on film?

Quote:
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. Posted Image
 

 


#15 of 97 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 07:51 AM

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

#16 of 97 OFFLINE   Josh_Hill

Josh_Hill

    Screenwriter



  • 1,051 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted February 23 2002 - 08:40 AM

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

#17 of 97 OFFLINE   Frank Anderson

Frank Anderson

    Screenwriter



  • 2,670 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 07 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 10:24 AM

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.


#18 of 97 OFFLINE   Dave F

Dave F

    Screenwriter



  • 2,891 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 1999

Posted February 23 2002 - 10:59 AM

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. Posted Image

-Dave
DVD List

#19 of 97 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor



  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted February 23 2002 - 12:19 PM

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

Quote:
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! Posted Image

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! Posted Image


#20 of 97 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 14,396 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted February 23 2002 - 03:13 PM

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.

Quote:
Probably, but in my defense, I never have to pay to see movies, so I'm willing to see damn near anything. Posted Image
Even "Freddy Got Fingered"?Posted Image


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow