Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Mike Click, Feb 17, 2003.
I like the 1960 Version with Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimeux. Which version do you like, optional why?
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.
Moving this to Movies and editing the title, since the thread focuses on the movies, not the discs. M.
I also prefer the 1960 version. The 2002 version is good for what it is, but the old one had better storytelling, I thought.
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.
Guess I'll join the group............... I vote the 1960 version............
I like the 1970's version with that actress that played "Terry" on Three's Company in the Samantha Mumba role... Actually, I prefer the 1960 film, but even the 70's version kicks the ass of last years... -Dennis
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
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
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.
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".
I like the new version best. (clang ) 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.
I like the 1960s version. The DVD is pretty good for 1 disc, too.
1960s version. The new one just seems to fall short for me. -Dan
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.
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. 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'. 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! That would have been priority one if it were me!
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.