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

[Sean Campbell]

The 1960 version is clearly the best, not exactly true to the novel but still pretty entertaining in it's own right( as was Pal's 'War of the Worlds' ). Rod Taylor was great as the time traveller and it had a pretty good score by Russell Garcia. The time travel sequences were excellent too - far more entertaining than those seen in the recent version. Check out the DVD - it includes a nice mini 'sequel' which brings back Taylor and Alan Young as Filby

As an aside, the late 70s movie 'Time After Time' makes for a great variant of the tale

 

[Benjamin.D]

I prefer the 1960 version over the 2002 remake. They changed the original story from the book (and 1960 movie). I should mention though, that I find the 1960 special effects to be more convincing than the 2002 CGI. CGI, while bing now very advanced, still has the tendency to look like a highly refined bit of animation. It's beautiful, but you can tell that it isn't real. (The special edition 20th anniv. of E.T. demonstrates this) The original Time Machine, used models, near-phtorealistic paintings, and other pre-CGI tricks. Even though it seems dated now, I still think the 1960 pulls the time travel illusion off better.

Just my opinion,

Ben

P.S. Check out the original 1960 Time Machine DVD!!

 

[Scott Weinberg]

The original is wedding cake.

The remake is day-old bread.

 

[Tim Mauldin]

This thread inspired me, I had a Time Machine double-feature the other night. Each film lasts about an hour and a half, so it only took around three hours to watch both.

I like both of them, but prefer the 1960 version. I felt like it did a much better job of telling the story. The special effects were very good too, considering when it was made.

The 2002 version had great effects and visuals, and the changes made to the story weren't that bad either. However, it seemed like this film kind of lost it's steam after Alexander reached the far future. I still enjoyed it though, just not as much as the first one.

Someone mentioned the 70s-80s TV version, I remember that one too. It wasn't half-bad, for a made-for-TV version.

 

[Richard_D_Ramirez]

Hands down, the '60s, Rod Taylor version over the crap that was shown in '00s version. What a waste of Pearce's and Iron's talent. What's happened to poor Jeremy lately? :frowning:

8^B

 

[todd stone]

Admin. note: Begin merger with thread entitled "The Time Machine - Guy Pearce. Why did everyone dislike it?"


I thought it was an enjoyable movie. I watched it for the 1st time on HBO last night and thought it was quite enjoyable and loved the music score.

 

[John Doran]

i didn't dislike it. in fact, i liked it very, very much.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Uh, because it blew?

 

[BrentPollard]

Ouote:
Uh, because it blew?

I love that review style, short and to the point.

 

[Kwang Suh]

I thought the "monsters" looked pretty cute. Definately not threatening.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Because it took the book and tossed it in the trash bin? Because the one thing from the book that did stay constant was horrifically and needlessly altered, and the few new things that were interesting were left behind in a mere matter of seconds?

If HG Wells were still alive, he would have disowned his grandson over that film(Grandson directed it)

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I think the main reason I didn't care for it was because it was inferior to the wonderful 1960 George Pal production, which is a first class film in every way. The remake is a pleasant time waster; at least it isn't boring.

 

[todd stone]

did you all like GUY PEARCE in it?

 

[Joel C]

I think both are inferior to the book, and I like watching the 2002 version more. It was entertaining, which was what I was looking for the night I watched it. The Pal version reminded me of an episode of classic Trek.

 

[John Doran]

i love both movies as movies - i couldn't care less how each relates to the book.

however, since the source material has been referenced, it should be noted that wells wrote the story as a commentary on the social issues of his time - and the concerns of the late 19th century are quite different from those of the dawn of the 21st.

so. take the book (and original george pal version) as a work of socio-political commentary, and it makes less sense to preserve the details of the text than it does to alter them to reflect the anxieties of modern man. which, interestingly enough, need be neither particularly social nor political...

anyway, most importantly to me, both movies succeed in moving me. and isn't that the point?

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Four things about any of the Time Machine movies (and possibly the book too, I haven't read it yet):

In the course of 800,000 years.....

A): Why did the morlocks(bad guys) evolve into beast men while the Eloy(good guys) didn't evolve at all? not even six fingers or telekinetic powers.

B): How did English, a 500 year old language that is constantly changing manage to remain in use and unchanged for 799,500 years.

C): What powers the archives? (holographic librarian or spinny rings).

D): During the fast-forwarding of history, don't you think its odd that no-one ever happened to step into the exact spot that the time machine occupied?

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

C'mon, that's not even close! The original version is a lot better.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I concur with liking the '60s version and was somewhat disappointed with the recent remake. The '60s version has a certain charm and I love the scene where the time traveler tests the miniature machine with the cigar. As for it being true to the book, what movie ever is? Without Jack Nicholson, the Stanly Kubrik version of "The Shining" would have been a total failure IMHO, since it was lacking a lot of what made the book so frightening. I found the Morloks in the original '60s version to be better depicted despite the blue painted skin and blonde wigs. To be truthfull, I am finding all these CGI rendered monsters a bit tedious. There are exceptions though, like the Nazgul and Gollum in LOTR. Besides, a very young Yvette Mimieux really made the picture, for me anyway. The DVD is excellent too and can be had pretty cheap nowadays.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I couldn't even get through the trailer for the new version. It looked absolutely terrible, so I guess my vote goes for the original 60's version that I grew up with and still love.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Well, I prefer Time After Time...but maybe that's just me. Time Bandits is also better than either of them.
Seriously though, the 1960s version is the least offensive of the two. It isn't great, but it is better than the Guy Pearce parties with the natives remake.