The Time Machine - 2002 movie

[JD]

I just watched this for the first time since seeing in theaters back when it first came out, and I thought it was pretty good. It did make some pretty significant changes to the story, but I think a lot of them helped to fit modern story telling styles a bit more. I liked that they gave the Time Traveler, in this story named Alexander Hardegen, a deeper backstory and motivation, with him wanting to master time travel so he can bring back his dead fiance. I also liked the fact that they made the Eloi a bit more intelligent and actually able to speak, it was a nice way to get a better feel for their culture. I did think it was an interesting to choice make all of the non-white, while the main bad guy is a super pale white guy. The super pale white guy is one change that did feel a bit unnecessary to me, although I can see wanting to give the movie a real bad guy for Hardegen to have a big confrontation and fight with.

 

[Greg Cox]

I remember it being not bad, but I still prefer the 1960s version.

 

[Mudd]

I've seen bits and pieces of it and thought it was rather ingenuous.

 

[Gaith]

Relevant, interesting vid:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The visual of the broken moon was the thing that I thought was most interesting about it. I enjoyed the 1960s version more.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I liked it when it came out. I like it gave the time traveler more of a reason to save the Eloi and showed they were able to actually function as a society instead of farm animals. The holographic librarian was a nice addition too, he even had a little arc.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm not sure if I never knew this existed or I just forgot about it. It seems like there are some unnecessary embellishments (such as the dead fiancee and the arch nemesis) and some diluting rethinking (such as making the Eloi more self sufficient, yet still passive) that compromise the essence of the story.

 

[Tosk]

I like the novel, I like the original movie and I like the remake. All for different reasons.

 

[RandyS]

I enjoyed the novel and loved the Rod Taylor 1960 version. I liked 2002 also, but the only thing about it that stands out for me is the soundtrack. Take the 1960 version, edit in Klaus Bradelt's music form 2002, and now you've got a great movie.

Although I liked the 1960 soundtrack also and own the CD's to both. Considering how often listen to them, it's a wonder they haven't worn out by now.

Anybody ever see the 1978 made for TV version? It had Priscilla Barnes (Three's Company) playing Weena. I have a DVD-R copy and don't re-watch it as often as the two better known versions but still consider it a forgotten gem of science fiction films.

 

[Forbin]

I like it up until it fell apart in the last act - the two most intelligent men on the planet resolve the plot with a physical fight? Suddenly it was just like every other movie.

 

[Christopher]

Anybody ever see the 1978 made for TV version? It had Priscilla Barnes (Three's Company) playing Weena. I have a DVD-R copy and don't re-watch it as often as the two better known versions but still consider it a forgotten gem of science fiction films.

I remember seeing it once or twice. My memory is that it's pretty typical '70s sci-fi backdoor-pilot cheese. It's the earliest thing in which I remember seeing John Beck (whose other main credit I'm aware of is the voice of the Punisher on the '90's Spider-Man animated series). Otherwise, I mainly remember its triangular design for the Time Machine.

 

[Greg Cox]

Anybody ever see the 1978 made for TV version? It had Priscilla Barnes (Three's Company) playing Weena. I have a DVD-R copy and don't re-watch it as often as the two better known versions but still consider it a forgotten gem of science fiction films.

I remember being underwhelmed at the time, mostly because I missed the lush Victorian look and feel of the 1960 movie (which we would now call "steampunk"). Updating the story with modern-looking computers and hardware ruined it for me.

That being said, I recall debating this point with a college friend who had exactly the opposite response: He felt that modern tech made the 1978 movie more "realistic" and "believable"--as opposed to all the ridiculous old-timey stuff in the 1960s movie, which he saw as a flaw. He liked his SF shiny and futuristic, I guess, not quaintly nostalgic.

I was flabbergasted at the time. How could he see all that gorgeous Victoriana as a drawback? Possibly one of my first experiences in discovering that two fans could see the same movie in completely different ways.

 

[Starbreaker]

I really liked the movie as a teenager. I had the DVD and watched it several times. I'm not sure if it's really a good film or not. It hasn't made a lasting impression.

 

[Redfern]

While admittedly VERY different from Wells' novel, I've loved the George Pal version ever since I first saw it. To be honest, I can't say when, but most likely on TBS shortly after Ted Turner obtained the films of MGM. If I find it listed, usually on Turner Classic Movies, I'll park the "clicker" there and kick back to relish.

If asked to describe it, I want to call it a "gentle" production, but I realize that's not accurate. I mean, we see the blitz of London, an atomic bombing in 1966 that, in turn, triggers volcanic activity (which probably killed Jamie Filby and the others in the bomb shelters). There's the near drowning of Weena, the discovery that the Morlocks are cannibalistic, the on screen immolation of a Morlock and later the rapid rotting of one as George accidentally nudges the machine's control lever forward. And yet, those dynamics events are offset by the warm and caring discussions between George and his understandably concerned friend Filby.

Which makes me wonder why I've never gotten around to purchasing a particular DVD package. In this set there is a short scene recorded decades later, both in real life and maybe 15 years after the events of the movie. Both Rod Taylor and Alan Young reprise their roles with George returning to his home where (and when) Filby happens to be. As of yet, I don't know what transpires because my (admittedly "modest") searches online have not found the "follow-up" Turner (the company) likely has it yanked as soon as someone uploads it.

The point being, I find it "comforting", like a favorite quilt or a homemade savory stew. It probably comes from Rod Taylor's performance.

The image I've poste was one I was composing the week Rod Taylor died. TCM changed its schedule to air "The Time Machine" in tribute. Learning of his passing gave me the drive to complete the piece. (To clarify, I mainly staged and illuminated the composition. A digital creator named Morpheus made the machine and the basic lab.)

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I skimmed through The Time Machine 78 on Youtube just out of curiousity and I have to say I love that it stars an mustachioed ersatz Stacy Keach type in a brown suit, so very 70s as, of course, Priscilla Barnes. The time machine in that one is definitely one of the least fanciful ones done on screen whether by budget or intent. I don't know that I'd keep it but I've always wished I could grow one of those 70s staches but, probably for the better, genetics won't allow it.

 

[Christopher]

Greg, you used the wrong quote tag and attributed RandyS's post to me by mistake.

 

[Aragorn]

I saw this in theaters. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. It was just kind there. An average movie. Back when Guy Pearce was still getting lead roles in big studio movies.

All the different ways they killed his fiancee came across as funny rather than tragic.

 

[RandyS]

Greg, you used the wrong quote tag and attributed RandyS's post to me by mistake.

Eh, no harm done.

The 1960 version is notable to me for another reason. I first saw it on a Saturday afternoon movie on what is now our local FOX station. This was early September 1987. When the movie was stopped at the point where George crosses the street to meet with Filby Jr, for a commerical break the first commerical was introducing a "future" program about to debut and the announcer said: "A new series is coming to television, a new legend is about to be born. A special world premier event, Star Trek: The Next Generation. Coming Monday September 28th at 8 on TV40". That was the first indication to me that we were getting TNG after hearing about the show for a year and wondering what day and time it would be on in our area.

 

[JD]

I liked it when it came out. I like it gave the time traveler more of a reason to save the Eloi and showed they were able to actually function as a society instead of farm animals. The holographic librarian was a nice addition too, he even had a little arc.

I was a little more with Orlando Jone's AI Librarian, he was pretty cool.

I like it up until it fell apart in the last act - the two most intelligent men on the planet resolve the plot with a physical fight? Suddenly it was just like every other movie.

Yeah, that was my biggest problem too, it just felt completely unnecessary, like somebody decided to randomly throw it in there so Hardegen could have a big fight scene at the end.
One thing I was kind of curious about that they never explained, was what exactly the Morlocks were working on underground.

 

[Galileo7]

I remember being underwhelmed at the time, mostly because I missed the lush Victorian look and feel of the 1960 movie (which we would now call "steampunk"). Updating the story with modern-looking computers and hardware ruined it for me.

That being said, I recall debating this point with a college friend who had exactly the opposite response: He felt that modern tech made the 1978 movie more "realistic" and "believable"--as opposed to all the ridiculous old-timey stuff in the 1960s movie, which he saw as a flaw. He liked his SF shiny and futuristic, I guess, not quaintly nostalgic.

I was flabbergasted at the time. How could he see all that gorgeous Victoriana as a drawback? Possibly one of my first experiences in discovering that two fans could see the same movie in completely different ways.

I liked the 1978 Time Machine because it was just a simplified '70s version of the 1960 design:
https://colemanzone.com/images(3)/1978 TimeMachine/TimeMachine1978(6).jpg
https://colemanzone.com/Time_Machine_Project/Time Machine 1978/Time Machine 1978.htm
Unlike the 1960 or 2002 version, I think this 1978 prop could be built easily.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies