The Time Machine! - The Geek Culture Forums

The Geek Culture Forums

Reviews

The Time Machine!

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: The Time Machine!
Evilbunny Highlie Posts: 620 From: A Calculus book near you... Registered: Nov 2001	posted March 13, 2002 20:31 So, I just saw it tonight. Pretty good, although much more gruesome that the original! IP: Logged
iballoondesign Alpha Geek Posts: 286 From: Midland, TX Registered: Dec 2001	posted March 13, 2002 20:38 I'll wait for movie come ou in the store on late Fall, I think. Cuz there is no subtitle offer accord to http://www.tripod.org IP: Logged
DigitalBill Alpha Geek Posts: 255 From: The TiBook(!), on the wireless LAN, to the BaseStation, through the router, nothin' but Net! (around South Florida) Registered: Jan 2001	posted March 13, 2002 20:52 OK... Just saw it... No spoilers here: Running time: 96 minutes... plot time: about 10 minutes. The first thing my geeky friend & I said to each other was "90 minutes... shoulda been longer, but then they'd have had to actually write a plot!" Oh sure: tortured-brooding-waifish-scientist-boy loses girl, builds (ahem, steam-powered) time machine, meets cute hyper-evolved girl, with great effects, cool creatures, etc... but where's the frelling plot, I ask you? Orlando Jones is fun as the photonic information system... watch for the Star Trek joke! Watchable, cable-ready, not DVD-worthy. =bd IMHO IP: Logged
Hikaru Geek Posts: 63 From: AppleDale, USA Registered: Feb 2002	posted March 14, 2002 00:07 possible spoilage i saw it, I saw the two previous, I love them all, I love the setup for the great disaster too, im sorry but I loved it, although it was too short, shoulda been 2 hours and he shoulda returned to the past at least once, to have dinner like the book, as well as went to the time when the big butterfly was there ------------------ END OF LINE _ IP: Logged
Super Flippy Geek Posts: 79 From: South Carolina Registered: Jan 2002	posted March 14, 2002 08:49 My main question is, does it violate any major laws of physics? You see, my SO is a physicist with ADD. He loves sci-fi, but hates sitting through movies that are boring or violate the laws of physics while pretending to be scientifically accurate(e.g. Red Planet, Hollow Man, the last Bond film). The Time Machine's 90 min. running time is a big plus. If the science isn't pretending to be real, maybe I can convince him to go see it. IP: Logged
EngrBohn Highlie Posts: 687 From: United States Registered: Jul 2000	posted March 14, 2002 08:59 Well, the whole issue of time-travel may or may not violate any laws of physics, but that aside... MINOR SPOILAGE... The most glaring plausibility issues (once you suspend disbelief) is that after 800K years, i) The English language is still taught ("out of tradition") with perfect pronounciation. ii) After 800K years, I'll believe that signs made from metal castings would endure, but stone engravings surely would've suffered wear. Especially given glacial action. For that matter, after the glacial action, why would signs from New York even still be in the New York area? ------------------ cb Oooh! What does this button do!? IP: Logged
iballoondesign Alpha Geek Posts: 286 From: Midland, TX Registered: Dec 2001	posted March 14, 2002 13:09 quote: Originally posted by Hikaru: he shoulda returned to the past at least once It's impossible to travel in the past. IP: Logged
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth! Posts: 1133 From: Milton, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2001	posted March 14, 2002 14:28 I know people who still live in the past...........Z IP: Logged
macadddikt18 SuperBlabberMouth! Posts: 1153 From: In a world beyond your understanding Registered: Jan 2002	posted March 14, 2002 18:14 If you want to travel to the past, look no further than your mind. if you want to travel to the future first look to physics, who says it is possible, then look to the scientist who say," yeah, it's possible. but we don't know how to do it" then look to your imagination. Nayt ------------------ c:/dos c:/dos/run run/dos/run IP: Logged
Angry Rooster Assimilated Posts: 376 From: Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA Registered: Apr 2001	posted March 14, 2002 22:14 quote: Originally posted by iballoondesign: It's impossible to travel in the past. Not according to the book, which I wish this movie was actually made from, rather than trying to add to it... (For example, in the book he had no reason to build the machine, except to build it, to prove that time could be travelled through as a 4th dimension, in the movie I get the impression from the previews that he builds it to try to change history[presumably to keep his lady from dying?]) ------------------ --Angry Rooster "Eagles may soar, but roosters don't get sucked into jet engines." IP: Logged
EngrBohn Highlie Posts: 687 From: United States Registered: Jul 2000	posted March 15, 2002 05:18 Yes, that's exactly why he invents his time machine. When, after one try, he fails to prevent her death, he decides to travel into the future to find out why he can't change the past. ------------------ cb Oooh! What does this button do!? IP: Logged
platypus Super Geek Posts: 199 From: Provo, UT Registered: Nov 2001	posted March 15, 2002 07:13 quote: Originally posted by Evilbunny: So, I just saw it tonight. Pretty good, although much more gruesome that the original! The original movie? or the original book? I admit not haveing read the Time Machine, but this is the man who wrote THe Isle of Doctor Moreau, which is pretty damn grusome. Remember this was written in the 19th century (ok, the end of it). Take it for it's context. (that last bit doesn't complain to Evilbunny, but the everyone else complaining about "steam powered" time machines. I mean, hell, we accept the Tubes phenom. in AY2K.....) ------------------ pages: www.thelemur.net www.saintehlers.com www.squishbox.org IP: Logged
iballoondesign Alpha Geek Posts: 286 From: Midland, TX Registered: Dec 2001	posted March 15, 2002 20:56 suppose it's better than Back to the Future? IP: Logged
EngrBohn Highlie Posts: 687 From: United States Registered: Jul 2000	posted March 16, 2002 02:11 Certainly better than Back to the Future Part II, at least. ------------------ cb Oooh! What does this button do!? IP: Logged
feldspar Geek Larva Posts: 29 From: Washington, DC Registered: Jan 2002	posted March 16, 2002 20:09 I think I've seen as much of this movie as I need to just in the TV ads. My question is, Is this a film in which the visual effects have dictated the story, rather than the other way around? ------------------ feldspar. IP: Logged
EngrBohn Highlie Posts: 687 From: United States Registered: Jul 2000	posted March 17, 2002 02:10 No, the cool special effects are a very small part of the film. There are only four cases where the FX were key. First, during his first trip forward, the end of the "fast-forward-through-time" effect told us that he had travelled ahead of 2002, and it gave us just a little information that the hero would soon learn by watching a giant TV. So that wasn't central to the story. The second was the "fast-forward-through-time" effect as he raced into the distant future -- again, not central to the story, since it could've been conveyed just by focusing on the chronometer (nitpick: if he was only planning to travel a few years into the past, and maybe a little way into the future, why did the machine's year-counter have that many digits?). Third was the manner in which the prime Morlock met his doom, and wanting this effect might have dictated that the hero and the bad guy would have to fight to the death, but I don't consider it an over-use of effects. The fourth was the manner in which the remaining Morlocks (in that particular batch) died (this was shown in the trailers), but since this was part of an explaining of why he never returns to his own time (which was part of the original story, after his return for "a few things" -- sadly, and unnecessarily omitted), it didn't dictate the story. ------------------ cb Oooh! What does this button do!? IP: Logged
Oldguy geek Alpha Geek Posts: 306 From: Blacksburg, Va., USA Registered: Nov 2000	posted March 19, 2002 10:08 Just saw it over the weekend, and it was OK, not as good as the first movie version, but not horrible. I really liked the time machine itself. It seemed very appropriate in look and design aesthetic for the late 19th/early 20th century time period of its construction. This was the best looking machine of all 3 movie versions. IP: Logged
aloysius Newbie Posts: 7 From: Oz Registered: Mar 2002	posted March 28, 2002 13:57 Haven't seen it yet, but I hope it comes up to another time machine clone movie of a few years back, called "Time after Time" which joins the time machine & the Jack the Ripper plots into an interesting melange of past & present. ----------------------------------------------- That thumping noise in the distance is HGWells rolling in his grave. IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

� 2002 Geek Culture� All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e