My new favorite movie. Period. I am a huge fan of the original book and film..... and the way they did this one was outstanding.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, many people would disagree with you. The critics haven't been too kind. *shrug* Haven't made a point of going to see it myself, though.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
yeah, every review by every movie critic i respect has torn the movie apart, but hey, you're allowed your own opinion.
--jacob
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Speaking of critics, I generally do not go along with them. It seems like the movies they like, i find terribly boring. I thought the Time Machine was ok. I thought the book was hell of a lot better.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
that is why i said "critics i respect". are the boring movies you are talking about the movies that are generally called "art movies"? in my opinion, these are basically the only movies worth seeing, anymore.
--jacob
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
I am talking about movies like the Cider House Rules, boys dont cry, and a few others i cannot remember. They were boring as hell. That is just my opinion anyways.
Posted by Ultra Taco Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Hrmm.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
*JoeySpeak* "No, that's not OK! You're dead inside!!"
Posted by Flower Man (Member # 780) on :
Well. I'm planning on going to see The Time Machine tomarrow. Hopefully I might be able to add to this conversation a little bit when I get back.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
tomarrow! tomarrow!
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Yes, let us all to marrow. We all owe it so much. It being in our bones and all.
Milk for the masses, I say.
Posted by Flower Man (Member # 780) on :
Most of this crap is spoilers so....well it's primarily spoilers. Discontinue reading this post if you don't want to be spoiled!
Well. This movie was interesting. Unfortunately, I've noticed that it suffered from a little Battlefield Earth Syndrome. (B.E.S. for short) Symptoms include mechanical hardware continuing to be functional even after going thousands of years without repair or maintenance. In this case, it was a highly advanced computer A.I./hologram system from the 2030s found to still be functioning some time in the 800,000s And English is apparently still a spoken language in the 800,000s, but just barely.
The Powers That Be did throw in a few amusing bits here and there, like in one scene H.G. Wells' novel The Time Machine was given a quick, but definitely noticeable mention. And I've also caught the fact that everyone in the distant future has the same or similar Hawaiian skin color. This is something I have heard will happen eventually as more and more interracial breeding takes place. Someone should tell the KKK that they are fighting a losing war.
The special effects were cool, but they could have taken more time to explain more fully some aspects of the story. After watching it, I felt like the story was incomplete in all honesty. I probably should read the book. In all honesty the fact that I never read the book kept nagging me throughout the movie.
If you are not planning on watching it and yet, you are curious about why the moon was breaking apart in the previews, I'll tell you. It really is quite a sad story.
Apparently, when a construction company needed to excavate a foundation for a new lunar colony, the construction company, in all it's infinite idiocy, decided to detonate a bunch of nukes, each about 20 megatons if I remember correctly, to accomplish this. This knocked the moon off a stable orbit and sent it hurtling closer and closer to Earth until the moon splits in to two pieces. About 65% of the moon collided with Earth while the other 35% managed to get into another stable orbit along with billions of smaller moon fragments. By the 800,000s the Earth has a ring kind of like the Ba'ku planet only much less orderly.
There's my $5.50 worth of spoilers.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I am a huge fan of the original book..."
And hat book would that be? From the plot summaries I've seen, I don't know of any book off of which this movie could have been based...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
*scratches head*
And surely, Battlefield Earth Syndrome causes bleeding from all orifaces and rapid cellular decay, as opposed to just questionable technological survivability?
Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
Did anyone alse notice the Star Trek TOS door swoosh sound when the hologram went away in the museum?
Posted by Flower Man (Member # 780) on :
Oh yeah! hehehehe. I giggled at that when it happened.
[ March 18, 2002, 07:22: Message edited by: Flower Man ]
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I wonder if there are any Trekie Colonies out in that Earth. That was funny especially just before the door swoosh the hologram made the Live Long and Prosper sign to Guy Pierce. Anyway, the book was better and more depressing than this movie version. I'm kind of a little miffed that the theatre area with the salvaged signs from New York City didn't show that much age. I guess having Samantha Mumba running around barely dressed is suppose to hide that.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I lost all respect for this movie at the end. I had felt like they were rushing things along all through the story. But then at the end when Pale Face Jeremy Irons gives him this weak excuse as to why he can never change the past and it makes Alex totally give up and decide to forsake his mission completely... Sorry...it just really blew.
Other irritations involved the fact that the stop over in the 2030's was basically an excuse to introduce the hologram and explain why Earth's population is decimated. That's all well and good, but I felt like it didn't really contribute to anything. He could've just as easily found that information in some video archive (seeing as how all tecnology from the 2030's that survived still functions).
I basically felt the movie was very rushed and, in the end, it didn't feel like anything had really happened.
The visual effect were stunning, for the most part, though... as was the Eloi chick, Mara.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I read that they changed the ending, that in the original script, the city of New York was completely destroyed. This, being presumably unnerving to the American Patriotic Juggernaut, was changed in favor of whatever the ending is now.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, New York was totally destroyed...as was pretty much everything else on the planet (at least I'm assuming this is the case...the movie seemed to be saying that humanity had basically been wiped out and started back at the stone age), but it happened half way through the movie and we never really got to see too much of it.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"I am a huge fan of the original book..."
And hat book would that be? From the plot summaries I've seen, I don't know of any book off of which this movie could have been based...
its based off the original HG Wells book "The Time Machine". It was modernized, but a lot of the ideas and main elements are still there.
Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
In the new film they actually mentioned the old film... Posted by Flower Man (Member # 780) on :
I believe I mentioned that. Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Y'know, I'd bet the farm that TSN has never heard of HG Wells. Otherwise, he would have known about that book, right? And he sure hasn't heard of sarcasm.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I liked where the Moon was falling from the sky. That was cool.
I personally liked it though I never understood what that man in the white served.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've heard of H.G. Wells. I've heard of his book The Time Machine. I've read the book. And, as I said, from the plot summaries I read of the movie, I don't know of any book off of which the movie could have been based.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: *scratches head*
And surely, Battlefield Earth Syndrome causes bleeding from all orifaces and rapid cellular decay, as opposed to just questionable technological survivability?
It turned me into a Newt,.. Maybe I should run for office.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I've heard of H.G. Wells. I've heard of his book The Time Machine. I've read the book. And, as I said, from the plot summaries I read of the movie, I don't know of any book off of which the movie could have been based.
A man travels into the future in a time machine he invented, and discovers that man's own technology eventually splits the race into Morlock and Eloi.
If you cant really make that connection, wow.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"A man travels into the future in a time machine he invented..."
Not exactly unique to Wells' book.
"...and discovers that man's own technology eventually splits the race into Morlock and Eloi."
Okay, so they stole one idea and a couple names. And the title. A single plot element does not a story make.
Wells' novel: In late-1800s England, a man discovers the secret of time travel and uses it to visit the year 802701. He finds that humans have split into two animalistic groups, a peaceful but stupid race on the surface used as cattle, and a nocturnal, subterranean race of cannibals who are able to operate machinery. After a week, he discovers that the Morlocks are eating the Eloi, he's not pleased w/ what humans have become, and he gets his time machine back and goes forward some more. He sees humans that have become more animalistic, giant centipedes, giant crabs, and the approaching death of the sun. He goes hime, tells his disbelieveing friends, then goes to explore various time periods again.
the movie: In early-1900s New York, a man's girlfriend dies, so he builds a time machine to back and save her, but somehow accidentally goes forward to the year 802701, where he finds two groups of relatively un-evolved humans. Fancy visual effects ensue.
Actually making a movie out of a novel is one thing. Even borrowing parts of a novel as an homage is okay. But just stealing parts of a book, rewriting the rest of it in your own image, and using the famous name to sell it... that's what's known as a "rip-off".
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I have to agree with TSN. I felt like the movie never really knew what it was trying to be. Was it a retelling of the original story, or a total remake? In my opinion, you just have to view it as a total remake (read rip-off) and not try to tie it to the original if you want to get any enjoyment at all out of it. But even then, the movie's plot and purpose changed right at the end and left me going... "Uuummm...ok. Thank goodness the credits are rolling."
It was a remake in the grand tradition of "The Scarlet Letter" and "Planet of the Apes".
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
I have not yet seen the film, just the trailer. And I have read many critics' views in magazines, newspapers,...
And I haven't read the book. My only connection is the 60s movie, which I liked very much. I even saw it in the original version, i.e. in English as opposed to the German syncronization.
As I said, I liked the old movie. From what I have seen from the trailer, I don't think I will go and see the new one. As you said above, special effects don't mean it's a good movie. (Unfortunately, the average idiot who goes to the theater these days doesn't care about a good plot, storyline, acting-skills, etc. as long as there are tons of explosions, special effects and - if possible - half-naked ladies, the more the better) Sad really! Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Whoa, lets not go insane here what's wrong with half-naked ladies?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
They leave too much to the imagination, I would imagine. Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Don't get me wrong. I have no objection against half-naked ladies. It's just that I don't want to see them in EVERY movie just as eye-candy.
Oh and concerning the imagination. I prefer them HALF-naked as opposed to completely naked. I don't find anything fascinating in nude images as it is those that don't leave much room for further imagination - unless of course you are thinking of.... Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Stuff
Bah... I liked it, If you didnt like it, and need a reason to say your so far above this movie... go for it.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
I hate how any new fucking movie with brilliant effects is just a 'visual effects flick'. Fucking watch the movie first, if you dont like the plot, wow, there you go, you didnt like the movie. But dont fucking discredit the hard work of the filmakers by just passing it off as a fx feature, cause it wasnt, and I cant imagne a movie that was really only about visual effects.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Y'know, Wes, I'm almost tempted to say "don't ever change." However, I'm afraid to, because when you first showed up here we told you repeatedly to change and you didn't; Christ knows what effect reverse psychology might have. 8)
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, from what my friend has told me, The Time Machine lacks quite a bit in terms of plot development, so many people would be justified in calling it a "visual effects flick." And, there is nothing wrong with people actually wanting a movie to follow whatever work it is based on. It doesn't make that person an intellectual snob.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I saw the trailers and thought it looked cool. I heard that it sucked. I decided to make up my own mind and I went to see it anyway. When I got there and (now pay attention) watched the movie ... I thought it lacked alot in terms of story. But it did have good effects and, incidently, a very attractive half naked lady.
I don't think anyone is passing judgement without reason. I'm sure some people will like it. That's cool. But jeez...why give yourself an embalism over the fact that some people don't?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)