|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:20 pm
Has anyone seen it, more specifically, the 2002 version. It kind of sticks to the book in some places but it adds things. Annoying things that destroy the whole point of the book, especially concerning the Eloi and Morlocks. Their take on the 21st century was great though and it was cool to see the times evolve around him as he's actually going through time. Some of the changes were resourceful but it would have been better if the plot wasn't slaughtered but it was okay/great depending.
If anyone wants a deeper spoiler-filled discussion that elaborates how Wells' point was tossed in the garbage I'm for it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:41 pm
H.G. Wells has been and always will be my absolute favorite author. I loved the Time Machine, and I loved both movies. But I'm afraid you will have to explain yourself about the second movie. Sure, the plot was quite a bit more modernized, and a lot of the world of the Morlocks and Eloi were changed, but I don't believe Wells' original meaning was lost.
As I see it, the message Wells was trying to get across was that humanity's seemingly insatiable appetite for greed and destruction would eventually divide us and then ultimately cause us to rip ourselves apart as a species. And I think the 2002 movie did a fine example at showing that.
Our desire for power is what drove us to attempt to mine the moon without first taking into account what the consequences might be of doing that. When they nuked the moon and caused it to break apart and fall out of orbit, it sent us underground for safety where we eventually split and reverted back to our more primitive and barbaric ways. We destroyed the moon in the hopes of harnessing its energy, and for that, we payed for it with our civilization. That conveyed our habit of senseless destruction.
When the time traveller eventually made it to the era of the Morlocks and Eloi, he found that the Eloi were, as in the original story, basically cattle for the Morlocks. When he delved into the underground, he found that the Morlocks were all being controlled and regulated by the one creature who remembered what it was like before the destruction. When the time traveller killed that man/creature and was able to stop his machine in an era a few hundred years later, he found that without their ringleader, the Morlocks had essentially gone mad and were rapidly depleting their food supply out of sheer greed. The man/creature even stated that if he were to die, the Morlocks would do just that, and then humanity would inevitably perish. That conveyed our habit of harvesting and using more than we need without caring for how things will be in the long run. The world had become a barren wasteland because of the Morlocks greed.
While the story radically differ from the source material, I cannot see how it kicks Wells' original meaning into the trash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:34 pm
Agreed. I didn't think the additions to the story were deal-breakers at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:30 am
Ahaha, I'm doing a project on the book/movie for my Novels into Film class in school and I just watched the movie. I definitely chose The Time Machine because of its steampunk potential.
I loveloveloved the beginning of the movie. I was absolutely crazy about the Time Traveler's lab. It was the epitome of steampunk, just about.
The movie, though, went in quite a different direction from the book, and I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. The movie stood reasonably well on it's own, although there was a deleted scene from the beginning that they definitely should have kept. Did you guys see that? It shows the Time Traveler giving a lesson, but it tied in the magazine article that he wrote which was brought up later and the "What if?" deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:52 am
Harlequin of Horror H.G. Wells has been and always will be my absolute favorite author. I loved the Time Machine, and I loved both movies. But I'm afraid you will have to explain yourself about the second movie. Sure, the plot was quite a bit more modernized, and a lot of the world of the Morlocks and Eloi were changed, but I don't believe Wells' original meaning was lost.
As I see it, the message Wells was trying to get across was that humanity's seemingly insatiable appetite for greed and destruction would eventually divide us and then ultimately cause us to rip ourselves apart as a species. And I think the 2002 movie did a fine example at showing that.
Our desire for power is what drove us to attempt to mine the moon without first taking into account what the consequences might be of doing that. When they nuked the moon and caused it to break apart and fall out of orbit, it sent us underground for safety where we eventually split and reverted back to our more primitive and barbaric ways. We destroyed the moon in the hopes of harnessing its energy, and for that, we payed for it with our civilization. That conveyed our habit of senseless destruction.
When the time traveller eventually made it to the era of the Morlocks and Eloi, he found that the Eloi were, as in the original story, basically cattle for the Morlocks. When he delved into the underground, he found that the Morlocks were all being controlled and regulated by the one creature who remembered what it was like before the destruction. When the time traveller killed that man/creature and was able to stop his machine in an era a few hundred years later, he found that without their ringleader, the Morlocks had essentially gone mad and were rapidly depleting their food supply out of sheer greed. The man/creature even stated that if he were to die, the Morlocks would do just that, and then humanity would inevitably perish. That conveyed our habit of harvesting and using more than we need without caring for how things will be in the long run. The world had become a barren wasteland because of the Morlocks greed.
While the story radically differ from the source material, I cannot see how it kicks Wells' original meaning into the trash. In your first few paragraphs you bring up some interesting points, about peoples' greed leading to their own decline. I kind of agree but Iguess we diverse on the topic. See my thing is the working class use their ability to work and exert themselves to eventually turn the lazy rich into cattle. but the movie kind of kills this by overhumanizing the Eloi and dehumanizing the Morlocks, which I don't think is fair to the point. The movie makes it seem like the poor Eloi are trying to live the best they can with the pesky Morlocks who keep invading. But really the Eloi bring it on themselves by getting accustomed to doing nothing. People are more apt to forget this (and it would have sucked me in if I wasn't so infuriated) when the Eloi are too relatable to the audience. In order for it to work to me the people who made the movie shouldn't have put that little bias in there. So I suppose my biggest issue was the portrayal of the Eloi and Morlocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:55 am
The Choleric One Ahaha, I'm doing a project on the book/movie for my Novels into Film class in school and I just watched the movie. I definitely chose The Time Machine because of its steampunk potential. I loveloveloved the beginning of the movie. I was absolutely crazy about the Time Traveler's lab. It was the epitome of steampunk, just about. The movie, though, went in quite a different direction from the book, and I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. The movie stood reasonably well on it's own, although there was a deleted scene from the beginning that they definitely should have kept. Did you guys see that? It shows the Time Traveler giving a lesson, but it tied in the magazine article that he wrote which was brought up later and the "What if?" deal. It was great to see the setting in real life. I haven't seen the deleted scene but it does, in fact, sound awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
