MovieChat Forums > The Time Machine (2002) Discussion > Just got done reading the book---it's wa...

Just got done reading the book---it's way better than the movie


After having seen the movie, and reading the reviews, I finally decided to actually get the book and read Wells' original story.

The book is not large, it's only about 120 pages in fairly large print.

I really wish the teenage male "reviewers" on this board would put down their smartphones once in awhile, stop texting, and actually crack open a book and read it.

H.G's story simply blows the pathetic plotline of the movie out of the water. I read for 3 hours straight because it was so good I couldn't put it down.

If only Hollywood would once in awhile stop dumbing-down things and treat the movie goer as someone intelligent.

Things in the book that were way better (or simply ignored in the move):

There is no love story involving the time traveler and his girlfriend, or any attempt to "change the past".

There is no stop in the 21st century, and no talking black guy in the library, no "moon explosion". Instead the Traveller goes straight to 802701 and finds a dilapidated green "porcelain palace" that was apparently once a museum. Wells description of the museum and what the Traveller finds in it is vivid and striking.

The Eloi are small and child like, not a robust tribal people as in the movie. There is no Mara, and they do not speak English. Instead after much difficulty the Traveller manages some simple communication with the Eloi, and makes friends with a young female Eloi named Weena.

The Morlocks are also small, pale skinned and with lidless eyes. They are only seen in the shadows and are far scarier and more repulsive than anything in the movie. The part of the book where the Traveller descends into the Morlocks caverns and the horrifying discovery he makes there is unforgettable.

Probably the best part of the book is the next to last chapter, where the Time Traveller goes 30 million years into the future. Wells gives a haunting description of the Traveller standing on a desolate shoreline, with no plants and animals and only a few lichens in sight, while an enormous bloated red sun sits motionless in an almost black sky and a bitter cold wind blowing; realizing the earth is dead.

So please, people---don't pay $15 to get fed some drivel out of Hollywood. Read the book and come away with a far more profound experience that will TRULY entertain and enlighten. And not waste 2hours of your time for nothing.



reply

Everyone can ignore this review that carries a strong whiff of racism behind it. Pretty sure the OP is a troll.

The film is great and you will rarely find a movie that is better than the book. It was a remake with a different take and a science fiction spin.

Fact: 31.5% of IMDb users wanted Avatar to win Best Picture.
Fact: 31.5% of IMDb users are idiots.

reply

It's true the OP called a coloured person a black guy, but otherwise yes the book is good and yes the movie is painfully stupid for other reasons he doesn't even cover.

A lot of this film's departures from the book are lifts from the 1960 movie mind you, which in some cases added something. Its journey through the 20th century was a worthwhile addition, although it did fundamentally change the story's theme to something apolitical - or to a simple anti-war message with mass appeal.

reply

lol at implying that he's a racist for saying a black guy is a black guy. How the hell is that racist? You clearly don't even know what racism is. You have no business flinging that term at someone.

Do you actually expect people to use a pathetic euphemism like "coloured person"? Racism goes a lot deeper than simply describing the colour of someone's skin...

And the guy above you - lmao "racist undertones". Get real.

reply

You seem confused about what's been said. No matter. Let's talk about the movie.

reply

"Coloured person" is a more racist term than "black guy", that is something you can actually Google willywilly. The correct term is "person of colour".

"Black guy" is a legitimate descriptive term, albeit an incorrect one, because no human is the colour of pitch. "Coloured person" however implies that someone has been shaded, darkened or otherwise 'coloured' from white to something seen as inferior and is a far more racist term to use.

You learn something new everyday, for instance today you learned you were the first racist person in a thread :)



Opinions are just onions with pi in them.

reply

I'm not sure reading your tangled attempt at establishing a convention for non-racist racism and concluding it's a crock really amounts to learning something.

reply

You do realize you just defined "person of colour" as literally every single person on the face of the earth, right?

Nobody is pure white, nobody is pure black, everybody is "shaded" to some degree.

You're an idiot, and "black guy" is just as incorrect as calling a white dude a "white guy", yet you never see anybody complaining about that?

Just stay away from *beep* and there is no racism, just descriptions.

EDIT: and by *beep* I mean nlgger (man, IMDb's censors are really aggressive).

reply

Please explain what is "racist" about this excellent post?

reply

Please explain what is "excellent" about this arrogant and condescending post.












Sine qua non

reply

"Everyone can ignore this review that carries a strong whiff of racism behind it."

LOL

Waaaayyyyyycism! What a fcking coward.

reply

Not having read the book, I did see the 1960 movie and it was definitely better and appears to be more in line with the book. In the 1960s version the Eloi are taken care of (in a fashion) by the Morlocks and have no knowledge of anything or have interest in learning. Someone is drowning and they continue to play when they could easily save her. Books crumble to dust since they are never touched and they don't even understand how their society works.

reply

indeed, the movie is enjoyable, but the book is my favorite of all-time. good summary/description of the final scenes.

reply