MovieChat Forums > The Time Machine (2002) Discussion > I prefer this version because he has a R...

I prefer this version because he has a REASON to time-travel.

posted 13 years ago by driscolldoll
13 replies | jump to latest

I thought it gave the character more depth and drive in the 2002 version because he has a reason to time-travel. No spoilers here, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

I thought it was a necessary plot point for this day and age. In the book and the 1960 film it's just 'I'm an inventor so I made this'.

I like what they did with the Eloi's too, making them look like an indigenous race and not giving them 60s-style blonde hair with pink dresses. Not trashing the old one, by the way, I did enjoy it but I just prefered the new. Okay, I am bias. I mean...it's Guy Pearce :)

[–] nikfyst 13 years ago

absolutely agree with you, and after reading a few of the 'reviews' here on imdb, i find it to be rather misunderstood and rather inderrated.

[–] slade4ever 13 years ago

I like this movie (I own it on dvd and may upgrade to blu-ray if it is ever released), I'm glad to see others like it as well.

Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things: Jack and sh*t and Jack left town

[–] willywilly 12 years ago

So you think Rod Taylor's time traveller had no motivation?

[–] Traianus 12 years ago

I find the 1960 version to be easily the superior film. Mainly because I've always found it enjoyable and interesting. I watched the '02 version when it came out and found it utterly forgettable. So forgettable in fact that - after becoming mildly intrigued about it again after enjoying another viewing of the 1960 version - I had to do a google image search for Jeremy Irons to see again what he looked like in the 2002 version. I had completely forgotten.

In fairness, I probably need to give the '02 version another chance and see it again. But I'm in no hurry. Other than the 1890s scenes and the scene with Orlando Jones, I only remember it being kind of boring, to be honest.

[–] tiboine 12 years ago

I can see your point. But, do you really need a reason to use a time machine? And scientists do stuff because they can :) and no theory is good without a practical use of it

[–] mcornett 12 years ago

I thought the motivation they gave him was contrived, silly, and cliched. Too many movies seek to give scientists some "motivation" for their research and some inner torment, but after a while it all seems the same. To have someone simply motivated by plain ol' scientific curiosity is actually something of a rarity.

Facts need to come before certainty.

[–] willywilly 12 years ago

Rod Taylor spells out his extra-scientific motivation quite clearly. "I don't much care for my time".

I thought the 2002 Eloi looked like something so generic in their stitched hides they would have been dull and seen-em-before even in a dodgy scifi channel production. So there! And hell, no Yvette Mimieux.

[–] xenoragnarok2012 12 years ago

So that's your reason why this film is superior? I find that bizarre. It seems to me just a superfluous plot device/difference. Personally, I can easily do without the going back in time to change time angle. How many times have seen that?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zombiehax 11 years ago

I actually wrote a whole 10-page college essay on why this film was superior to the earlier version. This one gets way too much flack, and if you watch them back to back you will notice this film makes a lot of little nice subtle references to the original film.

I highly recommend people watch both.

But in my way I did write one of the most glaring issues that I learned in my screenwriting and film making class. Giving the audience a reason to root for the protagonist. Something the earlier film did not have, rewatch the first film. There is no need for him to build or even use the time machine, he just uses it because "he can" and that's it. Not to mention Weena/Mara wasn't all that captivating.

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

[–] willywilly 11 years ago

Sorry, but rubbish. "I don't much care for my time." Rod Taylor says and its clear he is disconnected, disillusioned and unencumbered by close relationships in his time. He sets forth with high hopes that humanity will make a better world - a hope he pursues to the very end despite all signs to the contrary.

By the way, what was the point of Guy Pierce travelling to the future? He built the machine on a failed quest to get his girlfriend back from the past.

[–] zombiehax 11 years ago

I highly recommend you watch the original film again. Both were shown in my class back to back and the consensus was clear, no one in there felt a strong reason to root for the protagonist and didn't understand why he traveled to the past.

I've rewatched the film multiple times, that's a very brief quote said in passing and not a strong enough motivation. It still falls under the category of "I'm leaving because I can".

From a writing standpoint you need to give characters a drive, something for the audience to root for. I'm packing my bags just because I can isn't a strong enough reason.

I'm not saying it's a bad film but that's something they seriously overlooked in the writing of the screenplay.

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

[–] willywilly 11 years ago

Some confusion. In the original film he did not travel into the past. If you mean the future then fine, but I disagree with the above groupthink. He's not leaving because he can he's leaving because he wants to. And as I said it's not just one quote, it's a hope he pursues to the very end despite all signs to the contrary. He begins excited by the acceleration of technology, then mourns his civilisation's self destruction. He rails against the Eloi for making no progress and wants to abandon them, then he fights for their liberation, then by implication he even goes back a second time with some books to put them on the right path.