The Time Machine?

[Yukaphile]

Any other fans of the... book? Movies? My favorite will always be the 1960 version. Yeah, the lava effects were goofed up, but it's got nostalgia.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I like the 1960 film too, never saw the newer one. I found the book a bit boring when I read it as a kid, but it's possible I'd have a different perspective now.

[clearspira]

The new film was a betrayal (yes, please read that using the Spoony voice). It completely missed the point of the book and doesn't actually obey its own rules. There is a scene where he sticks his hand out of the time field, and instead of losing the arm, he just pulls it back in with a mild stinging sensation. Um, excuse me? That arm should be hundreds of years old now.

Oh God, and that hologram guy who was as funny as broken glass... and the idea that you can blow up the Moon and have it hang there in orbit is as factually accurate as Space 1999... and the fact they made him an American...

[Mecha82]

I haven't read book or seen 1960's movie but I have seen newer movie and it's really bad. Not good introduction to The Time Machine I know but I might never read book because I am not fan of Verne and his books. Back in day i did read one of his books (I don't remember what it was called) but I remember not liking it.

[Yukaphile]

Yeah, 1960 one was flawed, sure, but it definitely had something most modern movies don't - class and intelligence. As to the moon stuff, when I was a kid, I found that very scary in a kind of realistic "humans will screw up the world" horror type way. The visuals are stunning and frightening, like the nuclear explosion was in the 1960s, but... the math doesn't add up. The debris would have long rained down back to Earth over that long time period. Still, gets an A for effort. Similar to the nuclear bomb scene of the 1960 version. I mean, it blew up downtown London, triggered a volcanic eruption (even though that region isn't even seismically unstable, but mkay), and everything is affected... but the protagonist and the grass he is standing on? I don't buy it, lol, but it reflected current fears of the time, that a global nuclear war was imminent (which was true) and that we would destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons. Similar to the moon colonies in the remake. Now it's about humans reaching too far and messing with nature, but updated for the modern era.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Similar to the Stepford Wives, pretty much every rendition from the book to the 60's movie to the modern movie is all different.

Given that I'm not really partial to the 60's movie, I was more appreciative of the book when I came to read it in school for all the nuances it provides.

That being said, I don't really remember much from the book or Guy Pearce movie.

[Yukaphile]

I think the 1960 movie was good for its time. The book seems... tbh, similar to how Baxter's novels would probably be. Good on science, dry on character. Plus it has all sorts of feelings that were present in the times reflected in the era of the movie it was set in. Anti-war, fear of nuclear annihilation, looking to the future, and I love that final question on how "what three books would you take to rebuild a civilization?" I know what I'd take. It's also a stable time loop. What Filby's son had told George when he first arrived in 1917 comes to pass. He keeps the house in good condition thinking he will come back someday. The twist is that he got one last chance to say goodbye.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

The Time Machine is by H.G. Wells, not Verne. One disadvantage the French Verne faced for English-speaking readers compared to the English Wells is years of poor translations.

Wells (and Verne, for that matter) have more to overcome than the typical linguistic and stylistic changes that occur over time, their works were written when the genre was basically non-existent. While it's been a long time since I read The Time Machine, I am a big fan of The War of the Worlds, and considering context and the changes in scientific knowledge/advancement I think it holds up amazingly well. Sci-fi as we know it would not exist without their influence.

[Mecha82]

My bad. I am not well versed with old sci-fi.

[Robovski]

The George Pal version (60's) has been a lifelong favorite. There are other adaptations before you get to the Guy Pierce (GP) version, but they aren't very notable or good. The GP version does some fun world building but suffers in a LOT of ways and is inferior IMO. The book is a brisk read, and goes to places the movies really do not, so I think it is worth reading the book as well if you liked either movie.