| Author | Subject: Time Paradox Not Possible |
| Jarrod | Posted At 12:11:03 03/20/2002
Trying to figure out the Uber Morlock's discussion with the time traveler before he kills the Morlock. It seems to infer that the traveller couldn't change the past, (his fiance's death) because that's what caused him to create the time machine. That interpretation would differ from most time travel movies/books that allow for a Paradox and a subsequent change in the time line. Also what does he mean when he alludes to the fact that he himself is a result of the invention of the time machine. Is he supposed to be the future incarnation of the time traveller? Not sure if this was the causality loop subject posted earlier. I know he doesn't follow the original book's line, but curious to hear what people think the new interpretation was supposed to mean. |
| Francois Beaulieu |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 14:36:48 03/20/2002 I suspect that we are trying to find more significance in this than the original screenplay writer (John Logan) intended. The first assumed premise that the death of his wife is the sole factor that motivated him to conceive and build a time machine is not credible. In Wells original story, there is a single timeline. Even though the Time Traveller visits the future, he does not alter it. In the Pal movie, and again in the new movie version, he does. This revised logic suggests that he could also alter the past, but he cannot. This is one of the many contradictions in the new movie. |
| H.M. Holzman |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 18:25:43 03/20/2002 The Uber-Morlock basically was making a point that the Time Machine itself is what created him... (which is doubtful unless Alexander did something inadvertently... in the past to cause it... past being the future.) The other factor would be just the existese of a Time Machine automatically effects both future and past... sorta like... if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound etc far away? |
| Tom Wahl |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 18:52:32 03/20/2002 I was under the impression that Alexander published a book about time travel. That book was shown to him by Vox in 2030. Vox did not comment on the publication. If a publication by Alexander existed after he traveled in time, someone else could have, or did build a time machine that could ultimately be responsible for the Uber Morlocks existance and who knows what else. It all might be about Alexanders book not his machine. Alexander was MIA after 1900. just a thought |
| Francois Beaulieu |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 18:56:02 03/20/2002 I guess you could explain EVERYTHING in a time travel story with that argument ! Since the Uber-Morlock makes the statement, it might have been more interesting if he could have made it clearer. As it stands now, it seems somewhat gratuitous. It's like saying that if your child becomes a criminal, it's your fault because you gave birth to him ! And, by extension, it's probably your mother's fault too, and so on... |
| Francois Beaulieu |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 19:02:44 03/20/2002 Just a note: My last post refers to Mr. Holzman's argument, not Mr. Wahl's (who posted while I was writing mine !) But, Mr. Wahl, if a book is published about time travel and "another time machine is built". Does that imply that the book includes plans for a working time machine ? If so, and the book is published, then wouldn't more than one time machine be built. Then Mara's opening line might have been "Oh no ! Not ANOTHER time machine !!!" |
| Doug |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 20:51:31 03/20/2002 Looking at this from a storyteller's point of view, the Uber Morlock was an unnecessary complication to an already faulty storyline. I believe, in most cases like this, the author -- screenwriter -- was just spewing words so that folks like us could ponder endlessly upon their meanings. Ask the screenwriter himself what exactly he meant, and I'll wager he'll laugh and say he was just trying to get his 95 pages written. In my opnion, since most screenplays run max 120 pages, therefore 120 minutes, the Uber Morlock should have been ditched and in its place we should have been given at least twenty minutes of serious character development and sound motivations at the beginning of this story. I've pondered long and hard on this point, and if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to expound. Filby (I prefer Wells' spelling) and Mrs. Watchet should definately have been aware of the building of the Time Machine -- especially Mrs. Watchet who seemed to run a VERY tight ship. If so, then the ending would have made at least a modicum of sense! If those scenes didn't end up on the cutting room floor (as I suspect they did), then Mrs. Watchet could have asked, "Do you think he will ever return, Mr. Filby?" And Filby could have said, "One cannot chose but wonder . . . "! A fitting tribute to the skill of Mr. Duncan!!! A passing note. Last night I re-read The Time Machine. This movie is NOT the H. G. Wells's book and I say shame on Dreamworks for trying to pass it off as such! At least David Duncan's version made an attempt to follow the storyline, given the constraints of film media which is vastly different than writing a novel! One last comment. Thank you Don and Mary for one of the best sites on the net . . . IMHO. Doug |
| Francois Beaulieu |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 21:31:50 03/20/2002 Right on Doug ! That's what I have been saying all along in my other posts (see other strings) And, about the Uber Morlock and his ramblings, you're right too: Let's ask away ! OK John, Tell us ! You were kidding around, weren't you ? |
| H.M. Holzman |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 21:42:23 03/20/2002 Ok... Lets take the Uber Morlock look... I can see an Uber Morlock from an early time.. yes.. sorta like in Baxter's book... THE TIME SHIPS.. Except this Morlock was from an alternate universe... etc. Than this concept would have made sense... an Uber Morlock who followed the Traveller. The biggest problems with VOX are this... one he clearly states that THE TIME MACHINE was written by H.G. WEllS, and published in 1894? Helloooooo... 1895 VOX... Than he says that Alexander wrote a book... (Philby... not Filby... Which is stupid as hell... the spelling...), could have published the notes for his friend... Still this story seems very poorly written with loose ends... It should not have been called The Time Machine... Maybe Time of Tomorrow... or something... This reminds me of the TIME AFTER TIME... Movie... Bearable... yes... Good Yes, if you dismiss the Time Machine novel etc... That's what this movie reminds me of... If you dismiss the orginal concept... It's a shame. |
| Francois Beaulieu |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 23:27:50 03/20/2002 Time After Time I enjoyed, because it is an ironic comedy and does not pretend to be anything else. It mixes two completely different story lines together in a somewhat whimsical way - one from a novel, the other from Scotland Yard. It also mixes in some historical facts about Wells and his wife Amy Catherine Robbins. However, it never pretended to be The Time Machine. This new movie does. |
| Richard D. Cole |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 10:22:17 03/21/2002 Tom, I think Vox is aware of a paper or papers on Time Travel written by Alex, but not the plans to build a machine. |
| Tom Wahl |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 15:37:09 03/24/2002 I believe everything Alexander knew about time travel he put in his notes before he left on his journey to save Emma. Those notes were his contribution to his time and mankind. That book was published in 1904. Alexander never returns to his time travel start time because the machine is sacrificed in the future to save Mara from the Morlocks. It's not the same as Wells original, or the 1960 film but it was fun, and I will buy the DVD. |
| Peter N |
Re: Time Paradox Not Possible (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 20:25:27 03/24/2002 We all will ! That was in the amrketing plan all along ! |