| Author | Subject: Of Morlocks and Motivations |
| Ernest | Posted At 10:59:39 03/31/2002
First of all, let me say I liked Jeremy Irons characterization very much, with the Uber-Morlock set up as a Milton-style Lucifer ruling in the center of Hell, beautiful and terrible, alone and doomed. It was a relief to see him ACTING again, and not just chewing the scenery. (In DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, he even looked unhappy and fed-up in the behind the scenes DVD snippets.) On the down side, the idea that a telepathic, telekinetic, mind-controlling fellow like Jeremy would be bested in close quarters combat by an unarmed college professor strikes me as unlikely, to say the least. As it is now, there is really no other way to interpret the last act except to believe that this character wants, at a subconscious level, for our hero to destroy him and the Morlocks, and rescue humanity from the dead end it has fallen into. (Even a superman has a subconscious.) Why else would you not only set someone free who HAS to be your enemy, but give him back the god-like capability of the time machine? He had to know the Traveller wouldn't just be-bop out of his time and not try to do something. In fact, Jeremy's answer to the Traveller's question makes it perfectly clear there is NOT any cosmic 'rule' preventing the Traveller from using the machine to change history. He just can't save his girlfriend, or do anything else (like kill himself in the past) that would prevent thim building the time machine, because it would create a paradox in the time line. Jeremy's explanation is practically a dare to the Traveller to try something just like what he did. I haven't seen comparable misdirection since the old SIXTH FINGER episode of the original OUTER LIMITS, when David McCallum - also playing a mutated superhuman - instructs his perky girlfriend on the use of the ''evolution machine". To para-phrase, "Now remember, don't turn the lever THAT way; that will turn me back into your boyfriend. Turn it the other way, to make me even more of a mutant who won't want to have anything to do with you." Sheesh. I have heard some of Jeremy's scenes were omitted for time. I would like to have seen these. Perhaps they would clarify some of this Or maybe I am just thinking too hard about all of it. The 'real' reason for Uber-Morlocks and smart, self-sufficient Eloi, not to mention Vox, is to have other characters the Traveller can talk to and interact with and ask questions of. In other words, they're exposition devices. (The first movie dealt with this by having Rod Taylor do a voice over monologue so we could 'hear' his thoughts. But that approach went out of fashion a long time ago.) Having set up the story as they did, they may have written themselves into a corner and been unable to think of a better way out at the end. |
| Peter N. |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 15:13:56 03/31/2002 Ernest, maybe, yes, you're thinking too hard about this ! As pointed out by Doug, probably John Logan didn't think about all this when he wrote it ! As to the 1960 movie's voice-over by the Time Traveller, it's basically the way Wells wrote it ! Keep in mind that the story that is told - in the book, as well as in the movie - is basically the Time Traveller telling his guests what he experienced during his time travelling... |
| Don C. |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 11:14:06 04/03/2002 Ernest, Thanks for posting. This is an aspect of Uber-Morlock that I had not thought of. It was puzzleing as to why UM would allow Alexander to have his Time Machine back. Um knows that Alaexander can't change the past but nothing against changing the future. Mary and I did get the feeling that Um was very tired of his existance and longed for a better more civilized future, he did after all eat with a napkin and had a finger bowl, also his food appeared to be an Eloi shis-ka-bob not raw meat. UM says himself "we all have our time machines. I think Alexanders pocket watch represented a memory of a more sophisticated human existance that the Um wished he could have. Not that John Logan may have thought of this when he wrote the story. |
| Peter N. |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 12:03:38 04/03/2002 How could he "long for a better future" that he is not a part of ? Seems contradictory. Sounds more like holes in the screenplay to me ! If you want to ponder upon every word that the Uber-Morlock said, consider the line where he says there are other colonies of Morlocks. The explosion only destroys that one colony; so, Alexander has in effect succeeded only in stranding himself in that time-frame, but Morlocks remain a threat ! |
| Don C |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 20:00:59 04/03/2002 G.I.s in WWII threw themselves on live grenades to save the men around them, the UM may have felt that his sacrifice would create a better future. As to the other colonies of Morlocks, dare I say it, sequel. |
| Peter N. |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 20:27:04 04/03/2002 Don, stop revealing all this ! I hear John is noting all this stuff down ! ;-))) Oh yeah, another thing... Why would the Uber-Morlock want to engage in a fist fight when he demonstrates quite early on his great telekinetic powers. The truth is that the Uber-Morlock could have eliminated the entire Morlock population by himself using nothing but his mental powers - had he really wanted to. |
| Tom Wahl |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 19:38:29 05/13/2002 A Franchise?, God I hope not, but how else can one explain all the holes in this story. Nothing is ever easy any more is it. All I wanted was a high quality remake of the time machine, and I get potholes in a storyline you can drive a truck through. If it's not a sequel thing on the horizon, then the 2002 verson was totally and sadly just a realy bad screen play. Help me out here folks. |
| Peter N. |
Re: Of Morlocks and Motivations (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 23:05:16 05/14/2002 Tom, you said it all ! |