Science Fiction: The Short Stuff discussion

This topic is about
The Time Machine
2025 Group Reads
>
The Time Machine by H. G. Wells
date
newest »



I've seen the 60s movie a number of times over the years and found it visually attractive and entertaining, but I don't remember how closely it follows the book.
I watched part of the Guy Pearce version and really didn't like it at all. Maybe that's why I didn't watch the whole thing.

The adaptations:
1) George Pal’s feature film The Time Machine (1960).
2) Henning Schellerup’s telefilm The Time Machine (1978).
3) Simon Wells’s Hollywood blockbuster The Time Machine (2002).
Okay, I didn't go to the theater to see the first one on the big screen. My parents didn't meet until a couple years after the film came out. But I did see the film on television in the mid-1970s despite warnings it would give me nightmares. It didn't of course, but it is plenty scary for a ten-year-old. I soon after read the novella for the first time and was not disappointed. I think I saw it again in the '90s. It was still holding up by those standards. 5 stars.
I remember the 1978 television film coming on one school night. I was lucky that by the age of 14 I had just begun setting my own bedtime on the provision I proved I could do so responsibly. This was one of the rare occasions I stayed up late to watch a show. It starred some dynamic and appealing actor I want to call Perry for some reason, a Mark Harmon clone whose other work at the time I enjoyed also. This film was not as dramatic as the 1960 film, but stayed closer to its source material in the plot. I really liked it: 4 stars.
I went to see the 2002 film version in the theaters. I enjoyed the introduction of a romance as a motivator for the protagonist. That really worked for me. Many of the visuals in the film were absolutely stunning and literally took my breath away when I saw them on the big screen. The only thing that kept me from loving it was that there were too many coincidences and improbabilities in the plot for a film that was taking itself this seriously. It was really incongruous. Nevertheless, despite that Wells' novella was only a guide and the film departed liberally from it, in terms of entertainment value I give this version 4 stars.
So yeah, the Big Bang Theory characters were right: the 1960 version is still the main one worth talking about! Still, I just checked and that 1978 movie is streamable. It has been almost 47 years since I saw it. I think it might be time for a rewatch.
I've read the novella again as an adult and enjoyed it. I had to have rated it five stars. I have not decided whether or not to give it a third read yet. I remember my second one so well.

As for film versions, I haven't seen any. I didn't even think to look for any adaptations after my first reading. Sounds like the 1960 film is the way to go.
1) Wells was a literary writer, Long a genre pulp writer.
2) In Wells the significant time travel is from our time and to a distant future. In Long, the direction is from the future to our present.
3) Wells wrote a novella, Long a short story.
4) So many movie versions of Wells' masterpiece. Long's is so deserving of a movie treatment.
So, anyone up for a reread of this classic, or is it just too well known already?
What's your favorite film version of this classic? The original? One of the many more modern ones? The Big Bang Theory take on it?My favorite version I will have to look up made this story into a love story between the narrator and a woman of our (Edwardian) time. The narrator was motivated to invent time travel in order to save his present-day love. I was surprised how well that version worked. In Wells' version, the time traveler is motivated only by intellectual curiosity.