Talk:The Time Machine (2002 film)

logic of time travel
The Über-Morlock tells Alexander the reason he can't prevent Emma's death is that it is 'incorporated into the timeline'. Accepting this then how does Alexander go back from the far future and destroy the Morlock base. I mean while the Über-Morlock was hanging outside of the 'time sphere and aging, time would have unfolded for decades with its own timeline. For instance Mara would have been killed by the Morlocks as there would have been nobody around to control them. The future Alexander saw would have been the one in which the Time Machine did not explode. Then he returns to the 'present' and destroys the machine and all the other Morlocks. Why didn't the 'timeline' prevent this. The logic of time travel as depicted in the film suggests a cosmic timeline-censor that 'knows' the correct sequence of events and acts to correct for this. But the 'theory' doesn't allow for which is the 'real' timeline. How would the 'timeline' remember the correct sequence of events? emacsuser (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Emma's death is why he built the Time Machine. If she hadn't died, he wouldn't have built it and gone back in time, so he woudn't saved here and she would have died.  Whereas, destroying the Morlocks isn't why he built the machine, nor why he is there.  So, destroying the Morlocks didn't stop him building the machine and travelling to that time.Dannman (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hartdegen
please can someone write what happens when Hartdegen goes further into the future, after the Uber-Morlock dies etc. - a wasteland-like environment is shown. Does anyone have an explanation for that?--TheFEARgod 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In the original book, the main character travels to this period of time and witnesses the last days before Earths destruction. He describes it much the same way, as a desolate wasteland. I would surmise that the makers decided to include this bit in the film and alter it to suggest that without Alexanders intervention, the Morlocks will continue to spread across the world, wiping out the Eloi and consuming the Earths natural resources. --Crais459 11:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Uber-Morlock mentions that without those like him, the more primitive Morlocks would revolt and waste the entire food supply. This article is poorly written, with a lot of it being conjecture. It needs work. Levid37 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
I deleted the last one because it doesn't make any sense. The future that Alex saw was not definite. He did not attempt to stop it until after he saw it, so it could still be changed. He was able to use the machine to do so because whether or not he had seen the future, the time machine would still exist because of Emma's death. L2K 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that entry was nonsensical Kingpin1055 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of the whole Molock race?
It is said that when the professor destroyed his time machine, he provoked the destruction of the whole Molock race, while it has been clearly stated that there are other colonies on the planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.255.82 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 August 2007
 * At the end of the movie the Morlocks are indeed exterminated; if you pay close attention, the temporal explosion just kep on expanding, suggesting that the whole of planet earth's underground was being "showered" by that temporal distortion, meaning, anything living underground was @$%#$%#. Time travel involves a lot of anti mater theory; anti mater is extremely nasty stuff, even a tiny amount, is enough to end all life on this planet.  Chaneled for time travel, and apparently contained by stone, anti mater would be enough to wipe out all underground life on earth.  The Morlocks are extinct by the end of the movie dude; professor Hartdegen killed them all.  Also remember that whenever we deal with Physics, especially in a sci fi context, all kinds of things are possible; do not worry about Hartdegen's Eloi love interest, or the safety of the Eloi, it is clearly established the Morlocks are wiped out, they will never be hunted again.  There is no real logical explanation as to why that temporal distortion travels ONLY underground, or HOW it travels all over the planet, but, with sci fi there doesn't need to be one.  Yes, its true, the "brain" morlock said there were other colonies, but if you paid close attention during the temporal explosion scene, you could see the explosion just keep on expanding, suggesting, it spread throughout the entire planet.  At the risk of starting a moral argument here, the Morlocks WERE extremely destructive; they had to be wiped out.  What Hartdegen did WAS genocide, but it was well justified because when he traveled to the future, it is strongly suggested that having consumed all human life, in time, the morlocks will consume all animal and plant life as well, turning the planet into a volcanic hell.  Again at the risk of starting a moral argument and throwing out moral judgement, Hartdegen did the right thing; in his place most people would have done the same.  67.148.120.90 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

-theres no reason to believe that the explosion can travel through the oceans and kill morlocks on the other side of the planet -the morlocks hunting eloi occured as a result of evolution at that time, saying genocide is justified in that situation is like saying natural predators wolves bears hawks etc should be all wiped out -he wasn't intentionally committing genocide, he was trying to create a diversion to get out of the caves afaik 24.17.211.150 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Time machine.jpg
Image:Time machine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia
Is Orlando Jone's character Vox 114 the future of Wikipedia? In the future, will Wikipedia be a "photonic powered library with all the knowledge of the human race?" I know its a bit off topic but, be interesting if that DID happen. Wikipedia with holographic interaction; THAT, will be something to see. 67.148.120.90 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747


 * He'd be edited in mid-sentence by someone who objected to the content of his answer. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on now; you KNOW that is where Wikipedia is headed. In the future it may become a fully interactive holographic A.I.  You do have a point about the editing thing though. lol.  67.148.120.126 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747
 * Niteshift36, you made my day. i do think that wiki A.I ed would be a grate concept.Confront (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A Thousand Deaths
After Hartdegen's first attempt in going back in time to save Emma, he talks to Philby and whispers to himself "I could come back a thousand times and see her die a thousand ways." Could this be a reference to Jack London's short story "A Thousand Deaths", which was published the same year Hartdegen was in at that time, 1899? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vox 114, Past and Future
There's a distinct difference between the Vox 114 of A.D. 2030, and the Vox 114 of A.D. 802,701. He seems to gain self-awareness in between his two appearances, a la Robert Picardo's character in Star Trek: Voyager, or better yet, the character of HAL in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. During his first encounter with Hartdegen he's dead set on recommending books, and doesn't care about much else. He displays mannerisms that, say... an extra-intelligent dishwasher might not be expected do display, presumably for the benefit of the humans around him, but the viewer sees no evidence that he's anything more than a very sophisticated artificial intelligence. One could make the argument that self-awareness is present all along, but even if that's so, I think it's significant that when Hartdegen encounters him again in A.D. 802,701, he displays emotion. He gives the impression of excitement, or nervous energy when he first notices Hartdegen and begins to guess at authors Hartdegen might like; he conveys something like despair in comparing himself to the Eloi, calling them lucky for lacking his memory; he expresses complex feelings for the work of T.S. Elliot, calling him "so depressing, yet so divine"; and he shows what might be called empathy or protectiveness by asking Hartdegen if he's sure he can tolerate the truth before directing him to the dwelling place of the Morlocks. Anyone think this merits inclusion? Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL - True to spartan form, CD.


 * Not as its own section or anything. Not even its own paragraph, really. But this article is tagged as "Start-Class," as part of WikiProject Films, suggesting some degree of consensus on the idea that "the majority of readers will need more." Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * More article, not more plot summary. See WP:PLOT. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah - more article. Totally. What do you think needs expansion? What do you think ought to be added? Let's get some new discussion topics goin' here.


 * I disagree with your contention that the plot section is finished (started a thread - will happily change the description of your "nay" vote if you don't like it). I mean you didn't say that just now, but you have said it. You and I agreed on a revision very recently didn't we? It's not that I want more plot summary per se, although I think that if I had my druthers the summary would be somewhat longer. That is, I would make it longer, but incidentally - not for the sake of having a longer summary. It's that I agree with the idea that it's a Start-Class article, and that as such it provides "some meaningful content," but is "quite incomplete," and therefore "needs substantial improvement in content and organization." It's not reasonable to call any section complete, if it's part of an article described that way.


 * You could contest the class designation you know, if you think it sets the bar in a bad place, so to speak. But as long as it is whatever it is, let's treat it that way, even if we don't agree with it personally.  Stagyar Zil Doggo  04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed a few problems with the concept of the Vox 114. 1. I don't think we'll have the technology to create anything close to it by 2037. 2. Does anyone really believe that a computer built in 2037 will be able to run continuously for over 800,000 years without service and without being connected to the power grid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a movie! A convenient assumption is that the Vox 114 has its own power source.  In the movie, the VOX specifically states it is "fusion powered."  But 800,000 years later, it admits there are no other databases to connect to;  It is limited to its own database.  But I thought the whole concept of this Vox 114 was brilliant.  I would even call it spooky.  The VOX says time travel is science fiction; Then 800,000 years later, the VOX says "I even remember YOU!  Time Travel:  PRACTICAL APPLICATION."   Thats some eerie stuff!!!!!   Marc S.  Dania Fl  206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Plot Summary
Should the plot summary for The Time Machine be improved upon? Can it be improved upon? How much more material can the article tolerate? How does one walk the fine line between this guideline and that one? We've got one vote against expansion of any kind, one in favor of targeted improvement, and the rest of the population of the world abstaining. Respond and cast your vote! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagyar Zil Doggo  (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 April 2010

Sequel?
The main article mentions something about a sequel and has a link to IMDB. Unfortunately, that link requires a paid membership. Does anyone have any details? Is it still in production? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can anyone confirm whether or not a sequel is planned?173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Rotten Tomatoes
It's best to cite the original sources, not just copy the blurb from RT.
 * "Victoria Alexander of Filmsinreview.com wrote that "The Time Machine is a loopy love story with good special effects but a storyline that's logically incomprehensible"

This is sourced to RT, but their link is to RT, not filmsinreview.com, and is broken. And there's no such review at filmsinreview.com, even though Ms. Alexander has written, and still writes, hundreds of reviews. --Lexein (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. --Lexein (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Truly a Remake?
My friends and I were debating this question earlier. It is to my understanding, a remake is a retelling of a story using the same characters and plot. This film qualifies in regards to it tells the same story as we read in the novel and see in the 1960 version of the film. It even contains the cameo appearance of Alan Young from the 1960 film. Yet no remake I've ever seen has ever mentioned a previous reincarnation as Vox does in the year 2030. To me, this disqualifies it both as a remake and a reboot. It is certainly not an original film because we know there is the novel and 1960 film. The film doesn't continue the plot nor does it explain its origin, so it can't be a sequel or prequel. It doesn't center around anyone from the 1960 film so it can't be a spin-off. It's definitely not a parody. The only type of film this could actually be is a crossover. Why? As I said, Vox explains that H. G. Wells had written a novel on time travel (nearly four years prior to we meeting Hartdegen) which was later adapted to film in 1960. Vox also mentions Hartdegen "died" in 1903 and was obsessed with a time machine. Did Hartdegen ever read Wells' novel? I assume no as his shock to the Morlocks, but I'm shocked as it deals with time travel. Also, could the 1960's time machine have been influenced by Hartdegen's blueprints since Vox obviously knows and Hartdegen would've only told his friend Philby and Mrs. Watchit. To me, this is the only way you can have multiple reincarnations in one film. Thoughts? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

10th Anniversary
Should anything be added to this article about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Über-Morlock
Does anyone know where this term came from? I don't remember it from the film. Korentop (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure but I think it was either a name used for the character in the script only or it was used by the film crew while on set. I think it was used on one of the special features on the DVD. Scotius (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Box office earnings?
The Wiki page shows $423,729,176 but IMDB shows $123,729,176. Is this a typo or intentionally misleading figure, and either way, which figure is correct?

66.87.111.9 (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

RGBE format
How is the RGBE format used in this film's production related to the Radiance RGBE image format, if at all? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Mara - As breeding stock
In the film, the Über-Morlock says to  Alexander Hartdegen about Mara being kept alive to be used as breeding stock for other colonies or something like that. Did he mean that she was going to another Morlock colony be used for breeding with the Morlocks or was she going to breed with that colonies Eloi ? Scotius (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Humanoid Morlocks
"humanoid Morlocks" is an incorrect description. All Morlocks are humanoid. These ones however are telepathic and more intelligent, not more humanoid.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)