Talk:The Time Machine (2002 film)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  logic of time travel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hartdegen 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, that entry was nonsensical Kingpin1055 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Destruction of the whole Molock race? 

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Time machine.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Future of Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Thousand Deaths 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sequel? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed it. --Lexein (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotten Tomatoes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Truly a Remake? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Box office earnings? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RGBE format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mara - As breeding stock 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Humanoid Morlocks