Talk:The Time Machine (1960 film)

message: By using our imagination and creativity we often don't factor in basic high school level science. One example is THE TIME MACHINE (1960). Most assume that George's time machine is only capable of time shift. We assume that because George's time machine doesn't move, the spatial coordinates are fixed. However, most fail to factor in the earth's rotation. As seen in the movie, the time machine appears to stay fixed in the exact spacial coordinates. However, George's time machine is actually capable of both space and time shift. This little fact probably escaped even the cast and production crew.
Bivariate-correlator 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather suspect that would entirely depend on how the time machine is supposed to work, a thing neither Wells's brilliant novel nor George Pal's insipid film sufficiently explains. Your "basic high-school-level science" also tells us that when the earth rotates on its axis it takes everything on its surface and in its atmosphere with it, as it would Wells's time machine. Whether you should consider yourself, sitting at your desk reading this, stationary or in motion is contingent on your frame of reference. To put this into proper perspective remember that the earth is also revolving about the sun, taking its moon with it, and so are all the other planets in the solar system. The sun is itself revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, taking its planets with it, and so are are all the other stars. The Milky Way is itself hurling through space (at 1.3 million miles an hour) taking all its stars with it, and so are all the other galaxies. Neither are we temporally at rest: we are all traveling forward through time into the future, all the time. The speed of our time traveling is proportionate to the speed of our movement through space. It would seem that Wells's protagonist has discovered the trick of making the speed of his own time traveling disproportionate to the speed of his relative movement through space. TheScotch (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic science 

message: I've noticed a 1972 -- not 1960 -- MGM poster for sale that cites Rod Taylor, Alan Young and cast for a "G"-rated movie entitled "The Time Machine"(TTM).
And yet the poster illustration is of a more-modernistic-looking machine flying through the air.  Seated at TTM controls is a seasoned, older gentleman, accompanied by a blond teenage school-girl (?).
So my query is:  Was a more-child-friendly, animated version of "TTM" produced in 1972 using the 1960 voices of the original cast?            Dr.Bastedo (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in IMDb for either a 1972 TM or any voice credit for such a movie for Taylor, Young, or Mimieux. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the 1960 version was reissued in 1972, .  There was a 1978 made for tv version, but that did not include the 1960's stars: The Time Machine (1978 film)  Dreadstar ☥ 01:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1972 version?

message: I came across this - poor grammar, poor sentence structure - entry to what is a well-loved classic scifi film, and thought I'd contribute to make this entry better.
I've done a lot of little edits over the years, and decided to help do a little polishing on ths cinema classic.
I do what most people do; I take what was there - put there (with a bit of love as well as some perspiration) by other Wikipedia contributors - and add to it.
I keep the previous contributors' work, but, in those places where it can be expanded, I do.
To my astonishment, someone REMOVED everything I'd spent a good deal of time & effort on -  and restoring it to it's prior, 'poorly constructed' state.
If that wasn't bad enough, I restored it.
Apparently this... person doesn't have much to do - and on today of all days (it's christmas evening '14).
To whoever this person is; you do not own this page, nor Wikipædia. 
If you want to 'contribute,' fine, but, to do what is - in essence - childish, stubbornness, as well as wrongful selfishness, you won't succeed.
Wikipædia is an OPEN project, and it GROWS.
I'm certain - by its very nature - someone (not you!) will one day, come and add to the work I've done.
Each contributor adding to and building upon those who had gone before.
But - I won't act like a child, as you do, and if you continue this behaviour and it becomes necessary, there are other methods & means to prevent what is vandalism by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOwenNYC (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it because your enamoured with your poor grammar you think YOU ''OWN'' this page?