PDA

View Full Version : The Time Machine



SkepticJ
2005-Feb-28, 06:02 PM
Does the book explain why the Morlocks are "cannibalistic"? Can't they pick fruit, tend to crops and hunt non close primate relatives in the dark?

Russ
2005-Feb-28, 06:19 PM
Does the book explain why the Morlocks are "cannibalistic"? Can't they pick fruit, tend to crops and hunt non close primate relatives in the dark?

I strongly encourage you to read the book. It explains much that was left out of the movie(s). It also is a much better story than the movies tell.

And...to answer your specific question, yes, it does explain why they are canibals. :D

cyswxman
2005-Feb-28, 07:19 PM
I always wondered why the guy in the time machine would disappear. Since he only moved through time but never changed position, woudn't he have appeared to just sit motionless from an outside viewer?

SkepticJ
2005-Feb-28, 09:59 PM
I always wondered why the guy in the time machine would disappear. Since he only moved through time but never changed position, woudn't he have appeared to just sit motionless from an outside viewer?

My thinking as well. I also don't get how cold temp. inside the glacier effects him but New York becoming a volcano from the tidal effects from the moon doesn't. I thought it much better that the Eloi weren't caucasian and mindless cattle like in the original one. Must pick up novel.....

lti
2005-Feb-28, 10:04 PM
if he never changed position wouldnt he appear to move slowly away from outside viewer heading off into space to suffocate when he turned his machine off. I couldnt understand how he was somehow locked onto earths coordinates (a common problem with time machines)

SkepticJ
2005-Feb-28, 10:09 PM
if he never changed position wouldnt he appear to move slowly away from outside viewer heading off into space to suffocate when he turned his machine off. I couldnt understand how he was somehow locked onto earths coordinates (a common problem with time machines)

Gravity still effects him and the machine. What the machine does is shield him and itself from the passage of time. He does still live by his own inside bubble time however. If he spent a few weeks in there he'd grow facial hair etc. Plus he'd need to eat; and pee and dump through the bubble field.

Paul Beardsley
2005-Feb-28, 10:12 PM
I always wondered why the guy in the time machine would disappear. Since he only moved through time but never changed position, woudn't he have appeared to just sit motionless from an outside viewer?

This bothered me at one time, especially as I read a story that used that very idea - a man travelling a decade into the future doesn't realise he is standing out like an indestructable statue in a city square. A girl takes a series of photographs of him over a period of year, noticing small movements of his hands, breathing etc. She grows up to become a woman about his age, and then he returns to real time. "Hi, I'm from the past!" he announces, thinking he's appeared out of nowhere from her point of view. "Yes, I know, I've been watching you for years," she replies. And they fall in love and go further into the future together.

As for The Time Machine - well, I go along with the idea that the time traveller is "spread thinly" over the years - a couple of hours of him spread over, what, 802,701 minus 1890 years. I love the book so much I'll forgive it anything.

cyswxman
2005-Feb-28, 10:15 PM
I also liked the fact that if you stop too quickly, your time machine will spin around and tip over. :o

Humots
2005-Mar-01, 12:05 AM
Stephen Baxter wrote a book, "The Time Ships" which is his sequel to the original Time Machine. It tells what happened to the Time Traveller on his next trip.

The scope is vast. Morlocks in a Dyson sphere, just to start!

Baxter captures Wells' style very well, and works in references to other stories by Wells.

Enzp
2005-Mar-01, 06:33 AM
He isn't sitting there until the future, he is travelling through time. At any given instant he appears for just the briefest of instants and then is as quickly gone to the next future moment. Of course that all depends upon his "speed" through time. But if he is a half second in your past or future, he is not in your present and would not be visible.

We could surmise on how far out of phase one could be and still be visible I suppose. Millisecond, mircosecond? That would determine how long he would be visible as he traversed each moment on his journey.

Now if someone were standing in the same spot as he came through, then two things would be trying to occupy the same space at the same time. Hard to say what might happen then, even for a microsecond.

SInce the whole point of the Morlocks was that they had hidden underground during nuclear global war, one's first guess might be they ran out of food and went Donner on themselves. I read the book so long ago I don't recall that detail.

Ari Jokimaki
2005-Mar-01, 01:06 PM
Does the book explain why the Morlocks are "cannibalistic"? Can't they pick fruit, tend to crops and hunt non close primate relatives in the dark?

Here you can check it yourself. (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/3/35/35.txt)

Inferno
2005-Mar-01, 11:24 PM
It's a great story. The original movies is an entertaining adventure too. Haven't see the new version, and by all accounts that appears to be a good decision.

Which 3 books would you choose?

Jason
2005-Mar-01, 11:32 PM
He isn't sitting there until the future, he is travelling through time. At any given instant he appears for just the briefest of instants and then is as quickly gone to the next future moment. Of course that all depends upon his "speed" through time. But if he is a half second in your past or future, he is not in your present and would not be visible.
If being out of phase by a half-second is enough to make you invisible, how is it that the time traveller can still see the buildings and people around him?

cyswxman
2005-Mar-01, 11:35 PM
There was a bit of BA in the movie. When he traveled through time and you could watch the sun track across the sky, it always traversed same track instead of the track shifting up and down as the seasons progressed.

Enzp
2005-Mar-02, 03:49 AM
I don't defend time travel of the depiction thereof. I have no idea whether or not the traveller would be able to see the buildings around him as in the movie. I only concerned myself with the idea of the traveller being visible to the intervening times or not.

Van Rijn
2005-Mar-02, 09:31 PM
It's a great story. The original movies is an entertaining adventure too. Haven't see the new version, and by all accounts that appears to be a good decision.


Good call on the movie. The recent "Time Machine" is flat out terrible. Lots of BA and plot holes and has only a very thin connection to the original story. It was so bad I gave up on it at about the last half hour. I liked the George Pal version. Sure, it wasn't the same story, but it wasn't completely different and held together reasonably well.

I second the recommendation on Baxter's "Time Ships." But be sure to read Wells' original first. "Time Ships" does get a little preachy and drags here and there, but it was an amazing read, both for the ideas and the "feel" of the story.