[pferreira1983]

And by a funny coincidence, the very paradox Skyknight described is the basis for part of the plot of the 2002 remake of The Time Machine.

Yeah that didn't work out too well...

She's been in uber defense mode ever since the film flopped. We're all man-baby-internet-trolls if we didn't like ATC.

Ok.

[Kingpin]

Yeah that didn't work out too well...

It's not a perfect movie by any stretch, but I kinda like the story of the remake more than the 1960s original... it just felt more involving.

[SpaceBallz]

Maybe someone will invent a time machine(perhaps in a Delorean?) and erase this movie from existence.

That's not how time travel works. If you build a time machine for the purpose of going back and erasing this movie, the movie wouldn't have existed, giving you no reason to build a time machine to go back to erase it in the first place, which means you also don't go back to erase it and it gets still made.
You'd have to erase it and create a timeline where it never existed, but then return to your own timeline where it did to work! In other words you'd still win nothing, because you must go back to the present where it does exist to have a reason that made you build the time machine. And the other you in the new timeline wouldn't even know what you did and maybe even ask himself why damn Hollywood again canceled the production of a Ghostbusters movie!

No, we're stuck with it, for better or worse!

If we go by Terminator rules or Dragonball rules, it doesn't matter if we prevent the movie from happening in the past because in our timeline it still exists. Or life will find a way for it to happen regardless. THANK YOU JAMES CAMERON. THANKS.

[YHSCraig]

We discussed Ivan's comments on this weeks episode of Yes Have Some.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/yeshavesomeca ... nal_39.mp3

[Skyknight]

If we go by Terminator rules or Dragonball rules, it doesn't matter if we prevent the movie from happening in the past because in our timeline it still exists. Or life will find a way for it to happen regardless. THANK YOU JAMES CAMERON. THANKS.

Exactly what I was going for: You can invent a timeline where it doesn't exist but have to go back in your own timeline where it still does. Time is complicated, you can not change what has already happened(because if it didn't you wouldn't have reason to change it and it would happen nontheless), only what lies in the future because at this moment there are countless possible futures and your decissions eliminate all but one that will become true in this timeline and the others maybe in different timelines where you decide different!

[Alphagaia]

So, in short, childhoods are not ruined at all!

[JurorNo.2]

So, in short, childhoods are not ruined at all!

Can't say the same for my adulthood after this year though.

[SpaceBallz]

So, in short, childhoods are not ruined at all!

Not only our childhoods, but if the film were to be prevented from happening, then it would eventually happen - to a new generation of childhoods. Childhoods will be ruined for all timelines, our only hope:



*realizes that a Bill & Ted reboot is on the way* ....

[SSJmole]

I hope ATC2 Does happen. I also want the animated film to happen.

[pferreira1983]

It's not a perfect movie by any stretch, but I kinda like the story of the remake more than the 1960s original... it just felt more involving.

The 2002 film was a complete joke. The 60s version was far more involving and interesting.

*realizes that a Bill & Ted reboot is on the way* ....

No no no. Hope for a sequel, let's try to be optimistic.

[Scuba Steve]

I'm annoyed at why it flopped (and no, not just about the woman thing).

I'd wager the biggest reason it flopped is because it isn't a good movie.

[JurorNo.2]

I'm annoyed at why it flopped (and no, not just about the woman thing).

I'd wager the biggest reason it flopped is because it isn't a good movie.

If only the world were nice and simple like that.

[Kingpin]

The 2002 film was a complete joke. The 60s version was far more involving and interesting.

I felt the 2002 film had better special effects for the time travel sequence (stop motion only wins with Ray Harryhausen), as well as a more impressive Time Machine (that also looked like it could've worked with the technology of 1899).

I felt the destruction of modern civilisation was more plausible and less dated (global upheaval caused by the fracturing of the moon, versus a 'nuclear satellite' resulting from continued aggression of the west versus the east) - and that the depiction of the Eloi felt like a more realistic evolution than the rather "Aryan race"-like appearance in the George Pal film. Similar remarks can be given to the design and look of the Eloi village, which resembles something akin to contemporary and historical tribal villages.

I also though the 2002 protagonist's motivation for building the machine and travelling through time was more personal and involving, trying to undo the death of his love.

The 1960s film is very much a product of it's time, but I feel... some dated CGI aside (primarily some of the moments of the Morlocks), that the remake has a more timeless quality to it. (pun intended)

[pferreira1983]

The 1960s film is very much a product of it's time, but I feel... some dated CGI aside (primarily some of the moments of the Morlocks), that the remake has a more timeless quality to it. (pun intended)

The effects were better in the 1960s film. The CG effects in the remake were pretty bad. The leads had absolutely no chemistry, the plot seems more confused with rewriting plot than the actual adventure shown in the novel and Jeremy Irons appears as the villain about five minutes towards the end of the movie to explain the plot of the film and then dies. Not once does the film show any ingenuity and coherence although considering this is from the director of Shrek I'm not surprised. Just because a great grandson of HG Wells is directing the remake doesn't mean the end product is going to be good. The 60s version is definitely without a doubt more timeless. I guess it's like comparing the 1990 Total Recall to it's 2011 remake. It's night and day.

[Kingpin]

The effects were better in the 1960s film. The CG effects in the remake were pretty bad.

They really, really aren't. The volcanic destruction effects were good, but the stop-motion sequence showing the clock and candle changing as George initially travelled through time, the sequence with the store dummy, the erosion of the rocks that encased George after the volcanic upheaval, the decay of the dead Morlock... are all ropey and unconvincing viewed half a century later.

I know you've stated on numerous occasions you're not a fan of CGI, and I think past discussions have proven you're actually rather biased against CGI simply because they're not physical/practical. I've conceded some of the effects in the 2002 film haven't aged well, but the majority have, and it's in the effects especially (although the music is another aspect) that the 2002 movie is the superior article (the depiction of the Victorian era also feels less campy).

]The leads had absolutely no chemistry

I thought there was chemistry, and at least Mara felt like an actual person rather than just a convenient, rather personality-light plot device.

the plot seems more confused with rewriting plot than the actual adventure shown in the novel and Jeremy Irons appears as the villain about five minutes towards the end of the movie to explain the plot of the film and then dies.

I'm aware there were some changes in the script (as Orlando Jones' character was originally designed to be more like a robot than a hologram), but it doesn't seem that hard to follow. I'm also not sure why it's such a big issue for you that Irons appears so late into things, obviously he can't have appeared from the start (but he does actually offer a reasonable explanation for how the seemingly low-intelligence Morlocks hadn't just devoured all the Eloi in one sweep), he helps given Alexander the closure as to why he couldn't change his personal past.

The 60s version is definitely without a doubt more timeless.

I liked the 1960 version, and I went through a trial to actually find somewhere that still sold the DVD of it, but it is far from timeless, it has sadly dated.

It's like the original King Kong, good for its time, and will always be regarded well, but you're not going to convince me that a stop-motion Kong is better/more realistic than the CGI one (and again, I'll happily concede that there were things with Jackson's film that weren't great, or could've been done better). Just because something's the original, doesn't mean it couldn't have been improved on, or is actually better than the remake (The new Voltron series is more appealing to me for instance than the original, and the character designs and uniforms look superior to the original).

I guess it's like comparing the 1990 Total Recall to it's 2011 remake. It's night and day.

However this is something we can both agree on, the remake was a convoluted, directionless mess compared to the 1990 original.

[RichardLess]

The effects were better in the 1960s film. The CG effects in the remake were pretty bad.

They really, really aren't. The volcanic destruction effects were good, but the stop-motion sequence showing the clock and candle changing as George initially travelled through time, the sequence with the store dummy, the erosion of the rocks that encased George after the volcanic upheaval, the decay of the dead Morlock... are all ropey and unconvincing viewed half a century later.

I know you've stated on numerous occasions you're not a fan of CGI, and I think past discussions have proven you're actually rather biased against CGI simply because they're not physical/practical. I've conceded some of the effects in the 2002 film haven't aged well, but the majority have, and it's in the effects especially (although the music is another aspect) that the 2002 movie is the superior article (the depiction of the Victorian era also feels less campy).

]The leads had absolutely no chemistry

I thought there was chemistry, and at least Mara felt like an actual person rather than just a convenient, rather personality-light plot device.

the plot seems more confused with rewriting plot than the actual adventure shown in the novel and Jeremy Irons appears as the villain about five minutes towards the end of the movie to explain the plot of the film and then dies.

I'm aware there were some changes in the script (as Orlando Jones' character was originally designed to be more like a robot than a hologram), but it doesn't seem that hard to follow. I'm also not sure why it's such a big issue for you that Irons appears so late into things, obviously he can't have appeared from the start (but he does actually offer a reasonable explanation for how the seemingly low-intelligence Morlocks hadn't just devoured all the Eloi in one sweep), he helps given Alexander the closure as to why he couldn't change his personal past.

The 60s version is definitely without a doubt more timeless.

I liked the 1960 version, and I went through a trial to actually find somewhere that still sold the DVD of it, but it is far from timeless, it has sadly dated.

It's like the original King Kong, good for its time, and will always be regarded well, but you're not going to convince me that a stop-motion Kong is better/more realistic than the CGI one (and again, I'll happily concede that there were things with Jackson's film that weren't great, or could've been done better). Just because something's the original, doesn't mean it couldn't have been improved on, or is actually better than the remake (The new Voltron series is more appealing to me for instance than the original, and the character designs and uniforms look superior to the original).

I guess it's like comparing the 1990 Total Recall to it's 2011 remake. It's night and day.

However this is something we can both agree on, the remake was a convoluted, directionless mess compared to the 1990 original.

The original King Kong is just jaw droppingly amazing for its time. Some effects are timeless and King Kong is one of em. Just like Wizard of Oz. I have still to this day have yet to see CGI do a better tornado then the one in Wizard. Look at that thing! How the eff did they pull that off in 1939!?!

Same with 2001 a Space Odyssey. I have no idea how they did that movie before motion control riggs. There are no matte lines anywhere!! How is that even possible!
I love CGI. Gollum and Davy Jones from Pirates 2 are just flawless. But it's changed filmmaking and I don't think for the better. Take Lawrence of Arabia. Now they would do the siege of Aqaba with cgi horses and soldiers and it would look like Lord of the Rings. But in the 60's they had to do it all in camera and it's all the more breath taking for it. Just look at the latest Ben Hur movie remake and see the difference. In CGI We've gained a new, great tool. But we've also lost something too.

[SSJmole]

I'm annoyed at why it flopped (and no, not just about the woman thing).

I'd wager the biggest reason it flopped is because it isn't a good movie.

That's why Adam Sandler films never make money or the Transformers films .....

[GBPaulRivera]

I saw an idea on this subforum who got me excited. Some Greek deity made the world and the busters forget about ghostbusting and the ladies had to reinvent the wheel in ATC and discover in the sequel about the fab four.

Sounds interesting, but very fan-fic style just to fix something that isn't broken objectively.

[GBPaulRivera]

The problem was however, Murray could not imagine that and wanted no part of it.
Which is one of the reasons I was ok with a reboot, as it kept the original timeline intact without them killing of Venkman and Spengler, for example.

Stantz is a teacher at the Columbia University, his class become the new Gbs (one of his students, Kylie, also run is Occult Store). Venkman is happily retired, Winston is always ready to help, Egon became a buddhist monk (one of the first Ramis idea for a Gb3 Egon). Here's Ghostbusters 3 without killing anyone

Same result, and worst, its a rip off of XGB's premise. Fantastic, you made it worst.

[GBPaulRivera]

If we go by Terminator rules or Dragonball rules, it doesn't matter if we prevent the movie from happening in the past because in our timeline it still exists. Or life will find a way for it to happen regardless. THANK YOU JAMES CAMERON. THANKS.

Exactly what I was going for: You can invent a timeline where it doesn't exist but have to go back in your own timeline where it still does. Time is complicated, you can not change what has already happened(because if it didn't you wouldn't have reason to change it and it would happen nontheless), only what lies in the future because at this moment there are countless possible futures and your decissions eliminate all but one that will become true in this timeline and the others maybe in different timelines where you decide different!

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey

[GBPaulRivera]

I'd wager the biggest reason it flopped is because it isn't a good movie.

That's why Adam Sandler films never make money or the Transformers films .....

Ironic since you know, Scuba Steve's username is from an adam sandler movie that also has mixed reviews leaning on negative.

[Scuba Steve]

In a bizarre twist... it's NOT from the film. Prior to the film around 1997/98, a friend used to play as "Scuba Surma" as his moniker for LAN gaming parties. I stole his nickname and applied "Scuba Steve" to it.

[GBPaulRivera]

The original King Kong is just jaw droppingly amazing for its time. Some effects are timeless and King Kong is one of em. Just like Wizard of Oz. I have still to this day have yet to see CGI do a better tornado then the one in Wizard. Look at that thing! How the eff did they pull that off in 1939!?!

Same with 2001 a Space Odyssey. I have no idea how they did that movie before motion control riggs. There are no matte lines anywhere!! How is that even possible!
I love CGI. Gollum and Davy Jones from Pirates 2 are just flawless. But it's changed filmmaking and I don't think for the better. Take Lawrence of Arabia. Now they would do the siege of Aqaba with cgi horses and soldiers and it would look like Lord of the Rings. But in the 60's they had to do it all in camera and it's all the more breath taking for it. Just look at the latest Ben Hur movie remake and see the difference. In CGI We've gained a new, great tool. But we've also lost something too.

You lost nothing, step down from the poetics and just take a step back instead. Hollywood is making big bucks and its not in a slump age to give reason to why bad films exist. I bet you when you were a kid, you're granddad or dad or mom or grandma or whoever older than you said: Yes, but I remember when (INSERT MEMORY OF SOMETHING HERE). Irony since people of every generation always end up saying that. My point? The reason for bad films is the same for why there are bad books, bad games, bad comics, bad songs, and bad people ... Direction. The direction in every project, including your life and its different aspects is down to where you take it and what vision you have as well as what others have. In CGI, the loss is difficulty in making physical objects, and the gain is the difficulty of making meta-physical objects look physical on a scale that's impossible to achieve in the physical world unless you want to spend half a the USA's debt to china. If you ever look at the inflation of GB 1984's budget in 2016 is pretty modest at 68,945,717.04, but that's if they still did it the way they did it in 1984, probably less/more with CGI if CGI was where it is today while being in existence in 1984. There is no loss of having the wonderful tool of CGI, but it takes so much effort and practice and dedication to just up the scale on physical reality. Best example of 2016, The Jungle Book. The entire thing is beautiful and that was down to style, direction, passion, and other things that make the tool a helpful necessity in the art of film making. So please, don't say we are losing something because people still do practical: KRAMPUS is a great example of that, and its CGI is still amazing. Face it, its humanity that makes art into trash and trash into art.

[GBPaulRivera]

In a bizarre twist... it's NOT from the film. Prior to the film around 1997/98, a friend used to play as "Scuba Surma" as his moniker for LAN gaming parties. I stole his nickname and applied "Scuba Steve" to it.

Well the more you know. My apologies there, but I couldn't have known that.

[RichardLess]

The original King Kong is just jaw droppingly amazing for its time. Some effects are timeless and King Kong is one of em. Just like Wizard of Oz. I have still to this day have yet to see CGI do a better tornado then the one in Wizard. Look at that thing! How the eff did they pull that off in 1939!?!

Same with 2001 a Space Odyssey. I have no idea how they did that movie before motion control riggs. There are no matte lines anywhere!! How is that even possible!
I love CGI. Gollum and Davy Jones from Pirates 2 are just flawless. But it's changed filmmaking and I don't think for the better. Take Lawrence of Arabia. Now they would do the siege of Aqaba with cgi horses and soldiers and it would look like Lord of the Rings. But in the 60's they had to do it all in camera and it's all the more breath taking for it. Just look at the latest Ben Hur movie remake and see the difference. In CGI We've gained a new, great tool. But we've also lost something too.

You lost nothing, step down from the poetics and just take a step back instead. Hollywood is making big bucks and its not in a slump age to give reason to why bad films exist. I bet you when you were a kid, you're granddad or dad or mom or grandma or whoever older than you said: Yes, but I remember when (INSERT MEMORY OF SOMETHING HERE). Irony since people of every generation always end up saying that. My point? The reason for bad films is the same for why there are bad books, bad games, bad comics, bad songs, and bad people ... Direction. The direction in every project, including your life and its different aspects is down to where you take it and what vision you have as well as what others have. In CGI, the loss is difficulty in making physical objects, and the gain is the difficulty of making meta-physical objects look physical on a scale that's impossible to achieve in the physical world unless you want to spend half a the USA's debt to china. If you ever look at the inflation of GB 1984's budget in 2016 is pretty modest at 68,945,717.04, but that's if they still did it the way they did it in 1984, probably less/more with CGI if CGI was where it is today while being in existence in 1984. There is no loss of having the wonderful tool of CGI, but it takes so much effort and practice and dedication to just up the scale on physical reality. Best example of 2016, The Jungle Book. The entire thing is beautiful and that was down to style, direction, passion, and other things that make the tool a helpful necessity in the art of film making. So please, don't say we are losing something because people still do practical: KRAMPUS is a great example of that, and its CGI is still amazing. Face it, its humanity that makes art into trash and trash into art.

Did you miss the part where I said CGI is a great tool and can do great things or did you just skip over that and launch into that little rant? Because while CGI is a great tool there is one thing it has caused: "laziness". Now that anything is possible with CGI we get the great filmmakers who utilize its potential but they also over use it. They mistake CGI for story. Look no further than Peter Jackson. The stampede scene in the 2005 King Kong looks ridiculous, with bad compositing. Instead of focusing on story and character he was more concerned with action and spectacle. Look at how different Indiana Jones 4 was when CGI entered the mix. Spielberg created an entire jungle that looks fake. He couldn't do that in 1981 and so they had to use creative work arounds. Now that anything is possible filmmakers are not longer limited with what they can't and maybe shouldn't do. It's a great tool, and Jungle book is a great example of it being used well.

[pferreira1983]

They really, really aren't. The volcanic destruction effects were good, but the stop-motion sequence showing the clock and candle changing as George initially travelled through time, the sequence with the store dummy, the erosion of the rocks that encased George after the volcanic upheaval, the decay of the dead Morlock... are all ropey and unconvincing viewed half a century later.

The time movement effects for the time were amazing and still impressive to this day. You get a fabulous look at time travel that is true to the novel. The 2002 time travel is dull and boring so yes the 60s version is still superior.

I thought there was chemistry, and at least Mara felt like an actual person rather than just a convenient, rather personality-light plot device.

The leads had zero chemistry and charisma but if you enjoy that type of thing fine.

I'm aware there were some changes in the script (as Orlando Jones' character was originally designed to be more like a robot than a hologram), but it doesn't seem that hard to follow. I'm also not sure why it's such a big issue for you that Irons appears so late into things, obviously he can't have appeared from the start (but he does actually offer a reasonable explanation for how the seemingly low-intelligence Morlocks hadn't just devoured all the Eloi in one sweep), he helps given Alexander the closure as to why he couldn't change his personal past.

The script makes zero sense at times and suffers bad plotting. You don't introduce your villain in the climax of a movie and then just for him to be Mr. Plot Exposition. Let's face it, it's a bad script which resulted in a bad movie.

It's like the original King Kong, good for its time, and will always be regarded well, but you're not going to convince me that a stop-motion Kong is better/more realistic than the CGI one (and again, I'll happily concede that there were things with Jackson's film that weren't great, or could've been done better).

No way does the 2005 Kong seem better than the 30s version. The 30s version still looks amazing. It has a movie magic to it that feels timeless. I do feel more personality went into the stop motion than the later's films CGI.

However this is something we can both agree on, the remake was a convoluted, directionless mess compared to the 1990 original.

While I'm not interested in either movie remakes I would however say I feel the 2011 remake is slightly better and is more interesting than the Time Machine remake.

Same with 2001 a Space Odyssey. I have no idea how they did that movie before motion control riggs. There are no matte lines anywhere!! How is that even possible!
I love CGI. Gollum and Davy Jones from Pirates 2 are just flawless. But it's changed filmmaking and I don't think for the better. Take Lawrence of Arabia. Now they would do the siege of Aqaba with cgi horses and soldiers and it would look like Lord of the Rings. But in the 60's they had to do it all in camera and it's all the more breath taking for it. Just look at the latest Ben Hur movie remake and see the difference. In CGI We've gained a new, great tool. But we've also lost something too

Exactly!

[Kingpin]

The time movement effects for the time were amazing and still impressive to this day.

They were good for their time, but look as dated as the original King Kong and Clash of the Titans do today.

The 2002 time travel is dull and boring so yes the 60s version is still superior.

We'll have to disagree again here.

The leads had zero chemistry and charisma but if you enjoy that type of thing fine.

I don't enjoy zero chemistry, hence my not enjoying George and Weena in the original. George definitely had personality, but she was (understandably from part of the context of the story, a blank slate).

No way does the 2005 Kong seem better than the 30s version. The 30s version still looks amazing. It has a movie magic to it that feels timeless.

I feel you're letting the movie nostalgia of the original Kong blinker you to the original Kong's flaws. It hasn't stood the test of time very well, and for it's flaws, even the 1970s Kong film had a more convincing giant ape.

While I'm not interested in either movie remakes I would however say I feel the 2011 remake is slightly better and is more interesting than the Time Machine remake.

The 2002 Time Machine is easily a better movie than the 2012 Total Recall.

[SSJmole]

I actually agree Kong looked amazing in Peter Jackson's king Kong. I actually don't like that reboot but long was flawless. Black and white im glad I got on DVD as I love it (plus it has king Kong vs Godzilla which is fun) but good effects are good effects

[Sav C]

The 30s King Kong is fun to watch as it was cool seeing the origin of so many SFX techniques in their earliest forms. It really is impressive what they were able to do at the time, and the SFX serve the story well enough that they still work.

The 70s Kong was good, and I liked the way the story was updated to fit the times, but considering what they could do SFX-wise at the time it was mildly disappointing. The cinematography was really nice in it, probably the best of the three movies.

The 2005 Kong is probably my favorite, as it seems to be the most polished of the three. They may have gone overboard at times with the CGI, but for the most part it was simply stunning.

[featofstrength]

Kong 2005 sucks.