Have you seen the movie(s) and what did you think of them??? And do you think Time Travel is possible???

[B.J.]

Sorry, I got my discussions mixed up (see War Of The Worlds) I enjoyed this book a lot and the 1960 Rod Taylor/George Pal movie is a must see.
BJ

[Sarah]

It has to be the Rod Taylor one, it has a wonderful charm and was much more truthful to the book. It's not that I thought the other one was an bad film, I just didn't think it was needed after such a great version was already made which it couldn't surpass.

[Ralph]

I've seen both the theatrical films, and at least one (maybe two) made for television, but my favorite is still the George Pal version. Although the film does not capture Wells' sense of mounting horror, it does show the division between Morlock and Eloi arising because of a societal condition. In the book, it was class warfare, while in the film it was apprehension about the Cold War turning hot, something very much on our minds back in the 1960s. Although it seemed a good update at the time, it might have been better to have retained Wells' original underlying theme...the Cold War is passe (not really, but no one thinks of it anymore, except me) but the flames of class warfare are being fanned even higher now than they were in the late Victorian Era. It's still a great film, but adhering to the original premise would have ensured relevancy from generation to generation...despite Wells' vision of a socialistic Utopia, it's like class struggle will endure, no matter the prevailing politics.

[B.J.]

I agree completely, nicely put, class struggle will always be with us. It is an underlying, sometimes unintentional, theme in everything from '1984' to 'Easy Rider', to 'Star Wars'. Hey, here's a crazy (maybe not?) thought: Eloi/Morlock, Human/Zombie. Who knew Wells was a Gen Xer?
BJ

[Venise]

I would like to see this movie, did not know there was one-- will check on that.

[BattyKat]

I liked them all, but I really like the extra story in the Guy Pierce version.

[Monty J]

Boycott Daniel and all other Goodreads contractors trolling for clicks by posing empty questions like this.

The tip-off: a profile with no picture and set to "private."

[Feliks]

Seriously. This 'audience commoditization' ('we' are the 'product') makes my flesh creep! And people chattering about movies just a few years old; completely unaware that their favorite film is usually a remake. Stop the imbecility!

[Monty J]

My apologies if I'm wrong. You should provide more substance in your opening post if you want to avoid being mistaken for a troll.

[Monty J]

Daniel wrote: "I know this sounds like a dumb question but what is a "troll"? Some person who spreads viruses or something???"

Per Wiki: "In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

By extension, the term applies also to the unethical practice of paying "trolls" to post controversial or provocative comments that stimulate discussion without providing any real input themselves. The purpose for which is to increase the "click count" so the site can charge more for advertising.

People who don't provide a profile identifying themselves run the risk of being mistaken for a troll, especially when their comments are provocative and terse, requiring others to do the work.

[Monty J]

Daniel wrote: "I can see why if I were an actual troll it would be ethically wrong. It would be a lie."

Until you provide a profile we still don't know you're not a troll. You're on my "troll watch" list until you do.

[Meer]

Time Travel may be possible!!!
But we may never know as the time traveller would create alternate timelines on his adventures/visits and we may never know what he/she did as their wouldn't be a definite timeline to compare!!!!!

[Alan]

I feel that Wells mainly used the "time travel" theme as a way to get his character into a different environment, for the purposes of making a didactic point. If he's written the book a century before, he could have used a hidden valley or undiscovered part of Africa or something, but by this time every part of the world was discovered...

As far as time travel being possible I have to give a resounding "no" for the reasons that are so often cited -

(1) Time paradox. As things stand in our reality as it is right now, you were NOT present in New York on 15th August 1810. So, if you invented a time machine you could not go back to that precise date, because reality says you didn't! The same goes for every other instant in history.

(2) Causality is constant - things happen because they have been caused by other things, and free will and chance are involved. If you could travel into the future, that would mean that the future "already exists" which contradict the fact that the future will be shaped by what went before.

(3) If a time machine ever will be invented, why have we never met travelers from the future? Surely they'd be ONE instance at least, in all of recorded history!

To me, the only way around this would be (a) an infinite series of alternate universes - so that when you went back in time, you'd create a new timeline that differs from our own by the fact that your were there, or (b) You can travel backwards in time, but only exist as a kind of disembodied spirit that can never be seen by the people who exist in that time, rather like watching a movie shot in the past.


And Daniel, speed of light travel is not possible for a human. Why? Because the faster a physical thing moves, the more mass it gains (which is why falling from 30 stories up hurts more than falling from two inches), and the more energy you need to keep it accelerating. Long before you reach anything like the speed of light, you will need more energy to keep accelerating than exists in the universe!

Anyway that's my two pennyworth. be great if someone could prove me wrong, of course!

[B.J.]

Re: Alan
Interesting comments and the points about time travel well put and well taken. There is a lot of talk and speculation these days about alternate universes/realities. Many scientists seem to think the possibilities do exist. I used this point in my book Elysian Dreams. Collin's grandmother explains to him that he is not traveling to a different 'time' per say, but to a different but parallel universe, one where he does exist. It took a lot of research, contemplation and head scratching and still I felt completely overwhelmed but the subject matter. I always try to make my stories, be them sci-fi, fantasy or fantastic as reality based factual as possible, but time travel is a whole different ball game. And with the popularity of Elysian Dreams my publisher is bugging me for a sequel. Time to put the thinking cap back on!
BJ

[Alan]

The point here is that "Elysium Dreams", is not a book about time travel. Casa Di Tempo transports the characters not to their own real past, but to an Amish community set in an alternate world, and anything that they can do there can only change the future in the same "legitimate" way that we ourselves can in our own reality.

Compare this with actual "time travel" where one travels back into our own past, in this universe, the one that has actually existed. Now in this instance, one does not need as dramatic an example as Daniel gives above - that of saving someone's life.

Let's say you travel back and arrive at # 36, Main Street, Anytown, at 11:53AM on 16th May 1920. You touch the door, then immediately travel back to your starting point. In the REAL reality, you were NOT there, touching the door at that place and time - therefore you have time paradox. In fact, simply arriving there, staying for a zillionth of a second without doing anything or even being seen, and then vanishing causes the same problem.

It's for this reason, I come down strongly against actual time travel - but I do concede that it may be possible to travel into an alternate universe that resembles our own past exactly, or even to our own past if an alternate time-branch comes into being the split second you arrive!

[B.J.]

You are right and that was the point I was trying to make while trying to keep my eyes open. Thanks for putting it so well (especially pointing out that Elysian Dreams is not ABOUT time travel)and thanks for the read. Hope you enjoyed the book and left comments.
Listen to Alan, kiddies, he knows of what he speaks.
BJ

[Alan]

LOL, I give a solemn warning here. That is NOT good advice from BJ - who is a far better writer than judge of character! :^)

[Jon]

The 1960 Rod Taylor movie is a minor classic and is somewhat faithful to the book. Guy Pearce's version is god-awful.

[Feliks]

Scientific American magazine had an article once in which a physicist sketched out the parameters for the only kind of time machine our knowledge of physics currently allows could be possible; and it met all the criteria and objections raised so far. But while it was feasible in the theoretical sense, in practice it would be incredibly difficult to build and operate. Would take a much more advanced culture than we have any shot of ever being.

But you can see this kind of time machine described in action, in the novel 'Nighteyes' by Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

[Venise]

I believe time travel is possible. When a person travels to an advanced time zone area he/she has experienced time travel. As for the fwd and rev types of travel along wider brackets of time, that ability and comprehension of how to make sense of it has not been given to me yet I still believe.

[Feliks]

^^^^ Oh. Okay. Get back to us on that as soon as you can?

[Matthew]

Haven't seen any of the movies and just finished the book. Which is best in keeping to the original story?

[Bob]

Matthew wrote: "Haven't seen any of the movies and just finished the book. Which is best in keeping to the original story?"

The 1960 version is closest to the book.

[Bob]

If you really liked the Time Machine novel, you should check out "The Time Ships" by Stephen Baxter. It's a sequel to the original novel and picks up right when the time traveler tries to get back to the future to save Weena.

It has won a bunch of awards and was officially authorized by the Wells estate. It gets really weird and convoluted and deals with multiple time lines and dimensions, but I enjoyed it. I've read it a few times.

It's also written in H.G. Wells' style.

[Vickie]

I did read a treatise on time travel, speculating that it would be possible. However, one could not travel back in time before the invention of the "time machine".

So we haven't met any time travelers because a time machine has not been invented yet.

[Mike]

No he only goes forward in time and then returns to his original starting point.

On the 'going into the future by travelling at the speed of light':

1. This is not really time travel you would just be experiencing different subjective time to a person your speed is measured relative to. The faster you go the slower your time relative to theirs. So if you stop maybe a year has gone by for you whilst several have gone by for the other observer. So you appear to have travelled forward relative to them.

2. A earlier poster wrote that you cannot travel at the speed of light because the energy requirements to accelerate you to the speed of light would be effectively infinte. Whilst this is true, you don't need to reach the speed of light to achieve the effect of moving in time. ie. of experiencing different subjective times. Any sufficiently significant relative speed will generate slight 'time shifts' between sbuject and observer. In fact this has to be allowed for in GPS navigation calculations where the relative speeds of the satellites results in a measurable time 'shift'.

[Bob]

There are actually 2 effects on GPS calculations - speed is one, but also the difference in the gravity field. Being in a larger gravity field also slows down your time. If you are in Denver, your time is going faster than people at sea level. (Because Denver, being farther from the center of the Earth than sea level, has a gravity that is ever so slightly less.)

So, another way to travel into the future is to take a spaceship and circle close to a black hole and then come back. Being near the black hole will slow down your time. Well, that's assuming you don't get crushed or stretched apart while near the black hole.

[Mike]

Boblee, you are of course right! :D

[Bob]

I'm a sucker for time travel stories, so I just finished Stephen King's 11/22/63. He basically has a portal in the back closet of a diner, and makes no attempt to explain exactly how it came to be, but it was a pretty good story. Of course, being King, it has a few gory parts later in the book, but as a time travel story I enjoyed it, even with its contrived portions. You all might like it. 11/22/63

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that in King's story, he has the concept of time 'not wanting' the past to change and actively tries to keep it from happening. They used the same concept in the Time Machine reboot. I know I've read old short sci-fi stories long ago with that concept, and wasn't there a Twilight Zone episode that did something similar?

[[deleted user]]

scanning through this thread, a lot of the comments are about the book being about a class war, i am not sure and here is the reason way.

A few years a took a tour round Wollaton Hall in Nottingham, (incidentally, it was used as Wayne Manor in the last batman movie), what was most interesting the servants actually lived bellow ground like the Morlocks doing all the work and the owners lived in the house itself like the Eloi.

So my opinion it may be a class commentary rather than a class war.

[Bob]

Mark wrote: "scanning through this thread, a lot of the comments are about the book being about a class war, i am not sure and here is the reason way.

A few years a took a tour round Wollaton Hall in Nottingh..."

Wow, but I think here in the USA, having lots of open land, instead the worker bees got their own separate mini-house out back.

[Mike]

This is not uncommon in the big stately homes. Actually servant quarters were often up in the top floors/attic and/or below ground. Certainly most of the servant working areas (kitchens etc.) tended to be below ground.

[Luci Ann]

Definitely prefer the old film, classic and fabulous! I remember feeling quite sad at the end of the book, does he travel to the end of civilisation or suchlike? I don't quite remember... Have you seen the Big Bang Theory episode on the Time Machine? Wonderful!!

[Bob]

Meera wrote: "Definitely prefer the old film, classic and fabulous! I remember feeling quite sad at the end of the book, does he travel to the end of civilisation or suchlike? I don't quite remember... Have you ..."

Meera,
In the book, the time traveller finds the door to the sphinx(?) open with his time machine in it (just like in the old movie) and as he goes in, the Morlocks close the doors and attack while he tries to get the levers installed.

He ends up going further into the future. In the movie, he reverses as soon as he realizes he's going forward, but in the book he continues on periodically stopping. He ends up on a lonely beach with giant crabs and moss, and the Earth has stopped spinning and the Sun is red. He says it is 30 million years ahead (best thinking back before Einstein). It's actually a very depressing future, as there is NO one left. And the oxygen is low and it's cold.

I liked that, in both the book and the movie, he also notices when he gets back to tell his story that the time machine is in a different spot due to the Morlocks dragging it, and he also as 2 flowers that Weena gave him.

And yes, I LOVED the Big Bang Time Machine episode!!

[Donna]

I read the book....but I liked the Rod Taylor/Shanks movie better. Maybe because I was more familiar with it...I had watched over and over. As for time travel...I do believe.... The book and movie The Philadelphia Experiment was kinda about that ...you never know...

[Ken]

We're all traveling through time just sitting here typing. It's just that we consider "time travel" as a case in which we are transported at a different velocity. If such a thing is possible, we don't have the technology for it. Because of the way the universe works (as I understand it), we would first have to successfully punch into another set of dimensions or universal instance where physics behave differently, and then successfully punch back into ours at the chosen time, all while conserving the well being of the traveler. This last may be the hardest part of all. We don't respond well to changes in inertia or gravity.

This book was an excellent imagination of what time travel could do for us, even if we can't really do it.

[Luci Ann]

I bet Dr. Rodney McKay could figure it!

[Sam]

Anything and everything one can imagine is possible. Now, whether or not it exists is a whole other story.

[Johnny]

I have seen the movies and prefer the old 1960 version, which has nostalgia value for me as it was always on tv when I was a kid (that and Journey To The Centre of the Earth with James Mason. I seriously doubt that time travel is possible; if it ever becomes possible, why haven't people from the future traveled back and told us about it?

[Kirk]

I too prefer the older version, seen when I was 11 or 12 years old. Nowadays, with an engineering background, I find time travel movies and books unappealing.

[Bob]

Kirk,

I have an Electrical Engineering and computer science degree, and also a Math teaching certification, and love time travel stories, so I don't think technical expertise matters as to whether you like the stories or not.

I'm currently reading "Timebound" (December's Kindle First selection) and the "Time Travel Megapack" (a bunch of classic and new short stories for 99 cents on Amazon).

[Michael]

Dear Daniel and others:

For those of you who would like a clearer view of time travel etc. try the the video "The truth about the Philadelphia Experiment" from Reality Films. (the documentary - not the movie) This will show you hove the US Government did it and make you think about the possibilities!

Uncle Mike & Fluffy

[Donna]

Michael!! I loved that book and the first movie! I do believe something happened. A friend had a neighbor who was stationed there at the time...we asked him if he knew anything or what he thought...he got very visibly nervous and said he had to leave. He went back in the house & avoided us for the longest time. Boy did that make me even curious. I will look for the film you mentioned!

Michael wrote: "Dear Daniel and others:

For those of you who would like a clearer view of time travel etc. try the the video "The truth about the Philadelphia Experiment" from Reality Films. (the documentary - no..."

Michael

[Albert]

Johnny wrote: "I have seen the movies and prefer the old 1960 version, which has nostalgia value for me as it was always on tv when I was a kid (that and Journey To The Centre of the Earth with James Mason. I ser..."

I have a degree in mathematics and also very interested in the staff like time travel. As far as I know there is no scientific theory which forbids time travels.

[Bob]

Daniel,

Re: "Time seems to be a very unstable thing."

That makes me think of the comment in the Doctor Who episode "Blink" with the Weeping Angels:

"The Doctor: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."

[Monty J]

Let's put this to bed once and for all. Not possible. It's a fascinating idea without substance. Light speed can never be achieved by anything but light. Dogs can't catch cars.

Light is not a physical object. It's merely a reference point. Time is finite. Once expired, a second cannot be revisited.

Proof: Earth turns at the rate of 1,037 mph (at sea level.) You can fly east at Mach 2, 1,552 mph, and theoretically arrive before you started. But common sense tells you that all you've done is merely fly around earth several times while earth circumnavigates the sun.

Nothing can erase that arc of solar transit.

Astronauts know this because they have lived something similar.

[Bob]

OK, so I have to add this...but if you fly WEST super fast, you can make the Earth turn the opposite way and thus turn back time! [Assuming you are old enough to have seen the 1978 Superman movie, that is what it looked like, although afterwards they came up with an explanation that it just looked that way since he was going faster than the speed of light.]

But the comment about the Earth moving always made me think that, if you strictly traveled backwards or forwards in time, you would reappear in empty space because the Earth moved away from under you! So your time machine has to somehow also track the Earth and keep you with it.

[Albert]

Bob wrote: "OK, so I have to add this...but if you fly WEST super fast, you can make the Earth turn the opposite way and thus turn back time! [Assuming you are old enough to have seen the 1978 Superman movie, ..."

not only the Earth moving - the Solar System also rotates around the centre of the Milky Way. And the Milky Way doesn't stand still it also moves

[Bob]

Albert wrote: "not only the Earth moving - the Solar System also rotates around the centre of the Milky Way. And the Milky Way doesn't stand still it also moves"

Excellent points, Albert! And those motions are even faster, if I remember correctly.

[Daniel]

Saw the movie in 1960 on a Saturday afternoon. Ran to my school library on Monday, first thing, and checked it out. The movie and the book were the initial taste of my life-long addiction to Science Fiction.