MovieChat Forums > Time After Time (1979) Discussion > machine on exhibit?!

machine on exhibit?!

posted 13 years ago by nbreyfogle-1
12 replies | jump to latest

I love this movie, but I agree that there are many plot holes. I haven't read the novel yet, but I'm going to do so to discover if the novel has similar problems.

One problem I haven't seen anyone on these boards mention (although I might have missed its mention) is the fact that when Wells travels through time to San Fran, he appears inside a version of his machine which has been sitting there on display for a long time, and presumably had been visible in existence throughout history since the time that Wells had built it. WTF? When the Ripper and Wells left on their separate, respective trips through time, both the machine and its occupant disappeared from view each time it traveled away in time. So, when Wells arrived in 1979 (and when the Ripper did so, first), the respective occupant for each trip and the machine together should have appeared out of thin air each time.

It makes no sense at all, as far as I can tell.

Does the novel not exhibit this and the many other problems found in the film?

[–] profh-1 13 years ago

It's been my experience that MOST time-travel movies have these sort of "plot holes". You have 2 choices: accept them with a sense of fun, or don't watch the film.

One could try to get all "technical" and suggest 2 versions of the same thing can't exist in the same space at once, etc. then again, it always struck me as one of those "WHAT ARE THE ODDS???" moments that of all the place for the machine to turn up, it would be in an EXHIBIT dedicated to Wells.

I wouldn't worry about the book. In fact, I wouldn't worry about ANY book while watching ANY movie. Frankly I'm tired of reading complaints from people at this website about how a movie doesn't match up with the book, when in most case, I never even knew there WAS a book (so why should I care?).

[–] sisterdebmac 13 years ago

In this case the book came AFTER the movie. It was an unpublished short story first, then a movie, then a book. And the book basically just fleshes everything out. It's quite a wonderful read if you love this movie. But yeah, I don't really care about the paradoxes either. I just love this story.
________________
there will be snark

[–] turtletommy 13 years ago

Frankly I thought the idea of having the "actual" time machine on display at the exhibit was great.

[–] nbreyfogle-1 13 years ago

I didn't know that it was an unpublished short story first. Thanks for that info; that story is what I'd like to read.

[–] nbreyfogle-1 13 years ago

A correction: I've now located, purchased, and am presently reading the novel (written by Karl Alexander; it's NOT a short story), and the jacket copy makes it explicitly clear that the movie is based on the book, not the other way around.

[–] nbreyfogle-1 13 years ago

I've also discovered that Karl Alexander has written a sequel to his novel "Time After Time", titled "Jaclyn the Ripper," in which the Ripper returns as a woman and Wells again has to hunt him (her) down in San Francisco in 2010. This sequel was published in 2009, I've now purchased and read it, and it's quite good.

[–] Spottedfeather 12 years ago

When the machine went to the future, it sort of takes the place of the other machine. Instead of like in Back To The Future, where the machine travels in time but in the same place, the machine in Time After Time travels to wherever the machine will be in the future time the traveller is going to. So, because the machine was in a museum exibit in 1979, that's where the machine from 1893 will end up.

Think about this. Once bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread.

[–] MuggySphere 12 years ago

I am more surprised no one at the museum ever tried to fiddle with it or try to make it work :) Yes I know it's not meant to be real in the world the film is in as it's in a museum as a prop but still.

[–] desertray40 12 years ago

Well, as much as I hate to tear apart a movie that I have loved for many years, I would have to say that the time machine should have never existed as a museum display. Herbert, unlike John had the key to prevent the machine from going back to it's time of origin. So in a sense the time machine would have been missing throughout all the years since Herbert left in it.

[–] lrsprkstrm 12 years ago

Just to clear up this thread.

At the end of the movie, H.G. and Amy go back to his time, where he presumably deactivates the time-machine, i.e. making it no longer function, which later become a museum piece along with other inventories of his house.

[–] pullman1881 11 years ago

When he first arrived in SF at the museum exhibit, there's a sign that says the machine was unearthed by workmen two years previously. The machine was on loan from the British Museum. I guess could be considered a clue that if the machine was found in London, HG would probably have been the driver/passenger and safely returned.

[–] johnc-4 10 years ago

I too thought that made no sense. From HG's own description, the machine was to have travelled through time, remaining stationery in his home, or whatever occupies that space many years later. At the end of his journey, he returns to his time, deactivates the machine, which many years later winds up in an exhibit.