London to San Fran?
Can someone explain how he ended up in 1979 San Francisco and not 1979 London?
shareDid you look thru the other threads? See "Arriving in San Francisco" discussion on pg 2. I believe theoretically (laugh) you time travel from the same departure to arrival point in space. Time moves, you don't, during time travel. So no time traveling from London to S.F. or even London city center to a London suburb for example! One explanation for the TAT London to S.F. trip was that the time machine in the S.F. museum we see had been moved there as part of a traveling museum exhibit from where it was originally found/dug up in London presumably shortly before 1979 the year the story takes place in. The Ripper after he stole it from Wells lab went ahead in time 90 years or whenever to where the machine had been moved to- San Francisco. But "technically" it should have been modern London, that made more sense. I don't think the machine could be set to travel to a location other than from the one it occupied in space- just different times. Btw after the Ripper arrived in S.F. and left the machine it "returned" back to 1893(?) London and Wells lab- as Wells had built in a fail-safe device to bring it back to wherever it had last originated from. Anyway some parts of the time travel and explanations by Nicholas Meyer don't seem to be really spelled out convincingly but details, details (smile) the overall story is interesting and fun.
Oh yes, the old time travel conundrum of what would happen to a traveler if the spot in space they traveled from had, during their time travel forward or backward in time but in that exact same spot, been the middle of a 10' thick castle wall or a modern concrete one?
Maybe it has to do with what Wells said "If it spins to the west..." Maybe it really does that but the Earth's gravity keeps it in on the planet.
For Herbert's trip notice that the Time Machine was falling apart in "mid-flight." So maybe it fused with it's future counterpart in order to maintain it's existance.
In the novel "The Time Machine" it stayed in the same place.
Another thing that didn't make sense, how come the people who found it didn't try it out?
http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.biz/models.htm
The reason that he ends up in San Francisco is that they moved the time machine from London to San Francisco for the museum exhibit, so when they "arrive" in 1979, they have to end up where the time machine is, namely, in San Francisco. Wells himself is initially surprised as well, when he notices that there is an eight hour time difference between the time he set and the time on the clock when he arrives.
As for why no one tried it, we don't *know* that no one tried it. The sign on the exhibit only says that the machine was never *known* to work. The key was in it, so it would automatically return to its origin. It looks like that what happened was that anyone who tried to use it stepped outside and whoops, the machine disappeared, leaving them stranded in some other time and, presumably, locked up in an asylum for claiming that they had just used H.G. Wells's time machine.
Another possibility is that Wells destroyed the machine (he made a comment about how we shouldn't be playing with time) after returning to 1893, so the machine only existed in the time loop that brought Wells and Stevenson to SF. No one tried it because in the "real" time loop, it never existed except for the brief period of time in 1893 when Wells had it in his basement.
If you're going to start discussing inconsistencies, you might consider the one that Malcom McDowell himself mentions on the DVD commentary: the real H.G. Wells never got rid of his lower-class accent, and yet in the movie, his accent is definitely upper-crust. According to McDowell, when the movie was released in England, critics complained about *that* inconsistency.
The reason that he ends up in San Francisco is that they moved the time machine from London to San Francisco for the museum exhibit, so when they "arrive" in 1979, they have to end up where the time machine is, namely, in San Francisco. Wells himself is initially surprised as well, when he notices that there is an eight hour time difference between the time he set and the time on the clock when he arrives.
Yes of course I always overlooked that fact
As for why no one tried it, we don't *know* that no one tried it. The sign on the exhibit only says that the machine was never *known* to work. The key was in it, so it would automatically return to its origin. It looks like that what happened was that anyone who tried to use it stepped outside and whoops, the machine disappeared, leaving them stranded in some other time and, presumably, locked up in an asylum for claiming that they had just used H.G. Wells's time machine.
The above opens a possible whole slew of films where people from our time and other time periods go back and muck up history
Another possibility is that Wells destroyed the machine (he made a comment about how we shouldn't be playing with time) after returning to 1893, so the machine only existed in the time loop that brought Wells and Stevenson to SF. No one tried it because in the "real" time loop, it never existed except for the brief period of time in 1893 when Wells had it in his basement.
True
If you're going to start discussing inconsistencies, you might consider the one that Malcom McDowell himself mentions on the DVD commentary: the real H.G. Wells never got rid of his lower-class accent, and yet in the movie, his accent is definitely upper-crust. According to McDowell, when the movie was released in England, critics complained about *that* inconsistency.
I understand to this day the English still talking about Dick Van Dyke's very bad English accent in Mary Poppins.
http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.biz
I thought he wound up in San Francisco because it was the only place in 1979 where his "get-up" wouldn't have been noticed or thought particularly odd by the average person (note Amy commenting on his outfit, that it's like a costume).
shareHow about in STAR TREK IV when no one made or said anything about the gang's outfits?
http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.biz
Right--I haven't seen ST-IV in ages, but as I recall, that was part of the humor--satirizing SF in that anything goes, ho-hum, no outfit's that outlandish!
shareOh yes!
Great story, have you see Shatner's new show yet?
http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.biz/