In the Time Machine movie J pointed out that there WAS a "two-people-at-the-same-time problem", that Alexander showed up early at the date, told Emma to go home, and disregard his being upset when she didn't show up. I didn't catch that, my bad.

But I still don't see how fate insists that she must die because the time machine was built. Was fate aware of Alexander's intentions?

I've often wondered about the multiple universe theory. When I first thought that all the universes started at the same time and that some are just more similar to ours than others, perhaps with just one difference of someone's decision, I can accept that, at least in theory. But when I learned that this wasn't the theory, that, according to the theory, a new universe is spawned at someone making a decision, one universe housing one decision, and another universe housing another option of that decision, I ask, how did the universe judge that this was a potential juncture? Hmmph!

I saw the Time Machine (2002) movie last night (again) and was just as unimpressed as I was the first time. I was unimpressed with the book too, but this movie is far worse. What bothered me the most was not only did it make almost no sense, but that it TRIED to.

Let me explain.

I think that the whole reason for the budding love scene at the beginning of the movie was to create a question in the mind of Alexander (the scientist who created the time machine): why can't you change the past. The question itself wasn't very convincing, I mean he tried like TWICE to go back and both times his love Emma dies. So from that he concludes "I could come back a thousand times... and see her die a thousand ways." Right, what a big sample size!

In fact our good friend Uber-buddy (the control freak supreme) notes that it's BECAUSE she died that Alexander built the time machine SO she HAS to die each time because ... otherwise he never would have made the time machine... get it? kinda?

The possibility that of different time lines isn't entertained, which explains why Alexander doesn't worry about running into himself when he goes back in time to save Emma (or at least the movie doesn't broach the subject).

So it the movie tries to be all profound by saying that you can't change the past. OK, fine. But then it doesn't know what to do after that. I mean it knows that it wants to live happily ever after, and that would mean killing off all the Morlocks, but how do you tie in "can't change the past" with that, or even kill them off in a logical (and Hollywood visually impressive) way? They came up dry. I'm sure some movie business guy decided to make the time machine blow up in a "rush-it-so-there's-no-time-to-think climax" and somehow blow up all the Morlocks, but no one good.

What's good about the movie. J cites the special effects, like the plants growing and seasons changing. I agree. I also think the winter city scenes at the beginning are picturesque. Ah, that the rest of the movie were as good ...

OK, I made my own new blog so I can post stuff too.

Chicken Little? I LOVED the movie. I mean it wasn't deep or anything, but it was fun. I laughed hard. Finally IMDB put some stuff up, while I was watching it the second time, I checked and there wasn't even an image for the movie! (much less trivia which I like to read). What an inventive story to make it so that the sky actually does fall. And J, the fish actually does talk the editor recorded himself talking through a tube going into a water cooler tank. And I like Fish because he (or she?) is never scared, and gets the group into situations they wouldn't have got themselves into, like into the UFO.

I like how it develops a relationship with a father and a son, and friends. I also like how it plays with other movies like King Kong, ET, Signs, war of the worlds, and makes fun of how Hollywood changes stories. I think they had a lot of fun making it.