Sloppiness.


The outline of the story had me feeling very enthusiastic when I sat down to watch the DVD. And I enjoyed the comedy of Wells' fumbling attempts to make his way in twentieth century San Francisco.
However, I was disappointed by what I thought was sloppiness in the story and a lack of research.
For example, in "Time After Time", the first of the Ripper's murders takes place in London in 1893, and every time the Ripper goes to murder someone, a musical watch plays a few bars of music. The music is quite recognisably a melody from J.Canteloube's "Songs Of The Auvergne" (not credited, though). Canteloube put together his collection of "Songs" between 1923 and 1955; so finding his work playing from a musical pocket watch at a time when Canteloube himself would have been thirteen or fourteen years old caused some surprise.
And another example. Late in the film, Wells takes Amy, the friendly bank employee, for a short trip in the time machine. Amy gets out into the future, just a few days ahead, and finds a newspaper that has a report of her murder. Next, while Wells is detained by the police over the time of Amy's murder, and considerable tension is built up by repeatedly cutting from the anguished Wells begging the police to check the flat to a terrified Amy trembling in the flat, a murder is committed in Amy's flat, but it turns out to have been of her unlucky work-mate who visited at an unfortunate moment while Amy was hiding from the Ripper in a cupboard.

reply

Just read your post, I agree there is some sloppiness but that doesn't stop me from loving TAT. Did you notice the "Amy's workmate murdered" plot twist is the same as the plot twist in "Laura"?

reply

No, I didn't. I have never seen that film. Regarding "Time After Time", I much preferred the 1960 "The Time Machine".

reply

I saw the Time Machine in the theater when I was a kid and I loved it....Wasn't Rod Taylor in it?

reply

[deleted]

I really like "Time After Time", and always have. I own the DVD where Nicholas Meyer does commentary on the film some years later. As I remember it his take on the film was that it was an early attempt at making films on his part and there are parts of the film where he would have done things differently.

reply

Regard Amy's friend being murdered. Amy knew she was next and hid. If she wouldn't have seen the newspaper the day before she would have been killed and her friend would have walked in an found her body.

reply

You are right, I forgot the scene where Amy is hiding. Thanks.

reply

Either I'm confused or you guys are because I don't understand most of these posts. There was nothing wrong with the newspaper article being the way it was and nothing had to change in the timeline to make it work, Amy (Steenburgen) just summed it up near the end by saying that the "newspaper got the story wrong." They wrote the story before knowing all the facts and everyone (police and reporters) assumed that the young woman dead in the house was the one that lived there.

reply

Quote:
Just read your post, I agree there is some sloppiness but that doesn't stop me from loving TAT. Did you notice the "Amy's workmate murdered" plot twist is the same as the plot twist in "Laura"?

It's also the same plot twist at the end of another ripper movie, "From Hell."

reply

[deleted]

What is sloppy is that Jack the Ripper gets in the time machine to escape and Wells foils his plan by removing the diamond key and although the machine is clearly off and not activated in anyway he's sent in to infinity. WTF! Wouldn't it have been wise that the moment he activates it, they lunge for the pocket watch tied to the key and pull it out? The end just ends in a sort of crappy way. Enjoyable but could have been a lot better with a bit more thought put in to these scenes mentioned in the previous posts and the ending.

reply

Wasn't Canteloube "distilling" folk melodies from the region, akin to Listz & Copeland? In other words, couldn't the "timepiece melody" be a much older folk melody?

reply

Yes. Which is why the inclusion of a Canteloube melody is not necessarily anachronistic or inappropriate. Meyer was known for his intensive research so I actually like the touch of ambiguity with the watch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

reply

You must have made a quick trip to the kitchen for some potato chips or something during the scene in the bank where Amy's co-worker tries to pump her for information about her date. She ends up by inviting the co-worker over for dinner friday night. "I'm sure Herbert won't mind!" She wasn't "just visiting".

reply

Actually the Ripper murders occured in 1888, but this film takes place 5 years later in 1893.

reply



dunno how 'sloppy' it is, but what i found most annoying was when Amy takes a valium and passes out - when she knows the Ripper is coming to kill her! ok, she was counting on Herbert to wake her, but really, would u want to stay in that apt. 2 seconds, knowing what was supposed to happen there?? wouldn't u go STRAIGHT to the hotel, and THEN sleep?

it doesn't make sense to me, but i still love this movie - plenty of things about it to like....


out of the blue, love came rushing in (no more pain)

reply

I dunno. Valium and Xanax would still be the choices today, and if you were scared to death of being murdered (and completely convinced your boyfriend -- who has promised to come get you -- would make sure you were out of danger), I can see being rattled and taking a few thinking you were safer than you actually were.

It seems to me to be a pretty understandable and human error, and one that would still hold true today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

reply

I loved the film back when it came out in 1979. This weekend I watched it for the first time since then. There are so many things wrong with the script.

1. The Time Machine is on exhibit after so many years. Has anybody tried to use it? Wasn't anyone curious? HG Wells invented this and it was interesting enough to put on display. Wouldn't someones curiosity made them want to try it?

2. Mary Steenburgen's friend was murdered. When Herbert goes back to her Apartment her car was in an open garage with the keys in it. It is a few hrs after a murder. Wouldn't been be a closed off area for the Police to investigate?

These are a couple of things that came to mind when I was watching it.




reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Even if someone had tried to use the time machine, Wells had the key the entire time. It wouldn't have worked without it.

Also, as far as the car, when crimes occur in an apartment, or a specific department of an office building, etc. only the relevant area to the crime is closed off. If they didn't know that the car was hers, there would be no reason to secure it, and, as the police had connected her murder to the other ripper murders, they would likely believe no one else in the apartment building was a likely target.

reply

"Even if someone had tried to use the time machine, Wells had the key the entire time. It wouldn't have worked without it."

That's not true: the Ripper didn't have the key either when he escaped in the machine. The only thing the key was needed for, was to prevent the machine to return to it's point of origin.

reply

For example, in "Time After Time", the first of the Ripper's murders takes place in London in 1893, and every time the Ripper goes to murder someone, a musical watch plays a few bars of music. The music is quite recognisably a melody from J.Canteloube's "Songs Of The Auvergne" (not credited, though). Canteloube put together his collection of "Songs" between 1923 and 1955; so finding his work playing from a musical pocket watch at a time when Canteloube himself would have been thirteen or fourteen years old caused some surprise.
Obviously, Canteloube stole the melody from a poor, anonymous composer who wrote little melodies for musical pocket watches. Shame on him!

And another example. Late in the film, Wells takes Amy, the friendly bank employee, for a short trip in the time machine. Amy gets out into the future, just a few days ahead, and finds a newspaper that has a report of her murder. Next, while Wells is detained by the police over the time of Amy's murder, and considerable tension is built up by repeatedly cutting from the anguished Wells begging the police to check the flat to a terrified Amy trembling in the flat, a murder is committed in Amy's flat, but it turns out to have been of her unlucky work-mate who visited at an unfortunate moment while Amy was hiding from the Ripper in a cupboard.
This was the police's error, not the scriptwriter's. They understandably assumed the defaced corpse was the apartment's resident. Remember, no DNA testing at the time this part of the movie was set.

-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

reply

In addition, since Amy is never seen again in 1979, having gone back with Wells to 1893, the case would be closed. Amy's friend would have been considered a missing person.

Regarding the question as to why no one ever tried to operate the machine, why would anyone assume that the machine actually works?

reply

In addition, since Amy is never seen again in 1979, having gone back with Wells to 1893, the case would be closed. Amy's friend would have been considered a missing person.
Agree. Although the police put records on computers in 1979, databases were "flat," not relational. They wouldn't have made any connections between a murdered woman and her missing friend. Notoriously, the LAPD around that time found to their chagrin that one of the two Hillside Stranglers had shown up in relation to three different murders in their investigation (as a co-worker, a neighbor, someone in the area at the time)--far too often for coincidence--but had never raised their suspicions. All instances had been dutifully entered into their database but never connected until after he'd been caught by a miniscule police department the day after he murdered two girls in a small town in Washington.

And besides, the San Francisco Police Department in 1979 wasn't all that great (I lived there at the time and say so from personal experience; I won't comment on today's SFPD). After all, they never caught the Zodiac Killer, either.

-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

reply

<Even if someone had tried to use the time machine, Wells had the key the entire time. It wouldn't have worked without it>

wrong, you can use the machine without the key but you'll get stuck in the other time

"sir, sir, i gotta check and see if you've soiled yourself" Peter Griffin - Family Guy

reply

So maybey someone did take the time machine for a test ride but then the machine returned back to it's point of origin and left whoever in whatever time they were in, be it past or future?

Either way, the film portrays a very cynical late 20th century America, one that it's doubtful anyone would dare to believe that such a machine would actually work. Only a crackpot would try it, otherwise it's seems to viewed as a humourus and quirky model based on his Well's novel.

reply

I have always loved this movie! I still get goose bumps when I watch it!

However, I do agree with several of the posts here. The story has more than a few loopholes in it.

1. H.G. Wells takes the Time Machine to the future and finds it is on exhibit. But how can that be? If Wells took his Time Machine in 1893, then how could anyone discover it and bring it to America to be on display in 1979?

2. When H.G. arrives and discovers he is eight hours off why didn't he re-enter the Time Machine and go back a few hours and meet Stevenson as he materializes and stop him right then and there?

3. Amy and Herbert discover the newspaper article about Amy's death the night before. But H.G. bought her into the future a few days into Saturday. Amy could not have been in her apartment Friday night because she was in the Time Machine during the murder. They should have known it wasn't her being murdered the night before.

4. At the end of the flim, H.G. removes the "Key" from the Time Machine and sends Stevenson to infinite. But why didn't Herbert and Amy take the Time Machine back to when Stevenson first arrive and do the same thing and save the lives of her friend Carol and all the other women?

Just a few questions I had, but it is still a terrific movie!

reply

The questions you raised are quite sound and some of them even occurred to me. But we mustn't rack our brains too much over them, because otherwise all the fun will be spoilt. Stevenson's escape from 1893 indeed could have been stopped by Wells by going back in time, like you say, but then the movie would have to finish after only half an hour!
The major problem around time travel is physicality. If you go ten years into the future or back into the past you are quite likely to bump into yourself there, which can't be. And travelling beyond your lifetime would mean either appearing long after you have been dead or long before you have been born, which is even worse. And while you travelling through time, you no longer exist in space anywhere in time but you just vanished into thin air the instant you began your journey. It can drive anyone nuts.

reply

1. H.G. Wells takes the Time Machine to the future and finds it is on exhibit. But how can that be? If Wells took his Time Machine in 1893, then how could anyone discover it and bring it to America to be on display in 1979?

Because he was destined to return to 1893 and put it on display in a museum.

2. When H.G. arrives and discovers he is eight hours off why didn't he re-enter the Time Machine and go back a few hours and meet Stevenson as he materializes and stop him right then and there?

He wasn't really off by 8 hours. He was in San Francisco instead of London so he was 8 time zones away which is why the clocks read 8 hours off, but it was still the same time.

3. Amy and Herbert discover the newspaper article about Amy's death the night before. But H.G. bought her into the future a few days into Saturday. Amy could not have been in her apartment Friday night because she was in the Time Machine during the murder. They should have known it wasn't her being murdered the night before.

Same as question 1. The future Amy had already returned to the past.

4. At the end of the flim, H.G. removes the "Key" from the Time Machine and sends Stevenson to infinite. But why didn't Herbert and Amy take the Time Machine back to when Stevenson first arrive and do the same thing and save the lives of her friend Carol and all the other women?

Presumably the paradox factor. If H.G. went back to stop him from killing those women, then they'd still be alive, so H.G. wouldn't go back to save them, so they'd be dead, etc.

reply

To answer some of your points:

1. HG did not remain in the future. He eventually went back. So there would have been a time machine to be discovered and displayed. However, after he discovered the harm, he went back to dismantle it, so after the second "loop," so to speak, there would not have been a machine on display, as there wasn't after he and Amy returned to 1893.

2. He was 8 hours off of London time because of the time zones, not because he arrived 8 hours after Stevenson. And he took some time to get his bearings.

3. Amy and Herbert did not go forward the night of her murder, which would have been Friday. He said "let's go forward a few days, to Saturday." They then return and try to prevent the murder of the Black woman at the disco, but arrive at the park too late because Amy's car broke down. Remember when they were getting ready to try to save her, Herbert was worried about Amy's safety, but she said, "I'm perfectly safe. Haven't you heard? I've got til Friday at 7:30."

I saw this movie when it first came out in 1979, and have always thought it was marvelous. To me, though, the two biggest plot holes are:

A. As several people have pointed out, why didn't Herbert and Amy immediately hole up in a hotel, or find a safer place than her apartment, especially by the Friday she was to be murdered?

B. The car: Stevenson quickly adapted to 20th century society, but where did he get the car he used to kidnap Amy? Why didn't he force her to use her own car?

reply

I believe that Herbert finally decided not to dismantle the machine because he came to the conclusion that time travel is subject to what we now know as the Novikov self-consistency principle. No matter what time you go to, what you do was or will be done even before you leave. Just like the first Terminator movie. He wasn't able to change anything during his first trip. The victims died in the 70s as they should have, including the one that couldn't be saved because they got a flat tire. The machine had to stay intact otherwise he wouldn't be able to travel to 1979 because it wouldn't be in the museum.

As for A., you answered it with 3.

There's no reason the car couldn't have belonged to one of his previous victims, for instance the girl we saw him kill in the middle of the movie, or maybe another victim yet to be discovered by the police. Dangerous if the police have an APB out for the car, but Jack is nothing if not willing to live on the edge.

reply