ables@cyb-eng.UUCP (King Ables) (01/14/85)
Having just seen "Somewhere In Time" (Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, and
Christopher Plumber) on cable the other day (and since I'm getting tired
of reading people tearing up Dune and 2010) I've got some things that bug
me about this movie that I'd like to throw out here.
I noticed that it was based on the novel "Bid Time Return" by Richard
Matheson. Has anybody read this? Is it any good? I assume this is the
same Richard Matheson that wrote so many Twilight Zone episodes, it's
just like one of his stories.
What was the deal with her manager, did he really know about Collier or
was it just his knowning that someday some guy would come along...
It seemed like he was going to know about time travel, too, or something.
Was there some point to the nameplate on Elise's picture in the Hall of
History not being there? Or was it just to draw the suspense out a little
about who she was?
Who got the watch first?? He gave it to her in 1912 and she gave it to
him in 1972. Who owned it originally? Also, how old is that damn thing??
It keeps going in a circle from '72 to '12 and then the long way back to '72.
And last, but not least, who's the damn fool that left the penny in the suit
when he rented it last? :-) I thought that scene was excellently done. I'm
not one to cry at a movie, so when I feel a tear well up, I know they've done
something right.
Let's see... it's the day IBM stock goes public, if I concentrate real hard...
-King
ARPA: ables%cyb-eng.UUCP@ut-sally.ARPA
UUCP: ...{ctvax,gatech,ihnp4,nbires,seismo,ucb-vax}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!ablesdjb@cbosgd.UUCP (David J. Bryant) (01/16/85)
> And last, but not least, who's the damn fool that left the penny in the suit > when he rented in last? :-) As I recall from the movie, Christopher Reeve's character was the "damn fool". There's a scene earlier in the movie when he's fixing himself up to look appropriate (trying on the suit and hat, trimming his hair, etc.) and getting ready for the mind meld with the past. Just before he lies down he reaches into his vest pocket, removes a handfull of change, puts it into the hotel room ashtray, and slides the ashtray under the nightstand next to the bed. Not being a thorough fellow, he misses that one penny that remains in his pocket until near the end of the movie. I was curious about the watch too. Where did it come from? As far as I can tell this is either an error, or a puzzler thrown in for us to think about. Based solely on information presented in the movie, this watch is never bought, it simply changes hands between Collier (Reeve's character) in 1972 and Elise in 1912. Another puzzler, as agles@cyb-eng.UUCP mentioned, was the attitude of Elise's manager. There for a bit I was convinced he was just crazed over Elise meeting "Mr. Right", but after some of the dialog between him and Collier I was not so sure. Can't say I cared much for the ending either. Elise had to endure 60 years without Collier, while he didn't even last a week. I have some friends who love this movie, and cry every time they watch it on their VCR. I thought it was pretty well done, and particularly enjoyed the music. Has anyone ever come across a soundtrack album? David Bryant AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, OH (614) 860-4516 (cbosgd!djb)
rcook@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/16/85)
I saw this movie a couple times on cable and i thought it was VERY excellent. About the watch: I think it was intended that this watch was the one and only "hole" in time, allowing anyone that comes into contact with it was open to the possibility of time "warping". It was obviously a very supernatural item. Rob Cook
larsen@utah-gr.UUCP (Mark Larsen) (01/18/85)
I really enjoyed this movie. The soundtrack by John Barry is one
of the best I've ever heard (another great, but different soundtrack
by the same composer is "The Lion in Winter"). The book was okay as
I recall although it has been a few years since I read it. The penny
was put in the pocket by Richard himself; he put his loose change in
then realized the problems with that and took out all but the penny.
The manager only knew that some stranger was going to come because
of a feeling that Elise had and had told him about. As to the watch,
it is obviously the key here to time travel although it is never
explained how in either the movie or the book.
Great fluffy movie.
--
-----------
Ma faut! Comment cela? L. Mark Larsen
UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|hplabs|seismo}!utah-cs!larsen
ARPA: oper.larsen@utah-20
USnail: 4602 So. 600 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84107john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (01/18/85)
>From: djb@cbosgd.UUCP (David J. Bryant) >Message-ID: <714@cbosgd.UUCP> > >I was curious about the watch too. Where did it come from? As far as I >can tell this is either an error, or a puzzler thrown in for us to think >about. Based solely on information presented in the movie, this watch >is never bought, it simply changes hands between Collier (Reeve's character) >in 1972 and Elise in 1912. > What you have just done is stated one of the basic paradoxes of time travel. This problem occurs in many stories about time travel. For instance, look at the "Planet of the Apes" series. In the first movie, the astronauts go forward in time and discover the civilization that results from the apes taking their capsule back in time in the third movie. If you are a believer in destiny, then you can say that all of history exists at the same time, like a book, and that while you can travel back and forth in time, you will never change or make history, only be part of it. (Is there anyone out there who does not believe in destiny, but can shed some light on the paradox?) Related to this paradox is something called the "Grandfather Paradox". As I recall it deals with whether or not you could travel back in time and kill your grandfather (before he met your grandfather), thereby preventing your being born. Most authors avoid this problem by reducing it to a version of the former. -- John Ruschmeyer ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john Monmouth College W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Kirk: You ought to sell a manual of instructions with these things. Cyrano: If I did, Captain... what would happen to the search for knowledge?
roger@fritz.UUCP (Roger Webster) (01/20/85)
I also saw this movie on cable some time ago, and I'm glad the watch paradox bothered someone else. I've mentioned it to a couple of people, generally asking, "Who the hell MADE the damn thing?" For some reason, I always get a blank stare. Lets see ... if she gives it to him in the "present," and he gives it to her in the "past" ... I've got it, it was spontaneously generated by the paradox itself! So simple, when you know the answer. Roger Webster
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/20/85)
From: moncol!john (John Ruschmeyer) >Related to this paradox is something called the "Grandfather Paradox". As I >recall it deals with whether or not you could travel back in time and kill >your grandfather (before he met your grandfather), thereby preventing your >being born. Most authors avoid this problem by reducing it to a version >of the former. One explanation I've heard is that each person has his own personal time line. Sure, you can travel back along *your* line and kill your grandfather, but (1) you won't affect anyone *else's* timeline (like, your brothers and sisters will still be around) and (2) you will cease to exist. This is described more completely in "The Men Who Murdered Mohammad" by Alfred Bester. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
jgd@ih1ap.UUCP (Rumpelstilskin) (01/24/85)
About 10 years ago I read a novel called "Time and Again".
The book had been around for a while at that time so its older that
10 years now.
It was very similar to "Somewhere in time" in that the man who did
the traveling used exactly the same method as Collier used.
He was summoned by the U.S. Government as being mentally suitable
for this kind of experiment which the government was doing on
a very large scale. However, the story delt only with one mans adventure.
He was placed in a room in the Decota hotel in New York and
eventually accomplished time travel to his destination of 1887 (I think)
and the rest of the novel delt with his adventures there. As he
later discovered he could travel back and forth and got better at
it each time. He even brings a woman back with him once!
If you liked "Somewhere in time" you would love this book. It's
a much more comprehensive treatment of the subject and dumb
paradoxes like most of the second rate time travel stuff out these days.
P.S. Anyone remember "The Final Countdown" ?
"Here have a jelly baby"
"They say the evil one eats babies!"
Jerry Donovan ..ihnp4!ih1ap!jgdwmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (01/25/85)
What really happens (personal and deeply-held belief follows :-) is that there are an infinite number of parallel time-lines; each time a "choice" is made (this can be a major decision, like Alexander the Great deciding to go conquer the world vs. staying home and taking a nap, or a miniscule event, like a particular subatomic particle jerking this way vs. that way due to Brownian motion), a "split" in the timelines occur, with one "universe" taking the path dictated by one choice, another for the next choice, etc. (not just either/or, but multiple choices & paths are possible). Since the vast majority of choices are on the miniscule level (subatomic particles and all), there are an infinite (or very very large number) of universes that are much alike. However, the major choices can result in large differences (life never develops, the Spaniards conquer England, etc.), and each of these "major divergencies" have their own many many variations due to minor choices, so I think of the result as "infinite". What this means is that ANYTHING is possible, and, if you go back in time and kill your grandfather, you then return and nothing is changed. Your grandfather died in ANOTHER timeline. Even if you go back over and over to kill him, you are just splitting off more and more timelines. Your own personal timeline, that resulted in you, always exists; each time you go back, you just split more parallel lines off at the points you interact with the past. If you can really internalize this belief, and firmly BELIEVE it like people believe in religious doctrine or principles, it can reduce a lot of frustration. You can realize that it doesn't matter what you do, because you are always doing everything in parallel. If you dislike someone, you can rest assured that in an infinity of universes, they died in lingering torment (of course, so did you, and your loved ones, because everything that could happen did...); in an infinite number of universes, you are god-emperor of the world (and in another infinity, you are a cesspool cleaner or a computer jock...). I haven't been able to get myself into that belief-state yet; I only appreciate the truth of this intellectually as yet. Wish I had had this drilled into me as part of my catechism training... Will
boyajian@akov68.DEC (Jerry Boyajian) (01/25/85)
From: cyb-eng!ables > Having just seen "Somewhere In Time" (Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, and > Christopher Plumber) on cable the other day... I've got some things that bug > me about this movie that I'd like to throw out here. > > I noticed that it was based on the novel "Bid Time Return" by Richard > Matheson. Has anybody read this? Is it any good? I assume this is the > same Richard Matheson that wrote so many Twilight Zone episodes, it's > just like one of his stories. Yes, I've read BID TIME RETURN. It's quite a good book (it won the World Fantasy Award for Best Novel the first year that the awards were given), but I didn't like it as much as the film. There were some things in it that bugged me. One example (this isn't really a spoiler, since this info is given right at the beginning of the book) is that Collier is dying from some fatal disease (I don't recall if Matheson ever says what it is), but seems to be running on the assumption that by staying in the past, he won't die from it. The symptoms that he has in the present don't appear in the past. This point is never addressed in the book. And yes, this is the same Richard Matheson. And what's more, the book is based on something that really happened (sort of) to Matheson. Apparently, he ran across an old photo of a turn-of-the-century actress named Maude Adams (no relation to the current actress with the same name) and fell in love with her. As far as I know, he didn't actually travel back in time to woo her. As a matter of fact, in the book, Collier's description matches Matheson's --- he basicly looks like Paul Newman. Matheson makes a cameo in the film, too. In the scene where Collier cuts his face shaving, and comes out of the men's room with toilet paper stuck to the various cuts, Matheson is the man who walks by, looks at Collier, and says, "Astonishing!" Another point is that Matheson wrote the screenplay for the film, and approves of the way the director handled it. Of course, Herbert liked DUNE, but in this case, I have to agree with the author's sentiments. > What was the deal with her manager, did he really know about Collier or > was it just his knowning that someday some guy would come along... Yes, this point seemed confusing at first, but I think your latter explanation is correct. Robinson wanted Elise to devote herself totally to her profession, leaving no room for love in her. He was sure that someday, someone would come along to try to ruin that idea. > Was there some point to the nameplate on Elise's picture in the Hall of > History not being there? Or was it just to draw the suspense out a little > about who she was? I don't think it was to draw the suspense out, but to give her identity a sense of mystery that would spur Collier into finding out who she was. If he knew right off the bat who she was, he might never have pursued his course of action. > Who got the watch first?? He gave it to her in 1912 and she gave it to > him in 1972. Who owned it originally? Also, how old is that damn thing?? > It keeps going in a circle from '72 to '12 and then the long way back to '72. Ah, but I loved this point. The watch is a time paradox, which by definition has no solution. Just sit back and enjoy the beauty of the paradox. The other nice paradox was that the smile in the photo that attracted him to her so much came about when she saw him. I'm an unabashed romantic, and I loved this film. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
jimc@haddock.UUCP (01/27/85)
I read the book "Bid Time Return" years ago when I was in either junior or senior high school, sometime around the age of 14-15. It was a recommended Young Adult book selection back then. I remember that I loved the book, as did my best friend who recommended it to me. When I heard a movie was to be made from it, I was thrilled. Unfortunately, I was out of the country when the movie was released and so never got to see it (I don't have cable tv) and am waiting for it to make the network rounds. I can understand the problems you have with the details of time and time travel. From your questions, I get the feeling the movie was not quite so understandable as the book. I don't recall exactly how the book worked out such problems, only that as a 14-15 year old girl, I found myself believing it all. Try reading the book. I think I would re-read it (I'm 23 now). If I could find it. ck. (not jimc, as above)
boyajian@akov68.DEC (Jerry Boyajian) (01/29/85)
> From: ih1ap!jgd (Jerry Donovan) > About 10 years ago I read a novel called "Time and Again". > The book had been around for a while at that time so its older that > 10 years now. TIME AND AGAIN was written by Jack Finney (the same person who wrote THE BODY SNATCHERS, which was made into the film INVASION OF THE...), and published in 1970. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
jimc@haddock.UUCP (02/06/85)
Well, folks, I hate to be a cynic, but I insist that the so-called "Grandfather Paradox" is completely contained in the human mind, and not real at all. History occurs only once. Therefore, to go back in time means to go back into the past, and to become part of it. Was your grandfather murdered before he had children? Obviously not, as demonstrated by your living in the present. Since this did not happen, obviously you will never go back in time to kill him. Let me present a sample situation that might explain this a little further: suppose you have a good friend who died in a car accident. Now suppose you could have stopped it from happening if you had known about it in advance. Now, let's suppose it is fifty years in the future, and lo and behold! someone has invented a time machine. "Great," you think, "Now I can go back into time and save my friend." Suddenly, now, we have a problem. Your friend obviously was not saved, or you would feel no necessity to go back into time and save him. Yet here you are, thinking you are about to go do it. Do you happen to remember any mysterious stranger, appearing to be an elderly version of you, appearing out of thin air and saving your friend on that terrible day? Of course not. Therefore, you will never be successful in your attempt to go back and save him. History holds many examples of appearing and disappearing, that is, being around one day, when they were never seen before, and being gone the next day, and never being seen again. Perhaps these are time travelers from the future, visiting the past. If so, the only influence they had was to contribute to the past; they made it conform exactly to the state the past had been in before they left.
bulko@ut-sally.UUCP (William C. Bulko) (02/08/85)
[ oh, here she comes. . .she's a bug-eater ]
This discussion about time travel reminds me of something I came up with
many years ago, while discussing the subject with some friends; it's a
"simple proof" that time travel will not be possible (or at least, not
available to me) within my lifetime.
I hereby decide that, should time travel ever be possible, that I
plan to travel back to this time, date, and place, and appear to my
"younger" self. Do I see my older self appearing? No. . .
Of course, you could say that, in a few years, I'll have forgotten about
this incident, and therefore not remember that I wanted to come back to
1985 to prove the existence of time travel, but if you're REALLY serious
about this. . .
An interesting related thought would be to make the effort known
worldwide, so that the "hysteria" would be recorded in the history books.
Then, X number of years from now, when time travel (supposedly) becomes
possible, someone would say, "Hey, remember back in 1985, when the world kept
inviting someone from the future to visit? Wanna make history?" If this
were possible, then the people from the future could theoretically come back
here and teach us the technology needed for time travel. This would
cause the ability to travel through time to exist much earlier than the
the people from the future stated it to be, and. . .oh, never mind.
You flame it out yourselves.
--
Bill Bulko
Department of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas
{ihnp4,harvard,gatech,ctvax,seismo}!ut-sally!bulko
"Trust is a must or your game is a bust."
(Can anyone identify the author of that quote?)mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/10/85)
I'm surprised everyone likes this movie so much, considering the poor
critical response when it was released. I think that the movie would
have been quite good if the pacing hadn't been so poor. The entire
first half of the movie is taken up with Chris Reeve trying to go
back in time, when that should have been gotten out of the way in the
first 20 minutes. As a result, the first half of the movie is boring,
and the last half seems too short.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"Uh oh. Looks like we got a 666 down there - diety on a rampage."geoff@ISM780.UUCP (02/24/85)
>>> this is a test of notes
It didn't work, try again.