I've never read the book but I've seen both movies many times. I'm really looking forward to the premiere. The only thing I'm disappointed with is that Amy has been replaced by a different character.

@Jetfire59 said:

I've never read the book but I've seen both movies many times. I'm really looking forward to the premiere. The only thing I'm disappointed with is that Amy has been replaced by a different character.

Do you think it would help if I watched the movies, or would it be better to watch the series from scratch?

From one 59 to another...

If I'd never seen the original Time Machine or Time After Time, I'd watch them first. Make sure you watch the ORIGINAL Time Machine. The remake wasn't bad, but it can't hold a candle to the original. Or watch all three if you've a mind to. Time After Time is an excellent movie. I highly recommend it. Malcolm McDowal plays HG Wells, David Warner plays Dr. Stevenson (AKA The Ripper) and Mary Steenburgen plays the 20th century woman Wells becomes involved with.

Wow, quite a cast there, especially if you like Star Trek and Back to the Future.

Oh, yes. Mary Steenburgen seems to have a thing for time travelers. David Warner, of course, has played three different characters in the Trek franchise and Malcom played the villain who killed James Kirk.

Wow...I was going to write all that but had a hunch you knew. :) I initially forgot Warner played the evil Cardassian in addition to characters in V and VI.

I almost forgot him being in ST V. I try to forget that one whenever possible. You know a Trek movie stinks when Paramount declares it non-canon. He was so good at playing that smug, evil Cardassian. I loved hating him.

@Jetfire59 said:

If I'd never seen the original Time Machine or Time After Time, I'd watch them first. Make sure you watch the ORIGINAL Time Machine. The remake wasn't bad, but it can't hold a candle to the original.

Why "The TIme Machine"? It has nothing to do with the "Time After Time" story.

@ParkNuts said:

@Jetfire59 said:

If I'd never seen the original Time Machine or Time After Time, I'd watch them first. Make sure you watch the ORIGINAL Time Machine. The remake wasn't bad, but it can't hold a candle to the original.

Why "The TIme Machine"? It has nothing to do with the "Time After Time"

I was just expressing my opinion. That is why I said "If you've a mind to". The OP asked my opinion. Some people like to do research via seeing old films that some thing new is based on.

@ParkNuts said:

Why "The TIme Machine"? It has nothing to do with the "Time After Time" story.

Well, if you follow the time line of how things come to be, "The Time Machine" is the book that Wells writes after his adventures in "Time After Time". Wells couldn't reveal the actual future and instead put an artistic flair on his Utopian society thousands of years in the future.

The real question now becomes "What came first"? The book or Wells' trip.

@Webstractions said:

Well, if you follow the time line of how things come to be, "The Time Machine" is the book that Wells writes after his adventures in "Time After Time". Wells couldn't reveal the actual future and instead put an artistic flair on his Utopian society thousands of years in the future.

The real question now becomes "What came first"? The book or Wells' trip.

Following the events as they occurred in his life, the trip came first and the book came second. I've never seen the movie, so I can't say for sure on my next point. But, in the show, it depends on what date he returns to after the TAT events take place. For instance, if he left his time on Feb 20, 1893, but returned on Feb 20, 1892 and wrote the book, then the book would occur before the trip. But if he returned to the moment when he left, then the trip would occur before the book.

@ParkNuts said:

@Webstractions said:

Well, if you follow the time line of how things come to be, "The Time Machine" is the book that Wells writes after his adventures in "Time After Time". Wells couldn't reveal the actual future and instead put an artistic flair on his Utopian society thousands of years in the future.

The real question now becomes "What came first"? The book or Wells' trip.

Following the events as they occurred in his life, the trip came first and the book came second. I've never seen the movie, so I can't say for sure on my next point. But, in the show, it depends on what date he returns to after the TAT events take place. For instance, if he left his time on Feb 20, 1893, but returned on Feb 20, 1892 and wrote the book, then the book would occur before the trip. But if he returned to the moment when he left, then the trip would occur before the book.

You made me dizzy, Park.

@ParkNuts said:

Following the events as they occurred in his life, the trip came first and the book came second.

Really? Since his trip was after the book was written and not the time of his departure, wouldn't it be the other way around?

@GForce59 said:

What do people think? I can never get enough time travel shows. Has anyone read the book?

Making History is a time travel comedy that premiered same day as this one. I really enjoyed that one. Found myself laughing a lot.

I liked Making History too.