The Time Traveler's Wife is one of my favorite books — I've recommended it to just about every person I know. And they've all thanked me once they've turned its last page; it really is that fantastic. But as the story of artist Clare Abshire and time-traveling librarian Henry DeTamble takes a lot of effort for anyone reading it to piece together, I've been growing increasingly nervous about the film adaptation. How could a movie make the confusing timeline of Henry's jumps in and out of Clare's life halfway understandable, especially for those who haven't read the book?
After a slew of post-production delays, New Line — in conjunction with Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment, which bought the rights before the novel was even published — announced in March that they will finally be releasing the movie on August 14. So even though I knew that a preview must soon be at hand, when I saw that the first trailer was available online last night, my heart almost stopped. I braced myself and hit play….
After those two minutes and thirty seconds were over, I sat dumbfounded in my chair, thinking, "What… was… that?" Where are Clare's (Rachel McAdams) signature red locks? Why is she using that cutesy little-girl voice? Why does Henry (Eric Bana) look all beefy? Why are they both acting so cheesy — where's the sass and the edge and the dark sense of foreboding that was ever-present in the novel? 
And who made the decision to set all of the scenes to a Lifehouse song? I can't believe this is happening.
Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that The Time Traveler's Wife has been Notebook-ified. After all, one of its screenwriters, Jeremy Leven, penned that sappy drama. (The other one, Bruce Joel Rubin, wrote the only slightly less mawkish Ghost.)
Since pretty much all that is shown in the trailer is Henry and Clare embracing, kissing, looking longingly at each other or saying ridiculous things like "I think it's kind of magical," I have no choice but to believe that some marketing genius figured that the film would do best if they focused most of the promotional materials on the romantic aspects of the novel, rather than the sci-fi elements or the deeper issues that the story presents. When my husband (who enjoyed the book) saw the trailer, his response was, "Wow, they made it all girly."
The only thing that's stopping me from falling into complete despair over how whacked this adaptation might be is that someone on a message board I frequent claimed to have seen a cut of the film and was trying to reassure everyone that it was not as sickenly sweet as the trailer made it out to be. I'm obviously going to see it no matter what, so over the next two months I'll just have to cling to the glimmer of hope this anonymous source has provided. If only I could jump forward in time so I didn't have the agonizing wait…
Posted on June 13, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I actually read this book based on your recommendation on your blog. The trailer does have more of a romantic spin… it’ll be interesting to see how the real movie turns out.
Posted on June 13, 2009 at 7:26 pm
i.
might.
cry.
omg, erika… what *was* that?!
…i think i’m going to curl up on my bed and reread the book to ease the pain…
Posted on June 13, 2009 at 7:54 pm
e and kristYn, I’m not entirely sure what has you ladies all worked up into a hair-pulling, clothes-rending, throwing-up-in-your-mouth lather…
I read the book a few years ago, thought it was a decent enough thing–an entertaining read with enough mind-trip time-travel stuff (and familiar Chicago locations) to balance out the Lifetime Television for Women schmaltz and gooey Oprah-y pathos-lite.
But there’s nothing terribly wrong with this trailer. Granted, the buzz about the film itself has been a bit lukewarm and there’s no one on the production side I have much faith in. (I thought we had exiled the New-age awful Bruce Joel Rubin back to Dekalb in the mid-’90s.) Still, I like McAdams and Bana plenty enough, so even though I’m ambivalent about the “greatness” of Niffenegger’s book, I’m mildly curious about the film.
But of COURSE the marketing department is trying to sell it as a sappy romance. That’s what marketing departments DO. And they put icky Lifehouse songs on the trailers. Remember last fall when they tried to sell Blindness as a tense One-Woman-Fights-a-Giant-Conspiracy empowerment thriller? Of course they’re going to market this as The Notebook with Time Travel.
Good trailers can make us want to see crap we know deep down is going to be awful. (*coughTransformers2cough*) Good films, films that are complex and interesting, are sometimes hard to make decent trailers for that still appeal to the broadest theater-going audience. And occasionally good films have terrific trailers (Star Trek! Yay!) In other words, bad trailers happen to good films. Good trailers happen to bad films. I have NO idea where the actual TTTW film is going to end up…
And the bottom line is, you’re getting this worked up over a trailer for The Time Traveler’s Wife? An above average book that, no doubt, will always work much better as a book than as a film?
Bah, I say… BAH.
Posted on June 13, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I haven’t read the book, but I do have to say, they can make trailers for movies that don’t do the actual movie justice. Check out the special features of Fight Club they have to TV spots, 30 seconds, set to love music and they make is seem like a romance, you see no fighting at all. The people that make the trailers are really good at making the movie look like what they want it to be. For your sake I hope that it’s not far of from the book as you think it is.
Posted on June 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Why does it really matter what color hair she has? Rachel McAdams is an absolutely beautiful woman. And does it matter if Eric Bana is “beefy?”
I love to read, and I read far more than I watch movies in general. I too get upset when a movie doesn’t adhere to what was previously written, but only when it involves plot or story, because that’s what I want out of book the books I read and the movies I see.
Unless there’s absolute no embracing, kissing or longing for one another in the book, I think you’re getting yourself very worked up about nothing. Which is not to say that the final product won’t warrant some disappointment, but for now, be happy that they’ve made some attempt to bring a book you clearly love to the big screen.
Posted on June 14, 2009 at 9:46 pm
hope you’re right, those who suggest the trailer is just an inaccurate representation of the film. i do agree that portraying this side of the story in the trailer is going to bring in more viewers, especially those who loved rachel mcadams in the notebook…i do actually like her as an actress, so i like the casting there, and i am pretty good at going into movies based on books that i loved with an open mind. i just remind myself “this is a movie, it can’t possibly capture what i got from the book, so i’ll just have to enjoy it on its own.”
sure, this doesn’t always work, but i think i’ll just have to go into this one with that mindset and perhaps i’ll be pleasantly surprised.
the hard part for me is always this: if i LOVE a book, and i feel that it was very misrepresented by a film, i think of all the people who haven’t read the book and for whom the movie is the only representation of the story they’ve been exposed to. i find myself telling people “no, REALLY, it’s a brilliant book! way better than the movie!”
but, you know, i guess that’s not my responsibility. ;)
here’s hoping you all love the movie.
Posted on June 14, 2009 at 11:15 pm
…the book makes *SUCH* a big deal about clare being a redhead… all it would’ve taken was a box of dye to fix that and make hundreds of obsessed book readers happy…
just sayin’.
Posted on June 14, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Yes… as KristYn from Cali said, Clare’s red hair is one of her defining characteristics in the book (same could be said about her daughter’s black hair, Henry’s lankiness, etc.). It’s like if in the Harry Potter movies they decided to have Harry NOT wear glasses or something. It just kind of makes no sense — why NOT have Rachel McAdams/Clare have red hair — she would look great, right? The author even dyed her own hair red when the book was finished as a little tribute of sorts. Once again, to repeat KristYN, for Clare to not be a redhead is like a big middle finger to the book’s millions of fans and has immediately made everyone who was excited for this adaptation very, very wary.
So yes, while I understand that the color of a character’s hair shouldn’t make or break my impression of the film’s trailer… the fact that they strayed so far from the characters’ descriptions AND ALSO had Clare talking in some sort of weird girly-baby voice when she’s supposed to be a hip, cool artist COMBINED with the overall sappiness of the scenes that were shown is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
I guess Rachel really voiced my fear the best in her comment above — I don’t want to have to end up convincing people that “no, REALLY… it IS a great book.”
And for the record, Locke is the first person I’ve heard of – male or female – that has had an only so-so opinion of this novel. Regardless, when it’s one of your all-time favorite books that’s being made into a movie, it’s pretty much just human nature to get worked up when you think it’s fallen into the wrong hands. Has everyone already forgotten the initial widespread fears about the LoTR trilogy’s adaptations?
Posted on June 15, 2009 at 9:33 am
This hair thing is just like the initial fears about the new Bond – Daniel Craig. When people first heard he was the next Bond and had blond hair instead of dark brown/black hair, there was many a pissed off Bond fan. But, fortunately, he encapsulated what it means to be Bond so well that all was forgiven. Lets hope it’s the same here.
Posted on June 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm
It’s HAIR!! C’mon it’s not like Henry is traveling in a wayback machine with his pet boy, Sherman. If you want something to chew your nails about I’d say let’s hope every time leap is represented as each is intricate in the story line and flow of the book. I thought Bana was a poor choice but after watching the trailer I think he can pull it off. I am satisfied with the trailer I just wonder if the end will stay true to the book or will it be a little more cheery. Also I don’t know which I would prefer
Posted on June 15, 2009 at 12:39 pm
” C’mon it’s not like Henry is traveling in a wayback machine with his pet boy, Sherman.”
Okay, now THAT I would be really excited to see…
Posted on June 15, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Shut up you!
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I, as everyone above, absolutely LOVED the book and have told everyone I know that it’s the best book written. I also know that movies don’t represent the books they were wrote. Because of this, I’m very leery of seeing movies about books I really love. I also have for force myself to see it with an open mind. And continually tell myself this is a movie not the book. I’m not even sure I WANT to see the movie because the book had such an impact on me. We’ll see.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm
My wife and I really enjoyed the book. But I read it a couple of years ago. The fact that Claire had red hair had totally escaped my memory. Maybe I wasn’t as obsessed with it as some writing here seem to have been. I have no doubt I will see the movie, and if I had not run across this site, would never have given a thought to her lack of red hair or her husband’s lack of lankiness.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Hollywood can’t come up with anything good on it own and always manages to bastardize everything badly anyways. Just know it will not be the book you read. Face the fact that any and possibly all resemblance to the book will have changed to cater to every average person out there. If it is too mind trippy, then it will go straight to video. No one would go see it as they are still on Big Blockbuster highs. Remember The Fountain? Three different trailers each trying to be something different. Not one pleased anyone enough to go. It will make money if it is syrupy and money is what counts in Hollywood. Not integrity. Just pay your money, sit back, forget what you know, hope for the best, and try not to cry. Last note: Bana always looks like he needs to pass gas. Not my first choice.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Other than the Harry Potter movies (for obvious reasons), can you think of another movie that didn’t drastically depart from the book? I can still recall how shocked I was when I saw “The Shining” in film….the end totally different than that Stephen King portrayed in the novel. I seldom see movies if I’ve read the book for this very reason….and only then if I can separate the two. Like everyone else here, this book was unbelievable. I’d love to think that the person who put it to film read it first and loved it the same. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:14 pm
All I have done so far is read the original blog post railing against the preview, the responses to that, and then I just watched the trailer myself. That’s the sum total I know of TTTW (never read or heard of the book). I will say that, in my “virgin viewpoint,” the trailer makes this look like an intriguing movie! I do love almost any/all romantic comedies though, so I’m not difficult to please in that department.
I think the original blog author is suffering from the usual “The movie will never ever match up to my internalized version of the book.” (comments like, “Why does he look so buff, where are her red locks?” who cares?! Only you, if you’ve read the book and those is your mental pictures).
Thanks everyone for blogging… I will wait until after watching the movie to read the book! I think I’ll enjoy the movie better that way, based on your comments.
Regards to all!
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Maybe I’m the only one who thinks I’ll like the movie better than the book. Call me a prude, but I thought the book dwelt far too heavily on their sex life. I actually stopped reading about three quarters into the book, disgusted with the language and details, and then read the plot summary on Wikipedia to see how it all ended. I’m gratified to see that the movie has a PG-13 rating rather than the R I was expecting.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I agree that a trailer doesn’t always accurately portray a film. As an extreme example of what can be done with a trailer check out the You, Me, and Dupree DVD– There’s a fake trailer in the special features where they use scenes from the movie in a trailer that makes it seem like a Fatal Attraction-esque thriller. It’s obviously a joke, but if you didn’t know any better you’d believe it was that type of movie based on that trailer.
So, as someone who enjoyed the book, I’m hoping the trailer for TTTW has just been schmaltzed up for marketing and the actual film does the novel justice.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:40 pm
So they took a good book and, if the trailer is to be believed, turned it into a nicholas sparks Lifetime movie. Like it’s the first time that’s ever happened. Try reading “Galileo’s Daughter” to put this all into perspective.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Wow, I find it impossible to believe that most of you DO NOT think that TTTW was a VERY romantic book. I certainly thought so, as did my bookclub. You need to read it again if you only picked up on the sci-fi elements. It was a beautiful love story.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Annie -
I totally agree with you — TTTW IS a beautiful love story, and it is romantic. But it is in no way a cheesy, schmaltzy love story — and that’s what my beef with the trailer is. The romance in the book was very unique and not at all the stereotypical chick-lit type of plot. However, the trailer makes Clare and Henry look like they’re sad puppies who are constantly falling into each others’ arms. So I simply wish they had chosen to focus a bit more on some of the less lovey-dovey parts which would’ve shown that this is NOT your average, run-of-the-mill love story. Hope that made sense.
To everyone else -
Yes, I do realize that the vast majority of movies will never live up to their counterparts in book form, but that doesn’t mean I still can’t be sad that yet another novel adaptation seems to have been dumbed down for the masses.
- Erika
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Well Top Dog, I think that’s the point: “if the trailer is to be believed” — since when do we BELIEVE trailers? The studio marketing department certainly wants fans of McAdams to THINK it’s a Nicolas Sparks movie, but who knows what the actual FILM will be like.
And Annie, I think everyone–from hard-core fans like Erika and kristYn to someone who liked the book, but doesn’t think it’s the end-all-be-all, like me–can agree that it’s the nice MIX of sci-fi elements and the beautiful love story that makes TTTW work. (Personally I enjoy the TRAGIC love-story elements more than the mushy stuff, but that’s just me… I’m a big meanie…)
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I know what you mean about fearing the movie made from a favorite book. It IS scary. I have a strict policy. I can’t see a movie until at least a year after I read the book — when all the edges are blurred, so that the errors won’t seem so egredious.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 3:38 pm
yick. i felt manipulated by TTTW. after i turned the last page of the really-coulda-used-more-editing novel, i realized, “i don’t like these people very much…and i hate their friends”
i agree with the above commenters who thought the book contained to much sexual detail. and, i too, was pleased with the pg-13 rating on the movie. maybe the film writers wrote in more depth to the characters. and maybe they left out the scenes of clare grabbing henry’s crotch to keep him from time traveling. seriously? crotch-clutching is the only way to keep Henry from time traveling??
the time i spent reading it was similar to the time i spent in a shallow fling. in the end, i realized, i was just drawn in to the butterflies and tingly feelings. the rest was eh.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I have to say that most marketers are doing this anymore. I mean, if anyone has seen “The Family Stone,” it is not the happy-go-lucky romantic comedy that the trailer made it out to be. It is disappointing that marketers feel that this is what we want to be enticed with in order to see a movie. What a bait and switch. We’ll all have to cross our fingers and hope that the full-length is better than the trailer.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I, too, loved the book and recommended to many friends. I am thrilled it is coming out in a movie – how neat to see the story on the big screen – even if it is a bit different. I would be difficult to put all of those time travel leaps into a two hour movie. But, let’s not judge the movie until we see it. The trailer is just that – a marketing tool to get people in to see it. It is not a full description or a summary of the movie. So, please people, just chill out and wait til August to post your likes and dislikes about the movie!!
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I have two examples of films that lived up to the book for me:
(1) The “Frank Herbert’s DUNE” was like it was pulled straight out of my head the way I saw it.
(Please, recall, this is NOT the original movie of DUNE, which Frank Herbert lived to see, and said, pretty much, this is what movies did to bring it out”) Definitely a pragmatist. I would have halted production AND cried.
(2) Lord of the Rings, etc. Yes, again, it was like they pulled it straight out of my head as I saw it while I read. (Only one detail… I didn’t realize that Frodo and Bilbo were off withthe elves, they were uh, … off to the land of ‘fairies.’ That scene really did seem to go for a laugh on that.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I’m always a bit thrown by how many people expect movies to match the respective books that inspired them. The two are different media, y’all. Movies may be faithful to books, or they may not be. They may match characters’ appearances, dialogue, etc, or they may not. In fact, expecting a movie to be like a book is a total waste of time to me. When I read, I am engrossed and participating in the creation of whatever world the author has put on the page for me. I fill in blanks, add my own colors and shapes, insert tone into the dialogues, etc. Books encourage me to do that because they are word-driven, and the specifics of visuals and audio are up to me, for the most part. In a movie, that interaction is no more. I have never been to a movie that engaged me as much as a truly great book would do, and I expect I never shall.
I say, see the movie if you are interested in what it might put out there for you to see, but don’t go in ready to “measure” it against the book. Waste of time and energy, that would be. Pretend it’s another world entirely, and see if it engages you and makes you part of that world.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I’m a sci-fi fan, always have been and always will be.
My wife is romance and vampires, always has been etc etc
We both loved the book and I’ll hold my hand up and say when I heard they were finally making a film of it I told the wife we were going to see it. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.
The trailer however, does not remind me of any book I’ve read, and I am a little bit nervy now about heading out to see it. All I can hope for is that the marketing people have detected quite a bit of nervousness from the studio and have decided to pitch the film at all those girlies who are sitting around just waiting for the next “Twilight” installment.
“Look see!” they say to the executives, thrusting their statistics firmly across the table. “The women are gonna love it”.
They’ve done this before with a number of films as mentioned above. I mean the trailer for “Bridge to Terabithia” looked like another “Lord of the Rings” to me. Nothing like what I finally saw when I came to watch it on DVD.
If I’m right then the downside is that there will be a lot of cinema goers who will come away disappointed with the film. Not because its bad but because it didn’t live up to their expectations. If I’m wrong then I am going to be bitterly disappointed with it and will fervently pray that hollywood NEVER EVER makes a movie from one of my favorite books again.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Ahhh this is one of my favorite books as well and I can’t imagine how a movie could do it justice. I don’t even know if I can watch it after watching the trailer. This is NOT a lighthearted story.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 6:11 pm
This was my favorite book EVER! While I was reading it Clare and Henry became very nearly real for me. It is the book against which I now measure everything I read (fiction, of course). I’m really excited to see how they do with the movie and can only hope they don’t lose whatever the magic was that made the book so completely engaging. Like a previous poster, I had also forgotten about Clare’s hair being red, so I can live with that change. Can’t wait for August!
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Yeah, the hair bothers me somewhat but more importantly, where is the cage? That stair case was missing it’s cage! And the wedding was outside? How are they going to pull off the Henry switch having the wedding outside? Not to mention the fact that neither of them look any different in the different time periods. Seriously, it’s just not going to be like the book at all.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The book was awesome. I’ve read it and listened to it in audiobook form. Both are captivating. I didn’t like the ending however predictable – and that alone was depressing. But that is the only flaw I’d like to point out.
I see nothing to get in an uproar about. As is usual for book become movie situations. The book has ALWAYS been the better venue. The movie always takes on its own artistic license.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I don’t see what the fuss is about who looks like what. The essence of the story is there. It’s exactly what I’d expect from something that’s not an Indy film. I’m looking forward to it and won’t let myself get sucked into how it differs from the book– just enjoy each as it stands alone.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Yes, it does matter that the physical characteristics and quirks of the characters are different in the film versus the novel; for it is compromising the integrity of both the character and the story plus insulting to the author.
He’s too beefy and she’s not a redhead. For example Superman can not have both brown and blue eyes, it has to be a constant, esp. if that trait is going to tie into the story. Perhaps one of the reasons he fell in love with her is her red hair. And I simply can’t imagine a beefy librarian, lankiness would be a better attribute.
Haven’t read the book however am an avid reader and cinema is my profession, after reading your synopsis and before watching the trailer I said McAdams is not good casting, after viewing the 2:25 trailer I can say both leads are bad casting – not bad actors – but bad casting for these roles and yes it’s more sappy than sci-fi, that I can tell by 1:45 into the trailer. Compare the old “Psycho” to the new one there are reasons why the old one is classy not trashy. Remakes aren’t usually as good as the original thing.
I will read this book after reading so many positives thing about it and hope for those of you who have read the book that this piece of cinema isn’t a horrid disappointment. Not seeing the issue of free will rise to the top as I’m sure it is one of the important points seeing from the trailer Bana’s character is unable to control time travel.
The trailer doesn’t make their romance unique enough, nor does it focus on the characters independently, it’s just a couple who gets into fights b/c they don’t spend enough time together. Original? I think **** From the synopsis their love story is of a grand magnitude – by the comments it’s safe to bet this book is a page turner for a reason – however it is downplayed in this trailer.
To Eric who posted his comment on 6/13/09 I will say yes the color of her hair is important and agree w/Rachel 6/14/09 it would have only taken a box of red dye to remedy that problem. It is the color of Audrey Niffenegger’s hair, she is the author of the book and she began the book when frustrated in love and wrote the story as a metaphor for her failed relationships. So the female lead could very well be our author with red hair. As I’m sure there’s a bit of her in every character.
Hollywood tries to put the youngest rating on things to sell to the masses, they only want a wide audience it’s a business before an art form. I hope the person(s) responsible for hacking end up in a one-way time travel themselves.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Did anyone mention, or remember the show Journeyman (www.nbc.com/Journeyman) that had a very short stint on NBC (I think about 2 years ago or so)? It was based on TTTW, and really connected what I think everyone seems to love about the book (plus some hi jinx & drama added for effect). Movies and books are not apples to apples, and should not be compared as such. As a matter of fact, I usually recommend (when possible), seeing the movie first, then reading the book. What “mystery & surprise” you lose when you finally read the book, you gain in entertainment during the sometimes “less-than-the-book” movie. Plus, since the book is “always” better, reading the book afterwards is like watching the deleted scenes & listening to the commentary. This way, it’s like getting 2-for-1. Either way, I think that with the premise in tact, this should still be a good movie.
FYI: If you’re more into the sci-fi/mind trip aspects of TTTW, checkout these books – The Time Ships, Robots In Time, In The Time Of Dinosaurs & The Starlight Crystal.
Posted on June 16, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Breath everyone who needs to. Keep in mind that “the movie does not a trailer make”. Hair color & beef aside, anyone who read the book knows it’s a sci-fi, time traveling mind trip wrapped around a love story about two souls that constantly find, then lose, then find each other, like seasons in passing. With that premise, even the standard book-to-movie “adjustment” should still make for an entertaining movie at worst. And for all the “purist”, please understand the cold, hard, yet very true fact that money makes movies, not nostalgia, or sanctity. Even if TTTW (the movie) isn’t exactly like you read & envisioned it in the book, you can think of it as a twist, or an alternate viewpoint of the book if it strays too far for your taste. In this economy, we should be so lucky that books we like and respect are even considered for the silverscreen. Would you rather see a good movie that doesn’t live up to the great book, or a bad movie with no book because it doesn’t even have a plot?
Posted on June 17, 2009 at 10:06 am
So I went from, cool, they made a movie of this wonderful love story (ok, a bit twisted on the SciFi & sex side). To the trailer – and thinking, it’s just a teaser – you know those marketing guys. To the widely diverse posts here. An nteresting range of emotions and thoughts.
I get why we can care about Clare. And why it’s title is The Time Travelers Wife – a point that was lost on me till almost the end. I even get the red hair. I think it’s point, for me however, is life’s unique for everyone and love transcends it – if you can find it. I’m hoping they got that right – if not I’ll go back to the book.
Posted on June 17, 2009 at 1:02 pm
After watching the trailer, and from an SF reader’s perspective; The plot elements look like a melding of Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, and John Varley’s The Pusher. I must admit the Romance elements would be better tolerated as Literature rather than Celluloid. But then, I’m the kid who walked out of the living room when Captain Kirk was all Lovey-Dovey with his Space-Squeeze of the week back in the 60′s. I’ll pass.
Posted on June 17, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Tornado Bay said: ” I can still recall how shocked I was when I saw “The Shining” in film….the end totally different than that Stephen King portrayed in the novel.”
Ah yes, but that kinda makes a different point, doesn’t it? That films can differ greatly from the book they were based on and STILL be a great FILM. Kubrick’s Shining is a terrific film on its own–the Steven Weber made-for-TV version of The Shining that came along 15 years later? Much more faithful to the book, but not so much a cinematic achievement.
And yes, as a life-long LOTR fan, when I first saw Fellowship, part of me balked at “sacred” things from the text that were changed. Needless to say, I got over it… LOL
And MartyAnne, I think we’re going to have to have a full-blown, all-out, no-holds-barred Dune discussion one of these days… my Tivo grabbed the Lynch Dune over the weekend (the 2-hour version, not the 4-hour) and I got sucked into watching it last night for the first time in about 20 years. (I’ve still never seen the 4-hour version). Now I want to rewatch the Sci-Fi version again, and re-read the four main books… so maybe one of these days, perhaps linked to some casting and production news on Peter Berg’s NEW version of Dune, we can have a Dune fest and discuss the merits and failings of all the versions–a perfect example of how different film adaptations of a sci-fi book can get different things write and wrong. And Jason can jump in and defend the Lynch one!
Posted on June 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Yes, we all kinda wish there was more real good sci-fi stuff being made but writers today don’t have much access to the great psychedelics of a couple of decades ago and after all this banter about THE TIME TRAVELERS WIFE who would skip seeing this now? ~ In fact it looks to me like a well balanced movie and maybe even better than most today ~ “12th Monkey” (or whatever that Bruce Willis movie was) could have used a little more romance ~ and so even if this is “just another silly love song” I personally am hyped already ~ ps ~
Posted on June 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I haven’t read the book and will wait until after I see the movie. Bottom line: Is the movie entertaining and memorable on its own.
Posted on June 17, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I have not read this book, but based on the trailer I would see this movie. I have read the above posts and, correct me if I’m wrong, the trailer showed Clare with red hair as a child and it appeared she also had red hair in early adulthood in another scene. If this feature of her character is as important as posted then I think they have it covered. As I’ve said, I haven’t read the book but I sure will now!
Posted on June 19, 2009 at 11:21 am
This trailer has piqued my curiosity, I must say. But, for the time being I won’t read the book. I saw the movie “Dune” before I read that book. I had liked the movie so much, I was inspired to take the time with the classic tome. There were some plot keys that were left out of the movie which helped me understand why the Dune series fans were pissed, which I’m sure helped cause the movie to flop at the box office, so much bad word of mouth and all.
Just because of all the flap here from TTTW book fans, I’ll probably wait until the movie comes to disc before I see it, cuz I’m a sci-fi buff; though not too crazy for romances, I did enjoy “The Fountain” (on DVD, never read the book). Movies are too expensive an entertainment pass time to risk wasting money on a real stinker; and now that I have a 16×9 HDTV, a blue-ray player and surround sound, I’ll be taking that risk even less often.
I thought Eric Bana was great in Star Trek…you couldn’t even tell it was him! He acts a good baddie, he surely wasn’t wooden in that part, he probably passed all his gas ;p. And I thought Troy was okay…never read “The Iliad”.
Mostly, I’m a very forgiving viewer because I love the medium, but I always keep this caveat in mind: “It’s only a movie”…so ‘caveat emptor’, everybody.
Posted on June 30, 2009 at 4:37 pm
The only part of the trailer that looks interesting and not schmaltzy is the part where Claire’s all ‘What do you want to talk about? How BAD IT FEELS to sit here and wait for you?’ because the rest is 100% twee. I’m hoping they shoehorned all the romancey bits into the trailer and that the movie has more actual tension.
Posted on July 17, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I am a BIG book junkie. I LOVE to read! There have been a LOT of trailers that show you sceens that are not even in the movie (visa versa) I read the comment mentionig a Stephen King flm. Do you NOT remember that Stephen King made an apperance in almoust ALL of the movies?… Also, on that subject, use Delorice Clabourn as an example of how the most discriptive parts of the book are replaced with a more “delacete” way to please yet scare audidances all around. As you can tell I am also a movie junkie too. So when I read The Langaliers, Stephen King, and then immediatly saw the movie, I found that the book and the movie almost COMPLETELY matched WORD FOR WORD!!! Boring! I look foward to the movie and see just how much was changed besides hair color and being “beefy”.A Movie should portray the novel. NOT match it in it’s entirerty.What would be the point of both reading a well writen novel,and seeing a movie that can change or even have better things in it? Their would be no “Hollywood!” Do not worriy Annie. I think that trailers are just a way of getting the non readers out to the movie, and for all of the readers when they see it to go and read your novel. Think of it as a win win situation.
Posted on July 30, 2009 at 4:27 am
I completely agreed with Erika here, on her original post. In fact, the only reason I found this blog at all was because I saw the trailer myself when it came out, closed the window halfway because I was so disgusted, and just recently had the balls to go back and finish the damn thing, just so I can at least say I am justified in hating it. And then I promptly Googled a general dissatisfaction, and arrived here.
Seriously? I couldn’t have said it better myself.
To those who HAVEN’T read the book, and/or thought the minor details weren’t important? If you’re going to make an adaptation of an amazing book with a huge fanbase, don’t half-ass it. The red hair bit defines Clare’s persona, as it somewhat speaks for her character, in a very subtle but noticeable way. Brown hair? Great, now she’s just any other chick.
I’m not even that hung up about the hair, as, if the acting and directing goes right (and script-writing..) then it won’t be an issue. I also know that trailers will never be cut so as to please the fans, but even so.. the way the dialogue is spoken? It’s like seeing those annoying ditzes who always end their sentences with question marks when talking.. and THAT’S the movie Clare. How freaking effed up is that??
Henry beefed up: agreed. He’s an effing librarian, for God’s sake. If I wanted a picture-perfect movie couple, I would’ve gone on to watch, I don’t know.. something with Pitt and Jolie. Let’s consider this: plotwise, Henry is a middle-aged librarian who can time-travel. When the hell does he get the time to go hit the gym 5 days a week, 2-3 hours a day? Because if you look at Bana’s build.. THAT’S what it is.
Finally, the most insulting thing to me is simply that there is no chemistry between the pair. I see a lot of memorable lines said with a lot of cheese, yes, and a sort of melting look in the eyes.. and that’s just mostly McAdams. It’s acted out in a very shallow, very typical interpretation, and could easily have been tweaked to be better. It spells bad directing to me, and the sense of a love that transcends time is completely gone. That said, like Erika, I CAN find it in myself to go see it.. but the trailer has almost certainly doomed it for me. Not that I was expecting much to begin with, but it would’ve been nice to have been proven wrong.
Thanks again for the original entry, which I still completely agree with.
Posted on August 3, 2009 at 1:56 pm
this movie sucks it reminds me of my exhusband his always in and out of jail, i sit at home loyal waiting on him to come home for few months then go back in again, the story repeats over and over, am glad is over i finaly gave him the boot.
Posted on September 11, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I saw this film The Time Traveler’s Wife two times in the theatre and it was actually great both times since it is my favorite movie this year. I am in the process of reading the novel by Audrey Niffenegger and the book is quite a few changes in the movie but Henry the time traveler always time travels and it’s quite confusing the the film helps a lot of the plot part of it.
Rachel McAdams {Clare Abshire} and Eric Bana {Henry DeTamble} acts excellent in this film. This is a great movie and the actors did swell in this film.
I am planning on finishing the book and seeing the movie again when it comes out on DVD in a few months!
By the way, this film is rated PG-13 for thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality, there was some swearing in this film that I noticed, and I think it was perfectly rated from the Motion Picture Assossication of America {MPAA}.