Cool News
Machinegunrap Gets Unstuck With THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE!
Beaks here...
A delay in the release of a movie is rarely a harbinger of quality, but when it comes to a tricky piece of material like Audrey Niffenegger's THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, all of that extra time might be necessary to test and re-test the picture in order to nail down the tone. Then again, in reading the well-reasoned review posted below, I can't help but recall Neil LaBute's film of A.S. Byatt's POSSESSION - a smart, respectful adaptation that, despite a year-plus in the editing room, failed to capture the heart of the novel.
When Bruce Joel Rubin (of GHOST and the great JACOB'S LADDER) was hired to adapt THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, I thought this might be the next ENGLISH PATIENT. It had a savvy team of producers (most notably Plan B's Brad Pitt and Brad Grey), a pair of actors on the verge of stardom (Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana), and a love story that's a John Barry score away from cinematic immortality. All of the elements were there (well, save for Barry, but Mychael Danna's no slouch); it just needed a deft hand behind the camera.
Was German director Robert Schwentke - who recently went Hollywood with the formula thriller FLIGHTPLAN - that guy? Let's see what Machinegunrap has to say...
Time travel has long been a baffling fringe thought of science
fiction. Time is an ever flowing continuum, seemingly impossible to
stop. The subject has been explored in countless forms of media,
visual, written and I’m sure aural (there are always books on tape).
Ray Bradbury’s novel, “A Sound of Thunder” is the examination I’m most
familiar with, if only because of “The Simpsons.” This takes the idea
that if one were to travel back in time and alter just one miniature
detail, it could have disastrous effect on the future. It was turned
into an unwatchable film with Ben Kingsley and Ed Burns a few years
ago. The misplacement of something in the past affecting the future
has no place in The Time Traveler’s Wife. As its title would suggest,
this film takes the scientific thought to a romantic level.
A car crash when he was six years old was the first instance in which
Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) had been exposed to his time travel
ability. He’s visited by his elder self, telling him the crash is
nothing to worry about. This is presumably to just calm the younger
Henry down, as his mom is killed in the crash, usually something one
would worry about. The time-traveled Henry then dissipates, fleeing
the scene, leaving the young one to deal with the tragedy at hand. A
few rules to this time travel story are established in the quick
scene. Henry travels back to times only in which he’s already been
born. His travel location is only to where his younger self is
present. When he travels, anything he’s wearing stays in the present
and he must immediately seek clothing to cover his nudity in the past.
Lastly, he has no control over when his current self travels and when
he ends up.
Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) is the chronological constant in the
story and as her age progresses, so do the details of the story, for
the most part. Around college age, she stumbles upon Henry working in
a library. She recognizes him, but he fails to recognize her. She
tells him he told her he’d react that way when they met again. She
first encountered Henry’s time traveling ability when she was a young
girl, setting up a picnic for herself on her family’s vast property.
She immediately takes a liking to him and he vows to continue to visit
her. She of course tests his claim of being able to travel through
time by asking about the future. His dematerialization in front of her
helps make her a believer.
Once Henry and Clare meet up again in the present tense of the story,
they fall immediately in love and get married, even with Clare’s
knowledge of how difficult his inability to be constantly present may
pose problems for them in the future. She chooses to looks past this
caveat, but it rapidly becomes an issue when he travels on their
wedding night, even leaving his wedding ring behind. Like any couple,
they face trials and tribulations, with Henry’s involuntary extended
stays away from her only adding to the frustration. The question
becomes if the romance they’ve maintained through the course of
decades is enough to carry them into future happiness.
The Time Traveler’s Wife is based on a novel of the same name by
Audrey Niffenegger. I’ve never read, nor heard of it, so any
discussion of how the film adheres to the source material coming from
me, would be fruitless. The script, written by Bruce Joel Rubin
(Ghost), is itself a decent one. Given his past credits, it’s obvious
he was a great choice for a romantic film set between two people who
are only sometimes together. The romance that ensues between Henry and
Clare, although a bit forced by Henry’s traveling back in time,
meeting with Clare (did she really have a choice in the matter?), is a
love that resembles most relationships, but becomes a bit supernatural
in the elements it faces. There are times I felt the film defied its
own logic, with Henry always traveling to where another version of
himself seems to be, but yet appears in Clare’s bushes for some
reason. Perhaps it was time travel destiny for “star-cross’d lovers.”
There’s also a connection made between Clare’s father and Henry, which
proves important, that I have a feeling was a big part of the novel,
but here is treated as pure coincidence.
As the titular character, Rachel McAdams is essentially the main
protagonist, even if it’s not her whose genetic defect grants the
burden of traveling through time. The film seems a bit too focused on
Eric Bana, since he possesses the oddball character trait. It would
have been a slightly different movie if the focus was on McAdams’
character, and perhaps a more interesting one. Since this is a movie
and we’re to be dazzled by the visual, the time traveling aspect gets
a bit too much play. The film straddles the fence when it should have
leaned a bit more one way. McAdams is playing closer to her age, and I
think she’s become an engaging actress who can carry more weight in
the not-too-distant future. I like Bana, but fear he might not end up
the A-list talent Hollywood has tried to mold him into. The scales are
tipped toward McAdams here, in terms of acting prowess.
Director Robert Schwentke (Flightplan) does an admirable job keeping
the story cohesive and comprehendible, which is always a tricky
proposition when playing with time. He’s not much of a visual stylist,
but manages to keep the story moving without any true lulls within.
Although perhaps jarring at first, Henry’s fading away when on the
verge of leaving current time and space, is a neat effect that’s able
to create the sense of longing Clare feels, having to watch him slowly
drift from her presence.
P.S. I Love You and The Lake House are two movies that came to mind
when viewing this, and although I know they aren’t necessarily time
travel love stories, the longing of having a love you aren’t exactly
able to hold on to was resonant throughout this film. I haven’t
actually seen the former movies for myself (having no desire), so I’m
not quite sure what kind of quality bar has been set for the time
travel love affair genre. I felt good about The Time Traveler’s Wife
immediately finishing it, due to the romantic relationship, but there
are a few nagging script issues that came to light which I think draw
it down a notch or two. If only they could go back in time and fix it,
a better product might materialize.
Machinegunrap
TheFilmNest.com
fiction. Time is an ever flowing continuum, seemingly impossible to
stop. The subject has been explored in countless forms of media,
visual, written and I’m sure aural (there are always books on tape).
Ray Bradbury’s novel, “A Sound of Thunder” is the examination I’m most
familiar with, if only because of “The Simpsons.” This takes the idea
that if one were to travel back in time and alter just one miniature
detail, it could have disastrous effect on the future. It was turned
into an unwatchable film with Ben Kingsley and Ed Burns a few years
ago. The misplacement of something in the past affecting the future
has no place in The Time Traveler’s Wife. As its title would suggest,
this film takes the scientific thought to a romantic level.
A car crash when he was six years old was the first instance in which
Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) had been exposed to his time travel
ability. He’s visited by his elder self, telling him the crash is
nothing to worry about. This is presumably to just calm the younger
Henry down, as his mom is killed in the crash, usually something one
would worry about. The time-traveled Henry then dissipates, fleeing
the scene, leaving the young one to deal with the tragedy at hand. A
few rules to this time travel story are established in the quick
scene. Henry travels back to times only in which he’s already been
born. His travel location is only to where his younger self is
present. When he travels, anything he’s wearing stays in the present
and he must immediately seek clothing to cover his nudity in the past.
Lastly, he has no control over when his current self travels and when
he ends up.
Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) is the chronological constant in the
story and as her age progresses, so do the details of the story, for
the most part. Around college age, she stumbles upon Henry working in
a library. She recognizes him, but he fails to recognize her. She
tells him he told her he’d react that way when they met again. She
first encountered Henry’s time traveling ability when she was a young
girl, setting up a picnic for herself on her family’s vast property.
She immediately takes a liking to him and he vows to continue to visit
her. She of course tests his claim of being able to travel through
time by asking about the future. His dematerialization in front of her
helps make her a believer.
Once Henry and Clare meet up again in the present tense of the story,
they fall immediately in love and get married, even with Clare’s
knowledge of how difficult his inability to be constantly present may
pose problems for them in the future. She chooses to looks past this
caveat, but it rapidly becomes an issue when he travels on their
wedding night, even leaving his wedding ring behind. Like any couple,
they face trials and tribulations, with Henry’s involuntary extended
stays away from her only adding to the frustration. The question
becomes if the romance they’ve maintained through the course of
decades is enough to carry them into future happiness.
The Time Traveler’s Wife is based on a novel of the same name by
Audrey Niffenegger. I’ve never read, nor heard of it, so any
discussion of how the film adheres to the source material coming from
me, would be fruitless. The script, written by Bruce Joel Rubin
(Ghost), is itself a decent one. Given his past credits, it’s obvious
he was a great choice for a romantic film set between two people who
are only sometimes together. The romance that ensues between Henry and
Clare, although a bit forced by Henry’s traveling back in time,
meeting with Clare (did she really have a choice in the matter?), is a
love that resembles most relationships, but becomes a bit supernatural
in the elements it faces. There are times I felt the film defied its
own logic, with Henry always traveling to where another version of
himself seems to be, but yet appears in Clare’s bushes for some
reason. Perhaps it was time travel destiny for “star-cross’d lovers.”
There’s also a connection made between Clare’s father and Henry, which
proves important, that I have a feeling was a big part of the novel,
but here is treated as pure coincidence.
As the titular character, Rachel McAdams is essentially the main
protagonist, even if it’s not her whose genetic defect grants the
burden of traveling through time. The film seems a bit too focused on
Eric Bana, since he possesses the oddball character trait. It would
have been a slightly different movie if the focus was on McAdams’
character, and perhaps a more interesting one. Since this is a movie
and we’re to be dazzled by the visual, the time traveling aspect gets
a bit too much play. The film straddles the fence when it should have
leaned a bit more one way. McAdams is playing closer to her age, and I
think she’s become an engaging actress who can carry more weight in
the not-too-distant future. I like Bana, but fear he might not end up
the A-list talent Hollywood has tried to mold him into. The scales are
tipped toward McAdams here, in terms of acting prowess.
Director Robert Schwentke (Flightplan) does an admirable job keeping
the story cohesive and comprehendible, which is always a tricky
proposition when playing with time. He’s not much of a visual stylist,
but manages to keep the story moving without any true lulls within.
Although perhaps jarring at first, Henry’s fading away when on the
verge of leaving current time and space, is a neat effect that’s able
to create the sense of longing Clare feels, having to watch him slowly
drift from her presence.
P.S. I Love You and The Lake House are two movies that came to mind
when viewing this, and although I know they aren’t necessarily time
travel love stories, the longing of having a love you aren’t exactly
able to hold on to was resonant throughout this film. I haven’t
actually seen the former movies for myself (having no desire), so I’m
not quite sure what kind of quality bar has been set for the time
travel love affair genre. I felt good about The Time Traveler’s Wife
immediately finishing it, due to the romantic relationship, but there
are a few nagging script issues that came to light which I think draw
it down a notch or two. If only they could go back in time and fix it,
a better product might materialize.
Machinegunrap
TheFilmNest.com
-
+ Expand All
-
...I can't picture them pulling this off.
-
that said, it's probably nothing I'd be interested in.
-
The biggest problem translating it is the tone. It is less a story of time travel as it is a story about someone with an incurable disease (in this case, time travel is the disease).
-
Never read it.
-
Beginning to end and left me hoping the story would continue at some point. Suggesting a title for said sequel would be a spoiler.
-
I have pretty high hopes for the film.
-
Christ. Go back to writing features for the PennySaver, where you belong.
-
Mar 17, 2009 1:06:58 AM CDT
IT'S A BOOK FOR WOMEN WHO DON'T LIKE SCI-FI, FUCK THIS SHIT!!!
by 1978creepythinman
It's the same as Twilight being a "vampire" movie for women who don't like vampire movies or how Scream was a slasher film for girls who don't like slasher movies. You can always tell when a certain genre is being manipulated into a "chick flick" because the predominant drive of the story is about the fucking female protagonist’s emotional bullshit because every fucking movie made for women is ALWAYS about their fucking feelings. TIT’S AND PUSSY OR GET THE FUCK OUT!!!
-
Have you even read the book or just looked at the cover?
The book is excellent. The movie looks like it's been dumbed down into some lightweight romantic love story but don't critique the book. It was a quite brutally honest look at a relationship that was full of graphic sex, laughs, loss and betrayal. The sci-fi elements were really well done too and the ending was absolutely stellar.
All the signs point to this being a duff adaptation but for fecks sake learn to read 1978. You say "TITS AND PUSSY OR GET THE FUCK OUT" - in the book Claire does. Lots. She loves sex and swears like a trooper. -
piece of shit
-
Still wrestling with writing a review or not. The short version would be that I'm sort of here nor there about it, which is probably why the review never happened. But my roommate is fanatical about the book, and from my description of the film I've gotten some insight of the differences.
-
them portraying Eric Bana as an almost violent thug at times who steals to survive and goes into the past and sixty nines himself
-
zzzzZZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzz
-
I just started the audio book today.
-
....i'd pay a dollar for that!!!!:-))
-
I don't know if that was intentional but I really like the wordplay in that. Now if only we'd get past the present puns then we may have a future after all.
-
Too soon. Loved the book
-
how could henry visit clare in the past if "His travel location is only to where his younger self is
present" and the ending would not work if "Henry travels back to times only in which he’s already been born". This was an amazing book, I wouldn't say unfilmable but it would take a massive effort to get it to screen. Personally I would of loved to have seen Darren Aronofsky take a stab at it. Unfortunately this could end up being another distilled hollywood romcom for the masses ala p.s. i love you. -
Because, like WATCHMEN, the book does things that a movie can't do as well. For starters, there's a lot of description of how Claire feels, and wistful shots of the luminous Miss McAdams will only go so far. I hope they gave it a good shot, but I imagine this will end up being more of a conventional GHOST-type movie than the quirky, heartfelt movie we needed. I'll go and see it - of course I will, as a major fan of the book - but with my expectations lowered.
thinboyslim - Yes, I'd love to see Aronofsky try for this (it felt like THE FOUNTAIN to me as I read the book) but it will end up more like PS I LOVE YOU.
1978, don't even bother watching this. It'll go straight over your head. Try TR2NSFORMERS and FA4T & F4RIOUS instead, they're more your dumb-ass, ADD-edit addicted bag. -
Aren't they all these days?
-
can anyone at AICN confirm the delay was due to the ending of the film being reshot?
-
and a little surprised that there's already a movie coming out @_@ I just heard about the book. Must be this dark cave covered with a rock that I live inside...
-
One of the most underrated actors in Hollywood... FACT!
-
i did like it although the romance isn't really my cup of tea. I kinda see it as something like the notebook but with time travel instead of dementia. Actually that's not a good description at all. I am very particular about time travel though and I gotta admit the way it works in the novel was great. They don't cheat it, like so many other romance films that deal with something fantastical. I'm looking at you lake house.
-
I didn't much care for the book, so I'll probably be skipping the film. Unconvincing romance, too long, too many name-droppings, and not enough deep thoughts to warrant its length. But that's just me. Looks like most of you peeps liked it, so good on you.
-
I listened to it on CD on the way to work and thinks it amazing. This will be very hard to translate to film without going down the whole Lake House road. The timeline is sound and it's to me one of the best examples of how time travel would actually work.
-
They were kind of important as well, are they going to be in the film
-
Ken Grimwood's REPLAY would be one fantastic time-travel love story. Has a lighter touch than TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE - and a more uplifitng (to me, anyway) ending. It's a real shame Ken didn't finish the sequel he was working on before he died - we may never know how REPLAY's sequel would have ended...
-
Jacob's Ladder is fucking awesome, if you haven't seen it then I HIGHLY suggest you do
-
The problem is - and I agree he's quite under-rated - he'd turn up onscreen in this incredibly sweet, philosophical romance / time-travel movie, and you know what would be going through my head?
"How's it going, Bob? Bob?"
"Let me tell you something about TPS reports..."
"Good luck with your firings, guys, I hope they work out well for ya!"
"The Nazis has pieces of flare that they made the Jews wear."
"Well, at least I DIDN'T FUCK LUMBERGH!"
"Don't want to do anything criminal? Samir, this is AMERICA!"
"Fuckin' A."
You get the idea. No matter what he's in, he's Peter from OFFICE SPACE to me. That movie will haunt him to the grave like the SW OT haunts Mark Hamill.
"Hmm. Yeeeeaaah." -
IN TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, I don't think you can have one without the other - her love for him is intertwined with the fact that he involuntarily travels in time. But you cannot deny that last chapter is fucking HEARTBREAKING. I'm not ashamed to admit - that ending made me cry like a bitch.
They cast damn solid leads for this movie. I have faith it'll be good. -
Is a much better novel of a person getting unstuck in time.
But perhaps because this is a lesser book, it will be a better movie. I like the cast and it will be interesting to see what they cut from the book. -
has sex with himself. That was a great scene.
-
won't make it into the movie.
-
That is the textbook example of how to write your way out of a time-travel device. The way it ties itself up... Just awesome. And he manages the philosophical side of it brilliantly - it reminds me a lot of the scene in GROUNDHOG DAY where Bill Murray is swallowing cream cakes whole and trying to explain to Lt Andie MacDowell how this Groundhog Day thing works.
"Maybe God isn't omnipotent. Maybe He's just been around so long that He just knows everything."
Taken in isolation, that scene is a great look at how a person in that situation would think - they'd be confused, bewildered, more than a little scared, and thinking about the deeper meaning type questions about life, God etc to fid some kind of meaning or reason for what's happeneing.
Taken in context, it's another great scene in a fantastic movie chock-full of great little scenes. GROUNDHOG DAY is much under-rated. -
were terrifice. The idea that a change in time wouldn't create a smooth transition, but a chaotic one--deadly plants in a Manhattan apartment, sentient hyaenas attacking the Public Library were great, but not developed enough. That catfish-like human in the next-to-last scene was terrific! I envisioned a whole group of them, mounted on domesticated velociraptors, hunting down the hyaenids with laser-lances, and then interrogating the one last human, Ed Byrnes. That would have been a scene!
-
What element creates drama? The fact that he constantly disappears? This sounds dumb unless I am missing something.
-
That's just brilliant review work. Someone hire this man.
-
except for Eric Bana. No matter how Hollywood dresses him up these days he'll always be Poiter to us aussies
-
The Sound of Thunder via the Simpsons is the only time travel concept you're familiar with? And you've never heard of the Time Traveler's Wife? How big is the rock you live under?
-
...of calling books "The So and So's Blank"? The Time Traveler's Wife, The Bonesetter's Daughter...The Fry Cook's Niece...there have been a bunch more in the last few years that are escaping me at the moment...
-
"The Memory Keeper's Daughter" and "My Sister's Keeper"...the list goes on...
-
...and a movie can only diminish that awesomeness. I will skip this one unless I hear it gets really good reviews.
-
The Reboot/Remake Executive's Wife. It's about a dumbass hollywood exec always rebooting and remaking shit. And his hot wife who is basically a trophy wife but she's got more common sense than him and when he sees her original choices are critically acclaimed and box office gold, he changes his ways. But since this isn't the typical hollywood happy ending, the wife wakes up it was all a dream her husband hasn't changed his remaking/rebooting ways and we move onto the seond decade of the 21st century with more remakes and reboots than ever.
-
I liked this book, but I loved replay. Replay would make a great film if the right screenwriter & director were attached.
Someone must be holding the film rights.
The pessemist in me suspects that Replay wouldn't be done justice though, because often the wrong people get their hands on good books.
Case in point, War of the worlds was massacred, but then again the culprit there did a sterling job with Jurassic park. -
Well... ok, sounds neat.
-
It is written with 2 first person narratives. The time traveler in one chapter, and his wife in the other. I hope they keep the tragic ending. The scene they will cut: when the teenaged time traveler warps back to his slightly younger teenaged self and they jerk each other off (I mean, it's not gay if it is your own body right?...I am right, right?
-
The Constant... you know I'm right.
-
The final visitation depicted in the novel is probably one of the few times that I have wept while reading a book.
-
"I love you, Penny!"
-
clearly only glanced at the flap of the book. Try reading it. Both this book and Replay are great.
-
Though Henry's sexual encounter with himself took me right out of the novel momentarily. After my wife read the book I pointed that scene out as the instance where I checked to see if it was written by a man or a woman... I just couldn't see a guy writing that, straight or not. That said, I really did enjoy the rest of the novel. I felt the time travel was handled convincingly - and that's not easy to do. I doubt the film can do it justice.
-
Yep, you managed that without spoilage! That is one emotional scene. It's also the one scene that, if they fuck it up, will sink the entire movie.
The whole emotional fulcrum is the anticipation of that scene (if I remember rightly, it's hinted at or foreshadowed earlier in the book). And it's also the scene that had me in pieces. Not many books have had an impact on me like that one did... it's just very, very well-written. -
THE CONSTANT - LOST's finest hour. And, coincidentally, one of the few episodes not to feature Mr Stoic-But-Sexy, Mr Noble-But-Weepy, or Miss-Sexy-But-Untrustworthy. I'm hoping all three get eaten by some other unseen THING before the end, and we can get back to the good stuff - the Island, Ben, Widmore, Locke, and of course how Desmond fits into all this.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that Penny isn't long for this world, though. Call it intuition... -
I'm sure the movie won't live up to it, but I'll see it. The book is incredibly powerful. Watching Benjamin Button and LOST's The Constant reminded me of The Time Traveler's Wife.
-
But a "fearful knowing"...
But, odds are we'll find out What Ben Did around 512 or so... -
and McAdams is maybe the hottest woman in the world.
-
In WEDDING CRASHERS, absolutely.
In MEAN GIRLS, not so much... -
I've been reading science fiction for years, and Time Traveler's wife could give a shit about the tme travel aspect of it. It's chick-lit through and through. No man would ever write a book about a time traveler and have his relationship with his missus take precedence over say....having any plot at all.
It was an interesting read, but at the end of the day, it still copped out of trying to explain anything. Henry has one lame argument about changing the future with a version of himself a few weeks older and then just gives up and accepts that TIME IS UNCHANGABLE. why? because otherwise the question of time travel might have gotten in the way of the many repetitious descriptions of "hawt-but-loving-sex" and Henry whining like a bitch about how hard it is not to shag your future wife when she's a horny 15 year old.
It's female escapist silliness, the film will most likely expose it as the girly clunge that it is. Also kudos to whoever likened it to Twilight. You're so on the money you must be standing on my wallet. -
Fuck!It's been forever. Put more science in these stories. Yeah some of the audience is brain dead or they just like the human interaction, but make it smart. Explain shit. We know it's not true but you can make an attempt at it. I hate cop outs.
-
Don't do things like that - they'll end up with midichlorians and shit.
does anyone else think midichlorians sounds like a brand of pool cleaner or something? "Midichlorians. For that hard to kill algae, and the safety of your children."
I see what you're saying, though. -
Wow! Thats fucking odd. Can you imagine his next time jump after that? "Hey,younger self. You home from school yet?You were supposed to meet me an hour ago. Who are you? Hi I'm Chris Hansen,have a seat. Is your screen name tymtrvlr69?" Fucking weird.
-
or maybe it was just the yummy Moon Bloodgood?
-
It's bizarre how the book never actually specifies what he did with himself, and yet so far in this talkback, people have said that he does a 69, gives himself a hand-job and fucks himself. It says a lot about you in your personal interpretation there.
Again, it's a chick-lit thing to write into the story. It's almost as creepy as hanging out with your girlfriend when she was a small kid and grooming her to fall in love with you when you meet later in life.
Yeah girls, that's just cute isn't it? Not at all like Oldboy... -
I'm pretty sure they were having butt sex (Sod-o-my!).
-
Tape? Jesus, is the reviewer traveling through time too?
Everyone who's saying the book is bad sci-fi is missing the point. This is a love story with a science-fictiony plot device, not a sci-fi story with some romance thrown in. -
One of Chris Reeve's better non-Supes films gets no mention? There are people that celebrate this film like a hoilday.
-
But if we are using "Personal Interpretation" I would say that the guy gave his younger self access to some porn,cause if I could go back in time and give my twelve year old self a gift I know he would appreciate some good old fashioned pre internet porn. Anything other than that is fucking gross.
-
This reviewer's frequent digressions, boneheaded references, and obvious inability to read at anything above a grade seven level all combined to tell me absolutely NOTHING of any value. Thanks for nothing, retard.
-
although one was about 6 months older than the other.
-
A low budget, well written, acted and has an awesome score. Quite the cult following. Not much of the science and time traveling but still a great film.
If they ever remake it I see them choosing Keira Knightley for the lead role.
-
Mar 17, 2009 2:36:48 PM CDT
HOW RONALD REAGAN, RELIGION AND HOLLYWOOD KILLED CINEMA
by 1978creepythinman
In the 1980's the Reagan Administration ushered in the widespread de-regulation and removal of anti-trust laws that were put in place after the Great Depression to prevent companies from monopolizing various industries and creating the type of TOO BIG TO FAIL companies that have now created the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression itself. In regards to the decline of North American cinema it’s like this. With the HUGE success of movies like Jaws and Star Wars various money grubbing Wall Street types moved into the Hollywood system and reshaped the major studio’s into Corporate entities where the goal was no longer to just make movies and inspire friendly competition the way that proper capitalism is supposed to work. No, Wall Street style capitalism is about increasing market share by buying out or killing off the competition so that a few people/companies control everything which is closer to communism if you think about it. So, how did they go about this? By buying off politicians they were able to first get rid of the tax shelters that allowed low budget independent filmmakers and studio’s to raise money from private investors. Without these tax shelters people like George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead/Dawn of the Dead), Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Poltergeist), Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead and Spider-man Triologies), Brain DePalma (Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables), Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/Goodfellas), Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather 1 & 2, Apocalypse Now) etc.. wouldn’t have been able to raise the money to make their first features. Canada offered a 100% tax shelter system for investment in movie production in the 70’s and that lasted until the 80’s. Without that Ivan Reitman (Meatballs/Stripes/Ghostbusters) and David Cronenberg (The Fly/Naked Lunch/Crash) wouldn’t have been able to make their first films Cannibal Girls and Shivers respectively. Also, in the USA, before the deregulation and removal of the anti-trust laws, studios weren’t allowed to buy up movie theatres or chains to create a monopoly. So what you had were thousands of theatres and theatre chains across North America and all those companies cared about was their box office revenue. So they would book anything that made money. If you made a low budget movie you could book it into a theatre and since the Motion Picture Association of America - MPAA was a joke back in those days you could show just about anything in theatres as in evidence of Deep Throat playing not just in porn houses but even in respectable theatres all across the country not to mention the grindhouses that played an endless stream of Horror and exploitation flicks day and night. If your movie was good and made money you could use that money to make more prints and advertise across the city, state or even the whole country if your movie was a hit. This is how AIP, Roger Corman and later New Line Cinema and Troma operated for decades, that is, until the 80’s. Now the deregulation/anti-trust laws removal (from here on in referred to as DR/ARL) wasn’t the only reason for the decline of audience attendance in the 80’s. VCR’s made it possible to rent movies and watch them from the comfort of your own home. As a result thousands of theatres and a few chains went under. Mostly these were the single venue style theatres with one screen where they would play double and triple bills and alternatively use the theatres for rock shows, stage productions etc… But the second thing was that after the DR/ARL, the major studios were allowed to buy up theatre chains and individual mom and pop theatres with the intent of shutting them down. The 1980’s saw the rise of the multi-plex, most of which were built by the major studios and a few other companies that operated such as Famous Players or Odeon Cinemas as an example up here in Canada. They were built with maximum comfort and convenience but had as much personality as your average McDonalds in comparison to a family operated restaurant. Now because these chains were all owned by corporations they would only do business with each other and book only each others movies as well as their own, effectively shutting out any independent studio’s or producers. By the late 80’s most of the independents had been killed off so now it was mostly the majors with the exception of a few studios that survived because they had highly profitable franchises (New Line and the Nightmare on Elm Street series) or they distributed some low budget independent, art-house and European films (Miramax with The Crying Game, El Mariachi, Resevoir Dogs etc…) to the single art-house theatres scattered across the country and because those movies made soo much money and received soo much national critical attention from Siskel & Ebert etc.. even the corporate owned theatre chains started booking them because money is still money. So how does the MPAA tie into this and the decline of balls out American Cinema? It’s because Hollywood is always the target of right wing mouthpiece’s and various religious organizations across the country as witnessed by the ridiculous uproar by the moral majority over movies such as Dogma, Kids, Natural Born Killers etc…. in the 90’s or if you really want to go back in time you could find examples of this with almost every single successful film made during the entire history of cinema that features any sort of violent or sexual content. Look up the Hays Code and watch some pre-code movies made in the 20’s and early 30’s and you’ll notice how much more violent, sexual and lurid movies like the original Scarface and Mystery of the Wax Museum were for the time and how North American cinema went through a period of melodramatic puritanism that lasted from the 30’s (with the exception of a few underground films) and only ended with the collapse of the studio system in the late 60’s which ushered in the most fertile era in American cinema history as a result of filmmakers being allowed to realistically and unrealistically portray sex, violence and real or not-so real life like never before. During this period the political and religious freaks bitched about all the sex and violence but their complaints didn’t catch any traction especially with all the political turmoil of the era and the fact that Government violence against it’s citizens (the Kent State shootings) and the global imperialism/war mongering (Vietnam) made Government criticisms of Hollywood on behalf of religious furor a moot point. After Jimmy Carter lost the presidency because he inherited the dismal economy of the post-Vietnam era and dared to tell America the truth, the American public stuck their heads up their collective asses and voted in an ex-actor who was the straight man to a chimp as President of the United States. But Ronald Reagan only got into power because the Republican Party aligned themselves with various snake oil salesmen such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and their mindless followers creating the Moral Majority movement of the 80’s of which it’s existence was to paper over all of the ugliness going on in the USA and promoted the fantasy that America was a land of rainbows, puppies and sold their bullshit with all the tenacity of a used car salesman selling a rusted out shitbox with a fresh paint job. This gave the religious right more power then they had in decades and made politicians live in fear for their political lives. Once again the religious freaks put their attention onto Hollywood because all of that sex and violence was polluting their Good Christian country. So they put the screws to politicians, mostly those from the Redneck States, who then came down on Hollywood and threatened to dismantle the major studio’s monopoly by reinstating those tax shelters and the DR/ATL. It’s at this point that the religious right gained almost complete control over what got shown in theatres across North America but they couldn’t implement their control in the style of the Hays code for fear of being labeled as CENSORS so they operated in virtual anonymity under the MPAA. It’s under this system that the MPAA and the major studio’s were able to kill off independents. The scam worked like this, you’re a low budget independent Director, Producer or Studio. You make money by making the type of movies that the majors don’t such as Horror and exploitation with outrageous sex and violence. The major studios are only interested in the only two types of movies they know how and want to make, glossy big budget extravaganzas and worthy Oscar winners. They think it’s beneath them to make Horror and exploitation films with gratuitous gore and sex except for when it’s being done by a major Hollywood actor, producer or director in which case the MPAA seems to have no problem with slapping the film with a family seal of approval R-rating. They used to distribute the occasional low budget shocker or sex flick, such as the Friday the 13th series which was distributed by Paramount or Porky’s which 20th Century Fox put out, but the ire of so called “respected” critics like Siskel & Ebert along with the political pressure from the religious right forced studio’s like Paramount/Fox to stop distributing low budget gore and sex flicks which is why they sold the F13th series to New Line while Fox eventually gave up on sex comedies. Anyway, you’re an independent Director, Producer, Studio who’s made “Teenage Lesbian Orgy in the Girls Locker Room of Gore” and you’re looking to distribute it. In the 70’s if the moves was good, or at the very least had plenty of entertaining sex and violence, you could put it out on a small scale and expand statewide and nationally if the movie is successful as I previously mentioned. The problem is that because the Reagan administration removed the DR/ANL, the studio’s now own 90% of the theatres across the country and won’t distribute your movie because it doesn’t have the Siskel & Ebert types across the country slobbering over it and they don’t want the headache of enraging the religious right. So what are your options? Well, there might be some small chains, mom and pop theatres that you could distribute to but there are issues when it comes to the rating of your movie and how that effects your ability to promote your epic. The situation is this, you take your magnum opus to the MPAA to get an R-Rating, now an R-Rating in the USA and the system itself is designed to censor without the appearance of censorship. An R-Rating means that no one under the age of eighteen can enter a particular movie without someone over the age of eighteen, BUT, the catch is that if you’re over eighteen you can bring anyone of any age into the theatre with you. That means that some dipshit eighteen year old, which DO exist and they are many, can bring a ten year old child into the theatre to see “Nudist Amazonian Warrior Interracial Dyke Cannibals of Sodomy” which will no doubt turn the impressionable ten year old into a peace-loving- gay-commie-pinko-liberal-Marxi st-serial killing-rapist-transexual-who- wants-Communist-socialist-Free -Health-Care-and-less-money-sp ent-on-the-military-to-finance -better-education-and-alleviat e-poverty-to-bring-about-a-new -age-of-Universal-utopia-which -will-allow-the-human-race-to- look-towards-the-stars-and-exp and-our-spieces-across-the-gal axy-for-eternity-untill-the-en d-of-creation….and that’s bad. So in order to Protect The Children™ and receive an R-rating the MPAA tells you to cut your film BUT they wont tell you what to cut because then they could be accused of censorship. They’ll just let you know when they see it. So you cut a few frames and trip a scene here or there and they tell you to keep cutting. You go back and forth until you scream in frustration about what else you need to fucking cut and they tell you that it’s not the footage as per say but the “tone” of it and how it’s this or that. The point is to get you to water down your movie until all its commercial elements (i.e. The Fucking and Killing) no longer exist and you have a movie that has an R-rating but won’t make a penny in theaters because your flick wasn’t that good to begin with and all you had was the nudity and gore. Now you could try to release it unrated which a lot of movies did up until the 80’s and many were highly successful such as Dawn of the Dead but that was when you had those independently owned theatre chains and mom & pop theatres that would play your movie even without a rating and you could still mount an advertising campaign to let the public know about your flick. Even in the 80’s there were still a few theatres left that would play un-rated movies the only problem is that with media consolidation all of the newspapers, TV stations and magazines were controlled by a few corporations and those corporations had political ties to the religious right etc, etc… so they would refuse to run advertisements of your un-rated movie and in those pre-internet days that meant that you were shit out of luck and no one would know about your masterpiece. The only other option was to tell the MPAA to fuck off and refuse to cut your movie in which case it would be given an X-Rating which effectively put it into the category of Pornography and no theatres would play it apart from porn houses and even those were being killed off by the VRC revolution of the 80’s. So without a means of finance, distribution or publicity this is how most of the independents went out of business in the 1980’s which is why North American cinema has been sliding into the shitter for the last quarter of a century as a result of corporate greed, religious fanaticism and political scumfuckery. Today not much has changed and it seems like a miracle when a good movie gets made and released in North America but they are few and far between. The great hope is the internet, on-line distribution and digital downloading but there are two main issues. The first is that without financing most independent movies today are shot on video cheapies that offer very little in the way quality scripts, production value or even competence although occasionally you get a good cheesy film like Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, The Janitor and Blood Car. The second problem is how do you make money off something that people can get on-line for free from torrent sites? The answer is to make a good movie against the odds and hope that people like your movie enough to want to buy the DVD but those odds are against you and as long as Hollywood maintains its corporate monopoly on national theatrical distribution, North American cinema will never recover.
-
You may have just as well written "Lorem ipsum dolor..."
-
World cheers
-
I read it in a book club, and it was very divisive. None of the men thought it was better than "meh" and most of the women loved it. The women who hated it, however, really hated it.
This books, imo, is seriously over-rated. I found nothing to care about in the main characters. The guy is a romantic ideal, on one hand. On the other hand, he is basically a child molester who travels back in time to bang a young chick who will later grow to be his wife. Dreadful and I simply can't imagine anyone with a Y chromosome, gay or straight, enjoying this tripe. -
Just kidding.
-
I picked it up at the library on a whim, having never heard of it, and was floored by how moving it was. And I'm a guy. Not only were the characters interesting and flawed in unusual ways, but the plot itself was twisty enough that I thought it commendable that the author trusted the readers to be smart enough to keep all the back and forth time travel straight in their heads without a map,As for the child molester nonsense, you have to remember that the "hero" meets the younger version of Claire only after he's met the older one. And if I recall, he's uneasy about their interaction, and they don't do *anything* until she's of age. Inappropriate? Maybe. But I don't think there's a clause in the legal books regarding time traveling and bumping into a younger version of your current girlfriend.
-
I don't think that defense will hold up in court.
-
I did imagine Sam from Quantum Leap as Henry...but Bana is a good choice. The tone of the trailers look right...hopefully it works
-
... can the Time Traveler, if he happens to find himself in 1966, prevent one Mr. and Mrs. Snyder from "doing the nasty" so I can get back the 2.43 hours I lost from my life due to Watchmen?
-
estrogen - it figures; frank has a most excellent time-travel story gathering dust, and yet this romantic drivel is a hot property
-
No. Time cannot be changed in this book's universe. (A rule which makes for the best scene in the book, where Henry's talking to his crazy ex. I wish the book had more scenes like that.) So, sorry, you'll never get that time back.
-
As in unsophisticated and B-roll. Nuff said. Don't invoke the original material again.
-
Stop living up to your TB handle! WATCHMEN is one of the most complex, intellectually rewarding, carefully designed and intricately detailed comics EVER WRITTEN. Have you even READ it?
WATCHMEN the comic is as far from unsophisticated as it gets. As for B-roll...
So what would YOU regard as a great graphic novel, if WATCHMEN is "unsophisticated and B-roll"?
Honestly, I'm floored. Unsophisticated? JEEEEEsus... -
On the one hand, a lot of it is very well written. Not up there with Ian McEwen in terms of poetry as novel, but there are some beautifully written parts. The romance is quite lovely, and the characters are usually at their best during the adult-romance parts. The time travel is secondary to the romance but it also elevates it beyond generic chick lit.
On the other hand, Henry going back to see Claire to make her love him and the self-sex IS uncomfortable to read. And from a critical perspective, I found that there were several points in the book where none of the characters were remotely likable. When the four main characters get together, every one of them comes off as insufferably self-absorbed and quite proud of themselves. They're clearly certain that everything they say is very important and clever, yet they're also not as aware of this as characters in, say, The Great Gatsby, which uses the self-absorbed aspect of its characters to its advantage. -
Hello - Black Hawk Down, The Hulk, Troy, Munich, The Other Boleyn Girl, Star Trek! And the reviewer is most familiar with time travel stories via a spoof on The Simpsons - really?!
-
...I always hated that "time can not be changed crap. If you went back to 1936 and, say, popped over to Berlin and shot Hitler with a high-powered rifle, Hitler would be dead... what's to stop it? Of course you'd branch off an alternate timeline where Hitler had his head blown off and maybe your originating timeline would remain the same. According to one theory it's impossible to time travel without also traveling to a divergent timeline so maybe that's the "out". But I hate this "destiny prevents you to interfere with history" stuff. It's too easy.
-
They announced this production almost two years ago, didn't they?
I liked the book better than my wife did but don't really look forward to the movie.
The rules for time travel were rather well spelled out in the book, I thought. Whatever was pulling him (both forward and back in time, not just to the past) drew him to somewhere he had an emotional connection with. He visited the car accident that killed his mom a hundred times, each time unable to change the event. He can't change what happens, because it has already happened. Every time he thinks he is doing something to change the past, it turns out to be something that happened the first time around anyway.
His relationship to his wife is the emotional connection that draws him back to her childhood. She falls in love with him long before he even knows she exists. It's concepts like that that make the book hard to explain. There are so many subtleties that will be impossible to explain in the visual medium, the best I hope for is a mildly passable adaptation. -
I know of none. Throw us a bone please.
-
Bollocks Silverhour. He never explicitly tries to change anything, he only alludes to having tried to change things but offers no examples = shit writing.
Also as I said before the retarded conversation with himself about it was even worse.
Henry 1 "Why didn't you tell me that was going to happen?"
Henry 2 "Because it already did happen to me, so that wouldn't work."
Henry 1: "Oh I see, I better take your word for it and never test this, regardless of the heartache and shit I go through repeatedly in life."
Henry 2: Good boy. Don't forget to tell yourself this bollock next week when you show up.
Such shite. -
Orcus' pointy ears are ringing
-
What does he do with his 15 year old self that is considered sexual? Thats an odd thing to include in a time travel novel.Was there a reason for it or was it even explained?
-
...is one of my favorite of the last decade, and the only book in recent memory to actually make me cry. Just a brilliant, brilliant story. I find it interesting that the reviewer mentions a couple scenes in which the lead character is in the same space as himself, because in the book such instances were quite common -- he even helps himself "masturbate". *laugh* I've been looking forward to this adaptation for a long time.
-
They don't say what they're doing, but they're caught by the father ... twice (well, once, but you know what I mean). It's a very honest scene, and ignoring the sex for a second, it's actually a very important scene in the book because it establishes some aspects of the underlying time travel (the younger version yells at the older version for not warning him) and iirc, it's one of only a couple scenes that we see from the viewpoint of both versions of the main character (although there aren't that many scenes that he's in twice/thrice).
-
Go and read Time Enough for Love by Heinlein. Then we can talk as equals.
-
Are you looking down upon us mere mortals because some of us have not read Heinlein?!?
I'll see your TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE with THE TIME TRIP by Rob Swigert, which is great. Then I'll show you REPLAY once again, which is so awesome it should be mentioned more than once.
You Klaatu, you. -
I'm just not sure I can trust this guy's review....it sounds as if they either completely changed the "time travel rules", of this guy just didn't quite understand it. Henry can travel pretty much anywhere...not only to his former self. In fact, that would kind of defeat the purpose of the book and remove all the possible danger of time travelling to who-knows-where.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts