The Time Traveler's Wife (the novel vs. the book) *SPOILERS* *HUGE SPOILERS*

Hmmm, I loved the book. I've read it twice.

The movie was just "meh" to me though. It wasn't bad at all, but it didn't really rock my socks either.

The biggest thing about the movie that kind of just ruined it for me, was how much important stuff that got cut. I mean, the who crux of the book (like 100 pages here) was spent developing the relationship between Henry and Claire(as a child/teen). We didn't get to see that in the movie hardly at all. And it was that development that really "hooked" Claire. It was those meets in the meadow that developed that deep, devotional love that Claire had for Henry. And the movie just grazed through that part, which I think is kind of important to show WHY Claire was so devoted to Henry.

The other thing, for me, was that I knew going into this movie that it was gonna be a chick flick. I just didn't realize how chick flicky it was going to be. The part of the book that hooked me was the time travel aspect of the book and working that out in my head. The movie, however, just focused more on the lovey dovey parts without entertaining the notions of time travel (I'm thinking of Claire not dating her painting in the book and then changing her mind) and the ramifications of trying to change things. The movie, however, really honed into a female audience (methinks anyway).

But yeah, the big thing to me was that this was Henry's movie. And the book was more about Claire.

One thing I'm glad about, however, was that they left the Claire/Gomez sidestory out. I hated that part of the book. And LOL @ Ron Livingston as Gomez. I cracked up when I saw that. I kept thinking about his role in Office Space whenever he was on screen.

Bad acting. Bad dialogue. Clunky direction. Awkward adaptation.

I went with a friend who hated the book and even she said the movie didn't do it justice.

The book is better than the movie, although I do love Rachel McAdams and think she and Eric Bana have good chemistry. The movie is really mediocre, slow and kind of mundane. They also changed the ending which I think is a sin -- the book's ending is far superior.

I agree that the movie cuts out too much important stuff and focuses on some of the mundane "oh marriage is hard" thing. And the time line could be confusing to the audience since Eric Bana doesn't really look that different (beside the superficial "hair cut") through the years. (I also agree -- thank you for cutting out the stupid Claire/Gomez subplot. That was the part in the book I thought was totally unnecessary).

I also agree that the movie is more of a Henry's movie. But it's called The Time Traveler's WIFE. I'd like to see more of Claire's perspective, her struggles, her love for the man who can't stay, and the yearning after Henry dies...

Despite being a love story, the book is very readable for guys like us because of the time traveling aspect, the genetic/medical/sci-fi part of the book, and also the relationship between Claire and Henry is very relatable even for men. It didn't read sappy. The movie does feel more "chick flick" than the book.

Many of the characters are miscast: Henry's father is played by an actor who is only 55 and looks nothing like Eric Bana. Ron Livingston is sorely miscast as Gomez. I do love Michelle Nolden as Henry's mother and the scene with older Henry and her is kind of sad and magical.... and that's the stuff I think the movie could use... more magical scenes.

The stuff between Henry and kid Claire works in the book but feels a bit creepy in the movie. I'd rather they spend more time on the friendship, and the complexity of it, and less on talking about "one day marrying Henry." Ugh.

maestrowork said:

The stuff between Henry and kid Claire works in the book but feels a bit creepy in the movie. I'd rather they spend more time on the friendship, and the complexity of it, and less on talking about "one day marrying Henry." Ugh.

Click to expand...

I probably shouldn't comment here since I haven't seen the movie (and have no interest in it, really) and I didn't like the book, but this part made me laugh. See, I thought the Henry/child Claire stuff in the book was really creepy. Ask James. We discussed it during our (short-lived) book club here on AW. Reading about these exchanges just gave me a feeling of ickiness/pedobearphilia.

Anyway, sorry about the derail. Move along, move along.

maestrowork said:

since Eric Bana doesn't really look that different (beside the superficial "hair cut") through the years.

Click to expand...

For the most part you are right.

But I will give them credit for one scene where it's pretty blaringly obvious that he looks different. The Wedding scene. For a while, I thought, meh he doesn't look THAT different (aside from the grey hair), but when he stepped out on the stage for their first dance, I was litterly shocked at how different he looked. It was like the whole shape of his head had changed. It was kinda weird.

But that's the only scene in the movie where you could tell a noticeable difference in him, really.

MissKris said:

I probably shouldn't comment here since I haven't seen the movie (and have no interest in it, really) and I didn't like the book, but this part made me laugh. See, I thought the Henry/child Claire stuff in the book was really creepy. Ask James. We discussed it during our (short-lived) book club here on AW. Reading about these exchanges just gave me a feeling of ickiness/pedobearphilia.

Anyway, sorry about the derail. Move along, move along.

Click to expand...

lol I didn't think the scenes in the book were too creepy, but holy crap the scene where he first met child claire was creepy as hell.

When he's standing out there in just the blanket and he reaches out to shake her hand, I actually cringed cause it was just.....creepy.

James81 said:

For the most part you are right.

But I will give them credit for one scene where it's pretty blaringly obvious that he looks different. The Wedding scene. For a while, I thought, meh he doesn't look THAT different (aside from the grey hair), but when he stepped out on the stage for their first dance, I was litterly shocked at how different he looked. It was like the whole shape of his head had changed. It was kinda weird.

But that's the only scene in the movie where you could tell a noticeable difference in him, really.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's also something I noticed at the end. 40-something Henry showed up for his own wedding, right? And he had grey hair, right? But then by the end of the movie when he actually was 40-something and would die soon, he had NO grey hair and he didn't look all that different. It was kind of a WTF?

When he's standing out there in just the blanket and he reaches out to shake her hand, I actually cringed cause it was just.....creepy.

Click to expand...

Same here. Reading it in the book didn't give me that feeling and I credit that to Niffenegger's writing. In the movie, however, I kept thinking, she should be SCREAMING and running right now. Why the heck is the little girl talking to a naked man in a blanket!?

Guess you'll have to see the real ending on the DVD. Interesting article about why the Niffenegger's ending was cut:

http://scifiwire.com/2009/08/why-the-ending-of-the-tim.php

Oh, Hollywood, why you allow a handful of people in a test screening to dictate your endings boggles me. They did the same thing with the Butterfly Effect a few years ago too.