For the first time ever I have read a book in which I felt the film adaptation was vastly superior to it's written counterpart. The film smacked of originality, romance, power and a sweet melancholy. The book was a repetitive dirge. The initial scenes were very good, well written and original. Setting up the scenario of a man whose abilities to time travel were, for once, uncontrollable by himself and caused by genetic rather than the old cliched 'mad scientist' device was handled extremely well. However, after the first two or three time travelling episodes the author ran out of ideas. How many times can we invent instances where he disappears suddenly and reappears in a potentially life-threatening or hazardous situation? The answer? As many times as you like but don't expect the reader to be excited by it when they realise that it is in fact a cheap way of furthering the plot along. Don't read the book. Just watch the film.
I've heard nothing but the exact opposite...that the movie is lifeless and dull, but the book is amazing. Having only read the book, I can't say personally, but everyone who's spoken to me about it has said they were disappointed with the movie compared to the book.
I'm in arron's camp, having only read the book (and some time ago too). I remember liking it quite a lot actually, which is peculiar as it's an ocean away from my usual reads. For what it is, I thought the book was indeed an original take on the usual love theme, and one which despite slight moral issues (older man time travelling naked (albeit involuntarily) and appearing in front of a younger girl), was poignant and carefull managed. It's been some time, but I can't remember being disappointed with any repetition. Surely any originality in the film came inspired by the book? I can't see how the two wouldn't be linked.
I also have not seen the movie, but the book is one of my absolute favourites. Though it does hold the basic love story, it has a fresh and original take on time travel which I find quite interesting. Everyone I know who has both seen the movie and read the book said the movie was a huge letdown. They say that it was dull and uninteresting, telling me the book was far superior. I'm sure I'll watch the movie eventually, but at this point I'm happy having just read the book.
Now I feel like I need to watch the movie, then read the book...I'm curious to see which I'll like more. I can't say that I've heard a lot of conversation about it, but everyone I know who experienced both liked the book better.
Honestly, the only thing I liked better in the movie was the ending. The movie had a more emotional ending, I thought. Otherwise, the book was definitely better.
I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book. I enjoyed the first half or so of the book; the latter half got a bit repetitive. The writing is alright, nothing spectacular IMO. I do admit that I liked the unique perspective she gave it with the whole time travel element. Overall, I thought it was an OK book, although I must admit such types of books aren't my cup of tea. On a side note, my mom loved the book and movie.
I read it a while ago too and to be honest it was easy to put down through the middle. It was a sense of "It's got to get better" that did make me keep reading it and at the end it did actually get better. I felt as though the author struggled to keep the story going through that middle part. It was as if she had a great story but had to stretch it out to make a full novel. It was a great idea though and I've yet to see the film too. It has Eric Bana in it though so I'll enjoy it just for him
I read the book first, loved it. Watched the movie and was thoroughly disappointed. First off, I didn't like Eric Bana as Henry. He wasn't runner wiry, he was kind of built actually, and not Henry enough for me. I did like Rachel McAdams as Claire though. As for the story itself, I didn't like how the movie was cut. I think the role of Gomez should have been a little bigger, as it was in the book, and the ending...ugh, the ending. I hated, hated the movie ending. He LOST HIS FEET! Darnit all to heck. To me the movie lost so much by not having his feet actually gone. For me The Time Traveler's Wife movie was as disappointing as Anne Rice's Queen of the Damned. I read the book, loved it, saw the movie and couldn't believe what they did to the story. For me the books of both of these were so much better than the movie adaptions.
I haven't seen the film, but from what I saw from the trailer for it, it was being advertised as just a typical romance story with a bit of time travel, not showing just how good the book was. I've only heard that the book is a lot better than the film. I loved the book, and have re-read it a few times. I'd say the book would be hard to capture in a film, and I doubt the film did any justice to the book. Yay for Audrey Niffenegger!
It's not that I lack opinion... It's just that bluebell nailed it! Why they would change him losing his feet blew me away! Great book - BAD movie.
