Slashdot Mirror
"A Sound of Thunder" Movie This Summer
Syberghost writes "Ray Bradbury's classic short story "A Sound of Thunder" is being released thus summer as a movie. It's directed by Peter Hyams, who's done the time travel thing before, but it appears that some of the major characters from the Bradbury story aren't in the credits."
Smart move, but I'm not sure that the guy who directed "Timecop" and "Sudden Death" was the right choice for a replacement...
My money is on the upcoming "Fahrenheit 451" directed by Frank Darabont.
It's a short story. Adapting a short story into a full-length feature film that remains faithful to the original story takes more talent, artistry and loyalty to the source material than anyone in Hollywood is willing, or able, to provide. This could still turn out to be a good film, of course; they don't always screw up. Although chances are they will.
I always thought it would maje a good (or great) Twilight Zone story, but there would have to be some big padding to make a whole movie.
It may end up like the "Running Man" by Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King), in that the written story was good, the movie was good but they didn't actually have much in common. Bit like Blade Runner really...
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Maybe the language change would change more, maybe not. It's a short story.
I read it for the first time in 8th grade and hadn't re-read it for decades (not that I avoided it, but I'm not much on re-reading -- except for Shakespeare). It had such a strong impact on me I that I remembered most of it, almost scene-by-scene.
To me that's effective. If it weren't, I'd have forgotten it like I did most of the stories in that anthology, but this story made such a strong impression I remembered many parts of it clearly for decades.
I write myself, and I would feel that any story I wrote that had that strong an impact on a reader was a definite success. Maybe some technical details were wrong (who knows -- we don't have the experiece to be sure), but any story that can leave an impression that lasts for decades is worth recognition.
Actually, the first Terminator was pretty good with time travel, the best part being where Reese has some cheesy Polaroid of her, and talks about wondering what she was thinking when the shot was taken, and we find later, when the picture is taken, she was thinking of him (OK, so mushy, but still consistent). Terminator II had no problem destroying the timeline, creating a paradox where in the present, they destory the inspiration for teh future, which would send them to the present. I never saw Terminator III, even the thought of a naked Terminatrix couldn't bring me to rent it, so don't know how it's handled.
From that one story you have hosts of other authors refering to "butterfly effects" and "quantum butterflys".
That's not a simple accomplishment given the length of the story. But then, I like a lot of his stuff.
Has anyone read up on this?
Not only have they completely missed the point of the story, they've come up with some lame ass idea in order to make an action film out of it.
The story additions don't make any sense - he wipes out humanity, so they must go back to fix it? Well, if he wiped out humanity, who is it that's going to go back exactly? And if he wiped out humanity, that's a paradox! He would have to exist in order to go back and screw up the timeline.
Of course, they solve this by using a "time wave" which hasn't caught up with our time yet (then, how did were they able to travel back?).
But if it hasn't caught up, how come their reality is "markedly different"?
This is a classic screenwriting short cut. This is the writer forcing the story to serve his master (director, producer or simply his own ego) rather than letting the story play itself out based on the setup and the characters. This is just a plot device not meant to be thought about too much... well, that's fine in a Britney Spears movie, but we're talking Bradbury here. This is a science fiction story. Science fiction stories are meant to be thought about. That's the whole point! They're not about ray-guns and futuristic technology. They're metaphors for things in OUR lives. They're about people, not technology. The technology is just a tool.
Of course, having seen the horrible Timecop, I know just how much Peter Hyams cares about logic and people in his movies, so this is not a particularly surprising turn of events.
However, I will not be spending a dime to see this movie. This is something I will download and proudly announce to the world that I did so just to protest the butchering of the story.
I would gladly shell out $10 to see this story on the big screen, if it was done by ANYONE other than Hyams, who seems to have a particular fetish for destroying Science Fiction as a genre (Capricorn One, Outland, 2010, Timecop, The Relic, End of Days). This guy hasn't made a single tolerable SciFi movie, and THIS is the guy filming one of the great sci-fi short stories of all time?
-- This sig for rent.
The author of the original novel is usually credited ambiguously as "story by" or "based on." Actual writing for the film is done by an army of screenwriters and script doctors, who will receive little credits (if they are lucky!). The only reason the studio gives credit to the author of the novel is so that they won't be involved in legal troubles. Well-known writers with a household name also have added value for the marketing of the film.
When you see a film based on a novel, don't expect to see what you read in the original novel --because no film director can beat what your imagination can create. Films hit your vision. Novels speak to your heart.
If you're interested in some good background on Hollywood from a writer's perspective, read up on J. Michael Straczynski's posts in r.a.s.t.b5.moderated or any of the other archives. JMS is the brain behind Babylon 5 (for those that don't know). He points out the many ways writers are screwed over, but he also demonstrated, by his own career, how that can be overcome.
Actually, it's not that producers regard the credits lightly, it's that they don't want to give them out. I remember a discussion on the 'net once about how someone said they'd be eager to write something for nothing more than credit. They didn't realize that credit is a big thing to Screenwriters beyond just getting their name on the screen. For example, to get in the Writers Guild of America, you need to have done a certain amount of "professional" work. I forgot the details, but I think it could be 2 scripts of 1 hour TV length, or 1 feature film. Since much of the industry runs on fear (and the need to outdo everyone else), people can be very stingy on letting people get credit. It can be used later in negotiations and to help one advance in a career. If you're a Hollywood producer, you don't want a write to move up, otherwise you'll pay them more the next time, and might have to make other concessions.
All this mess is a big reason why, after Trek shifted, I gave up on trying to write for TV or film out there. While the Trek people were pretty cool and not as weird as others, that was an isolated situation. Instead I busted my butt for years and will soon have my own production company (built on the company I have now). I'll be able to write my scripts and produce and direct them on my own terms. They won't be on the big screen (at least for a while), but they'll be what I want and there won't be a team of writers/producers/directors 2nd guessing everything I write. There'll be no test screenings to force re-editing and the whole cast and crew will focus on nothing but making the best production possible. When it's done, we distribute it on DVD.
It's not the level of fame and money I'd get from a studio, but it means I'll be one of the few writers alive who can write what they want and make sure it gets put on screen the way it was intended, not the way it'll be after a dozen people piss on the script like a dog does on a tree to say, "I'm here, look at me!"
There have been very, very few. Francois Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451 for example. 2001 for another (even if you don't consider it "based" on the 2001 novel, it was based on the short story "The Sentinel").
And actually I don't even mind them changing the story, as long as they do a good job. Like I think Blade Runner is an amazing movie. Yes, it's a completely different story than the book, but I don't think the story in the book would have translated into a movie that well. But the recent fad to turn brilliant, intellectual science fiction novels into action movies is just depressing.
I wouldn't exactly say they have two seperate languages. Officially, yes they have two seperate languages, but in actuality, most of Eastern Europe is the same language with different dialects. It's no different than someone from the midwestern US compared to a deep southerner, mild difference in usage, mild difference in vocabulary, and mild difference in pronunciation.
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
All it would have taken for US written English to have changed would have been for 1. Someone else other than Caxton to have popularized mass printed literature (of for Caxton to make different choices about the spellings he chose 2. Chambers to have made different choices about his reform of US spelling, or someone else to have done the job. I suspect we are already in the alternative timeline. No-one here would ever vote for someone called President Keith.
If anyone is familiar with the works of L. Sprague de Camp, he also penned a classic story of going back in time to hunt dinosaur, and what happens when one of the hunters decides to kill his expedition.
Bradbury's story was published in 1952's 'R is for Rocket', while de Camp's published in Galaxy Science Fiction in 1956.
I wonder if the similarities were intentional or accidental, seeing as both were well known in the "sci-fi" genre at the time.
Another interesting story in the same sub-genre has to be Asimov's "The Winds of Change" - definitely not an action story but certainly full of possibilities in the area of political intrique. While not a classic, still a good read. With the right cast it could be a very creepy or alarming thriller/suspense movie.