A Sound of Thunder

blamanj writes "One of the great sci-fi short stories, Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder is scheduled to be released on film next month. Links to the trailers (QT, Real, WMP) can be found here. The original story prefigured chaos theory in its 'small changes, large effects' premise. Indeed, when I first heard the term 'butterfly theory,' I assumed it was based on Bradbury's story. Unlike the original, however, the film won't be touching on dystopian politics, but appears to have been turned into a 'Jurassic Park'-style creature feature. Sigh. Oh, well, we can hope that the new Fahrenheit 451 will be treated with a bit more respect."

Comments

Mixed the links up?

[Xshare]

Clicking on Ray Bradbury's name brings you to a link about "A sound of Thunder", and clicking on "A sound of thunder" brings you to Ray Bradbury's main page. Mixup, eh?

How good a movie it will be in comparison to the book, I don't even want to speculate. As far as just looking at it as a movie and not as a movie adaptation of a book, it looks alright, maybe something to rent on DVD.

Re:Mixed the links up?

[stratjakt]

What book? "A sound of thunder" is a cheesy 2 page short story where a guy goes back in time, steps on a butterfly, and rewrites all of history.

For a 2 pager, it's a good story. But sheeit, get a grip on it people, it's not the greatest story I've read by a long shot.

I'm surprised anyone thought it was worth a movie. It was barely worth the Simpsons spoof.

I have a feeling what happened was, someone wrote a script about going back in time to hunt dinosaurs, suits noticed the similarities in plots, and just bought the rights to the story rather than risk a copyright suit down the road.

I like Bradbury and all, but this just seems like a goofy short story to get worked up about.

Re:Mixed the links up?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that people these days would rather see a movie in which the world is destroyed than see something that questions the nature of cause and effect. The change in spelling in the sign, and the change in politics in the rewritten Future is a little bit too subtle for today's "I wanna see people blow up weird monkies! Where's teh astaroyds?!!?!" movie-goers. However, I predict that the movie will do only marginally well, since the whole concept of changing the future will seem too "cerebral," even with the giant-bat-infested cinematics. As long as they don't make a fifteen-hour miniseries based on "The Veldt" I'll be okay.

Re:Mixed the links up?

[terrab0t]

Either that or some suits thought a movie with Bradbury's name attached to it would sell better. They clearly state his name in the trailer.

another one ?

[butlerdi]

Why does everything comming out of Hollywood look, sound and seem the same?

I'll see it...

[jmcmunn]

It can't be worse than the latest attempts at the Star Wars trilogy...talk about runing a good story.

Re:I'll see it...

[scottking]

i agree, the lastest three are absolute crap. george needs to NOT write dialogue.

Already Downloaded and on My PC

[Laebshade]

What? Doesn't Creative still package Sound of Thunder with their audio cards?

Re:Already Downloaded and on My PC

[Zorilla]

Offtopic, yes, but aren't you talking about that program that came with Media Vision Thunder Board cards? The volume slider was on the card itself and had a powered output. Damn, the thunder was loud the first time we ran that program.

Re:Already Downloaded and on My PC

[Laebshade]

I think it was included as part of the software/driver package. I remember having it on my 4.1 surround sound card.

Re:Already Downloaded and on My PC

[Zorilla]

Must be a completely different thing. The one I was thinking of was an MS-DOS program that says something like, "I think it's starting to rain" while playing a really loud thunder sound.

Its already happened

[MeridianOnTheLake]

I watched the preview and my theory is that this has already happened. Some doofus stepped off the path and killed a butterfly, because the rest of the trailer bears absolutely no resemblence to my memory of Ray Bradbury's story.

Re:Its already happened

[David Horn]

Well, it's kinda difficult to make a short story of maybe 1500 words stretch out into a 2 hour feature film without adding something.

Unfortunately, to me, the film looks like an amalgamation of Paycheck, Timeline, The Butterfly Effect, and The Day After Tomorrow. Oh yes, and Jurassic Park. ;-)

Re:Its already happened

[cmacb]

"Well, it's kinda difficult to make a short story of maybe 1500 words stretch out into a 2 hour feature film without adding something."

Funny though, usually Hollywood uses the fact that in adapting a *novel* they have to figure out what to omit.

One wonders if someone were to make a movie out of something in-between short story and novel size would Hollywood get it right.

My guess is that length has little or nothing to do with it. "I, Robot" had a dozen short stories (which were related in such a way that you could mix and match them all you wanted) but for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the movie and the stories had in common other than the "Three Laws of Robotics", Asimov's name, and the word "Positronic".

I enjoyed the movie, but re-read the stories just to verify that they were not used for the movie. I really think the people in Hollywood are just too self centered to use something from the 50's. They want the name recognition, the guarantee that a million or so sci-fi fans will turn out, and other than that, the flexibility to let the dozen or so hollywood stars of the moment play themselves one more time. There is no Will Smith-like character in "I, Robot", so toss the stories in the trash and keep the title.

Like some operating systems I know, this formula is old and BORING and not worth the premium price asked for it by the "developers".

Re:Its already happened

[Anonymous Coward]

"One wonders if someone were to make a movie out of something in-between short story and novel size would Hollywood get it right."

People write those all the time. They're called scripts.

Re:Its already happened

[real gumby]

Funny though, usually Hollywood uses the fact that in adapting a *novel* they have to figure out what to omit.

Sometimes they do get it right. The English Patient was made into a good movie (if you like weepy romances, which in this case I happened to). It was derived from a mediocre book of the same name, but in fact focused on a single eposode. The main characters of the book became peripheral characters in the film, and vice versa.

I hate to praise a generally creepy industry like Hollywood, especially since they usually do such a poor job of book adaptation, but c'mon, they do sometimes really improve on the material.

And also, the novel, which can include lots of inner dialogue, description, and tangental matter, really depends on different expressive vehicles from a film. Most "faithfully filmed books" are truly dreadful films!

Re:Its already happened

[cmacb]

I agree. Hollywood gets it right sometimes. As I said I DID actually enjoy "I,Robot" the movie. While it didn't resemble any of the Asimov stories that I could find it was a "nice" plot. But my guess is they cast the film first and then put together a screenplay to fit the cast. Just a guess.

In the short stories, the "hero" is often an unattractive female "robopsychologist" who figures out the mystery after all her male coworkers have failed (ahead of it's time).

Lay the Asimov robot stories, both short stories, novels and the related "Foundation" series end-to-end and you have the makings for a spectacular series of movies... better than Star Wars at least. It's already laid out, relatively consistent and gets better as the story unfolds rather than fizzling as Star Wars and matrix do.

How can Hollywood pass it up, except, errr, they're morons.

Audiobook

[chrispl]

The on-tape version of this story was one of my favorite tapes for a long time. It featured truly excellent acting and sound effects and was better than any movie I can imagine. The horror in the voices of the travellers having returned and discovered what they had done still sends a cold shiver down my back.

I found a copy at my local library, definatly something to look up before it gets picked up by the movie fan masses.

Re:Audiobook

[Lisandro]

Interesting... do you know if this is available online in some form? A quick search through the usual P2P networks returned nothing.

Perhaps if the copyrights on the tape allow it you would care to encode it... ;)

Re:Audiobook

[cayblood]

Can you post the publishing info of that version so that I can try to find it? Thanks

Re:Audiobook

[chrispl]

The series was called Bradbury 13 and the tape in question was reissued in 1997 under ISBN #0886466687.

The ones to look for are "A Sound of Thunder", "The Wind" and "The Screaming Woman". I must have listened to those damn tapes 50 times...

IMDb Link

[bobbis.u]

IMDb link here

Not much info there yet, but might be worth bookmarking for the future.

Hollywood

[skinfitz]

Oh, well, we can hope that the new Fahrenheit 451 will be treated with a bit more respect.

You don't know Hollywood very well do you?

Re:Hollywood

[theKinkyRabbit]

You don't know Hollywood very well do you?

Well, Frank Darabont at least has some experience when it comes to turning a novel into a movie.
Unlike the bunch who worked on "A Sound of Thunder".

This, at least, can cast a little bit of hope on the project (until some exec blasts into the editing room asking for a truckload of changes, that is).

Re:Hollywood

[skinfitz]

It will probably be turned into a comedy chick flick.

FARENHEIT 451 - THE TEMPERATURE THAT *LOVE* BURNS!

Starring Ben Stiller & Cameron Diaz

Re:Hollywood

[AndroidCat]

Wait until the pr0n-makers make a knock-off. I'm sure that there must be a "Jurassic Pork" flick out there. Gack, why did I bother even searching? Some other weird stuff too.

Re:Hollywood

[silverfuck]

the new Fahrenheit 451

Oh, you mean this?

<Sigh>... Why is it people are always remaking movies, is Hollywood not inventive to come up with new plots itself? (Yes, that was rhetorical.)

Re:Hollywood

[Spoing]

1. Starring Ben Stiller & Cameron Diaz

Unfortunately, I can see that;

Ben: What is that? Is that a book?

Cameron: Yes, it's a book. What's the big deal.

Ben: They burst into flames...get rid of it.

Cameron: That's silly. It's just a book. Why are you so scared?

Ben: I'm not. [grabs book tosses it out the window] [book hits Fireman on the helmet]

Cameron: Hey! I was reading that!

Ben: Books are bad for you. [flaming book comes back through the window, hits Ben]

Cameron: Ah! Put it out put it out!

Ben: See! AHAHAHA!

Cameron: Drop and roll.

Ben: What -- you read that in a book?

Cameron: Yes!

Free gmail invite

[Anonymous Coward]

Last one

Re:Free gmail invite

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a couple myself.

#1
#2

Re:Free gmail invite

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've got seven. Who cares, get over it.

Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder about all these "remakes" where the message of the book is erased (I even include "I, Robot" in that...). How many people will not read books because they saw the films and think they know what they were about, desite the films being sanitised, pro-corporatist and watered-down?

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure a lot of people don't bother to read the source material, because they learned all they want to know from the filmed version.

I'm thinking specifically of "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Re:Propaganda

[Lisandro]

Happened to me already, with a friend who saw "Contact" - he didn't care much about the movie and thought the book wasn't worth it. Took me a while to convince him to give it a try, and now he's grateful.

Slightly OT, but check http://maddox.xmission.net/c.cgi?u=i_robot for a rather accurate description of my feelings torwards "I, Robot". The book was only OK, but the movie completely butchered it.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Summer release. Will Smith. Huge ad campaign. You really didn't see this one coming? You really thought you were getting a thoughtful treatment of classic Sci Fi literature? Seems like you went to see it just so you could bitch about it. Your review was crap.

Re:Propaganda

[the gnat]

How many people will not read books because they saw the films and think they know what they were about, desite the films being sanitised, pro-corporatist and watered-down?

Probably no more than would not read the book if they saw the movie and really did get to see more or less everything that was in the book.

By the way, your insinuation that science fiction isn't "pro-corporatist" (whatever the fuck that means) is misleading. Sci-fi authors - at least most of the ones I've read - aren't usually pushing any socialist agenda; on the contrary, they tend to be distrustful of any large power or form of authority, which often includes corporations but always is directed at governments. Let's take a look at some recent science-fiction adaptations:

Minority Report: Okay, this one was just anti-government.

Paycheck: The bad guy is a CEO whose company will destroy the world. (Exactly the opposite of the PKD story, by the way.)

I, Robot: The corporation isn't really the bad guy, but it is ruthless and thoughtless and almost gets us killed, and the CEO is a prick.

I'm not sure you have much of a case. Blatant product placement does not make a movie pro-corporatist when the rest of the movie is strongly anti-corporate. You just sound upset that we don't see more movie adaptations set in some imaginary socialist utopia. (It would be difficult, since most sci-fi writers weren't that naive.)

On the subject of political mangling, the worst was "Starship Troopers", where Verhoeven was so fixated on Heinlein's militarism that he turned the characters into fascists, missing not only the entire point of the book but also the libertarian philosophy that runs through most of Heinlein's work.

Re:Propaganda

[aardvarkjoe]

Despite the article's statement, "A Sound of Thunder" really isn't about the politics, it's about a guy who goes back in time to shoot a dinosaur and changes the future. The politics thing is just a convenient way to show the effects of screwing up the timeline.

Re:Propaganda

[Lisandro]

Well, to name just one, Minority Report had it right. I wrote no review. I didn't bitch. You're a troll, go away.

Re:Propaganda

[0xdeadbeef]

By turning "evil" corporations and governments into cartoons, they whitewash the real malfeasance that goes on everyday. Science fiction literature at least tries to maintain a sense of reality, as ironic as that sounds.

Ever try explaining to a non-geek why the RIAA is bad? "Well, they're just trying to make money." If it isn't an Enron-type scandal, most people don't understand or don't care, because they've been conditioned to accept it.

Starship Troopers is genius. He used the movie to critique the book, demonstrating the inevitible result of Heinlein's polity of "veterans" with a comic book teen drama. He turned a militeristic wet-dream for anti-social teenage boys into "90210", and did it with heavy sarcasm that goes right over the heads of the kind of people who enjoy dumb action movies and teen dramas. Brilliant!

Re:Propaganda

[Artifakt]

On the subject of political mangling, the worst was "Starship Troopers", where Verhoeven was so fixated on Heinlein's militarism that he turned the characters into fascists, missing not only the entire point of the book but also the libertarian philosophy that runs through most of Heinlein's work. To be fair, Heinlein often said in discussions that a main point of his proposed government system in Starship Troopers was that people had to genuinely serve the citizenry in a capacity the society chose before they could aspire to rule it, and practice being on the reciving end of government control before they could excercise such control. However, a lot of that isn't actually spelled out in the original novel. Starship Troopers only describes that service as specifically military service, implying that the government has to be maintaining a military large enough to create the entire pool of voters and a smaller pool of non-military government officials and employees, even when there is no obvious threat. Since he discussed his more complex real ideas in letters and interviews within a few weeks of the novel coming out, Heinlein obviously meant to describe a more broad based system, but it's easy to miss that if all you have read is the book itself and see a society that has not been at war for several generations yet maintains a rather large military that must be in tight control of the rest of the government just to keep military spending that high. I was more disappointed that bugs threw rocks instead of using nukes like the book. Doogie Howser - Space Nazi was kinda funny.

Re:Propaganda

[Artifakt]

Ooops! Please break off that italic after the quoted part, and turn off bold face earlier, like right after the word chose. Sorry!

Re:Propaganda

[MalachiConstant]

No offense, really, (because I felt the same way after I saw the movie) but have you read the book?

After I read the book I realized that Paul Verhoeven had completely perverted the story so he could critique it. He's seems to love making movies about a utopia that really isn't (i.e. Robocop, Total Recall), and he seems to love to show intense gore, real blood and guts.

For instance, in Heinlein's book you can serve without being a soldier, in fact soldiers are a chosen few; well trained and given advenced eqitment so that a dozen of them can disable a city.

Heinlein goes into great detail to explain why only service can guarantee citizenship, it's a sense of "you have to participate before you can have a voice". I'm not saying it'd be a good idea, but it is a thought-provoking idea, and it was at the center of the book.

Now look at Verhoeven's movie. It's not critiquing the book, but rather advancing Paul Verhoeven's dislike of dis-utopias. That's doesn't make a bad movie, but it makes a maddening adaption.

Before I saw the movie I had never read Heinlein. I thought the movie was very clever. Then I read the book and realized that Verhoeven was satirizing something that wasn't in the book. Most movie adaptions have to simplify the plot, but Starship Troopers was a total distortion of the source material.

Re:Deafning

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer: "I've gone back in time to when dinosaurs weren't just confined to zoos."
Homer: "Musn't crush, musn't kill! (he sits on a fish, killing it) Oh, i wish i wish i hadn't killed that fish"
Time And Punishment - Tree House of Horror V.

Respect? From whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well, we can hope that the new Fahrenheit 451 will be treated with a bit more respect."

Who plays Michael Moore?

Re:Respect? From whom?

[l3v1]

Great, now a title like this rings the bell of M. Moore instead of R. Bradbury. Great indeed.

It's like when I saw in a DVD review of TRON that it was the Matrix of the eighties. I shouldn't comment on this further.

I just guess today's bright minds can't take the burden of even just 10-20 years of cultural heritage. Let alone history.

Re:Respect? From whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

B1ff has read Fahrenheit 451. It's about this guy.

Re:Respect? From whom?

[Forbman]

Coming from the 80's, we were seeing the emergence of large-scale computing outside of the corporate IT center or university computing lab.

"cray" was a big deal. Disney was rumored to have used a few weeks' computing time on a Cray to render the pure CGI frames (light cycles, MCP tower, etc).

Knowing the right people (say, who had relatives who worked at Boeing Computer Services), it was supposedly possible to even smeg a Cray account...

The "Internet" barely existed. Bitnet and DECNet were more widely used, along with uucp.

The suspension of disbelief came to be by assuming someone could be "derezed" and slurped into the computer world (and spit back out later).

That some OSs do have a Master Control Program should not be lost on people, because it works like it did in Tron.

I thought it was kind of a neat abstraction, which was carried even further in "Permutation City".

What if we really exist in a Ring 1 universe simulation in some big uber-computer, and God (MCP, Ring 0, BoFH) decides to just shift the amount of timeslices being allocated to our application environment. Would we really notice without being able to access some external reference that our "universe" is "slowing" down?

If the process is kept in memory, but just "nice"'d to 0 (never gets any time slices), do we die, or just enter some state of suspended animation?

And, the social commentary in it still applies today...

Re:Fahrenheit 451

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for the extremists to organise freedom fires to burn all copies of the dvd and book... to prevent unclean thoughts and sedicious ideas perpetrated by the terrorists from entering the minds of the good patriotic christian americans.

So like...

[Dj]

Instead of the hero returning and blowing his brains out because everything is misspelt and someone else won the election.... they decide in the movie version to hey, have a movie, with stuff in it.

Those.... BASTARDS. :)

Re:So like...

[Lars T.]

So why did they decide to make a feature length movie out of it, that needed 6 writers to blow it up? Couldn't they have done an episode movie like The illustrated Man or Twilight Zone?

How will it compare?

[Altima(BoB)]

Funny how I should see this news just an hour after watching Ray Bradbury Presents for the first time. Guess which episode was on? I found it to be a fairly well done version, for a TV show, sure the dinosaur was very animatronic but it looked fun to shoot at.

I haven't read the book but I was aware of the story, I wonder if anyone has any opinions on the TV show version versus the book.

Remake? Blech

[Rick Zeman]

Leave the classics alone. It's not possible or him to exceed the above linked movie.
Or, is this a John Ashcroft advocacy piece? HEY, is this new meaning for "-1 Flamebait?"

Donkey

[Anonymous Coward]

I found a copy at my local library

I found a copy on my local mlnet ;)

Re:Donkey

[Udo Schmitz]

pwn1n6 my Mac OS X machine? Good luck.

new to the 'products' of Holywood?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well, we can hope that the new Fahrenheit 451 will be treated with a bit more respect."

Fool! Wait, hope, and be utterly dissapointed.

Whats next from our corporate overlords?

[Anonymous Coward]

A feirenhieght 451 where a group of "evil hackers" who call themselves the firemen burn cd's but Operha's book club people come together to share and remember and repeat all the copyright labels from the missing murchendise? Well, the id tag on the label may be the only part of future media people are allowed to repeat anyway...

or the pro-corporate remake of "big brother" where an action hero president (played by arnold of course) wresles live alligators from oceana and teaches grade school on the side while good citizens shoot down incoming planes and report the latest copyright infringements of their neighrbors at confession before a computerized priest?

Ah, holywood, always so true to the original work, why read anymore!

Re:Whats next from our corporate overlords?

[littlejess]

Ah, holywood, always so true to the original work, why read anymore!
The sad thing is, I bet there are thousands, millions of people out there who truly think that :(

Re:Whats next from our corporate overlords?

[julesh]

Ah, holywood, always so true to the original work, why read anymore!

MPAA represntative: Yes, that's right, build a pile of them books over there. We'll spray them with parafin and ignite it from a safe distance. You'll never miss them. (Aside: now they'll never know how sloppily we're adapting them all. [EVIL LAUGH])

Slashdot demonstrates another cliche

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well, we can hope that the new Fahrenheit 451 will be treated with a bit more respect.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Yep, nailed that one... again.

Spoiler

[GoofyBoy]

Thees is goo chort storrie.

Mee hapie Bush waz re-ellectd.

Re:Spoiler

[Anonymous Coward]

i read everything bradbury that i could get my hands on when i was little. This story, and the one about the boy who pins the moths to walls are the only ones i can remember. A sound of thunder is particularly apt right now. Or i guess, right now in the year 2000. We need to find whomever went back in time and squish him though. sigh. but i guess that still wont undo bush.
-e

Re:Spoiler

[Anonymous Coward]

You are George W Bush Jr and I claim my five dollars!

Re:Spoiler

[scottgfx]

I see you're part of the Democrat sponsored "No Geek Left Behind" initiative.

Re:Spoiler

[paedobear]

I see you haven't read the short story.

Will it beat the Simpsons version?

[Quizo69]

Treehouse of Horror V

The episode is called "Time and Punishment" and features Homer repairing a toaster which then sends him back and forth through time. Each time he comes back he's messed things up worse than the last.

"I've gone back in time to when dinosaurs weren't just confined to zoos." - Homer

Re:Will it beat the Simpsons version?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funniest bit is definitely the "donuts, what are they?" bit when he then goes "noooo..." and runs back to the toaster, meanwhile you see it starting to rain donuts outside...

Re:Will it beat the Simpsons version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad that you mentioned that.

Arriving back in the present, he notices the layout of the house has
changed for the richer.

Homer: D'oh! I mean...hey.
Bart: Good morning, Father dear. [hands him comics] Hope you're well.
Lisa: Are we taking the new Lexus to Aunt Patty and Selma's funeral
today?
Homer: Hmm, fabulous house, well-behaved kids, sisters-in-law dead,
luxury sedan...woo hoo! I hit the jackpot. [sits down] Marge,
dear, would you kindly pass me a donut?
Marge: Donut? What's a donut?
Homer: Aah! Aah! [pushes toaster handle, disappears]
[donuts start to fall from the sky]
Marge: Hmm. It's raining again.

Re:Will it beat the Simpsons version?

[Feztaa]

no no, once he got it perfect... his family was rich, and it rained donuts. Of course, nobody knew what a donut was, so homer ran away screaming and changed it to some other world.

Re:Will it beat the Simpsons version?

[youritadvisor.com]

The best part is that after he leaves the room donuts start raining from the sky and marge says oh look it is raining again

Originality?

[shawnseat]

I couldn't let this one pass. In the late 19th century it was known that the roughness of the surface of a tube effects the amount of fluid that flows through a pipe under pressure (look up any discussion of the Reynolds Number and pipe or tube flow). The roughness of the pipe is a very small cause that causes a large macroscopic effect.

Re:Originality?

[AndroidCat]

For the want of a nail, the horseshoe was lost;
For the want of a horseshoe a horse was lost;
For the want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For the want of a rider, the message was lost;
For the want of a message, the battle was lost;
For the want of a battle, the war was lost;
For the want of a war, the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe's nail.

Author unknown, but it probably dates back further than the chopped version Ben Franklin quotes.

Re:Originality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or from Aristotle, Truth and Lies

The least initial deviation from the truth is muliplied later a thousandfold

Re:Originality?

[blair1q]

No it isn't.

The roughness of a tiny section of a pipe would be a very small input.

The roughness of a theoretically infinite length of pipe is a very large input.

Re:Originality?

[Forbman]

...but on the other hand, GM flipped this on its ear. They had a radiator that was very nicely engineered, with smooth coolant flow throughout the radiator. Well, it didn't work worth crap.

They finally realized that the turbulent flow created a bunch of vortices in the flow that helped carry away more heat, because it increased the relative surface contact area of the water.

In certain conditions, a turbulent boundary layer increases the efficiency of flow for the entire fluid body because it sets up a nice smooth laminar flow... (think: golf balls, Lance Armstrong's time trial helmets, etc).

Rule of thumb: "The Book is Better"

[Beolach]

This has been my rule of thumb for movies adapted from books (most movies, BTW). I will admit that there are a very few exceptions (usually where the book was adapted from the movie - Star Wars), but the vast majority of the time the book is better. Even when they do a really good job on the movie, like with LotR or The Princess Bride, there's still no comparison with the book. Don't get me wrong, I love those movies & can't think of many practical ways they could have been improved (three movies each for FotR, TTT, and RotK...), but IMO the books are still much better. I know a lot of you will start yelling "Apples and Oranges" at me, but I guess that's kind of my point. With very few exceptions I like oranges better than apples. I honestly think that books are a better form of entainment media than movies. Not that movies aren't great, but books are better.

I also want to say that I don't think there shouldn't be movie adaptations of books - like I said above I love the LotR movies. But as I am something of a bookworm (never would've guessed, huh?), it really bugs me when Hollywood takes a book and totally screws it over. And all too often that's what they do. Just a couple recent examples: I, Robot. That movie just really ticked me off. It would have been all right (well, the movie still would have sucked, but I wouldn't have cared so much) if they had just come up with their own title for the movie, and not had any connection to Asimov or his stories. He just had to be spinning in his grave over that movie. For those that don't know, I, Robot was a collection of short stories and essays by Asimov; and one of the things he makes very clear was that the whole reason he started writing Robot stories was because he hated the cliched plot "Man builds robot. Robot goes crazy and kills everyone." What's the plot in the movie?

One last example of a book Hollywood screwed over recently: Cheaper by the Dozen. Remake of a movie adapted from a stageplay adapted from book. The first movie and the stageplay were done well. The 2003 movie never should have been made. Cheaper by the Dozen is a comedy revolving around two points: a large family (12 kids), and the Father working as an efficiency expert consultant for large corporations. He is not, I repeat NOT , a football coach. Hollywood just blew away half of the premise.

Like I said, I don't think Hollywood should stop making book adaptations, but they should stay true to the book. If you don't like the book's plot, then don't make a movie claiming to be an adaptation of it, when less than half the movie is related to the book, or worse goes completly against the book.

All right, rant mode off...

Re:Rule of thumb: "The Book is Better"

[AndroidCat]

The movies Planet of the Apes and Rollerball were better than the stories they were semi-based on. (The orignal movies. I haven't seen the remakes.)

Re:Rule of thumb: "The Book is Better"

[Anonymous Coward]

For a pretenious snob, you sure go to see a lot of crap movies. How about this? I don't think YOU should go to movies. You are too fucking fragile and self-important to really enjoy a good movie.

Re:Rule of thumb: "The Book is Better"

[Minna Kirai]

Hollywood takes a book and totally screws it over. And all too often that's what they do

The opposite happens too. "Forrest Gump" was a decent movie from a bad book. (At least, if you use popularity as a measure of quality)

Arguably, "Total Recall" was better than "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and "Blade Runner" beat "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".

I think the "Jurassic Park" movie was better too- but only because the purity of admiring CGI creature effects beats endless mumbo-jumbo on chaos theory and software tampering.

What about Ray?

[Vinnie_333]

Martin: As your president, I would demand a science fiction library, featuring the an ABC of the overlords of the gentre: Asimov, Bester, and Clarke.

Milouse: What about Ray Bradbury?

Marin: I'm aware of his work.

Have you read the story?

[SmallFurryCreature]

He didn't commit suicide. If the "hero" was killed it was because the hunter shot him. Although it never says anything except that there was a sound of thunder. Wich could be a poetic way of saying gunshot but that is not clear. Nor needs to be clear. Maybe the hunter killed himself after all he is the one who objected most in the story to the guy now in power.

Re:Have you read the story?

[Dj]

Well, the ending is ambiguous....

Still it'd be a damn short film.

"We're back, it's all different, right, who's up to be shot?"

Re:Have you read the story?

[the gnat]

What the story certainly does not have is any examination of a dystopian future, the way the story poster claimed. The entire story is just a gimmick, not very deep at all.

Ob. Simpsons Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Bart: "Hey, Dad, heard you swearin'. Mind if I join? Crap, boobs, crap!"

Release date pushed back.

[ghoghogol]

You guys are gonna have to wait until 1st quarter 2005 to see this one as the release was pushed back by Warner Bros.

Quick summary of the original story

[hellfire]

I never read the story but I saw the TV version of this story on a Ray Bradbury theater episode. The trailer is mostly correct in the beginning. There is a company that figured out time travel and uses it to go back in time to offer people the chance to hunt creatures they could never hunt before. Everything is strictly controlled, and they do kill a T-rex. In the story, the T-rex is sickly, and was going to die anyway, which is the point, to preserve the time line.

However the guy who hired the company to go on this expedition stepped off that path, a special path designed to isolate the time travellers from all the other organisms and not cause damage to the timeline.

When the travelers get back, they are in a whole new world. The company is still there, the people are too. However, in this world, Germany won the second world war and the third reich is in power.

The story ends with the leader of the expedition locating the butterfly on the shoe of the client who stepped off the path. In the show, which I'm not sure was in the story, the leader puts a bullet between the eyes of the client for basically messing up the time line. Again I'm not sure that last action was in the story.

And that's it. That's all that's needed for the lesson in the timeline. This crap WB turned it into is just another hollywood suspense action thriller with the same damn plot as all the others. Blah.

Re:Quick summary of the original story

[AndroidCat]

It doesn't take that long to read the original story, and it's the first link at the top. There's no Nazi Germany involved.

Re:Quick summary of the original story

[feelafel]

You're mixing up your Ray Bradbury with your Harlan Ellison, my friend. In Ellison's Star Trek episode, Kirk saves a girl from being run down in the street, she is able to organize a protest that delays the US entry into WWII, and the Nazis win, the Federation ceases to exist, and Kirk & Co are stuck at the "City at the Edge of Forever".

In Bradbury's story, english spelling and the outcome of the presidential election (and who knows what else) are affected.

Re:Quick summary of the original story

[hellfire]

Actually no, in the TV adaptation, which was I think a 15 minute spot, I'm right. But it's not the original story Bradbury, as someone else pointed out already, you can safely ignore me. Especially since the story is linked in the article. I'm a putz I know.

Re:Quick summary of the original story

[AlphaJoe]

Actually, Germany is definately implied as this story was written just after the end of World War II (Ignore the date at the end of the article, that was the date that the collection of stories was published). If it is late 1940's and people with names of German descent are used, it is definately pointing towards Nazis.

Re:Quick summary of the original story

[AndroidCat]

Hey, without your post, I wouldn't have known that even a TV adaptation couldn't resist bending the story. What hope is there that Whollyweird won't muck it up?

There's no movie _in_ the story

[samael]

If you _really_ stretched the story you could make it last 10 minutes. So expecting a 2 hour film to do more than take the story as a starting point (which it does seem to do) is asking a bit much.

Re:There's no movie _in_ the story

[youritadvisor.com]

it was an hour long tv show

Video stream links

[now3djp]

Stream links for those without clients which support the proprietary stream meta data formats: WMP: mms://demand.stream.aol.com/wb/gl/wbonline/windows /wbmovies/asoundofthunder/trailer/trailer_500.wmv Real: rtsp://demand1.stream.aol.com/wb/gl/wbonline/real/ wbmovies/asoundofthunder/trailer/trailer_500.rm I could not get the url out of the QuickTime meta data. Anyone? Surprsing they don't have Ogg Theora or at least MPEG-4 (XviD). People could of cause email them asking for modern format support ;) now3d p.s. In preview the html seems to get broken by the server.

It's the Election, stupid

[mhackarbie]

If there was ever a perfect occurrence of amazing science fiction prophecy, the connection between the upcoming election and the one in the story is it.

The people who removed that are idiots.

mhack

Re:It's the Election, stupid

[mhackarbie]

Actually, the previous election works even better.

Ok, who was the fool who stepped on the butterfly?!!

Re:It's the Election, stupid

[tsm_sf]

Seriously, now we're stuck in one of those lame alternate universes. People in the main universe are probably already going "what if bush had won? Would he have handled things as well as president lieberman?".

Alternate timelines suck ass.

Bradbury is the worst writter ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, well, we can hope that the new Fahrenheit 451 will be treated with a bit more respect."

Yes, perhaps it will get a total rewrite and acutally be good.

First sign it is going to be somewhat bad . . .

[dgrgich]

Peter Hyams is the director. End of Days certainly applied to Arnold's film career....

Michael Moore and Farenheit 411

[Anonymous Coward]

was Re:Respect? From whom?

Great, now a title like this rings the bell of M. Moore instead of R. Bradbury. Great indeed.

Yeah. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone write "Farenheit 411" when referring to Bradbury's classic Farenheitt 451, I'd have a lot of nickels.

Anyway, check out the trailer for Moore's latest movie, I Am Not An Asshole at http://moveonplease.org/MooreTrailer.asp

Adaptation of sci-fi novels must be tough

[John Jorsett]

It must be difficult to balance faithfulness to the original story with hopes of commercial success. On the one hand, you have Star Ship Troopers, which was turned into a bug hunt by minions of a fascistic superstate. Enjoyable and profitable I believe, but nothing resembling Heinlein's original story. Then you have Dune, which came about as close to a faithful rendition of Herbert's novel as one could achieve on film, and it was a commercial disaster (I personally loved it). Moviemaking is ultimately supposed to make money, so given a choice between sticking with the original author's vision and pissing on it in order to turn a profit must come down to pissing on it most of the time.

Re:Adaptation of sci-fi novels must be tough

[multiplexo]

Which Dune are you talking about. The horrific Dino DeLaurentis version of the 1980s (with Sting as Feyd Rautha and a soundtrack by Toto) or the SciFi channel version. The 1980s version was horrible. You had Kyle Maclachlan playing an absolutely wooden Paul Atreides, the pilots of the spacer guild basically travel through space by eating the planet and then shitting it out their ass (go look at the film again if you don't believe me) and much of the sets and SFX look as if Dino DeLaurentis recycled them from Flash Gordon, another one of his colossal failures.

Of course the 1980s Dune was directed by David Lynch, so you had all of the Lynch fans out there spooging themselves over the fact that Lynch had now made another incomprehensible mess of a film, but it still sucked ass.

Re:Adaptation of sci-fi novels must be tough

[John Jorsett]

Which Dune are you talking about. The horrific Dino DeLaurentis version of the 1980s (with Sting as Feyd Rautha and a soundtrack by Toto) or the SciFi channel version.

The Dino DeLaurentis version. Obviously we're in disagreement about it. I thought the sets were brilliant, as was the screen adaptation of the story. The acting is another matter, and not relevant to my point of faithfulness to the novel itself.

Re:Adaptation of sci-fi novels must be tough

[julesh]

The reason nobody watched it was that it was 1) impossible to understand without reading the book first, and 2) _way_ too long. You just didn't have 3 hour films back then.

This is, of course, an irreconcilable problem. The solution would have been to draw out the explanations of what was going on a little longer, and split the result into a few manageable chunks.

The SciFi adaptation was actually pretty good at this. There were very few "huh?" moments in that version. It was, of course, something like 5 hours long, split into 3 chunks with adverts thrown into it to pad it up to 6 hours total.

Great spot for a TV commercial

[hellfire]

*Fade up, its a dystopian world 2054, things constantly break down, the sky is polluted. Cars with the MS logo are crashing randomly on the side of the road. Computer screens flicker, and some of them even show BSODs*

*Cut to scene in a corporation*

Salesrep: We offer time travel services! Go back in time and play pranks on you favorite CEOs!

Client: Sounds like fun! Can i throw a pie in bill gates face?

Salesrep: your in luck! He gets pied in history. We'll send you back in time and it won't disrupt the timeline.

Client: great, I want to pay that SOB back. I look around and see all the things that have gone wrong and I get so mad.

*cut to time machine*

Expedition leader: remember... stay on the path. Now ready your pies!

*time machine starts, expedition walks in, cut to scene in japan. Bill Gates is attending a conference. A japanese prankster sneaks up on bill with a cream pie.*

Leader: get ready... he's almost there... now!!!!

*Bill is pied from every direction. He quickly ducks into a bathroom to freshen up*

Client: woo hoo *gets a little excited, but slips on pie on the path. He catches his balance but not before stepping off the path*

Leader: get back on the path! now! Everyone back home quick!

*cut back to corporation as the expedition comes home*

*scene has dramatically changed. It's more utopian. Everything works flawlessly and is clean. Cars in near collisions find ways to avoid each other safely and automatically.*

Leader: what happened?

Salesrep: sir? Nothing has happened, you've returned safely.

Leader: Damnit we changed the timeline. I have to find my wife!

Salesrep (looking puzzled): you can use that terminal there to email her, use the search engine to locate her, or place voice call even.

Leader: what? no! Thats impossible, Microsoft computers don't work that well, it would break down or I'd send her a virus! I can't risk that!

Salerep: Microsoft sir? Microsoft has been dead for decades. Everyone uses Linux now.

*Leader turns to client, pushes him into a chair and lifts the client's boot. Under his boot is an MSN butterfly, crushed and dead.*

Announcer: Change your future with Linux!!!

The great thing about Ray..

[thellamaman]

The great thing about Ray Bradbury is his amazing ability to captivate with simple short stories. He doesn't even describe what happens at the end of this story, it just ends with the chilling line, "There was a sound of thunder." There's no way even a faithful short film adaptation can capture that magic. In a feature-length film, I'd be surprised if there were any magic left at all. Oh, well. At least the first half of the trailer was enjoyable.

Re:The great thing about Ray..

[black mariah]

Incredibly true. Bradbury can say more with one page than anyone else can say with a thousand (and often does *KING* *CLANCY*).

Fairly similar to another story

[CmdrGravy]

I think there is another story fairly similar to this one also written by Ray Bradbury. It involves another hunter who is hunting a Brontosauraus and congratulating himself on his power and bravery to be able to kill something so big. He does kill the animal and is turning to go home feeling very pleased with himself when the ( huge ) lice and parasites who used to live on the Brontosauraus leap on him and eat him to death. I cant remember the explanation given for him to be there hunting dinosaurs though.

Re:Fairly similar to another story

[Pembers]

I vaguely remember that story, though I think it was "Poor Little Warrior!" by Brian Aldiss.

Oh God I can see it now . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Commie liberal Hollywood bastardizing my favorite RB story into a pro Kerry/Hillary piece! You know it will happen. Read the story before you comment.

Bad Science Fiction

[Long-EZ]

I hope they do better than they did with Robert Heinlein's classic Starship Troopers.

I love good science fiction, and constantly wonder why it's so rare at the movies. Phillip K. Dick's stories have done better (Blade Runner). I liked Gattica, as a thought provoking and cautionary tale of technology bent by society and politics, but the Hollywood touch renders most science fiction into a festering mound of low-brow special effects poop.

Why does Hollywood usually wait until science fiction authors have died before converting their work into a movie? I have a couple of theories:

1) The author has seen other SF movie adaptations, and thus adopted the policy, "Over my dead body."

2) Hollywood wants to lessen the chances of a lawsuit based on misrepresentation, libel, etc.

Re:Bad Science Fiction

[jumpingfred]

Getting input from a variety of people with differening opions and coming up with a product that satisfies all concerned is hard. It is just easier to organize if you have one less opinionated person in the mix.

Re:Bad Science Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Hollywood usually wait until science fiction authors have died before converting their work into a movie?

So when we discuss a bastardized movie based on a sci-fi masterwork on /., we can make witty remarks about how the author of the book is spinning in his grave.

Re:Bad Science Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

GOOD POINT

I remember that Jeam M. Auel sued over the making of "Clan of the Cave Bear" movie for misrepresentation./

I believe there is a logical reason for this.

[khasim]

Simply stated, a really good writer can write a really good book ...
along comes a MEDIOCRE Hollywood writer / director / producer and turns the book into a mediocre movie.

It's all about talent levels. Bradbury wrote a good short story. But the writer(s) who expanded it to movie length probably were NOT in the same league as him.

Respect? For 451?

[TheCeltic]

Respect is earned. Since 451 is neither accurate nor quality, it deserves no respect. What a joke, "Respect" for 451... Ha Ha Ha.

Re:Respect? For 451?

[toddhisattva]

Since 451 is neither accurate nor quality

Please, don't confuse the great story "Fahrenheit 451" with the recent white trash fantasy flick.

Re:Respect? For 451?

[julesh]

Respect is earned. Since 451 is neither accurate nor quality, it deserves no respect. What a joke, "Respect" for 451... Ha Ha Ha.

Huh? OK, I'll buy the fact that the future it predicted hasn't happened. But then neither has 1984, people don't condemn that for being "inaccurate". It was fiction, intended to warn of potential dangers by showing an exaggerated version of what might happen. And, in a sense, it is an exaggerated version of things that have happened -- just look at the number of people who do nothing with their spare time other than watch TV. That is a proportion of the population that has, I believe, been steadily increasing ever since Bradbury wrote the story. People living in cities do complain that they feel more isolated from each other than in the past, something else that Bradbury's story warned about. So, I'd say it was actually pretty accurate and insightful.

Re:Respect? For 451?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been mocked for not watching TV. I have. None of my neighbors can figure out why I refuse to pay for cable and decline to have a TV.

Bradbury is the worst writter ever, huh?

[leftie]

Sucks to be him. Maybe he can try writing, instead? You might wanna consider that switch as well, AC.

Quicktime

[Pasc]

Did anybody else have repeated problems with corrupt Quicktime files? Annoying.

dupe

[Temsi]

Hollywood executives aren't the only ones who do the same thing over and over... now Slashdot does it too!

Previous version of this story here

Speaking of turning 2 pages into a movie...

[venomkid]

Here's hoping this one's a little less insulting than "Lawnmower Man".

Re:Remake? Blech

[black mariah]

It's not possible to do better than something that basically had nothing to do with the book besides the name and a few characters? Maybe I'm missing something...

All hopeful posts..

[Lord Bitman]

didnt watch the fucking trailer.
Remember Timecop? No? Good. May the same be said of this load. "Time Ripples" are always unforgiveable.

Re:All hopeful posts..

[Anonymous Coward]

Timecop was great. I loved how Mia Sara would ask all these perceptive questions, and his character would brush them aside for no reason. It was like They Live! only with a less talented leading man and time travel.

There is no paradox

[Antibozo]

So it's yet another lazy attempt at depicting the consequence of time travel.

You have a choice. You can have time travel with causality in your own universe, or you can have free will, but not both.

You simply can't travel into your own past without "altering" it. To be present, you have to displace air molecules. To observe you have to intercept photons. By the time you've "accidentally" stepped on a butterfly you've already "altered" things in innumerable ways. So if you "alter" the past by entering it, you must already have been there, i.e. you haven't "altered" anything at all. This means that you never had a free choice in your entire life, since it had to culminate in your returning to your own past in a predetermined physical condition.

If a film about time travel would have the guts to face the consequences to free will, it might redeem itself. But they never do; they're universally lazy in their philosophies. Bradbury's story itself makes no sense at all -- blaming the hunter for altering the present is pointless: he had no choice. The most pathetic example was Terminator 2: Sarah Connor trying to rescue free will by repeatedly claiming "There is no destiny." Uh, guess what, Sarah -- in your world, there is no free will. Kinda takes the point out of your agony, don't it? Still a fun film, but the lame attempts to rescue free will mar the story. T3 didn't bother to try, and was better for it.

Donnie Darko showed some promise in this department, but fizzled. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is the best example I've seen of an intelligent film about the juggernaut of causality, but it's dealing with a different kind of predestination: that of being a tragic pawn of the storyteller.

Re:There is no paradox

[Minna Kirai]

You have a choice. You can have time travel with causality in your own universe, or you can have free will, but not both.

You use "free will" when only "non-predestination" would be correct. They are different.

Regardless of someone else's ability to completely predict your actions, they are still YOUR actions.

You simply can't travel into your own past without "altering" it. To be present, you have to displace air molecules.

That's true. If you really could travel back in time, you'd be equally likely to "mess up the present" by waving a newspaper as by assasinating the president. The "chaos butterfly" teaches us that a tiny air movement can have ramifications across the globe, but films (even one named after that butterfly) ignore this, allowing only major, obvious changes to do anything.

All popular time-travel (and parellel-universe) fiction that I've seen uses the fallacies of "sticky causality" or "clumpy causality" to create appealing stories. It's hard to make a good plotline without characters having the chance to make meaningful choices, and that means they need some way to predict the outcome of their actions.

• sticky causality: There is no butterfly effect. No change makes any difference, unless it exceeds a certain threshold of magnitude. Marty may delay his parent's courtship by days or weeks, but as long as it eventually happens, everything's the same
• clumpy causality: Changes don't propagate out in an ever-expanding chain reaction. Instead, they stay related to one particular topic. Travelling back to assasinate Winston Churchill may create a 2004 Britain ruled by the Nazi Empire, but the people you meet on return will have the same names and faces as when you left (even though the tremendous social disruption should've totally re-arranged marriages and births).

The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is the best example I've seen of an intelligent film about the juggernaut of causality,

If Matrix Reloaded had a good screenwriter, it could've really mastered the topic (and been an entirely different movie- but the setting of a global VR network is the perfect backdrop to explore predestination)

Re:There is no paradox

[mjkjedi]

If Matrix Reloaded had a good screenwriter, it could've really mastered the topic (and been an entirely different movie- but the setting of a global VR network is the perfect backdrop to explore predestination)

Unfortunately, every popular movie ends up dumbing itself down to try to appeal to everyone.

I personally loved Ros & Guil, but people who hadn't read the play beforehand were royally confused.

How many people have heard of and seen The Matrix? How many have heard of and seen Ros & Guil? I agree with the parent, but I'm just pointing out that the original Matrix wold have to have been virtually unknown for the sequel to be that smart. Popularity just breeds stupidity in movies.

...yeah, I'm grumpy today :P

Re:There is no paradox

[Temsi]

You're right... either there is choice, or there isn't. Although, sometimes perceived choice may not be a choice...

Basically, the way I see it, if we were to assume physical time travel was possible, there could be only two basic possibilities here, from the basis of which there are lots of variations.

1. your presence in the past was already in your timeline and therefore you had no choice but to go, which opens up a whole slew of philosophical questions, as you not going would be a paradox which would directly affect your own timeline.

2. your precense in the past was NOT in your timeline and thus there must be consequences:

a) Your actions affect your own timeline in a way you can observe when you get back, but "the universe" will prevent you from altering it in a way that would stop you from going back in the first place.
b) Your actions affect the timeline you're in, but not the one you came from, splitting the timeline into an alternate universe.

I like 2 b the best, for various reasons.
First of all, there is mathematical evidence suggesting alternate universes, and theories built upon the notion that there exists a complete universe for every possibility there is.
Second, I like the idea of free will and free choice.

Let's say you go back and you kill your grandfather before your father is conceived.
In the classic "grandfather paradox" this would not be possible, as it would eliminate you from the timeline and thus you hadn't gone back to kill your grandfather which would then have your father, so you were born and you went back to kill your grandfather... an endless cycle of contradictions.
However... based on 2 b, you COULD go back and kill your grandfather. It would not affect you directly, as your actions simply spawned an alternate universe, in which your father was never born, and therefore neither were you.
Or perhaps no spawning was needed. Perhaps that alternate universe already existed and the timeline in which your father was murdered by you had already happened in that version, so you were meant to go back in time in order to create that possibility for the alternate universe. In which case we're back to a variation of option 1, where you have no choice...

If we were to assume a split in the timeline, which timeline would you go back to? The one from which you came, or the one you spawned by your actions? Wouldn't the mere presence of you in the spawned, alternate timeline be a paradox if you were never born in that timeline?
What if you go back to the wrong timeline and there are now two of you?

A person can go nuts thinking about this stuff - some say I already have...

Re:There is no paradox

[Antibozo]

You use "free will" when only "non-predestination" would be correct. They are different.

I agree they could be different, but I'm not sure exactly what distinction you're making. Please elaborate.

Regardless of someone else's ability to completely predict your actions, they are still YOUR actions.

That doesn't make them free. For a choice to be free, possibilities of equal physical probability must exist (or perhaps entropic compartments of equal volume?), and a free decision must be made between them. In a physical universe with a theory of everything, the only way this can happen is for the result to be influenced by a metaphysical entity, i.e. a soul. This may violate conservation of information, but there it is. Maybe the information presumably lost in black holes is returned via this effect. Or perhaps that is the origin of order in general: perhaps conservation of information is fundamentally wrong if you deny metaphysical forces.

I agree with your observations about fallacious types of causality depicted in most films. I think the conflict lies in the writer's desire to preserve free will at all costs so we can care about the actions of the protagonist. Moreover, if the protagonist has no free will, neither do we (if we wish to believe we live in the same kind of universe). It is essential to the art of storytelling that we believe that the nature of one's heart or soul is revealed by one's actions.

Re:There is no paradox

[Minna Kirai]

Please elaborate.

My fingers haven't the stamina for that quantity of philosophical discourse. Very briefly, "non-free will" is a theist subset of predestination, where some intelligent agent planned the course of events (meaning this agent/deity has free will, but humanity does not). Non-theist predestination means that the universe is progressing on a randomly determined course, and each entity's will is equally as free as any other's.

If you like, reading a refutation of Serle's "Chinese Box" philosophy will have the same gist as my position. Or visit a Calvinist pastor...

the only way this can happen is for the result to be influenced by a metaphysical entity, i.e. a soul. This may violate conservation of information, but there it is.

"Souls" are irrelevant to predestination. Whether or not there is something non-physical controlling human behavior, the information still exists (even if it can never be learned). If souls exist, then they are a part of the universe; a non-physical part, but not without information (the influence they have on human action would have a measurable physical effect). (Souls, after all, are not supposed to be random-response generators, but are believed to contain personality traits guiding actions)

I think the conflict lies in the writer's desire to preserve free will at all costs so we can care about the actions of the protagonist.

I don't think their concern is really that deep. It's just an urge to simplify so that the possible outcomes of an action are managable. In a "real time travel" scenario, the results of your actions would be so chaotic as to be totally unpredictable. Without the ability to even partially guess what the result of a change will be, characters cannot illuminate their personality via their actions.

Re:There is no paradox

[youritadvisor.com]

The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.

Actually the "12 monkeys" started with the premise that you could not change the past, they were looking for information to help deal with the consequences of the plague in the future

The spotty information about the past make them believe that the army of the 12 monkeys released the virus when all they did was release some animals from the zoo on the same day

Terminator was a perfect predestination paradox because john conner would never have been born if the ternimator had not been sent back in time to kill his mother

Re:There is no paradox

[Minna Kirai]

Actually the "12 monkeys" started with the premise that you could not change the past,

Yes, the scientists at the beginning said the past was immutable. But once on the mission, Bruce Willis got overcome by emotion and tried anyway. Of course, in the end they turned out to have been right, and he changed nothing.

Terminator was a perfect predestination paradox

The original "Terminator" was not a paradox, but Terminator 2 was. A temporal paradox only occurs if you go back in time and make changes that prevent you from going back in time (the typical suggestion is killing your own father).

In the first movie, the result of the time-travel was necessary so that the time-travel could happen. No paradox.
In the 2nd movie, the result of the time-travel prevented the time-travel, which is paradoxical.

(In the 3rd movie, it was revealed that the victory of T2 was hollow, and no prevention had actually occured, although Sarah Connor had optimistically hoped otherwise)

Re:There is no paradox

[Grym]

The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.

With regard to the protagonist's life, yes. However, things aren't quite fully "self-contained." For instance, why is it that the protagonist's messages are only "found/decoded" in the future AFTER he makes them? Furthermore, watch the end of the movie again. The head scientist from the future, is sitting beside the doomsday guy. To dispel any doubts that this is coincidence, she even identifies herself as "Johns" (remember, most people in the future use only their last names) and states that her job is "insurance." Thus, the information gained from the past by the future was used to put her there to, ultimately, stop or limit the plague.

12 Monkeys is such an interesting movie, but I wouldn't say it provided a clearly coherent view of time travel (if that's even possible).

-Grym

Re:There is no paradox

[Minna Kirai]

For instance, why is it that the protagonist's messages are only "found/decoded" in the future AFTER he makes them?

Repeat that to yourself slowly... It should be completely obvious that no message is ever read until AFTER it is written, which means in the FUTURE. Even without time-travel, that rule holds.

If you meant to ask "Why aren't his messages read until a point in the future shortly after he left on his time-trip?", that's a little harder. The most plausible explanation is that they actually WERE read many times before then, but were ignored by everyone else except the guys who knew of his mission. (Although the screenplay doesn't really depict it like that, out of dramatic considerations)

Thus, the information gained from the past by the future was used to put her there to,

Yes. And that's not a paradox, even if it seems weird. (Although it shouldn't seem weird, because people are continually acting on information from the past. Information flow from past -> present -> future is completely normal)

Another, more simplified situation that also isn't paradoxical is is the "uninvented invention", where you recieve plans for a time machine sent back by a future self, and then eventually send those same plans back to the earlier you.

It seems weird, but under the principle of firm predestination, it's not self-contradictory.

I wouldn't say it provided a clearly coherent view of time travel

Films sorted in terms of decreasing accuracy of time-travel mechanics:

• Bobby Loves Mangos
• 
  Twelve Monkeys
  Star Trek (4, not First Contact, which was worse)
  Terminator
  Back to the Future
  The Sound of Thunder
  

Anyone who hasn't seen Bobby Loves Mangos should go watch it immediately, BEFORE you read reviews or anything else concerning it. It's only 10 minutes, do it!

I rember when

[holderofthering]

... i first hered this story. I rember the day, i remer the room i was in, i rember it all.

it was 7 years ago, 6th grade, my english teacher took us all the way to the science labs just to read us the short story :P.

he wrote the two diffrent sighns on the black board, with the second one covered up.

i forgot the vary ending, the sound of thunder.

great story.

SO...

[Lord_Dweomer]

Does the resulting wind generated from Ray Bradbury spinning in his grave create a tsunami in Japan?

Wait, you mean he's not dead yet? Errr...he was in the last timeline I visited.

Didn't this already happen?

[toastgoddess]

The wrong guy wins a close election because of a problem with a butterfly?

Fahrenheit 451 wins a Hugo!

[AndroidCat]

A Retro-Hugo, that is. (No Hugos were handed out in 1954, so this is a "fill-in-the-gaps" award.)

1954 Retro Hugo Winners

Best Novel - Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Best Novella - "A Case of Concsience" by James Blish

Best Novelette - "Earthman, Come Home" by James Blish

Best Short Story - "The Nine Billion Names of God" by Arthur C. Clarke

Best Related Book - Conquest of the Moon by Wernher von Braun, Fred L. Whipple & Willy Ley

Best Professional Editor - John W. Campbell, Jr.

Best Professional Artist - Chesley Bonestell

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - The War of the Worlds

Best Fanzine - Slant, Walter Willis, ed.; James White, art editor

Best Fan Writer - Bob Tucker

Certainly an impressive line-up.

Yup, Hires MOV==corrupt halfway through.

[Whizzmo2]

Title sez it all. After one corrupt file, I decided to browse www.apple.com/trailers... :)

Re:Yup, Hires MOV==corrupt halfway through.

[Smurf]

But the trailer isn't up on the Apple trailers website (at least not yet)!

Humm... I think I'll wait. OK, maybe I'll use one of the other formats, some times they don't suck.

Anyway, I reported the issue to scifi.com. Let's hope they fix it.

Re:Yup, Hires MOV==corrupt halfway through.

[Smurf]

Strangely enough, the "large", "medium", and "small" Quicktime trailers have the exact same sizes as the "very large", "large", and "medium" Real Player and WMP trailers respectively. The Real/WMP "small" option is a joke.

Are they assuming that Quicktime users expect better quality?

Dystopian Politics?

[The_Steel_General]

C'mon, that was the lamest thing about the story. The air smells different, the alphabet works different, history has been re-written -- but the guys running in the election hasn't changed, and it's supposed to be a big deal that the guy who won is the guy you didn't want to win at the start.

Isn't that a little bit out of proportion to the change that has happened? Hasn't the hunting party done more damage in an hour than the new leader might reasonably do in his entire term?

Maybe it's just me...

TSG

Saw the trailer. Question:

[haggar]

Is this yet another travel-in-time nonsense movie?

I would really like to see ONE movie or novel that deals with the time-travel impossibility. Or are paralleluniverses just too complex for the average viewer's brain?

he doesn't always direct trash...

[bani]

...2010 was pretty damn good, IMO.

451 fahrenheit remake? may be it will be ok ...

[porky_pig_jr]

funny, I took fahrenheit 451 DVD a couple weeks ago (Truffeau sp?), watched for about 20 minutes and returned it. Did not like the screen adaptation at all. Hard to explain why. The book has lots of tension, power, truly apocaplitic future. The movie? Cartoonish, two-dimensional, almost like Woody Allen 'Sleeper' but trying to be serious.

A good movie on a basis of 451F is possible in principle, and with a current adminstration on a loose, the whole story is something more of us should become familiar with.

As for the 'Thunder' - as someone has pointed out, it a nice little self-contained story but making the movie out of it? Only in Hollywood!