While The Time Traveler's Wife isn't YA, it's a great book that was popularized, as is usual these days, by being made into a movie. My thoughts on books-into-movies is this: I love it. But I have to read the book first. It's awesome seeing characters and scenes I've read come to life, but reading scenes I've already watched isn't as intriguing.So I quickly read The Time Traveler's Wife when the movie came out - I had already been planning on it, but the movielization (pretend that's a word, k?) pushed me to read it faster.
The book was fantastic. The writing was beautiful, the emotions intense, and the plot interesting. I generally hate time traveling, as a whole, because it's confusing and never, ever ends well. (The Butterfly Effect, anyone?) But this version of time-traveling was explained almost perfectly. It wasn't glorified as magical or unexplainable. It kind of...sucked. I mean, there were some serious downsides. It made me question myself and my opinion. Is knowing your future worth it if you lose part of yourself along the way?
The novel is told in altering point of views - Henry's and Claire's, Claire's and Henry's. I found myself almost detesting Claire's POV for half of the novel, although it bettered in the latter half. Through Henry's eyes, she seemed charming and witty and fun, and through Claire's eyes she seemed frivilous and annoying. She gets more depth much later, but I found myself wishing to stay in Henry's POV more and more often.
The way the plot was played out was awesomely intelligent. You get clues dropped, here and there, as to who Future Henry and Past Henry is, and as the book (and future) develops, both versions of Henry come together and more answers are revealed.
The movie, I found, is far more confusing than the book. If I hadn't read the book first, I wouldn't have understand a lot of the time-travelin' logistics. My movie companion had to ask me, several times, what the hell was going on. Have any of my readers seen the movie and not read the book? I'm curious as to non-readers opinion. It seems like I would have quit midway through if I hadn't already known the details.
That said, the actors were perfect for their parts. The scenes in the book held more power to me, but it was fascinating seeing them acted out. The detail in the book couldn't be translated to film, which made for some lack in substance, but it was worth watching.
If you have to choose one of the two, as usual, read the book. The only movie I've found that even comes close to the book is Pride and Prejudice. Have you ever seen one that rivals the written version?
I loved The Time Traveler's Wife when I read it. The film was okay, but I agree with you - if I hadn't read the book, I don't think I would have been able to follow what was going on onscreen.
ReplyDeleteI loved the book, absolutely HATED the movie. I think the parts were miscast. I'm not a huge Eric Bana fan, so that was very disappointing and I found Henry to be a bit more scruffy.
ReplyDeleteThe Chronicles of Narnia movies I loved more than the books. Hehe. ^^" And the 2006 BBC version of Jane Eyre I loved even more than the book, which is saying something as I ADORE the book.
ReplyDeleteLord of the Rings? I personally thought they did a brilliant job of adapting the (overly long and side-track-y) books for the big screen.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the book yet, but I watched the movie. I really liked the movie, but I was confused at most times. Luckily the people watching the movie had all read the book, so they did most of the explaining. Great post! :P
ReplyDeleteyea... I wached the movie without reading the book and was kinda confused with it.
ReplyDeleteGone With the Wind! I love the book to death, to death, to death! But the movie...it was just as masterful. The effects were amazing for the 1930's, all the characters were perfect for their parts, and it stuck so close to the mammoth 1000 page tome. It really made the book come alive again for me - and really, a coincidence it came out the same year as The Wizard of Oz (which is a funner book)? I think not.
ReplyDeleteI always read a book before I see a movie too. And I always like the book better. At least so far.
ReplyDeleteMelina
I read the book before watching this movie and prefer the movie version.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the book I just could not relate to the main character at all but the movie made her a bit more likeable and I was able to feel some compassion for her.
I've only seen the movie but I loved it. I think that it was confusing yet it kept me on my toes. I can't wait to read the book.
ReplyDeleteAww, I loved the Butterfly Effect! I wasn't crazy about the ending, and the time traveling didn't make much sense, really, but I still loved it. (The director's version has an alternate ending, btw.)
ReplyDeletep.s. I don't know about the book, but the movie still had time traveling plot holes (in my humblest opinion).
ReplyDeleteLike how he first met her when she was 6'ish, but already knew who she was. Yet, when she ran into him in the library in their 20s, she knew who he was and he didn't know who she was. That makes zero sense whatsoever.
JessJordan - the book is much, MUCH more explanatory. About the 6yo thing. That version of Henry was a Henry from the past, when he was around 40, traveling back to that time. Claire grew up her whole life getting visits from his 40yo self, but when she met Henry and he was in his 20s, that was him in the PRESENT, not from the future. He had no idea who she was because he had yet to reach the age when he traveled back to meet her. Make more sense?
ReplyDeleteNicole - Chornicles of Narnia! Much better than the books, agreed. Ben Barnes!
Chelsea: it could be my brain can't wrap itself around time travel, but nope ... still doesn't make sense. Here's my main problem with it: regardless of whether there's a Henry from the past or the present or the future, there still has to be the very first meeting, the one where either (a) he shows up naked in the woods and has to ask what her name is, or (b) she meets him in the library and doesn't know him yet. I guess what I'm saying is, there was a point in time when neither of these people knew each other, no matter what timeline you're on. Time travel movies/books/etc seem to ignore the very first time something happens, which is why they annoy me. (I still loved the movie, though, b/c I adore Rachel.)
ReplyDeleteI had the same issue with the Butterfly Effect: he blacks out for a few minutes in the past/present, b/c that's when his present/future self is going back in time. But what happened the first go-around? Why would this kid be blacking out when there was no future self to go back to this time yet?
Or am I supposed to believe that there are 3 different timelines running constantly, and, for instance, I'm my 28-yr-old self now, but my 50-yr-old self has already existed on a future timeline? B/c I cannot wrap my head around that ...
Yep, JessJordan, three timelines. There's his present self, his past self, and his future self. In the book, his future self will be 20 and his past self will be 40 and they'll see each other and talk. And when his present self reaches the age of 40, he'll go back in time and talk to his past 20yo self, even though it kind of already happened. I think it would suck because you'd feel like you couldn't change ANYTHING. If a future version of yourself did something in your present, you would have no choice but to do it in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of cool that way, though, because the way the book is written, pieces start falling together from each version of himself.
And, yeah, I get what you're saying about them meeting. In the book, your choice A happens and he shows up like a naked creeper in the woods. That's why I like the book better - the movie's just too confusing!
I have to say I enjoyed the Notebook slightly more as a movie than as a book -- same with A Walk to Remember. Nicholas Sparks gets good movies!
ReplyDeleteThe Princess Bride is also awesome as both.
I have to disagree about Gone With the Wind, though. I read the book and LOVED it and absolutely hated the movie. Scarlet lost so much depth!
I havent read the whole novel yet but in my english 4 class a few of us are reading this boo for a project, and so far all of us are enjoying it. It is a bit confusing how he keeps going from one time period to another but that is the whole point of the book and Henry being a time traveler. Many of the girls in my group said that they heard the book is way more interesting than the movie is, I would have to finish reading the book and seeing the movie too. But so far I am loving this book, and I havent really read much. The book goes into so many details, and it is very interesting. I PERSONALLY LOVE IT!
ReplyDeleteI liked the movie better than the book. Sounds like I am the only one here who does. It was the whole miscarriage did it for me - the movie's explanation made more sense.
ReplyDelete