Timeline

[Mark]

Granted anything with castles and knights in it I generally go see. They aren't all good but I see them.

We have similar strategies...

 

[Krieg]

in my opinion, the best of his works, Eaters of the Dead, suffers from the desire to represent matters not as they were, but as will sell.

So you're saying that Crichton didn't properly capture the historical accuracy of Beowulf?!

Well allrighty then!

FWIW Timeline was a mixed bag when it comes to reality/perception. All in all Crichton did a pretty good job. However there were a few misses, "heavy broadswords" & knights being mounted on "big plodding plow horses" foremost among them. (Of course we'll keep the "accuracy" of his time machine out of the discussion...lol)

As for the movie, the previews look really, really bad to me. I'll still give it a chance, as the last "period" movie that looked terrible in previews actually turned out to be a pretty good time (A Knight's Tale).

 

[WanderingMonster]

My wife and I liked the book, but both agreed it would make a better movie. The thing just read like an action flick. I'm anxious to see it!

 

[Mistwell]

He has a writing credit of some sort for JP3.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000341/

Andromeda Strain, Westworld, and Coma are all on the list of movies people tend to remember from the 70s.

Jurassic Park and Twister are still onthe list of movies people tend to remember from the 90s.

13th Warrior is often well spoken of on this board, by many people (including myself).

Sphere is still often mentioned for its use of new special effects technology, by people in the industry.

I really don't see how someone can claim his movies end up being forgotten. They are some of the least forgotten movies. I really think people consider Rising Sun and Congo as the rule, rather than the exceptions they were.

 

[dravot]

I read the book and found it to be mediocre. What I found sad was that the book wasn't a novel in it's own right, but rather a thinly disguised treatment for a movie project. It was written with the cinema in mind.

 

[Mistwell]

I read the book and found it to be mediocre. What I found sad was that the book wasn't a novel in it's own right, but rather a thinly disguised treatment for a movie project. It was written with the cinema in mind.

Given just how many of his books, going back to the 1960s, have been turned into movies...isn't it just possible that what you saw is just his normal writing style, which happens to adapt well to the movie treatment format?

If he really wanted to write something in movie treatment format easily adaptable to a movie, he could have just done a graphic novel. Obviously, he has motives beyond just a movie.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

My thoughts on Timeline (Spoilers for those who haven't read the book, and for the movie as well):

The book: Was okay. The main thing that bugged me about the book was that, in describing the process of time travel early on

Spoiler

he makes a point of mentioning that there is no such thing as time travel, that all it is is journeying to parallel universes, but yet the premise of the story is that they are keyed to the disappearance of the main character's teacher by something he left behind in the "past"- and the characters act as if whatever they do might have repercussions in the future, when by his explanation, they won't. IOW, his explanation of time travel invalidates the premise of the entire book.

The movie: I happened to see a preview screening of it several months ago. It was horrible. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Not simply because it was based on (IMO) a mediocre (at best) story, but the acting was terrible, the story for the movie (altered somewhat from the book, as is typical, and sometimes necessary of adaptations) was blah. Without going into too much detail (who knows, maybe they've changed it a bit since):

Spoiler

a couple of characters have little to no development; a promising character gets quite a bit of development, only to have it amount to nothing when he is suddenly killed by a villain that is introduced at the last moment (his presence is hinted at before, but when he is introduced, he is given no real back story); a romance is introduced by there is no real chemistry between the actors involved; I could go on, but I can't remember all the details- I've tried to put it out of my mind. The only real highlight of the film is the acting of Gerard Butler, in what is seemingly a minor role, but one that is played up a bit towards the middle and end (presumably the creators realized what a find he was as an actor and tried to beef up his role). If the story had focused more on him and his storyline, rather than a few poor, emotionless actors and their "romance", I think the story would have been much better.

In any case, I recommend giving this one a pass.