And you know what else? This is a serious hijack and I’m going to bow out now. I’ve said my piece on why I think a chick flick would fit Claire perfectly, and so I won’t hijack anymore. Sorry, Drain Bead. 
The thing is, those pregnancies weren’t guaranteed to end in miscarriage–clearly not, since Alba came to be. There was always some hope that they would have a viable pregnancy, every time. It’s not as if the choice to carry a child to term or not was solely Clare and Henry’s.
I read somewhere that the release of the film was pushed back because Eric Bana (who plays Henry) had to shave his head for Star Trek and they couldn’t film some relatively minor additional scenes until his hair had grown back. Dunno if it’s true or not.
I agree that Henry and Claire are pretty focused on each other, but that’s understandable, given their circumstances. They are deeply, wildly in love with each other in a way that’s, as far as we know, unprecedented in human history, given how Claire grew up before Henry’s eyes. They’re fiercely determined to hang onto each other, knowing deep down that they can’t. I found them to be very compelling, interesting characters, and was almost entirely sympathetic to them.
Someone very close to me had several miscarriages and I can’t fault Henry and Claire for trying repeatedly to have a child, each time hoping for the best.
YMMV, as always.
I just wonder how they’re going to pull off the huge span of time they need to cover. It certainly seems to be an actor’s dream role to play the same character in so many different stages of life.
IMDB only lists one other actor as “Young Henry”, a kid who would have been about 10 yrs old during filming, and one other actress listed as “Young Clare”, who would have been a little younger. So I guess Bana and McAdams are going to play the characters from their teens on up.
I’m going to see it. I liked the book without being wildly in love with the characters- I agree that they’re not the nicest people. Especially Gomez- how creepy is he? I think Niffenegger herself said they wouldn’t be close friends of hers if they were real.
Things that worry me about the trailer:
How gentle the time traveling looked. It’s described as epileptic, with convulsions and dizziness and vomiting, not a sleepy disappearing act.
Eric Bana doesn’t look like Henry to me.
It looks like they like in a shiny glass highrise, so maybe they skip the house search?
Things I liked:
That Clare is pictured in her workroom.
The longing and tension seems to have been done okay, maybe.
I wonder if they’ll change the ending? I hope not.
It’s the most moving part of the book, and should translate well cinematically. If they do it right it will be a real tearjerker.
Couldn’t the time traveller have gone into the future to find out (or come back from the future to let them know)?
It’s probably pretty obvious that I haven’t read the book or seen the trailers either.
Clare and Henry spend the vast majority of the story between the ages of 20 and 40. That’s not a wide range for Hollywood stars who we expect to look a little old when playing teenagers and who are already in the 30-40 range. There are a few scenes of each as children, and of course the scenes they’re not going to put into the movie of pre- and mezzo-pubescent Clare trying to get into Henry’s pants.
In short, no. I don’t think I’m giving much plot away to you to say that the time traveling is entirely involuntary.
There’s a Spoilers warning on the thread now, anyway.
I don’t have a problem with the way the movie is being presented. The book is a romance. A well written romance with complex characters, but it’s a romance with an interesting twist. How are they supposed to spend 30 seconds promoting it except to show the basic theme of the movie?
I’m not going to comment on the 7 miscarriages thing except to say that no one chooses a miscarriage.
I think that there are many scenes in the book that seem alright in reading, but in a movie would come across as a pervy old man spending a lot of time with a pre-pubescent girl.
I’m thinking the ick factor in focus groups (that hadn’t read the book) caused re-writes and re-shoots that had to wait for Eric Bana’s hair to grow back.
So what are the odds that they’ll show…
Eric Bana screwing himself?
Not good, I wager. Though they’d probably have a higher opening weekend if they did.
I saw it last night. It was a lot better than I thought it was going to be, although I’d guess that it would fall a bit flat for someone who didn’t love the book. Movie spoilers below.
[spoiler]I enjoyed the movie, but I felt like the film was stretched too thin to in an attempt to contain the full (main) plot of the book, and the film suffered for it. The movie stays very true to the story of the book, but condenses too much explication in dialog, in my opinion. For example, when we first meet Henry’s father, they argue about how Henry has tried to save his mother, but couldn’t. How much better would it have been if we’d seen Henry racing to undo things, but unable to. In the book, he didn’t strike me as so resigned to his fate.
Predictably, we only see Clare at age 6 and age 18+. And even then there’s an undercurrent of unease when 6-year-old Clare meets Henry for the first time. I can see why there might have been problems with test audiences. We only see Henry at age 6 and 27+.
The main themes of fate and free will and love are well-handled, and the movie added a nice touch in the proposal scene that I thought was very effective. All the secondary stories were removed (Clare/Gomez, Henry/Ingrid, the Kims).
I got the sense that I would have liked the movie much less if I didn’t already know these characters and the story. As a small sample of the story I loved, it was great. I’m not sure how well it stands up for people who haven’t read the book (although some friends who saw it with me enjoyed it).
Without giving too much away, the ending was happier than in the book, but it was done very delicately.[/spoiler]
I had almost forgotten that part in the book.
Half of me wants to see the movie, but the other half is really hesitant because I’m worried it’s going to be transformed into a chick-flick and that I’ll come out of the theater peeved. I think it was more than just a romantic novel; it had a bit of science fiction (it was fun trying to have my brain wrap around the book’s concept of time traveling), the debate of whether you can actually change the future or if it is all predetermined, and almost a Zen/Taoism aspect as Henry accepts his fate.
Anyway, I know that chances are they won’t be completely true to the book but I feel that softening it will take away a lot that the book offered. The two scenes that affected me most were
Claire holding out one of her miscarried children in her hands
and
The end when Henry reappears dying at the New Year’s party after being shot in the past. I believe the description was something akin to “burst open like a pomegranate”.
Both scenes had very strong imagery but I highly doubt that they’ll be shown in the movie. The death scene will probably be played down quite a bit.
And the novel isn’t (gleaned from the Wikipedia, since I’d never, in a million years, read it or see the movie), the book isn’t sappy and shallow “chick lit?”
Silly me. I’m a guy who, when he sees “time travel” in a title or description, is usually sold. Glad that I used Modern Technology to save my money. shudder
The book isn’t sappy and shallow chick lit, no. The book is awesome.
YMMV.
Yeah yeah, I know there’s another thread, but that’s mainly about the book, and about how much the movie will suck by people who haven’t seen it. 37 posts and only 1 person has seen it. Great. Some won’t see it because, based on a short trailer of an almost 2-hour movie, it obviously sucks because it’s not like the book, and some won’t see it because others who haven’t seen it categorized it as a shallow “chick flick” and they don’t like chick flicks. Great.
Well, I’ve seen it, I loved it. And I have NOT read the book. Nothing was confusing, nothing seemed out of place (or, heh, time) and nothing seemed “missing.”
It was a beautiful movie, acted, to look at, to feel, to think about, but it had a very dark streak in it which made it not only more interesting than a simple romance with a twist, but also put it, in my mind, outside the category of a simple “chick flick.” With one exception at one part of the movie, I really liked the characters. The exception was
when Clare gets all snooty and impatient because Henry missed Christmas and New Years because he was time traveling. I hate hate HATE with a fierce passion when movies make a wife or girlfriend (rarely, but sometimes husband or boyfriend) bitch because of their love’s occupation, or in this case, genetic problem. Bitch, you’ve known since you were 6 that the guy time travels and that he can’t control it, and you dare to make him feel bad about it after you threw yourself at him and made him feel he could have a wife who truly understood him? Holy fuck, I hated her at that point in the movie. Luckily, she got her mind straightened out and quit being a bitch.
So, not one of the best of the year, but I enjoyed it, and now I want to read the book.
By its description on Wikipedia, it is TOTAL chick lit. Full of loss and feelings and shit a “cliched, but accurate” male reader avoids like a bony kiss from Granny.
Okay, maybe I’m showing my gender and my age, so I asked the four adult women I live with, aged 19 to I shouldn’t ask, if they had or would read it. One specializes in Women’s Lit from 1850 to 1950, another majored in Womens Lit, and two have their specialities, but concentrate on Doctor Who. All of them are familiar with “The Time Traveller’s Wife,” but NONE of them have read it, and even fewer wish to see the movie. This appears to not only be Chick Lit, but a less-popular subset of it, to which one has little chance of dragging ones SO.
And SO’s, no matter how into them you may act, movies like this are LESS likely to get you laid. 