It’s the third weekend of the month and so it’s time for another Book-To-Movie! In a Book-To-Movie, we review a work of prose fiction and its movie adaptation.
If you’ve read Ray Bradbury's short science fiction story, "A Sound of Thunder", the 2005 movie adaptation of the same name may strike you as a continuation of where the former left off. That's not to say that director Peter Hyams and the movie’s screenwriters may as well had made it a cinematic sequel to the short story instead of a direct adaptation. The movie does a great job staying true to the basic elements of this short story about time travel. However, the plot is further developed extending beyond where the short story ends. Why shouldn’t it? It has to fulfill a two-hour feature film based on a tale that can be read in less than fifteen minutes.
Ray Bradbury's style of writing in this short science fiction story is superb when it comes to poetic description and suspense. The terror of the story carries well throughout. The events are conveyed convincingly without having to go into too much of the science of time travel. But the characters are stale, the main ones being Eckels, the protagonist, and Travis the gruff safari guide. This is typical of the pulp fiction of the early 1950s that the story was published in. Yet, “Thunder” is definitely entertaining and thought-provoking.
The characters in the movie are more well developed than the ones in the short story. The protagonist, who is Dr. Travis Ryer in this one (Eckels is made a much more minor character), is much more sympathetic to the person who causes the time alteration as well as much more optimistic in coming up with a solution to the problem. This wasn’t at all the case with Travis in the short story. This character change makes the movie much more optimistic than the short story yet the events remain as suspenseful and as terrifying. The other protagonist, Sonia Rand who has created the time machine, also has a well-developed and strong character. This regardless of her getting a little to comically hysterical in some scenes.
The real drawback to the film is probably the special visual effects of the settings. The CGI gives away the realism of many of the exterior scenes. For example, the Jurassic scene is too stabilised: it looks like a digitally produced matte painting. However, the creature effects were done really good and so make the monsters convincing. The cinematography was also done good in that it showed the director’s unique visionary style.
While the short story "A Sound of Thunder" provides great entertainment and speculation of time travel, the plot is better developed in the movie through its characters and more satisfying ending. However, Ray Bradbury's visually descriptive and energetic prose probably makes up for everything else that may be missing from his short science fiction tale, mainly character.
Have you read "A Sound of Thunder" or seen the movie adaptation? If so, which do you think is better told?
Until next time . . .
If you’ve read Ray Bradbury's short science fiction story, "A Sound of Thunder", the 2005 movie adaptation of the same name may strike you as a continuation of where the former left off. That's not to say that director Peter Hyams and the movie’s screenwriters may as well had made it a cinematic sequel to the short story instead of a direct adaptation. The movie does a great job staying true to the basic elements of this short story about time travel. However, the plot is further developed extending beyond where the short story ends. Why shouldn’t it? It has to fulfill a two-hour feature film based on a tale that can be read in less than fifteen minutes.
‘A Sound of Thunder’, the Short Story
Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder" is about a hunting expedition in the future that travel's back in time to go on a Jurassic safari. The members of the expedition must be extremely careful not to do anything to the environment of the era they travel to or else seriously alter history. This means they cannot touch anything in the Jurassic time period because the littlest contact can cause disastrous changes in the future. So a walkway has been built for them that they must stay on. However, someone is not successful doing that.Ray Bradbury's style of writing in this short science fiction story is superb when it comes to poetic description and suspense. The terror of the story carries well throughout. The events are conveyed convincingly without having to go into too much of the science of time travel. But the characters are stale, the main ones being Eckels, the protagonist, and Travis the gruff safari guide. This is typical of the pulp fiction of the early 1950s that the story was published in. Yet, “Thunder” is definitely entertaining and thought-provoking.
A Sound of Thunder, the Movie
The movie, A Sound of Thunder, as I mentioned, stays true to the basic plot components of the short story. However, many of the details are changed in order to fill that two-hour time frame. These details are namely the conflict and characters. While the main challenge to the characters in the short story is to avoid touching anything in the past while yet trying to kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex that can eat them alive, the one in the movie is to return time to its original course after it has been altered when one of the hunters accidently steps off the path. In both the short story and film, this accident kills a butterfly which is precisely what causes events to change in the future. However, while the change of events in the short story is one of political disaster, the one in the movie is of natural disaster. |
| Credit: Pixabay.com |
The real drawback to the film is probably the special visual effects of the settings. The CGI gives away the realism of many of the exterior scenes. For example, the Jurassic scene is too stabilised: it looks like a digitally produced matte painting. However, the creature effects were done really good and so make the monsters convincing. The cinematography was also done good in that it showed the director’s unique visionary style.
While the short story "A Sound of Thunder" provides great entertainment and speculation of time travel, the plot is better developed in the movie through its characters and more satisfying ending. However, Ray Bradbury's visually descriptive and energetic prose probably makes up for everything else that may be missing from his short science fiction tale, mainly character.
Have you read "A Sound of Thunder" or seen the movie adaptation? If so, which do you think is better told?
Until next time . . .
Comments
Post a Comment