A Sound of Thunder

[Susan]

I was browsing upcoming movie trailers and found this. I didn't even know it was coming out, but, I always remember one of my favorite new Twilight Zone episodes was based on this Ray Bradbury story. The movie stars Edward Burns, Ben Kingsley, here is the synopsis:

A Sound of Thunder" is about a game hunter (Burns) who goes on a time-traveling safari owned and operated by Kingsley's character to hunt dinosaurs in the prehistoric era. When he kills a butterfly, he unknowingly sets off a chain reaction that will erase humanity from existence. A team of experts must return back in time and replace the butterfly. McCormack is the inventor of the time-traveling computer

Here is the trailer:

A Sound of Thunder

i'm not all that impressed with the choice of director, it's the kind of story that has the potential being a really reeely good movie. This probably won't be, but I'll probably enjoy it anyways.  I still haven't viewed the trailre in full, i'm on dial up and my computer is still downloading it so maybe in an hour i'll have more to say...lol

[loyal1]

The Simpson's covered a spoof on this in one of the Halloween episodes..anyone remember that one?

[Susan]

Ugh, now i'm worried - the cgi looks SO bad!

Didn't see it, don't watch the simpsons. ;-)

[odinn7]

I saw that episode (and many others for that matter) and I thought that was one of the better Halloween ones. The raining donuts and Flanders running the world were great ideas.

[peter johnson]

In the original Bradbury story, the killing of the butterfly caused the future the hunters returned to to be a totalitarian/1984ish society.  The butterfly was dead -- crushed by someone who left the path.  There was no possibility of "returning" it.
I guess Ray's used to having his stuff treated like that -- witness Beast From 20,000 Fathoms --
I hope it's a good film, but the situation does remind me of "I, Robot", which has nothing at all to do with actual Asimov.
There are so very very many good science fiction stories out there waiting to be made into films as they are -- why must we always "improve" them?
peter johnson/denny crane

[loyal1]

Yup that's the one..and Flanders was "Big Brother"...pretty true to this original...some thought it WAS a spoof on 1984, but wasn't.

[Susan]

Peter - yeah I noticed that. I can't see the end of mankind and replacing the butterfly. I'm not sure why it took that turn except in movies they don't like shock endings, they like you to be able to fix what happened so people can go home seeing an uplifting ending. I think if this were the 70's filmmakers would have dared to make a more honest interpretation of the story. In this day and age hollywood just wants to cash in and the guys in the boardroom sat around saying "ok, we LIKE the story but i don't know about this ending> It's too depressing, go back and write a new one so viewers will go home happy"

[loyal1]

I think a part of the reason that many want the traditional Frank capra-esque happy ending, is that in real life, people have so many unhappy endings/possiibilities, not only in their own secluded lives, but everywhere...and our American bubble we live in has burst and we are forced to see (although still try to ignore) the serious outcomes and implications of our future...this need for the bubble back and escapism is still relevant to many.. In the 70's the hippie movement and "baby killers" and how wrong this society, war, etc. is was still a major part of thinking.  There were so many character study films and people searching for existence.  So what did we get out of all that protest from traditional values..the f**king commercialized materalistic 80's...lol (although some were highlights).

So instead of facing truth we'd rather smile dumbfully as the bombs explode all around us and think "but the ending will be happy"....

I am with you...make people think!  Show us some realism!

[Yaddo42]

I think I'd rather have Peter Hyams directing than the original choice, Rennie Harlan. Hyams is not a great director, but a good workman-style technical director. Plus I gather that he, much like John Frankenheimer's later career, is a director studios go to try to salvage troubled productions. They are professional, know how to stay within a budget, and can work quick with less prep time.

Plus I've seen Bradbury - on TV, read him on the net, and even saw him in person when he came to speak in my town a few years ago - raliing against what people have done to his works in adaptions before. And he kept mentioning that the first director (he never named Harlan, but I had read it elsewhere) wanted to take out the butterfly. Obviously, this would completely change or ruin the story, and Bradbury was quite upset about it. He has been more supportive of Hyams, if I remember.

[Flangepart]

Classic Simpsons!

The short story would make a good half hour....two hours? I don't think so....

[Dave Munger]

Who's seen "The Illustrated Man"? I almost brought it up in the great, weird movies thread. Better than the book (by Bradbury), IMHO. The one problem is that the first time you see it, you'll probably think you've seen it before, since so much of the material has appeared elsewhere in different forms. You're like, wasn't this a Twilight Zone or something?

"See teeted me almos' like ... I wuz her husbaaan."
"They're not tattoos! They're SKIN ILLUS-TRATIONS."