Anyone know anything about Timeline? I saw a commercial last night but didn't know if it's going to be any good.

I didn't like the book.
I'll probably go see it, though. Most of the movie versions of Crichton's books have been good.

what's wrong with the book?

I thought it was kind of boring, filled with information I couldn't care about, and overall kind of bloated and overlong. Most of what happened plot-wise struck me as totally unnecessary.
Plus, I've never been fond of the writing style of Michael "Who Needs Character Development?" Crichton.

Mostly problems that aren't automatically transfered to a movie version, so who knows?

Yea, i'm reading the book now. I like it, but what Aibohphobia said is kind of true. I saw the trailer for the film, I don't know if I'll go and see it cos the film is nothing I imagined whilst reading the book.

What's different than you imagined?

I'll have to pick up the book soon.

Michael Crichton seems to write his books like they're movies, with very little character development-all the characters are already developed. His books are still really fun reading, and he really fills them up with information. I love science, so i gobble all of it up, some people just want to get straight to the action though(or just dont understand the science), damn party poopers. Timeline is awesome, and to throughly answer your question, it's about time travel by means of quantum theory-that it is possible to shrink molecules and to travel between universes, therefor going back in time.

Personally, I understand most of the science just fine, I just don't enjoy reading it. It's like Tom Clancy...they both know their stuff, which can be interesting as hell if it's presented correctly, but they're fiction writers who write like they're putting together a technical manual.

Oh, and by the way, the idea of there being no character development because they're already developed...that doesn't make sense. The term 'character development', as I see it, refers to the way a character changes and grows as the story progresses. Crichton's characters don't do that. They're static, obvious, two-dimensional and boring.

Meh, i got about half way through the book and couldnt be bothered reading the rest.

Originally posted by Aibohphobia
Personally, I understand most of the science just fine, I just don't enjoy reading it. It's like Tom Clancy...they both know their stuff, which can be interesting as hell if it's presented correctly, but they're fiction writers who write like they're putting together a technical manual.

Oh, and by the way, the idea of there being no character development because they're already developed...that doesn't make sense. The term 'character development', as I see it, refers to the way a character changes and grows as the story progresses. Crichton's characters don't do that. They're static, obvious, two-dimensional and boring.
What i mean is that the characters don't grow, but their personality is described with the introduction of the character, and that's that.

Yeah.....the characters not growing is exactly what Aibo means when he says there is lack of character development. All characters start out with some personality but it's watching them change and grow and be shaped by the events they are in that makes the novels exciting. When a character goes into and comes out of a novel virtually unchanged it's boring as hell and the reader does not feel connected to them at all.

Originally posted by grimey
What's different than you imagined?

I'll have to pick up the book soon.

The way the characters looked and the general scenery. And on the trailer it says there looking for Chris's father, when it's not his father its just the Professor!

I'm not followig that

obviously

I'll probably see this this weekend.

I loved the book.

I just saw Paul Walker on the View like 5 min ago and he looked so amazing. That is reason enough for me to see the movie. I didn't read the book, but I think the whole concept of the movie looks awesome, as if Paul wasn't enough!

I am a huge fan of Michael Crichton... perhaps I am odd, but I have never felt that a lack of character development prevented me from caring about his characters. I admire his writing to a great extent.

I loved Timeline in particular because it just felt so rich to me. The descriptions, the plot... though "unrealistic," he made it all feel very urgent. I couldn't put that novel down, I finished it in two days. I suppose the contrasts drawn between our society and that of Medieval times intrigued me.

That being said...this movie looks like shit. As countless reviews have noted, they don't follow the book well enough, they drift between genres, the acting is subpar, they change the identities and genders of key characters in the novel. They transformed a nice quality novel into a less than B-film.

I am a big fan of Michael Crichton. I've read almost all of his books. I really enjoyed Timeline, the book, but I'm scared to see the movie. They have this trend of totally ruining his books on the big screen. I've come to expect, from the past movies based on his book, that it won't follow the book, and could very well, be Jurassic Park-like, in that its nothing like the book at all. I'd hope for good transition from book to movie, but it's unlikely. You just lose something in the change of media. No one's gotten it right with his books yet.

I like that he doesn't go into full character development though. I find that so boring in other books. Often time it just seems like filler and can get in the way of the story line if used in excess. His books tell you just want you need to know about a person. Things that are relavant. I still get attached to the characters. Perhaps I just like his logical writting style. I'm not into all the dreamy mushy stuff. I like logic, fact, and suspense, and his writing works for me.

Well, I saw it and thought it was pretty fun. nOT exactly going to win Best Picture, but I was pretty entertained for the whole movie.

Gerard Butler was really really great here.