Cloud Atlas

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Cloud Atlas is my favorite film form the last ten years. I pop it on and once I hear the strains of acoustic guitar I find myself so taken with it. I love the fact that I can be entertained for three hours watching it and then think about the various connections (both thematically and in terms of other links between the stories) for three additional hours. I don't know how they pulled it off that a movie with so much freedom - such a huge creative scope - is also so fiercely edited to perfection

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I just learned that the actress that played the little girl that asked Zachry where Earth was just passed away unexpectedly

 

[Jedi Marso]

Great movie. Arguably better / more entertaining than the book on which it's based. Read the book after I saw the movie, prefer the movie.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I disagree. I love the film and the idea of each actor playing multiple roles across the different stories, but I love the novel even more. Each story has much greater depth and have stronger connections with each other. Plus, Sonmi-451's story in the novel is much richer than the straight forward story in the film.

 

[DonIago]

Love the movie, and the score is one of my favorites as well.

Though I think I had an idea for writing a novel(la) that would use this kind of conceit and then saw the movie, so that was annoying.

 

[XCV330]

Cloud Atlas is my favorite film form the last ten years. I pop it on and once I hear the strains of acoustic guitar I find myself so taken with it. I love the fact that I can be entertained for three hours watching it and then think about the various connections (both thematically and in terms of other links between the stories) for three additional hours. I don't know how they pulled it off that a movie with so much freedom - such a huge creative scope - is also so fiercely edited to perfection

I love that movie and all the effort and thought that went into it. (and for me at least, it was a little better than the book).

When we went to see it, my wife and I realized on opening night we were sitting in a completely empty theater with maybe two other people there. It was gone before the week was out. That was a pity. I don't think they knew how to market it.

 

[JD]

I watched it a while back and I really enjoyed it. It really is a shame both this and Jupiter Ascending both bombed, I thought they were great. At least the Wachowskis did find a bit more success with Sense 8, which I still haven't watched.

 

[Reverend]

I disagree. I love the film and the idea of each actor playing multiple roles across the different stories, but I love the novel even more. Each story has much greater depth and have stronger connections with each other. Plus, Sonmi-451's story in the novel is much richer than the straight forward story in the film.

For me, what the movie did that I found more effective than the book was in the editing. The way the book structured the whole thing, each story/period led linearly into the next one and the next and so on, then back the other way after crossing at the half-way point. Which is great an innovative but the movie took full advantage of being an adaptation and interwove the stories more thematically. The narrative was quite literally composed like a symphony, mixing imagery and score in a way that simply isn't possible in prose.

So yes, while I certainly agree that the novel had a richer base in character and narrative text, the movie was much more of a singular, coherent and indeed beautiful work of art. All that said, I don't view it as superior to the book, but an essential companion and if I were of a mind to introduce someone else ot the story, the one I would have them start with.

I watched it a while back and I really enjoyed it. It really is a shame both this and Jupiter Ascending both bombed, I thought they were great. At least the Wachowskis did find a bit more success with Sense 8, which I still haven't watched.

You know, I never did get around to that one. From what footage I saw and the reviews that were out at the time I got the impression it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of "Dune meets Twilight", which is 100% not my jam.
Plus I find that for me personally, the Wachowskis have a tendency to be very over indulgent in a way that honestly starts to bore me at times. The Matrix sequels certainly leap to mind and I only got about 15 mins into Speed Racer before loosing interest, so they're very hit and miss for me overall.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

For we, what the movie did that I found more effective than the book was in the editing. The way the book structured the whole thing, each story/period led linearly into the next one and the next and so on, then back the other way after crossing at the half-way point. Which is great an innovative but the movie took full advantage of being an adaptation and interwove the stories more thematically. The narrative was quite literally composed like a symphony, mixing imagery and score in a way that simply isn't possible in prose.

So yes, while I certainly agree that the novel had a richer base in character and narrative text, the movie was much more of a singular, coherent and indeed beautiful work of art. All that said, I don't view it as superior to the book, but an essential companion and if I were of a mind to introduce someone else ot the story, the one I would have them start with.

That's understandable. I really love the chapter flow of the novel as an unique form of storytelling. The way I look at it, that structure forces the reader to think more about the thematic issues, especially during the down turn of the second half. However, I get why that might not be appealing to every reader. That said, I like your take of the film acting as an essential companion to the novel and not as inherently better or worse than the novel.

 

[Kemaiku]

Sense 8, which I still haven't watched.

If you get the chance to anytime soon, do.

 

[FormerLurker]

What I liked the most about it was that every single actor is in every single scenario/time period, some made up to be unrecognizable. My favorite "Oh! That's who that is!" moment was the Nurse Ratchet character in the sequence where the one brother had the other committed to the nursing home.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

If you get the chance to anytime soon, do.

I second this. One of the finest shows of the past decade. Truly extraordinary.

 

[Reverend]

That's understandable. I really love the chapter flow of the novel as an unique form of storytelling. The way I look at it, that structure forces the reader to think more about the thematic issues, especially during the down turn of the second half. However, I get why that might not be appealing to every reader. That said, I like your take of the film acting as an essential companion to the novel and not as inherently better or worse than the novel.

As a general rule for me, I don't mind if an adaptation departs from the source material so long as it's faithful to the tone, themes and does something interesting with the translation into a new medium. As illustrated above, there are things that you can do in film that simply isn't possible on the page and visa-versa.
Indeed, I've seen some adaptations that were entirely faithful but because it didn't do anything interesting with it, turned a compelling book into a boring or unmemorable movie.

For example: about a decade or so back, for whatever reason I found myself reading and quite enyoying 'The Time Traveller's Wife'. So when the movie came out, I was interested to see what they'd do with it...and I can barely remember a thing about the movie adaptation. Just that it was generally faithful to the basic story beats (if understandably abridged) but as a movie, was bland and unremarkable and didn't really so much to take advantage of the new medium.

'Cloud Atlas' did almost the exact opposite by fully embracing the new medium and not simply doing a beat-by-beat retread, but by retellign the story in a new and visually compelling way.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

As a general rule for me, I don't mind if an adaptation departs from the source material so long as it's faithful to the tone, themes and does something interesting with the translation into a new medium. As illustrated above, there are things that you can do in film that simply isn't possible on the page and visa-versa.
Indeed, I've seen some adaptations that were entirely faithful but because it didn't do anything interesting with it, turned a compelling book into a boring or unmemorable movie.

For example: about a decade or so back, for whatever reason I found myself reading and quite enyoying 'The Time Traveller's Wife'. So when the movie came out, I was interested to see what they'd do with it...and I can barely remember a thing about the movie adaptation. Just that it was generally faithful to the basic story beats (if understandably abridged) but as a movie, was bland and unremarkable and didn't really so much to take advantage of the new medium.

'Cloud Atlas' did almost the exact opposite by fully embracing the new medium and not simply doing a beat-by-beat retread, but by retellign the story in a new and visually compelling way.

Definitely. When I was younger and less wise, I was insistent on the most loyal adaptations. I've since just my opinion on that and I agree with what you said about maintaining of the spirit should be the primary focus of any adaptation.

 

[JD]

As a general rule for me, I don't mind if an adaptation departs from the source material so long as it's faithful to the tone, themes and does something interesting with the translation into a new medium. As illustrated above, there are things that you can do in film that simply isn't possible on the page and visa-versa.
Indeed, I've seen some adaptations that were entirely faithful but because it didn't do anything interesting with it, turned a compelling book into a boring or unmemorable movie.

For example: about a decade or so back, for whatever reason I found myself reading and quite enyoying 'The Time Traveller's Wife'. So when the movie came out, I was interested to see what they'd do with it...and I can barely remember a thing about the movie adaptation. Just that it was generally faithful to the basic story beats (if understandably abridged) but as a movie, was bland and unremarkable and didn't really so much to take advantage of the new medium.

'Cloud Atlas' did almost the exact opposite by fully embracing the new medium and not simply doing a beat-by-beat retread, but by retellign the story in a new and visually compelling way.

I think the Harry Potter movies were a good example of this, they actually got better as the later movies moved a bit more away from the books.

 

[DonIago]

Well, except Goblet of Fire kinda sucked...

 

[Reverend]

I think the Harry Potter movies were a good example of this, they actually got better as the later movies moved a bit more away from the books.

Those movies are actually a pretty good example of shifting from the one approach to the other. The first two movies in particular and more or less beat-for-beat with the books, while from the third movie onwards it's increasingly less about regurgitating the plot and more about retelling the story and exploring these characters. Whole subplots are dropped, characters cut, events get shifted around and as a result, most people seem to agree that is where the movies really started to pick up in terms of filmaking.
Some of the die-hards will still grumble about this or that, but the reality is that you can't effectively relate a 600+ page novel in the same amount of time (ish) as a 200-300 pages one without cutting it practically to the bone. So one must ask oneself: how is Dobby wearing all the knitted hats Hermione keeps leave out for the School's Elves driving the narrative forward? How much is Nearly Headless Nick's Demise Day Party adding to Harry's character growth? And so on and so forth.

I'm sure when they inevitably reboot the whole thing as a long form streaming series that a lot of this stuff will get mined for episode content, but in a movie format it's just not feasible. I know some criticised them for splitting the last book into two movies as a purely commercial move to milk the ticket sales, but in actuality there's no way in hell that boock could have been done justice in just 2-3 hours. Aside the the sheer density, the first half of the book needed room to breath and sticking a massive wizard battle finale at then end of a fugitive road movie would have just been bizarre and an horrendously rushed affair.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

That's a good point about the Harry Potter films. When that series started, I still held my strict views about adaptations and, as a result, I largely didn't like how they adapted the stories, often omitting what I considered to be important. My frequent mantra back then was I loved the casting and the visuals, but hated the adaptation of the stories themselves. I ended up only ever watching each film once, although I actually loved Deathly Hallows, Part I and I think that's largely because it captured the spirit of the book so well (and the final book is my favorite of the series, which I know makes me an outlier).

I wonder how I'll feel about the series if I rewatched it now, especially considering Alfonso Cuarón has become one of my favorite directors.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I adore it.

 

[arch101]

I finally saw this film not too long ago. It reminded me a bit of Wim Wenders' Until the End of the World. Just gave me a similar vibe. Cloud Atlas felt like a 'road movie' even though it wasn't because of its movement across time periods and vast distances.