Cloud Atlas Pre-Release Thread

I don't think many are familiar with the (rather brilliant) book.  And if they are, like me they probably aren't sure how it can be adapted coherently into a 2 hour film.  There's a lot of really great stuff in it though, so I'm holding out hope.

Three hours could maybe work.  It's going to have bring a lot of visual oomph for audiences to get over the weirdness of it all though.

Three hours minimum and I'm sure they'll eliminate at least one of the segments, probably the nursing home one.  

Very excited, nonetheless.  Looking forward to the first trailer.

Yes, I'm seriously jazzed for this. I never stopped loving the Wachowski's work, and Tykwer is the cherry on the sundae there. "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" is one of the great unheralded cult flicks of the last decade.

Can anyone give me a spoiler-free rundown of what it's about? Or maybe just tell me why it's brilliant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Yes, I'm seriously jazzed for this. I never stopped loving the Wachowski's work, and Tykwer is the cherry on the sundae there. "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" is one of the great unheralded cult flicks of the last decade.

 

Can anyone give me a spoiler-free rundown of what it's about? Or maybe just tell me why it's brilliant?

The book is comprised of six stories.  The way it is structured, you get through the first half of each story before the next begins (sometimes ending mid word), until the sixth story which is laid out in full.  Then you basically descend, in order, all the way back to the first story.

The stories take place in chronological order, each in a different style.  The first is set in the 19th century, and is (I think) a nod to Benito Cereno, the second in the early 19th century, done in what I thought was Nabakovian prose, and so on, until the sixth which takes place, perhaps, thousands of years in the future.  I don't want to say much more than that because part of the joy was in discovering each new style, and how the stories relate to one another.

I am a sucker for good sci-fi, and I also think that's where the novel excels the most.  Mitchell isn't quite up to miming Melville and Nabakov, but he puts forth a good enough effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuddL 

 

The book is comprised of six stories.  The way it is structured, you get through the first half of each story before the next begins (sometimes ending mid word), until the sixth story which is laid out in full.  Then you basically descend, in order, all the way back to the first story.

The stories take place in chronological order, each in a different style.  The first is set in the 19th century, and is (I think) a nod to Benito Cereno, the second in the early 19th century, done in what I thought was Nabakovian prose, and so on, until the sixth which takes place, perhaps, thousands of years in the future.  I don't want to say much more than that because part of the joy was in discovering each new style, and how the stories relate to one another.

 

I am a sucker for good sci-fi, and I also think that's where the novel excels the most.  Mitchell isn't quite up to miming Melville and Nabakov, but he puts forth a good enough effort.

And, for kicks, one of the segments is a spoof/homage to potboiler airport novels/Ashley Judd-esque conspiracy thrillers and is note-perfect.  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

Three hours minimum and I'm sure they'll eliminate at least one of the segments, probably the nursing home one.  

 

Very excited, nonetheless.  Looking forward to the first trailer.

Oddly, the nursing home one might be the one that best (or at least, most easily) translates into film. Plus it's fucking hilarious. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chavez 

 

 

Oddly, the nursing home one might be the one that best (or at least, most easily) translates into film. Plus it's fucking hilarious. 

The fact that they've cast Jim Broadbent all but guarantees that the nursing home segment will be included. I mean, why even bother having him if not to play Timothy Cavendish? (When I was reading the novel, my mental image of the character alternated between Broadbent and Michael Gambon.)

I'm a fan of the novel, and though I think its adaptation would be better suited to something like an HBO mini-series, this might be my most anticipated upcoming movie. Hell, even people who haven't read the novel should be looking forward to this based on the cast alone: Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Keith David, Hugh Grant (complete with goatee and receding hairline), Jim Sturgess, and Tom Hanks as Dr. Henry Goose (perfect, perfect casting right there, given what you find out about the character).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuddL 

 

The book is comprised of six stories.  The way it is structured, you get through the first half of each story before the next begins (sometimes ending mid word), until the sixth story which is laid out in full.  Then you basically descend, in order, all the way back to the first story.

The stories take place in chronological order, each in a different style.  The first is set in the 19th century, and is (I think) a nod to Benito Cereno, the second in the early 19th century, done in what I thought was Nabakovian prose, and so on, until the sixth which takes place, perhaps, thousands of years in the future.  I don't want to say much more than that because part of the joy was in discovering each new style, and how the stories relate to one another.

 

I am a sucker for good sci-fi, and I also think that's where the novel excels the most.  Mitchell isn't quite up to miming Melville and Nabakov, but he puts forth a good enough effort.

Cool enough, but sounds like a nightmare to adapt, and a potential train wreck of a movie.  Considering the W's post Matrix output I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

 

Cool enough, but sounds like a nightmare to adapt, and a potential train wreck of a movie.  Considering the W's post Matrix output I'm not holding my breath.

Many, many pitfalls in adapting this.  I'm curious, but not hopeful.

this is the only book that I've started that I haven't finished.  I was at the end of the first story and my bag got nicked, with book inside.  I wasn't enamored enough to repurchase, or even get it out of the library.

Is it really worth it?  I don't remember it being sci-fi, but to be honest I don't remember a damn thing about it.  It was the third book in a "get 3 books for a fiver" and i only got it because it had an interesting cover.

Comparisons, however vague, to Mieville intrigue me.

I read it a few months ago on my girlfriend's very strong recommendation, and I thought it was great. Very ambitious in its scope, but structured so as to keep the focus on the immediate and personal. And the fact that it's a story composed of multiple thematically linked mini-stories, and that they're all over the map in terms of genre and style, means that if one section doesn't grab you, the next one very well might. (The 2nd section didn't do a lot for me, but the 3rd is breezy fun, the 4th is often hilarious, and the 5th and 6th are very dark but interesting.) As for sci-fi, that's only the 5th and 6th sections, and the 6th is mostly very-low-tech post-apocalyptic; the rest take place in the past or present. I recommend you give it another shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 

this is the only book that I've started that I haven't finished.  I was at the end of the first story and my bag got nicked, with book inside.  I wasn't enamored enough to repurchase, or even get it out of the library.

 

Is it really worth it?  I don't remember it being sci-fi, but to be honest I don't remember a damn thing about it.  It was the third book in a "get 3 books for a fiver" and i only got it because it had an interesting cover.

 

Comparisons, however vague, to Mieville intrigue me.

There is heavy sci-fi, at least 1/3 of the book, but it comes later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curiosity Cosby 

 

 

The fact that they've cast Jim Broadbent all but guarantees that the nursing home segment will be included. I mean, why even bother having him if not to play Timothy Cavendish? (When I was reading the novel, my mental image of the character alternated between Broadbent and Michael Gambon.)

 

I'm a fan of the novel, and though I think its adaptation would be better suited to something like an HBO mini-series, this might be my most anticipated upcoming movie. Hell, even people who haven't read the novel should be looking forward to this based on the cast alone: Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Keith David, Hugh Grant (complete with goatee and receding hairline), Jim Sturgess, and Tom Hanks as Dr. Henry Goose (perfect, perfect casting right there, given what you find out about the character).

Good to hear about Broadbent.  I thought for sure at least one of the stories would be excised.  How this movie won't run four hours is beyond me, but I'm cautiously optimistic.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 

this is the only book that I've started that I haven't finished.  I was at the end of the first story and my bag got nicked, with book inside.  I wasn't enamored enough to repurchase, or even get it out of the library.

 

Is it really worth it?  I don't remember it being sci-fi, but to be honest I don't remember a damn thing about it.  It was the third book in a "get 3 books for a fiver" and i only got it because it had an interesting cover.

 

Comparisons, however vague, to Mieville intrigue me.

I had to admire the audacity of cutting shit off halfway through for the entire first half of the book - enough of the stories hooked me to the point I wanted to see what happened, and I really think that it's a rewarding read when all is said and done. 

cheers, I'll grab it out of the library when the current two are done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

 

Cool enough, but sounds like a nightmare to adapt, and a potential train wreck of a movie.  Considering the W's post Matrix output I'm not holding my breath.

I will never stop defending the Wachowskis. Flawed as they are, V For Vendetta, Speed Racer and the Matrix sequels are way, way more interesting than the vast majority of genre movies produced these days, even ones that are technically "better".

Plus, you're forgetting the influence of Tykwer. This is an honestly interesting collaboration, because he's a fairly lean, kinetic filmmaker who might go a long way to counterbalancing the Wachowski's biggest flaw, their tendency towards speechifying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

 

I will never stop defending the Wachowskis. Flawed as they are, V For Vendetta, Speed Racer and the Matrix sequels are way, way more interesting than the vast majority of genre movies produced these days, even ones that are technically "better".

 

Plus, you're forgetting the influence of Tykwer. This is an honestly interesting collaboration, because he's a fairly lean, kinetic filmmaker who might go a long way to counterbalancing the Wachowski's biggest flaw, their tendency towards speechifying.

Well said - whether the W's make "good" movies is almost irrelevant in that they make "interesting" movies. I think that inside the bloat of the still-solid Speed Racer there is a very good, possibly great, sports movie. 

There's a recent Hugo Weaving interview at the AVClub which talks about how the Wachowskis are splitting the stories up with Tom Tykwer. Haven't read the book, but it sounds like an amazing project. 

Knew nothing about this but the trailer (esp Whishaw) has me on board:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgI6EeYbV84
 

I would love the Wachowskis to direct Mitchell's debut Ghostwritten, which is kind of a prequel of sorts to Cloud Atlas.

I think the interesting thing about this adaptation is whether they truly stick to the 'nested storyline' and not jump back and forth, because otherwise some (impatient and dumb) viewers might get bored after the first three stories waiting for the sci-fi action hijinks visible in the trailer.  I can already imagine people walking out 30 mins into the movie muttering "boring, no kick ass robots in sight, trailer totally tricked us!"  Or even critics calling the film uneven and schizophrenic in execution.

But fuck 'em I say!

At the risk of sounding disparaging (*cough*) this is one of those...novels isn't it? I don't know what to call them exactly. Mostly I call them Vonnegut following spiritu-humanist sci-fi, sort of Magic Realism turned up to 11 and frequently a way to get the high lit' crowd to read fantasy without knowing it.  A lot of time jumping, deja vu, a lot of "we are all connected.  Deep down you have always known this", a lot of Chopra in the Amazon recommends.  ( I said it was going to sound disparaging)

The trailer is certainly selling it so, and it's fundamentally off putting, even though it looks interesting in many respects and has Bae Doona in it.  I guess I'm asking; is it like that but I'm being harsh and it's ok regardless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzman 

At the risk of sounding disparaging (*cough*) this is one of those...novels isn't it? I don't know what to call them exactly. Mostly I call them Vonnegut following spiritu-humanist sci-fi, sort of Magic Realism turned up to 11 and frequently a way to get the high lit' crowd to read fantasy without knowing it.  A lot of time jumping, deja vu, a lot of "we are all connected.  Deep down you have always known this", a lot of Chopra in the Amazon recommends.  ( I said it was going to sound disparaging)

 

The trailer is certainly selling it so, and it's fundamentally off putting, even though it looks interesting in many respects and has Bae Doona in it.  I guess I'm asking; is it like that but I'm being harsh and it's ok regardless?

No.

Well good  (Life of Pi totally is though right?)

I thought Life Of Pi was much better, personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzman 

Well good  (Life of Pi totally is though right?)

I've never read Life of Pi, but from what I've heard from others, yes. 

I'm pretty jaded when it comes to sci-fi, but the two sci-fi chapters alone make Cloud Atlas worth it.

I don't see how I can avoid watching this, but man is it ever going to be a disaster commercially. What do people expect from the Wachowskis? Matrix shit. What does this have nothing to do with (based on appearances)? Matrix shit. Looks like there's action a-plenty here, and I'll try to at least crack open the book before this hits theaters, but I don't see this being a big financial success whatsoever.

Which is, of course, the least interesting way to come at the movie. But I had to say it. Regardless, this well could be one of the year's best if it's cohesive enough to keep all of the abstraction and weirdness of the trailer in check and give the production a sense of harmony. Visually, it looks stunning, and that cast. Damn.

I bought the book to read on the plane solely on the news about this movie.  After finishing it, I have to say I have grave doubts about how this can be pulled off.  I don't think the W's are bad film makers, but it seems like making any kind of sensible adaptation that isn't 3+ hours long would require some sort of genius-level ability.  When reading the book, the first section ended so abruptly I spent a few minutes trying to figure out if there were pages missing.  If this is a faithful adaptation, it's going to ask a lot of it's audience.

I think the Wachowskis have genius-level technical ability, at the least, and I think Tykwer is incredibly talented as well (everybody's forgetting Tykwer).

Good. Audiences should have more demanded of them. It may turn out to be heady, incoherent self-indulgence, but I'll take that over the same old generic crap anytime. The movie will either be brilliant or a disaster. Hell, it could be both. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

I think the interesting thing about this adaptation is whether they truly stick to the 'nested storyline' and not jump back and forth, because otherwise some (impatient and dumb) viewers might get bored after the first three stories waiting for the sci-fi action hijinks visible in the trailer.  I can already imagine people walking out 30 mins into the movie muttering "boring, no kick ass robots in sight, trailer totally tricked us!"  Or even critics calling the film uneven and schizophrenic in execution.

 

But fuck 'em I say!

In answer to my earlier query, I've since read (can't remember where, might of been an early screening review) that the film does not follow the nested approach of the book, and in fact goes back and forth between each story throughout the film.  This does not come as a surprise and probably makes the most sense in order to adapt the story to film.  The important factor is in what points do they go back and forth, and how they achieve it.

I'm halfway through the book now and I'm really disappointed to hear that they're just going to cut back and forth. It seems to defeat the purpose and really hinder the wonderful, challenging structure of the book. Maybe they'll surprise me, but I really hope that it's just not true. 

Intriguing New Yorker piece on the making of the film. David Mitchell's on board with whatever they do:

He sounds genuine, not much like someone talking up a project because it might improve his book sales.

Great article. After years of being so elusive, it's nice to read the Washowskis being so candid.

I haven't liked much of anything they've done outside the first two Matrix films, but they have undeniable talent and their integrity and passion makes me want to root for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

Intriguing New Yorker piece on the making of the film. David Mitchell's on board with whatever they do:

 

 

 

He sounds genuine, not much like someone talking up a project because it might improve his book sales.

Thanks for that. I've read that he was included in a lot of the decisions before, which is great. I'm still really looking forward to this and the more I think about it he more I think it's possible that they shake up the structure a bit. The book was fantastic, by the way.

Didn't like Atlas quite as much as 1000 Autumns but it's like comparing Ruth and DiMaggio.  Looks like they did justice to it - which is pretty impressive if it turns out to be true.
 

Probably should point out that the New Yorker article has considerable spoilers in it, including what is arguably the climax of the book and (presumably) the movie.

Good thing I usually skip such summaries in film related pieces.  I'd like to say that it's because I'm trying to avoid being spoiled (someone slap me if you ever catch me exclaiming SPOILERS or SPOILER ALERT!!!... I'm so sick of hearing it), but it's really because I'm skimming and reading story/plot descriptions is deadly dull to me.

I wonder if the author of that article got too close to have any semblance of objectivity, but it sounds like they really nailed it.

I've watched the long trailer five or six times and get the goosebumps every time but I think the new, standard length one, while it doesn't have quite the emotional punch, is even more effective at making the whole shebang seem like it's just crazy enough to work. The match cuts malarky works a treat.

http://www.chud.com/106056/new-cloud-atlas-trailer-is-shorter-no-less-stunning/

Mr. Beaks

https://twitter.com/mrbeaks/status/244609180198133760

YES!!!

D-Fizzle

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/244599364532715520

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/244600991566151680

NO!