But that final scene absolutely *made* the whole story. Dear God, can't people get their heads round this sort of thing?

Agree with Paul, that final seen was the culmination of the whole book - the necessary end. As I get older the more pessimistic I get about seeing any movie. They either totally change, "revamp," or simply remake a older movie over and over.

I have long since realized that you will never be able to faithfully adapt a book or short story to film. I have seen some that have come closer than most (original Poseidon Adventure) and some that have shared nothing with the original but the title (The Lawnmower Man). Hell, even when the story is being written at the same time that the movie is being made, they don't always match (2001).

The main problem is that books tend to hold a lot more plot and subplot than can be fit into a movie (think any Harry Potter book) and would be better served as televised miniseries (but only if each episode had no commercial interruptions - commercials force the writers to change the pace of the story that you have a climactic moment every 7 - 10 minutes so that you won't switch channels).

The best that you can do is simply take the film for the 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours of escapism that it was intended to be and not try to compare it too harshly to its non-film counterpart.

how about if for once Hollywood quits bastardizing adaptations. Trying ending the movie the way to book ended per the authors intentions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOLOW THE BOOK FOR ONCE! When screen writers deviate from the novels, the movie sucks!

I agree that I wish movie-makers would try to stay closer to the books they base their movies on, but that doesn't always make a better movie! Remember the original Firestarter? Except for the ridiculous way they changed the ending (shades of Time Traveler's Wife!), the movie was about as close to the book as you can get and guess what? While the book was engrossing and exciting, the movie was BORING! It just depends on the book. And as someone has already pointed out, if you did a straight adaptation of most novels they'd be four or five hours long! I think we have to expect some modification as the story changes mediums, but filmmakers need to be sure that they understand the point of the book in the first place and stay true to that message.

Anybody remember "I Am Legend"? The cut ending, from the book of course, was THE POINT OF THE WHOLE FRICKIN' MOVIE. The monsters turn out to be good people, and Neville turns out to be their monster of legend. But no, Hollywood knows best. At least Peter Jackson got it right.

So let me get this straight, you originally followed the ending of the book, but then changed it because some illiterates who have never read the book didn't like it? What about the millions who have read the book and want it to end that way and are now pissed because it was changed?

Better ending than the book, eh? Yeah, they said that about Watchmen as well.

I was already dissapointed that the trailer made the movie look like a 'generic chick flick' (my wife's words, not mine).

I'll just spend my movie ticket money on something else, and just re-read the book.

As usual, the constant dumbing down of everything (does art by committee sound like a good idea to any one? Ask the auto industry how that one worked for them...) continues unabated. Let's just keep on lowering everything until we reach the lowest common denominator! Fun! Because, you know, that bottom 20% of humans that are essentially functionally retarded should have their say!

Trueman 832. I agree Peter Jackson did a great job with Lord of the Rings, but even he changed the ending. The Shire was decimated by Saruman in the books, very important in Tolkien's work as an allegory to England's devastation by the Nazi's due to sitting back and doing nothing for too long. Not crucial to the center plot of the movies.

I gave up on this film months ago when I read that the film's director said he discarded the book's ending for a "happy ending." The book is bittersweet, not feel good. You can't just say the test audiences were idiots, so are the people making the film who want to give viewers pablum. Jerks

I just saw an ad for this in the cinema yesterday and it looked atrocious; then again, all trailers look cheesy these days.

It's always a mistake to listen to test audiences. It's why the more realistic ending of "Fatal Attraction" was changed; it's why there's no conversation between CSM and Mulder in "Fight the Future".

It's common sense, when you see something out of the ordinary, your instinct is to react negatively to anything sad because you don't want to feel that way. But, if given enough time, most people are happier because it gives the story a poignancy it would otherwise lack.

My instinct at the end of "The Wrestler" was sad, but, in the end, I realized it made a better movie. Ditto "Goodbye Solo".

The book's ending is what made me hate it. I was loving it up to that point, then I got to Henry's letter, which I thought was a dbaggy move on his part.

This book was awful and the movie will be the same - no matter how it ends.

Looks like I'm going to completely ignore this movie, I probably won't even bother watching it on HBO. Another piece of Hollywood trash with absolutely zero artistic vision or integrity. Happy Happy Joy Joy. Just what the world needed.

The ending to the book was perfect.
How could these idiots change it?
I'm hoping they will have the right ending available as an option at least for the DVD. That I might watch.

Oh, and when is Syfy going to fix this Comments feature so it works with Firefox???

Actually, the last scene of the book was not good. It made no sense and ruined what had been built up until then. I think it makes sense to chuck it.

OMG!!! The ending of the book was so important to the book. The fact that Clare spent her whole life waiting for Henry. Throughout the book, and then at the end. After all the agony and trials that they had gone through, it was such an emotional meeting at the end. Wow, Hollywood caters to the illiterates once again.

I haven't read the book and know only a bit about the story; however, from what I know, it seems very similar to a plot used in a Deep Space Nine episode, where Benjamin Cisco became unfixed in time and continued to reappear throughout the life of his son Jake. It was definitely on of the better DS9 episodes and I wonder if the author of The Time Traveler's Wife got his or her inspiration from it.

Now we get a feel good ending for all the Reality show junkies so they can understand it?

Zathras,

You're thinking of "The Visitor," with Tony Todd playing an elderly Jake Sisko. One of DS9's better stories, right up there with TNG's "Tapestry" and "The Inner Light," and classic Trek's "City on the Edge of Forever."

SO, yet another changed ending to satisfy a Test Audience (possibly comprised of lowest-common-denominator targets). No more smart film-making, no asking the audience to think a little. Just use a happy ending because that's what the American people want. Give up on making films if this is the way you think. We'd be better off without your 'expertise'.

I knew this was a story that would ruin my desire to watch the movie. All I had to read was see the phrase, "test audiences" to figure that out.

While I doubt anyone in Hollywood will read this, here's the big "secret": test audiences NEVER get it right! Never have, never will, end of story. Anyone who's ever listened to a DVD commentary by say, Neil Jordan or Kevin Smith will tell you that whenever they acceded to the studio's demands to use test audiences and make changes per those people's tastes ended up with a box office dud, or at the very least, a film that fell far below what the filmmakers (and core fan base, if it existed) actually enjoyed or felt proud of.

Why anyone would trust the opinions of randomly selected people, usually picked solely based on age and unintelligently designed surveys eludes all logic. According to Smith, the survey for "Mallrats" test audience participants asked little more than "Did you like 'Clerks'?" and "Are you a fan of Shannon Doherty?" You can imagine the horrid mash-up of people they ended up with. I doubt the studio did much better for this film, whose own director seems desperate to avoid it being even slightly suggested to be a sci-fi story.

My enjoyment will be in seeing the movie fail miserably and then see the director desperately hocking the "director's cut" with the original ending and appealing to sci-fi fans to go out and buy it.

I CANNOT BELIEVE I am reading this!!! That scene absolutely makes the book and ties everything together!!!!!! It also ties together Time and Longing which is a constant theme in the book/movie. BESIDES the audience did not need to be confused..in the book, Henry tells Clare that he will visit him one last time when she is old. So she waits...how can they have done this...urgh. I understand that the movie will inevitably be different than the book..but how can the author let this one slide...it's really heartbreaking..:(

The book was so good and I was hoping the movie would be just as good, but if you go and change the ending it ruins the whole thing. If you don't have it ending with Claire being 82 then what's the point really. He is a time traveler here people, what's so hard to get about it. This has just ruined the whole excitement of going to see the movie, I dont know if I will even bother to go see it now.

Please tell me that Henry dies!!! I know that is a little morbid, but if I have to watch another movie (aka my sister's keeper) where the ending is changed so dramatically I am going to be really pissed. I fell in love with this book when I read the manuscript and have reread it so many times after. I want to give the movie a chance, but I just don't know.

Could not disagree with you guys more. Now that I know the movie doesn't end the way the book does - which was depressing as hell, I will probably watch it. It isn't about being illiterate - it is the fact that real life sucks enough - we go to the movies to escape it. For a short time, we can live vicariously through the happiness on the screen. What is so happy about poor Clare waiting all her life for one last brief moment with Henry? So before you all go and label people illiterate, or label people AT ALL - why don't you try to understand how people feel? Or have you all forgotten how to empathize?

No, the ENTIRE book is about longing, as someone here said. If part of your life's work was this phenomenal book and some idiot came along and decided the ending was too "sad" or hard to understand and changed it, you'd be pissed. It was an intelligent book with heart and now the movie will likely suck because of this change. There is nothing happy about Claire waiting her whole life for him for one brief moment, but that was REAL. It showed the depth of her love for him that she would even do that. SOME people go to movies to escape and others to think and learn a different point of view. Maybe YOU should not label all movie-goers as escapists.

Actually, according to Niffenegger herself, the book is a testament to her own failed affairs. However, if I had spent 4 years writing my 1st book , then have 25 literary agents reject it, then have it not only published but turned into a motion picture - I think I would be so deliriously happy that I'd HELP them re-write the ending anyway they wanted. I'm sure she was paid handsomely and either had some say in how the movie ending was changed, or gave up that right in a contract. I think the ending will draw people to it rather than "suck". My original intention was not to watch when I thought they would end it like the book. I'll definitely rent it now.

BTW - if you want to read a really good time travel book that SHOULD be made into a movie, try Dean Koontz's "Lightening". They wouldn't even have to change the ending to that one since it had a good ending already - a happy one.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
What is wrong with these morons? The book with the ending is beloved by all. I doubt I want to see the movie if this is true. Thanks for nothing.

GRRRRRRR stupid test audiences!! Probably hadn't even read the book to realise how pivotal that scene is..just saw My Sisters Keeper, another hollywood end as opposed to the books ending, why cant they keep movies the same as books!! Its not hard, they've got it written out for them!

I loved the ending of the book, and didn't know the ending of the film was changed untill the last moment. Was I disappointed. At least the real version will probably be on DVD. However there were some touching moments and the movie and the ending weren't bad. The acting was good. People who hadn't read the book will probably enjoy it more.

Sigh.

Didn't read the book but saw the movie. The movie SUCKED. So if it's based on the book then the book must suck as well.

I actually liked the movie better than the book. Ending included. I just really loved it. The movie seemed so much sweeter and more romantic than the book...