Talk:A Sound of Thunder (film)

Chicago films
added category "chicago films". if you've ever seen the movie you know that it's clearly based in a futuristic chicago. Jay Bones 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen the movie, but I've never been to Chicago, probably never will go there, even with time travel agencies. How do you know that I'm supposed know "that it's clearly based in a futuristic chicago", and not any other nondescript city? --2003:C6:370A:9AA3:E8CF:BBC4:549A:25D8 (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

List of characters that die
Might I propose that we add a list of the characters that die, i could do it but I would need to know the characters last names (I don't bother to stick around after the credits).09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize this was posted a while ago (by someone who didn't sign their name), but I don't think a list of who dies is relevant or noteworthy to the film (as technically, everyone ceased to exist at the climax, and as the film's resolution created a grandfather paradox, nullified the events of the entire film.) Erpbridge (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much
Too much speculation (and typos) in the article. Lots42 (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific and logical inaccuracies
I question the need to have a section on 'Scientific and logical inaccuracies' regarding a work of science fiction. The comment regarding the inaccuracy of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and zero tolerance is definitely a subjective conclusion. The Uncertainty Principle does clearly state at the quantum level that the outcome of even an ideal measurement of a system is not deterministic. This does imply that absolute tolerance in any given system is not attainable. There is a good explanation of this conclusion in 'Common Sense of Science' by Jacob Bronowski. ZenMomentum 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This section confuses me. This movie is about TIME TRAVEL. If the movie states that shooting a T-Rex millions of years ago means Australia never existed, then that is movie-fact. Lots42 (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I watched this movie today, and I think the 'Scientific and logical inaccuracies' section of the main article is a) unnecessary and irrelevant (I agree with both ZenMomentum and Lots42 above); and b) is itself rather non-sensical, because it cites without reference the opinion that "A basic principle in the movie is that every wave of time has another step in evolution". This is original research surely? And anyway, it is missing the point. I think what the movie is trying to show is that the time waves that result from the change in the past come in a sequence that is analogous to the sequence in which the earth and everything on it came into being, i.e. the actual planet formed first, developing an atmosphere and thus climate and weather, then plant life evolved on land (the movie takes place on land, not out at sea, so we can ignore oceanic life evolution in this argument), followed in theory by insects and other land-based arthropods, then lungfish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and lastly mammals and us (or something life that, I'm going by what I learned in school many years ago). In which case, the "time wave progression" major aspect of the movie makes perfect sense (within the context of a "time-travel paradox" movie anwyway). Peter Inns (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing that always bothered me: paint and bullets are introduced into the time line. Wouldn't they matter, or at least be capable of mattering, as much as butterfly? (I guess the difference is that the butterfly had a reproductive life ahead of it. Bradbury was a poet, after all.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:7C0C:8988:B863:F86D (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Butterfly
I removed part of a sentence that said that it's conceivable that the butterfly flew away from the eruption. How the heck is a butterfly supposed to escape from an erupting volcano. Besides, when it was last shown at the end of the movie, it was flying towards the volcano. 218.215.148.66 06:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits on behind the scenes have suggested that the Butterfly in the film is a reference to the butterfly effect in Chaos Theory. However, the butterfly is also found in the novel, and to quote "Bradbury's story pre-dates Lorenz's work by nearly 10 years". The butterfly in the film is there because it was there in the book, and not in reference to Chaos. Babakathy (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bringing a butterfly *forward in time* that was seconds away from being incinerated couldn't have any effect on anything in the past. The other major failure of the film is all three safari parties shown travel back to the exact same time and location but don't meet each other, yet when Ryer is sent back alone he meets the second safari group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the person above me. Why didn't the people meet the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.76.100 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How much was Ray Bradbury paid...
...to let Hyams, et al, butcher his short story? Granted, it wasn't that good in the first place (how can the death of a single butterfly change contemporary politics, while leaving everything else unaltered?), but Bradbury (like Ellison) has always been touchy about adaptations. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on A Sound of Thunder (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802144821/http://www.filmcritic.com:80/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/A-Sound-of-Thunder to http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/A-Sound-of-Thunder

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Previsualization software was used"
Yeah, sure. From the fact that this is mentioned and the fact that the budget was slashed, I infer that this is supposed to mean: "Previsualization software was used for final rendering" - correct? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:7C0C:8988:B863:F86D (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Trivia
After their return from a Time Safari Charles Hatton congratulates the clients saying: "Today you stood shoulder to shoulder with Columbus discovering America, Armstrong stepping on the moon, Brubaker landing on Mars." Director Peter Hyams shot 1978 the film "Capricorn One" where an astronaut with the name Brubaker should land on Mars. 46.223.163.128 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)