How does this compare to The Theory of Everything?

I have not seen both, but saw "The Theory of Everything" yesterday. Theory is a look at Hawking's personal life, with very little science. I was a bit disappointed and gave Theory a 7/10. However, Eddie Redmayne's portrayal of Hawking is remarkable and worthy of all accolades he may receive for this performance.

Now, I'm off to Amazon to order "Hawking" with Cumberbatch.

Since it's been about a month since you posted this question, perhaps you've seen "Theory" by now. If you have seen Theory, I'd be interested in what you think.

I have to say I actually preferred Theory of Everything, which I just saw in the theater last weekend. Like so many others, I discovered "Hawking" through Benedict's other films ("Third Star" being my favorite so far), but had not watched it all the way through until tonight.

"Hawking" was made for TV and feels like it; there is none of the grand sweep or scale of "Theory of Everything" with some of its grander crane shots, tracking shots, and handheld camera work. It almost feels like watching live theater as there are relatively few locations and these are mostly indoors.

There were three main things that stood out for me about "Hawking": first and most jarringly, the framing used (cutting between 1978 and 1963). It is unclear until much later in the movie who the two men are and why their discovery is important. I also found their dialogue (which is supposed to be a live TV interview) stilted, with some unnecessary subplots thrown in. The script also takes liberties by inserting several fictional events and scenes at key moments, and for me these were some of the weaker moments.

The time period covered is much shorter than "Theory of Everything" (I believe this only covers from 1963 - 1965 or so). The compression of time and lack of backstory is what makes this much harder to follow, particularly with viewers who are not familiar with Professor Hawking or his work. This could have benefitted from an extra half hour as it actually feels TOO short in some ways; I found the ending particularly abrupt.

"Hawking" focuses much more on the personal (Hawking's relationship with his PhD supervisor Dennis Sciama and mentor Roger Penrose, and his relationship with his parents), although there is more science discussed overall. There are many lovely small moments where everyone tries to maintain a sense of normalcy around Stephen's illness. His budding relationship with Jane plays a role, but nowhere near as much as "Theory of Everything"; I think his parents have more screentime than Jane does. This allows the writers to humanize Stephen's early years; his father reminisces about an incident while stargazing, and both his parents struggle in their own ways coming to terms with his increasing disability and the powerlessness of "modern" medicine to treat it.

Also, although Stephen's disability tends to be up front and center in several scenes (issues with his slurred speech and weak hands), it was here that I had major difficulties buying Benedict's portrayal as the slurred speech and degrading motor skills tend to come and go from shot to shot (and not in a sequential decline like "Theory of Everything") it distracted me quite a bit and I noticed a YouTube reviewer also pointed this out:

"I know everyone's totally in love with this movie but I couldn't help noticing that his mobility kept changing. one scene he can't hold a fork but suddenly he's gripping chalk, moving around the platform like a street performer. I like Bencums as much as the next girl but I couldn't get past this."

Overall I feel Benedict does an excellent job considering this was one of his first major roles (until "Hawking," he had mainly played roles on several TV shows); it's a shame he didn't get more recognition 10 years ago as he was so clearly a force to be reckoned with. Benedict was the first to portray Professor Hawking on screen and had the opportunity to meet with him before and during filming, and Hawking actually has a cameo in the film (on the train, he is in the train car passing by as Benedict is listening to the woman talking about the Cambridge platform).

I was strongly rooting for Benedict to win Best Actor for "Imitation Game," but after seeing Eddie Redmayne's astounding portrayal (he literally becomes Professor Hawking through the use of prosthetics, clever costuming and camera angles; I never felt as though I was watching an actor), I really hope that "Theory of Everything" picks up at least one or two Oscars. (I will post more on "Theory of Everything" vs. "Hawking" tomorrow!)

On to "Theory of Everything." Being a film vs. made-for-TV movie opens up several avenues; mainly, the screenplay is based on Jane's memoir "Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen." There is much more on-location and outdoor scenes than "Hawking," also a much grander / larger scale, particularly the impressive May Ball scene, rowing scenes and tons of extras. The cinematography and camera work is impeccable (I am truly sad that "Theory of Everything" was not nominated for Best Cinematography, truly a pity!). Costumes and prosthetics go a LONG way into the complete physical transformation of Eddie as Stephen; also, he had several months to prepare himself physically for the role, including making detailed charts of Stephen's ALS progression as he was shooting up to three different time periods in a single day. He also had a team of coaches (including voice coaches and a choreographer) to help him accurately portray the muscle wasting (aided by prosthetics, increasingly baggier clothes and larger wheelchairs to make the wasting more pronounced). Benedict, on the other hand, only had a week of rehearsals, so this hardly seems a fair comparison; he, like Eddie, visited several ALS patients and filmed them as preparation for his role.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, for a film that hinges on the interplay of genius vs. disability, I never for a moment felt I was watching Eddie Redmayne act; his transformation is so total and there are such raw moments that it was at times hard to watch. Benedict gave a very strong performance in "Hawking," but the biggest difference for me was that the disability aspect seems to come and go between scenes (there is no sense of sustained decline, and the slurred speech seemed to come and go from scene to scene; it was particularly played up with the cabbie, but in the next scene he is speaking nearly normally again, which kept snapping me out of the moment).

"Theory of Everything" covers a much larger time period (1963 - late 1990s), allowing the story to unfold much more gradually. Also, the emphasis is more on his relationship with Jane than his scientific discoveries / advances, which are vastly simplified and represented in visual terms rather than scientific ones. I did like that the intro to the film set the stage (the opening party scene in Hawking took me a while to realize that it was his mother who opened the door, and who Jane was - there is very little in the way of introduction or scene-setting).

As far as portraying science on screen, I loved that "Theory of Everything" included the Cambridge lab where many important science breakthroughs were made; like "Hawking," we are shown Stephen writing equations on blackboards. The "Eureka" moments in "Theory of Everything" tend to be visual representations rather than the invented scenes in "Hawking" (the train station platform).

The most powerful thing for me about "Theory of Everything" was that actual artifacts are used (Stephen's real-life thesis signature, diploma, and medal, and Jane offered Hawking family clothing to the producers), and Stephen's trademarked voice synthesizer delivers the actual dialogue for the final third of the film (I believe that some the text is from the 2012 Paralympics Opening Ceremony, if I'm not mistaken).

As a lifelong fan of Professor Hawking (he was my idol / role model as a teenage geeky Aspie obsessed with science), I love both portrayals for different reasons. Once again Benedict astounds with his ability to inhabit a character with intellect and physicality, particularly as this was his first major role, it is quite impressive indeed. Some of the issues with "Hawking" stem more from the made-for-TV format and writing choices (especially the way the transitions between 1978 / 1960s were handled), but both films are wonderful in their own ways and well worth seeing.

Hawking would be hard to beat.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

i need to check this out before I see the theory of everything

Definitely Hawking. Period.

Theory of Everything is based on his wife's autobiography and deals with their relationship. It barely touches his work. Not informative. Makes it look like Stephen has almost no support from his family, only her religious wife, which is so wrong. And their arguments about if god exists are so cheap. Typical overly dramatized Oscar bait fest.
Proof: Eddie Redmayne lobbying for an Oscar like nobody else. Pathetic.

Hawking is greater in every aspect. It focuses on Hawking's work like no other documentary could achieve, while telling his personal life and disease fairly. To me, being a good TV film is more glorious than being an oscar bait.

In some ways i think it is better - there is more about Stephen's work than there is in Theory of Everything. It is also a bit more accurate about how Stephen and Jane met - at a party in their home town, St Albans, not in Cambridge (Jane did not go to Cambridge university). And they had only been out together once before he was diagnosed, wheras Theory of Everything suggests a much longer relationship before his diagnosis.
But hawking only covers the beginning of his career, it does not cover 25 years like Theory of everything does. i think theory of Everything is good for showing how their marriage progressed, though of course it has to leave out a lot.