^
Its ends similarly in the book (the family taking him), but imo leaves it to the reader to determine if they were "bad guys".

6/1/2010 5:53:01 PM

words

Quote :

"The movie sticks to the book probably more so than any I've seen. I enjoyed both."

but does it do a good job of presenting the same material? I think the adaptation of Ian McEwan's Atonement is great. It sticks with the original material and does a great job of adapting it to film so that it still works in all the same ways. Entices the same emotions, the same questions, etc. Do you think the film, independent of the book, was able to do that as well as the book?



here are some things I didn't like about the movie and wonder if they're different/come across better in the book:

Most of the suspenseful moments were them running into cannibals. I get that it was a major problem, for a movie it was kinda of one-trick pony. Again, I think some things just come across better in a book than a movie. There is an amount of self-pacing with a book in that reading it will probably take more than 2hrs. Plus, you may read several chapters a day as opposed to the whole thing at once. And having multiple encounters of that sort may come across differently when it didn't just happen literally 15 minutes ago (from the viewer perspective). It was cannibal run-in, cannibal run-in with more horrific imagery, cannibal run-in. I could have done with a little less of that and more of just the 2 of them.


I also thought the dad was a complete idiot during the "cannibal house" scene, and I may have gotten a different feel from the book. After being about 3 feet into the house (maybe 30 seconds of footage), it was very apparent that someone was living in the house - both in what was in the house and how it was situated, as well as to the viewer in how the scene was shot. The kid seemed to notice and tried to voice that concern. The father on the other hand seemed to not notice. Or maybe he did and was just ignoring it in hopes of finding food or supplies and bolting (making the starving issue seem more pressing would have made more sense of that maybe). But it seemed so reckless and idiotic, why not have the boy stand watch while you look around? actually, with cannibals so easy to come by, i'd always have someone watch if I was in a building which limited my view of anyone approaching. One encounter with someone trying to eat me, or even just the confirmed existence of it, and I would never be so reckless or seemingly care free as to just walk into a big ass house and taking my time looking around, breaking into shit, etc. without someone watching for someone to return. - and running upstairs instead of out back? ehh, that's straight out of bad horror movies 101. Although, it did lead to a great scene in which the father was going to shoot the boy.

- again, maybe the book didn't make it so apparent that someone was living in that house. But the movie used camera shots to get that point across to the viewer as soon as they entered the house. And I couldn't help from the first few seconds of that scene but think what a GD idiot the father was. And he didn't seem to be stupid enough to not notice the house was in use, nor did it seem that was very risky. From his character in other parts of the story, I would have assumed he would got out of there as soon as he noticed someone was living there. That seemed kind of inconsistent.


The boy annoyed the shit out of me at times, particularly how whiny he was in some scenes. And maybe he was like this in the book. I get that he is a kid and what not. But people grow up faster in certain situations. The kid's reactions to things didn't seem realistic to me given the environment he grew up in. At times he seemed appropriately indifferent and more attuned to what was going on. And at other times his reactions seemed to be intended to reflect those of someone recently thrown into it (for ex. the viewer) and who had knowledge of society before it degraded so much.


I thought that was pretty inconsistent. But I'm OK with that if it were meant to illustrate that, even though they're accustomed to this way of life and are trudging along, sometimes the emotions just overcome them. - for ex. I thought the scene where the father was in his childhood home was a good example of that. No real good reason to be there, but i understand him wanting to go and getting caught up in being there. I just didn't feel that the film did a good job of making it seem like that's what was going on at certain points - if that was the intention.


I felt like some parts they did very well, for ex. avoiding the disaster and what not. There's no need to know what happened, how, or why it happened. All we need to know is this is the situation our characters are in. I'm glad they didnt go into that more. The scene in the bathroom in the cannibal house was good. the fear they were able to show was very good throughout. The bunker stuff was really good. But I've read in reviews of the book and what not that the boy was kind of always wanting to help the people they came across. They showed that with the old man they found. But in the context of the film, while benevolent, it also seemed a little naive/retarded. Same with when he ran after the teenager he thought he saw. In the context of the movie; they'd only come across murdering, cannibals and the kid has been living in this situation his entire life... you don't have to be an asshole, but to not be skeptical of other people is a bit unbelievable.


I've had the book laying around for... shoot, yrs probably; so I'm just gonna read it and see if I think it does a better job of telling the story or not... i'm leaning toward (and hoping for) yes. But feel free from saving me from disappointment if the things i didn't like about the movie still exist/come across the same in the book.

[Edited on June 1, 2010 at 9:15 PM. Reason : shoot, longer than i thought]

6/1/2010 9:10:57 PM

Quote :

"I also thought the dad was a complete idiot during the "cannibal house" scene, and I may have gotten a different feel from the book. After being about 3 feet into the house (maybe 30 seconds of footage), it was very apparent that someone was living in the house - both in what was in the house and how it was situated, as well as to the viewer in how the scene was shot. The kid seemed to notice and tried to voice that concern. The father on the other hand seemed to not notice. Or maybe he did and was just ignoring it in hopes of finding food or supplies and bolting"

To me it looked like the father knew people were living there but wanted to steal some food before they came back. Or maybe he hoped the owners were recently deceased like the suicide family in the barn. Remember when they came to the cellar and he said, "this is locked for a reason" ... to keep prospective thieves away from their food. There would've been no reason for the pre-apocalypse owner to lock the cellar. The kid caught on that the owners were cannibals from the pile of shoes, but the dad missed it.

also the movie made it pretty clear that they don't see people very often. almost every building they went into was totally empty

6/1/2010 10:37:54 PM

I loved the book.

6/1/2010 10:39:49 PM

Good point about it possibly being someone who recently died and what not. I can buy that and i recall the kid seeing all of the shoes, so it's possible the father just didn't see that and realize what was going on.

And, I know why he wanted to get into the basement. It just seemed very obvious what was going on, and that the kid realized it. Yet there he was, ending up in a bathroom ready to kill his son. Not going out the back. Not listening to his son who wasn't being forward enough to just tell him what he saw/thought, not having his son keep a look out while he went in the house. His actions were full of stupid.


I don't agree that the movie made it clear that they didn't see people often. I'd actually say the movie made it seem like they DID see people pretty often. It was difficult to tell how much time had passed during the movie. And while the buildings/towns were desolate and what not, they ran across people throughout the entire film. Starting with the cannibals/guy he killed. Then the house of cannibals, the "dog/people" that caused the father to want to leave the bunker (which turned out to be the people at the end), then the old man, then the cannibals chasing down the people who seemed to not be cannibals.

Maybe I missed something (and let me know if i did) and the movie somehow suggested that all of that took place over a year and those were their only encounters with people. But from what I saw, it could have just as easily taken place over a couple of weeks.

[Edited on June 1, 2010 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2010 11:21:08 PM

Quote :

"The boy annoyed the shit out of me at times, particularly how whiny he was in some scenes. And maybe he was like this in the book. I get that he is a kid and what not. But people grow up faster in certain situations. The kid's reactions to things didn't seem realistic to me given the environment he grew up in. At times he seemed appropriately indifferent and more attuned to what was going on. And at other times his reactions seemed to be intended to reflect those of someone recently thrown into it (for ex. the viewer) and who had knowledge of society before it degraded so much. "

i also remembered thinking this while watching the movie. i would imagine that if all you know is that environment, you would be pretty "grown up" at his age. you'd be extremely watchful for predators (cannibals), know where to find food, know where to hide, etc. the boy seemed almost too naive to have known nothing BUT that existance

6/1/2010 11:40:03 PM

^
A kid that age seeing what he had seen might be too traumatized to act how one would think he should.

6/3/2010 5:31:45 PM

A kid that age growing up in the suburbs, spending his evenings at soccer practice and swim club suddenly thrown into that lifestyle... absolutely. He would be traumatized because it would be so drastically different than his day to day life.

A kid who has never known any other way of life? i don't think so. he has no frame of reference for what is "normal" for most people. for example his father (who knew what society was like before the disaster) didn't grow up seeing bodies and cannibals. The kid should be 100% accustomed to seeing dead bodies and knowing that cannibals are around, know that it's smart to stay away from people you don't know, etc. And he should have picked up skills, learned "tactics/strategy" from his father along the way. I mean, at what point to you start expecting a little, idk, assistance from the kid? "You check out that pile of crap, I'll check out his pile" "you stand outside the door while I check it out. You see anybody, come and get me."


I would feel very odd and uncomfortable if someone told me I had to go prepare a dead body for a viewing tomorrow. I really thing I would be too weirded out to do it. But I bet if my family had been in the funeral parlor business for 3 generations and I grew up around it, my ability to be around that would probably be second nature. I'd probably be able to easily talk about a dead body like it's.. idk, a thing - differently than most people would anyway. Have no problem moving it around, putting make-up on them, dressing them, etc. In the latter situation, it would be something I grew up with and was very accustomed to doing. You know, just another day of preparing a body for the deceased's loved ones to see their remains.

I'm also drawing on some personal experience of growing up in a less than ideal neighborhood and seeing and hearing about all kinds of screwed up shit from as far back as I can remember. There gets to be point where you're just jaded to stuff (fairly early on) and it doesn't have the same emotional impact it once did.


dead people and cannibals should be "the same old thing" for the kid. I don't believe he was realistically portrayed. And that may have been intentional for the viewer/reader to relate to him in certain ways and to see certain things through him. but none the less, I didn't like it. and beyond that, i thought his whining was just flat out annoying at times and I didn't care for the fact that he was essentially a 10-12 yr old infant.

[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/3/2010 8:44:59 PM

Late to the party, but I just finished the book last week. Not really that impressed. That's all I have to say about that.

6/5/2010 3:33:21 AM

Quote :

"Most of the suspenseful moments were them running into cannibals."

The book is similar in this regard, although it's not just that they're cannibals. The thief, after all, didn't try to eat anybody but his actions would have killed the man and the boy just the same. But what the hell else is there going to be suspense over? The only things alive are other people, and those other people are potentially very dangerous.

Quote :

"I could have done with a little less of that and more of just the 2 of them."

The book has more of the two of them, though there's still little dialogue.

Quote :

"I also thought the dad was a complete idiot during the "cannibal house" scene, and I may have gotten a different feel from the book."

The book doesn't emphasize the evidence of inhabitants quite so much as the film does, but it's about the same -- the boy knows what's up and the dad shushes him. The book also lacks the "hiding in the bathroom about to kill the boy" part.

Quote :

"I get that he is a kid and what not. But people grow up faster in certain situations. The kid's reactions to things didn't seem realistic to me given the environment he grew up in."

It's the same in the book and that's the point. It's not about realism so much as it is about comparing the man, who is a brutal, cold, cynical fucker to everybody but his son, with the boy, who's no idiot but still has hope and faith in humankind. If the boy was as big a hardcase as his dad, what point to even telling the story? Especially since, in the end, the kid is vindicated.

Quote :

"I'd actually say the movie made it seem like they DID see people pretty often."

I don't know if you're a hermit or something, but if you only see other human beings once every few days, that's pretty infrequent by normal standards.

It is, admittedly, difficult to convey the passage of time, though I don't know what they could have done differently to make it more clear. There's not much left in the way of weather, and even the day-night cycle isn't very dramatic. Meanwhile, the primary activity of the main characters on most days -- trudging along in silence -- isn't interesting enough to keep showing.

6/5/2010 8:44:15 PM

thanks for the info. in regard to how the book differs.

Quote :

"I don't know if you're a hermit or something, but if you only see other human beings once every few days, that's pretty infrequent by normal standards."

For people in our (normal) society, seeing new people every few days is infrequent - agreed. But in that (not normal) society -- we are talking about their experiences and not our own after all --, it seemed like seeing someone every few days would be plenty frequent enough considering they usually were either thieves or cannibals. Again the norm is the norm. If in that "world" people come across people every few days, that's neither frequent nor infrequent (or hermit-esque), just normal.

Plus, you took that comment out of context. I said that in reply to Nerdchick who said they didn't see people very often. i believe she said that as another reason why the father may not have seemed too concerned about the cannibal house. As in; they didn't come across people very often, so based on his experience, it was likely to be vacant.

My original point was: they come across people enough to know that A) there are other people around, and B) many of them are cannibals or not pleasant for some other reason. So in that context and imo, seeing people every few days is MORE THAN ENOUGH to learn that and to start being cautious when going into a house. Shoot, once a week or even a month would be enough. If you're cautious going in and have a lookout, all it does is take a little extra time. If nobody is there, you have plenty of time so that's not really a problem. If someone is there, it could be the difference between life and death.

Quote :

"It is, admittedly, difficult to convey the passage of time, though I don't know what they could have done differently to make it more clear. There's not much left in the way of weather, and even the day-night cycle isn't very dramatic. Meanwhile, the primary activity of the main characters on most days -- trudging along in silence -- isn't interesting enough to keep showing."

Again, I just mentioned that in context of their experience with running into people -- as in if the entire film (minus the flashbacks) took place within a week, they seemingly ran into people every day to every other day or so. If it took place over a year, then it's really difficult to tell how much time passes between each encounter.

And I'm not saying they could have done that better, but it was still a present factor which made it difficult to tell just how often they came across other people.

6/5/2010 10:39:02 PM

Quote :

"My original point was: they come across people enough to know that A) there are other people around, and B) many of them are cannibals or not pleasant for some other reason."

My impression from the book is that most of the people they encounter (usually be hearing or seeing them in the distance, because the Man avoids them so religiously) are on the road rather than sedentary, because an occupied house would be easy to spot and raid. In the book it is also stated that there are "communes" about, and although details were not many I didn't get the idea that the communes were full of cannibals.

But ultimately, of course you're right that the Man was being stupid, probably out of desperation. It's another situation where the Man is so single-mindedly obsessed that it is detrimental to him.

As to the timing, in the book (and I think in the movie, too, though I could be wrong and it probably wasn't emphasized anyway) they state that they're trying to make it to the coast before winter. So presumably all the events take place in summer, maybe with a little of spring and fall.

6/6/2010 3:27:34 AM

I read the book.... wasn't really a fan. Kind of reminded me of Old Man and the Sea, which I also didn't like.

I also realize I am very shallow when it comes to books. I am more of a Stephen King or J. R. R. Tolkien type of guy. I think it's because I am not good at using my imagination. A lot of you mention that you liked the fact that it didn't tell what happened (the apocalypse) and how everything came to be, because either it didn't matter to you or you like to use your imagination to figure out how they got there. I really prefer it when authors describe everything down to the most minute detail.

6/6/2010 10:23:18 AM

that is one of the saddest things i've ever read

6/6/2010 9:04:33 PM

^ the book, or that post

interestingly, one of the foundations of most good writing is "show, don't tell"

6/6/2010 9:14:21 PM

just watched it

glad i only paid $1.09

6/6/2010 11:41:36 PM

duro, I think you should read the book...one of the things that comes through in the book that doesn't come through as much in the movie is the sheer force of the kid's good nature DESPITE growing up in the miserable world he's grown up in. McCarthy purposely makes the kid a stubbornly benevolent character, not a hardened cynic. Though McCarthy has sometimes been labeled something of a nihilist (which is, as usual, completely inaccurate), a huge part of the book version of The Road is the testament to the survival of--as corny as it may sound--love, even after most of the world has turned to ruins. The boy has a resilient, indomitable love both for his father and for what remains of humanity in general. That really comes through in the book, most notably in the book version of the scene with Robert Duvall's character.

I say this in response to your suggestion that the boy wouldn't be traumatized growing up in the world.

Quote :

"interestingly, one of the foundations of most good writing is "show, don't tell""

And one might argue that McCarthy is one of the biggest current proponents for this school of thought. At least one who's read Blood Meridian.


[Edited on June 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2010 10:44:56 AM