Escape to the Movies: Life of Pi

[TheDrunkNinja]

Interesting. Bob calls the Life of Pi anti-atheist because it has a positive message for those with religion, while my Christian mother hated it because she thought the message was agnostic in nature devaluing certain religions.

Remember children, if the message of a movie doesn't line up with your personal beliefs perfectly, it is inherently against them.

Anyway, I found the sentiment a little more genuine than Bob, though I guess if you have ire for other one-sided message films like Narnia or the Golden Compass, I can understand why people would take umbrage with this film as well. That said, I wasn't as thrilled with it like others seem to be, though I had seen the absolutely brilliant Lincoln before this one so perhaps my bar had been set pretty high that week. But yeah, I don't shake my easily-offended fist at the film just because it adds value to the opinions of those who believe in a higher power. I think this is yet another movie review where Bob entered the theater with a bad attitude before the previews even rolled.

 

[AxelxGabriel]

It's not the religious message, it's that the religious message was dumb.

And how exactly was it dumb?

 

[lacktheknack]

I think you're mixing up "pro-theistic" with "anti-atheistic".

At any rate, it's certainly different than what ELSE is in theaters normally.

I plan on taking my Mom, we both loved the book.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

I think you're mixing up "pro-theistic" with "anti-atheistic".

At any rate, it's certainly different than what ELSE is in theaters normally.

I plan on taking my Mom, we both loved the book.

A very good point. The Life of Pi is very original and unique in visual style, tone, and message from what Hollywood usually puts out. Even if it's only an adaptation, it shouldn't matter if you don't agree with the subject material to appreciate the artistic value it holds.

 

[Terrible Opinions]

That's odd.

The book wasn't "anti-atheism" at all. And I hate to speculate on things I haven't experienced, but I suspect that the movie ain't, either.

 

[Arakasi]

I thought Bob was above butthurt /r/athiest whine-botting but I suppose nobody's perfect. God to me has always been a concept beyond the logistics of reality or fiction. Present in both, exclusive to neither. Saying he exists just because it's more fun that way is as good an argument as any for both sides of the debate. Really, the problem with God is that everyone's concept of him is too limited. God is unlimited, completely and utterly. Taken to it's logical extreme, there is no possible argument for his existence because any logical concept of him would define a limit to him that we can conceive of. He exists simply because he can't not exist, they same way you and I do. Pi's argument is that it is necessary for us to believe in God because it is necessary for us to be uplifted. The other half of that argument is that if God did not exist then it wouldn't be necessary for us to be uplifted in the first place.

I had to wipe the vomit from my mouth when I was done reading this one.
Let's start with the first sentence, oh, an ad hominem? Nicely done.
So God to you is beyond reality. I've got news for you, that would mean god doesn't exist.
God could easily exist, for you to say there is no limit on what god is, is putting a limit on what god is. You're saying that god can't be that backwards Christian god, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when in reality, god could be any of those things, you simply don't know.
Oh, and I don't exist because I don't exist. I exist because I exist.
Also, belief in god depresses me more than it uplifts me, so that kinda destroys your argument.

TLDR: Your post is nothing more than pseudo-philosophical tripe.

Behold, ladies and gentlemen! A butthurt /r/atheist whine-botter in the flesh! Please, don't feed it any intelligent discussion or it will shit everywhere and fling it back at you.

Oh bravo! Another ad hominem! You sure showed him!

Please enlighten us more with your bullshit, pseudo-intellectual, hipster philosophy. How about you regurgitate a half-arsed version of the ontological argument or reference some esoteric philosophical book you've never read.

Kill yourself.

Watch, by the time it works itself through that last sentence it will have completely lost control of its faculties and resorted to even more pathetically predictable insults. Fascinatingly dull creatures aren't they?

You don't see a certain sense of hypocracy in that statement? Wow.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Life of Pi
MovieBob takes us on a very special boat trip with Life of Pi.

Um, Bob. That "crunch time" intro thing was nice, but you already told us what you thought of Lincoln.

So, um...

What did you think of the Man with the Iron Fists?

 

[jecht35]

You know I got a completely different message from reading the book although it has been a few years, I enjoyed the book even though It was dull in a few places. Bob maybe you misunderstood a few thing or you stop paying attention half way through because of how annoying Pi was :3

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Man, that one strip of Calvin and Hobbes always gets to me (who would have thunk it?!).

Anyway, I'm an atheist, and I didn't find the story's morality too much in the "bash it over your head until you agree camp." Still, that was the book and I don't know if the movie focused more on that aspect. Personally, I don't find Pi grating (in the book at least) because it was easy enough for me to separate myself from him and think "well, this is what he believes, and I don't feel like he's trying to convert me."

 

[Arakasi]

I thought Bob was above butthurt /r/athiest whine-botting but I suppose nobody's perfect. God to me has always been a concept beyond the logistics of reality or fiction. Present in both, exclusive to neither. Saying he exists just because it's more fun that way is as good an argument as any for both sides of the debate. Really, the problem with God is that everyone's concept of him is too limited. God is unlimited, completely and utterly. Taken to it's logical extreme, there is no possible argument for his existence because any logical concept of him would define a limit to him that we can conceive of. He exists simply because he can't not exist, they same way you and I do. Pi's argument is that it is necessary for us to believe in God because it is necessary for us to be uplifted. The other half of that argument is that if God did not exist then it wouldn't be necessary for us to be uplifted in the first place.

I had to wipe the vomit from my mouth when I was done reading this one.
Let's start with the first sentence, oh, an ad hominem? Nicely done.
So God to you is beyond reality. I've got news for you, that would mean god doesn't exist.
God could easily exist, for you to say there is no limit on what god is, is putting a limit on what god is. You're saying that god can't be that backwards Christian god, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when in reality, god could be any of those things, you simply don't know.
Oh, and I don't exist because I don't exist. I exist because I exist.
Also, belief in god depresses me more than it uplifts me, so that kinda destroys your argument.

TLDR: Your post is nothing more than pseudo-philosophical tripe.

Behold, ladies and gentlemen! A butthurt /r/atheist whine-botter in the flesh! Please, don't feed it any intelligent discussion or it will shit everywhere and fling it back at you.

Oh bravo! Another ad hominem! You sure showed him!

Please enlighten us more with your bullshit, pseudo-intellectual, hipster philosophy. How about you regurgitate a half-arsed version of the ontological argument or reference some esoteric philosophical book you've never read.

Kill yourself.

Watch, by the time it works itself through that last sentence it will have completely lost control of its faculties and resorted to even more pathetically predictable insults. Fascinatingly dull creatures aren't they?

You don't see a certain sense of hypocracy in that statement? Wow.

Ah, the classic "hypocrite" comeback. Once I even saw one spell the word correctly, it's true. And now, my humble audience, comes comes the best part. If he doesn't reply to this comment, I win the argument he thinks he's having. If he does reply, I get to troll him even more.

Thanks for correcting me on the spelling of that, I've been using it incorrectly for quite a while.
As for the argument itself, the victor any argument is decided solely by the audience that interprets the argument, not merely who gets the last word in.
With this, I bid you adieu, there is clearly no further point in replying to your posts, so I shall not.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

My the thread has devolved into trolling and petty insults far quicker than I thought it would. Quick reminder, gents: keep your own noses clean by showing your debating partner the same level of respect you think you deserve.

[small]This includes not telling them to die for the simple fact that they disagree with you.[/small]

 

[Eomega123]

Wasn't planning on seeing the movie, definitely won't now.
I read the book a couple years ago and I was kind of on board with the story until the last few chapters, where I placed Pi Patel firmly in spot number 4 of my 'Most Irritating Book Protagonists' list, behind Asher Lev, Ender Wiggin, and Holden Caulfield.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Odd I would of picked the tragic story with people instead of animals, as it would seem more real.

 

[heaton101]

MovieBob, I've been following you since you started putting out stuff on the site, but you really need to get out of your own ass. Silver Linings Playbook is a "piece of sh*t" because it isn't original enough? Seriously? You're being that petty about a film that otherwise is incredibly well acted and directed? Your personal tastes and beliefs are really getting in the way of your judgment of the quality of films. You don't like the Scream movies because it made geek culture more mainstream (something you just argued in favour of in your latest Big Picture, so you can add hypocrite to the list), you don't like Amazing Spider-Man because it's not the Spider-Man YOU grew up with, and now you're critizing Life of Pi for presenting a character with a lifestyle you find preachy purely because you don't believe in it? I'm an atheist myself, but have a little tolerance man. I seriously considered stopping watching your shows after your utterly trollish fanboy b*tching you call your review of Amazing Spider-Man, but your comments about Silver Linings Playbook have sealed the deal. Congratulations sir! You've just lost one of your oldest followers. I know you probably don't care (and you probably won't even bother to read this), but I can't stand anymore to waste time with a critic whose so up his own ass that he can't smell anything else anymore.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

Hmm... I adored Silver Lining's Playbook. The screenplay was so damn good. It's in my Top 3 films of the year. I'm shocked that Bob would call it a piece of s*%t.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Bob's invoking of the QUIRCKY got me thinking of how Yahtzee described Suda51 and his various works. I'm also reminded of what a Doctor Who enemy, the self-proclaimed Dream Lord, said of The Doctor, "If you had any more tawdry quirks, you could open up a tawdry quirk shop!" And it sounds like Pi could start a franchise of those.

 

[Hammartroll]

I'll have to see this for myself to see what the twist is exactly saying since I'm getting the feeling that atheists are getting butthurt over the mere mention of god in what they perceive to be a positive light when it seems like the movie is trying to covey a much deeper meaning than "god is good so believe!"

Saying to believe in god simply because it's nicer doesn't sound too much like an endorsement, if anything it seems like the movie is trying to explain to people that this is why they choose to believe in god and they don't realize it.

But then I assume atheists are giving the perceived "pro god" aspect of the movie flack because of how wondrous and positive the animal story is. To me this is more of a statement of "life is what we make it", which again is a much deeper concept than what Bob is making it out to be.

Although if the whole movie really does sound like it's narrated by Judy then I may end up wanting to pour hot tar down my ear canal as well.

 

[BlindTom]

Interesting that Bob didn't take such a hostile stance when discussing the very similar ideas explored by CS Lewis. Bob continues to be good at dredging up and presenting information but a weird emotional wreck once he strays too far into personal opinion. It's starting to really fascinate me.

 

[RA92]

The other half of that argument is that if God did not exist then it wouldn't be necessary for us to be uplifted in the first place.

... what does that even mean?

 

[RA92]

I'll have to see this for myself to see what the twist is exactly saying since I'm getting the feeling that atheists are getting butthurt over the mere mention of god in what they perceive to be a positive light when it seems like the movie is trying to covey a much deeper meaning than "god is good so believe!"

Saying to believe in god simply because it's nicer doesn't sound too much like an endorsement, if anything it seems like the movie is trying to explain to people that this is why they choose to believe in god and they don't realize it.

But then I assume atheists are giving the perceived "pro god" aspect of the movie flack because of how wondrous and positive the animal story is. To me this is more of a statement of "life is what we make it", which again is a much deeper concept than what Bob is making it out to be.

Although if the whole movie really does sound like it's narrated by Judy then I may end up wanting to pour hot tar down my ear canal as well.

If you read through the comment section, you'll find plenty of atheists (like me) who call bullshit on his conclusions. I'm putting this away in that container where I put his 'PC Gaming is Dead' episode.

Yeah... he can get annoyingly preachy at times, and irrationally so.