Escape to the Movies: Life of Pi

[CrazyBlaze]

Man Bob is really missing the point of this movie. Maybe its because he didn't know its based on a book and I can't say how well the movie does compared to the book but there are traits of Pi that are being missed. Like his three religion thing? It's not because he is quirky, it is because he believes that God is a single being worshipped by all. He doesn't have a thing against atheist because he respects that they believe in something but he does have a problem with agnostics because they refuse to make a choice. Oh and the Tiger isn't named Richard Parker because its Quirky its because it's the name of the Hunter who caught it but when transporting it to Pi's Family Zoo the official messed up his and the tiger's name. The family found it funny so they decided to keep it that way. Also the author used that name because the name has links to cannibalism involving ships. For example two ships, elven years apart, with the same name both sunk. The first one the crew turned to cannibalism, on the second ship there was a man named Richard Parker. There was also a 17 year old who was a victim of cannibalism when the ship he was serving on as a cabin boy, sunk. His name was Richard Parkers.

 

[Jake the Snake]

A shitty allegory for why people should believe in God? Yup, gonna pass on that one, thanks.

 

[UNHchabo]

Also also, don't get that last Calvin and Hobbes strip. I mean, I get that it was great, one of (if not the) greatest American comic strips, but I just don't get what it's referencing. Is it a statement that C&H is a better "Human and Tiger" story than Pi, or perhaps, amid the current season, that C&H represents the Christmas season in a more self-reflecting and heartfelt manner than pretty much any stale, boring and flat ABC Family production combined? Someone explain...

my thoughts?

Calvin and Hobbs was meant to be a reference to a 'better Life of Pi', give how many C&H stripes where about something with out, what I'm gathering form the review, being annoying or pretentious about it, as Pi seemed to be

Bob had me worried for a second that Bill Watterson had died, because he showed the final strip. Fortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

 

[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.

 

[daxterx2005]

The visuals look outstanding

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I thought Bob was above butthurt /r/athiest whine-botting but I suppose nobody's perfect.

I think Bob's problem with the movie's message wasn't so much about it being "Believe in God! It's FUN! ", as it was how they brought the message to the viewer (By having an annoying character like Pi give it to us).

I mean, I believe in God and I think there is SOME truth to the message (as in I think some people can decide to believe in God for that reason), but even I thought the whole thing was annoying because of how we were brought to it.

That all said, there really isn't any "necessity" in believing in God, and that seems to be alright with God from what I can see. I mean, Jesus said himself that as long as you're a good person you don't need to be of any specific faith to get to heaven. Also, while the ten commandments do say to not make yourself out be be God, or to treat something/someone like God it never says you HAVE to believe in any "actual" God.

So from that I would gather that as long as you're a good person you'll be just alright even if you don't believe in God. That is really ture with almost everything though.

{Disclaimer: I understand that there are many other religions that may hold somewhat diffrent beliefs about this subject, but my knowledge of them is far more limited than Christianity, Judaism, and Islam who for the most part share either these philosophies/prophets who spoke of these philosophies(note: I said they share them. Not always follow them.)Also, the three religions above also share the habit of some of there people going around saying that only their religion is right. And that's really sad. }

 

[Milanezi]

FOR THE FIRST TIME, Movie Bob made me laugh lol The Doug`s sister thing was just fantastic!
Anyway, I believe in God, but if that's the message the movie gives, let's face it, it's true, we all hold our believes to give us a purpose, to make something worthy, to find answers to questions still unanswered, that's me, I believe in God, but I get and agree with that atheist stand.
Anyway, I don't feel like watching the movie, looks like a Hindu Final fantasy rip-off hahahaha

 

[Milanezi]

That all said, there really isn't any "necessity" in believing in God, and that seems to be alright with God from what I can see. I mean, Jesus said himself that as long as you're a good person you don't need to be of any specific faith to get to heaven. Also, while the ten commandments do say to not make yourself out be be God, or to treat something/someone like God it never says you HAVE to believe in any "actual" God.

That sounds like a (dead) lawyer trying to convince an angel that he's allowed in Heaven in though he doesn't believe in God lol Like looking the commandments for gaps to make your way in lol

 

[Susurrus]

Seems a bit unfair to be down on the film - the opening 60-odd pages of the book are utter tripe, too. It's only once the shipwreck happens that anything is interesting. And the ending, with the darker story, is given almost off-hand when the policeman interviewing him asks what happened to the others on the ship, asking if the policeman would prefer to believe that...

 

[TheZooblord]

I just wanted to say two things:

First, I didn't get too much of anti-athiest vibe from this book (have yet to see the movie, but what Bob described of the plot/twist/message sounds about the same). I got the impression that when Pi tells the darker story of his troubles, he is actively acknowledging that reality is not rosy or beautiful or any of that. There is no God. He just prefers to tell himself different stories so that he feels better, so that he can go on living his life without curling into a fetal position and giving up. So I guess I feel the "God doesn't exist, but pretending he does makes me feel better" doesn't come off as a purely anti-athiestic argument. Pi just had two choices, and he chose the brighter, fake one.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe the "quirkyness" of Pi could really be that obnoxious. In the book he's just a man who lost his entire family and spent hundreds of days adrift, near-death, who is struggling to cope. I know the "one friend" you're talking about, but Pi never came off that way. Of course everything in his life has a story behind it: if the dark version of his story is really true, he had to go through a LOT. So much so that the only way for him to keep on living is to give everything some form of meaning. I mean, what is more likely to kill your soul than losing your family in the most meaningless/arbitrary (storm at sea) and horrifying (cannabalism, watching as other people tear each other apart) way possible, while getting turned into a monster yourself.

So I guess I just saw the "giving everything a story" aspect of his personality as him resorting to extreme coping measures. During that voyage he was given insight into how truly empty, dark, and horrible life can be. How tragedy happens for no reason, and nothing can stop it. How do you live, when you know in your heart that's how the world is? I'm not talking minor cynicism here: true nihilism. The only way for him to come back from that was to paint a rosy picture of the universe and try to believe in it as strongly as he can, and he assigns EVERYTHING meaning to cope with the fact that nothing has meaning. This is not because he's "so calculatedly quirky." It's because he is an absolutely shattered man who can only exist in a dream world now.

Besides, MovieBob's opinions are 95% intelligent, interesting, and well-executed discussion, with 5% petty rage. Some of the "quirky" rage seemed petty here. Yes the tiger is named Richard Parker, so what? People like to give their pets goofy names, it makes them laugh. Etc.

I mean, I don't know how the tone of the movie's narration differed from Pi's narration in the books, I just heard more "CrankyBob" than "MovieBob" in the "quirky" tract.

Edit: Sidenote: Is it really necessary to always perceive a character's, even a protagonist's life philosophy as some kind of attempt to persuade other people to his/her way of life? There are some character choices/philosophies that are indeed an author's attempt to persuade the world to their way of thinking, but with a lot of characters they are JUST CHARACTERS. They're people, and they have opinions, and since the story is about that character we are likely to hear their opinion. This does not necessarily mean the author is trying to convert you. I always took all of Pi's statements and philosophies as JUST PI'S OPINION, and HIS PERSONAL METHOD OF COPING WITH LIFE. I never thought of it as a persuasive essay. Just a fictional guy talking about his experiences and opinions.

Of course, there is the whole "I will make you believe in God" line, but that to me still just feels like Pi talking to the interviewer, not the author talking to the audience. Maybe that's just me though.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

'ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS, ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS!!!'

I might still se the film, it does look really easy on the eyes.

:/ What do you mean by "what"?

I won't debate the movie because I have yet to have seen it, and he may be right in that regard for all that I know...

But Bob should really avoid saying "self-indulgent".
Since it seems utterly hypocritical coming from him.

(Then again, that might be what a critic is, but with varying degrees. with Bob though...it's off the damned radar)

You may want to say he's off the charts instead. Saying he's off the radar implies more that he isn't noticeable.
>_> Unless you're trying to say that his "self-indulgence" is so big it looks like it's off the radar because it's everywhere, and therefore nowhere to the radar.

Just like God!

 

[Lieju]

I'm impressed a little that EVERYTHING Bob says about this movie is 100% true of the book, as well.

There's a book?

Who wrote it, Nigella Lawson?
/pun

I really had no idea that this was based off a book.

I remember reading the book, and would have thought it was okay if dull and pointless, if not for the whole 'god'-thing, which confused me. I didn't get it. And I'm not sure I do even now.

Isn't that an argument against the existence of god?
"Yeah, people believe in silly shit because they don't want to face the truth."

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.

Isn't that kind of concept of god totally useless, then? All you've done is claimed that there is something that cannot be understood in any way, and by its very nature cannot be proven to exist or have any characteristics.
It's a useless concept.

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.

That's not really an argument, though. You could just as well claim that because cats exist, god must exist as well. Unless you prove that those two things have anything to do with each other, you're just claiming that x means y.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

That all said, there really isn't any "necessity" in believing in God, and that seems to be alright with God from what I can see. I mean, Jesus said himself that as long as you're a good person you don't need to be of any specific faith to get to heaven. Also, while the ten commandments do say to not make yourself out be be God, or to treat something/someone like God it never says you HAVE to believe in any "actual" God.

That sounds like a (dead) lawyer trying to convince an angel that he's allowed in Heaven in though he doesn't believe in God lol Like looking the commandments for gaps to make your way in lol

Ha ha ha. Well the first time I told someone about this theory I did start by telling them, "I lawyered up the ten commandments."

That said, it is true. Also, the reason Jesus was saying you don't need to believe in a specific faith was because some people working for the Roman empire came to him and asked "What religion is the right one?" They were trying to trip him up and get him to piss off anyone not of the specific religion he would name. They failed.

At least that's how the story goes. At any rate I find that way of thinking to be true. As long as your a good person, you're fine.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm impressed a little that EVERYTHING Bob says about this movie is 100% true of the book, as well.

There's a book?

Who wrote it, Nigella Lawson?
/pun

I really had no idea that this was based off a book.

I had to read this shit in school...
The entire first third of the book is pretty much all that really uninteresting back story stuff Bob hints at. When Pi tells the interviewers at the end of the book

Spoiler

what the real story is, and how the ship's chef killed his mom for food I didn't really take it as a "you should believe in God" message. I took it as, the kid had snapped and could only cope with what happened to him through delusions. That's probably not the real message but I didn't want it to be the one Bob said because the whole book would have felt like a massive waste of time. I don't remember but I'm pretty sure Pi doesn't say "and that's why you should believe in God" at the end of the book.

 

[Rawberry101]

Man, I think Bob went way too overboard in his criticism of this movie. I thought it was really good and didn't mind the religion aspect(s) of it. Bob REALLLLY overstated that element of the narrative. You can tell a lot of the dialogue was from a book just because of the way everything was phrased but that too isn't a much of an issue. I never got on Bob's case before, (even thought it seems like everyone else on the escapist loves to bash him at some point or another) but this is just weird to me. It appears to me that since he doesn't like the religion in the movie he felt compelled to tear apart the main character and his credibility so us reviewers wouldn't go and see it.

I'm glad I saw this film before I saw Bob's review because it was a great piece of entertainment. I'm sad that a lot of commenters are already voicing that they won't see it because of the religious aspect, I was afraid of that. I'm kinda mad to be honest that Bob blew that aspect out of proportion because it's really not like that. My friend and I both really liked it, which according to Bob shouldn't happen because we're both stone cold atheists. How strange.

I just wish I could've posted this earlier so people could see it.

 

[l3o2828]

Initial Reaction: This movie looks pretty! I HAVE TO WATCH IT!

*Hears Bob Say the Word God* Huh...Well Paulo Coelho rags on about spiritualism and god, and i still like his stuff...

*Listens to 'It'll make you believe in god part'*...Uhhhhh....

*Listens to the spoiler* Oh well fuck this noise.

*wears ear plugs to the cinema*

 

[Gennadios]

I don't understand the indignation at the non-denomination deism subtext.

I mean I'm atheist, I f****** wanted to tear Pi's throat out throughout the movie, but the only impression I ever really got from the movie was that people are willing to tell themselves whatever makes it easier to live with themselves.

Yeah, Pi was a dumbf***, the movie itself handled things quite even handedly.

 

[Don Reba]

Oh look, he gave away the plot twist with an advance "mute" warning. How quirky!

 

[Sonder Saunters]

Rarely do I ever have to pause what I'm doing to vent a sudden burst of rage, but Bob's summary of the twist and its meaning finally pushed me over the edge. That twist just makes me burst at the seems with pure rage.