Remember back in the day when audiences decided if characters were interesting and quirky rather than the movie deciding for us who the interesting and quirky ones were? I miss those days.
Escape to the Movies: Life of Pi
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeeeees. God that book was boring.hentropy said:
I tried to read it just for fun. made it through 3 pages.
In the second story Pi admits to eating the other survivors? Like Bob said that the Tiger ate the other animals, and in Pi's second story he admits that the animales were alagories for people and he was the tiger.
I think I might be a Pie. I love telling stories about myself, and I feel like I focus a lot on tailoring my image and my surrounds (not so much to beg questions about stories though).
Sounds more like its arguing why you would as opposed to why you should.Mezmer said:
Makes my choice to go and see Skyfall instead that much easier though.
I had worried that this movie would have suffered in a similar fashion to the film adaptation of The Road, as the road was entirely about mood and atmosphere, which was difficult to convey in the movie in an appropriate fashion. And I was correct. The book itself is interesting (well, sort of) because of the amount of time Yann Martel spends on developing Pi's character in the respect to his situation. This is all well and good for the book since the book can be allowed to linger upon things like setting and imagery in order to the develop the story. The same can't be said for the movie. I mean, sure, it has a narrative structure that could fill screen-time, but when you really look at it, not that much is happening between the ship sinking and Pi's rescue near the end of the novel. Sure, stuff "happens", like the flying fish, and totally-not-a-reference-to-Dagon-meerkat island, but its all governed by Pi's reflection on the events, meaning a great deal of the space would have had to have been filled by the character's dialogue.
I typically enjoy Bob's reviews, but sometimes he lets his personal views blind him to the realities of a given work, and in this case I have to question if he even knows that this movie was based off of a book - especially given his critiques of "quirkiness", which all sound like critiques of poorly-adapted sections of the book (at least from the outside looking in).
I can't speak for the movie, as I haven't seen it yet, but the Life Of Pi (as a book) isn't any more anti-atheist than it is anti-religious. Pi believing in three religions for instance is a very sound critique of the ways religious organizations fight one another - his three religious teachers initially almost come to blows, and they never quite accept Pi's religious beliefs (a criticism about how new beliefs aren't typically accepted by religions and have to fight to gain acceptance).
To me, the book is less a lecture about beliefs than it is a series of questions about beliefs hidden in an interesting survival story. I don't know how well the movie translates all that, I suppose I'll have to see it at some point, but if it winds up being a pretty decent translation I'll be annoyed that Bob threw it under the bus under the assumption that his religious opinion/his intelligence was being insulted in some fashion.
I can't speak for the movie, as I haven't seen it yet, but the Life Of Pi (as a book) isn't any more anti-atheist than it is anti-religious. Pi believing in three religions for instance is a very sound critique of the ways religious organizations fight one another - his three religious teachers initially almost come to blows, and they never quite accept Pi's religious beliefs (a criticism about how new beliefs aren't typically accepted by religions and have to fight to gain acceptance).
To me, the book is less a lecture about beliefs than it is a series of questions about beliefs hidden in an interesting survival story. I don't know how well the movie translates all that, I suppose I'll have to see it at some point, but if it winds up being a pretty decent translation I'll be annoyed that Bob threw it under the bus under the assumption that his religious opinion/his intelligence was being insulted in some fashion.
Guy on a raft learns to deal with Tiger...
"GOD!"
What... THE...F-
---
Okay religions... you've had your fun, but the buck stops here.
I do NOT! What to be part of any religion that has to bend logic that far.
And I certainly don't want one as Dogmatic as the ones currently in existence!
I am the complete Antithesis of Dogma, and I personally believe that the only way to have truly good people is to reject Dogma and find your own way.
The Abrahamic religions act all freaking Lawful good, but really, they're more concerned for their dogma than for the good of the people. They aren't Good, they are Neutral at best, and are beings of pure dogmatic interference... and not even smart dogma.
I would only worship a god that believed that freedom and kindness are more important than dogma. And so far, no such being has even been mentioned... and even if it had been, there would have to be some serious proof in their existance before I would believe in them.
---
P.S. I somehow do not think its inconceivable to worship something and yet not believe it exists. I do it all the time actually; but I know its ultimately pointless. Fun, but pointless.
All hail Rainbow Dash!
"GOD!"
What... THE...F-
---
Okay religions... you've had your fun, but the buck stops here.
I do NOT! What to be part of any religion that has to bend logic that far.
And I certainly don't want one as Dogmatic as the ones currently in existence!
I am the complete Antithesis of Dogma, and I personally believe that the only way to have truly good people is to reject Dogma and find your own way.
The Abrahamic religions act all freaking Lawful good, but really, they're more concerned for their dogma than for the good of the people. They aren't Good, they are Neutral at best, and are beings of pure dogmatic interference... and not even smart dogma.
I would only worship a god that believed that freedom and kindness are more important than dogma. And so far, no such being has even been mentioned... and even if it had been, there would have to be some serious proof in their existance before I would believe in them.
---
P.S. I somehow do not think its inconceivable to worship something and yet not believe it exists. I do it all the time actually; but I know its ultimately pointless. Fun, but pointless.
All hail Rainbow Dash!
I feel like some satire was missed with the regular masses prefering a more up-lifting feel good story than a darker more introspective piece, like how RE's zombie kill fest was more popular than Silent Hill's journey to find the truth.
In that it promoted religion on the grounds of "well it's more comforting that way" as opposed to any sort of justification based on the validity of the values emphasized by this or that religion(s) or usefullness to society or anything close to being literally correct in its assesment of how the universe came to be and works.AxelxGabriel said:
Living in blissfull, willfull ignorance because it's easier that way isn't something to endorse, indeed it's more of an indictment of the intellectual and spiritual cowardliness of so many people, wanting/needing to believe in a higher power to make the world seem less scary and unfair, to try and give it all meaning, which would have unfortunate implications if you really think about it, that people who have bad things happen to them somehow invariably deserve it, either due to some nebulous wrongdoing on their part or as some assinine "test"
If you must believe in religion, do so because you truly believe the values it promotes, or heck, even if you truly believe it to be literally true, don't take it as the spiritual easy way out and security blanket.
A lot of forum heat about the atheism. If you've never heard it, I recommend the song "Here and Now" by Tom Smith. The funny part is, I'm not an atheist and I still like it cause he says in the spoken bit "If there's a God your purpose is to live, to help people, to make the world a better place... AND IF THERE'S NOT A GOD, your purpose is to live, to help people, to make the world a better place..."
Kinda puts it back in perspective.
Kinda puts it back in perspective.
*Mad theist props*leviadragon99 said:
That said, I'm kind of disappointed that the movie with such a directly plugged message. In the book, it really was more of an agnostic thing, or it was for me. To be blunt, I didn't trust Pi enough to believe him when he said he was lying.
>http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0179.html
I listened in for the spoiler and now that I'm aware of this twist ending I'm fucking well glad I've had it spoiled for me before I considered sitting through the whole bloody thing just to be met with that. As you may have guessed I'm an atheist and while I've got no problem with people exploring spirituality; that line of reasoning for doing so sets a dangerous precedent and infuriates me to no end. I spent the last 5 minutes literally just pacing around the room like my own personal angry dome over the fact that this kind of shit is being damn near universally lauded by critics and/or held up as any kind of sound rationale to vindicate their belief in a deity(s). The line about Doug's sister also really cracked me up, which is weird seeing as I rarely ever saw that show as a kid. But I guess that self-infatuated oh so cultured and profound artiste archetype is common enough in animation/fiction in general that you can extrapolate exactly what kind of character you're going to get simply by the fact that they're un-ironically sporting a beret. I actually really liked Garden State so perhaps I won't be quite so harsh on Silver Lining Playbook (no particular burgeoning desire to see it, but may look out for it if it comes up) even if I get where his issues are coming from. I don't know a great deal about Lincoln but the fact that Daniel Day-Lewis is in the title role is a huge incentive for me to see in and of itself. 
But anyway, I shan't be seeing Life of Pi and I'm now really glad in retrospect that I never picked the book up back when I was doing A-Level English Literature.
(Side note: I'll spoiler this post if need be, but I'm relatively sure I didn't inadvertently give anything away here.)
But anyway, I shan't be seeing Life of Pi and I'm now really glad in retrospect that I never picked the book up back when I was doing A-Level English Literature. (Side note: I'll spoiler this post if need be, but I'm relatively sure I didn't inadvertently give anything away here.)
Wait wait wait.
Do they actually pronounce Pi's full name Pie-seen in the movie or was that just Movie Bob screwing up?
It's pee-seen. (Piscine, aka French for swimming pool) The kids even make a bunch of pee jokes (in the novel at least). Kinda hard to miss.
Anyway, I loved the novel despite being an atheist, so unless Ang Lee really overplayed the whole religious aspect, I don't see it as a negative. To me this is more like a eulogy of the suspension of disbelief. If it applies to God it also applies to any other fiction.
Do they actually pronounce Pi's full name Pie-seen in the movie or was that just Movie Bob screwing up?
It's pee-seen. (Piscine, aka French for swimming pool) The kids even make a bunch of pee jokes (in the novel at least). Kinda hard to miss.
Anyway, I loved the novel despite being an atheist, so unless Ang Lee really overplayed the whole religious aspect, I don't see it as a negative. To me this is more like a eulogy of the suspension of disbelief. If it applies to God it also applies to any other fiction.
That wasn't the point that the book was making and i think Bob missed this as well.leviadragon99 said:
See, in the book originally, there was ZERO proof for either story that Pi gave the police at the end for what happened to him on the boat. Neither story, the one with the tiger and the one with the humans could be proven 100% happened. And Pi never said which one was ultimately true or that believing either story was automatically right or wrong.
So with no proof of either story, you'd have no choice but to just pick a story that you wish. But from how I see it, if you feel you automatically go for the more "realistic and horrifying story" just because it's more realistic, then you have to accept the fact that you are a very jaded and cynical person who has no faith in mankind at all.
See, it's not "God" that ever did anything bad to people due to religion in the past. It's always been Man. We're always quick to blame God, but it's always been man who did horrible things in the name of God. There is corruption and greed in other legitimate institutions, but you blame the men, not the institution itself.
I actually read the book, and I learned that the message isn't about believing in God. It's just about having faith that maybe, JUST maybe the world at large and mankind can be better people.
I offer my most gracious thanks for the complement I have been given. (bows)TheTygre said:
Apparently the mods didn't care about my one-word thank-you though, (shrug) guess they can take context into account.
We're not discussing the merits of the book and it's message, more what it became in the film adaption which needs to be able to stand on it's own, and it didn't.AxelxGabriel said:
Having said that, I do like the message the book made as you interpreted it, though not having read the book myself I can't comment further on how accurate your interpretation was. If there's just people and no god as I believe, we all have to try to be better and believe that we can be, not relying on excuses like god for poor behavior, having said that, the realistic approach based on past evidence suggests we're not there yet, and thus that the darker version would sadly be more likely, I'd take both with a grain of salt and assume some unknown third option is the most likely of all though. we CAN be better but it's not cynical to be aware of the fact that some people aren't so good.
See but the problem is, people like you (Im saying LIKE you, not you personally) can easily judge us people who have faith as being stupid, naive, or insane. That it's impossible that miracles can honestly happen in the world (Not religious or god-related miracles, just miracles that can just seem to be beyond your comprehension.leviadragon99 said:
It's not cynical to know that some people are just bad, but it is cynical to say that we are all inherently bad and there's nothing we can do about it. Just because the horrible version is more likely, doesn't mean the fantastic version of the story was impossible.