|
Movie good. Book also, but in a different way I guess. I think the first half of the book was the most convincing portrayal of how hosed up poo poo would actually be in such a future, and I just felt godawful reading it. It was amazing. I wasn't as big a fan of the latter half, but I'm not sure if it's because the main character turned into everything he hated and effectively became The Bad Guy, or if it was for another reason. That was a pretty big difference, btw. I mean, dying vs becoming evil is a pretty big change. Both endings good in their own way.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Can you go into more detail about how the book differs from the film? How does the protagonist become "evil" exactly? So, in the book, the government (via the main character's childhood friend) is trying to get the baby because it's great PR and they can use it for propaganda. Our idealistic hero wants to prevent this from happening, and helps keep the baby away from the government for the majority of the book. The book ends when the main character's government buddy finally corners them and is about to murder them (I think he might actually be planning on killing them AND the baby at this point but my memory is fuzzy. Kind of like some 'we must keep the status quo' thing maybe? I could be misremembering that point however), and the baby starts crying and the government guy is startled (this was mirrored in the movie with the fishes) and our hero shoots him during his reverie. At this point our hero goes through some quick mental justifications on how HE can use the baby and how he is right and correct to do this. In essence he completely replaces the government guy and I think he ends up walking up to the other government folk and them accepting him into the fold immediately with his magic PR baby. I assume he becomes prime minister after this. (There's some buildup to this, as the character has a history of working in the government etc, so it's not totally out of left field). This is going off of like an 8 or so year old memory, so I may be a bit off on particulars, but that is the gist of it. Kind of leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but that's not to say the book is bad. Like I said, the first half is seriously convincing and horribly depressing. I felt actual emotions reading it, which is rare.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yes. Also, I think it's believed that it's men who are sterile. Correct. This also makes the book super depressing because the (unknown at the time) father of the baby is brutally murdered by young punks halfway through the book. Sooooo there goes hope for mankind?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:The decision to make the cause of the sterility a mystery is a huge plus for the film. I never read the book. But I think by the tone of the film that the feeling of the world being lost in a way that is beyond our power is very effective. It's been a while since I have seen it. But was there a mention of miscarriages when it happened? It is literally the loss of hope. And the fact that at the end we don't even know if there is a "cure" for what's happened or if this baby was a fluke. It fits the theme perfectly. You get a sense that the people who rescue them on the ship represent the best part of humanity and no matter what the mother and child will be cared for. Or not, if you are a cynical oval office. The film (to me) seems to indicate that the baby solved the problem, since as it fades to black/shows the credits, the sound of children playing together is heard. I guess if you are cynical you can view that as a sound lost in the past, but to me it indicated the future. Book is way more bleak.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 22:54
|
|