San Francisco, 3:24 AM
Wed Dec 2
29 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
I'm so excited! The Road is the kind of book where I won't mind if they make changes in adapting it to a movie.
I pretty sure that it wasn't a nuclear disaster in the book, but I'm still going to spend a lot of the movie worrying about their exposure to radiations (No! Don't drink that! It's +10 rads/sec). I blame Fallout 3.
@Traveshamockery: It doesn't really specify in the book. I've always assumed multiple meteor impacts worldwide. It's the explanation that makes the most sense given the available information.
@RandomFrequentFlierDent: Why do you think it wasn't nuclear in the book? It doesn't specify it, but it seems clearly a nuclear-winter scenario (yeah, meteorites would do that as well), and well... they wouldn't talk about radiation because there's nothing they can do about it. Also, It doesn't need to be radioactive everywhere for there to be a nuclear winter, just several big explosions that release enough dust
@Dirk Anger: While reading the book I went back and forth between a nuclean conflict and massive volcanism. On the one hand you had the flashback of the power going out/glow on the horizon, which led me to think of a nuke stike/EMP. On the other, you have the idea that this unnamed cataclysm has wiped out civilization on the entire planet, with massive amounts of ash still blocking the sun and coating things years later.
@WLDaywalker: @Dirk Anger: The glow on the horizon is what made me think it wasn't nuclear - if they were close enough to see a nuclear strike of that size I figured they'd be pretty nuked. That's why I assumed meteor. Super volcano makes sense too.
I guess my reading of it just gave me more of a "man destroyed by nature" vibe. McCarthy's never said what it was - I think we're supposed to be debating it.
@cletar: I'd recommend it. It's a nice story and a fast read. If you like post-apocalypse settings (admittedly I'm a huge fan of the genre) you should enjoy it.
@tonilost: After seeing a preview screening last night I can definitely say this is true. The acting in this, on all fronts, is astounding. To top it off, the script is a great adaptation of the novel, keeping the true feel of the source material and adding just a little more for that emotional impact.
@tonilost: I'm constantly impressed by how much work he puts into his characters. His acting is obviously more than just a way to make money. I have to say that I really respect him, which isn't something that can be said about many actors.
@Starwatcher: The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Maybe it was a translation error because I got a translation, but they saw somebody who had several kids chained, and they were referred to as a weird word I had to look in a dictionary which said it which meant that.
@Starwatcher: @topdolla825:
no translation error:
"slaves in harness and piled with goods of war and after that the women, perhaps a dozen in number, some of them pregnant, and lastly a supplementary consort of catamites illclothed against the cold and fitted in dogcollars and yoked each to each. All passed on. They lay listening."
"A catamite is the younger, passive (anal recipient) partner in a pederastic relationship between a man and a boy, which was a popular arrangement in many areas of the ancient world."
@topdolla825: A catamite is the younger, passive (anal recipient) partner in a pederastic relationship between a man and a boy, which was a popular arrangement in many areas of the ancient world.
@Dirk Anger: Ah, okay. Yeah, I know what a catamite is but somehow that escaped me. Well, I stand corrected. But I don't think it'll be a problem on screen--even if they depict the kids in chains the idea that they might be sex slaves will probably escape most people.
Out of the cannibal scenes, the one thing I really, really hope they have in the movie is the cellar full of humans. Does anyone know if it's been revealed that the scene was taken out or is it still in?
@Arvedui: I know it was shot. I have a hard time believing they would take it out. As gripping as the book is the cellar scene is certainly a centerpiece. I'd imagine for a movie it would be even more so.
@phoghat: Well, I'm glad he was there to do the slapping, then. That one line is the the heart of the book. I'm with omgwtflolbbqbye at being somewhat flabbergasted that they would attempt to remove it.
Well, the entire basis of the book was that they each stayed alive for each other. Take that out (and replace it with more cannibal), and you lose the entire premise.
I don't know if thats what I took out of it. I don't know if the boy was ever staying alive per se for the father. The boy stayed alive because thats what he did. He was all the things that a child is (albeit with some sobering adult lessons) the naivety, the wonder, the hope and the father was all those things that you lose when you start growing up. He had to sluff some of it off the kid (the whole suicide thing was especially sobering though I guess that the kid didn't do what he was supposed to in the end was why you have as close to a happy ending as you could) but he took steps to make sure it was never completely lost (we're the "good guys" "I carry the light").
The father certainly stayed alive for the son but I always thought there were much more selfish motivations there. He loved his wife. I have no question about that. The whole thing with the kid just seemed like he was trying to hold on to that though. He was so dedicated to the child because he was also doing what he was supposed to do and it kept him going. He would have died long ago in his own pity but the idea that he had to take care of the kid and keep that hope alive was his motivation. I just always wondered if in the end it was really for the kid or if he knew on some level it was all for him and the kid was just the manifestation of the things he didn't want to lose. I guess I think that way about any parent child relationship though. Are all of the things done out of the idea of "unconditional love" or is it the idea that you love how you makes you feel and what you get out of it in the end. Thats probably just the cynic in me though.
BTW, not knocking your interpretation. Just throwing out my own.
That was the worse book I have eva read, it was terrble. I liked good books like The Stand an other post apocalipse books like Bleak House. This was a sht book and its gonna be a sht film.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
I pretty sure that it wasn't a nuclear disaster in the book, but I'm still going to spend a lot of the movie worrying about their exposure to radiations (No! Don't drink that! It's +10 rads/sec). I blame Fallout 3.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
I guess my reading of it just gave me more of a "man destroyed by nature" vibe. McCarthy's never said what it was - I think we're supposed to be debating it.
You win this time Cormac.
11/24/09
I never read the book, by the way. Should I? Should I read the book then see the movie, or vice versa?
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Great film, go see it.
11/24/09
[spin.com]
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Omigod, I was wrong!
It was earth, all along!
Oh, you finally made a monkey...
out of MEEEEEE!
11/24/09
"I hate them all,
from Chimpan A
to Chimpan Z!"
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/20/09
11/19/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
#calendar
11/20/09
no translation error:
"slaves in harness and piled with goods of war and after that the women, perhaps a dozen in number, some of them pregnant, and lastly a supplementary consort of catamites illclothed against the cold and fitted in dogcollars and yoked each to each. All passed on. They lay listening."
"A catamite is the younger, passive (anal recipient) partner in a pederastic relationship between a man and a boy, which was a popular arrangement in many areas of the ancient world."
#calendar
11/20/09
I read it in a dictionary
#calendar
11/20/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
of course they considered it, but the Cormac slapped him up side the head.
11/18/09
So I would of thought someone like Hillcoat would have recognized it as an untouchable moment that shouldn't be left out.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
I don't know if thats what I took out of it. I don't know if the boy was ever staying alive per se for the father. The boy stayed alive because thats what he did. He was all the things that a child is (albeit with some sobering adult lessons) the naivety, the wonder, the hope and the father was all those things that you lose when you start growing up. He had to sluff some of it off the kid (the whole suicide thing was especially sobering though I guess that the kid didn't do what he was supposed to in the end was why you have as close to a happy ending as you could) but he took steps to make sure it was never completely lost (we're the "good guys" "I carry the light").
The father certainly stayed alive for the son but I always thought there were much more selfish motivations there. He loved his wife. I have no question about that. The whole thing with the kid just seemed like he was trying to hold on to that though. He was so dedicated to the child because he was also doing what he was supposed to do and it kept him going. He would have died long ago in his own pity but the idea that he had to take care of the kid and keep that hope alive was his motivation. I just always wondered if in the end it was really for the kid or if he knew on some level it was all for him and the kid was just the manifestation of the things he didn't want to lose. I guess I think that way about any parent child relationship though. Are all of the things done out of the idea of "unconditional love" or is it the idea that you love how you makes you feel and what you get out of it in the end. Thats probably just the cynic in me though.
BTW, not knocking your interpretation. Just throwing out my own.
05/15/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09