The author consuted scientists as he designed his apocaypse,
Unfortunately "consulting scientists" has never prevented authors and filmmakers from cranking out howlingly implausible "science fiction".
and in fact there have been a number of books and TV programs about the real possibilities of a species-ending event on earth.
There are also books and TV shows about ancient aliens and finding Bigfoot, so a more precise citation is recommended. :) I know what you mean though, nuclear winter, massive asteroid/meteor or a super-volcano cloud produce the type of climate change McCarthy presents. And I have no problem with that aspect.
But his biology
sucks. Look at the end Permian Extinction Event, "The Great Dying". This event killed 96% of all marine species, 75% of all terrestrial vertebrates. It is the
only Mass Extinction that ever had significant rate of insect extinction. Despite all this there was still a very large biomass left on Earth. Less diverse and much reduced but not GONE like presented in the movie.
So no matter how much you want to argue that it could not have ended the way the author describes, it is his book and his scientifically valid idea.
Valid idea. Invalid execution/presentation. As I said in the previous post: Atmosphere + Light + liquid water = life. McCarthy's earth has air, light, and water so there is no reason for EVERYTHING to be dead but humans.
Keep in mind that whatever has happened has continuing consequences. Things are not yet as bad as they are likely to get. You might try reading the book.
From what I read hear the movie is pretty faithful to the book. So given my bad reaction to the plausibility of conditions presented in the movie and that I mostly disagree with McCarthy's assessment of the fundamental nature of humanity and society, I doubt I'd enjoy it more.
You are, of course, free to write your own story about humanity's survival.
We all do every day. ;)
But Cormac McCarthy wanted to write a story about the end of humanity, and he designed a reasonable setting for that. This board is about his story, and the film made from his book. And it makes sense. It may not be the sense you want, but too bad. []
Based on your posts in this forum, clearly you are
big fan.
I do believe that it is human nature to be hurt when people reject what you hold dear. I mean no personal ill to you by not enjoying "The Road."
But based on scientific and philosophical disagreements, I did not enjoy "The Road".
reply
share
greg-233
11 years ago
"Look at the end Permian Extinction Event, "The Great Dying". This event killed 96% of all marine species, 75% of all terrestrial vertebrates. It is the only Mass Extinction that ever had significant rate of insect extinction. Despite all this there was still a very large biomass left on Earth. Less diverse and much reduced but not GONE like presented in the movie."
Wouldn't that have been just down to random luck? The next Extinction Event (what we see in The Road) seems to indicate humans will be among the many species that are snuffed out. Biologically, humans are far less suited to surviving the harsh conditions that insects can take in their stride. (And we did see a live insect in this film.)
reply
share
maxfield-2
11 years ago
Wouldn't that have been just down to random luck? The next Extinction Event (what we see in The Road) seems to indicate humans will be among the many species that are snuffed out. Biologically, humans are far less suited to surviving the harsh conditions that insects can take in their stride. (And we did see a live insect in this film.)
Humans make their own luck. We are the only species that adapt ourselves to our environment, and adapt our environment to our needs. We are only
biologically adapted to a narrow range of climate here on earth. But we have dominated the majority of the planet from the sub arctic to the middle of the ocean.
We don't have to be
biologically suited to environments to dominate them. Life would survive the conditions of "The Road". Humans would figure out whats on the new menu.
IT'S WHAT WE DO BEST!
reply
share
samantha3
11 years ago
"I do believe that it is human nature to be hurt when people reject what you hold dear. I mean no personal ill to you by not enjoying "The Road."
Sorry, maxfield. I wasn't hurt by your rejection. I hope you aren't upset at my failure to be upset.
I think your view is wrong, that's all, and I like the book and the film a lot. The book is a major work by a major American author, and the film is a brilliant, close adaptation of the book, failing only in its inevitable loss of most of the author's wonderful language. The book itself is almost a long poem.
But I'm just talking here about something I like. Perhaps you approach the boards with a Serious Intent, but I'm just chatting. I don't have either time or interest to talk about many films, so I spend the time I do have on the ones I like. Especially the really good ones. If you don't care for that fact, I suggest you avoid my posts and go have fun talking about whatever films you want to talk about. That is, after all, the purpose of IMDB.
But there is nothing personal about the boards. How can there be when we are all complete strangers and anonymous? We can't even punch one another in the nose if we feel the urge.
And I never have felt that urge.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
samantha3
11 years ago
"It is not a book it is a film script published in book form"
What is your source for this information? Since the book came out 4 years before the film, was a national best-seller in 2006-2007 and won a Pulitzer -- not things that usually happen to film scripts published as books -- it does seem unlikely. So, what's your source?
And have you read it? If you have, you may heve noticed that it's closer to a long narrative poem than a film script.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
samantha3
11 years ago
OK, if that's your view, then you just missed the point of the prose style, but nothing to be done about that, I suppose. You probably aren't knowledgable about such things. I'm not particularly knowledgable about scripts, but I have read a few, and this didn't remind me of any I've read.
How do you handle those long narrative and descriptive passages from the book? Usually a filmscript leaves such things out or finds another way to handle them -- as the script for this one does. How would you film it, since you feel that you are knowledgable about scripts and that this book is one?
The author told the director and scriptwriter of THE ROAD that he was comfortable with the changes made from book to film because he, the author, understood the difference between the two media, and he had no interest in making a script from the book either when he wrote it or afterward.
He actually did that twice, once years ago when he wrote an (unsuccessful) script for the book that later was scripted by someone else and filmed as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and once recently when he wrote -- and published as a script -- the script for THE COUNSELOR.
reply
share
greg-233
11 years ago
"We don't have to be biologically suited to environments to dominate them. Life would survive the conditions of "The Road". Humans would figure out whats on the new menu. IT'S WHAT WE DO BEST!"
Even if that environment is heavily polluted?
reply
share