Wtf. I'm soooo pissed right now! The book ending was perfect. It was both a bad and a good ending and it was very satisfying. Why did they *beep* this up? Why create it to be a good ending and did they contain the virus? It ruins the amazing message the book sends out.
So yeah, I'm very pissed and can't believe Dan Brown signed off on this script.
I agree entirely. Went to the cinema yesterday to watch it and by the end I was like "Here it comes, here comes the big twist". I was so shocked that they left it out! The ending is what is actually wonderful about this book in the first place :(.
shareJust saw the movie. no problems with how they handled it. the story was very fast paced and a virus that takes decades to be effective is counter productive to said pacing. just because Dan Brown wrote it first it does not necessarily mean it is the better ending.
sharethe virus in the book DIDN'T take decades to be effective...
it made a certain percentage of the population STERILE, aka IT PREVENTED THE GROWTH the exponential growth of humanity which IS THE PROBLEM, the existing population WASN'T the problem
you apparently, didn't read the book...
How did the book end? Can someone enlighten me?
Books are a uniquely portable magic. ~Stephen King
Zobrist had actually released the virus before he killed himself. When everyone was in the water system, they did readings and the results were just as strong outside the water and that's how they worked it out. His virus was a recessive gene that made half of the population infertile therefore helping stem the negative effects of overpopulation.
shareYes, this indeed. And important to note: they discovered that the virus didn't release a deadly disease after all. It wasn't the plague or something else that would kill half the world, it was a pretty neat virus that would harm nobody (doet of). People just got infertile, but they still could adopt children and be parents. The thing is that the world population would just drop after these people would've died and that it wouldn't grow as fast as it did anymore. It was actually beautiful and you really gained a lot of sympathy for Zobrist and his ideas. Shame they changed that, because Zobrist and Sienna are just cruel bad guys now.
shareSo Felicity Jones's character is also a bad person in the story ? IS that the twist ending (although all the revieuws spoke about people with double agenda's and such,, so i half expected her to have one too. )
what doesn't kill you hasn't been done properly.
Well, depending on your definition of a bad person, yes, she is one in both the book and the film. In the book, she also has a double agenda, which is worked out pretty neat. But thats not the big twist ending. The twist ending is that the virus was never contained and that the virus already spread. People were already infected, but not in the sense that they would die. They were infected in the sense that half of them would become infertile, and thus Zobrist had his way and worldpopulation would decline drastically but in a humane way. Thats the big twist ending.
shareAnd so Children of Men started.
shareThinking the same as reading, Baby Diego.
share[deleted]
Such a naive way of looking at a great movie.
shareI enter here to read about book vs movie thoughts, but Im with you. I really hate Children of Men. BS movie with BS message.
I even dislike Michael Cane character
"You cannot threaten the dead with death, my friend. Only with life, eternal life!"
I thought that was more like Utopia www.imdb.com/title/tt2384811/
shareNot quite, unless the virus mutated and all women (or men) became infertile. I wonder how you can make only half of the population infertile actually. I suppose the target group would be one with either specific genes (or groups of genes) or maybe even blood types? It would be much easier to target a small percentage of people with a known X or Y gene mutation than half of them. Furthermore, the broader the target group of a virus the more chances it has of mutating and targeting everyone - thus leading to Children of Men.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
Good to know. That ending wouldn't have saved the movie but it certainly would have been better and more thought-provoking.
Books are a uniquely portable magic. ~Stephen King
I read the book but only 1/4 of it. So busy with my life that I stopped reading it. Luckily, there's a movie about it. But I never knew they changed the ending.
Wow, Ron Howard is that stupid, huh? The book ending is much much better as some of you might have said it. For a second during the movie, I thought about this too, to make the population infertile but on second thought, I felt that I was creating my own story so I did not care about my sense of predictability.
The movie ending is not that entertaining and satisfying, Zobrist was giving the right idea, what would happen in years to come? In 100, 200 years, I guess there will be no oxygen produced by plants anymore as deforestation occurs in every nook of the world for more construction of buildings and factories.
We'll see, maybe in 2035, there will be an annual Purge that takes place on the same day in the world, well universe if I might add so people who are rich wouldn't escape into space just to survive.
Being infertile is not a beautiful thing... ask any person trying to get pregnant and can't.
-
EVIL COMES HOME - January 27th, 2017
No, but it's not an evil thing either. It just is.
shareNo one said being infertile is a beautiful thing.
However, what is, is some form of control over the human population, because overcrowding, starvation, wars over food and water, etc. is not that far off, and that's NOT a beautiful thing.
The scary thing is that's a very real issue that's in our near future.
Zobrist's method of preventing that was very clever, and in the end, probably one of the most humane things that could have been done. Simply wiping out a portion of the human population would have only set things back for a while, but the population would eventually catch back up and we'd be in the same situation again. By making a large fraction of the populace randomly infertile, the population would come under control.
A person's desire to be a parent aside, we, as a race, simply do NOT need any more people.
Giving birth to a child in a world cursed with war, hunger and disease is no beauty either. Try to weigh both sides of the argument before you type.
shareWell, that's kinda stupid and useless.
Eventually those with the gene die out and those without continue to breed.
Plus if it can be done, it can be undone. Someone would come up with a "cure" for the virus.
So in the end, Zobrist really would have accomplished nothing.
How would you like it if Zobrist made you infertile? Why would people give up their children if half the population can't have any?
shareNo one would be "giving up their children to the infertile". There will always be accidental, unwilling, incompetent parents amongst the fertile. But in that world, there'd actually be more willing homes for the unwanted kids.
Taking away their freedom to choose from anybody is not beautiful.
It is slavery.
It wasn't the plague or something else that would kill half the world, it was a pretty neat virus that would harm nobody (doet of)
I was rooting for the virus to go off. Oh damn now im on a watch list...
shareThat's very interesting, cause the one thing I was left when exiting the cinema was that the plan, inhumane or not, didn't make a lick of sense. So you kill with a deadly virus half the population, thus reducing it to 1970 levels, going by Zobrist's speech. So what? How is that a "permanent solution" like Jone's character said? You'll be back at 8 billion in 50 years or such. You'll have to do this every 2 generations or so.
A recessive infertility gene makes much more sense as a plan, regardless of the morality questions of course.
Yeah, but how exactly do you make a virus that changes people's DNA so that the infertility gene is included in their genome? As far as I know, that's just plain science fiction, since the current methods of creating GMOs involve modifying the new beings in the lab, not the current ones. Unless I'm missing something, having this kind of gene would involve in vitro fecundation for every planned birth in the world.
shareActually CRISP technique already allow modification of DNA like this. Liz Parish for example modified his own DNA to reverse aging (sort of).
But of course viruses which used for it not contagious, though I suppose is quite possible make them such. And IFAIK any virus modify human genome too, to include code for self-replication.
And anyway in book genius created such virus 10 years ahead of mainstream science.
Oh, yes, now we have CRISP, but I'm still not sure to what extent it can be used. Can it really be used for modifying the genome of a grown human?
----
And anyway in book genius created such virus 10 years ahead of mainstream science.
Yes CRISP (and some other methods) can be and already used to change DNA of grown human - Liz Parrish is good (most known) example.
shareOK, so I read a little bit about the Liz Parrish case, but if I understand correctly, her treatment only involves making the telomeres longer, right? While still very impressive, I don't think it's quite the same as actually modifying your genes.
shareThey might as well have just re-titled it: Agenda 21: the movie
shareNice propaganda then, overpopulation is a myth.
shareOverpopulation is a fact - There are 7 BILLION people on this planet right now; this planet cannot sustain more than 2 BILLION. People need to understand the word "finite" to understand the limits of the supply of food and fresh water. And therein lies the danger.
shareWhile true, it doesn't matter for the purpose of the film/story. As long as the antagonist believes and is motivated by the thought of over-population the story makes sense, and the film really didn't take sides on whether or not the world was actually indeed overpopulated.
shareOverpopulation is not as critical as you think it is.
It is infact calculated that we already produce more food that what is needed. The problem is the distribution and the consumption of the food and to not waste it.
This is the shameful truth, there is enough food to feed the entire world, but not enough profits to make it happen. Overpopulation is a myth until you can show me all the empty areas of Canada and Russia actually being or projected as being filled up.
Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable
Yep its a shame.
Also i read an article saying that the whole worlds population can fit into the New Zealand. It depends on the density.
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3016331/visualized/think-the-world-is-crowded-you-could-fit-the-entire-human-race-in-new-zealand
yeah the problem is humanitys greed
shareThat is a better ending....
Shame the movie went the over complicated way to fix everything.
--
Brawndo, It's Got Electrolytes
I agree completely, but the end was still the best thing about this mess and disappointing movie. The climax was thrilling.
Cinema is a source of Art
www.filmicsite.com
No.
shareI agree. After contemplating all the statistics that Dan Brown quotes in the book I was actually pleased that the plot had succeeded.
shareagreed... the ending was the biggest let down... They never explained anything about the plague... nor charcater building was given proper treatment... relation between Sienna and Bertrand was not touched upon in deep... overall let down
shareWell, a I dislike the book ending immensely just in terms of story perspective. I know some consider it daring but I just ended up wondering what the damn point was. What is the point of all that chasing if there was really nothing to actually accomplish?
shareAnd therein lies the biggest inherent weakness of the film: If Zobrist wanted the virus to work, all he had to do was open it practically anywhere -- he wouldn't even have had to tell anybody about it, let alone make all those twisted paths. But then, of course, there would have been no story, no need for Langdon or anybody else to go chasing around. My guess is they changed the ending to make it possible to have another sequel without the world under threat from the virus -- but if Dan Brown is consequent, his next book must still have the consequences of the virus in it, so waddaya gonna do? Actually, I feel the book's ending is much more powerful, as it throws the basic dilemma in the reader's lap (that's you).
share[deleted]
I haven't seen the movie, but my point was that in the book everyone is chasing stuff around for nothing. It's supposed to be a clever twist but it just falls flat to me because there doesn't seem a point for story telling perspective for the protagonist to do all that globe trotting just to realize that there was no point to it at all. I haven't seen the film yet and your point may be true, but at least there seems to be a point to Langdon's journey in that he prevented something from happening.
share[deleted]
Well, a I dislike the book ending immensely just in terms of story perspective. I know some consider it daring but I just ended up wondering what the damn point was. What is the point of all that chasing if there was really nothing to actually accomplish?
What is the point of all that chasing if there was really nothing to actually accomplish?
The idea that world population is either too high or headed that way is absurd, arrogant and frankly dangerous. Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus started this idiocy back in 1798 when he postulated that the world would run out of food by 1890, because of population growth (no, it didn't). What he really meant was there were going to be too many of the "wrong kind of people" because brown people simply out-bred white folks. His answer to this "problem" was to somehow eliminate all of those scruffy have-nots in the world to make sure there was enough food left for the developed nations and "civilized" people.
That's genocide, folks. And it's what is going on in Brown's dumb novel.
Malthus’ lunatic notions kicked off the theories of eugenics that got popular in the early 20th century all over the Western world (and not just the well known policies of the Nazi government - plenty of respectable Americans were in favor of them, too). In the US, laws were passed that restricted marriage among "undesirables," introduced birth control methods like those promoted by Margaret Sanger (that became Planned Parenthood), segregation of races and the mentally ill from the rest of the population, forced sterilization by law, forced abortion, and more. Other European countries did the same.
By the 1970s, the buzz phrase taught in Western schools and promoted by politicians was ZPG (Zero Population Growth), discouraging young people from ever having children, or at least limiting their procreation to just one child, to you know, "save the planet." The result since then has been a voluntary shrinking of the population of whites in North America and Europe. Whether that's "good" or "bad" is immaterial, and it's not some racist observation - that's just what has happened. Just look at census demographics over the last 60 years. And it can be traced directly back to Malthus' ridiculous prognosis. Why Brown decided to resurrect it is frankly astonishing, but it certainly made for a stupid novel and movie.
You do realise that, nowhere in the movie or book is there spoken of race, right? I thank you kindly for your tiny history class on an imdb message board, but you're connecting dots that shouldn't be connected in the first place. You can call this book and movie stupid all you want, but if you're going to, at least give proper arguments why, and don't call it a race thing when it's not a race thing.
shareWe are in direct competition with ocean predators for fish - I think it's safe to say the amount of humans on Earth is detrimental to the planet's ecological balance.
I'm all for spirituality but aren't we smart enough to find a better God?
While I'm sure your trolling what the hell
How is it you believe Overpopulation is made-up?
Lets look at the Earth like its say a regular size house. Your grand parents live there, then your parents, You (maybe sisters/brothers), then all your and there children, then all of there children etc etc
Now people die through illness,injury or simply old age so the number of people living in that house drops every now and again. How long till that house becomes sooo overcrowded it leads starts to become unlivable? people fighting over room, resources?
Only have the 1 earth to live on, so unless that changes and we can spread out more we have a Finite amount of land and resources
ps - Race is NEVER mentioned or any other specifying a specific group so that have 0 basis
[deleted]
Those of us who have been subjected to television ads for the past 50 years know that the frequency of "save the third world" beg ads has only increased over the decades .. and it is getting rather tiresome to hear how they still need money to teach these people how to dig holes in the ground.
Perhaps they DO breed too much, and have become overdependent on foreign aid to feed their masses, while they're busy with their relious-tribal wars; hell, they can't even be bothered to change their sexual behaviour one iota in the face of rampant AIDS.
Cut them off, let nature take its course.
I did rather enjoy the movie but I do agree by changing the ending they have taken alot of depth out of it and turned it into a very standard last minute save the day ending.
With the book ending it takes away the clean right/wrong, good/bad pre-defined idea and instead leave it up to the reader to make up there own mind.
Wiping out half the worlds population would have been a delay tactic with the worlds population quickly rising again probably even faster (medical advancements, higher infant survival rates etc). But with the infertility in 1/3 it would help lower the worlds population gradually, its non-bias (doesnt care who you are or how much money you have) and you would think, things like orphanages would become a relic of the past as a child would become more precious (just my maybe optimistic thought).
Oh and as far as people commenting that it makes the whole chasing pointless, well while it does in a sense, how many things would seem senseless if you knew the outcome. You could look at it also like a decoy or distraction, while these characters are traveling around the world (a subtle way of pointing out how far some people could have traveled in they window) believing that the virus could be prevented instead of working on containment or quarantine.
Finally the question would become a very valid one Would history see Zobrist remembered as a visionary?
I think its very possible, well after 50-100 years had passed
Oh and as far as people commenting that it makes the whole chasing pointless, well while it does in a sense, how many things would seem senseless if you knew the outcome. You could look at it also like a decoy or distraction, while these characters are traveling around the world (a subtle way of pointing out how far some people could have traveled in they window) believing that the virus could be prevented instead of working on containment or quarantine.
While that is very true, if all stories are going to end with "The Hero saves the day at the last minute mostly thanks to the bad guys overly elaborate plan" Then you will already know the outcome to every story. Yes the journey is in most ways more important than the destination (outcome) its still nice to have a change.
By that logic though if they had failed in some way you could also argue that it renders everything they did pointless.
Which to me would have been worse as this way its saying 'Sometimes there is no clock counting down to zero that can be stopped at the last second (see most James Bond movies)
The (sort of) Bad guy just did his plan, it wasn't reliant on some elaborate scheme.
Also as The Reader you didnt know the outcome of the story before reading till the end so in truth it should put you in more the mind of the character realising the futility of there actions.
Maybe someone who read the book closer might know if clues where given to hint at the eventual outcome, in the movie its mentioned several times his comments on Sterilisation.
Extra Spoiler: in the movie you do later find out that large parts of the story where staged so it calls into question large chunks of the story other than sort of being in the main characters shoes but also getting perspectives from others as well, so I don't think the alt ending wouldnt have been that much of an impact.
Anyway all this said while i enjoyed both, neither the Book nor the Movie could i go though again however i would be much more interested in a follow up to the Book then i would be the to movie