# Life of Pi (Ang Lee film)



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

Veeeery pretty. Bengal tigers are awesome.

Little suspicious about the God stuff though  I'm not smart enough to work out if it was an acceptable message or not. This is why I got a 2:2.

Bengal tigers are awesome though.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 11, 2012)

I see you have encoded your post so I don't see spoilers.

Quite fancy this.


----------



## gosub (Dec 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Veeeery pretty. Bengal tigers are awesome.
> 
> Little suspicious about the Gid stuff though  I'm not smart enough to work out if it was an acceptable message or not. This is why I got a 2:2.
> 
> Bengal tigers are awesome though.


Have you previously read the book? Have question about film ending


----------



## Voley (Dec 11, 2012)

One of the worst fucking books ever written. Ang Lee's shite, too. This will be appalling on every level.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I see you have encoded your post so I don't see spoilers.
> 
> Quite fancy this.


Nooo, I just didn't post any spoilers...





gosub said:


> Have you previously read the book? Have question about film ending


No, I don't really read much fiction. Could have a go anyway?


NVP said:


> One of the worst fucking books ever written. Ang Lee's shite, too. This will be appalling on every level.


But it's soooooo purdy!


----------



## gosub (Dec 11, 2012)

NVP said:


> One of the worst fucking books ever written. Ang Lee's shite, too. This will be appalling on every level.


Took a couple of attempts, not bad when you got in the mood for it though.  Can't see how you film it though


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

In 3D! With glow-in-the-dark whales!

Having not read the book, I did still get the feeling it had been cinematised somewhat. What about the book suggests it would be hard to film?


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2012)

I've had a few opportunities to go see it but the spiritual god waffle is putting me off. Ang Lee's decorative but shallow coffee table book approach to film is wildly overrated IMO.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 11, 2012)

I can't imagine this being made into a good film. As a book, the first half is incredible, a masterpiece of modern fiction. The second half both drags, and goes off-message to the point where you come to believe that the author was hoping to arrive at some answers during the writing process, but the answers failed to materialize for him.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2012)

gosub said:


> Took a couple of attempts, not bad when you got in the mood for it though. Can't see how you film it though


You don't: you piss on it, then burn it when it dries out.


----------



## Yetman (Dec 11, 2012)

Yeah I'm wondering about the other animals that are in the book - are they in the film? And if so....surely it might be a bit, I don't know, unsuitable for family viewing?


----------



## girasol (Dec 11, 2012)

Watching it on Thursday, don't remember God stuff in the book, so will be annoyed if there's too much of in the filum... The trailers do seem to put an emphasis on 'faith' and 'inner strength'. Will try and not let that spoil it!

Some review I read said it is a good adaptation of a book, one of the better ones. Trying not to read too many reviews though, not until after.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Dec 11, 2012)

i quite liked how movie bob put it
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6573-Life-of-Pi


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2012)

Yetman said:


> Yeah I'm wondering about the other animals that are in the book - are they in the film? And if so....surely it might be a bit, I don't know, unsuitable for family viewing?


 
Yes they are in the film. Why would that be so unsuitable considering we have nature programes on the telly where real animals get ripped to shreds at teatime ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2012)

girasol said:


> Watching it in 3D, don't remember God stuff in the book, so will be annoyed if there's too much of in the filum... The trailers do seem to put an emphasis on 'faith' and 'inner strength'. Will try and not let that spoil it!
> 
> Some review I read said it is a good adaptation of a book, one of the better ones. Trying not to read too many reviews though, not until after.


The book was full of stuff about religion, iirc.  That's the least of my worries, though.  It was shite.  Utter, utter drivel, with an Alice-in-Wonderland ending to rival any Primary 5 essay.


----------



## girasol (Dec 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The book was full of stuff about religion, iirc. That's the least of my worries, though. It was shite. Utter, utter drivel, with an Alice-in-Wonderland ending to rival any Primary 5 essay.


 
Yes, I remember he pondered about God and religion and questioned it, but in a philosophical way.  If it's like that in the movie I'm good with that.  But from the trailers it seems it's been turned into something else entirely.  I hope that's just the trailers.


----------



## Yetman (Dec 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yes they are in the film. Why would that be so unsuitable considering we have nature programes on the telly where real animals get ripped to shreds at teatime ?


 
Dunno, I just can't imagine seeing animals suffering horribly in family films. Spose, I'll just wait til I see it to see how they've handled it.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 11, 2012)

I managed about 1/3 of the book before giving up.  Crap.


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2012)

Yetman said:


> Dunno, I just can't imagine seeing animals suffering horribly in family films. Spose, I'll just wait til I see it to see how they've handled it.


 
I doubt that it's done in a way that's explicit and gory and the whole thing is a allegorical fantasy thing anyway. Plenty of animals bite the dust and suffer in Disney films.

I'm now going to a screening on Thursday, probably just so I can rag about it. Though I do like cats, so that's a reason.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

There are a couple of distressing moments, but a fair bit of the animal violence is done off-screen.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> There are a couple of distressing moments, but a fair bit of the animal violence is done off-screen.


Is it mild peril?


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 11, 2012)

I've seen it already (last Thursday in fact, and for free). 

I haven't read the book, but I liked to film.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Dec 11, 2012)

Some of Ang Lee's films are amazing in terms of thematic layers.  This looks a bit special FX-y.


----------



## Firky (Dec 11, 2012)

I am going to put my hand up and say I am quite looking forward to it. It looks (visually) gorgeous. It can't be worse than "that" prequel stink that was released earlier this year.

Haven't read the book but sort of know what the jist is.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 11, 2012)

I liked the book a lot. I felt like a fool after reading it and then reading an explanation of what the animals represented. It should have been obvious but it wasn't, to me. 
I am wondering if there is a similar thing with the movie, in which people will leave not really understanding what they have just seen?


----------



## Firky (Dec 11, 2012)

They will now you have told them


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

If you're talking about what I think you are, it's explicitly stated in the film.

e2a: unless they also represented something else


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 11, 2012)

hmm...


----------



## Geri (Dec 11, 2012)

I heard this advertised on Classic FM and was wondering what it was about. I'm not sure if I can cope with mild peril involving animals.


----------



## Corax (Dec 11, 2012)

NVP said:


> One of the worst fucking books ever written. Ang Lee's shite, too. This will be appalling on every level.


Bollocks.  The book's great.  I don't see how they could have properly made it into a film though - one of the most important things about the book is doubt about the narration's veracity.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

Geri said:


> I heard this advertised on Classic FM and was wondering what it was about. I'm not sure if I can cope with mild peril involving animals.


Bit more than mild peril, I'd say. Sort of thing you'd see on a David Attenborough documentary, nature in all its vicious reality.

On a lifeboat.


----------



## Geri (Dec 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Bit more than mild peril, I'd say. Sort of thing you'd see on a David Attenborough documentary, nature in all its vicious reality.
> 
> On a lifeboat.


 
Oh no, I can't watch those documentaries - have to turn over when the killing starts.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 11, 2012)

Ah...


----------



## silverfish (Dec 11, 2012)

Do i need to read the book first


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2012)

silverfish said:


> Do i need to read the book first


You'll be sorry if you do.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 11, 2012)

Corax said:


> Bollocks. The book's great. I don't see how they could have properly made it into a film though - one of the most important things about the book is doubt about the narration's veracity.


 
this is what I was trying to say ^


----------



## Voley (Dec 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> an Alice-in-Wonderland ending to rival any Primary 5 essay.


My thoughts exactly.



Spoiler: Spoiler For The Ending



"He woke up and it was all a dream."


I'm amazed I got that far tbh. The living island bit was fucking laughably bad but I was wondering if it could get any worse. It did.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 12, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> If you're talking about what I think you are, it's explicitly stated in the film.
> 
> e2a: unless they also represented something else


 


Spoiler



I meant that the "secret" is that Pi coped with the trauma of the shipwreck ordeal by creating an alternate version of reality in which the other people became animals and events became magical metaphors for what really happened. How is this shown in the film, if it is?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 12, 2012)

For anyone who takes note of these things, Life of Pi won the following awards...

 The UK edition won the Man Booker Prize for Fiction the following year.[2][3][4] It was also chosen for CBC Radio's _Canada Reads_ 2003, where it was championed by author Nancy Lee.[5] The French translation, _L'histoire de Pi_, was chosen in the French version of the contest, _Le combat des livres_, where it was championed by Louise Forestier.[6] The novel won the 2003 Boeke Prize, a South African novel award. In 2004, it won the Asian/Pacific American Award for Literature in Best Adult Fiction for years 2001–2003


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I meant that the "secret" is that Pi coped with the trauma of the shipwreck ordeal by creating an alternate version of reality in which the other people became animals and events became magical metaphors for what really happened. How is this shown in the film, if it is?





Spoiler



(Young) Pi is interviewed by two guys from the Japenese company that owned the ship, and he tells them both stories, then the Candian interviewer (is he in the book?) says "Wait, the zebra broke his leg, like the sailor. So the heyna was the cook, the orangutan was your mother and the tiger was... you".

So, pretty fucking explicit.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 12, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


Spoiler



ok, I see. And that happened in the book too, then? I think I must have misremembered the book as not explaining that part, because it sounds very familiar.
hey, this is kind of fun, having a whole conversation in spoiler code


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> For anyone who takes note of these things, Life of Pi won the following awards...
> 
> The UK edition won the Man Booker Prize for Fiction the following year.[2][3][4] It was also chosen for CBC Radio's _Canada Reads_ 2003, where it was championed by author Nancy Lee.[5] The French translation, _L'histoire de Pi_, was chosen in the French version of the contest, _Le combat des livres_, where it was championed by Louise Forestier.[6] The novel won the 2003 Boeke Prize, a South African novel award. In 2004, it won the Asian/Pacific American Award for Literature in Best Adult Fiction for years 2001–2003


From the same page you quote:


> Barack Obama described _Life of Pi_ as "an elegant proof of God"


 
Fucking LOL


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 12, 2012)

NVP said:


> From the same page you quote:
> 
> 
> Fucking LOL


 
I get it. The people who choose the Booker Prize etc liked it. You didn't.

You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)




----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

Fucking hell, it's been years since I've been told I was entitled to my opinion on here. Literally years.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 12, 2012)

NVP said:


> Fucking hell, it's been years since I've been told I was entitled to my opinion on here. Literally years.


 
It's just as true today as it was years ago.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2012)

NVP said:


> Fucking hell, it's been years since I've been told I was entitled to my opinion on here. Literally years.


Well he's wrong - you aren't.


----------



## Firky (Dec 12, 2012)

NVP said:


> Fucking hell, it's been years since I've been told I was entitled to my opinion on here. Literally years.


 
That got a snort of laughter


----------



## girasol (Dec 12, 2012)

silverfish said:


> Do i need to read the book first


 
It will spoil the end I guess...  Bit of a twist at the end


----------



## girasol (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


Spoiler



Just one thing though, Pi ain't the tiger in the book, Pi is Pi, the tiger is someone else


----------



## girasol (Dec 12, 2012)

Corax said:


> Bollocks. The book's great. I don't see how they could have properly made it into a film though - one of the most important things about the book is doubt about the narration's veracity.


 
But the veracity of the facts is open to different interpretations once we know the 'truth'. That interpretation is up to the reader... I'm betting mine was different from yours. I bet those interpretations are just as interesting as the book itself and would say a lot about the reader.

Going to see it tomorrow, just wish I read the book again, my memory of it is a bit hazy (although some bits of it will stick with me forever). I think religious people will interpret it as some life afirming experience, God related ting, but as an atheist I thought it was a story about the human ability to be creative even in the most dangerous and hopeless situations as a way of coping.

It's really well written too.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well he's wrong - you aren't.


You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 12, 2012)

it's a bit funny to come on a thread for the sole purpose of stating that you _don't like_ something several times without much explanation and expect any other response, tbf.


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 12, 2012)

Films with gfx that are *that* obvious / in your face irritate me. I still haven't managed to watch Avatar. And this looks kinda visually similar (in terms of fakeness, at least). Going by the trailers


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> it's a bit funny to come on a thread for the sole purpose of stating that you _don't like_ something several times without much explanation and expect any other response, tbf.


To be fair, NVP was quite explicit in his reasons for not liking the Life Of Pi (book). I happen to share those reasons - it is badly written, obvious, incoherent tripe, with the very ending that your primary school creative writing teacher told you you wouldn't get away with if you were big boys and girls, most of you being 8-years-old now.

These being discussion boards, I think it's OK to say those things, especially if you feel several evenings of your life were wasted reading the damn thing.


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 12, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Films with gfx that are *that* obvious / in your face irritate me. I still haven't managed to watch Avatar. And this looks kinda visually similar (in terms of fakeness, at least). Going by the trailers


It doesn't look fake.  The animals look very, very real. If you can tell the difference between the CGI and the real animals used elsewhere I'd be amazed.  I couldn't.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> To be fair, NVP was quite explicit in his reasons for not liking the Life Of Pi (book). I happen to share those reasons - it is badly written, obvious, incoherent tripe, with the very ending that your primary school creative writing teacher told you you wouldn't get away with if you were big boys and girls, most of you being 8-years-old now.
> 
> These being discussion boards, I think it's OK to say those things, especially if you feel several evenings of your life were wasted reading the damn thing.


 
ok, except what you said isn't the ending. 


as far as the other thing, it may be an expression of frustration, but it often seems like "the cool kids" just dropped in to tell everyone what we're supposed to think if we want to be _cool_ and _edgy_ too.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Shh, everyone will hear!

I haven't read the book so don't know if that happened in the book, or indeed if the Canadian writer is just a device used by the film and not the book.





girasol said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Just one thing though, Pi ain't the tiger in the book, Pi is Pi, the tiger is someone else





Spoiler



Maybe the Canadian writer was a bit thick? 

(Though I think (Older) Pi confirms this - it's the evil inside him or something, that the was brought out when he killed the cook.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> it's a bit funny to come on a thread for the sole purpose of stating that you _don't like_ something several times without much explanation and expect any other response, tbf.


 
A few things I dislike about it:
The ending that danny describes. It's difficult to criticise this without giving it away for anyone going to see the film but seriously, every English teacher I ever had told me this was the worst possible way to end a story.
Carnivorous islands inhabited by meerkats. Fuck off.
The 'So it goes with God' bit. Awful, awful patronising guff.
Lumpy dreadful prose with just enough ambiguity to try and appear all enigmatic and deep. Reminded me of stroky-beardy Goan hippies who like to gaze wistfully into the sunset whilst sharing their ludicrous take on life in a shameless attempt to get into a gullible hippy woman's pants.

I could go on. Ultimately though, the fact that Barack Obama believes it to be proof of God's existence should be enough to put most people off.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> as far as the other thing, it may be an expression of frustration, but it often seems like "the cool kids" just dropped in to tell everyone what we're supposed to think if we want to be _cool_ and _edgy_ too.


 
'You're entitled to your opinion' and now 'You're just saying that to look cool', too. All in one thread.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Dec 12, 2012)

NVP said:


> A few things I dislike about it:
> The ending that danny describes. It's difficult to criticise this without giving it away for anyone going to see the film but seriously, every English teacher I ever had told me this was the worst possible way to end a story.
> Carnivorous islands inhabited by meerkats. Fuck off.
> The 'So it goes with God' bit. Awful, awful patronising guff.
> ...


 
again, that's not actually the ending. But still, much better job on explaining why you don't like it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> ok, except what you said isn't the ending.
> 
> 
> as far as the other thing, it may be an expression of frustration, but it often seems like "the cool kids" just dropped in to tell everyone what we're supposed to think if we want to be _cool_ and _edgy_ too.




I'm one of the cool kids.


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 12, 2012)

Bungle73 said:


> It doesn't look fake.  The animals look very, very real. If you can tell the difference between the CGI and the real animals used elsewhere I'd be amazed.  I couldn't.


Really? I heard the same kinda thing about avatar. And watching the trailer - even on my iPhone - the whole thing looks CGIed to fuck. Does the trailer look authentic / without staringly blatant CGI to you? Or is the film less in-your-face?


----------



## Reno (Dec 12, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Really? I heard the same kinda thing about avatar. And watching the trailer - even on my iPhone - the whole thing looks CGIed to fuck. Does the trailer look authentic / without staringly blatant CGI to you? Or is the film less in-your-face?


 
People keep complaining about even the best CGI effects, like with Avatar and Pi. The thing is that once you know something can't be real and you know it is CGI the mind starts rejecting it as real. It's not a matter of the effects being bad, it's one of perception.


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 12, 2012)

Reno said:


> People keep complaining about even the best CGI effects, like with Avatar and Pi. The thing is that once you know something can't be real and you know it is CGI the mind starts rejecting it as real. And it's not a matter of the effects being bad, it's one of perception.


You put a lot of weight on a remarkably subjective word, "bad," in that remarkably objective analysis 

The footage in the trailer looks post-processed to buggery and filled with glorious colours and effects. To my eyes. It may be very "good" in many ways; but it just doesn't look authentic, or "real," to my eyes. And that isn't about the effects being "bad" - it's, in my reading of my dislike, of a different kind. The tiger doesn't move like any tiger I've ever seen. Lots of other bits just "don't look right," even the bits that *could* have been real. Like the storm. And bits of the sea.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm one of the cool kids.


You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

Anyhow, why hasn't anyone made the 'You won't like me when I'm Ang Lee' joke yet? Standards are fucking slipping on these boards.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2012)

NVP said:


> Anyhow, why hasn't anyone made the 'You won't like me when I'm Ang Lee' joke yet? Standards are fucking slipping on these boards.


You're entitled etc.


----------



## Reno (Dec 12, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> You put a lot of weight on a remarkably subjective word, "bad," in that remarkably objective analysis
> 
> The footage in the trailer looks post-processed to buggery and filled with glorious colours and effects. It may be very "good" in many ways; but it just doesn't look authentic, or "real," to my eyes. And that isn't about the effects being "bad" - it's, in my reading of my dislike, of a different kind. The tiger doesn't move like any tiger I've ever seen. Lots of other bits just "don't look right," even the bits that *could* have been real. Like the storm. And bits of the sea.


 
The film itself is highly stylised in its look and not very bothered to look "authentic". Not every film wants to look naturalistic. That's not a mistake, that's an artistic choice. The tiger moves very well to my eyes, you just know that I would be impossible for it to act for the camera like that. Placing it in an environment that looks more like a fairy tale world makes it work even better.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2012)

I thought the effects in avatar were pretty good.  It wasn't enough to keep me watching until the end, but that's because it was a really, really, _really_ dull film.  Good effects cannot save such a stinker.


----------



## Voley (Dec 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You're entitled etc.


You're just saying etc.

In interests of thread brevity, I propose we abbreviate these to 'You're etc.' from now on.


----------



## Reno (Dec 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I thought the effects in avatar were pretty good. It wasn't enough to keep me watching until the end, but that's because it was a really, really, _really_ dull film. Good effects cannot save such a stinker.


 
How much more whining about Avatar can the Internet take ?


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 12, 2012)

Reno said:


> The film itself is highly stylised in its look and not very bothered to look "authentic". Not every film wants to look naturalistic. That's not a mistake, that's an artistic choice. The tiger moves very well to my eyes, you just know that I would be impossible for it to act for the camera like that. Placing it in an environment that looks more like a fairy tale world makes it work even better.


I find your arrogance in reading my mind & motives astonishing 

Do I "know" it would be impossible to train a tiger to snarl and swipe on cue? Do I fuck. Do I know it's impossible to film a stormy sea? Do I fuck  

The artistic choice - fantastic. Good luck to it. Like I say, it's still what I see as the "wrongness" of the gfx that leave me feeling uneasy / pushed away. I think there might be something in that; I think your one-size-fits-all explanation misguided, patronising & simplistic - wrt what I believe I'm seeing / disliking, at least.


----------



## Reno (Dec 12, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> I find your arrogance in reading my mind & motives astonishing
> 
> Do I "know" it would be impossible to train a tiger to snarl and swipe on cue? Do I fuck. Do I know it's impossible to film a stormy sea? Do I fuck
> 
> The artistic choice - fantastic. Good luck to it. Like I say, it's still the gfx that leave me feeling uneasy / pushed away. I think there might be something in that; I think your one-size-fits-all explanation misguided, patronising & simplistic - wrt what I believe I'm seeing / disliking, at least.


 
Why am I being arrogant ?  As someone who works in CGI effects I'm just explaining something about how people frequently perceive effect that are perfectly fine. I'm not reading your fucking mind, it's a very common respose and it's called "the uncanny valley". They mind rejects something that is almost, but not quite real.

So stop being so fucking touchy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2012)

Reno said:


> How much more whining about Avatar can the Internet take ?


2.5 quintillion bytes at least.


----------



## girasol (Dec 12, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


Spoiler



Did he kill the cook? I thought the tiger was the cook? I really need to read it again...


 
So many spoilers so little time


----------



## girasol (Dec 13, 2012)

girasol said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


Spoiler



In answer to my own question, the hyena is the cook. Looking forward to watching it this evening!

http://www.shmoop.com/life-of-pi/


----------



## Voley (Dec 13, 2012)

I've heard the CGI's a bit shit in this, too:


----------



## girasol (Dec 13, 2012)

So, just got back... Really enjoyed it - although some bits I couldn't quite make out what was being said - like during the second storm when he was screaming. One thing that I could never quite figure out was the island, and what it meant, but was just reading imdb and it makes perfect sense:



Spoiler



It's a metaphor for cannibalism... So obvious now I think about it. When I read the book I just thought he must have been hallucinating at that point.


 
Worth watching in 3D just for the sea scenes. 



Spoiler



When I finished the book I spent a week feeling really upset, because I knew which version I thought was the true one and of course he came up with the other version, if anything, so he wouldn't have to deal with the horror of what actually happened and also he spent most of the time at sea alone, so he had to keep his mind occupied.

As far as adaptations go, I think this one stayed very close to the book.


 
Richard Parker looked pretty real to me!

I really fail to see how the story proves the existence of God, that's bullshit, it explores the human spirit, nature and creativity. And the more I think about the more it seems to me that it basically tries to illustrate why it is that religion exists.

More on the island from imdb, fucking hell  , it's only someone's interpretation of it, but a good one IMO, horrific though.


Spoiler



I believe that cannibalism happens before reaching the island. In the second story, the island is in fact something worse than that. 

In this movie, both stories have equal weights, one with more storytelling, and the other with more reasoning. So the question here is how should we interpret this island in story two. That should begin with the girl Anandi, and the connection between Anandi, Lord Vishnu, and his mother. 

The island is a symbol of Pi's mother, or Lord Vishnu in the same way that fish is Lord Vishnu. The island's shape of a woman is a strong indication. Remember when Pi asked Anandi about the dance? It was wrapped up with a lotus in the forest, and that was the thing that Pi discovered on the island. Also how Pi cannot remember how he and Anandi say goodbye since it's something so sad that he doesn't want to remember. And most importantly, Anandi laced a string on Pi's wrist as a way to say goodbye, which Pi then tightened to the island. Before reaching the island, Pi reached a state of despair, and the island is the last source of food on the boat - his mother's dead body. The whole experience of the island in story two, is in fact Pi's cannibalizing his mother's body. and the string tightened to the island is when he said goodbye to his mother. 

When Pi told the story to the japanese investigators, his second story ends when he killed the chef. The remaining part is something too sad that he can't remember, just like when he left Anandi.


link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/board/nest/207807574


 
But the book didn't mention the shape of the island I don't think, and I don't remember him falling in love before going away.


----------



## magneze (Dec 14, 2012)

Excellent film, well worth going to see. I hadn't read the book and knew nothing of the story. I would have thought that it was pretty much unfilmable until fairly recently.

It's a good story, well told and nicely directed & paced. Kept me engaged throughout.


----------



## girasol (Dec 14, 2012)

Spoiler



So in the book Pi meets another castaway who tries to eat him, but the castaway gets eaten by Richard Parker instead, given the unlikelihood of this happening, I'd say that's another indication that cannibalism took place. It's a pretty dark book, full of hidden horrors..


 
One thing from the book that gets a subtle mention in the movie, Pi studies religion and zoology at university. He studies the 2 & 3 toed sloth. In the opening sequence we see a sloth holding on to a tree.


----------



## girasol (Dec 14, 2012)

NVP said:


> I could go on. Ultimately though, the fact that Barack Obama believes it to be proof of God's existence should be enough to put most people off.


 
Did Obama really say it was 'a proof of God's existence'? I always thought he was a closet atheist, pretending to believe in God because otherwise he would never be elected.

He either didn't read the book, but was told what it was about and spewed it out for the media, or he actually is very religious and he interpreted the book as such. Or something else entirely I haven't thought of.

The book explores religion and why people feel the need for it and find comfort in it, but it also questions it, and it certainly doesn't 'prove' that God exists.


----------



## magneze (Dec 14, 2012)

> In a letter directly to Martel, Barack Obama described Life of Pi as "an elegant proof of God, and the power of storytelling".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Pi

The film certainly isn't any sort of "proof of God". Dunno about the book.


----------



## Santino (Dec 14, 2012)

As I recall, within the book there is a framing device in which occurs the idea that the main narrative is a story that would make you believe in God. That's where all this shit comes from.


----------



## girasol (Dec 14, 2012)

Santino said:


> As I recall, within the book there is a framing device in which occurs the idea that the main narrative is a story that would make you believe in God. That's where all this shit comes from.


 
I think it leaves it open to the reader, the main character wants to believe God and is searching for him, but his father doesn't. The story doesn't prove God exists IMO. It does explore faith though.

I just had a quick read of the last chapter again, when he tells the real story, and I forgotten how graphic and horrifying it is. They definetely toned it down immensely for the movie.

And I can't quite figure out why that book struck such a chord with me, but it really did...


----------



## Epona (Dec 15, 2012)

Well The Escapist movie review guy led me to believe that this film is a compete wrong'un godfest, so if you know different, convince me in a few words (that do not involve reference to 3d) why I should go snd see this?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 15, 2012)

A question for those who hated the book: when it won all of those literature awards... was it the result of cynical politics; or do the juries simply have bad taste?


----------



## Santino (Dec 15, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A question for those who hated the book: when it won all of those literature awards... was it the result of cynical politics; or do the juries simply have bad taste?


Go back through the history of some literary prizes and see how many winners are still being read today. It's about as many as you'd expect if the winners had been picked at random.


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

Epona said:


> Well The Escapist movie review guy led me to believe that this film is a compete wrong'un godfest, so if you know different, convince me in a few words (that do not involve reference to 3d) why I should go snd see this?


 
That's one of the reasons I avoided all the reviews, I liked the book and I wanted to watch the film. If you don't think you're going to like it, or if you read the book and hated it, it's likely you won't like the movie either. It's a great story, God or no God IMO.

Shame that people are so repulsed by 'spiritual' investigations - I'd rather watch a movie that explores that, even if I don't believe in God, than a shallow action special effects gorefest... And that aside it still has plenty of other things to offer: there's a tiger in it! And lots of nature too. And swimming pools


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

I had no idea 'Life of Pi' had won prizes when I read it, my mum gave it to me, I started reading it and couldn't stop. I'm sick and tired of people telling me what I should and shouldn't like!

(that makes me sound about 15   I was 38 when I read it!)


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

Finally, sorry! Try IMDB for a more rounded set of reviews if that's what you're after, there are 200+ user reviews there, as well as critics... Best to make your mind up based on lots of reviews than just one, right?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/externalreviews
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/reviews

but better still, just watch it and make your own mind up 

but here is just one reason why it's worth watching in 3D


```
What astonishes me is how much I love the use of 3-D in "Life of Pi." I've never seen
the medium better employed, not even in Avatar and although I continue to have
doubts about it in general, Lee never uses it for surprises or sensations, but only to
deepen the film's sense of places and events.
 
Let me try to describe one point of view. The camera is placed in the sea, looking up
at the lifeboat and beyond it. The surface of the sea is like the enchanted membrane
upon which it floats. There is nothing in particular to define it; it is just … there.
This is not a shot of a boat floating in the ocean. It is a shot of ocean, boat and sky
as one glorious place.
```


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 15, 2012)

Santino said:


> Go back through the history of some literary prizes and see how many winners are still being read today. It's about as many as you'd expect if the winners had been picked at random.


 
Is that the test, though? I don't think the age we live in is all that literary.


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

For me the book read like a movie (I know people said it was unfilmable, but I could just see it as a movie, it was full of images, and action), it's almost like it had been written with that in mind, perhaps that's why it did so well? We live in a visual age...


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

Oh dear, I'm still thinking about it 

The other thing in the book/film, is the relationship between man and animal, which was what I found the most interesting.



Spoiler



Pi's father says that what he sees in the tiger's eyes is the reflection of his own feelings (something like that) and lets RP kill a goat in front of him, to teach him a lesson. But later on they do develop a relationship, which, if you believe the other story is true and never actually happened, still seems pretty plausible.

Made me wonder about my own pets, and all animals in general. That in our relationship with animals, there's a lot of believing going on. You can believe that you have a connection with that animal or you can reduce it to a very basic level. In this case I know which version I prefer. I chose to believe that when my cats look at me, or purr or are generally cute, that we do have a connection...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 15, 2012)

girasol said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Pi's father says that what he sees in the tiger's eyes is the reflection of his own feelings (something like that) and lets RP kill a goat in front of him, to teach him a lesson. But later on they do develop a relationship, which, even if you believe the other story is true never actually happened, still seems pretty plausible.


I have to say I took that comment from the father as about religion.

Again, I'd never claim to be particularly good at deciphering messages in films, but I think this is more a meditation on the nature of and our relationship with religion, rather than being overtly pro-religion.


----------



## magneze (Dec 15, 2012)

I thought the film gave a nice explanation of why people believe, rather than making them believe IYSWIM.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 15, 2012)

Yeah, 'zactly.


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

magneze said:


> I thought the film gave a nice explanation of why people believe, rather than making them believe IYSWIM.



Well, that's what I have been saying...


----------



## girasol (Dec 15, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I have to say I took that comment from the father as about religion.


 
It might well have been, as he talked about 'soul' - it's ambiguous enough so that it can be interpreted in different ways (someone else mentioned it earlier as though it was a bad thing ) - but that particular scene for me was about nature and animals.


----------



## Santino (Dec 15, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is that the test, though? I don't think the age we live in is all that literary.


Apart from the fact that you're missing the point, if we are not in a literary age, why are you relying on book prize committees to tell you what's good literature?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 15, 2012)

Santino said:


> Apart from the fact that you're missing the point, if we are not in a literary age, why are you relying on book prize committees to tell you what's good literature?


 
First off, I'm not relying on the book prize committees. Second, even if this is not a literary age, there is still literature. Less people might be conversant with it, but some still are.


----------



## Epona (Dec 16, 2012)

girasol said:


> That's one of the reasons I avoided all the reviews, I liked the book and I wanted to watch the film. If you don't think you're going to like it, or if you read the book and hated it, it's likely you won't like the movie either. It's a great story, God or no God IMO.
> 
> Shame that people are so repulsed by 'spiritual' investigations - I'd rather watch a movie that explores that, even if I don't believe in God, than a shallow action special effects gorefest... And that aside it still has plenty of other things to offer: there's a tiger in it! And lots of nature too. And swimming pools


 
Nah, sorry, I'd rather watch the action special effects gorefest than something 'spiritual' that I can't connect with. There's nothing wrong with action films. 

The trailer for this film does make look as though it's a beautifully shot piece of cinematography, which is certainly of interest in an artistic sense, but the story/narrative itself just doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## girasol (Dec 16, 2012)

Epona said:


> Nah, sorry, I'd rather watch the action special effects gorefest than something 'spiritual' that I can't connect with. There's nothing wrong with action films.
> 
> The trailer for this film does make look as though it's a beautifully shot piece of cinematography, which is certainly of interest in an artistic sense, but the story/narrative itself just doesn't do anything for me.


 
fair enough, don't watch it then. It's not like I get commission for convicing people to go and see it   Although it's a bit odd when people say something doesn't do it for them without actually seeing it?  

(only kidding, I do know what you mean, sometimes things just don't appeal)


----------



## Epona (Dec 16, 2012)

girasol said:


> fair enough, don't watch it then. It's not like I get commission for convicing people to go and see it   Although it's a bit odd when people say something doesn't do it for them without actually seeing it?
> 
> (only kidding, I do know what you mean, sometimes things just don't appeal)


 
 Now if I thought a fellow urbanite was going to get a commission from convincing me to watch a film that didn't initially interest me, that might actually make me more inclined to give it a go 

Truth be told, when it comes to films I'm mostly into post-apocalyptic stuff, sci-fi, horror (mainly Japanese etc. style slow-buildup type suspense/atmospheric, not slasher type stuff) etc. - although this film looks visually gorgeous, it just doesn't strike me as being my cup of tea and that's all there is to it really.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 16, 2012)

Oh, did you not know? Pi is actually [dramaticvoice] the last human on Earth[/dramaticvoice], and has to fend for himself in a world that has been taken over by Japanese robots and Koren ghost-children.

Admittedly that's not clear from the trailer.


----------



## girasol (Dec 16, 2012)

Interesting interview, with some good photos too: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/15/...r-tim-squyres-challenge-shooting-3d-cg-tigers


```
What was the most important part of the book to preserve in the movie?
 
The movie is a philosophical and theological work wrapped around an adventure story.
The most important line in the book, according to [author Yann Martel], is at the end
of both the book and the movie. Pi tells the other story to Rafe Spall’s character, then
says “Which story do you prefer?” Rafe Spall answers the story about the animals, and
Pi says “Thank you, and so it goes with God.” It’s interesting how different people see
the ending differently. We purposely didn’t want to nail down exactly what you’re
supposed to take away. That’s the key to the entire book. If we were just telling an
adventure story between Pi and a tiger we wouldn’t have made movie. People like the
book because it’s philosophically interesting. That’s what we found so interesting about
the story, and we made sure we preserved that.
```


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 19, 2013)

just watched this on a standard dvd copy, thought it was beautiful, cant wait for the 3d release so i can put my tv through its paces.

and its making me think


----------



## ringo (Jan 21, 2013)

I couldn't stand the book, gave up, and then did some background reading about the plagiarism accusations and came to the conclusion that the author was a liar.

I've come to the conclusion that I quite like magic realism in films, but not in books. I really wanted to like 100 Years Of Solitude, but it drove me mad. Can't quite fathom out this contradiction, a definite difference between the written word and film. Still not going to watch this pile of shite though, especially with the god angle.


----------



## girasol (Jan 21, 2013)

missing the point...  but lots of people are.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 21, 2013)

ringo said:


> I couldn't stand the book, gave up, and then did some background reading about the plagiarism accusations and came to the conclusion that the author was a liar.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that I quite like magic realism in films, but not in books. I really wanted to like 100 Years Of Solitude, but it drove me mad. Can't quite fathom out this contradiction, a definite difference between the written word and film. Still not going to watch this pile of shite though, especially with the god angle.


 
there isnt really much of a god angle tho, although the story is meant to make you belive in god, i didnt find that it did, and the sybolism isnt your run of that mill christianity..


----------



## ringo (Jan 21, 2013)

girasol said:


> missing the point... but lots of people are.


 
I don't think I've missed the point at all. My point was that I hated the style in which it was written, so I stopped reading it. Finding out that some it is about god after I stopped reading it was the icing on the cake


----------



## cliche guevara (Jan 21, 2013)

Saw this in the cinema last week and thought it was absolutely beautiful. I thought a film translation would be difficult because of how much the book relies on your imagination, but for me it really worked.


----------



## girasol (Jan 21, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> there isnt really much of a god angle tho, although the story is meant to make you belive in god, i didnt find that it did, and the sybolism isnt your run of that mill christianity..


 
How is the story *meant* to make you believe in God? The story is meant to explain why some people choose to believe in God, because they prefer the story with the animals. That's what I mean by people missing the point. The book is very philosophical, but it's not religious and it certainly isn't about making anyone believe in God.


Also, how many people sussed the horrific cannibalism in the book



Spoiler



(what the island was a metaphor for)


? It passed me by, I had to go and analyze it more!


----------



## cliche guevara (Jan 21, 2013)

girasol said:


> Also, how many people sussed the horrific cannibalism in the book
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't get that at all, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 21, 2013)

girasol said:


> How is the story *meant* to make you believe in God? The story is meant to explain why some people choose to believe in God, because they prefer the story with the animals. That's what I mean by people missing the point. The book is very philosophical, but it's not religious and it certainly isn't about making anyone believe in God.


 
only from the line where Pi tells the writer 'il tell you a story that will make you belive in god ' ( or something similar, where the writer is told the story will make you beleive in god, by the person who sent the writer to Pi.. ) sorry cant remember which right now but its definitely in there

unless i misunderstiood what i was listening too 

also quite a good article

http://www.rrc.edu/multifaithworld/life-pi-can-movie-make-you-believe-god


----------



## Supine (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm a devout atheist and I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It's a great story - you can tell from how much people discuss it. I seem to remember being confused by the book more than anything else.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 21, 2013)

More than the religious ting its just so lovely to look at , you could put the sound down and just love it , 

Much like I found ' fantasia '.....


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 21, 2013)

Yp





girasol said:


> How is the story *meant* to make you believe in God? The story is meant to explain why some people choose to believe in God, because they prefer the story with the animals. That's what I mean by people missing the point. The book is very philosophical, but it's not religious and it certainly isn't about making anyone believe in God.
> 
> 
> Also, how many people sussed the horrific cannibalism in the book
> ...



You sure you seen it / read it ?  

Not an entirely serious post but I'm bored lol


----------



## girasol (Jan 23, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> only from the line where Pi tells the writer 'il tell you a story that will make you belive in god ' ( or something similar, where the writer is told the story will make you beleive in god, by the person who sent the writer to Pi.. ) sorry cant remember which right now but its definitely in there
> 
> unless i misunderstiood what i was listening too
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, Pi believes in god, doesn't mean the reader has to  Or that the book is about that. Pi was into investigating all religions (i.e. theology), but you can see science spring up everywhere, he studies zoology, his father argues for it...

Pi is interested in religion because he's interested in how people deal with suffering, and also he's trying to understand the connection that he feels that exists between man and animal. Which his father thinks is projection.

I said this earlier, different people will read different things into the book, which seems to be a mirror into what the reader things. Obama said that nonsense about it being proof of god because religious people saw that in the book. To me Life of Pi was about the power of imagination and the things humans are capable of doing to survive. The fact that it had animals (real & imaginary) in it was the icing on the cake. And the musings into religion are also interesting. Religion is part of humanity, so thinking about and studying it *is* important for us to understand ourselves.

From this analysis (there are so many of them around!)

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lifeofpi/themes.html



> Stories and religious beliefs are also linked in _Life of Pi_ because Pi asserts that both require faith on the part of the listener or devotee. Surprisingly for such a religious boy, Pi admires atheists. To him, the important thing is to believe in _something, _and Pi can appreciate an atheist’s ability to believe in the absence of God with no concrete proof of that absence. Pi has nothing but disdain, however, for agnostics, who claim that it is impossible to know either way, and who therefore refrain from making a definitive statement on the question of God. Pi sees this as evidence of a shameful lack of imagination. To him, agnostics who cannot make a leap of faith in either direction are like listeners who cannot appreciate the non-literal truth a fictional story might provide.


----------



## girasol (Jan 23, 2013)

ringo said:


> I couldn't stand the book, gave up, and then did some background reading about the plagiarism accusations and came to the conclusion that the author was a liar.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that I quite like magic realism in films, but not in books. I really wanted to like 100 Years Of Solitude, but it drove me mad. Can't quite fathom out this contradiction, a definite difference between the written word and film. Still not going to watch this pile of shite though, especially with the god angle.


 
I really don't like magical realism in books either. I have tried.

http://www.powells.com/fromtheauthor/martel.html

from the author, Yann Martel


> *Influence*
> *
> 
> 
> ...


 
If I remember correctly this is also mentioned in the book.


----------



## ringo (Jan 23, 2013)

"Why put up with a brilliant premise ruined by a lesser writer"

This says it all to me, I just don't like him. Not that I don't read books by people I don't like (Amis, Roth, Rushdie etc), but when I read his work I also didn't like him iyswim.


----------



## girasol (Jan 23, 2013)

ringo said:


> "Why put up with a brilliant premise ruined by a lesser writer"
> 
> This says it all to me, I just don't like him. Not that I don't read books by people I don't like (Amis, Roth, Rushdie etc), but when I read his work I also didn't like him iyswim.


 
yeah, that does sound arrogant... Still, I read the book before I knew of any of this 'controversy', and the book stands on its own.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/08/bookerprize2002.awardsandprizes

Funnily enough, I'm brazilian


----------



## ringo (Jan 23, 2013)

girasol said:


> yeah, that does sound arrogant... Still, I read the book before I knew of any of this 'controversy', and the book stands on its own.


 
I think he did, so I guess plagiarism has legally been proved not to have taken place. I'm more interested in the spirit of such behaviours than any legal decision though, so feel justified in thinking badly of him


----------



## girasol (Jan 23, 2013)

ringo said:


> I think he did, so I guess plagiarism has legally been proved not to have taken place. I'm more interested in the spirit of such behaviours than any legal decision though, so feel justified in thinking badly of him


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/08/bookerprize2002.awardsandprizes

I see what you mean, but the other book doesn't even seem available, so if someone takes something as inspiration and makes something much better out of it - well, I'm happy to forgive them  Happens quite a lot anyway!

What springs to mind is that A LOT of brazilian singers make their name by making brazilian versions of American/English songs, and no one ever bats an eyelid...


----------



## girasol (Jan 23, 2013)

You can also argue that art if often inspired by something/someone else? And that it borrows heavily from itself. Tarantino has made a career out of it  It's a grey area though, and yes, sometimes lines are crossed.


----------



## ringo (Jan 23, 2013)

girasol said:


> You can also argue that art if often inspired by something/someone else? And that it borrows heavily from itself. Tarantino has made a career out of it  It's a grey area though, and yes, sometimes lines are crossed.


 
Yes, everyone does it to some extent, all art has its influences, but this was so direct - a boy adrift in a boat with a big cat - it was too much for me. I'm sure it wouldn't have bothered me if his writing style hadn't grated so much. Probably comes down to the magic realism thing - enjoyed Pan's Labyrinth when I saw it at the weekend, couldn't stand it in a book.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2013)

I read the book and was annoyed by it. 
Saw the trailer for it and it looked even more annoying on film.
Bugger Ang Lee. Has he made any good films?


----------



## Reno (Jan 24, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I read the book and was annoyed by it.
> Saw the trailer for it and it looked even more annoying on film.
> Bugger Ang Lee. Has he made any good films?


 
I liked one of his early films, The Wedding Banquet at the time. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks he's rubbish, whenever I say that I don't like his films people react like I've kicked a puppy. I'm not sure why people fall for his middle brow art house fodder, it all feels rather superficial to me. I don't find them beautiful as people claim, they are decorative and dead like a coffee table book and they never quite ring true to me.

I had two opportunities to see BAFTA screenings of Pi and I bailed twice now. Got another one on Friday. I'm tempted to see the Tiger, but I may bail again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2013)

My friend saw it and he said it's just a film about a boy on a raft with a tiger.


----------



## Kiven (Jan 25, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> My friend saw it and he said it's just a film about a boy on a raft with a tiger.


I think what your friend have said is true, but there are some people who can see more than that. I appreciate them.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 27, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> My friend saw it and he said it's just a film about a boy on a raft with a tiger.



It is. And it's fucking brilliant, I thought. I think I enjoyed it more than anything else I've ever seen. I think you have to be a bit sentimental to enjoy it though. I can imagine some people would be bored stiff throughout.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 21, 2013)

I wasn't sure about it beforehand but I saw it last night. Having not read the book, I enjoyed it. 

The scene of the ship sinking made me feel very uncomfortable. My idea of hell.


----------



## Firky (Feb 21, 2013)

The sinking ship made my stomach turn.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2013)

I thought it was a great film. The use of 3D was spectacular, beautiful and haunting. The story itself is a wonderful play with religious meaning and metaphor.


----------



## belboid (Feb 21, 2013)

kenny g said:


> I thought it was a great film. The use of 3D was spectacular, beautiful and haunting. The story itself is a wonderful play with religious meaning and metaphor.


Really?  To be fair, it does okay until the end, when they spell _everything_ out in detail cos we're obviously too thick to work it out.

The night after I watched Pi I watched this other film, where there was an irresolvable disoute between two versions of events involving the disapperance/murder of a child.  The triteness of 'which story do you prefer' becomes obvious when it is refers to boring old reality.

It (Pi) did look good tho


----------



## kenny g (Feb 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really?


 
Yes, really. It is a mainstream film so I expect things to be spelt out at some points.


----------



## nuffsaid (Feb 25, 2013)

Christmas Day early evening film - 2016. Nailed on.


----------



## Reno (Feb 25, 2013)

Bill Westenhofer and the crew from Rhythm & Hues, won for Life of Pi for best special effects. Ironically Rythm & Hues is the latest effects company to go under because the studios and the likes of Ang Lee don't like to pay the prices these effects actually cost. As soon as Westenhofer started to mention the demise of R&H, they cut him as if he was some kind of political activist. He should have lead with it, as some folks might have interpreted events as, "Oh, he was just running over his time!" 

He hadn't. What was telling is that they cut his mic and cut away, first to the audience and then to a bewildered Seth MacFarlane. He had been silenced.

What's different in this case, is that these guys had just won the VFX Oscar. Now they're out of jobs and the FX facility is bankrupt and in danger of closing, like so many other FX facilities. Directly because of the producers, directors, and studios in the room. 

Artists have been sent home without pay. They just won the Oscar for the effects and for the director of the movie, so a light was to be shone on the situation. Ang Lee by the way, failed to mention them in his acceptance speech, even though the digital tiger was a significant part of the film.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-2013-vfx-artists-blast-424304


----------



## trabuquera (Feb 25, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Bugger Ang Lee. Has he made any good films?


 
Ang Lee has no imperial clothes (and from the sound of Reno's thread he's got no regard for his junior colleagues either.) But it is possible to detract from the overall hype and say that at least he doesn't make outright, outrageously STUPID films. Brokeback Mountain might not be your cup of tea but was pretty important for the industry, I think.

personally his best, for me, are the early ones: Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman (1994) - small, domestic chamber pieces, a little sugary perhaps but with enough grit in the dipping sauce to be interesting. It's been ages since I last saw it but I also remember being pretty impressed by the subtlety and period feel of Ride With The Devil (1999) which was supposedly set during the US Civil War.


----------

