I just watched the clip in this link and the writer voiced a concern that I held after fiishing the book last night, that of the tiger and Pi becoming friends. This clip I keep seeing of Richard Parker laying his head on Pi’s lap just did not happen in the book. Now, I don’t think it is entirely unrealistic, because Richard Parker was raised in a zoo and accustomed to people, plus Pi had become his provider. Most ANY animal can and will become semi-approachable. In fact, I wondered about that while reading- why DIDN’T Richard Parker seek out companionship?
The book left me wondering, as I suppose it intended, which was the real story? It also left a lot of unanswered questiuons, like the meerkats… the algae island…the Frenchman… I will definitely be re-reading it after seeing the movie.
I really hope they don’t have a scene where Richard Parker is basically transformed into a huge kitty. It was pretty clear in the book that there is always a tension between Parker and Pi, no matter how long they are stuck together on the boat. Pi can never let down his guard. And the way Parker leaves in the end without a backwards glance is fitting.
I do want to see the movie but I’m trying not to expect too much.
Read it a few years back and saw it today. I think those who have read it and enjoyed it will also enjoy the movie. Those of you who haven’t read it and want to see it will probably enjoy it as well. It’s a beautifully shot movie.
I saw this yesterday (in 2-D). Don’t worry - there’s really no scene like that.
Good movie. If it doesn’t win the Oscar for cinematography, I’d be shocked.
Well Pap, answering that would let loose an entire floodgate of spoilers so before I (or anyone else) addresses it, I have to ask - doesn’t the end of the movie allude if not completely address that point?
An “unreliable narrator” just refers to the type of story where it’s being told to us by someone (Pi) who may or may not be telling us the story exactly as it happened (a concept I think you in particular would be familiar with).
Did you see the scene near the end where Pi was relating his story to the Japanese insurance company agents?
There was no tiger in the boat. Or a hyena, or any other zoo animals. The story was much much darker than that.
But since the boat sank anyway, and his family died… Why not just believe the more fanciful/pleasant story? The story’s point is that believing in God is also choosing the better of two stories - because why not believe in something pleasant if it doesn’t change the facts of how we got here?
I saw it last night in 3D and liked it a lot. I didn’t read the book, and didn’t know anything about the story except that it involved a boy and a tiger in a boat. I expected it to be even more of a fantasy than it actually was.
I thought the CGI of the tiger and other animals was astonishingly good. They were virtually indistinguishable from real animals, even down to the details of the fur. I’m amazed at how far CGI has come. The more fantastical scenes, like the whale leaping, the flying fish, and some of the underwater scenes were breathtaking in 3D.
I’ll be interested to hear more input from those who have read the book to see how well the movie realized it. But at least in its own terms it was great.
Very faithful adaptation of the book. I worried it was unfilmable but Ang Lee did
a masterful job. The only major difference was the author talking with the older Pi, which isn’t part of the book (though I suppose it’s alluded to in the way the book’s story is told.)
I’m going to have to see it again. It wasn’t quite what I was expecting and I nodded off in parts. That said…
Visually it was spectacular. But the 3D wasn’t as good as I had heard. I stopped noticing it in parts and had to take off my glasses to see if it was still being used.
The acting was great, especially Pi, as a newcomer having to carry almost a whole film, was impressive.
Did they cut out the part where he goes blind? I missed that. It seemed like an crucial part of the story that RP saves his life at some point.
I was amused that they neutered Richard Parker given how silly and distracting the boobs on Orange Juice were.
I was disappointed that they went for “tell not show” for the “alternate” version of events. I also didn’t quite get how the analogy would have translated exactly. The “more realistic” version doesn’t seem to make much sense. Maybe someone can spell it out for me. How is Pi the tiger? Why does he spend all this time figuring out to deal with a tiger that doesn’t exist? Why is the cook killing people before the supplies run out? How did Pi’s mom make it to the raft but not the rest of his family? What did the carnivorous island represent? What really happened with the blind guy?
I liked it quite a bit but really did not like the time in the “present” with the adult Pi. To me it felt more like, “Well, the boy can’t act that and have everyone get it so we’ll just let the adult Pi explain it to you.” I saw it in 3D and it was really nicely done, meaning not overdone.
There is a scene where the tiger put his head on the boy’s lap. But they are both nearly dead at that point.
I hated that they very literally say the heyena was the cook, the zebra was the sailor, you mother is the orangutang and the tiger was you. My god they must think I’m really stupid.
To be fair the previous day I had scene Anna Karenina, which is fantastic and it really treats the audience like they are smart. You have to pay attention. I want to watch that one over and over.
I’ve been hearing really good things about this movie–I’d like to see it, but I’m always leery of watching movies with cats in them, because I’m afraid something will happen to the cat and I don’t want to see that.
So can somebody spoil enough of the movie for me to let me know nothing bad happens to the tiger (or any other cats)? Thanks!
From reading through the thread it sounds like it might not even be a real tiger, but that doesn’t matter. If bad things happen to it I don’t really want to watch that.