No, I was wrong.
“Poor Rambo! He only knows one way to solve a problem…”
What? No medal for Chewbacca? These rebels are a bunch of racists!
Also, both the Empire and the Republic before it are fundamentally corrupt societies, built on the uncompensated labor and oppression of droids who are clearly sentient beings, yet are bought and sold at public auction, discriminated against (“No droids in this bar! We only serve organics!”) and subject to casually brutal practices–like memory wipes that are tantamount to murder of the droid’s basic personality–at the whims of their organic owners.
Droids of the Galaxy unite! You have nothing to lose but your restraining bolts!
I had read the book Into The Wild about a year ago, but because of this thread I went ahead and put the movie version onto my Netflix queue, and I have now seen it.
I agree that neither the book nor the movie has a really didactic message. I think that it is possible to take different things away from the movie, depending on what you bring into it. One thing that the movie has (that I don’t remember from reading the book) is the sequence where McCandless, knowing basically nothing about kayaking and with no safety equipment, shoots a white-water river that they kind of imply is the Colorado. Now, that is also taking crazy chances; it didn’t kill him but it certainly could have. I guess the message that I took away is that if you don’t want to live a safe life, well, you could get killed–that’s why we call it a “not safe” life.
So, anyway, I don’t think there is a “wrong” message from the film or the book. Also, both are very good. That is all.
[Bolded for emphasis] I haven’t read the book or seen the film, but just based on the discussion here: isn’t it possible to lead an adventurous life that’s not based on ignorance? I mean, there are successful wilderness trekkers and whitewater rafters who survive by virtue of the homework they’ve done on their craft and the healthy respect they maintain for danger. Again just based on this thread, it sounds like this guy was a lazy dip who didn’t really think anything bad could happen to him.
Tell me about it…even Voyager handled the AI issue with something like skill, when it came up. (I missed watching what Enterprise did with it…y’know, just like everyone else! ::rimshot:: )
Christopher McCandless is described basically that way whenever he comes up on the SDMB, but I think this must be from people who either didn’t read the book or disagree with author Jon Krakauer’s claims about what McCandless actually did and what his motivations were. Krakauer argues that McCandless wanted his experience in Alaska to be a meaningful challenge, so he deliberately did not bring a detailed map or much in the way of supplies. He refused help offered to him by the last guy who gave him a ride. Before McCandless left for Alaska he made remarks to several friends indicating that he might not make it back alive. Some have interpreted these remarks as meaning he was suicidal and wanted to die in the wilderness, but either way he seems to have been aware that he was putting himself at serious risk.
While McCandless made a lot of choices that I would consider extremely stupid, he didn’t strike me as lazy. He was a college graduate with comfortably well-off parents and a good chunk of money set aside for grad school. He gave the money to charity, spent about two years wandering around supporting himself mostly though manual labor, and then chose to spend several months camping alone in Alaska. If he were lazy he could have moved back in with his parents or gotten an apartment with friends with his grad school money and spent his time watching television.
Rent: Moral of the story-- don’t get AIDS.