think about it, that's liek 9 months for one meal.
― s1ocki, Friday, 27 June 2008 16:31 (seventeen years ago)
I'm not gonna read any of this thread because it seemed to get all spoiler-ey from the get go, but my question is should I read this? I'm a-hungry for book right now I am.
― I know, right?, Friday, 27 June 2008 22:00 (seventeen years ago)
how much meat on a newborn babby too? not worth it; you'd be better off eating the woman.
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 23:21 (seventeen years ago)
?
― I know, right?, Friday, 27 June 2008 23:32 (seventeen years ago)
agreed, maybe she could produce another sprog -- but that's *another* nine months, and for a small yield. who has nine months?
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 23:36 (seventeen years ago)
I assumed it was someone else's baby, kidnapped to be et.
― James Morrison, Saturday, 28 June 2008 01:08 (seventeen years ago)
i read it as bred-specifically-for-eating, and had the same wonders about efficiency. also, i was worried at there being no mention of whether or not it was free range/organic.
― darraghmac, Monday, 30 June 2008 13:24 (seventeen years ago)
^ above few posts pretty much explain problem with "barbecuing babies = horrific"
― thomp, Monday, 30 June 2008 19:06 (seventeen years ago)
You wouldn't rely on bred-for-barbecue-baby as your sole source of food, but you would at least know that you had a guaranteed source of food every 7-9 months (I'm not imagining many would go full-term), while you scavenge what's available inbetween.
Fucking hell, how gruesome has this concept made me?
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 10:48 (seventeen years ago)
yeah but seriously, you'd have to feed the woman *and* the baby while she was pregnant -- it just doesn't add up.
― banriquit, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 10:52 (seventeen years ago)
yeah- eating the woman herself would probably be a much more efficient way of going about it
― darraghmac, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 10:59 (seventeen years ago)
reading this now finally after letting it sit on my shelf for two years. it is a joy. reading this after having a child is a perfect mindfuck. oddly enough there were times over the past two years when I had to carry my son and he was way too heavy or fussy, or I've had to deal with him on very little sleep, etc, and to get myself through it I've imagined that we were in a post-apocalyptic world and that I would have to persevere despite his complaints or we would die, and it's made it bearable. also, having been a child of the 70's/early 80's, I often had nightmares of nuclear holocaust; my earliest, non-werewolf related nightmare had to do with some massive nuclear explosion.
"The Road" kind of makes me want to become a crazy ass survivalist and build a bomb shelter.
― akm, Thursday, 24 July 2008 06:02 (seventeen years ago)
read it in one sitting, and i can definitely see the attraction, but that ending....?
-- darraghmac,
was it too happy for you?
― akm, Thursday, 24 July 2008 17:35 (seventeen years ago)
yeah- i guess that it just seemed so unlikely, given the total breakdown in society we've been led through up til that point. i was waiting for someone to kill & eat the kid up until the final paragraph, if i'm honest.
― darraghmac, Sunday, 10 August 2008 06:00 (seventeen years ago)
i was waiting for someone to kill & eat the kid up until the final paragraph, if i'm honest.
(I said this upthread and it didn't go anywhere, but I've never been averse to redundancy.)
― contenderizer, Monday, 11 August 2008 17:49 (seventeen years ago)
i dunno about this new cover, it's kinda lame
http://www.bookninja.com/wp-content/themes/bookninja/images/road.jpg
― Mr. Que, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:59 (seventeen years ago)
ergh. david cameron lookalike.
― senator which fanta girl u blap? (Upt0eleven), Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:13 (seventeen years ago)
jesus that's just inappropriate.
― darraghmac, Friday, 24 October 2008 15:55 (seventeen years ago)
loooool it reminds me of that mcsweeneys thing where they talked abt the movie version - 'in book, wife is dead. Rewrite this. Have her be alive and like blowjobs.'
― t_g, Friday, 24 October 2008 16:01 (seventeen years ago)
Maybe wife doesn't like blowjobs—wife really likes blowjobs.
― t_g, Friday, 24 October 2008 16:02 (seventeen years ago)
surely that cover is a wind-up?
― what U cry 4 (jim), Friday, 24 October 2008 16:03 (seventeen years ago)
lol trolled
― goole, Friday, 24 October 2008 16:03 (seventeen years ago)
x-post uh yeah. do you really think today's parent is going to call the road 'heartwarming'/??
― t_g, Friday, 24 October 2008 16:04 (seventeen years ago)
there is a baby on a spit in this book come on
http://www.bookninja.com/?p=4641
― Mr. Que, Friday, 24 October 2008 16:09 (seventeen years ago)
trailer - http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810037227/video/13468775/
― just sayin, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:19 (seventeen years ago)
Wow, that looks pretty bad. Like Red Dawn or something.
― nate woolls, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:37 (seventeen years ago)
Er... I'm liked it! The director usually knows what he's doing. But then I'm a sucker for end-of-the-world movies and books. (But, to attempt to justify myself, I can at least recognise that 'Red Dawn' was balls.)
― James Morrison, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:22 (seventeen years ago)
I liked it. Can't even type.
― James Morrison, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:23 (seventeen years ago)
Looks like they're trying to sell it as more of a post-apocalyptic action flick, which makes sense from a marketing perspective
― Number None, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:42 (seventeen years ago)
http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/05/esquire-wasnt-kidding-trailer-for-road.html
― nate woolls, Friday, 15 May 2009 08:08 (seventeen years ago)
So it was climate change all along? I'm sceptical. The contextless bleakness of the book means that the little slivers of the unknown good times (finding the coca cola) seem almost miraculous - they're hardly going to have the same impact if framed by 24-hour rolling news footage.
― Ismael Klata, Friday, 15 May 2009 08:42 (seventeen years ago)
They mention in the Esquire article that the news reports were just inserted in the trailer and won't actually be in the movie i think?
― Number None, Friday, 15 May 2009 11:16 (seventeen years ago)
Ugh. I hope that this is just a horribly misleading trailer.
― circa1916, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:25 (seventeen years ago)
how else are they going to sell a completely depressing + nihilistic film to the movie-going public?
I really liked the proposition, so I've got high hopes for this one
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:34 (seventeen years ago)
it's gotta be better than the mist, right?
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:37 (seventeen years ago)
I think you can sell the material as dramatic and intense without going all WHAM-BANG-XPLOSION!!! That thing is just a cliche-ridden mess. I hold out hope for the film being good, but damn. I don't think the Weinsteins know what to do with this movie.
― circa1916, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 16:10 (seventeen years ago)
if this movie has to be anything, it has to be very, very quiet.
― U2 raped goat (darraghmac), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 16:15 (seventeen years ago)
This looks depressing.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 20 May 2009 17:39 (seventeen years ago)
That sounds trite, and I didn't mean intend it that way. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I have an 8-year old daughter, so movies about kids in peril, or in circumstances with a certain kind of suffocating sadness, are hard for me to bear. Not begrudging others enjoying the book/movie, obv.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 20 May 2009 17:45 (seventeen years ago)
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940928.html?categoryid=3212&cs=1
Oh dear.
― nate woolls, Thursday, 3 September 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)
on the other hand, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/03/the-road-adaptation-cormac-mccarthy
― caek, Thursday, 3 September 2009 20:54 (sixteen years ago)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574529703577274572.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, 13 November 2009 15:24 (sixteen years ago)
Anyone see this yet? I was hesitant after watching the crappy trailer, but turns out that most of the footage wasn't in the actual movie. All in all, I loved the film. I probably would recommend reading the book first if you haven't already done so.
― musicfanatic, Thursday, 3 December 2009 01:37 (sixteen years ago)
Lacked any of the drive the book had and was fairly unsuccessful at translating the love for the boy that drove the father and made the entire narrative swallowable.
― smashing aspirant (milo z), Thursday, 3 December 2009 06:56 (sixteen years ago)
Not out in Aus for months :(
― Attention please, a child has been lost in the tunnel of goats. (James Morrison), Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:08 (sixteen years ago)
The trailer was changed a lot for the UK, but it still looks awful : (
― caek, Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:14 (sixteen years ago)
I've seen the trailer, but I still can't imagine it as a movie unless it was filmed inside a wardrobe or something like that Cure video
― Ismael Klata, Thursday, 3 December 2009 13:30 (sixteen years ago)
Vigo absolutely killed it in this, and the kid wasn't bad either. A decent job all round.
Is there another thread for the movie? Hard to search for.
― rhythm fixated member (chap), Friday, 21 May 2010 16:08 (sixteen years ago)
Oh, this is I Love Books.
― rhythm fixated member (chap), Friday, 21 May 2010 16:17 (sixteen years ago)