they could just kill the power in whole house to avoid seeing screen in case he is suicidal

@cpheonix

Agree to disagree, I concur!

I just don't understand why you think leaving him tied up in the room alone would be unrealistic. I also don't understand how you think anyone could have saved him. If anything, someone would have stayed in the room and shot him.

I also had that same knee-jerk response: why are they all leaving the room?!!?

But if you think about it, like somebody already said: If it goes wrong, there is no point trying to stop him from killing himself. At that point it's over, and anything you do to prevent it is just putting yourself at risk.

actually if it goes wrong might as well provide him gun to make it painless and fast, since obviously there is no way to keep him alive anyway

I'd like to involve the book to answer the first question

1

In the novel, Gary causes everyone’s death, including Tom. No one but Malorie and the babies survive. She brings up the kids all by herself in the house. There is no romantic relationship with Tom. Her being alone and afraid is what makes her name the children Boy and Girl as she believes that anything more than survival is a luxury. In the book, Tom is shown to be someone who inspires Malorie because of his survival skills. She feeds off the inspiration to survive when she’s left alone. In the film, after everyone else in the house dies, we see Malorie and Tom living together for 5 years after which he dies because of the group of psychos. In spite of her companionship, Malorie, in the film, is cynical and believes that names are a luxury.

*Source *- Bird Box Movie vs Book

The cynical nature in the film comes from her run-away partner.

2 The ending is a wee bit darker in the book.

When Malorie makes it to the safe haven, she learns that the place is where there were initially blind people. But she also discovers that many of the residents there have intentionally blinded themselves and their children to survive. Malorie thinks that she and her children are going to be made blind by force, but then Rick confirms that people have a choice. The movie talks about no such thing. The place has both blind people and the ones with vision who somehow made it there.

In the film we're going have to assume a larger number of blind people in the mix as compared to ones with eyes. The rest don't make it.

5

In the novel, the blindfolds never come off. Ever. The kids are born into darkness. They grow up without using their sight. This makes their other senses really sharp. The kids are able to “hear” the differences in Malorie’s breathing to say if she’s anxious. It is the kids who enable Malorie to make the journey. Through their sharp hearing, they become her eyes. The movie doesn’t focus much on the kids, they remain as liabilities. For a short moment towards the end, the kids help with following the sound of the birds, but that’s about it.

As someone already answered, she didn't want the kids to be in trouble if she got caught. But that doesn't pan out the way she hopes anyways. They just make it out.

Sorry for the long post.

thanks for detailed explanation, it makes more sense than the movie interpretation

though there is still no reason why not tie them to herself on the boat at least

@Markoff said:

thanks for detailed explanation, it makes more sense than the movie interpretation

though there is still no reason why not tie them to herself on the boat at least

Although I can't quote the source and this feels like raw plagiarism .. I'll do it one more time but I'll come back and link to the original article later on ..

In the novel, the blindfolds never come off. Ever. The kids are born into darkness. They grow up without using their sight. This makes their other senses really sharp. The kids are able to “hear” the differences in Malorie’s breathing to say if she’s anxious. It is the kids who enable Malorie to make the journey. Through their sharp hearing, they become her eyes. The movie doesn’t focus much on the kids, they remain as liabilities. For a short moment towards the end, the kids help with following the sound of the birds, but that’s about it. source:

So you see, the helpless kids are sort of a movie rendition. That scene where she leaves them on the boat, she ideally means for them to make a run for it in case she gets taken down. However the kid doesn't listen to her anyway. Looks like the scene was created to generate tension, it's not part of the original story.

i was talking about river to avoid drowning

@tivep said: Sorry for the long post.

Nope. Thank you so much! Much clearer now.

I also think that reallistically speaking they could've avoided to leave the CCTV guy alone because a) they knew that no looking at the monitor = no death sentence, b) apart from malkovitch they were not yet in a more coldblooded survivor mode, and thus were still supposed to have some kind of altruistic feelings and c) unspeakable bonus reason : the possession of a live sick specimen to study is most valuable.

Thanks for the comparison with the book. Not surprised it sounds more coherent and less normalized than the movie (romance, happy end).

Speaking of the ending, what are the odds for her to be reunited with the gynecologist from the hospital ? I agree with some people here, the final safe haven feels so surreal. Even if that was probably the point, seeing all these people lying around merrily and lazily, one can only wonder if food and all means of subsistance magically drop from the trees, so to speak.

Which brings me to a question about food and health. If it's not fresh at some point wouldn't they get nasty diseases from poor nutrient input (thinking vitamins), like scurvy ? And I can hardly see them growing and/or hunting it, outside with the loonies or in the shelter for blind folks in the shade and unfertileness of a forest as someone mentioned. Fishing probably wouldn't be enough.