Discuss Bird Box

  1. Why not give names to children? It doesn't seem like it would affect survival in any way.

  2. The ending seem way too happy and dream like unrealistic so did they actually drown in the river and this is just flashback when dying which would explain my other two questions.

  3. Why can be they out in yard in daylight safe from monsters, what's so special about it, it was not completely covered with plants.

  4. What are their supplies for so many people living there, how can they grow so much food? It seem unrealistic.

  5. Also why not have children roped to her in river and when walking in forest to avoid getting lost from each other?

24 replies (on page 2 of 2)

Jump to last post

Previous page

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.

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page