The End?
DOes anybody know what happens in the end? I fell asleep when i was watching it. Why are the patients really falling into comas and where are they going??????
thanx
eh, they put people in comas so they can sell their organs to the highest bidder. bujold squeals, gets drugged, taken to OR #8, they try to put her in a coma, michael douglas saves her. the end.
shareThe book was more suspenseful. You never hear if she wakes or not. It is left up to the reader whether she survives or not.
Further, in the book, she was a medical student, not a doctor. She also wasn't in a relationship with the Michael Douglas character; he was overseeing her student year but he was overseeing many others as well.
(Sigh...)
Excuse me, but...who cares?
Did you wish to rcommend to people that they might enjoy reading the book - particularly if they liked the film, because it gives some different twists to fundamentally the same tale? Fair enough, and that's a thought. But the book ISN'T necessarily "better" than the film - YOU just like the book better than the film (just a guess...did you read the book FIRST? and did you expect to see a filmed version of the book you have running in YOUR head and you're disappointed you saw a filming of SOMEONE ELSES idea of the essence of the story...? Hmmm...?)
Why do people insist on comparing books & movies? What's the point? They are different mediums with different approaches, differnt timeline requirements, different methods of telling a story. Just one example: In a film EVERYTHING must be visualized or turmed into dialogue...you don't get 12 pages of listening in on the thoughts of the protagonist or the ramblings of minutiae from an unseen 3rd person narrator. (Pardon me if I point out how easy THAT is to do!) It must be immediate, it must be visual or expressed as dialogue so WE CAN HEAR IT, and it must try to get the story told in a couple of hours or less.
Tell me, how long do you think it took you to read the book?
Books may indeed be "better" than the movies made from them, but only because of the preferences and prejudices of those reading or viewing the end products. They aren't directly comparable - EVER - so why don't we give that particular "Compare and contrast" exercise a rest, hmm? See, I'm NEVER going to read Cook's book - which was quite a thick one as I recall...the film IS Coma, and the book is "something else."
Coma - the film is a better MOVIE than Coma the Book, ya know?
"Principles only mean something if you stick to them when they're INconvenient"
The movie misrepresents the medical profession and insitutions in general. Do you really think all physicians talk about in the facilities are how surgeries went, various medical afflictions, and medical related stuff? That's what I hated so much about this movie. The so-called relationship between Douglas and Bujold in the film lacked any signs of real emotion - it just seemed like two actors reading lines in front of the camera. The same for the scenes where friends died, or where she was supposed to be talking to a shrink...there was no emotion in this film.
The book focused much more on the HUMAN characters than where they worked. The film missed this element completely, making it extremely one dimensional compared to the novel.
Oh, and I saw the movie first, then read the book.
Okay...fair enough, that's YOUR take and you're welcome to it. I personally TOTALLY disagree as to the lack of emotion expressed, but that's MY take. Whatever...glad you liked the book!
"Principles only mean something if you stick to them when they're INconvenient"
I am so sorry but though I never read the book, the characters in the movie showed a wide range of emotions for me.
I am extremely pleased with the closeness of the two leads.
It didn't bother me one bit.
I don't agree with you that the two leads had a emotion-less relationship.
[deleted]
The underlying theme of "Coma" is the dehumanization of patients at the hands of the medical profession. The movie exploits this wonderfully in the service of unease (and disease?). It's supposed to be cold and clinical. I think this movie has a great sense of technological paranoia (Chrichton of course). Look at all the cases of organ theft and body-snatching rings out of funeral homes in the 30 years since this movie came out. Did "Coma" predict this, or just give people the idea?
I think Bujold gives a fully three dimensional and warm and yes "emotional" performance in this movie.
@josebut8, the underlying theme of Coma was actually what some will do to keep others alive, IE: create an elaborate system to force certain peoples into donating organs at the cost of said donors lives. Robin Cook said in interviews that as a young surgeon who practiced transplant surgeries, he often watched patients languish waiting for an organ for transplant. He wished that there was an easy solution to the problem but there was none. He then wanted to write a medical thriller about organ transplants and donation but with hospital controversy and politics mixed in. In truth Coma neither predicted or gave people the idea about organ theft and body theft, Coma was merely one way to present a story with ethical ramifications on two sides of an issue that even in the 21st century still plagues us. Do we just allow those in need of organs to die, sometimes painful and lengthy deaths while waiting and hoping for a transplant or do we create a modality where by we increase the number of transplants per year thus saving lives even if it means some may have to die in non-accidental deaths and their organs donated under a veneer of deceit to achieve this goal? Pretty heady stuff if you think about it because as a doctor, you take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. You cannot ethically kill others for organs to donate but what about those that you can help if it means sacrificing anothers life? From one individual many can be helped through organ donation but there is no manditory rule that states a person must give up his organs upon death. So what to do. Well, in the case of the Jefferson Institute, you create a facade that you are a long term coma patient care facility and when the time is right you take a comatose patient off your roster, harvest his organs and then bid them off and take the cash.
Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where's your bleeding heart for them?
Great point. People on these boards constantly compare books to movies, and almost always complain how the book was better. Blah, blah, blah. Write about the movie, not about how the movie failed to live up to the book (or your perception of the book).
shareare you sure she wasn't in relationship with Marc Bellows/Douglas/
May be you should read this book one again. as far as i know he slept him
There is a vast difference between sleeping with somebody and being in a relationship with them.
In the book he was the resident overseeing her, as either a third or fourth year med student (I don't recall which year she was in, it's been a while). Having worked in a hospital, I can assure you that the supervising resident would NEVER sleep with one of his med students. In unprofessional, unethical, and could quickly get him in tons of trouble.
I just watched the film again--first time since I saw it on old-fashioned cable in 1980 when I was a wee lass--and it's still great.
A couple of points.
First of all, I agree that it's somewhat pointless to always say "the book is better." However, sometimes, the book of a film has additional details that are left out in the film, and sometimes characters and plot points are combined. Often, reading the book helps fill in gaps, or provides even more great story points to those who already like the film version. Sometimes, the book or short story are NOT better than the film, as is the case with Rollerball, which is a much better film than the William Harrison short story, Roller Ball Murder. With Rosemary's Baby, the film is as near exact a represention of the book as I've ever seen. I enjoyed both, but probably loved the film more because it was so brilliantly executed. Just remember, without the source material, there is no movie, however, and book writers deserve some respect not to see their original idea butchered on the screen.
I did not read the book Coma, and don't feel I need to since I really love the film. I think that the way films were made in the 70s just don't resonate with some newer audiences. Instead of overly dramatic moments, abundant close-ups, overacting, and shaky camera music video action, as is often the case in modern thrillers, in the 1970s, everything was way more subtle. I often laugh that audiences today have ADD, that they just can't sit still long enough and really watch a film--everything has to be WHAM BAM and in your face.
Every era had its style--1940s and 50s films were melodramatic, and people back then liked them. Doesn't mean Casablanca sucks, just because it's overly sentimental. The only problem I have with Coma is some of the "convenient" moments that allow her to escape peril (riding on top of an ambulance?), or some that really take a leap of faith--such as Bujold immediately getting the computer guy to run a check on coma patients. That's really grasping on her part, based only the fact that her friend died and there was a tissue sample done.
Regardless, this was an important film, and one that resonates today with all of the government links to pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession. Thank god we can start and clone organs so none of us have to give up a kidney for some millionaire's son in Texas! A loose quote from the film.
Okay first off I love this thing you've all got going on with the one word that's capitals... so I shall use one.
I totally agree with the dude who doesn't like the whole movie / book compare thing.
This is the internet MOVIE database (ha see what I did there) not the book database...
This film reminded me of Soylent Green .. the same sort of thing
Its a lot more common than you think.
shareLOL! Obviously you are not a doctor. I am. Residents sleep with "their" med students ALL the time.
shareI'm glad you mentioned the book ending here, as it makes more sense. The movie ending was silly: on what grounds would Dr. Harris be arrested? There's no direct evidence to give to the police that would prove that he himself was involved in the carbon monoxide pump-line. The whole conspiracy runs too deep for a simple 911 call. A huge investigation would have to take place first before anyone would be arrested. And with all that money earned from selling organs, you'd think they'd be able to cover their tracks.
coma 2:the investigation
share