MovieChat Forums > The Plague (2006) Discussion > Why don´t people understand the plot?

Why don´t people understand the plot?

posted 18 years ago by fukallmonkeys
75 replies | jump to latest

I don´t understand why people don´t get the plot. It´s simple. Kids one day go comatose to escape the world and it´s degradation as a fellow poster posted in another thread. Then they wake up when the world reaches critical mass, that´s why they wake up just as the UN bans childbirth and there are riots (remember the scene of them all turning their heads when the nurse is watching the news?). So they wake up and start absorbing the souls of the adults. This also coincides with the closing down of schools (therefore the end of education, the only thing that can save the world until then). Even the stockmarket is profiting from them as the radio explains in one of the scenes ("now is the time to invest in care centers").

So they wake up and start absorbing souls which are full of terror, confusion, anxiety, just like the world, even souls bent on violence (from where they get their knowledge of guns and fighting). All this leading up to the main chracter and his love which then runs through their unified mind making them all respect and, deep down, love the main chracter´s ex-wife.

Some people comment on the acting, and i agree there is something there left to desire, the same with the lighting for example.... but i don´t get people saying the characters were left without explaining their past or their depth. That just wouldn´t fit in with the story line. Explain their background and you will open Hell´s gates everytime someone has to die in the movie BECAUSE their souls are being absorbed. Every thought, feeling and crime in the moment of your death is absorbed and passed on around in the kid´s unified mind.

Maybe the rhythm of the movie starts slow, accelerates and then slows down again. Once again this might not be to everyone´s taste like the technical aspects i detailed above. But the story is good, with the metaphor that the kids drop out of the world going to waste and then come back in to purify it when, absorbing souls they dwell in what destroys the world. Until the main character that is.

Anyone don´t understand something about the movie, get in touch with me or post up on this board. I will be delighted to explain this movie to them.

Once again, it might lack technical quality, but what´s wrong with the story?

Richard

[–] kh98021 18 years ago

Bravo! Although I may not agree 100% with your conclusions, a hearty "well done" for not being intimidated by a film that allows you to come to your own conclusions about the meaning of the piece. Where did the audiences go that were willing to cast themselves as an integral part of the process of storytelling? The whole "this film sucks because the filmmakers didn't tell us what happened" thing is driving me to depression about the state of film-goer's intellects. Come on folks, your eighth grade English teacher, hopefully, was trying to get you to think for yourself about the meaning of what you read. Or was it just me?

[–] kyle_ryback 18 years ago

Some movies will lay out the plot for you in a tidy package, relieving you of the duty of having to come to your own conclusions. You can think of this as an opportunity to have fun with a fun movie, or get mad at the filmmakers for leaving you hanging.
I liked this movie, despite the fact that I'm still not clear on the whole soul-absorbtion thing. Everything else was gold. You can't be mad at people for not liking the parts that they don't understand though. Can you tell me how the priest figured out how to beat the zombies?
Oh, and Brittany Scobie did a great job. If you catch this on DVD, check out the deleted scene where she kills that little girl in that bathroom. It's such a powerful, emotional scene. Scenes like that are what give these movies their soul.

[–] kh98021 18 years ago

Although it is not expressed explicitedly in either the studio or director cut, there is a sequence in the director cut (now missing) that helps. After Tom gives David THE GRAPES OF WRATH and tells him that it's about more than the Great Depression, it's also about hope, we see David in bed reading the novel, and then see a montage of the characters (Tom, Jean, Sam, Cal & Nora, Nathan, Kip & Claire) over which the following passage from THE GRAPES OF WRATH is read by Tom:

"He went out in the wilderness to find his own soul, and he found he didn't have no soul that was his. He says he found that he got just a little piece of a great big soul. He says the wilderness ain't no good cause his little piece of a soul isn't no good unless it was with the rest and was whole."

That and a fuller scene in the church between Tom & Kip when they're talking about what happened to the preacher & where Tom reads the last entry in his diary helps explain what's going on. The studio cut this and more, according to the self-gloifying editor Ed Marx on the commentary, because there was no trust that the audience could handle anything more than what they were used to receiving from a standard horror film. Unfortunately, many of the postings on the message board would indicate that they were right.

"You can't be mad at people for not liking the parts that they don't understand though." That's true enough. But you can be disappointed. And you can be pissed at people who believe that their opinion is not just an opinion but indeed fact.

[–] wahoodoss-1 17 years ago

If important parts of a movie are cut out and as a result, many people don't get it, then the editor is at fault, not the people. After reading the initial post in this thread and your post above I feel somewhat cheated. I left with questions unanswered when I shouldn't have.

wahoodoss

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wahoodoss-1 17 years ago

BRAVO!!

I love this post.

I would add that sometimes people just want to watch a movie and not have to think about the why's and whatfor's.

wahoodoss

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] donovan_girl 17 years ago

Love this, said exactly what I thought. This movie was just painful to me.

[–] bkjamr 15 years ago

Bravo? This is a poorly written 88 min movie, not a book. That's right, we might need a few things explained to us. Do you really think the writers of this flick were saying "hmm that will make people think!" Give me a break! People are entitled to THINK what they want, And I think this movie was "sucky"

[–] remj3 18 years ago

>>I don´t understand why people don´t get the plot. It´s simple. Kids one day go comatose to escape the world and it´s degradation as a fellow poster posted in another thread. Then they wake up when the world reaches critical mass, that´s why they wake up just as the UN bans childbirth and there are riots (remember the scene of them all turning their heads when the nurse is watching the news?). So they wake up and start absorbing the souls of the adults. This also coincides with the closing down of schools (therefore the end of education, the only thing that can save the world until then). Even the stockmarket is profiting from them as the radio explains in one of the scenes ("now is the time to invest in care centers").

Interesting analysis. But what's lame is the kids didn't escape the world's degredation; they CAUSED it. Because of their going into a coma, the world went down the toilet. Schools closed down because THERE WERE NO KIDS!! The kids didn't go into a coma because schools closed down. The causality in your analysis seems flawed. But, if anything, the kids going into comas actually triggered goodness in people. The increase in the care center industry also means that more and more people have gathered to help mankind -- specifically, children. Basically, the background was not well thought out. It was just tacked on as an excuse to make a C zombie flick.

So what's up with those two young kids? How come they weren't recognized by the zombies and then later, they were?

[–] Smerk3 18 years ago

I disagree with you "remj3." I don't think the movie makers were wrong with the whole causality thing, I think it's "***allmonkeys" who's wrong. I agree with him that there IS a point to the whole plot and it's not as completely indecipherable as people are making it out to be, but I just think he's got it a little skewed.

Based on the religious undertones to the film (highlighted by the fact that half of the movie takes place in a church, as well as many other visual and textual allusions) I think it was GOD who was dissapointed in the world, not the children. And rather than, say, sending them a plague of locusts to wipe the slate clean and start anew, he sent a plague of wrathful children...

When Tom sacrificed himself, he saved humanity (a la Jesus) and stopped the plague, thus allowing the world to start fresh with the now un-homicidal children.

I think the speech Kip gives about the kids wanting out of the screwed up world is perhaps misleading. If anything, I think that's Kip's personal opinion... but it still doesn't make any sense why it only affected children at a certain age, how all children are suddenly magically connected to each other, and any number of other things. I think you should take Kip's theory as character development, and less as a clue for how to decipher the plot.

[–] RatedXSymphony 18 years ago

Well I must say everyone in this thread actually made me think about the movie. I watched it and was one of those "this movie sucks" kind of guys. But now I am going back to watch it again. The story in and of itself was promising to me. The acting wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great. I am going to have to watch the commentary and see some of the deleted scenes. I will definilty go back and watch it again. I must have missed some parts that were talked about.

[–] Trioxin_Zombie 18 years ago

I don´t understand why people don´t get the plot. It´s simple.

Indeed, some people are simpletons though they want everything laid out for them so as they don't need to use ther brains. It isn't hard to work out what is going on. Not with a little effort from that thing called a "brain" if you are not lazy that is. The movie isn't crap because someone can't understand it, they are to blame for it supposedly being crap. What with their low mentality rate in not being able to grasp what is going on. I understood it, but then again my IQ is 142. So maybe this is why I found it easier to understand, more so than the MTV minded crowd in here that were puzzled by it.

"You think that when you die, you go to Heaven. You come to us!."

[–] freak-65 18 years ago

Okay, I'm sorry but I have to laugh at this. Just reading your post, Alamo Joe, I can tell you that your IQ isn't 142. You can go on believing that if you want, you know... if it makes you feel better.

This movie is just plain bad. While it has a moderately interesting premise, which isn't some genius level complexity as some of you self-styled brainiacs are implying, the execution of it fails miserably. Pacing is terrible, dialogue is embarassing to say the least, and the plot has so many holes you can't help but feel sorry for Clive Barker.

I mean, did he know how crappy this was before or after he okay'd having his name tacked onto it?

Hell, throughout most of the movie I felt like I was being led around by the nose. The trail of breadcrumbs, if you will, may as well have been a trail of 1,000,000 candle light power glowsticks. This movie has been dumbed down so much to appease the lowest common denominators in the audience that it's created the illusion of being some kind of intellectual cinematic masterpiece.

Anyway, you guys can continue to debate the deeper, truer meaning of this piece of dross. I'm personally going to be enjoying better writing, more interesting characterizations, and more complex plots in some saturday morning cartoons.

[–] Trioxin_Zombie 18 years ago

Okay, I'm sorry but I have to laugh at this. Just reading your post, Alamo Joe, I can tell you that your IQ isn't 142. You can go on believing that if you want, you know... if it makes you feel better.

And this is because IT doesn't like what IT see's

Call it what you will, kid!. It won't change a thing said by me at any point. Nice try, but you, and the rest of the rabble that trolls in here are extremely pathetic. And the posts speak for themselves, insulting those that tell you something you don't want to hear like a few home truths or personal opinions, and also accusing others (who even remotely like this) in here to be trolls, that shows who the real trolls are.

So, like all trolls, welcome to the ignore list!.

"You think that when you die, you go to Heaven. You come to us!."

[–] bugsweed 18 years ago

> So, like all trolls, welcome to the ignore list!.

pls, add me too.

[–] cradleofblood 18 years ago

Alamo Joe, just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion or doesn't quite understand a rather complex plot of a movie (when most people just rent the movie for the horror side than the morality of it) doesn't make them 'MTV rabble' or 'trolls'.

If you have an IQ of 142 (highly doubtful) then you should be able to see this. You should also be able to see that being an arrogant pig on an internet site is a very low way to make yourself feel good about yourself.

[–] penfold_5 18 years ago

Interesting that an average film should cause so much discussion guess people don't go out anymore lmao. And as for alamo joe, if you got an iq of 142 why the hell are you wasting your time on here?? I know plenty of people with higher iq's than you and they definately dont spend their time discussing it on poopshoot.com.......ask yourself why you felt the need to bring it into the discussion and maybe then you will realise how much you are lacking in personality!

[–] Trioxin_Zombie 17 years ago

I see two or three of you have retaliated to my calling it as I see it. Sounds like what I said hurt those it was meant for, good!.

The pathetic come backs such as "why the hell are you wasting your time on here??" blah blah blah, and yet they fail to see the hypocrisy involved with their comments made. They seem to find it ok to respond to views and movies they don't like, anyway they like (like my comments for instance) but when I say anything about the movie they hate, or anything about their comments, I am wrong. I think they need to do some growing up!. And please! don't be coming back with I need to grow up, as I am not the one in the wrong here. But I guess I will always be the ass hole to the one who just got told how it is. Too bad!.

This board is for ALL to voice their views, you simple minded oaf, you got that!. It is not just for the likes of you who prowl boards bashing movies, and then lash out at those that like them when they say something to you about your comments on the movie, and oafish behaviour.

The sooner you realise this the better your conversational skills will be on here.

"You think that when you die, you go to Heaven. You come to us!."

[–] thunderztorm 17 years ago

I'd like to ask you a few questions, if you don't mind.

1. What does IQ have to do with understanding/interpreting a movie? Your IQ number is your brains natural mathematical-logical ability, nothing more. Having a high IQ does not automatically make you a literary genius, or a qualified film critic for that matter, much like having small nimble fingers does not automatically make you a master surgeon.

As with all art, the ability (or willingness) to interpret is based on two things: human experience and technical knowledge - IQ has no relevance here whatsoever.

2. For a person with an, at least self-proclaimed, high IQ, you tend to "bash" a lot. Any person with above average intelligence would know that the best way to debate is the sober approach, using your superior knowledge as your advantage instead of focusing on the disadvantages of your fellow debateurs.

3. Again, for a person with an above average intelligence (as you claim you posess even though I have yet to see proof of that in your posts - to me you sound like a snobby art-kid with too much spare time, but hey, prove me wrong) you also tend to put too much value in your own opinion. Basically, you're going "I have the truth, you all are stupid" like some holier-than-thou fanatic. Any intelligent and well-read person would know that the concept of "absolute truth" is a lie, especially when dealing with interpretations of art.

While your interpretation may be technically well-done, there is no way you will ever be able to claim it as the truth. Look at Hemingway, he's been interpreted by a multitude of literary critics, and neither of them have found the same thing - it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

I'm sorry sir "Alamo Joe Rogan", but your attempt to claim superiority over others has failed miserably. Judging by your posts, I can only assume that you are, indeed, a troll - and a pretty bad one to boot.

[–] DoctorStrangelove 15 years ago

And this is because IT doesn't like what IT see's

Yeah... you're a real genius. ROFL!

(P.S. Most geniuses don't feel the need to broadcast their IQs. That's how you can tell who the smallbrained posers are.)

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] beccatx27 17 years ago

And, yet, Freak65, you felt the need to take time away from better writing, more complex plots, etc to bore us with your condescending diatribe. Nect time feel free to leave us morons alone.

[–] LawyerJen 17 years ago

Apparently you got a dose of arrogance with that high IQ you have. I am part of the MTV generation and I hold not only a degree (double major) from one of the nation's most prestigious universities, but also a law degree. I, too, have a high IQ. I also spent many an hour watching MTV.

That being said, I don't think intelligence or laziness has anything to do with your ability to understand this movie.

I began watching this movie thinking it had promise. I was sorely disappointed, however, by the end. There was much left to be answered. Did only the wife survive or did the children quit killing everyone? My interpretation was they spared her and only her. This caused a problem because the diary of the priest set forth a single saviour.

While I can appreciate the allusion to the Grapes of Wrath (lead character being a paroled convict, a Christ-like saviour, hope, despair, etc.,), I also think Steinbeck is rolling over in his grave.

Unlike Steinbeck's well-written and poignant novel, this movie left much to be desired. Barker's attempt to praise Steinbeck's work was filled with good intentions, but failed utterly. I view this as perhaps what you would fault my generation for doing - reading the Cliff's notes and missing the real beauty of Steinbeck's work.

I also read the entry on this board explaining the Director's cut. While that makes it a bit clearer, it doesn't complete the picture. I don't think imitation is really the best form of flattery, at least not in this instance.

To make sure I am promptly added to your ignore list, I will say the following. Your complete lack of grammatical correctness speaks wonder of your abilities to communicate on this board, and yet you comment on another's ability to communicate. You are quick to point out hypocrisy, so perhaps now that I've told you how it is, you will chew on the bittersweet reality of your own hypocrisy. While I respect your right to voice your opinions, even if they are insulting and arrogant, I also respect the "lazy" generation that has decided to let you know how wrong they believe you to be.

You should also know that studies show some of the most intellectually lazy individuals are people with high IQs. If you do in fact have a high IQ, I suspect that explains your lack of proper grammar. You were probably one of those kids who thought he was too smart and too good to be bothered with actually paying attention in school.

Finally, I believe Albert Einstein said something along the lines of "there are two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Indeed, in your case, I think we can be sure there is more proof to establish just how boundless human stupidity can be.

Arrogance is the only true barrier to knowledge.

[–] Trioxin_Zombie 17 years ago

To make sure I am promptly added to your ignore list, I will say the following. Your complete lack of grammatical correctness speaks wonder of your abilities to communicate on this board, and yet you comment on another's ability to communicate. You are quick to point out hypocrisy, so perhaps now that I've told you how it is, you will chew on the bittersweet reality of your own hypocrisy. While I respect your right to voice your opinions, even if they are insulting and arrogant, I also respect the "lazy" generation that has decided to let you know how wrong they believe you to be.

The only part of your post worth responding to. Why? because your arrogance that you accuse me having of is nothing short of astounding.

You claim I have grammar errors in my posts. If you knew anything at all, you would know that not every country has the same way of pronouncing words or phrases. That each country has different ways of communicating, what is wrong in the US style of grammar may not be wrong in the UK, where I live, and vice versa. The same goes for other places. But your ignorance blinds you to this fact. Otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said. Or then again, maybe you would have.

The grammar in my posts is adequate enough for this site. But then that is the same tiresome excuse your type gives all the time now isn't it. When you can't respond appropriately, you resort to grammar bashing, and pointing out spelling errors. You're pathetic, you and every simpleton that resorts to these type of actions. You seem to be under the illusion that I can't speak my disgust for those who bad mouth others in here for liking this movie, that person that calls the likes of myself a troll for liking this movie. Yet you side with those that commit such actions, as those are the types I respond to.

So like them, welcome to the ignore list. Always blaming others for your own inadequacies.

It's funny how those who are smarter than others are classed as arrogant by those less fortunate. Too bad!.

Goodbye!.

"You think that when you die, you go to Heaven. You come to us!"

[–] LawyerJen 17 years ago

You began correcting grammar. Perhaps you were using your UK version to correct US versions. You've just proven to us how incompetent you really are. Your own argument hurts you.

Leave the deep thinking to those who are capable of it from now on please. Your inability to think through your arguments has proven to us all my original point.

Thanks for helping me. Not that I needed any help from a pompous prick.

[–] saphire-6 17 years ago

I'd like to say "wow!"
This is quite the battle of words. I think someone in this argument is being arrogant and also very presumptuous. By the way, didn't your mother ever tell you that it's not nice to call people names, and before you say it, she should also have told you that she didn't care who started it and that by doing what they did is just bringing you down to their level. I could also use another common childhood quote "it takes one to know one." I think we should all be thankfull that you weren't in the movie and had your soul absorbed by the children, because then the world would be in even more trouble. I feel sad for you that you didn't take anything from this movie about love and kindness. Even though some people have a higher intelligence it doesn't mean they're smarter or are better people. By the way don't bother adding me to your ignore list, because you can't ignore something that isn't there!

[–] blowfly13 14 years ago

Your need to feel superior to other people is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

[–] LivingDog 18 years ago

hi,

You didn't mention what "Grapes of Wrath" had to do with the plot?

BTW, thx for explaining that the adults souls were being absorbed. I did not see enough evidence of this until you pointed out the few instances which make it clear.

-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/

[–] afronaut 17 years ago

well... basically here's some plot points about G.o.W:

( the movie similarities are in paretheses )

Tom Joad is paroled from prison after serving four years for manslaughter.

( the main character in the killed someone and, i think, served time )

On his journey home, he meets a preacher, Jim Casy, whom he remembers from his childhood and the two travel together.

( Van Der Beek meets up with that one dude that kills his nephew ... they travel together and were childhood friends )

En route, they discover that the roads and highways are saturated with thousands of other families travelling to find a job elsewhere...

( similar to the hordes of awakened children, i guess )

In response to the exploitation of labourers, the workers begin to join trade unions. The surviving members of the family unknowingly work on an orchard involved in a strike that eventually turns violent, killing the preacher Casy and forcing Tom Joad to kill again and become a fugitive.

( basically by this point, no matter what the characters do or try to do, it ends tragically or futily. much like these characters... no matter what they do, it ends with someone dying )

In the end, Rose of Sharon commits the only act in the book that isn't futile: she breast feeds a starving man, still trying to show hope in humanity after her own negative experience.

( van der beek sacrifices himself in the hopes that he can 'show' the kids that there is hope for humanity )

This final act illustrates the depravity to which the 'Okies' are forced to submit, but also the endurance of humanity.

( same )

so basically, G.o.F is a blueprint, albeit loose, for this movie.

i, uh... think.

;)

[–] LawyerJen 17 years ago

Well, to begin, the book that was constantly in the lead character's pocket was Grapes of Wrath. It was also in the boy's back pocket after the lead character sacrificed himself. But on top of that, the movie is nothing but a grand allusion to the Grapes of Wrath. The lead character is a former convict who carries around a copy of the Grapes of Wrath? (In case you didn't read the Grapes of Wrath, Tom Joad is a recently released convict).

Barren waste land in the movie = dustbowl in the Great Depression.

I could go on, but that's why we're talking about the book.

[–] LawyerJen 17 years ago

I understand your post was probably aimed at those who really did not get the plot and all of the bits of social commentary placed by Barker. However, those came early, stopped abruptly, and never returned.

My problem with the movie was its failure to develop the characters. Barker was obviously attempting to recreate the Grapes of Wrath in horror format. However, I think he failed to develop that to its full end. Further, he failed to develop the ending. Was only the wife spared or were the children observing humanity for another reason to attack?

I simply could not fathom why a movie so well set-out at the onset puttered to a horrible and disappointing ending. It was anti-climatic. It reached no identifiable conclusion.

I don't mind filling in gaps in storylines myself. I do mind, however, when a movie leaves so many gaps that there is no logical way to connect the dots. I respect that you do not feel it was too sporadic, but in my view, the movie lacked a thorough development and an ending. Perhaps most disappointing is Barker's attempt to praise Steinbeck and failing to do justice to one of the classics of American literature.

[–] lymphnoder 17 years ago

It's just a movie, okay, folks? Can we stop arguing about who is stupid and get back to talking about the movie? Just maybe?

I can take this movie or leave it. The end of the world has had many, many flavors on film and in print. I've seen it done much better and much worse than this.

Actually, I'm really not sure that I care. You guys have fun. And if any of you have a swift and clever comeback to my message, you're just going to have to reward yourself this time, because I'm not going to be coming back to this particular page two days from now just to see what you said about me. And why would I? So I can get angry about your comeback and retaliate, then check back in another two days to see if you've posted a further comeback?

What's with you people? I wanted to discuss a movie, not walk into a schoolyard scuffle. I'm always amazed by how a person can be so concerned with someone else's opinion of a movie, book, or song; especially when that concerned person isn't even the one who created it.

Remember this, people. No one "chooses" to like or dislike a movie, book, or song. It just happens. Praising or punishing someone for his/her opinion of a creative work is just pointless.

Can we talk about the movie now?

[–] queen-14 17 years ago

i just watched movie, and was so discombobbled, that i am so glad that this discussion was here. okay i am not the sharpest tool in the box, but i am still curious, though not yellow.
thank you for explaining. now the kids have pure thoughts, and are also reading his book.
but the confusion, what will the world look like after this? and will they kill the girlfriend, why did she leave her home unlocked? i just need closure also. thanks..

[–] sexytail 17 years ago

Good natured soul-sucking zombie brats are stills soul-sucking zombie brats. No matter how you slice it, Van Der Beek was wrong and the solution was indeed the violent one. That's what's wrong with the story.

PRIDE

[–] shaynes555 17 years ago

The simplicity of the plot is the problem, not the complexity (or some artistic expression by leaving the plot open to interperatation). Acting, bad. Immersion, didn't feel it. Thought provoking, not. But I will add a caveat that tastes vary, and there's nothing wrong with hating or loving it. What's wrong is judging others by your opinion.

I guess I've seen more dimmed down zombie screamers I've enjoyed in the past. Not the worst movie around by a long shot, the contrapositive could be said as well. Which is the more correct statement? Well, that falls under the heading of opinion. Feel free to add me to your ignore list for expressing mine.