I went to see the movie "Wild" Saturday night. I realize that not everyone shares my opinion but I did not really care for the book and I did not really care for the movie. If you had not read the book I think that you would have a hard time following the movie. If you go thinking that the movie is about backpacking you will be disappointed. There were some good shots of the scenery but the equipment, even of other hikers in the movie, was not the type of thing that PCT hikers would be carrying. Large dome tents and stuff hanging from packs is not PCT normal.

I was not going to go to the movie because I was not impressed by the book but my wife went to something else so I decided to go the the movie. Not a total waste of time but not life changing either. Maybe it is just me. YMMV

I see that Bryson's "Walk in the Woods" was released at Sundance so that may be coming to a theater near you soon also. I also have very mixed feelings about that one. I generally enjoy Bryson's books but as a backpacker I was a little put off by the humor at the expense of reality.

the equipment, even of other hikers in the movie, was not the type of thing that PCT hikers would be carrying. Large dome tents and stuff hanging from packs is not PCT normal.

I read the book and thought it was so-so. I have no idea if I would like the movie. However, I'll point out that the book is set in circa 1995, when Ray Jardine's influence was only beginning to be felt, and the modern internet was in its infancy, so that source of shared info was not available to thru-hikers.

The vast majority of people hiking on the PCT were not thru-hikers, either then or now. PCT 'normal' has always been whatever was 'normal' among backpackers generally. In 1995 UL techniques were definitely weird, not normal. 50 lb packs were awfully common back then.

If I remember correctly, Backpacker magazine just put out a bit on the fact that the original equipment manufacturers were put into service to re-create the shoes, tent, pack, etc. that the woman (sorry, don't know her name) used on her hike. Considering when she did this, that pretty much explains why everything seems so unlike what folks are using today. Just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

That's all for now. Take care and until next time...Be well.

snapper

I had not thought about the time frame but you are correct that it probably was typical of the time period.

I mainly did not like the movie because of the story content. The book did not appear to me to be portraying her as a changed person as much as just showing a lost soul and the transformation seemed to come years after the hike. The message in the film seemed to be rather obscure. In the book she was certainly a messed up individual. It looked like the movie was an excuse to use crude language and show nude scenes.

Again. Just my feeling and others may disagree. They are already talking about what a great movie it is.

I think the book had, and the movie will have, far more impact on people who would never think of hiking 1100 miles through wilderness alone, to whom this is an incredible feat of daring and courage. Most of us here know that such a hike is mostly a matter of determination, and the most common dangers on such hikes arise from ignorance and poor judgment, but we are not the intended audience.

Have neither read nor seen, but will at least watch it at some point. Will take to the theater the mindset of it introducing folks to: "Hey, backpacking is a thing. That people do!" If it gets a even a hundred to think past sleeping in their arr-vee or going four-wheelin' and out on the trail, then it's a "success." Hopefully the PCTA gets a little love from it.

Cheers,

Good Point. And for all those who might criticize this woman for the way she approached the wilderness and this hike, and the story she tells about it, I can only suggest that we let her hike her own hike.

It's not the one we would hike, that's for sure. But I'm happy she got out there, did it, and felt it was an important thing to do.

OF course, they'd never make a movie about the hikes that we do. Too much smiling, too many quiet moments. A real lack of drama....

Those who are inclined to criticize the author should remember she hiked her 1100 miles and did not quit. She may not have been the smartest of hikers at the start of her hike, but she stuck to it in the face of many challenges and finished where she planned to finish. My hat's off to her.

The internet was not widely available in 1995 either. There wasn't much information about what to take on a hike.

The fact that she had psychological problems is part of the story. Many people do and go backpacking. It's better than hanging out on social media, I suppose.

She kept hiking in spite of her inappropriate gear. That's all that matters.

I elft that the movie did a poor job of setting the scene. A lot of the background in the book was just skipped. Prior to the PCT, she had only been a day hiker and never carried gear. She literally went to an outfitter and opened all her gear for the first time at the hotel the night before her hike. I also felt the movie would have benefited from more frequent voice overs sharing her thoughts along the trail.

I thought the book was great. A really cool story. The movie was disappointing from a backpacker point of view, but I agree the non-hiking community will probably be blown away by some of the footage and more likely to enjoy the movie.

How did this movie stack up against Martin Sheen's "The Walk"? I haven't seen Wild yet, but from what I've read, the story seems similar in that both involve a rediscovery of life. I was wondering, if you can look past the crude-and-nude of Wild, is there a similar story there, and was it as well-developed as in the Walk?

I wanted to like this movie, and I wanted to like this book, but it just didn't work out. I saw the movie last night and read the book in the last few weeks. Initially the story really captivated me and I was watching youtube videos of Cheryl Strayed doing talks and I was super upset when I found out I missed the chance to see her read at the REI in Denver near my house. However after reading the book and seeing the movie, I feel crestfallen. She's probably a cool lady and I bet her mother's death really sucked for her, a LOT, but my issue with this tale is that it's not particularly powerful yet it was hyped up to be.
The movie was a weird mash up of shaky camera shots alternating between flashes of Reese Witherspoon's nipples, Laura Dern dying in a hospital bed, and beautiful vistas from the pacific crest trail. It wasn't focused enough on the mom's death to be moving and it wasn't focused enough on the trail to be inspiring. Instead you get this short look at her life and even shorter look at her hike, neither of which she seemed to enjoy.

Having also read the book I can say it is pretty similar and they did a good job of translating it to the screen. I know her pain and her experience were real, but (I'm sorry) they just weren't very special. A lot of people's parents die, which sucks, but she doesn't stand out in that way. She stands out because she had a total meltdown after her mom died and that's what the story is about, which is kind of a drag after all. It's all very focused on her pain and then she hikes 1/3 of the Pacific Crest Trail and feels a little better at the end. Ok, well I'm glad I watched/read it but yeah, nothing too special.