Why didn't they eat the camel?
-
glentom1 — 20 years ago(April 08, 2005 06:32 PM)
I don't recall that they were short on food, the biggest problem was the lack of water. In other words, they had a very disciplined system for rationing water, and their calculations led them to believe they would die for the lack of water long before for the lack of food. If needed, I am sure they would have eaten the camel, as bad tasting as it might be.
-
randysch1 — 20 years ago(April 10, 2005 10:36 PM)
by - glentom1 on Fri Apr 8 2005 18:32:01 I don't recall that they were short on food, the biggest problem was the lack of water. In other words, they had a very disciplined system for rationing water, and their calculations led them to believe they would die for the lack of water long before for the lack of food. If needed, I am sure they would have eaten the camel, as bad tasting as it might be. <<<
It's been a while since I saw the movie, but if I recall correctly, the only food they had was dates. I'm sure the dates helped sustain them somewhat, but I think that adding some good old-fashioned animal protein would have improved their diet considerably. (Plus, I have to wonder if a diet consisting of nothing but dates might have contributed to dehydration, due to certain ahem laxative properties of dates)
You're correct that water was the biggest issue, but they also needed to keep up their strength for the demanding work which was required of them. And strength requires protein. -
navstar7 — 20 years ago(August 05, 2005 02:41 PM)
I totally agree with you, BlondeVicVega. What the hell is with today's studios and all this remake garbage? Flight of the Phoenix - A Christmas Carol(1951) - Miracle on 34th Street - Captains Courageous, just to name a few. These are classics because of the era in which they were made and the original actors. You cannot "improve" them! You can do similar themes, i.e. Blackboard Jungle/To Sir With Love, but you cannot "remake" the ORIGINAL. It's time the writers, producers and directors to get off their lazy, wealthy asses and earn their money by being creative and honest with the movie goers instead of sucking the hind titty of the classics for material. Apologies for the rant but these lazy jerks are really pissing me off.
-
glentom1 — 20 years ago(April 16, 2005 07:16 PM)
I just bought the DVD, since I had no success finding it on other than VHS at rental shops. I am going to pay particular attention to the food issue and the camel, as we watch it tonite.
We just saw the remake a few days ago. The biggest problem was the role of the model airplane designer, almost all of the dramatic tension between him and Mr. Towns from the original was missing. Although the remake is a fair movie on its own, without Hardy Kruger in the original role it was a failure as a remake.
UPDATE: I just watched the original again, and they did say that they had an unlimited supply of food (albeit "pressed dates"). Also, they made it clear that they would all die from the lack of water after 12 days, and that the still would not provide enough water to last even another day. So I guess eating the camel (at least according to the movie) would have taken more time than it was worth.
Wonder what the book says about that issue? I have not read it. -
randysch1 — 20 years ago(April 21, 2005 12:13 AM)
by - glentom1 on Sat Apr 16 2005 19:16:44
UPDATE: I just watched the original again, and they did say that they had an unlimited supply of food (albeit "pressed dates"). Also, they made it clear that they would all die from the lack of water after 12 days, and that the still would not provide enough water to last even another day. So I guess eating the camel (at least according to the movie) would have taken more time than it was worth.
Wonder what the book says about that issue? I have not read it. <<<
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure if that solves it or not, but I suppose it'll have to do. -
doliver2 — 20 years ago(May 01, 2005 02:03 PM)
I just finished reading the book. In the book the author said that if they ate the camel, it would increase their thirst. I was wondering the same thingalso the vulturessurely they would taste like chicken! Ready to watch the old film now, if I can find it to rent!
-
jameshussen — 20 years ago(June 10, 2005 11:10 PM)
Remember that the body is what, 3/4s water? You would drain and drink the camel's blood, then eat it. If a person has about 5 litres of blood, a camel would have quite a bit more than that. Survival is not for the squeamish.
-
detroit442 — 20 years ago(October 14, 2005 12:58 PM)
The body is mostly water, though it's salty water. Read the story of "The Lady Be Good" it's the true story of a B-24 crew that overshot their base and bailed out over the Libian desert. They had no real food and only a few swallows of water, yet they covered an unbelievable distance. You can survive on nothing but water(lots of water) for a very long time, though you do get weaker and malnourished. Borgnine could've survived the longest as Stewart would starve first.
-
Thumpah — 20 years ago(July 23, 2005 05:17 AM)
I don't remember how it was done in the film but in the book the author covered the camel by saying they took the camels blood back to the aircraft and attempted to extract water from the animals blood with a still they had made. In the book it only produced a congealed mass and no water. The science of it I don't know butI guess the film was based more on the book than scientific correctness.
-
GONZODOODAH — 20 years ago(September 29, 2005 03:34 AM)
Drinking blood and eating undercooked meat - and that camel's flesh would have had the consistency of old leather boots - would have been disastrous. Quite apart from the possibility of worm infection from raw or improperly cooked meat, mammalian blood is a powerful emetic and the men would be throwing up everywhere, contributing to their dehydration. I'm sure the doctor could have explained this to them.
Quite apart from this, these men are soldiers, oilmen, pilots. Do you know how to butcher a camel? Would any one of them? You can't just rip lumps off and eat them. Some parts of a camels body are highly toxic - the liver contains potentially lethal amounts of Vitamin A. Puncturing the gastro-intestinal tract could mean the meat would be contaminated with faecal mattter, leading to all sorts of problems.
No, that camel is better left where it is, out of the way over the other side of the dune. -
jgroub — 19 years ago(July 29, 2006 12:50 PM)
You make some good points, but I think if it had been me, I would've been eating some camel. Why would the meat have to be undercooked? I like it well done anyway. Worms? Who cares about worms when you're just trying to survive?
I would not eat the blood; Jews and Muslims have known for years not to do this. I would drain it first. Camel liver? Why eat that when there's plenty of camel meat! As for butchering a camel, you've got camel legs, camel ribs, and, of course, the eternally delicious, camel balls. Hell, there would even be, heh, heh, cameltoe! Plenty of camel meat to eat without getting anywhere near the bowels or organs. Yup, it would be a camel feast for me. Just like you said, these pilots, oil men, and soldiers wouldn't know any better.
By the way, I think you unintentionally made a very funny remark. "The doctor could have explained this to them." Heh, heh; yeah, if only he had vocal cords! His throat was slit! Oops!
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
detroit442 — 20 years ago(October 15, 2005 02:25 PM)
One drawback to that. If the camel was also dehydrated, you would not get very much ahead and may well be worse off. Blood is very salty tasting and very close chemically to seawater. They could have fed the monkey salt and when thirst was driving him mad, let him loose and IF there was any water around, the monkey would find it. I saw that done on Animals are Beautiful people. It appeared to me to be a reliable source I would bet my life on.