It’s a metaphor for climate change, so the ending of the book would make little sense in this context, where the catastrophe is real. The point of the film is whether a parent is willing to sacrifice their own life to make the world a livable place for their children. Most parents would.

The bad faith arguments around this film are really weird.

I don’t remember the film even mentioning the catastrophe being caused by God. I saw the film as more of a universal reckoning in line with cosmic horror. Nature needing a sacrifice made on the basis of love as an act of protest against the otherwise senseless cruelty of humankind. I thought it was good.

Does the movie even mention God? I took it to be more of a cosmic event. Like nature or the universe requiring humans to sacrifice themselves as an act of pure love to justify the continuation of the human race, which is otherwise destructive.

The "four horsemen" surrogates say that families have been forced to make a sacrifice for generations, and that their visions only brought them to the cabin, and didn't show them who would be in it. So it's not personal for them. They're following the instructions they've been given.

Weird that you think it's propaganda just because it's got a gay married couple as the protagonists. Not sure what you're implying here. Would your response to the subject matter have been different if it had been about a straight couple?

The same could be said about Tarantino, David Mamet, Wes Anderson, Yorgos Lanthimos.

In fact, outside Mumblecore, most movie dialog in general is nothing at all like how real people talk.

So what's the option of having gay representation in horror movies? If they can't be villains, and they can't be victims, and they can't be heroes, what's left?

Equality means everyone gets to play any of those roles. >!And surely a film where a gay man prevents the apocalypse, thus saving the world out of an act of love for his husband and daughter, is about the most positive representation you can get.!<