were those young adults (?) major characters? I don't think they really had any dialog, except for some moaning as they
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion
tommix42 — 16 years ago(September 27, 2009 03:52 PM)
were those young adults (?) major characters? I don't think they really had any dialog, except for some moaning as they got frisky on the altar It seems like they could have had some dialog, to elucidate the significance of their boinking. Although, maybe it was significant enough that Isaac called it "fertilization," implying that they were trying to emulate the corn itself, possibly?
anyway, it helped to give some more details to the weird little culture that they had developed, isolated for over a decade. out amongst the cornstalks.
Were they (the couple on the altar) the people called "oldest boy" and "ponytail girl" in the cast list?
Just because I rock, it doesn't mean I'm made of stone. (from Me, Myself, and Irene) -
axlrose-06 — 16 years ago(October 06, 2009 03:56 PM)
I don't know what the hell was going on. When I figured out what was going on I was like "Child porn much." It showed little 14 year old bush, boobs, and bush. That was so wrong, who would let their kid do that? Then they started the moaning. Awkward much.
"We all go a little mad sometimes"
Billy Loomis - Scream
Norman Bates - Psycho -
glockbird — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 12:04 AM)
Both of those actors are over 18 years old. On the casting call sheet the roles specifically ask for actors that are 18+ but look 16.
You're not Christians, you are "human", there is no use labeling yourself with man-made stickers. -
-
jbaker1-2 — 1 year ago(January 25, 2025 08:47 PM)
Anyone who's offended by the sight of an unclothed human body regardless of age has a few screws loose. I'll allow I wouldn't really care to see a 90-year-old granny naked, but that has far more to do with esthetics than with any faux "moral outrage."
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
Injinn — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 02:53 AM)
If the girl on the alter was, in fact, Zita Vass (ponytail girl), then yes, she is 18. Furthermore, she is no stranger to nudity. All you have to do is look at her turn on Californication.
My beef with the scene was mostly that it had no relevance to the plot. There was absolutely no reason why that needed to be shown. We already knew that babies were being born, so the teenagers were obviously engaging in sexual intercourse. Having said that, a simple reference to said sexual act could have sufficed.
The only reason to show that scene was fan service, plain and simple. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 14 years ago(November 09, 2011 06:29 AM)
The significance of it is that it's adding emphasis to just how twisted the kids have made their interpretation of Christianity. It's a good way to do this that isn't related to violence, but that can still be disturbing.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
Injinn — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 06:02 AM)
I could buy that if not for the fact that the rest of the film up to that point illustrated that fact quite clearly.
By the time that scene was shown, the audience already knew their interpretation of Christianity was twisted. It was a superfluous scene. There are only two reasons to show it:
1.) They wanted to shock the audience (this is the only one that halfway relates to that scene).
2.) Fanservice.
My only issue with #1 is that, again, the rest of the film leading up to that point does a decent enough job of illustrating the children's warped idea of religion.
Don't get me wrong I enjoyed seeing Zita Vass' body as much as the next man. I'm just saying, don't make it out to be more than it is.
The director wanted to see her tits. The audience wanted to see her tits. There was nothing particularly integral to her character or the plot gained from that scene.
It was fanservice. Pure and simple. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 06:39 AM)
It's not as if you can only do something once. A common approach to creating artworks is that your primarily themes/ideas should be ideally echoed throughout the work in many different guises. (And hence my use of the word "
adding
").
http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
Injinn — 11 years ago(June 04, 2014 12:09 AM)
I'm not of the belief that sex, in general, is too taboo just that the nudity in this scene was superfluous.
The scene could have been done without the nudity and would have lost nothing. This was supposed to be a young girl being impregnated she would have been a young girl, therefore the scene would have still been disturbing just in suggestion, with or without her exposed breasts.
The choice to show that was what elevated the scene into fanservice territory. It was precisely what was superfluous about the scene.
Again, I'm the last person who is going to complain about seeing breasts I'm just an opponent of trying to attribute artistic merit where it is not warranted.
This was not an instance of sexual expression in high art it was a sex scene in a low budget horror flick. Like I said, the director wanted to show tits, and the audience wanted to SEE tits. Making it out to be more than it was is just reaching. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 11 years ago(June 04, 2014 03:57 AM)
All I think that response deserves is this unfortunately:
http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
Illyngophobia — 16 years ago(October 25, 2009 05:25 PM)
I thought that kid was Amos and some other chick.
"Life is pleasant.Death is peaceful.It's the transition that's troublesome."- Isaac Asimov