Amelia wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 5:52 pm I've watched this movie before, and my main thought was, why is the "child" never considered as the sacrifice one? I mean it never seemed to be an option, nor was it ever presented. It should be a choice rather than a necessity setting.
If you all got such a hankerin' to kill the kiddy-oAmelia wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 10:47 pmThis is exactly what I was think is very strange in the movie. I'm not talking about something like child abuse or antisocialism...deadman wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 10:23 pm No set of parents asked to make this kind of sacrifice would ever choose their kid. Okay, there are a few really horrible people who might, the same sort who abandon their children or keep them locked in a room for 20 years. But with most people - as you put it - that would never be an option. The only discussion would be around which one of them was best equipped to raise the kid(s) alone.
She was set as a smart girl at the beginning, but almost became a vase in the later part of the movie. Why didn't she try to sacrifice herself to save her dads? The movie is set in which one of the three of them must have sacrificed, but the movie never seems to have child as one of their choices. When we make it common sense and a duty, it seems clichéd and far from a true expression of love, cause true love often comes from choice rather than taken for granted. If you can feel what I am expressing....
; you REALLY need to read the book.... 
kev.
We have never said that.