Why didn't she want the little boy? Some boy is better than no boy !
She was mean to that boy.
shareI take it you have gone to answering your own question?
share
MovieChat Forums > Changeling (2008) Discussion > Why didn't she want the little boy? Some...
[deleted]
Are you of the tall order of trolls or the short, puny ones? Ever take an IQ test? Embarrassing? It's okay. Momma's got a binky for you.
The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?
Why would you assume I am stupid?
Having seen your signature here, I would be afraid to take an IQ test, if I were you.
How is he a troll for asking a question? Granted his answer is a little naive.
Maybe he does not have children yet. Nor do I but I am sure I would like my own child back. I wouldn't be mean to the other one though.
It is really you who should be embarrassed for being so cruel.
A little naive? Seriously? It's simply a little naive to actually suggest that some boy is better than no boy? Are you from some place where a child is a commodity? After all, some car is better than no car, right? Sheesh!
I can completely understand her being mean to the kid. Many people would. For some kid to be continuing to screw your life up and screw up the chance that the police would be continuing to look for your real child, all the while lying through the skin of his teeth, for whatever reason, and seeming to enjoy it, would make you not be particularly nice to the kid, either. You would be absolutely livid with the kid.
Yes, you would want your own child back, and everyone would, but to make a statement that any boy is better than no boy is utterly ridiculous. It's not naivety, it's absolute stupidity.
Children are not commodities where one can be substituted for another until you get your original model back, and to make a statement suggesting such is not only ridiculous, it's also a little scary. Scary in the way that it's amazing that some person's psyche would even suggest that. If this person is for real, which I doubt, I hope they never, EVER have children.
I've heard and read some strange statements in my years, but this one is right up in the elite list of craziness.
The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?
Don't forget that there are many couples who cannot have children, so having a child should be considered a blessing. Plus, like I said, a little child is always innocent. It cannot take responsibility for its actions. Hence, being rude to that child is not OK.
I am defending the child and you, who hate children that are not your own, hope I will never have children?! Are you suggesting that adopting a child, like Angelina did in real life, is wrong and despicable? You just come across as very rude and insensitive person. I will not condemn you, like you did, but you are a very, very bad person.
Very rude and insensitive? OMG. Are you serious? You are the one who treats a child like a commodity.
And, BTW, we are not talking about couples who adopt. That's a totally different discussion. We are talking about people who have their own children, whether biologically or adopted, then have them taken, and you saying that a "replacement" child should be just fine. After all, some kid is better than none, right? Good God.
And on the contrary, I'm actually a very caring person who would want my own child back and not accept someone else's child as a replacement. And if you think that it's abnormal and mean that anyone would treat that child with contempt, you are crazy. The child is a brat who is doing nothing but taking advantage of an awful situation. I can completely understand her contempt.
Also, this is the end of this conversation. We are obviously two VERY different people and this discussion can do no good. You have your opinions and I have mine. I care about people's love for their own children and you think that when one is kidnapped, they should be satisfied with some replacement kid. That I can't accept. And I can completely understand her contempt for that kid that has taken advantage of an awful situation and you can't understand it. Nothing will change that.
I'm sure you will reply, but that is the end of my correspondence with regard to this discussion. Good day to you.
The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?
As I said earlier, children cannot take responsibilities for their own actions by default. That is why, for example, children cannot be sued in court. I see this concept is challenging for you. It is never OK to hate a child no matter what.
share^^^^^
What Gabe said.
And to add my own thought-I'm a mother to7 kids. I adopted 5, but that's not the point. The very idea that someone would think it's reasonable that "a boy is better than no boy" makes the hair on my neck stand up.
You can't swap kids like socks. If this hadn't actually been a true story I would've never thought it even remotely plausible.
The poor woman wanted her baby back, and for anyone that can't grasp that, well that just makes my heart hurt.
Why are you so desperate to prove yourself right when you are blatantly so obviously wrong?
I've rarely heard such claptrap as you are spouting in my life.
[deleted]
PREACH! Maybe if this lil boy hadn't been playing around they'd have found her son before he was killed. But no. He said he was her son so they stopped looking and in the mean time (maybe) Walter died. You bet your ass I'm gonna be mean. Maybe if he'd come WITH my son that'd be something separate but no. That was some foul life happening.
shareShe did have a very good reason to be angry at the fake son. He was telling a very huge lie that was causing her problems. The cops were no longer looking for her real son because of his lies. His lie was making her look like the crazy one and causing her a boat load of stress.
shareYou're joking right now. Right? That cannot be a serious question. I'm not even a mother and I know exactly why she acted the way she did. She still took care of the boy she could've dropped his ass off to an orphanage, but she didn't. "some boy is better than no boy" ... come on now. Would you be satisfied if your child went missing and the police brought you back another child saying "here he is, but don't complain because we know this isn't your real boy.. we just don't care that's your problem"? Doubt it.
shareChildren are always innocent. We should love them no matter what. The real Angelina would have been to have another child in her life.
Um. No. Not all children are innocent. Specifically those who are claiming to be someone they're not, thereby ruining an innocent mother's life with their lies and deceit. In fact, I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of innocent.
shareThat boy was a victim of circumstances. I highly doubt that this little boy came up with this vile plan.
shareHave you even watched this film?
shareyes, watched it, boy was a victim. every little child is a victim per se, cause they cannot take responsibility for their own actions.
shareThen, since you've watched it, you should know that the boy went along with this plan because he wanted to be closer to Hollywood. This is revealed in the movie. And while I'll admit that children typically have more innocence and naivety than adults, that only rationalizes the boy's actions in the beginning. And in the beginning, while clearly frustrated (and for good reason), Jolie's character treated the boy with respect. But when it was obvious to the boy that this situation was clearly devistating this poor lady and ruining any attempt she might have of getting her real child back, he should have seen reason and complied. Any human with morals (child or adult) has sense enough to see when they're hurting someone in a very bad way. Children (especially by the age of 10) definitely can distinguish between right and wrong. And it was only once she had tried reasoning with this fiendish little brat that Jolie's character finally showed some contempt towards him and started actually treating him poorly (while STILL feeding him and giving him a home the whole time, which she didn't have to do). If a kid is doing something wrong (which this kid obviously was), whether coerced or taking action of his/her own volition, it's an adult's (especially a guardian's) right and responsibility to correct those actions and if the wrong-doing of that child is extremely mischievous and unrelenting, the adult in that situation is quite liable to get upset. Whether you personally see it as the appropriate response or not is irrelevant. It's clearly how most adults would understandably react in such a scenario.
Do you think people are just mindless robots who cannot be held accountable for their actions until they're adults? That on someone's 18th birthday they magically transform into a coherently thinking individual? If so, you have a lot to learn about human beings and I truly feel sorry for you.
contentedsky, I find this person's ideas as odd as you do. Perhaps the person doesn't understand the concept of having children of your own. Nor does he/she see that this kid was being a brat and clearly manipulating a terrible situation for his own benefit, without any regard for Christine's feelings or well being. This boy new exactly what he was doing, and any person would be disgusted with his actions. I think she remained as level headed with the boy as is humanly possible.
I still, for the life of me, cannot fathom how the OP could possibly think that a "replacement" child is just fine and dandy. Like I said in a previous post, it's like the person thinks of a child as a commodity.
Then the OP brings up adoption, as if that's the same situation as this. Good God. I just cannot understand how anyone could feel this way, other than, as I stated, the person having absolutely no concept of having children (or an adopted child) and what a child means to a mother.
Her actions are completely understandable. Also, unlike what the OP thinks, children are not always innocent. This boy was FAR from innocent and is absolutely responsible for his actions. Anyway, I eventually got too frustrated with arguing the relationship between a mother and son, as it didn't seem to be sinking in. Some people just have thoughts that are a bit different from the norm and what you and I and most people would consider a completely normal connection between a mother and child. That connection is unbreakable and cannot forgotten.
The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?
I think I've figured it out. Maybe...just maybe...the OP actually IS the real life little boy who deceived Christine. He's now an old man on his death bed and has come onto IMDb to try one last time to gain some pity from strangers for his outrageous and absurd actions as a child!
That's the only explanation.
I am not an older version of that little boy. Both of you are logically challenged and have a hard time grasping the concept of responsibility.
shareYet again, for the 100th time. A child cannot take responsibility for their actions by default. This is why it is a child and not adult. You say children at 10 can distinguish between right and wrong. Do you really believe that? Children are easy to manipulate because they are naive. Otherwise, why don't we treat children like adults.
shareCircles
sharePlease don't feed the trolls. Check the history before you waste your time. You will find posts such as,
"But why don't they make a movie about the heroic Germans who participated in WWII. They were fighting against every other big nation minus the Italians and the Japanese. All politics aside, if there were real heroes, it has to be the Germans."
And yet children as young as 11 have been tried as adults. Children are not always innocent, their young minds perceive crap differently but that does not excuse malicious and deceitful behavior. I would slap the crap out of any child who would have the nerve to pretend to be my son if he ever went missing.
I suppose you believe the mother in The Good Son should have coddled Macaulay Culkin's character, because who cares that he tried to kill his sister and drowned a baby! He's just an innocent child!!!!
You are whacked and need help. Get it. Quick. And don't reproduce, God, please don't reproduce.
right, cool, he was a victim, maybe she misdirected her anger, but the statement 'some boy is better than no boy'?
maybe you don't have kids but let's say your parent went missing for 5 months and then you were 'given' another one, who obviously isn't them, but who keeps insisting that they are and you're just mistaken.
would you just shrug your shoulders, say 'oh well' and just keep on living (happily ever after)?
i think not..
i agree. Angelina probably would have adopted that little boy.
shareHow old are you and where on Earth are you raised? I mean, just how stupid do you have to be to ask that question?
It's not about "some child is better than no child". The problem was that Walter was still missing, and the fact that he was impostering Walter was making the police close the case for Walter. Providing shelter for some stranger boy was one thing, but there's no substitute for her own child whom she had been raising for 9 years. The fact that there's another boy willing to be her son doesn't mean she can stop worrying about her own son.
And frankly Christine was kind enough to that boy for letting him sleep in Walter's bed and everything. I would have been very suspicious about the boy's motive and suspected that he had something to do with Walter's absence.
Well, Katie, I have been an IMDB member since 05. I am nearly 30. I hope this answers your question. And my point is still valid.
share[deleted]
What a stupid *beep* post
shareI, too, am nearly 30 and I have my own child.
This is the most insane post I have on Facebook. Imagining someone kidnapping your own child and violating that child. By accepting that little boy, she would have enabled the corruption of the LAPD and in some way justified what the murderer did. This is just a sick, sick post.