MovieChat Forums > The Descent: Part 2 (2009) Discussion > I used to like "The Descent"...

I used to like "The Descent"...


...but I grew up. I was 15 when the first movie came out. Now I'm 25 and just rewatched this one... I must've become too old for this junk.

Things that pissed me off so bad that I wanted to punch the screen at times, in increasing stupidness order:

1. When going on a rescue mission, be sure to tell NOBODY. Because the last time some people climbed down that cave most of them died... Why? Nobody really knows. YOLO.

2. If you're cuffed to somebody's arm and you want to free yourself, chop off their arm, instead of destroying the chain. I mean, we need to make sure the guy has no chance of hanging on to something on his own right?

and of course the absolute worst...

3. Children of miners living in caves develop superhuman strength and the ability to climb on walls, they lose their eyesight, they lose the ability to communicate, they drop 50 in IQ points and turn into animals lusting for blood. And they turn ugly as hell....well not sure about that last one.
And of course, all this happened over the span of just a few generations. The mines cant be older than 1850 or something right?

Please, do NOT make a 3rd "Descent"

reply

3. Children of miners living in caves develop superhuman strength and the ability to climb on walls, they lose their eyesight, they lose the ability to communicate, they drop 50 in IQ points and turn into animals lusting for blood. And they turn ugly as hell....well not sure about that last one.
And of course, all this happened over the span of just a few generations. The mines cant be older than 1850 or something right?


The origin of the creatures has never been explained in the movies, so I think that you dreamt or imagined that.

reply

Lol agreed

reply

Actually, for anyone with that amazing triple digit IQ, it is hinted at highly that the creatures are indeed old miners. Say they were from 1850...you do know that is 160 years ago right? Do you know how long a generation is? Well, it used to be 20 but now it is 25 with higher life expectancies.

However, I should point out that those who managed to survive down in those caverns would have lower life expectancies and lower mating ages, easily reducing a generation to 20 years. That means were are talking about EIGHT GENERATIONS! Where did you get 2? What does that say about your education?

So, play it out. First generation would be the first ones born down there, probably within 5-7 years. They would be carried in the womb of a female who was probably highly mal-nourished. Now, I can point out there seems to be a plot hole in how or why a woman or more were down in the mines but there had to be for them to procreate.

So, a baby born malnourished by unintelligent parents in the dark where their human eyes would be useless, etc.. the womb of a female who is most likely not very intelligent or educated (these are backwater Appalachian Mountains 160 years ago) now, how they got a woman down there to procreate, I do not know - but any woman 160 years ago is not going to be educated just because that was not as common for women 160 years ago, much less women who lived in poor, unhealthy mining towns!

So, we already have unhealthy, unintelligent...

...let me stop by informing you about what intelligence really is as you referred to a "drop 50 in IQ points..." but clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about. Intelligence is the speed and the degree to which one can acquire knowledge/information and in turn (this is a part most people don't factor in, partially because they are only of average intelligence and therefore are limited in the degree to which they can be educated, regardless of how much longer they may work at it - some things require a certain level of intelligence to even comprehend) use that knowledge/information in the most effective manner.

Now, people's intelligence comes from genetics first...or rather, to help you understand, the INTELLECTUAL POTENTIAL, meaning, their max potential and likely their minimum potential are established by genetics. Stupid parents, you aren't going to be too smart outside of some kind of genetic mutation.

After that, most people do not realize that a person's IQ is actually still being established within the first 7 years of one's life. Their brain is still growing and forming at this period and the way it functions and the rate at which it functions is basically being programmed. How do you make your child reach their maximum potential as it pertains to their genes? You inundate them with attention and stimuli constantly. However, the stimulus, particularly at that age, as their IQ is still forming, and at the same time, during a period in which they have yet to be brainwashed or mislead by the idiotic prejudices and hate that often skew one's way at looking at looking at the world, cutting off an open young mind, which is why they learn so much faster than adults.

It is important to make sure, as well, that you are stimulating the child in a way in which they are fully engaged and interested. If they are not interested and engaged then it means their brain, which needs to be first grown like a muscle to establish a maximum potential and then strengthened and have its muscular density increased. Therefore, while reading and math are great things and if you can find new ways to keep those same topics interesting to them, great! However, there are different ways of learning as well and the way your child learns will be highly established by how they are taught when they are young.

For example, if they are just TOLD, they learn nothing. If they are told but it is explained to them, that helps. If they are told, it is explained to them, and then they get to see as a matter of example, that helps even more. Finally, if they are told, have it explained to them, get to see it done as a matter of example, and then are given a chance themselves to do it, they learn the best. That is how you teach them important things like math, science, reading, history. And yet, they can learn tons of those things after 7 so focusing too much on those topics risks the child becoming bored or complacent, which can almost stop their brain from growing any longer. Therefore, one must understand that if one has run out of ways of making math seem fun, then it means they have been focusing too much on math. The stimulus that forms a child's intellectual potential doesn't have to be academic. In fact, a 5 year old would be far better off riding a roller coaster for the first time than spending another hour studying math or having a book read to them if they already spend plenty of time on reading and math as it is. Moderation is key in early years as it creates that potential, not just wholly, but also in those other areas you make room to teach the child in those first 7 years.

That being said, how smart do you think children of miners back in 1850 were? Then take them and see a malnourished pregnant mother can give birth to a child with limited mental faculties due to lack of proper prenatal care, but also a world where a child of people who they themselves as well as all of their ancestors lived above ground, are born below and will struggle early on in such an atmosphere. Only the strongest and the best at adapting end up surviving. So the very first, much less as we get to the 6th or 7th generation, will already have to change and adapt just to survive.

Ultimately, after one born underground impregnates a female born underground, you are going to see how their adaptation to the underground is passed unto their offspring and slowly over eight generations, you see them lose their eye sight (not totally, but more like that of a bat, which can actually see with their eyes but because they live in dark places, their eyes are very weak and pointless in those dark places they live - these "monsters" are in the same situation there.

However, despite their loss of sight, there is a gain in hearing and as generations go on those things starting to gain a weak amount of strength using sonar (that is why they scream out around the humans - they are waiting to see the reaction in movement because while they have "sonar," they have no idea whether the difference between a person and a wall is unless the person moves or breathes, etc.) as well as having stronger hands and feet for climbing and giving them the ability to jump higher in order to get around the caverns with more ease.

So, while there are certain abilities they lose down there, they are all abilities they cannot use down there really. However they do gain other abilities they did not have that indeed ARE a huge advantage to have down there. For example, they may lose sight and, as I said, because of a lack of education and with each dying educated generation and because of their sonar now, they seem to no longer even use any form of language at all anymore.


So, all that being said, you are confused. You are confused about how many generations 150 years is (and your 1850 date is not accurate but I went with it anyway just to show you how wrong you are) and clearly confused as to how, from a scientific perspective, that if humans were to get trapped underground and still somehow were able to survive and procreate, the adaptation to the environment over the generations would definitely be as profound as they showed.

reply

Can I just add that they no longer have molars because they rely solely on meat now.

reply

To everyone who is wondering about the origin of the "Crawlers". Here is a quote from the director and writer of the first film, Neil Marshall:

The humanoid creatures, referred to as "Crawlers" in the credits, are, according to director Marshall, "cave men that never left the cave; they evolved over thousands of years, living down there in families. They've lost their eyesight; they have acute hearing and smell; and they function perfectly in the pitch black." It is shown and implied in this movie, as well as the sequel, that the Crawlers do, however, come to the surface to hunt animals such as wolves, deer, etc., and to bring their carcasses back to the caves for food.


Hope that helps. I just happened to be watching the movie tonight, so, I thought I would check out the Message Boards.



Rex

When movie hell is full, re-makes shall walk the earth.

reply

Wow, your very dumb for a 25 year old.

reply

*you're

FFS if you're going to comment on how dumb somebody is, at least get basic spelling correct.

reply

Ha, ha! THIS ^.


Beat me to it. :)




'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.

reply

I had the exact opposite effect. I watched the original movie for the first in about 10 years yesterday (I was about 12 when I first watched it). Back then I found it "boring" since the monsters didn't really show up until an hour into the running time. Being 12, I had a very small attention span and a low amount of patience so I easily lost interest. But now that I am older and a bit more mature I'm able to appreciate movies I found "too slow" and "too boring" when I was younger. I found it to be a pretty good, creepy film. It still stayed in my mind long after it was over.

The sequel didn't have quite the amount of suspense and tension but it was still fun and entertaining in my opinion.

reply