She says in the simulation her children are real, they weren't taken away from her.
2 explanations crossed my mind: she lost her children in a tragic accident or she had abortion(s) which she now heavily regrets.
What do you think?
I immediately assumed that her children died in an accident. It didn't even occur to me that it could be something else.
shareEven though I assume that you're baiting...
Olivia Wilde's character explicitly said that she chose the life she had because in the simulation she didn't lose her children like she did in the real world. LOSE. People use the word lose when talking about those who have died, especially unexpectedly or pregnancies that haven't come to term due to miscarriage. Literally no one, anywhere, ever has aborted a baby and said that they "lost" their baby. It would just be factually incorrect.
Why would you assume that.
Ok maybe I forgot the "lose" bit, miscarriages yes that also makes sense and didn't occur to me.
Despite the underhanded insult, I thank you for your post.
I'm not really assuming anything, that's just not how language works or how people use it. You 'lose' your uncle in a car crash. You can 'lose' a priceless family heirloom in a fire. Poor Janice 'lost' her baby and she'd already finished decorating the nursery. etc.
Terminating a pregnancy is deliberate. It simply wouldn't be correct to say, "Yah know, the funniest thing happened yesterday. I went to have an abortion and then all of a sudden, I lost muh baby. Oopsy!" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, underhanded insult? You're comment is designed to be controversial. Given the people involved in making the film, its obvious that they would never put a message in the film about a woman who's ok with imprisioning others because she just went bananas from having abortions. That's just shameless, and given that there's no dialogue or evidence in the movie to support it, I can only assume that your intention was to rage bait.
Well your assumption would be wrong.
Want to know why the idea came to me? Because actually in real life I know a woman (2 of them actually) who had abortion and later went on to regret it (I believe even she was pressure by NHS nurses here in UK to get it). So the idea was from there, no intention to bait
Again, not an assumption. Words have definitions whether you like it or not. Maybe you're not baiting and you legitimately don't know that, but a screen writer who makes their living off of putting words to the page definitely would. I'm sure there are women who regret terminating their pregnancies, but that's really irrelevant to what I said. If a woman who has had an abortion says that she 'lost' her baby, that's just factually incorrect. Plain and simple. If the basis of your theory rests on the idea that the screenwriter f*cked up, maybe you need to admit that it's just not a good theory.
shareYou must be the life of the party. The op asked a simple question and you decided to lecture him/her on the use of language. You must spend a lot of time online.
shareAnd I posted a simple reply that refutes their theory and would have stopped there if they didn't argue. Also, you're lecturing me right now about how I should talk about a theory that makes no sense posted onto an online forum for the purpose of discussion, so should I take that to mean you're a fellow chronically online potato? Man, you must be the life of the party 😂. Your logic...
shareBut it does make sense. And I have explained well in this thread how it does so. Please re-read and re-evaluate who is potato
shareYour argument is that it could have happened to the women in the story (even though the script literally doesn't not say that nor hint to it anywhere as I've already explained to you) because it occasionally happens to women in real life... A fact that is irrelevant to this movie. Even the person who objected to my tone still didn't even try to defend such a nonsensical argument. The script doesn't say what you're alluding to anywhere, you're using irrelevant arguments and no one on this board has defended your stance. You are still the potato.
shareYour patience and stamina are both admirable.
I'm not sure how you could better explain yourself, but compliments are in order.
Actually I don't think the idea that Icecutter put forth is that far fetched. Sure, when we hear "lose" we take that to mean a tragedy, something out of the control of the Olivia Wilde character. But considering she is choosing to live her life in a simulation, a delusion, it's not that far fetched to think she could be doing this because of something she regrets. Maybe the children were taken way from her, and aren't dead. People lie to themselves all the time. Part of her coping with however the kids are not there (died in birth, died in accident, abortion, lost custody, whatever), a character might describe the event in a term that makes them feel less guilty.
It's not the most obvious interpretation, but it's a possible one. I watched the movie last night for the first time, and when she said that she was in Victory because here she didn't "lose her children", the two things i immediately thought of was that they died or that they were taken away from her for some reason.
Soooooo your interpretation is that rather than what the script is literally telling us happened happened, she's actually misusing the word because she's delusional? And of course theres no direct evidence in the scipt for this, but its enough for you that it could theoretically be possible?
I mean, if you're bending logic that much to support his theory, you may as well say that she never even had kids at all and she's just delusional. Like your theory, it has no evidence, but hey, they don't expressly say otherwise and even if they did, you apparently don't believe what the scipt is presenting anyway. Theoretically you could use the same logic (or lack thereof) to say that literally anything could be true about anyone in a film, or real life for that matter.
I'd like to present a few of my own theories using this brand of logic:
1. They're all shapeshifting aliens (no evidence) but theoretically possible.
2. None of this actually happened it was all a dream the protagonist had, (no evidence) but theoretically possible.
3. The movie never existed at all and we're all just suffering a mass delusion, (no evidence) but theoretically possible.
I hope you see how dumb this line of thinking is now that you've seen it applied elsewhere.
It's not my favored interpretation, but it is a possible one. Not as ridiculous as you assert. I've read through your posts on this, and you're obviously way too emotional about this for some reason. Movies and scripts do leave things open to interpretation. Since we don't get any more details on what drove her character to willingly be a part of Victory, there are possibilities outside the most obvious one.
shareNot as ridiculous as you assert.
We get very little backstory on the characters in this movie. That alone means that there are possibilities other than the most obvious that you dogmatically insist is the only interpretation of the word "lose". We don't know the nature of this loss, how it happened, what it really means. Is it important? Not really. There are a number of different scenarios that could cause her (and her husband) to willingly spend time in a simulation where they still have their kids. But since the movie wasn't good enough or successful enough to warrant a sequel, we're not going to get any expansion of this world or additional info.
You clearly see only one possibility, and that's fine. But I don't think its right to insist that any other possibility is flat out wrong, and to do so in such a condescending rude manor. You did that with the OP. And now you bring up nonsense about shapeshifting aliens with me. I don't want to go round and round with you. But I read through this conversation, and weighed in that I don't think the possibility put forth by the OP is so outlandish.
I don't have anything else to add on that.
"We get very little backstory on the characters in this movie. That alone means that there are possibilities other than the most obvious that you dogmatically insist is the only interpretation of the word "lose""
"We get very little backstory on the characters in this movie [...] That alone means that there are possibilities other than the most obvious."
"Since we don't get any more details on what drove her character to willingly be a part of Victory, there are possibilities outside the most obvious one."
But I don't think its right to insist that any other possibility is flat out wrong, and to do so in such a condescending rude manor. You did that with the OP.
And now you bring up nonsense about shapeshifting aliens with me.
'it's like, my opinion, man
Hello guys.
I saw this pamphlet the other day:
https://i.postimg.cc/J7TrMmP2/IMG-20221204-125700576.jpg
So my idea actually isn't so wild, this is a real tragic thing that happens
You're using a borderline propaganda poster about women IRL to say that it's not so crazy that you invented a back story for a character in a movie that involves coercive abortion even though said character explicitly said that it's not what happened. Nope, that idea is still pretty damn wild man.
Also even on the leaflet you showed, they don't use any examples of coercion 😂, one of the examples was literally "I feel rushed". Do you not realise that there are time limits (a certain amount of weeks per the law of each individual country) on abortion and that telling you to make a decision within a certain time frame is literally just a responsible medical practice 🙄?
The other examples were needing someone to talk to and the prospect of single motherhood should the person not have the abortion . This isn't coercion either, by any metric. If you know you'll have a lack of support after giving birth then that's a factor an expectant mother needs to consider in her family planning decisions. Just because you're in a bad situation doesn't mean you're being coerced, it just means you're in a bad situation. If you make a decision you regret in a bad situation, as I'm sure many people have, you don't get to use that against other women or medical professionals.
Edit: for the record, coercive abortions are a real thing, and is typically perpetrated by an intimate partner. If you want to learn what true reproductive abuse is here is a good place to start: https://utswmed.org/medblog/reproductive-coercion/
"borderline propaganda poster"?? 🤣 Dear lord, I think you need to get a grip.
I'm sure coersive reproduction is a thing yes but why say it's the "true" abuse? They are both true forms of abuse IMO
Of all the ridiculous things you've posted thus far, this takes the cake.
"I'm sure coersive reproduction is a thing yes but why say it's the "true" abuse?They are both true forms of abuse IMO."
First of all, the term I used was reproduction abuse. That's the name of a series of actions and behaviours that strip women of autonomy over their reproductive system. This type of abuse includes but is not limited to coercing or forcing an abortion, the exact thing you've literally been talking about. They're not BOTH abusive, because it is only one type of abuse. Basically what you just said was:
"I'm sure coersive abortions are a thing but why say it's the "true" abuse? They are both (referring to the same topic) forms of abuse IMO."
You just made it known that you don't even know the term for the thing you're trying to talk about 😂. Great job!
If you were paying attention, you'd know that I linked to information about true reproductive abuse to make a clear delineation between the propaganda version you posted and it's actual meaning. And yes, trying to claim that medical professionals are coercing you by letting you know that you're medical decisions have a time limit on them is pretty damn propagandist.
Ok. Look you're throwing alot of big words out, I don't know their meaning so it's just making me feel offended. So imma just end this conversation here, please remember to have better manners next time
shareThrowing around a lot of big words? I'm literally using the correct terms for what we're speaking about. I'm offended by most of what you've written on this board - that someone would post about a serious topic knowing so little about it. That horrid pamphlet that misrepresents reproductive abuse in a time when women's reproductive autonomy is already heavily under attack, resorting to using your friend's (supposedly) real regretted abortion story to make your claims seem more believable even though that obviously has no bearing on what's written in the script of a movie. These aren't good things for a person do, and I have no obligation to engage with this conversation as if they were.
share