MovieChat Forums > Feast II: Sloppy Seconds (2008) Discussion > What's the difference between eating a b...

What's the difference between eating a baby and eating an adult


Lives are lives. Babies are just smaller and dumber. You'd think they would always be the first to get eaten. It's about time a movie addressed this madness!

Kudos producers of Feast II!

reply

I don't think it's the eating of the baby that gets people. It's the attempted rescue and then purposeful throwing of the baby, letting it hit the ground, THEN being eaten.

reply

What's the difference between eating a baby and eating an adult




A few thousand calories.

reply

haha spot on..spot on

PLEASE do not Go here http://www.watch-movies-links.net/movies/dragonball_evolution/

reply

Lmao!!!!

reply

I totally wished for that to happen. I laughed my ass of. people are always saying women and children first, but it things turn to sh!t people will only care about themselves.

reply

Exactly...we were assuming the baby would be thrown to safety or the sleazy car salesman would have made it to safety with the baby, right. No his first attempt at swinging to safety with the tyke failed so next he out-runs the beasts and at the last moment tries to throw the baby to safety. Then whump the baby hits the street and next it got eaten...holy crap it was hillarious!!!











Baby,...it's what's for supper!
Baby,...the other white meat!

reply

you'll know the difference when you have a baby...

Alright, now, wasn't that fun?... let's try something else

reply

[deleted]

I think the difference is because they are innocent and might not yet deserve to die. : /

reply

What about people who have, say, teenaged daughters? When they see teenaged girls (say, 17-19) killed in horror films, they're okay with it because they figure they "deserve to die"?


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

this age teenage girls... dieing is too little punishment for them...


ok, well, its jut another idiotic taboo that movie makers seem to avoid because movie watchers still cant think rationally.

---------------------------------
Best way to deal with trolls is to add them to your ignore list.

reply

Monsters, serial killers and the god all hate 'em sluts.

reply

Stop whining. In the convention of this series, the baby could have been devoured whole and then shat out.

And then eaten again.

reply

Throwing that baby was really funny and awesome :D

People who get offended by it are pussies and idiots.

reply

The difference is, when you eat a baby you can say "GET IN MY BELLY!!" with a really bad Scotish accent just to make it really funny.




Free The West Memphis Three Please We All Know Falconetti Did It!!


reply

[deleted]

People just have to whine about something. In a horror film, people can be getting slaughtered in horrible ways left and right, but if a dog is caught in the crossfire, everyone is up in arms. Apparently, there is a "death age limit" in society, where after a certain age, it's ok if they are killed, just don't hurt the babies or the dog.

While I didn't think the scene was absolutely hilarious, I did get a bit of a chuckle at the scene. C'mon, the crappy green-screen effects and the "sorry, baby!" kept it from being too "real". And I agree with the poster who said that the "baby-chucking" was perfectly in character for Greg Swank. The guy was a douche.

I don't understand why people are so up in arms over it. It was camp, pure and simple. And folks watching the "Feast" films should have a damn good idea what they are in for. The minute I heard the baby crying, I knew he was a goner. These movies pull no punches, as shown by the child death in the first one.

And, before someone tells me to "have a child of your own", I do. I have a beautiful 2 year old, and I love her more than life itself. But being a parent doesn't stop me from sitting down, watching a movie, and getting lost in the FANTASY world presented to me. It's a campy horror movie, not "Hamlet".


I have no idea what to put here...

reply

It's the attempted rescue and then purposeful throwing of the baby, letting it hit the ground, THEN being eaten.


now im sure this movie is good
i watched it and i got here to spam a few comments

till i read your two lines
and i laughed my ass off imagining the scene

indeed, the movie is quite good.

reply

I doubt that you have a child. You wouldn't post in this way otherwise. I already have seen the first one, so i knew the child might end up dead. But they did a *beep* job. They could just leave it at child's cry and not make that stupid guy trying to save him and then killing him.

reply

What's the difference between having a sex with a woman and a baby? If you don't agree then you don't have conscience at all.

reply

The difference is that the woman may or may not consent to having sex while the baby is at your mercy. Nobody has a choice about death. It happens when it happens.
In this film, the baby would've died anyway; either by starvation, hypo/hyperthermia, dehydration, or the monsters finding it. At least the guy tried to save it.

Tell us truthfully, if any of you were in that same situation, would you be brave/foolish enough to even attempt the rescue; what would you do if it looked like the beasts were gonna catch you?

As for me: be it mutant, "feast beast", zombie, etc.; "Sorry baby!"
After all, if I die, how far will the baby get? May as well live.

reply

[deleted]