MovieChat Forums > Bird Box (2018) Discussion > The little girl

The little girl

posted 5 years ago by zeesha (1753)
17 replies | jump to latest

When Gary showed the creature outside the window to Olympia, there was a great chance that the little baby girl saw it too. How that affects a newborn, we don't know. But I guess none of the "Worse fear or Deepest sadness or Greatest lost" means anything to a baby. She is not effected and we know it because later we see the girl grow up and has clear eyes. But if you pay attention, you will also notice that the girl is not afraid to see or touch these creatures. Maybe it is because she's immune to them? I like this idea because what's missing from this story is how humans fight back against these creatures. This girl could be the hope and savior of humanity.

[–] xfool (922) 5 years ago

The baby face is facing upward so not likely to see it.

[–] zeesha (1753) 5 years ago

It is unlikely that the baby faced straight upward all the time, for example, the moment Olympia leaned forward to stand up or when Malorie struggled to stop Olympia from committing suicide.

[–] Seanyd88 (24) 5 years ago

Would be cool if this was kind of Children of Men-esque, a flashback or prequel to the story about how humanity fights back, showing us the origin story of how the "one" was born and all that.. with the way their continuing all these stories 10-15 years later, never know what could happen!

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

A newborn baby cannot see very far... It wouldn't be able to see what is outside the window...

[–] LennyNero (474) 5 years ago

A newborn baby can't actually "see" in the same way that an adult can. A newborn's vision is incredibly limited...like, they can't see beyond a couple of feet. They're not instantly born to absorb information. Kids absorb information at an incredibly fast rate, but a newborn takes a hot minute to understand the world that they're born into.

IMO, the "ghosts" in the movie couldn't have really corrupted newborns in the movie. Babies are simply not sophisticated enough to employ the "message" that's trying to be sent. It's a wasted effort. They "could" corrupt a newborn, but that newborn isn't going to do anything for them...but just sit there and be "infected"...until they die because no one took care of them.

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

Are you replying to me or the original post? I think we are kind of saying the same thing... even though your post is a bit more elaborate:-)

[–] LennyNero (474) 5 years ago

Hehe...Sorry! It was intended for the original post. I'm sure you're much more reasonable than the topic creator. Details like this are interesting to think about (if someone was genuinely curious about them), but it's obvious to me why a newborn could reasonably be immune to the darkness in the movie - They simply don't have the capacity to act on it either way.

However, it would have been interesting if they touched on the idea. For instance, a baby refuses to consume if they were exposed to the...whatever it was.

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

True... A newborn baby wouldn't even be able to commit suicide as It wouldn't be able to control their hands and feet...

[–] zeesha (1753) 5 years ago

"wouldn't even be able to commit suicide"

That is not the same as immune. BD Wong's character died to prove it.

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

He did exactly what newborn wouldn't be able to do... move his body so the chair fell over... A newborn wouldn't be able to control its body like that...

[–] zeesha (1753) 5 years ago

I think the newborn is naturally immune to the distorted light that comes through the creature, not because she can't commit suicide. BD Wong's character is first affected, which is the cause, and then struggles for a while to commit suicide, and finally falls and hits him on the head, and that's the result. Saying that he would be immune if he haven't managed to kill himself is like reversing causality.

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

When did I speak about being immune?

[–] zeesha (1753) 5 years ago

Well, my OP is about that little girl might be immune. So I assumed we are still on that topic. LennyNero is sure you're much more reasonable than the topic creator. I hope you are. I challenge your "general facts" type replies because I am expecting a better response from you that could contribute to the topic, for example, an adult immune solution idea that similar to the cure they found in Daybreakers (2009).

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

Well sorry for not applauding your immune theory... We get no indication that anybody is immune... just that some kill themselves and other people just go crazy and try to get other people to see (that is not immune to me as they still infuenced by the "monsters")... But feel free to believe that the baby is immune... When it is not something the movie spends any time on... I guess you are free to speculate...

[–] zeesha (1753) 5 years ago

The movie did spend some time on the little girl...but the director surely leave the clues ambiguous. The main concern may be that some viewers won't be able to tell the difference between her and the crazy people. Going crazy enough to force other people to see and then die is the result of bad influence, that's not immune in any sense. The little girl is not one of them and assuming she gets resistant to the bad influence of the creature, that's what we call immune. It resembles what a newborn get from the vaccination.

[–] OldG (625) 5 years ago

Well if that is what you get from the movie fine by me... I just don't see it like that...

[–] zeesha (1753) 5 years ago

"A newborn baby cannot see very far"

It means a newborn baby can't or hasn't learned to recognize shapes and colors a few inches away, right? But the creatures are invisible- no shape or color but the distortion of the light (with some leaves flying surround them maybe). People see different faces of the creatures because those are just their illusion. Gary wanted Malorie to give him the babies, suggests he thought a baby would be able to "see" the glory of the creature.