So he felt down and looked pretty paralyzed and thats it ? why dont we see him again ? and why do we see Pattinson as an Leader and not the boy ?
I paid attention but didnt get these important things hope for some answers, thanks.
Could you please use the {Spoiler} tag for your questions? It gives away too much for someone who hasn't seen the film.
Time passes until the child is an adult. He's seen riding in the back of the car, and getting out of it in a big crowd. Pattinson, as the family friend, was also having a long term affair with the boy's mother and is in fact, the boy's father. That explains the closing shots.
.
I used the spoiler tag before my question but maybe ive done it wrong.
Ok that sounds plausible but why is Robert Pattinson playing the adult child ? its so ridiculous.
Robert Pattinson isn't playing the adult child. He is still playing the same character as before - only he is older (he has a grey beard, remember?) The child-now-an-adult is in the car with him, but you don't see him. You only see Pattinson's character talking to him. The director didn't want to specify who the fascist leader was exactly, so kept him out of shot.
sharemaybe youre wright but Pattinson was talking to the driver to stop the car and no else as i remember and the crowd cheered when he got out.
shareSeveral of the articles linked to in the discussions here talk about Robert Pattinson's "dual" role, and this thread discusses your question:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2815902/board/nest/260019865
Could you please go in and edit your comment to use the Spoiler tag? All you have to do is click on the SPOILER tag just above the comment frame. Two tags will pop up that look like this:
{spoiler} {/spoiler} (only with straight brackets). You simply put your text in between the two tags and then they will be concealed behind the black bar.
Many people are still seeing the film and in this case in particular, it's really a spoiler to discuss this here. Thanks.
.
No, I will not go in and edit my comment to use the spoiler tag. For one, maybe someone who doesn't want to see spoilers shouldn't open a thread called "What happened to the boy?" I'm not going to junk up the place with spoiler tags to protect that person.
For another, the only even remotely spoilery thing in my comment is the word "dual," and you have that same thing, without a spoiler tag, in another thread: "Robert Pattinson also appears in a scene-stealing dual role cameo, one of which is pivotal in the film’s eerie climax."
[deleted]
I guess you missed the THREAD TITLE my comment appears in, which clearly says the thread has SPOILERS:
The use of Robert Pattinson (SPOILERS)
There is no need for the spoiler tag when the whole thread is clearly labeled. People know BEFORE they click on it that it contains spoilers. This thread is not labeled that way, which is why people are using the spoiler tags.
The fact that you prefer to be a jerk is on you. Thanks for making everyone aware of your lack of social skills.
.
[deleted]
There is no need for the spoiler tag when the whole thread is clearly labeled. People know BEFORE they click on it that it contains spoilers.
No, since there is no mention of SPOILERS in the thread title, they expect people to be using the Spoiler tags when they click on this thread. And that's what considerate people are doing. You've shown what category you fall into.
Not everyone is looking at the cast list before they come to a board. It's easy to get to boards and completely ignore the cast list, so that excuse doesn't work. You're just being rude for no good reason. You might as well own it.
.
Sorry, but I'm just not going to go out of my way to protect people from themselves if they don't have any more sense than to not click on "What happened to the boy?" if they don't want to know what happened to the boy.
Besides, why aren't you haranguing benman46 to spoiler tag his comment? All I said was that Pattinson had a dual role (less information than even the cast list); benman46 was much more explicit.
If you're stupid enough to click on a thread like this with this type of title, and still worry about spoilers, then you deserve to be spoiled. Simple as that.
AWW *beep* IT'S WAYNE BRADY SON!share
That's not correct, RunDMG.
It's not Charles older, it is the child grown up. The chapter is called "Prescott the Bastard". Charles was the child's father. There was a lot of stuff being dropped that the mother was having an affair with Charles (i.e. she writes Charles as soon as she hears that her husband is going to be away from home; the father is surprised to find Charles "visiting" when he's not at home; Charles advocates for the child throughout "he's just a little boy", etc., etc).
This sets up another angle on the entire story. Are these type of "leaders" created via nature or nurture? Would he have turned out that way if he had been raised with Charles as his father?
--
http://tinyurl.com/k6hhn2d
Fear the man with nothing left to lose.
Please go in and edit all your comments to use the Spoiler tag. All you have to do is click on the SPOILER tag just above the comment frame. Two tags will pop up that look like this:
{spoiler} {/spoiler} (only with straight brackets). You simply put your text in between the two tags and then they will be concealed behind the black bar.
Many people are still seeing the film and in this case in particular, it's really thoughtless to reveal spoilers here. Thanks.
.