MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (2006) Discussion > Would YOU have gone back for the baby?

Would YOU have gone back for the baby?

posted 13 years ago by LunaSDominni
78 replies | jump to latest

I love this movie and it's prob my fav remake of any horror film. When my grandfather and I (who pretty much got me into horror movies) were watching it, he said that if it was him, he wouldn't have gone for the baby and just cut the losses and tried to get to safety with the rest of the family. And as cold as that sounds I kinda feel the same way. I realize it wouldn't be much of a movie if they just left, but in a real life situation would you go back for a baby (not even knowing if it was still alive)?

[–] hathawayj1 10 years ago

Absolutly with no question about it. Saving the child is the only option, especially after hearing the baby alive on walkie talkie. How could anyone not go after the child.

[–] DeputyDippity 10 years ago

No, I wouldn't go back for the baby. F the baby.

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] Lootrock 10 years ago

Yeah *beep* that baby. The baby is probably what got them all into that situation anyway aside from its mother being mad nosy. No but seriously, I do think a large percent of parents would go back for their child and some others would be too afraid or hysterical to do so. Everyone acts tough until they're in the situation where their entire family gets murdered or raped by crazy mutants in a matter of minutes right after watching their protector get burned alive at the stake. I would have assumed they ate the baby asap. It's really hard to tell what somebody might do in a crisis in or out of hysteria or possibly even catatonic due to shock. It's certainly not a dumb question.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DeputyDippity 10 years ago

No, it's not a dumb question.

Most people are the Mama Bear / Papa Bear type, and go pretty insane when it comes to babies in general and their own babies in particular, so most people probably would go try to get their baby back if the police weren't readily available.

It's pretty logical to think that the baby is already dead, but most people aren't very logical.

I, however, would get the hell outta there and hope that the baby would keep them busy long enough for me to find some sort of freeway, or phone, or civilization of some sort.

Or, as Brian from Family Guy so eloquently put it, "Kill him. He's a baby. He won't even remember he was alive."

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] Lootrock 10 years ago

Dag, that's messed up. With that train of thought, would you offer your baby for the lives of the rest of your family, let's say hypothetically the mutants gave you the choice?

[–] DeputyDippity 10 years ago

Yes, if it was believable that they would let everyone else live.

It's a classic philosophical question. Would you let one person die so that multiple people can live? Or would you just let everyone die because you can't bring yourself to let someone die? Variations include, would you save a loved one if it meant that a bunch of strangers might die?

Each adult member of the family already has established social circles, and each member of each social circle connects to another. Kill an adult, and it sends incredible waves of pain throughout a chain of social circles.

In this society of youth worship, it's unthinkable that someone would let a precious *beep* baby die when a bunch of oldsters can live.

It's also worth noting that, though the human being is mortal, the human race is immortal through breeding. However, you can always churn out more offspring. It's not nearly the unique and miraculous thing that people believe it to be. Especially since all but one of the "good" humans in this movie were still of breeding age. The mom character looked like she might be past menopause. The rest are all still capable of breeding. But that's why the weak hippie character "mans up" and decides to save the baby. He viewed it as his immortality, but more importantly the immortality of his wife who can't breed anymore because she's dead.

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] Lootrock 10 years ago

No race, species, genus, family, phylum, kingdom, nor life itself is immortal.

[–] DeputyDippity 10 years ago

Explain.

Because it's obvious that humanity can survive indefinitely barring something like global destruction unless we find a way off the planet. So are we disagreeing about the word "immortal" here, or what? Or do you think that humanity will die of old age like a human being does? Or do you just like to disagree with people to make yourself feel smart?

Well, it's been days and days since I asked you to explain, so I'm guessing that you just like to disagree with people to make yourself feel smart. You have a blissful day.

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] Lootrock 10 years ago

I just disagree with people to make myself feel smart [/sarcasm]. Way to make accusations too there buddy.

Anyway, I can very easily see humans dying off due to self desctruction, inability to adapt, disease(bacteria is king on this planet), or a combination of those things and of course the many other things that could happen to earth itself. I do think I understand what you mean though and I would still tend to disagree. In general, when it comes to family, people do not tend to act in the interest of others. It's very easy for any non-parent, me being a part of that group as well, to say yeah I'd leave the baby or yeah well I can just have another one, but from what I understand, to parents, their kids are an extension of their lives, not in the sense of progeny as it appears that you mean it. Nobdy is thinking of future anything when their f'ckin baby is missing. Unless somebody forced him to not go, he was going to go.

[–] funkyfresh91 10 years ago

This post is the icing on an already appetizing philosophical quandary. Global destruction aside, humans seem to be the most advanced life-form on the planet and continue to dominate all other known organisms. I don't think nuclear fallout is a serious threat considering the constant congress of our nations and our inherent fear of fiery death, I also don't expect bacteria to make some violent resurgence amidst constant medical research (we just cured cancer with a re-engineered polio virus). Our population levels are strong, global access to information and technology is abundant, and the species is evolving exponentially faster than it ever has before. The last century was the entire industrial revolution, before that we didn't have electricity. Now we are literally developing space stations. If we can keep Earth in relative equilibrium, we'll most likely develop space stations, expand into outer space and become truly "immortal". Until humans face a more powerful or significant threat, we are pretty much gods learning to explore the universe.

[–] redban02 10 years ago

I wouldn't have gone back for the baby either. At that point, they didn't know if the baby was still alive or not. The best course of action was to stick together and run to safety.

[–] dntbreathe 10 years ago

No.

[–] PotatoMonsters 10 years ago

No im not a fan of suicide.

[–] hurricanehorton 10 years ago

I probably wouldn't go back to just save any old random person.

But if it was my child, yes I probably would. I don't suppose there's any parent who wouldn't.

[–] simian_ninja 9 years ago

Interesting question. I've been teaching young children for a while now, very young, around Kindergarten age to Primary School age. In my mind, yes, I would totally go back and save any child. In my heart, I'm really hoping that I'm never in the middle of a desert trapped with a school bus of children by an insane nuclear inbred family that are out for blood.

--------------------------------------
Death is the standard breach for a complex prize.

[–] mountaindewslave 9 years ago

it really is a dumb question

surely even if you don't have your own child you can imagine how important and valuable your own flesh and blood are, I mean there is nothing really comparable to a child, like the connection

it concerns me if anyone is responding to this thread as a parent and claiming they might not go after them

as for why risk it- the cannibal/mutants obviously took the baby for a reason. I'm not sure what they intended to do with the baby- eating seems unrealistic based on its size but to expect that they would carry it away and immediately despose of it seems unrealistic

they couldn't just 'leave' anyway. in the process of saving his baby the man had to face the mutants and those mutants had eyes on them the whole time

If i go crazy will you still call me Superman?

[–] jaydavis 9 years ago

Hahaha, most of you people are ridiculous! If you woulda gone out to save the child you would end up dead really fast! Better to get out and find civilization, get to law enforcement people and let them get in there. Sure, I do love the, "I'm gonna save my baby crowd!" But seriously, most of you wouldn't last 5 seconds going on a rescue mission on your own. Or with a German Shepherd for that matter.

[–] Eightiesjunkie 9 years ago

I definitely would've! Regardless if it was my baby or not. Even if I had found the baby dead, I still would've gone back. Not to mention, I would've armed myself to the teeth, and taken down as many as those mutant MF's as I could. Like my uncle always tells me: "There's worse things than being dead."

"Aw, you're breaking my *beep* heart!" -Horace Pinker