Did they deserve it? - Eden Lake (2008) Discussion

[–] Jade265 13 years ago

Absolutely not.

reply

[–] RainingBlood 13 years ago

I don't think the couple had it coming at all. Nobody owns a beach, so they had every right to be there.

It's been a while since I've seen the movie and I don't remember how big the beach was, but if I were them I would have ignored the potentially inbred children and found a different part of the beach where their music wouldn't have been a distraction.

reply

[–] michaeldecker 13 years ago

You're missing the point. It's not about 'rights' - I have the 'right' to wander around Mogadishu wearing a suit covered in $100 bills, but only a moron would do such a thing - and would *deserve* everything that then followed from that decision.

Yes, the correct course of action would be to move further away or just enjoy the music and the sound of the kids and dogs playing. The yuppies instead picked a fight, and thus are responsible for the consequences.

reply

[–] NoleonMeric 13 years ago

Hey michaeldecker, was on imdb today and realized that I never got a reply on this thread. Instead, I see that you're making the same ridiculous points that I already so eloquently addressed, if I do say so myself. Just wondering if you could explain how I didn't form a direct response to your argument previously, as you had claimed. If not, I'll just assume that you in fact didn't understand the points I had made and therefore were unable to address them.

reply

[–] statusQuo 13 years ago

michaeldecker - Either you're just a troll or just a nasty piece of work who either is just like these *beep* or has been like them at some point. Also you're making logical fallacies in trying to validate your point.

Equating Mogadishu to a recreational area in rural Britain is just amazingly inaccurate at best. These kids aren't protecting their territory, they're just sociopaths in the making. You're accusing people in this thread about missing certain details yet you totally failed to notice that these kids were harassing people in their own town as well, there goes your "Nothing wrong with these kids, they're just protecting their territory" theory out the window.

Also you're referring to the couple as yuppies, that's hardly a correct term for working class/middle-class people, the woman was a pre-school teacher, were you sleeping through the early parts of the movie? It seems that you're somehow personally motivated in defending the actions of these kids since you need to use derogatory terms in order to accentuate your point. Not only is this flawed but it leads me to believe that you have some bias.

If you think it's normal behavior for everyone to protect "their" territories then we'd all be locked up in our homes 24/7. In an open society this is NOT normal, nor should it under any circumstances be tolerated.

reply

[–] NoleonMeric 13 years ago

"Either you're just a troll or just a nasty piece of work who either is just like these *beep* or has been like them at some point."

I agree, although it's probably something closer to the latter. I have a feeling that, just like the "chavs" in the movie, michaeldecker has a lot of jealousy/contempt for people with fulfilling lives like the couple in the movie. He tries to rationalize his contempt with irrational "territorial" arguments (which makes me think he can't be older than 16, or else he's just really dumb) and tries to degrade the couple by dismissing them as "yuppies" (even though, like you said, the gf is a preschool teacher).

reply

[–] Green_Lump 13 years ago

I am amazed that no body had said it yet, but this is stupid!
You do realize, people fight and make mistakes all the time, I think you deserved to be tortured to death or burned alive at least 10 times in your life according to your mentality.

reply

[–] ostermjr 13 years ago

"Did they deserve it?"

I'll agree with the law and say HELL NO YOU CRAZY BASTAD! lol. Killing a dog/annoying annoying teens=deserving to be killed? Really? You get a little prison time all the way down to a fine and probation for the "worst" part of that.

And there is a lot wrong with your post. 1-Invaders would mean they own the beach which they didn't. 2-If touching someone's belongings "doesn't" mean war, it likely means marginally nothing in terms of the law and context. 3-Do you know the difference between a protagonist and antagonist? Which would you consider more annoying/threatening: playing loud and overbearing music in your car in a parking spot next to you or having a conversation and asking the car to lower it's music?

"More Special!!!"

reply

[–] ostermjr 13 years ago

I can't believe I and the rest of the people in this thread missed the most important thing, THE TEENS BROKE THE LAW BEFORE THE MAN TOUCHED THE RADIO!!!!

"Disturbing the peace is a minor criminal offense that may be charged when someone makes excessive noise, especially in a residential area, such as by operation of any tool, equipment, vehicle, electronic device, set, instrument, television, phonograph, machine or other noise- or sound-producing device. Local laws vary, so they should be consulted for specific requirements in your area."

BOOM, kids broke the law and instigated it. By the right of the law, if he asked them to lower it and they didn't, the kids could be legally arrested, fined, and spend a little jail time for. End of thread, KIDS DIDN'T DESERVE WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE GOT AND PROVOKED!

"More Special!!!"

reply

[–] Semen_Monster 13 years ago

Considering the last few days events, it seems loads of like minded kids are finally standing up for themselves and their turfs, reclaiming their streets. RESPECT!!!

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"!

reply

[–] dalati 13 years ago

"Reclaiming" the streets? You mean the streets they did not contribute one whit in the form of money or work to build? Yeah, certainly "their" streets. The police should just put that rabble down with a few indiscriminate shots when they take to the streets.

- Anwar

---
One man's sockpuppet is another man's freedom fighter.

reply

[–] sandy_taggiasco-1 13 years ago

the first person to reply to "michaeldecker"'s retarded message got all the points right.
and our retard did not address any of them.

you fail, loser.

reply

[–] ss5mmyers 13 years ago

So, people should stop going on vacations to public areas or they deserve to die?
1) It's a public place
2) More people should run hoodlums out of places like that. Criminals are the wrong ones, not victims. I should be able to go to a lake or down a dark alley even and feel perfectly safe if I so desire. Where did we get this mentality that the thugs run everything?
Sorry, Michaeldecker, but the fact is these kids murdered people in a way that can't be justified. Even in cultural clashes, murder is against the law universally. It's like you want us to see reason in insanity. You might try to understand their reasoning, but the fact is these kids don't know wrong from right and they willingly hurt and killed others, ergo, their viewpoint is irrelevant at best.

reply

[–] gold_nava17 13 years ago

No... they didn't deserve it! Nobody deserves to get tortured and die that way!

reply

[–] Phanatic77 13 years ago

There are some points the OP got right, however, I disagree with majority of the rest of his/her post.

1. I personally won't call the couple 'yuppies', but they most likely were.

2. Steve was definitely an idiot. First off, he was trying to act up all macho to his girlfriend. Secondly, he underestimated the kids. He also disrespected the clearly boarded up area. He had gone to a place he should have not. Granted, he wanted to take his 'soon-to-be wife' to a nice romantic place and propose to her, however, looking at the scenario objectively, he wasn't the sharpest bloke in town, to say the least. He should have not touched the radio. Also, he should have not stayed in the area. If that was me, I would first relocate further from the kids. Then, if they still stick around and being belligerent on purpose, I'd simply leave the area and look for a different venue. Rethink the whole proposing thing for another time and replan the whole thing.

3. The only person/s or people who deserved certain justice were the kids' parents and the leader of that group. Clearly his was the brain there. But even with all that, he is a direct product of his parents/father's upbringing. He turned psychotic and it's obvious.

4. I honestly doubt that the movie was about human territorial and its core minimalistic nature. It definitely reserves no prisoners with its commentary about human nature, given the parameters of being territorial, cultural and class differential. However, I understood the film to be focusing its commentary on certain current social problems and issues U.K. is suffering from, namely out of control kids and bad parenting. Clearly the movie makes it very obvious with the shocking final scenario. Jenny comes to that house and expecting help from the adults, but to her and the audiences' dismay, it is revealed that the Kids are no more and no less the younger version of the adults. And that was the actual scary part of the movie, and I believe was focus of the screenwriter's commentary.

5. Did Steve and Jenny deserve it? Clearly no. However, Steve is the main reason why the scenario escalated. He simply didn't use his brain.

I can give many more examples where he has not in this movie, and the same goes for Jenny. However, I'm not here to comment on that, rather on the subject being discussed.

reply

[–] ss5mmyers 13 years ago

If it turned into a simple fist fight I could blame Steve. But, the fact is these kids committed murder with no remorse. They and their parents who have raised them to not know right from wrong are to blame for everything. Those kids had it in for anybody who crossed them; if it hadn't been Steve killing the dog, it would have been something else.

reply

[–] Nova_UB313 13 years ago

2. Steve was definitely an idiot. First off, he was trying to act up all macho to his girlfriend. Secondly, he underestimated the kids. He also disrespected the clearly boarded up area. He had gone to a place he should have not. Granted, he wanted to take his 'soon-to-be wife' to a nice romantic place and propose to her, however, looking at the scenario objectively, he wasn't the sharpest bloke in town, to say the least. He should have not touched the radio. Also, he should have not stayed in the area. If that was me, I would first relocate further from the kids. Then, if they still stick around and being belligerent on purpose, I'd simply leave the area and look for a different venue. Rethink the whole proposing thing for another time and replan the whole thing.

3. The only person/s or people who deserved certain justice were the kids' parents and the leader of that group. Clearly his was the brain there. But even with all that, he is a direct product of his parents/father's upbringing. He turned psychotic and it's obvious.

4. I honestly doubt that the movie was about human territorial and it core minimalistic nature. It definitely reserves no prisoners with its commentary about human nature, given the parameters of being territorial, cultural and class differential. However, I understood the film to be focusing its commentary on certain current social problems and issues U.K. is suffering from, namely out of control kids and bad parenting. Clearly the movie makes it very obvious with the shocking final scenario. Jenny comes to that house and expecting help from the adults, but to her and the audiences' dismay, it is revealed that the Kids are no more and no less the younger version of the adults. And that was the actual scary part of the movie, and I believe was focus of the screenwriter's commentary.

5. Did Steve and Jenny deserve it? Clearly no. However, Steve is the main reason why the scenario escalated. He simply didn't use his brain.

Wonderful post Phanatic77, I enjoyed reading that. Excellent observations.

I enjoyed the film a great deal, but the ending is what took it to another level. Yes, you are spot on in regard to screenwriters' commentary.

Also, excellent points in regard to how Steve escalated the situation by pouring fuel into an already raging fire. Lastly, good call on how a 'thinking' person would/should have handled all of 'that.' Couldn't agree more.

More science, less fiction.

I'm guilty of 'Z.' http://tinyurl.com/38ljacy

reply

[–] Phanatic77 13 years ago

Nova_UB313,

Thank you, I appreciate the comments.

As for the other poster, I think you're miss-focusing or misreading the point of the movie. It's not about who deserves what, it's about the outcomes of bad parenting bestowed upon their children. It shows the vicious cycle of how and why some people turn out the way they do. And in this case, it's probably one of the most extreme cases exemplified.

reply

[–] moviefool09 13 years ago

I've never read a more ridiculous thread in my life. "Did they Deserve it?"??? This is the kind of twisted logic that says a woman deserves to be raped because she wears a revealing outfit to a nightclub.

As far as I know, that beach and that land were PUBLIC land. The kids didn't own it and neither did the two adults.

But let's just say, for your argument's sake, that the kids DID own the land (or their parents did). Does that entitle them to murder? Does that entitle them to torture?

I agree that Steve didn't realize what he was dealing with. If he had known the kids were truly capable of such extreme violence, he wouldn't have approached them. But there was very little he did to provoke the kids. At no time were the kids in danger of physical harm started by the adults. The kids were the 'threat' from the beginning.

Nice try.

reply

[–] Phanatic77 13 years ago

Steve and Jenny were Decent people, no question about it.

However, in this narrative, both Steve and Jenny do and behave in some seriously arbitrary and contradictory behavior to common sense and logic.

If this was me and a fiance' to be on that beach.. Well, let's backtrack that too. The minute we see that fenced area if I don't see this as a sign not to enter, then my fiance would be sure to prevent me from going there and finding another venue. This is issue #1. Now, let's say this is ignored.

Issue #2. (again speaking for myself and people I know.. this would be their general consensus of behavior)

First off, I would not dive off on my own while my beloved is laying down by herself just about 60 meters away from rowdy and obnoxious looking/behaving kids, which are also accompanied by a barking Rottweiler.

Secondly, even if I do this and notice that the Dog barked at my girlie, and not to mention that the kids/owner takes very little note or moral responsibility for this, would give me a very big clue as to who I might be dealing with. Then, I won't even approach them. Screw my ego, my and my girl's safety is priority. So I would relocate further from the kids. If they continue to harass us after our relocation, I would attempt a normal, calm and non intrusive conversation with whomever appears to be the leader. If I get the same reaction Steve did. I will not touch their stereo or stuff. I will simply say 'thanks guys, enjoy the beach'. Go back to my girlie and tell her that I don't feel comfortable being there and definitely don't feel that she is safe.

Then simply leave the place.

Did Steve and Jenny deserve this, or was this justified, clearly not. Though I stress again, Steve's behavior added fuel to the fire. He listened to his ego instead of listening to his brain.

Also, the movie isn't about that.

reply

[–] NoleonMeric 13 years ago

The op's argument isn't derived from the fact that the couple acted stupidly, it's derived from a notion of territoriality that's extremely adolescent... The chavs didn't have any claim to that land or any right to act in the manner that they did, regardless of the couple's behavior.

reply

[–] Phanatic77 13 years ago

Well the O.P. had certain points correct, however was grossly incorrect on other ones.

Clearly there was the territorial issue at hand.
However, moreso than not, it was about a direct product of bad parenting.

reply

[–] NoleonMeric 13 years ago

The movie was about bad parenting, the op's post was about territoriality... The movie was not at all meant to justify the actions of the chavs, which is why the op's post is particularly disturbing.

reply

[–] moviefool09 13 years ago

Yes, there are two different issues at play here....maybe three or four. And they don't necessarily have to do with each other, or the themes the director intended to stress. And they certainly don't deal with making the two victims accountable.

First of all, I don't think TERRITORY has much to do with the themes of the film, though it is strongly stated that the kids feel the adults have trespassed on their area. Did Jenny and Steve overstep their boundaries? Well, their behavior was definitely not smart, but it wasn't abusive or encroaching on the kids.

The main point as it relates to the OP, however, is that bold and somewhat reckless behavior by Jenny and Steve did not (and never does) justify torture and murder. I think it's made pretty clear in the film that this is simply an excuse for the chavs to act out their aggressions. Whether the OP was being facetious or joking, no one would seriously think that Jenny and Steve "deserved" what they got. That's a pretty huge overstatement.

Besides the obvious condemnation of the parents and their lack of responsibility in the film, I think another major theme is how peer pressure and the 'herd' mentality make it all too easy to fall into easy violence and a degradation of morals. Although the kids are the culprits, I believe the director is making a statement about society as a whole.

reply

[–] NoleonMeric 13 years ago

Yep, I agree.

reply

[–] burn on 13 years ago

Surely the OP is trolling. I must say, hats off to him - he's been trolling the same point for nearly two years.

But anyway, yeah, anyone who believes that a person should be beaten, strangled, stabbed and burned to death for the crime of asking some teenagers to turn their boombox down is either a thuggish creep or, as in this case, a troll with way too much time on his hands.

reply

[–] SwissCheeze 13 years ago

Yes, asking someone to turn down their music, when they do not own the land and they've just had their dog slobber all of your girlfriend clearly means they deserved to be tortured to death.

reply

[–] L0GAN5 13 years ago

Yes, asking someone to turn down their music, when they do not own the land and they've just had their dog slobber all of your girlfriend clearly means they deserved to be tortured to death.

I think Michael has given a brilliant appraisal of the film actually. What is land ownership anyway? We only own the land with the backing of the state, and a state is really only a big gang that exerted a territorial claim when it comes down to it. It's the same here, the kids exerted a territorial claim over the land. Their authority to do so is exactly the same that ours is: they had sufficient numbers to enforce their claim. Their claim to the land is exactly the same as our claim to 'our' land. In accordance with territorial claim, they also have 'laws' too. The couple killed one of theirs and the sentence was the death penalty. The film is supposed to make you question the validity of the kids claim to their land, and their right to dispense justice within it. If you don't think they have that right then what do you believe gives your country the right to do the exact same thing? The film is asking you contemplate the nature of authority over your country and where that authority comes from. God, you've got to love British horror; American slashers essentially tell teenage girls to not sleep around, and when the Brits give it a try we get a metaphor for imperialism.

reply

[–] michaeldecker 13 years ago

Thanks; you and Logan5 are perhaps the only two posters with more than two brain cells between you. And you understand allegory.

reply

[–] Arthur_Desmond 13 years ago

OP, only from the netherest realms of abyssal stupidity can you defend the kids in this film.

First of all, it wasn't their territory.

Second of all, it is common civil behavior to put the volume of your music down if you're not alone in the beach. Even if you're in your own garden -- which they certainly weren't. Only retard yobbos seem to have trouble understanding this.

Third of all, these weren't just yobbos, they were yobbos led by a psychopath, and this valuable piece of information wasn't necessarily something Steve should have known before confronting them. You speak from a cause-effect, you-get-what-you-bargain-for perspective that's easy for a spectator who knows how the film is going to end. Of course, knowing what I know now I wouldn't have confronted them either, but that doesn't make Steve any more stupid.

Fourth of all, physical intrusiveness and violence were initiated by the chavs, not by the protagonists. Down goes any moral justification you can come up with.

Fifth of all, neither of both looked like yuppies to me. You haven't known any yuppies I figure. If anyone with a college education coming from an urban area is a yuppie, then I guess the world is only made up of yuppies and chavs.

Sixth of all, the macho attitude came from the psycho leader of the pack, not from Steve who was trying to keep his own temper at bay all the time.

You seem to display a pragmatic point of view (the kind that prudently advises to avoids conflict by understanding the setting with a sort of self-compliant mild cynicism) which I actually endorse in real life, but from your descriptions of Steve and Jenny it's obvious that deep inside all you're doing is siding with the yobs. Either that or you're just trolling around.

The only thing we probably agree on is how much of a reckless imbecile Steve proved to be when he decided to stay in that part of beach that much longer after the first confrontation, let alone spend there the night which was the crowning act of stupidity. But this is a mediocre horror film and mediocre horror film characters are stupid by definition. What you've done, in a nutshell, is justify Jason Voorhees's actions just because his victims in the Friday 13th films aren't too bright. According to that you also deserve to die under a truck if you absentmindedly cross the street without looking both sides. This is brain-dead logic. Jason Voorhees logic.

reply

[–] goldpink23 9 years ago

@Arthur_Desmond. You said:"not from Steve who was trying to keep his own temper at bay all the time."That's what I noticed to.Especially when he was walking away from those disrespectful brats on the beach.

reply