MovieChat Forums > Children of the Corn (2009) Discussion > the 'fertilization' scene

the 'fertilization' scene

posted 15 years ago by tommix42
19 replies | jump to latest

were those young adults (?) major characters? I don't think they really had any dialog, except for some moaning as they got frisky on the altar... It seems like they could have had some dialog, to elucidate the significance of their boinking. Although, maybe it was significant enough that Isaac called it "fertilization," implying that they were trying to emulate the corn itself, possibly...?

anyway, it helped to give some more details to the weird little culture that they had developed, isolated for over a decade. out amongst the cornstalks....

Were they (the couple on the altar) the people called "oldest boy" and "ponytail girl" in the cast list?

Just because I rock, it doesn't mean I'm made of stone. (from Me, Myself, and Irene)

[–] axlrose-06 15 years ago

I don't know what the hell was going on. When I figured out what was going on I was like "Child porn much." It showed little 14 year old bush, boobs, and bush. That was so wrong, who would let their kid do that? Then they started the moaning. Awkward much.

"We all go a little mad sometimes"
Billy Loomis - Scream
Norman Bates - Psycho

[–] daywalker687 15 years ago

i didnt see the girls bush but i remember the boobs tho u must zoomed it or some *beep* lol i didnt see any pussy there

[–] glockbird 15 years ago

Both of those actors are over 18 years old. On the casting call sheet the roles specifically ask for actors that are 18+ but look 16.

You're not Christians, you are "human", there is no use labeling yourself with man-made stickers.

[–] stiehl112000 15 years ago

I did not, for a moment, think that girl was anything less than 20. Which is good because I would have felt all dirty and creepy. If you told me she was supposed to look 16 I would laugh in your face.

[–] HorrorFanatic24 8 years ago

Troll signature

[–] stiehl112000 15 years ago

Dude, seriously, if you couldn't tell that woman was like, I dunno, older than 14 then you need to put the lotion down for a while.

[–] bludcrimson 11 years ago

Man use your *beep* head dumbass. Like they would show real kids getting naked. Man you are a true dumb *beep*

[–] Injinn 15 years ago

If the girl on the alter was, in fact, Zita Vass (ponytail girl), then yes, she is 18. Furthermore, she is no stranger to nudity. All you have to do is look at her turn on Californication.

My beef with the scene was mostly that it had no relevance to the plot. There was absolutely no reason why that needed to be shown. We already knew that babies were being born, so the teenagers were obviously engaging in sexual intercourse. Having said that, a simple reference to said sexual act could have sufficed.

The only reason to show that scene was fan service, plain and simple.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 13 years ago

The significance of it is that it's adding emphasis to just how twisted the kids have made their interpretation of Christianity. It's a good way to do this that isn't related to violence, but that can still be disturbing.

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

[–] Injinn 11 years ago

I could buy that -- if not for the fact that the rest of the film up to that point illustrated that fact quite clearly.

By the time that scene was shown, the audience already knew their interpretation of Christianity was twisted. It was a superfluous scene. There are only two reasons to show it:

1.) They wanted to shock the audience (this is the only one that halfway relates to that scene).

2.) Fanservice.

My only issue with #1 is that, again, the rest of the film leading up to that point does a decent enough job of illustrating the children's warped idea of religion.

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed seeing Zita Vass' body as much as the next man. I'm just saying, don't make it out to be more than it is.

The director wanted to see her tits. The audience wanted to see her tits. There was nothing particularly integral to her character or the plot gained from that scene.

It was fanservice. Pure and simple.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 11 years ago

It's not as if you can only do something once. A common approach to creating artworks is that your primarily themes/ideas should be ideally echoed throughout the work in many different guises. (And hence my use of the word "adding").

http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Injinn 11 years ago

I'm not of the belief that sex, in general, is too taboo -- just that the nudity in this scene was superfluous.

The scene could have been done without the nudity and would have lost nothing. This was supposed to be a young girl being impregnated -- she would have been a young girl, therefore the scene would have still been disturbing just in suggestion, with or without her exposed breasts.

The choice to show that was what elevated the scene into fanservice territory. It was precisely what was superfluous about the scene.

Again, I'm the last person who is going to complain about seeing breasts -- I'm just an opponent of trying to attribute artistic merit where it is not warranted.

This was not an instance of sexual expression in high art -- it was a sex scene in a low budget horror flick. Like I said, the director wanted to show tits, and the audience wanted to SEE tits. Making it out to be more than it was is just reaching.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 11 years ago

All I think that response deserves is this unfortunately:

http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Injinn 11 years ago

Fair enough. I'm not here to convince you to see things the way I do -- just laying my view down flat.

[–] Illyngophobia 15 years ago

I thought that kid was Amos and some other chick.

"Life is pleasant.Death is peaceful.It's the transition that's troublesome." - Isaac Asimov

[–] jtchick 15 years ago

don't you know you can't have a "horror" movie without it being a step and a half step from a porno =(.

[–] AngieeeBabayy 14 years ago

^^^ Very very true.

"... well, I have a microphone and you don't, SO YOU WILL LISTEN TO EVERY DAMN WORD I HAVE TO SAY!"

[–] fclermont777 14 years ago

That being said, I think it would be rated over it's actual rating (4.1) if this scene was replace be something more significant.
It was so out of context with the context of the couple disturbing their peace.
This movie was so bad :( even a sex scene couldn't save it

[–] ElectricWarlock 11 years ago

Well, somebody has the keep the cult alive. What happens when they all turn into adults and there are no more children left? Children are supposed to be the only ones with innocence and adulthood is supposed to be synonymous with wickedness and corruption in these people's minds, right? Making more children obviously prevents this from happening. I don't see how it was pointless or irrelevant to the plot. People just like to complain about anything they can.

Death lives in the Vault of Horror!