... Is that winning comes down to luck, not so much making hard choices. Linda and Travis did everything that was expected from them and still died for example.
shareWell, that's true about other things in life too. Luck plays a part in things.
shareYeah I think it would've been better if the reliance on luck was removed. Especially the last round where the winner is solely decided on luck and nothing else.
Also I think the last round would've been better if her brother didn't need the money to live. Because she's basically deciding between killing her brother or killing a random guy, and any rational person would kill the random guy over killing their own brother. Would've had deeper implications if it came down to her just killing the guy for something unnecessary like money.
"any rational person would kill the random guy over killing their own brother."
Totally disagree. You're talking about actively pulling a trigger and killing a person as opposed to rolling the dice with getting your brother a bone marrow transplant. She wasn't "killing" her brother by walking out with Lucas, she was SAVING Lucas' life while still having an opportunity to save her brother's life. Who knows, Lucas may have been able to help her; don't you remember all the medical advice he was offering?
One action makes you a killer pure and simple, the other action makes you human.
Who
knows, Lucas may have been able to help her; don't you remember all the medical advice he was offering?
What's your point about what choices Lucas would've been given? That's an unknown. The bottom line is she had a choice to kill or not to kill. In a court of law she'd still be guilty whereas if she allowed Lucas to live she wouldn't be convicted of killing her brother.
shareI don't know if in a court of law she'd be found guilty. Based on what they'd been through, if I were on the jury, I don't know if I'd convict her.
She could make the defense that she was pretty sure that if she didn't shoot him, then Lucas would be given the same choice. Sure, the game *probably* would've ended with them both being alive, but she had no way of knowing.
The people guilty of murder are the hosts and the staff, not the guests. The guests were hostages acting in self-defense.
lucas wouldnt be given any more options after that tho... the game wouldve been over.
share"lucas wouldnt be given any more options after that tho... the game wouldve been over."
And you know this how? He said the game will in all likelihood end with the very first question in the round. That doesn't mean that Lucas wouldn't get an option if she chose not to shoot him. That meant based on all their past games, the first person usually chooses killing the other to win. Had she chosen not to shoot and stood up to leave, he most likely would have made the same offer to Lucas.
"Pull out.I can't get pregnant now your dad may be floating around looking for a body to reincarnate
The choice is A) "End the game right now", or B) "Eliminate Lucas".
Therefore, Lucas would not get an option if she had not chosen to kill him because either way, the game would be over.
You'll have to refresh me on all this "medical advice" besides basic stuff people know like...he's gonna bleed to death. Anyone here can give that advice when blood is pouring out of someone.
There are maybe five beings I hope I never have to fight and J'onn Jonzz is one of them. - Superman
Wow. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. As I suspected while watching this film, the comments here on the boards represent today's overwhelming lack of morality.
The main problem I see with their game is the amount of folks justifying and/or understanding how these characters participate in the twisted proceedings. Anyone who stayed past the point of being allowed to leave is not worth our consideration. Allow me to explain my point...
The first challenge of the evening; before the game even begins, results in our "heroine" having her life style and belief system mocked, belittled and trashed for money. Regardless of the amount, anyone who has true conviction doesn't sell it so cheaply.
AND THEN, after doing so, the host laughs and takes pleasure in proving how pathetic her devotion is.
Right there, at that moment, they all should know just what type of people they are dealing with. And also, if he is offering to take care of ALL their needs, monetarily and otherwise (including manipulation of hospital donor lists) it would stand to reason that other challenges will be a lot harder than eating meat.
In other words, everyone that stays has SOLD their convictions for money...no, actually, only the CHANCE to get some money.
I know, I know...some of you are now saying that these folks are desperate and some are doing it for loved ones. Okay...perhaps in such a situation anybody might be tempted to bend or change some convictions. I will allow that.
But immediately following that opening challenge, a man is murdered in front of them. Now the full stakes should be realized by even the dumbest among us. And here is where the disappointment comes from. People here are excusing and debating their actions from here on.
There is no debate. We are now dealing with your life, your honor, your conscience, your soul. In my opinion (and I believe the film's intention) there is only one acceptable way to deal with this situation, which is what Travis the soldier's character does.
He harms no one, put himself at risk over others, and fights to free them whenever possible. Every other character falls short...some WAY short. And people seem to accept this.
Is this the result of a society without religious conviction; a society where atheism is "trending"? Does everybody now believe their problems are more important than a stranger's?
The game is NEVER about luck. It wasn't an episode of "Survivor". At the end of the movie, she has the chance to choose the option for freedom. We know what she does. And her choice reveals her as a killer with no regard for anyone outside of her own bubble of life. Anything that could have or would have happened after her decision is meaningless.
And I think the film intends that lesson as she returns home to nothing. She is alone, soulless and broken with a bag of worthless currency. But she won, right???
Wow, u had me until that religion crap. You should get your head out of your ass and learn that being religious isn't a prerequisite for being a good human being. And throughout history, religious leaders and people doing things in the name of God have committed more atrocities than any atheist or agnostic group could ever conceive of. Right and wrong have nothing to do with religion. They are moral constructs decided by the majority in any culture. Being a good person predates religion and will survive with or without religion for as long as our species exists.
Other than your absolutely arrogant and bigoted religious views, the rest of that you said was spot on. I'd rather die doing the right thing or helping someone than kill someone and compromise myself. I'd rather die than let someone I love kill in my name. Oh, and I served my country and was willing to put my life on the line for what I believe is the greater good. I am also agnostic as I believe the universe is too large and there are too many things humanity just couldn't comprehend to truly say whether a God exists or not. In this universe, nearly everything is possible. This world would be a better place if everyone believed that instead of fighting about whether or not they are better than someone else just because they believe in the one, true God.
"Wow, u had me until that religion crap. You should get your head out of your ass and learn that being religious isn't a prerequisite for being a good human being."
Same here. I was totally agreeing with his post until he started with this religiois horseshit.
I think that after the drunk got killed, they knew they wouldn't leave alive unless they won.
That's why they did what they did. Our gut instinct is to live, and when an option is given, we will choose to do whatever it takes to live.
But immediately following that opening challenge, a man is murdered in front of them. Now the full stakes should be realized by even the dumbest among us. And here is where the disappointment comes from. People here are excusing and debating their actions from here on.
If anything, atheists have the moral high ground over theists. When theists do the right thing, it's because they think they're being watched; they think they'll be rewarded for good things and punished for bad things. When atheists do the right thing, it's simply because it's the right thing to do.
shareFirst of all at the end they already expected a certain candidate to win at the end when the final test was decided by a coin toss they never show the other side of the coin even though it lands as heads. How do you know the coin wasnt a double sided coin?
shareActually the butler shows them both sides of the coin quite clearly before flipping it.
shareNot really sure that I follow the OP's logic. I mean, don't many games come down to luck? On the other hand, once everyone knew what was at stake here, and I'm not talking about being set for life, they were making extremely hard choices with very little time to make them.
" Linda and Travis did everything that was expected from them and still died for example. "
That's really what the terms of the game were. You either played, or you were eliminated.