Discuss Bird Box

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

21 replies (on page 2 of 2)

Jump to last post

Previous page

Yes, I was talking to cswood.

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

Sandra Bullock still looks good so she's not your average old crone coming to kidnap young male newborns. Yes, it's not ideal to be middle aged and pregnant but it does happen in... You know, real life... That doesn't have suicidal telepathic monsters in it.

I assumed Tom was more drawn to her complexity and humanity, although Bullock still looks pretty good. It does feel like you're nitpicking.

I think you meant the OP is nitpicking.

Ask any guy in his 20's if he had the chance to hook up with a pregnant 50 year old woman who "looks good for her age" or an attractive 30 year old non-pregnant woman in perfect shape, which one do you think most guys are going to pick?

And maybe you guys saw the movie on your phone or something but Bullock clearly had a LOT of makeup on. Many of the stills for the movie have her face notecable airbrushed and softened. I'm not saying she's an old hag but I am saying your average guy would not choose her if a younger, more attractive, less pregnant option were available.

But going back to biology, I see my facts about human reproduction were completely ignored because "she looks good for her age" trumps facts so I'll restate them. Even if Bullock were playing 10 years younger she should have been deep into menopause and shouldn't have been able to have a baby in the first place unless she was having special treatments. She's too old to play a pregnant woman, game set match.

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

Sandra Bullock still looks good so she's not your average old crone coming to kidnap young male newborns. Yes, it's not ideal to be middle aged and pregnant but it does happen in... You know, real life... That doesn't have suicidal telepathic monsters in it.

I assumed Tom was more drawn to her complexity and humanity, although Bullock still looks pretty good. It does feel like you're nitpicking.

I think you meant the OP is nitpicking.

Ask any guy in his 20's if he had the chance to hook up with a pregnant 50 year old woman who "looks good for her age" or an attractive 30 year old non-pregnant woman in perfect shape, which one do you think most guys are going to pick?

And maybe you guys saw the movie on your phone or something but Bullock clearly had a LOT of makeup on. Many of the stills for the movie have her face notecable airbrushed and softened. I'm not saying she's an old hag but I am saying your average guy would not choose her if a younger, more attractive, less pregnant option were available.

But going back to biology, I see my facts about human reproduction were completely ignored because "she looks good for her age" trumps facts so I'll restate them. Even if Bullock were playing 10 years younger she should have been deep into menopause and shouldn't have been able to have a baby in the first place unless she was having special treatments. She's too old to play a pregnant woman, game set match.

No offense, but you seem mildly obsessed. In the end, who cares?

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

@Damienracer said:

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

Firstly, I'm going to assume she's had work done because her face looked very odd in this film, very Michael Jackson-esque. Secondly, she is playing a pregnant woman throughout most of the film. She is 54 this year. I know they hired her because she's Sandra Bullock but come on.

They "hired" Bullock because she co-produced it. It's a supernatural movie about invisible monsters driving people crazy, and you're worried about her being too old to get pregnant by what, a few years? She doesn't seem to be hiding her age in the movie. Malorie comes right out and says she's considerably older than Tom, the vet she gets involved with later on. I assumed the character was mid-40s, and not every woman has menopause at 30...

Lol so true. Never mind invisible suicidal inducing monsters let's be shocked, bothered and wowed by there being a more mature pregnant woman in the storyline.

Okay, seriously, let's use our logic here. Just because Bullock produced it doesn't mean she fit the role. Roger Moore was 58 when he made A View to a Kill, way too old to play James Bond. That's objective. A 50 year old woman being pregnant and giving birth to a healthy child without the aid of a doctor or fertility treatments is a reach to say the least. That's simple biology.

Now a lot of people watched the movie and seemed to have enjoyed it so this aspect wasn't enough to bother them, but that's clearly because a lot of people don't know human biology. It's like how someone who knows a lot about computers can't watch a techno thriller about hacking without rolling their eyes because of how nonsensical movies portray hacking, but to laymen they don't care because they don't know anything about computers.

So yeah, the fact I know more about female reproduction than the average person made this a bother for me. Also the fact that a young handsome guy, given the option, would choose to hook up with a pregnant woman 20+ years older than him instead of the hot young cop trainee was also pretty unbelievable the same way teen comedies where the hot chick sleeps with the school nerd is also unbelievable because it's obvious wish fulfilment.

Sandra Bullock still looks good so she's not your average old crone coming to kidnap young male newborns. Yes, it's not ideal to be middle aged and pregnant but it does happen in... You know, real life... That doesn't have suicidal telepathic monsters in it.

I assumed Tom was more drawn to her complexity and humanity, although Bullock still looks pretty good. It does feel like you're nitpicking.

I think you meant the OP is nitpicking.

Ask any guy in his 20's if he had the chance to hook up with a pregnant 50 year old woman who "looks good for her age" or an attractive 30 year old non-pregnant woman in perfect shape, which one do you think most guys are going to pick?

And maybe you guys saw the movie on your phone or something but Bullock clearly had a LOT of makeup on. Many of the stills for the movie have her face notecable airbrushed and softened. I'm not saying she's an old hag but I am saying your average guy would not choose her if a younger, more attractive, less pregnant option were available.

But going back to biology, I see my facts about human reproduction were completely ignored because "she looks good for her age" trumps facts so I'll restate them. Even if Bullock were playing 10 years younger she should have been deep into menopause and shouldn't have been able to have a baby in the first place unless she was having special treatments. She's too old to play a pregnant woman, game set match.

No offense, but you seem mildly obsessed. In the end, who cares?

All the people who got sand in their vaginas because I pointed this out, that's who cares. And if by "obsessed" you mean "presented a well thought out argument based on facts that could not be refuted" then yes you have a point.

@cswood said:

No offense, but you seem mildly obsessed. In the end, who cares?

All the people who got sand in their vaginas because I pointed this out, that's who cares. And if by "obsessed" you mean "presented a well thought out argument based on facts that could not be refuted" then yes you have a point.

"Sand in their vaginas"? You sound like a child. A dim-witted, misanthropic one at that.

@Dedoc1967 said:

@cswood said:

No offense, but you seem mildly obsessed. In the end, who cares?

All the people who got sand in their vaginas because I pointed this out, that's who cares. And if by "obsessed" you mean "presented a well thought out argument based on facts that could not be refuted" then yes you have a point.

"Sand in their vaginas"? You sound like a child. A dim-witted, misanthropic one at that.

I don't hear an argument in that ad hominem because I'm smarter than you and don't enjoy the smell of my own farts like you do.

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page