# Mel Gibson and the Crop Circles, what a crap!



## Turanil (May 11, 2006)

I've seen this movie two days ago on TV. This crap featuring Mel gibson, about Crop Circles and inept aliens. It was called "Signs" if I remember well...   

Well, I really like Mel Gibson, and I thought that Crop Circles could be the basis for a cool movie, I mean, some subtle sci-fi mystery investigation plot, probably ala X-Files. But what do we get instead? The most odious crap I ever saw these last years. Couldn't believe it. Poor Mel, I am ashamed for you that you stared in this idiocy.

I mean:
1) Some aliens come from another planet in their spaceship. So their technology must be incredibly advanced. Right?
2) Some aliens from a distant planet are certainly based on a chimy much different from our own. As such, they absolutely cannot eat something from our planet, since their DNA is incompatible with ours. Right?

So what do they do? 
1) They imprint crop circles in corn fields, as a mean of orienteering themselves on our planet. Imagine the level of technology required to do this. They could use it to devise simple means of navigation? But no, they need to create crop circles in corn field or they would be lost. Yeah. 
2) When on our planet, they walk nude. Yeah. No weapon, no tools, nothing, just a short pant. Yeah.
3) They eat humans of course. No fishes, no cow, no plants, no, only humans. With our DNA certainly incompatible making us useless food for them. Yeah.
4) They cross the void in their great starships, but are unable to simply open a wooden door with a plank on it. I mean: they just have their clawed hands, no weapons, nothing. Yeah.
5) Simple water burns their "flesh" like acid. But water is a compound necessary to life (as a solvent). Being burned by water is simply absurd. In any case, the human body is full of water, and they pretend to eat us? 

I could go on and on... This movie, what a crap. There was the basis and actor for a cool story. But no. They DO PREFER to product crap. If an author comes with an interesting story, they probably reject it and say, "no, forget this, make some goood ooold craaap instead". 

I must say it again. Mel Gibson and the Crop Circles, what a crap. Or maybe I didn't understand? It's *Crap Circles.*


----------



## Starman (May 11, 2006)

It's better if you think of it as a Twilight Zone episode (it is M. Night Shyamalan, after all), more thriller or mystery or horror than hard sci-fi.


----------



## Mystery Man (May 11, 2006)

The tin foil hat scene was classic though.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 11, 2006)

Never bothered to watch this movie. But the Turanil's post has pretty much killed any hope of me ever giving it a chance. I especially enjoyed this fact:



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> 5) Simple water burns their "flesh" like acid. But water is a compound necessary to life (as a solvent). Being burned by water is simply absurd. In any case, the human body is full of water, and they pretend to eat us?




What the f**k is this? An alien movie or M Night chanelling the Wizard of Oz? Urgh. I suggest you guys check out _Communion _ starring Christopher Walken. Now that was a creepy film.


----------



## Morrus (May 11, 2006)

I did think coming to a planet two-thirds covered by something which will kill you with no protective measures is an indication that we really don't need to worry about alien invasions if they're all that stupid (but then, in Independence Day, the aliens thoughtfully had Miscrosoft compatible hardware and software - Bill Gates really does get around!).

It's kinda like us going to the moon but not bothering with space suits or oxygen.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 11, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I did think coming to a planet two-thirds covered by something which will kill you with no protective measures is an indication that we really don't need to worry about alien invasions if they're all that stupid (but then, in Independence Day, the aliens thoughtfully had Miscrosoft compatible hardware and software - Bill Gates really does get around!).




Ugh. Please don't mention that movie ever again. I can hardly think of a lamer way to halt an alien invasion than by uploading a virus into their motherhsip. Compatible hardware my ass.  

EDIT: Of course Mr. Gates gets around! Why, he and his collective have assimilated have the known universe and plan to do the same to us in the near future.


----------



## Dog Moon (May 11, 2006)

Personally, I can't wait to go to a planet far, far away and walk around naked and eating their people.  Of course, they'd have to have attractive cheerleaders that we need to steal.

I mean seriously, we have movies about aliens doing this to us, so why don't we beat them to the punch and do all the cliche stuff first.  

More on topic, I've never seen that movie and never really had any desire to.  Now I'm kinda glad I didn't.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 11, 2006)

I liked it. If I want realistic science fiction I'll go watch a Michael Moore or Al Gore documentary.


----------



## Rackhir (May 11, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> 2) Some aliens from a distant planet are certainly based on a chimy much different from our own. As such, they absolutely cannot eat something from our planet, since their DNA is incompatible with ours. Right?




Compatability of us/earth stuff is more likely down to amino acids, which are what we really need to survive. It's entirely possible we would be edible to them. Or at least no more inedible than many things on earth are to us. Different DNA would just mean they couldn't mate with us. Which come to think of it, I don't think they had any naughty bits to use anyways. 



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> 5) Simple water burns their "flesh" like acid. But water is a compound necessary to life (as a solvent). Being burned by water is simply absurd. In any case, the human body is full of water, and they pretend to eat us?




Water is a pre-requisite as we under stand life, but yeah being burned by it is pretty stupid. Especially since it falls from the sky on a regular basis here, which gets back to you're whole "Why are they walking around naked?" point.



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> I could go on and on... This movie, what a crap. There was the basis and actor for a cool story. But no. They DO PREFER to product crap. If an author comes with an interesting story, they probably reject it and say, "no, forget this, make some goood ooold craaap instead".




This movie ruined M. Night for me as well. Unfortunately by most accounts "The Villiage" is even WORSE...


----------



## Rackhir (May 11, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Ugh. Please don't mention that movie ever again. I can hardly think of a lamer way to halt an alien invasion than by uploading a virus into their motherhsip. Compatible hardware my ass.
> 
> EDIT: Of course Mr. Gates gets around! Why, he and his collective have assimilated have the known universe and plan to do the same to us in the near future.




Actually it was Apple Compatible hardware. That was a Mac Laptop that Jeff Goldblume had, which was why he could pull it off. Bill Gates doesn't generate a reality distortion field like Steve Jobs does..


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 11, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> (but then, in Independence Day, the aliens thoughtfully had Miscrosoft compatible hardware and software - Bill Gates really does get around!).




Or maybe... Bill Gates *is* an alien, hence the compatible OS!!!



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Actually it was Apple Compatible hardware. That was a Mac Laptop that Jeff Goldblume had, which was why he could pull it off. Bill Gates doesn't generate a reality distortion field like Steve Jobs does..




D'oh! There goes that theory. I forgot about the Macs in that movie (tried to block all of it out of my mind, actually). 

Is Woz really an alien?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 11, 2006)

I stand by "Signs." I can say I liked it because I realized it wasn't a science fiction movie, but an apocalyptic fantasy, where demons captured the sinners and doubters and took them away.

The aliens were demons. If you remember, toward the end they announce on the TV that, "A low-tech way to defeat the creatures was discovered in the Holy Land." And then _in a priest's house_ the water burns the aliens. Demons have always had an aversion to water, and it makes sense that holy water would burn them.

Seriously, since when has an alien invasion movie been _science_ fiction? We know it's B.S. You either nuke a planet from orbit, or if you really need resources you get them from asteroids or uninhabited planets. If you're watching a movie about alien invaders you're already suspending your disbelief some, so why not suspend it some more.

"Signs" took the classic idea of invaders from beyond, gave it an even more primordial spin, and worked it into a religious allegory of redemption and regaining faith. It also scared me, but then again I went in wanting to be scared and entertained.

Overanalyzing any movie can lead to its downfall. In general as long as the acting is good and there's drama, I'll accept what ever manner of contrived scenarios are showcased. I'll let myself be entertained. Only afterward will I decide whether the movie was any good. (Note that this is what I normally do. When I see _true_ crap like Elektra or Ultraviolet, where the acting is bad and the presentation is lame, I'll decide pretty quick whether I hate the movie.)

But yeah, I liked Signs.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 11, 2006)

I prefered to think of the things that emerged from the ships to be like some sort of synthetic thing, a robot of some type, designed specifically to harvest people.

The doors thing I can give a pass to. I think it's probably an homage to the original War of the Worlds, where the fact that the martians 'understood doors' was a big, big deal. It's also a staple of early SF that an extremely advanced race would forget what simple tools were like. If a door always opens when you approach it, you might indeed be baffled by one that you have to manually open. 

However, all that's by the wayside. He didn't set out to make an SF movie here. It's a movie about faith, it's loss and renewal, and that whole 'there are no coincidences' thing (the reason the young boy has asthma is to save him from the poison gas the aliens use, the reason the girl has her weird water obsession is to give the older boy ammo, etc), with some SF backdrops.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 11, 2006)

I'm with *RangerWickett*:  if you think of the aliens as demons instead, the movie makes much more sense.  I pretty much liked it (although _The Village_ was absolutely wretched).

Daniel


----------



## elforcelf (May 11, 2006)

Some aliens may be hurt by water,but they would be so diffent than us they could not live at all on Earth. It would kill them in seconds,I think.


----------



## Piratecat (May 11, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I'm with *RangerWickett*:  if you think of the aliens as demons instead, the movie makes much more sense.  I pretty much liked it (although _The Village_ was absolutely wretched).




That's okay.  Unbreakable rocked my little world.

If you want to watch Sagiro get genuinely angry, mention "Independence Day." It's his least favorite movie of all time.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 11, 2006)

I agree, it has problems with logic and possibly the laws of physics. But so do a lot of Sci-Fi movies and shows.  The new Battlestar Galactica, for instance. I could write pages on the problems with it, both in logic and science. But that doesn't stop people from drooling how great it is.


----------



## Turanil (May 11, 2006)

Okay, I can accept the fact it is really a religious minded movie about faith and demons, which I really didn't notice. But in this case I want to see it clearly made a fantasy or horror film, not something that mixes everything and its brother together. And so why Crop Circles??? Why not straight horror, something Cthulhu-like about "when the stars are right a gate opens to the demon world"? Plus I don't like that a movie will deceive me into telling me first it's sci-fi, and then turns out to be a sermon.


----------



## Starman (May 11, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Okay, I can accept the fact it is really a religious minded movie about faith and demons, which I really didn't notice. But in this case I want to see it clearly made a fantasy or horror film, not something that mixes everything and its brother together. And so why Crop Circles??? Why not straight horror, something Cthulhu-like about "when the stars are right a gate opens to the demon world"? Plus I don't like that a movie will deceive me into telling me first it's sci-fi, and then turns out to be a sermon.




When did anyone involved with the movie say it was sci-fi? Just because it has some of the trappings of sci-fi, doesn't mean it is. Not to mention that the term science-fiction is a very nebulous one (just ask Harlan Ellison  ). I guess I might see your frustration if the director had been...Woody Allen. But, it's an M. Night Shyamalan film. When I watch one of his movies, I don't expect hard physics and hyper-realism. I expect weirdness.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 11, 2006)

I like the demon theory of the movie a lot, but I'm not at all convinced that Shyamalan intended it.  Certainly he used a lot of alien-invasion trappings.  What can I say?  The Lord--err, director--works in mysterious ways.

(And yeah--_Unbreakable_ was great!)

Daniel


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2006)

I liked this movie.

A lot.

I also find it very odd that people on a D&D board complain about the lack of realism with an alien movie.


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2006)

For me, it isn't a movie about aliens.  It isn't a movie about demons.  It is a movie about the emotional and spiritual journey of one man and his family.   And from that standpoint, it is a reasonably decent work.

And _Unbreakable_ is fantastic.  _The Village_ was okay, but doesn't have much value on second viewing.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 11, 2006)

I'm with those on the Unbreakable front but as for the rest of MKS's stuff in recent time, it's just gotten worse as he goes.    The Village IMO was just as bad if not worse than Signs.  I'm just wondering how bad "Lady in the Water" will end up being.

Edit:  Speaking of which.  I just watched the trailer for Lady and it's not that impressive although I have enjoyed just about every movie Paul Giammatti has done to date.


----------



## Simplicity (May 11, 2006)

Okay, spoilers for M Night's movies ahead...  Sorry for those who haven't seen them.

Signs is not a sci-fi movie.  It masquerades as one to get the point of faith across unexpectedly.  

Unbreakable:


Spoiler



Just as Unbreakable isn't a drama, it's a (great) comic book movie.  You just don't know it until the end.



The Village:


Spoiler



Just as The Village isn't a period film.



The movie's NAME is SIGNS for crying out loud.  It turns out the movie is about Signs from God, not aliens.  The girl's love of putting water everywhere, the boy's asthma, the wife's last words all have reasons for existing, and they're all part of God's plan.

Of course the aliens suck.  God hates aliens.


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

Rangerwickett said:
			
		

> I stand by "Signs." I can say I liked it because I realized it wasn't a science fiction movie, but an apocalyptic fantasy, where demons captured the sinners and doubters and took them away.




I disagree.  I understand the viewpoint that it's not a Sci-fi alien movie, and I accept it, but that fact does not counter any criticism of the plot.  It does not exempt it from a stupid plot with big holes.  Why does it being a religious movie mean it's allowed to have a crappy plot, whereas it being sci-fi doesn't?

It's a movie with big stupid plot things in it.  Whether it's a sci-fi movie, a religious movie, a family drama, a sardonic look at the lives of duckbilled platypi or whatever, it still has the big holes.

However you choose to view the movie, whatever metaphors you lay over the top of it, it still has stupid aliens who came to a world 2/3 covered in something which kills them.


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I understand the viewpoint that it's not a Sci-fi alien movie, and I accept it, but that fact does not counter any criticism of the plot.  It does not exempt it from a stupid plot with big holes.  Why does it being a religious movie mean it's allowed to have a crappy plot, whereas it being sci-fi doesn't?
> 
> It's a movie with big stupid plot things in it.  Whether it's a sci-fi movie, a religious movie, a family drama, a sardonic look at the lives of duckbilled platypi or whatever, it still has the big holes.
> 
> However you choose to view the movie, whatever metaphors you lay over the top of it, it still has stupid aliens who came to a world 2/3 covered in something which kills them.




Every planet mankind has sent probes to is 100% covered in something which kills them.  

I just don't understand how it is impossible to believe an alien race would land on a planet that has deadly stuff all over in order to rape and pillage.  WHY is that so stunning a thing to believe, if the notion of aliens is acceptable? Space pirates go to dangerous places man.  That's all the aliens were, space pirates going into a deadly place to grab some loot at the spots marked with a big X...or the alien version of a big X.


----------



## Rackhir (May 12, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Every planet mankind has sent probes to is 100% covered in something which kills them.
> 
> I just don't understand how it is impossible to believe an alien race would land on a planet that has deadly stuff all over in order to rape and pillage.  WHY is that so stunning a thing to believe, if the notion of aliens is acceptable? Space pirates go to dangerous places man.  That's all the aliens were, space pirates going into a deadly place to grab some loot at the spots marked with a big X...or the alien version of a big X.




The problem is not with their motivation it's with them doing so essentially stark naked and without any weapons or tools. THAT is just stupid. Of course people have done plenty of stupid things, but the difference between fantasy and reality is that Reality doesn't HAVE to make sense.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> However you choose to view the movie, whatever metaphors you lay over the top of it, it still has stupid aliens who came to a world 2/3 covered in something which kills them.




What counts as a hole depends very much upon the logic you expect the beings to adhere to.

I suggest that demons coming to take faithless souls need not follow the same logic as aliens coming to invade and keep the planet.  The supernatural need not follow the same logic as the scientific.


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Every planet mankind has sent probes to is 100% covered in something which kills them.
> 
> I just don't understand how it is impossible to believe an alien race would land on a planet that has deadly stuff all over in order to rape and pillage.  WHY is that so stunning a thing to believe, if the notion of aliens is acceptable? Space pirates go to dangerous places man.  That's all the aliens were, space pirates going into a deadly place to grab some loot at the spots marked with a big X...or the alien version of a big X.




Probes?  What on earth do probes have to do anything?

The analogy would be _men_ disembarking on the moon without a space suit.  Somewhat notably, it hasn't happened.

A waterproof coat - and poof!  The aliens are protected.  Interstellar travel is easy for them.  I'm sure a raincoat isn't beyond their technology.

Sorry, it's silly however you look at it.


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> What counts as a hole depends very much upon the logic you expect the beings to adhere to.
> 
> I suggest that demons coming to take faithless souls need not follow the same logic as aliens coming to invade and keep the planet.  The supernatural need not follow the same logic as the scientific.





They're aliens. They're only "demons" in metaphor.  If you're saying that the aliens are merely an analogy (which I accept as a valid viewpoint, although I'm not sure I totally subscribe to it), then that analogy has to make sense.


----------



## Piratecat (May 12, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Sorry, it's silly however you look at it.



Nah. It makes perfect sense once you realize that they're nudists.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I also find it very odd that people on a D&D board complain about the lack of realism with an alien movie.



Actually, it's not the realism; it's the internal consistency of logic. Why make a finely crafted movie with a big honking plot hole that brutalizes suspension of disbelief? There's a subtle distinction here, and I'm fine with an unrealistic movie that is internally consistent.


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not the realism; it's the internal consistency of logic. Why make a finely crafted movie with a big honking plot hole that brutalizes suspension of disbelief? There's a subtle distinction here, and I'm fine with an unrealistic movie that is internally consistent.




Ah, you put it better than I could!


----------



## Darthjaye (May 12, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Every planet mankind has sent probes to is 100% covered in something which kills them.
> 
> I just don't understand how it is impossible to believe an alien race would land on a planet that has deadly stuff all over in order to rape and pillage.  WHY is that so stunning a thing to believe, if the notion of aliens is acceptable? Space pirates go to dangerous places man.  That's all the aliens were, space pirates going into a deadly place to grab some loot at the spots marked with a big X...or the alien version of a big X.




Well, it's the not using the advanced technology that they employed to get to the stars that confounds most here.   Complete lack of protection of any kind mixed with a lack of any sort of ranged technology makes this movie silly beyond belief.   Someone from earth lands on another planet to "rape and pillage" you damn well bet they are toting a big gun of some sort.   It's doubtful someone would plan a massive worldwide invasion and only ship knives along.    Could be their weapons didn't work in our atmosphere but that's kinda stretching it.

Or to put it in a shorter form...what PC said.


----------



## Bront (May 12, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> This movie ruined M. Night for me as well. Unfortunately by most accounts "The Villiage" is even WORSE...



Yes, yes it was.

Signs wasn't what it appeared to be.  It sold itself as an alien sci-fi movie, and was actualy closer to a suspense/self descovery movie.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 12, 2006)

The question I want to ask: Why did they use a metapher for a metaphor in that story? Wouldn't it have been easier to just use demons in the first place? 
It certainly wouldn't have hurt the story, and it removed most of the "internally stupid" things of the movie. 

Hey, it could even have worked with the aliens, if they just let Mel "bless" the water or something like that. Though it still doesn't make sense to use the crop circles.

But, well, let's be fair, a bit of the so-called "fan-wanking" might be in order:
1) Water hurts alien:
Indeed, the water is blessed by the ex-priest (and possibly all other peoples that found their belief during the attack)
2) Crop Circles used as landing help:
Actually, they aren't. They are just a warning from god. The aliens just notice the unusual markings and consider analysing it (maybe they are even familiar to them, because this isn't the first time they fight against gods children, be it on Earth or anywhere else)
3) Alien equipment:
Uh, I am a bit at loss here. Maybe they weren't naked, their skin was actually body armor (maybe like Shadowrun Dermal Plating). They didn't use ranged weapons because ... god disabled them?

Oh, I have seen and done better fanwanking. Maybe that's a _sign_ that it doesn't work for this movie... Maybe I am just not trying hard enough, because I really didn't like these weak spots of the movie. (The rest of the storyline might have been okay)


----------



## Mark Chance (May 12, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Okay, I can accept the fact it is really a religious minded movie about faith and demons, which I really didn't notice.




Then you really ought to pay more attention. It was patently obvious the story wasn't about alien invaders, but rather was about how Mel Gibson's character lost and then regained his faith in God, about how there are no coincidences, but rather that everything hinges together in a pattern that only makes sense in the light of faith, et cetera.

Every single one of M. Night's movies have been remarkably well-written, acted, and conceived, and that includes The Village, which wasn't a movie about a village with monsters but rather was about the loss of original innocence and the futility of all utopian visions.

IOW: It's all a metaphor.


----------



## Turanil (May 12, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Then you really ought to pay more attention. It was patently obvious the story wasn't about alien invaders, but rather was about how Mel Gibson's character lost and then regained his faith in God, about how there are no coincidences, but rather that everything hinges together in a pattern that only makes sense in the light of faith, et cetera.



I disagree. I am interested in sci-fi movies, and crop circles actually scream sci-fi, as they have been dealt about in the media as either oaxes or a message from the aliens out there. So we can rightly expect something sci-fi. On the other hand, if from first sight it was to be a movie about a priest and demons, I could expect it to be about faith (or more probably about horror). So I went and watched that movie, and discovered that it had very little to do with crop circles at all, despite what it pretended. Fortunately I saw it on TV, but if I had bought it as a DVD I would feel deceived. 

In any case I could watch an enjoy a movie about loosing and regaining faith. But Signs, IMO, is a crap.


----------



## Piratecat (May 12, 2006)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I liked it. If I want realistic science fiction I'll go watch a Michael Moore or Al Gore documentary.



I know you're new here, Dimwhit, so it's worth reminding you that we don't allow political references.

_(And dimwhit thinks, "I'm not new here!")

(And Piratecat thinks, "So you should know better!")_


----------



## hong (May 12, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> The analogy would be _men_ disembarking on the moon without a space suit.  Somewhat notably, it hasn't happened.




That's just what _they_ want you to think.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> They're aliens. They're only "demons" in metaphor.  If you're saying that the aliens are merely an analogy (which I accept as a valid viewpoint, although I'm not sure I totally subscribe to it), then that analogy has to make sense.




Well, think a minute - how do we know they are aliens?  Really, how?

We assume they are aliens because they match the tropes that we call "alien".  But who set up those tropes?  Someone looking at actual evidence?  When did we get proof that aliens make crop circles?  Or is that just an assumption.

It is the old bait-and-switch.  MKS uses them all the time - in every movie, there's at least one major element that isn't what it appears to be.  This is why he's actually formulaic...

Spoilers for many movies:



Spoiler



In _Sixth Sense_, you think Willis is a living man, but he isn't.  In _Unbreakable_, you think Glass is a mentor, but he isn't.  In _The Village_, you think there's a monster, but there isn't.  In _Signs_, you think there are aliens, but there aren't...


----------



## Rykion (May 12, 2006)

The idea that crop circles are caused by aliens has become prevalent in modern sci-fi, but supernatural sources were blamed in the past.  People used to believe that strange markings in their fields were caused by witches or demons.  So it really does make sense to use them in a movie in which demons may be mistaken as aliens.  

_Signs_ is my favorite M. Night Shyamalan movie, but I also like _Unbreakable_ a lot.  Their plot twists are that the movies aren't really about what they originally appeared to be.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 12, 2006)

_Signs_ is the ultimate alien invasion movie! It's better than Invasion of the Pod People, Day of the Triffids, AND They. Why? It shows one family who don't repel the whole invasion, just their part of it. 

As such a movie (sci-fi by designation only) it follows all the rules:

The aliens are unlike us in intelligence, being more primal creatures. How did such primal creatures get superior technology to get here? Never explained. Maybe you don't need to be terribly sentient to be a great engineer, maybe the followed some more advanced aliens down an alleyway, mugged them and checked their pockets for loose technology. Maybe they are hive creatures, guided by a higher intelligence queen.

The aliens need to kill/kidnap us to survive. Maybe they want us as slaves, or breeding stock, or dinner. Whatever it is, they need us. Why? Maybe they don't like to work, maybe eating less intelligent animals offends them (the same way we don't like to eat perfectly nutrious worms and bugs), maybe they "borrow" DNA from other races. Again, never quite explained. Hive creatures would steal slaves to work for them.

The aliens are vulnerable to some common thing. This gives us hope that the main characters will survive. Why do they come here when water/salt water/liverwurst/roll-on deodorant kills them? Why do we go out in little boats in the middle of the ocean, or jump out of airplanes, or drive in multi-ton vehicles at high speed narrowly missing each other? Same answer, we don't think we will get hurt or die.

The aliens, unless dressed like us, are naked.  Of course they are. Why spend all the effort and time on making multi-colored wrapping? Why spend such considerable space storing it and time maintaining a pile of the stuff? Aliens don't see the need for clothes, see primal creatures above. Again, hive creatures have no need of modesty nor manufactured clothing.

Also, the aliens do have an attack, they spray people in the face with poison, remember? Sure, it's not a ray gun or anything. They are steal, skulk, and grab by nature. Not "stick and gun in your face and yell at you" by nature. Again, hive creatures would be like this. They don't "dominate" each other as primates do. And why worry about armaments when drones are a dime a dozen?

So, it follows the rules and my theory is that they are hive creatures. Guided by a superior intelligence the naked, unarmed drones follow the signs, like a honey bee's dance, to guide them to likely targets. There they kidnap slaves to take back to the hive. They don't need superior technology on the ground because they don't spend time to manufacture it, they might not even thing that way or don't want it to end up in the target's hands. Just a good, old-fashioned "smash-and-grab" raid.


----------



## Bront (May 12, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Then you really ought to pay more attention. It was patently obvious the story wasn't about alien invaders, but rather was about how Mel Gibson's character lost and then regained his faith in God, about how there are no coincidences, but rather that everything hinges together in a pattern that only makes sense in the light of faith, et cetera.
> 
> Every single one of M. Night's movies have been remarkably well-written, acted, and conceived, and that includes The Village, which wasn't a movie about a village with monsters but rather was about the loss of original innocence and the futility of all utopian visions.
> 
> IOW: It's all a metaphor.



While I agree with you for the most part (See my post above), I will say that on many levels, Signs was disapointing because of the genre he chose to tell the story in created expectations, and meanwhile, the Villiage "twist" seemed lame compared to that of his other movies.  They both were generaly well acted, and overall well thought out and written, but one just hit the wrong group of fans, and the other... well, the whole of the Villiage does not equal the sum of it's parts.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 12, 2006)

As I said above, although I like the theory that it's demons sent to test Mel's faith, I'm not sure that's what MKS intended;  it seems likelier that he intended everything from his wife's death to the alien invasion to destroy and rebuild Mel's faith.

Unlike most movies that I hate because of plot holes, this is a movie I really _want_ to like:  the cinematography is beautiful, and the scene in which you first see the alien, via home video from India, was a genuinely scary moment for me, and something unlike what I normally expect in alien movies.  I'm much happier to forgive plot holes (or, as in this case, unexplained plot elements) when I otherwise like the movie.

_The Village_?  It was clear that he was trying to do a big switcheroo (the opening scene is 



Spoiler



of a gravestone with incorrect dates on it


, which serves no purpose internal to the movie but only serves to trick the viewer), but the switcheroo was obvious to me from the trailer.  When it came to the other tricks, I anticipated them coming, and was thinking, "Please don't let this be the lame trick, PLEASE don't let this be the lame trick!"  but it was.  If only he'd made it clear from the beginning what the twist was (for example, 



Spoiler



by having the characters use tools with modern brand names


), I think the movie would have been far improved.  It, too, had some great scenes; but his lame trick was just too distracting to me.  It's as if, in _Lord of the Rings_, Sauron were a paper bag puppet.

Daniel


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, think a minute - how do we know they are aliens?  Really, how?
> 
> We assume they are aliens because they match the tropes that we call "alien".  But who set up those tropes?  Someone looking at actual evidence?  When did we get proof that aliens make crop circles?  Or is that just an assumption.
> 
> ...




With all respect, Umbran, that's only an interpretation.  There's more explicit evidence for them being aliens than them being demons.  Spaceships were referred to in the TV broadcasts, for example. 

The other examples you mentioned had twists explicitly spelled out - Signs does not have the fact that the aliens are really demons spelled out explicitly anywhere.

I think that your interpretation is a valid one, but it's only an interpretation.  I don't agree with it; that movie featured aliens.  Whether or not they were a metaphor for demons is another matter entirely.

However, even if they are a metaphor for demons, why not make the same movie, using the aliens as a religious metaphor... and just not have the plot holes?


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

Firebeetle[U said:
			
		

> The aliens are vulnerable to some common thing.[/U] This gives us hope that the main characters will survive. Why do they come here when water/salt water/liverwurst/roll-on deodorant kills them? Why do we go out in little boats in the middle of the ocean, or jump out of airplanes, or drive in multi-ton vehicles at high speed narrowly missing each other? Same answer, we don't think we will get hurt or die.
> 
> The aliens, unless dressed like us, are naked.  Of course they are. Why spend all the effort and time on making multi-colored wrapping? Why spend such considerable space storing it and time maintaining a pile of the stuff? Aliens don't see the need for clothes, see primal creatures above. Again, hive creatures have no need of modesty nor manufactured clothing.




I made this point earlier, but it's worth making again.  I feel this analogy (aliens coming to a hostile environment without protection = humans taking risks) is false.

Humans wear seatbelts.  They wear diving suits.  They have radiation suits, space suits.  When they jump out of a plane, they use a parachute. The times when they don't do this are the times when they are purposefully taking a risk.  And thus the only rationale which works on that basis is that the aliens are motivated by the kicks of the risk of wandering around in a hostile environment without protective gear.

Did they remember to close the door on their spaceship on the way over?  Presumably.  If they'd left that open for a laugh just to experience the risk, they'd not have lasted long.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 12, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, think a minute - how do we know they are aliens?  Really, how?




The big spacecraft with forcefields was a clue   It could be a blind, of course; what is more beleivable to the general public? Alien invasion or demons? 

Firebeetle's hivemind idea is a cool one. I like that.


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The big spacecraft with forcefields was a clue   .




Yeah, they really are explicitly aliens.


----------



## Turanil (May 12, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Firebeetle's hivemind idea is a cool one. I like that.



I agree it's a cool idea, but it's also his personnal interpretation. A good movie doesn't have to have you use your brain to fill in the blanks in order to redeem a scenario's weak points. I am pretty sure that thinking hard about it, we can explain why the invading aliens from Independance Day had computers and softwares compatible with that of a OS9.2 Macintosh, so they could be subject to a virus...


----------



## Pielorinho (May 12, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The big spacecraft with forcefields was a clue   It could be a blind, of course; what is more beleivable to the general public? Alien invasion or demons?



I don't remember that--all I remember is people seeing lights in the sky.  Were there explicit mentions/sightings of spacecraft?

As for the risk thing, we never hear of aliens being killed by water except when it's thrown on them.  It may be that they took a alculated risk: they'd land, stay away from liquid water, and grab people, and hope that they got enough tasty peoplesnacks and got away before it became widely known that throwing water on them killed them.  If that's the risk they took, it appeared to succeed.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (May 12, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that thinking hard about it, we can explain why the invading aliens from Independance Day had computers and softwares compatible with that of a OS9.2 Macintosh, so they could be subject to a virus...



_:Grabs a bowl of popcorn, makes himself comfortable, and waits expectantly:_


----------



## Dimwhit (May 12, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> _:Grabs a bowl of popcorn, makes himself comfortable, and waits expectantly:_



 I'll start....

Because, really, why upload a virus from a Mac? Just hook a Windows machine to it and let the myriad of virus likely infecting it hop over to the alien mothership...


----------



## Simplicity (May 12, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I agree it's a cool idea, but it's also his personnal interpretation. A good movie doesn't have to have you use your brain to fill in the blanks in order to redeem a scenario's weak points. I am pretty sure that thinking hard about it, we can explain why the invading aliens from Independance Day had computers and softwares compatible with that of a OS9.2 Macintosh, so they could be subject to a virus...




Well, they were going to invade, but they really liked iTunes.
Nothing beats blowing up the White House to your own iMix.

Anyways, maybe the aliens DID have spacesuits...  They were just invisible forcefields that protected them against nearly every eventuality.  Except water.  They're not so good with water.


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2006)

First, just wanted to point out that Night seems to have some issues with water.  I seem to recall a scene in Sixth Sense where a character freaks out over a spilled glass of water, the hero's one vulnerabilty in Unbreakable was water, there is the water as a poison in this movie, and now Lady in the Water.  I don't recall a water element in The Village, however.

Anyway, I found some of this interview useful.  I think Night thinks alergy to water is no more or less silly than the common cold virus killing aliens in War of the Worlds, and that the movie really was more about faith than aliens to him.

From the Sci-Fi Weekly Interview:

Sci-Fi Weekly: At one point in this movie, Joaquin Phoenix said it's like War of the Worlds. Is this your intelligent version of it?

Shyamalan: I'd say so. It wasn't like, let me do ... my version of it. ... I keep in mind ... that Orson Welles radio play. To see this woman doing the dishes and stopping the dishes, and she has that little apron and wipes her hands on the apron, and she comes towards the radio. And then that pang, what she feels: That's what I wanted to make the movie about. That pang. And it seemed like in this day and age, with the media ... you instantly know everything about everything. And so what a great time to do this. You know what I mean? "This is happening in Mexico. This is happening in India." And this little family in Pennsylvania has experienced something like that, trying to connect everything.

Sci-Fi Weekly: This movie, like your other films, deals with faith.

Shyamalan: I guess I just keep pounding away at this until I get it myself. Which is kind of a guy waking up to his potential and who he is and the things around him. So all three of those movies are this guy waking up. I don't know why, I just keep writing that guy. I could easily write another one about a guy waking up and realizing this. And then the supernatural or the sci-fi elements of the movie—the ghosts or the aliens—is kind of irrelevant to me. It's just a backdrop.

A man learning to believe again, ... believe in himself in Unbreakable. Believe in love in Sixth Sense and believe in himself as a therapist in Sixth Sense, in his job. These are the things that I was dealing with at the time. Each one is a different thing. And in Signs, it's basically this faith, believing in fate. Believing that ... [as] Joseph Campbell [said], "Take the adventure that's being offered to you. ... There will be guides to help you along the way, and if you refuse it, you will experience a negative adventure in the same way through your life." And in a way, that totally connects with me, that those guides he's talking about. ... It's there if you choose to see it.


----------



## jester47 (May 12, 2006)

Someone forgot- Cthulhu is an alien that seems demonic, not a demon that seems alien.

There is a connection with the supernatural avoiding water.  There are stories that vampires avoid flowing water, witches are tested with water.  Then there is the old film tradition that holy water burns the unholy supernatural thing.  

Furthermore there is the idea in religious circles (largely christian) that "the greys" are not aliens, but rather demons, but with our modern sensibilities the demons manifest differently, our fears have gone from fearing supernatural horrors to fearing the scientific horrors.   

The director lists The Birds (1963), Night of the Living Dead (1968), and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) as the influences for this film.  

I would run with the idea that they are demons manifesting as aliens.  Why the space ships?  Who says they are ships?  Also, several of the aliens were on earth before the ships ever showed up.  How did they get here?  I think that is more evidence that it is more demon than alien.  

Furthermore there is the concept put forth by Robert Asprin that a traveller from another dimension is a demon.  In this sense (like Cthulhu in a sense) the demon and alien are actually very closely related.


----------



## Piratecat (May 12, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> It's as if, in _Lord of the Rings_, Sauron were a paper bag puppet.



Damn.  I really hate to tell you this, but. . .


----------



## Turanil (May 12, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> First, just wanted to point out that Night seems to have some issues with water.



He still baths or take showers regularly, does he?   



			
				Shyamalan said:
			
		

> <...> And then the supernatural or the sci-fi elements of the movie—the ghosts or the aliens—is kind of irrelevant to me. It's just a backdrop.



What else to add then...  ::Rolleyes::


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2006)

The sci-fi was often a backdrop to lots of good stuff.  Battlestar Galactica often uses sci-fi as a backdrop to political drama.  Star Trek used sci-fi as a backdrop to a LOT of different types of drama and discussion of ethics.  What is so wrong with using the sci-fi as a backdrop instead of as the focus of a film or television show?


----------



## Falkus (May 12, 2006)

Because it's terrible sci-fi? Killed by water? Honestly. Heck, the water vapor in the atmosphere should have killed them the second they stepped foot on earth.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 12, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The sci-fi was often a backdrop to lots of good stuff.  Battlestar Galactica often uses sci-fi as a backdrop to political drama.  Star Trek used sci-fi as a backdrop to a LOT of different types of drama and discussion of ethics.  What is so wrong with using the sci-fi as a backdrop instead of as the focus of a film or television show?



I'll add The Day The Earth Stood Still and Forbidden Planet to your list. The point is, these are good science fiction because they are internally locical. Signs isn't, because its not. The author/director just throws out a bunch of sci-fi props and then ignores them.


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Because it's terrible sci-fi? Killed by water? Honestly. Heck, the water vapor in the atmosphere should have killed them the second they stepped foot on earth.




Talk about junk science! A large concentrated quantity of something is generally a lot more deadly than an extremely diluted something.  If something were allergic to water, simple small quantities of water vapor probably wouldn't do anything like that level of damage.

Heck, humans cannot really survive on pure oxygen, but there is plenty of it in the atmosphere and we seem to do just fine.

Besides, who CARES if it's not your personal kind of sci-fi? I'm sure plenty of people thought a magical force guiding a pilot to hit a golf-ball size hole in a planet-sized machine of destruction (star wars) was terrible sci-fi if that is the thing they focused on.

This wasn't a movie about water killing aliens.  It's a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of what the movie was about.


----------



## Falkus (May 12, 2006)

> Talk about junk science! A large concentrated quantity of something is generally a lot more deadly than an extremely diluted something. If something were allergic to water, simple small quantities of water vapor probably wouldn't do anything like that level of damage.




Would you want to breath acidic gas?



> This wasn't a movie about water killing aliens. It's a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of what the movie was about.




Would it have been that difficult for the producers of the movie to have made a weakness that didn't make the aliens seem mind numbingly stupid?


----------



## Klaus (May 13, 2006)

I liked Signs, and was genuinely spooked by every single alien appearance (specially the one in Brazil, which Joaquim Phoenix watches from the closet). I got enterntained, so I'm content.

Same goes for Independence Day. It enterntained me in the theater, and if there's nothing else on, I'll watch it for the big destructions.

Guess this does mean my brain has an on/off switch readily available... Too bad I couldn't find it for Van Helsing...


----------



## Blue Sky (May 13, 2006)

So, how does anyone know the aliens understood about the water?

Isn't it just as possible the aliens didn't forsee the effect water would have on them?

It's not like brutal theives and murderers are going to stop to check every element against their skin.


----------



## Mistwell (May 13, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Would you want to breath acidic gas?




I live in Los Angeles.  In Los Angeles, the pH of fog has been measured at 2.0 - about the acidity of lemon juice.


----------



## Krieg (May 13, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> With all respect, Umbran, that's only an interpretation.




With all respect, Morrus, that's the rub.

What truly seperates modern UFO stories from older stories of faerie or demons? 

It's _all_ about interpretation. 

We see things through our specific filters, folks 1,000 years ago would use different filters and ones 10,000 years ago would use different ones still.

Interpretation of images is the whole point.


----------



## Morrus (May 13, 2006)

Krieg said:
			
		

> With all respect, Morrus, that's the rub.
> 
> What truly seperates modern UFO stories from older stories of faerie or demons?
> 
> ...




Sure, I agree.  You can interpret anything the way you want.  You can explain anything away with the magic words "that's my interpretation".

I believe that The Sorpanos is actually about a family of hedgehogs struggling with their sexuality.

The West Wing is clearly not about US politics, but a documentary about the water cycle.

I was watching The Simpsons the other day, and it was clear to me that Marge is actually an analogy for Julius Ceasar, and the entire series depicts the history of ancient Rome.

You see what I mean?  What you have is what's on the screen.  Sure, you can invent explanations for stuff, you can interpret stuff how you like, but that's all it is - your personal slant on it.  

I think the problem here is that some people are presenting their interpretations as fact.  Their interpretations are certainly valid, as is any opinion, but other than what's actually _on the screen_ is no more than that.  And in this case, on the screen were some aliens with a silly plot hole.  I could come up with a dozen different explanations for the plot hole by making stuff up to fill in the gaps (the demon allegory being one), but that's all it is - my imagination explaining away holes in a dodgy plot.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 13, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Sure, I agree.  You can interpret anything the way you want.  You can explain anything away with the magic words "that's my interpretation".
> 
> I believe that The Sorpanos is actually about a family of hedgehogs struggling with their sexuality.
> 
> ...





This post is why you deserve to be in charge of this website.


----------



## ssampier (May 13, 2006)

Meh. I did not care for it. To me the movie is just boring.

If the aliens really wanted to take over, all they had to do is send some spaceships down.


----------



## danzig138 (May 13, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is a movie about the emotional and spiritual journey of one man and his family.   And from that standpoint, it is a reasonably decent work.



 Word. 



> And _Unbreakable_ is fantastic.



Damn skippy.


----------



## Elemental (May 13, 2006)

My theory is that the main alien fleet was invading Mars or some other planet. The aliens that showed up on Earth were the really incompetent and useless members of the fleet, and the commander saw an easy opportunity to get rid of them.

"Good luck invading that blue-green planet, Ugga-Thathlu!"

"Er...I heard that it's mostly covered in a liquid that kills us, that the inhabitants are mainly composed of that liquid and always have easy access to it, and that it falls from the sky in great amounts, regularly. Shouldn't we at least take some protective gear? Or weapons."

"Nonsense, you'll be fine!"


----------



## Turanil (May 13, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> My theory is that the main alien fleet was invading Mars or some other planet. The aliens that showed up on Earth were the really incompetent and useless members of the fleet, and the commander saw an easy opportunity to get rid of them.
> 
> "Good luck invading that blue-green planet, Ugga-Thathlu!"
> 
> ...



It's the best and most valid interpretation so far!


----------



## Banshee16 (May 13, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The problem is not with their motivation it's with them doing so essentially stark naked and without any weapons or tools. THAT is just stupid. Of course people have done plenty of stupid things, but the difference between fantasy and reality is that Reality doesn't HAVE to make sense.




Well, they weren't there to fight a war.  And given that they were a species with natural weaponry, sharp claw/spikes, and poison gas they could spray around them that kills, and could also turn invisible, did they really need lots of additional weapons for what was essentially a raid?  Sure, the humans had guns, but if you can't see your target, what use is the gun?  Then the creature gets in close, and the human is defenseless.

Regarding going to a planet where the environment is lethal, humans went to the moon, right?

What if they were vulnerable to water because those weren't really the aliens?  What if those were their battlesuits or something, and the aliens were actually these tiny guys sitting in a control room in the chest a la Men in Black? 

Banshee


----------



## Morrus (May 13, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Regarding going to a planet where the environment is lethal, humans went to the moon, right?




In spacesuits.


----------



## Turanil (May 13, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> What if they were vulnerable to water because those weren't really the aliens?  What if those were their battlesuits or something, and the aliens were actually these tiny guys sitting in a control room in the chest a la Men in Black?



Even worse: you don't create space-suits (err... Earth-suits) that are vulnerable to a major compound of the place where you go.

But according to the most valid interpretation of this movie (   ), it could be a deliberate trick (using flawed Earth-suits) to get rid of the incompetent among the aliens...


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 13, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I've seen this movie two days ago on TV...[/B]




The movie is one of those you watch one time, 'cause by the second time you know when all the things are going to jump out at you. 

That said, the aliens are only what Hitchcock called a Mcguffin and Whendon calls a flobotnym - just a thing to set the plot in motion, to make people move and provide a nominal excuse for why things are happening. They are not the center of attention - the family dynamics are supposed to be the center of attention.

Not an excuse, just an observation.


----------



## Krieg (May 14, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is that some people are presenting their interpretations as fact.




To whit:



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeah, they really are explicitly aliens.





The problem isn't that people are presenting their interpretations as fact, the problem is that the film didn't fit the preconceived expectations of what it was supposed to be by some viewers.

The window dressing isn't the point, it's just decoration.




			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> This post is why you deserve to be in charge of this website.





Need I remind you that no one likes a kiss up?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 14, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I could come up with a dozen different explanations for the plot hole by making stuff up to fill in the gaps (the demon allegory being one), but that's all it is - my imagination explaining away holes in a dodgy plot.



I still think of this sort of "explaination" as "No Prize" logic from the no prizes offered in the old Marvel Comics letter pages.....


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 15, 2006)

I really liked Sixth Sense.

I really liked Unbreakable.

After that his movies have been as crap unto me, nay beyond crap, for they do not nourish as simple manure would, but rather lie fallow in desolate waste. (In other words I hated both Signs and The Village.  )

The Auld Grump


----------



## ssampier (May 15, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> The movie is one of those you watch one time, 'cause by the second time you know when all the things are going to jump out at you.
> 
> That said, the aliens are only what Hitchcock called a Mcguffin and Whendon calls a flobotnym - just a thing to set the plot in motion, to make people move and provide a nominal excuse for why things are happening. They are not the center of attention - the family dynamics are supposed to be the center of attention.
> 
> Not an excuse, just an observation.




That makes perfect sense. I guess I was disappointed and bored because I was expecting an alien movie; Man vs. the supernatural, not Man vs. Self.


----------



## Staffan (May 15, 2006)

Blue Sky said:
			
		

> So, how does anyone know the aliens understood about the water?
> 
> Isn't it just as possible the aliens didn't forsee the effect water would have on them?
> 
> It's not like brutal theives and murderers are going to stop to check every element against their skin.



Because water is SUCH a rare liquid, cosmically speaking. I mean, just imagine how difficult it would be to get hydrogen and oxygen gas to react with one another.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 15, 2006)

People who really think M. Night Shyamalan is stupid enough put "real aliens" in his film who are killed by water make baby . . . Gygax . . . cry.

It's like _Total Recall_. I bet there are people who genuinely see it as nothing more than an action film about tyranny and freedom on Mars, but the fact remains that it's really a lot more than that, and the surface reading is the least perceptive one you can make.

Just like "_Signs_ was the worst alien-invasion movie ever" . . . which would actually be true if _Signs_ were an alien-invasion movie.

Are there people who think _Scream_ is just a dumb revival of Eighties slasher films, too?


----------



## Storm Raven (May 15, 2006)

ssampier said:
			
		

> That makes perfect sense. I guess I was disappointed and bored because I was expecting an alien movie; Man vs. the supernatural, not Man vs. Self.




If you got exactly what you expected, then that would make the movie predictable and boring wouldn't it? And it would make the movie the antithesis of an M. Knight movie to boot.

Given his track record, I am left to wonder why _anyone_ who had seen his previous movies would go into _Signs_ assuming that the movie was going to be about a run-of-the-mill alien invasion plot.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 15, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The big spacecraft with forcefields was a clue




Are you certain that it was a big spacecraft with force fields? Or was it just something you assumed was a big spacecraft with forcefields?


----------



## Someone (May 15, 2006)

Yes, they could be demons, or zombies, or mutant squirrels, or a collective allucination, or deranged grannies with pepper sprays. If you go solipsist, they could not exist at all. But the nº 1 interpretation is that they are aliens, since they have all the characteristics of aliens, UFOs can be seen in the film, and nothing contadicts the alien idea. You can rationalize them not being aliens, but again, you can rationalize _battlefield earth_ being a good movie (you´d need however some practice before, perhaps starting with less taxing films).

And again, it´s not important if they are aliens or not, since we agree the point of the film is how Mel finds God again, but if you hit the audience in the face with a nonsense of that caliber, you´re distracting them from what´s important to the accesory, in this case from how God did such a great thing screwing Mel´s family to how idiotic are the aliens invading unprotected a planet covered in a 75% with acid, in wich acid falls from the sky in variable, unpredictable intervals, with an atmosphere that contains acid vapors, and with the purpose of eating creatures composed in their majority of acid.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 15, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> _The Village_?  It was clear that he was trying to do a big switcheroo (the opening scene is
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually, without giving away a spoiler, 



Spoiler



nothing mandates that the information given be inaccurate. Nothing says that the gravestone is recent, the date could be an accurate one, with the grave being a hundred or so years old


 without affecting the plot at all.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 15, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> Yes, they could be demons, or zombies, or mutant squirrels, or a collective allucination, or deranged grannies with pepper sprays. If you go solipsist, they could not exist at all. But the nº 1 interpretation is that they are aliens, since they have all the characteristics of aliens, UFOs can be seen in the film, and nothing contadicts the alien idea.




They look like aliens, but act like demons. The UFOs are assumed to be ships, but never demonstrated as such. The problem with the "they must be aliens" interpretation is that it is based entirely on your assumptions about what an unexplained element _must_ be, with no substantive backing at all.

And given that M. Knight likes to fool around with people's assumptions, this seems to me to be foolhardy at best.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> They look like aliens, but act like demons. The UFOs are assumed to be ships, but never demonstrated as such. The problem with the "they must be aliens" interpretation is that it is based entirely on your assumptions about what an unexplained element _must_ be, with no substantive backing at all.
> 
> And given that M. Knight likes to fool around with people's assumptions, this seems to me to be foolhardy at best.



If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, you bet I'm gonna assume its a duck! And if it isn't, you've lied to me.


----------



## ssampier (May 15, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you got exactly what you expected, then that would make the movie predictable and boring wouldn't it? And it would make the movie the antithesis of an M. Knight movie to boot.
> 
> Given his track record, I am left to wonder why _anyone_ who had seen his previous movies would go into _Signs_ assuming that the movie was going to be about a run-of-the-mill alien invasion plot.




I did not know who wrote/co-produced the movie. By that line of thinking, if I saw an ad for a tear-jerker movie expecting to see someone special die, I shouldn't be surprised at the theater when  aliens appear out-of-nowhere and take over.

Each are valid genres, but please don't mix them. As they say different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 16, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, you bet I'm gonna assume its a duck! And if it isn't, you've lied to me.




Maybe, but given that M. Knight has made a habit out of lying to his audience as part and parcel of his style of movie, I'm at a loss to understand why, in the case of this movie, this is such an unexpected thing. His movies are _always_ about "what you think at first is not what it really is". Why is it that in this movie, this is so surprising to people?


----------



## Storm Raven (May 16, 2006)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I did not know who wrote/co-produced the movie. By that line of thinking, if I saw an ad for a tear-jerker movie expecting to see someone special die, I shouldn't be surprised at the theater when  aliens appear out-of-nowhere and take over.
> 
> Each are valid genres, but please don't mix them. As they say different strokes for different folks.




If it was a movie made by M. Knight, I _wouldn't_ be surprised by that turn of events. That's just his style of movies.


----------



## Rackhir (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Maybe, but given that M. Knight has made a habit out of lying to his audience as part and parcel of his style of movie, I'm at a loss to understand why, in the case of this movie, this is such an unexpected thing. His movies are _always_ about "what you think at first is not what it really is". Why is it that in this movie, this is so surprising to people?




Actually one of the things that I and I think a lot of people liked about his earlier movies was he DIDN'T lie to you. The clues were all there in the 6th Sense and I knew something was wrong, I just couldn't quite figure out what was going on until the big reveal at the end and then you get to go "AHAH! That's what that was all about". Similarly for Unbreakable though the "twist" wasn't as good or as interesting.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, without giving away a spoiler,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, but 



Spoiler



the only narrative function served by that opening shot is to establish for the audience the movie's setting--and it establishes it incorrectly.  It felt like dirty pool to me.  How much more interesting the movie would have been if the date on the tombstone had been 1998, or 2018, and the characters had still been talking and living like that!



Daniel


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If it was a movie made by M. Knight, I _wouldn't_ be surprised by that turn of events. That's just his style of movies.



If I knew it was a movie by M.Knight, it might have helped. Assuming I would remember his style. I am not such a big cineast that I know such details on a regular basis :/.

It still doesn't change that the premise was too stupid. 
Demons, Aliens, "the real plot", it doesn't matter, the "things-appearing-to-be-aliens-but-might-have-been-something-else"weakness was still stupid. They could have had water replaced with something less common (maybe milk, a coke, fanta berry-blue or even soap), and it probably wouldn't have hurt my brain as much.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 16, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It felt like dirty pool to me.



That's because it was. You don't show something 



Spoiler



in the opening shot


 without expecting to immediately create an impression on the audience. Filmmaking 101.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Are you certain that it was a big spacecraft with force fields? Or was it just something you assumed was a big spacecraft with forcefields?



So what was it? A "demonmobile"? Why bother showing it if not to create a specific impression? Certainly not because it advances the plot in any way, shape, or form? (does it?)


----------



## Pielorinho (May 16, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That's because it was. You don't show something
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed--but if you're going to use such shots to trick the audience, you've got to be fair about it, and have them serve another more straightforward narrative purpose.  At least, in my opinion you do.  This visual served no purpose except to mislead the viewer.

Daniel


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Maybe, but given that M. Knight has made a habit out of lying to his audience as part and parcel of his style of movie, I'm at a loss to understand why, in the case of this movie, this is such an unexpected thing. His movies are _always_ about "what you think at first is not what it really is". Why is it that in this movie, this is so surprising to people?




No, it's totally different.  There wasn't a twist reveal of the "truth" that they were "demons".  Sixth Sense - at the end, the twist says "hey, look, he's a ghost really!"; The Village says "hey, look, they're in the modern day world in an enclave!".

There is no point where Signs does this in regard to the aliens not being aliens.


----------



## Crothian (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> They look like aliens, but act like demons. The UFOs are assumed to be ships, but never demonstrated as such. The problem with the "they must be aliens" interpretation is that it is based entirely on your assumptions about what an unexplained element _must_ be, with no substantive backing at all.




But there is no substantial backing to any other assumption either.  In fact there is less proof in the movie they are demons then aliens.

For the other movies, there is a reveal at the end on what things really are.  In Signs, at the end of the movie the creatures are not shown to be demons.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 16, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But there is no substantial backing to any other assumption either.  In fact there is less proof in the movie they are demons then aliens.




Given that the movie is all about Mel Gibson's loss of faith, and his rediscovery of faith, the idea that the tormentors in the movie are actually demons seems to make sense. Since the movie is about faith being tested, having the ultimate testers of faith as the villains works, and actually provides support for the interpretation of them as such.



> _For the other movies, there is a reveal at the end on what things really are.  In Signs, at the end of the movie the creatures are not shown to be demons._




Ambiguity of evidence does not prove they are one thing or the other. They may look like aliens, and follow some alien like tropes, but they behave like demons, and are featured in a story about the testing of faith. Given that both alien visitors and demons are, as far as we know, fictitious creatures, concluding that they are one or the other is a huge and unwarranted assumption.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 16, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That's because it was. You don't show something
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure it is. That's why he used it. He _knew_ people would jump to the unwarranted assumption, and counted on it. Playing on your assumptions is his stock in trade. When seeing a movie with his name listed as director, one should expect such things.



> _So what was it? A "demonmobile"? Why bother showing it if not to create a specific impression? Certainly not because it advances the plot in any way, shape, or form? (does it?)_




Once again, he's playing on your expectations. You assume that what he shows you is what you think it is, based on genre conventions. And then he refuses to follow genre conventions, knowing that you will expect him to follow them.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 16, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> This visual served no purpose except to mislead the viewer.



Oh, absolutely - I was agreeing with you. You said "it felt like dirty pool", and I agreed when I quoted you - it _was_ dirty pool.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure it is. That's why he used it. He _knew_ people would jump to the unwarranted assumption, and counted on it.



The _warranted_ assumption, of course. See my post about opening shots and filmmaking 101.



> Playing on your assumptions is his stock in trade. When seeing a movie with his name listed as director, one should expect such things.



I'm not disagreeing with you here, though. Shyamalan has proven to be a one-trick pony.



> Once again, he's playing on your expectations. You assume that what he shows you is what you think it is, based on genre conventions. And then he refuses to follow genre conventions, knowing that you will expect him to follow them.



To what end? Showing us a spaceship (and then hoping nobody will think that it is a spaceship, but is instead a demonmobile?) is simply opening oneself up to criticism and harming the movie, instead of helping it. I would consider that to be bad filmmaking.


----------



## PaulKemp (May 16, 2006)

Agree wholeheartedly with the view that Night intended the aliens to be demons.  I'm also puzzled a bit by the water issue folks are raising.  It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but the demons/aliens weren't burned by water per se, they were burned by the water in Mel Gibson's house, water that the daughter (for reasons unexplained but hinted at) left around the house in glasses.  I always assumed that particular water to be damaging to the demons/aliens because it was *holy* water, blessed either by Mel's character reclaiming his faith, or by the daughter, who evidenced (iirc) certain "saintly" characteristics.

In the end, the demons/aliens weren't driven off by rain or fire hoses.  They were, per the TV broadcast, driven back by  (I'm paraphrasing) some "ancient technique that originated in the holy land."  All of that lends credence to the aliens as demons idea.  That some people feel cheated by that, I can understand.  For me, I thought it was brilliant.


----------



## iwatt (May 16, 2006)

I was going to give my opinion on this movie, but then decided that after falling asleep after the first half hour, I really didn't have any direct observations to make. Considering I've stayed awake while watching some stinkers, I guess my experience does count for something  

BTW, every time I'm about to watch _The Village_, my brothers put me into a headlock, "for my own good". One of them still grumbles about seeing that "craptastic" movie in the theatre.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Maybe, but given that M. Knight has made a habit out of lying to his audience as part and parcel of his style of movie, I'm at a loss to understand why, in the case of this movie, this is such an unexpected thing. His movies are _always_ about "what you think at first is not what it really is". Why is it that in this movie, this is so surprising to people?



In my case, its because this is the only movie of his that I've ever seen. And, like the poster above, I didn't pay much attention to who did it. Not that it would have mattered since I knew nothing about his rep. So either you're a fan of his or you hate his movies? That seems to be the way things are going.


----------



## Crothian (May 16, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Ambiguity of evidence does not prove they are one thing or the other. They may look like aliens, and follow some alien like tropes, but they behave like demons, and are featured in a story about the testing of faith. Given that both alien visitors and demons are, as far as we know, fictitious creatures, concluding that they are one or the other is a huge and unwarranted assumption.




What behavior do they show that is demon like?  They have no corrupting influence, they just sort of walk around and do little.  The whatever beings they are never real test anyone's faith.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 16, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> To what end? Showing us a spaceship (and then hoping nobody will think that it is a spaceship, but is instead a demonmobile?) is simply opening oneself up to criticism and harming the movie, instead of helping it. I would consider that to be bad filmmaking.




But it could be a demonmobile or possibly the hosts of heaven waiting to intervene. Given the nature of the film about faith and other evidence I also favor the demon theory. The spaceships are brought up as evidence of aliens but reading the bible they could also be interpreted as being from heaven or h(e)ll as well. The bible makes many references to flying machines and objects of all kinds and interpretations of these objects have been included in historic biblical artwork. So when in Signs (by my interpretation) the demons arise to take the faithless of the world the appearance of flying objects is not without precedent. Now these could be spacecraft and aliens or it could be demons but "flying objects" does not rule out the demon theory. Overall I find the demon theory much more plausible and in keeping with the nature of the movie. I also agree that the impression is given to make the audience think aliens but given M. Night's style I see this as his red herring to make the audience think one way before revealing that faith is the answer to the movie.


----------



## Mistwell (May 16, 2006)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> Agree wholeheartedly with the view that Night intended the aliens to be demons.  I'm also puzzled a bit by the water issue folks are raising.  It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but the demons/aliens weren't burned by water per se, they were burned by the water in Mel Gibson's house, water that the daughter (for reasons unexplained but hinted at) left around the house in glasses.  I always assumed that particular water to be damaging to the demons/aliens because it was *holy* water, blessed either by Mel's character reclaiming his faith, or by the daughter, who evidenced (iirc) certain "saintly" characteristics.
> 
> In the end, the demons/aliens weren't driven off by rain or fire hoses.  They were, per the TV broadcast, driven back by  (I'm paraphrasing) some "ancient technique that originated in the holy land."  All of that lends credence to the aliens as demons idea.  That some people feel cheated by that, I can understand.  For me, I thought it was brilliant.




Okay, now I have to re-watch this and see what they specifically say at the end. 

And I have been looking for an excuse to re-watch this flick anyway. And I own it.  So no reason not to


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 16, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> So either you're a fan of his or you hate his movies? That seems to be the way things are going.




I don't know about that. I know that, for myself, I really like some of his movies- Unbreakable and Sixth Sense, and not others- Signs and the Village. I get that sense from a lot of the other posts here, too.

Maybe it is a trend starting- that his movies don't seem to appeal as much to fans of his earlier works- but I definitely don't feel as if many (if not most) posters in this thread are polarized one way or the other.


----------



## Dragonbait (May 17, 2006)

The idea that the "aliens" are really demons in Signs makes a LOT more sense, and I really like it.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 17, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely - I was agreeing with you. You said "it felt like dirty pool", and I agreed when I quoted you - it _was_ dirty pool.



D'oh!  I somehow thought you were quoting something else I'd said.  Sorry!

Daniel


----------



## DonTadow (May 17, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I don't know about that. I know that, for myself, I really like some of his movies- Unbreakable and Sixth Sense, and not others- Signs and the Village. I get that sense from a lot of the other posts here, too.
> 
> Maybe it is a trend starting- that his movies don't seem to appeal as much to fans of his earlier works- but I definitely don't feel as if many (if not most) posters in this thread are polarized one way or the other.



I'm in this pot.  Six sense and unbreakable were remarkable.  Signs was ok.  The Village was three hours of midevil torture in the middele of a national park.


----------



## Ds Da Man (May 17, 2006)

Signs sucked...so did The Village (which could have been cool with some real monsters in an old village). I really dislike M. Night Shamalyans(sp?) movies. They are overrated (well...Unbreakable was cool).


----------



## Turanil (May 17, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> Yes, they could be demons, or zombies, or mutant squirrels, or a collective allucination, or deranged grannies with pepper sprays. If you go solipsist, they could not exist at all. But the nº 1 interpretation is that they are aliens, since they have all the characteristics of aliens, UFOs can be seen in the film, and nothing contadicts the alien idea. You can rationalize them not being aliens, but again, you can rationalize _battlefield earth_ being a good movie (you´d need however some practice before, perhaps starting with less taxing films).
> 
> And again, it´s not important if they are aliens or not, since we agree the point of the film is how Mel finds God again, but if you hit the audience in the face with a nonsense of that caliber, you´re distracting them from what´s important to the accesory, in this case from how God did such a great thing screwing Mel´s family to how idiotic are the aliens invading unprotected a planet covered in a 75% with acid, in wich acid falls from the sky in variable, unpredictable intervals, with an atmosphere that contains acid vapors, and with the purpose of eating creatures composed in their majority of acid.



Indeed!!


----------



## David Howery (May 17, 2006)

for me, the best part about Signs was the uncertainty through so much of the movie... you didn't really know if there were aliens up there or not.  A lot of the weird stuff going on could have had other explanations.  It's not really until the last 1/2 hour or so that you know for certain.  I found the whole water=acid thing to be pretty silly too...

and I really liked the little girl who played Mel's daughter... she was pretty good for such a youngster...


----------



## Storm Raven (May 17, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> The _warranted_ assumption, of course. See my post about opening shots and filmmaking 101.




Actually, it remains an unwarranted assumption - you made an assumption about this narrative based on things you saw in _other_ narratives, with no support in the story you were watching. He knew you would leap to the conclusion, but that doesn't make your conclusion warranted. It just makes your conclusion ill-advised.



> _I'm not disagreeing with you here, though. Shyamalan has proven to be a one-trick pony._




And I'm not disagreeing with you on the one trick pony thing. He's been adept with it, but it is getting predictable. So much so that the furor over it with respect to movies like _The Village_ strikes me as being somewhat silly.



> _To what end? Showing us a spaceship (and then hoping nobody will think that it is a spaceship, but is instead a demonmobile?) is simply opening oneself up to criticism and harming the movie, instead of helping it. I would consider that to be bad filmmaking._




How about to this end: aliens, and alien visitations, have replaced demons in mainstream culture. You can draw clear parallels between things like incubi and succubi and alien "sexual probes" and so many other elements of modern "alien lore" that I think he was playing with the comparison. If demons showed up in the modern world, why wouldn't they (as mutable supernatural creatures) appear to us, and be interpreted by us, as vile aliens from another world?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How about to this end: aliens, and alien visitations, have replaced demons in mainstream culture. You can draw clear parallels between things like incubi and succubi and alien "sexual probes" and so many other elements of modern "alien lore" that I think he was playing with the comparison. If demons showed up in the modern world, why wouldn't they (as mutable supernatural creatures) appear to us, and be interpreted by us, as vile aliens from another world?



I had more the impression that aliens and alien visitations have replaced angels in mainstream culture. I remember reading a report about the fact that angel sightings might have been the equivalent to UFO sightings centuries ago. Which makes a lot of sense, as we "know" that god and the angels live in heaven, while demons and devils come from below. This theory obviously wouldn't fit the Signs idea.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 18, 2006)

Although I really like the demons concept very much -- actually makes a lot of sense to me, I'm surprised everyone is complaining about the "stupid alien" thing instead of about the "bad God" thing.

I'm not talking about God in "Real Life" or in "Real Life religion", just how He is portrayed in the movie. Just like saying "Mel" here is referring to the character Mel Gibson plays in the movie, not Mel Gibson in Real Life.

Mel's wife dies in a horrible accident so that she can give him prophetic advice. Mel's son is born with asthma, to suffer all his life (a possibly fatal situation, itself) so that he can survive the "alien's" poison gas. Mel's daughter gets a weird aversion to drinking water, and a compulsive habit of leaving glasses of water all around so that they have a weapon against the alien in their house. Mel's brother is a great bat swinger, but looses a chance at a grand life in the Major's so that he is at home to handle the alien that invades their house.

Now, if all this stuff was God's work, to keep Mel's family alive from the "alien invasion". . . why didn't God just keep the alien from invading Mel's house? One act (don't let the alien invade) vs. four acts -- kill Mel's wife, afflict Mel's son, afflict Mel's daughter, restrict Mel's brother. And Mel could still have his wife.

I mean, the whole "loss of faith" was instigated by (apparently) God's act -- Mel's wife killed.

I would also say, why didn't Mel's brother just beat the alien to death with the baseball bat, without using the water? But the answer to this seems to go back to the idea that maybe they were demons instead of aliens.

All in all, it seems like God screwed Mel and his family royally, with the revelation at the end that, "It was for the better good of his family." If I were Mel, I think I'd be more pissed at God than ever -- "Why didn't you just let a truck run over this alien today, than have a car hit my wife last year?"

Quasqueton


----------



## jasper (May 18, 2006)

could be mel is modern job?


----------



## Quasqueton (May 18, 2006)

Then he failed. Job never complained or "cursed his Lord" (or however it is phrased), and so passed the test. Mel gets quite cranky.

Quasqueton


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 18, 2006)

Just an obvious observation but no one has mentioned it yet. The title of the movie is "Signs" which most of us interprate to be the crop circles but if this was really the correct interpretation the movie could be called "Circles." The other interpretation for the title could be "Signs" from God. Once more this seems like an intentional double meaning from M. Night.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 18, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I had more the impression that aliens and alien visitations have replaced angels in mainstream culture. I remember reading a report about the fact that angel sightings might have been the equivalent to UFO sightings centuries ago. Which makes a lot of sense, as we "know" that god and the angels live in heaven, while demons and devils come from below. This theory obviously wouldn't fit the Signs idea.




I would say that modern alien and alien sightings have replaced _both_ angels and demons in mainstream culture. Sometimes alien visitors are benevolent, ethereal, and wise beings, like angels. Sometimes they are scary, violent creatures that want to carve up cattle and probe abductees backsides.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 18, 2006)

Stormraven:

What is your sig referring to? I don't get it. I've wondered about it for along time. What/where says getting pulped by a mace is a "good result"?

Quasqueton


----------



## Rackhir (May 18, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Although I really like the demons concept very much -- actually makes a lot of sense to me, I'm surprised everyone is complaining about the "stupid alien" thing instead of about the "bad God" thing....




Well I didn't want to get into the religious aspect of things, but you hit pretty much all the points I would have.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 18, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, it remains an unwarranted assumption - you made an assumption about this narrative based on things you saw in _other_ narratives, with no support in the story you were watching. He knew you would leap to the conclusion, but that doesn't make your conclusion warranted. It just makes your conclusion ill-advised.



Nah, of course it's warranted. Movie-making is movie-making, and since "gotchas" are M. Night's schtick, it's shows he knows about movie-making and the opening scene as much as anyone - just like you said, he _counted on it_. (And no surprise, since it was a warranted assumption based on film-making basics... one doesn't _count_ on people making unwarranted assumptions - one does, however, count on people making warranted assumptions. Thus the 'dirty pool' with the opening shot.)

And thus the quality difference between _The Sixth Sense_ and _The Village_.



> How about to this end: aliens, and alien visitations, have replaced demons in mainstream culture. You can draw clear parallels between things like incubi and succubi and alien "sexual probes" and so many other elements of modern "alien lore" that I think he was playing with the comparison. If demons showed up in the modern world, why wouldn't they (as mutable supernatural creatures) appear to us, and be interpreted by us, as vile aliens from another world?



Sure - I'm not arguing with the "demon, not alien" interpretation of Signs. I think the many posts here show that it's a very valid interpretation.

I'm just saying that by showing the demonmobile, for no reason, was just foolish and pointless - something that doesn't make the movie better and in fact leads to criticisms.

(I don't know - maybe it's the difference between blatent and poorly done misdirection [Signs, The Village] and subtlety [The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable].)


----------



## Desdichado (May 18, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> All in all, it seems like God screwed Mel and his family royally, with the revelation at the end that, "It was for the better good of his family." If I were Mel, I think I'd be more pissed at God than ever -- "Why didn't you just let a truck run over this alien today, than have a car hit my wife last year?"



That's the rub; there's no reason to assume that God caused any of the bad things to happen.  The movie makes no such allegations at all; and in fact, Mel Gibson's character "repentance" from that belief is the key driver of the film.  Rather, God more subtlely turned the bad things into "blessings in disguise."  If you still believe what Mel's character in the beginning believed, rather than what Mel's character at the end believed, then you completely missed the point.


----------



## Rackhir (May 18, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> That's the rub; there's no reason to assume that God caused any of the bad things to happen.  The movie makes no such allegations at all; and in fact, Mel Gibson's character "repentance" from that belief is the key driver of the film.  Rather, God more subtlely turned the bad things into "blessings in disguise."




So you're sayin that an omnipotent, omnicient God can't be held responsible for bad things that happen, only the good?


----------



## Quasqueton (May 18, 2006)

> If you still believe what Mel's character in the beginning believed, rather than what Mel's character at the end believed, then you completely missed the point.



Didn't Mel say at the end, something to the effect of, "It all had a reason."? I took that to mean he thought that all the bad stuff was to save his family (minus his wife) from the alien attack.

What point did I miss?

Quasqueton


----------



## ken-ichi (May 18, 2006)

At risk of violating the no religion rules.
Sometimes 'bad' things are allowed to occur (or even purposefully done) to enable good things to occur.

I guess it is how you define a 'bad' thing.
Is Gibson's loss of his wife a bad thing?  Perhaps it was a 'good' thing for Gibson and his family in the long run.  Perhaps his faith would have remained weak and perhaps been broken and lost if his wife was still alive. The loss of his wife and the lesson he learned helped to build up and strengthen his faith.  Hardships and tribulation are sometimes purposefully brought upon people, other times they are just natural results of occurances. We can't tell the difference, but do we really have to?  We don't know what could have happened had his wife still been alive.


----------



## jester47 (May 18, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> All in all, it seems like God screwed Mel and his family royally, with the revelation at the end that, "It was for the better good of his family." If I were Mel, I think I'd be more pissed at God than ever -- "Why didn't you just let a truck run over this alien today, than have a car hit my wife last year?"
> 
> Quasqueton




I think this is because if it worked out that the alien got hit by the car there would be no grounds for faith.  Mel thanks the driver of the car and thus needs no faith in anything larger.  And so he doesn't think twice about it.  Persistant coincidence however shows what level his god is suposed to be working in Mels life.  At least that is what I think MNS is trying to show.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> So you're sayin that an omnipotent, omnicient God can't be held responsible for bad things that happen, only the good?



Isn't this also called "the rock of the atheist". I am afraid it leads into a religious debate, but (I think) it is and will probably ever be a valid point of atheists. 
There are believers that have found answers for themselves and other believers, but they are, unfortunately, not provable or explainable with logic.


----------



## Black Omega (May 18, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that by showing the demonmobile, for no reason, was just foolish and pointless - something that doesn't make the movie better and in fact leads to criticisms.



Minor question since this has been puzzling me.  What demon mobile?

We do see lights in the sky.  Pretty much nothing more, except one bird getting too close and falling dead.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 18, 2006)

You think Mel should be mad?  This whole thing was engineered to restore his faith; he should be grateful.

Everyone else on earth, on the other hand. . . .

Daniel


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 18, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> You think Mel should be mad?  This whole thing was engineered to restore his faith; he should be grateful.
> 
> Everyone else on earth, on the other hand. . . .
> 
> Daniel




Depends on the everyone else. There were at least some other "faithful" in the Holy Lands that did ok. Now alot of humans will be dead or pissed, but that would be the case in any "post-appocalytic" or "religious end of days" (any religion) scenareo.  Look at War of the Worlds, lots of dead and civilazation destroyed but Tom Cruise's family all survived and came together as a family. One can't hold God or the Filmmaker responsible for making everything right when the focus of the movie is just on one man and his family.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 18, 2006)

> You think Mel should be mad? This whole thing was engineered to restore his faith; he should be grateful.



Yeah. "You killed my wife, afflicted my son with a dangerous disease, made my daughter weird, and denied my brother his chance at athletic and career greatness, all so you could restore my faith in you. Thanks. Couldn't you just have sent me a vision of the Virgin Mary, instead?"



> Everyone else on earth, on the other hand. . . .



Hehe. Yeah, that sucks.

Remember that scene in "Oh God" (George Burns) where He made it rain inside John Denver's car. "Why spoil everyone else's day?"

Quasqueton


----------



## der_kluge (May 18, 2006)

As an IT professional, Independence Day takes the cake for the most mind-blowingly stupid way to defeat the enemy. The odds that one could compile code and upload them into ALIEN technology and have it execute have to be something on the order of 500 quintrillion to 1.


Jurassic Park takes a close second.

12 year old girl "Oh, this is UNIX. I know this."
Wait, it's a virtual reality operating system. That's not UNIX. Oh, and it's running on a Mac - with an IBM keyboard. That's *definitely* not UNIX.

Unless she was referring to some space-sim video game called "Eunechs" the chances are that a 12 year old girl knows UNIX are slim to none.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 18, 2006)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> Minor question since this has been puzzling me.  What demon mobile?



The very same spaceship unequivocally referred to in multiple posts by multiple people throughout this entire thread.


----------



## Desdichado (May 18, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> So you're sayin that an omnipotent, omnicient God can't be held responsible for bad things that happen, only the good?



I...


er...

Uh, you wanna come to Circvs Maximvs with that question?  I'd love to answer it, but I can't imagine how I can on ENW.


----------



## Rackhir (May 18, 2006)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> As an IT professional, Independence Day takes the cake for the most mind-blowingly stupid way to defeat the enemy. The odds that one could compile code and upload them into ALIEN technology and have it execute have to be something on the order of 500 quintrillion to 1.
> 
> 
> Jurassic Park takes a close second.
> ...




Well they were essentially trying to "crash" the alien systems (always easier than actually doing something) and the aliens were estabished as using at least some "earth compatible tech" like the timing signal transmitted through the com sats. Plus, Jeff was supposed to be an uber hacker and they had access to an unsecured terminal (the fighter), it was reasonable within the constraints of the plot. 

So that aspect of things was no sillier than many other things in the film. Like the fact that they were using air to air missiles designed to shoot down lightly armored aircraft against a 26 mile diameter floating fortress capable of making deorbiting on its own. 

One could also view Jurassic Park as forsighted (it does take place at an uspecified time) given that the Mac OS is in fact now based on unix. I think you are kidding yourself if you think there are no 12 yr old female computer jockies out there, however rare they might be.


----------



## Rackhir (May 18, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Uh, you wanna come to Circvs Maximvs with that question?  I'd love to answer it, but I can't imagine how I can on ENW.




It is probably best if you don't try to. 

Though you can send me a personal email if you really want to. I've spent a significant amount of time arguing this sort of thing with a fundamentalist christian co-worker and quite frankly neither of us ever really made much of a dent in the other's point of view. Our default assumptions and points of views were simply too divergent.


----------



## Black Omega (May 18, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> The very same spaceship unequivocally referred to in multiple posts by multiple people throughout this entire thread.



Ok, the lights in the sky that are never unequivocally shown to be spaceships in the movie.  Thanks, just making sure.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 18, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yeah. "You killed my wife, afflicted my son with a dangerous disease, made my daughter weird, and denied my brother his chance at athletic and career greatness, all so you could restore my faith in you. Thanks. Couldn't you just have sent me a vision of the Virgin Mary, instead?"



Mysterious ways, dude .  

I figure after that series of coincidences, Mel probably said, "Okay, either there really is a God, or I've somehow gotten trapped in an M. Night Shyamalan movie."

Daniel


----------



## fnork de sporg (May 18, 2006)

There's a scene where the litle girl says the water tastes "contaminated" and mel gibson replies that it's just what tap water tastes like. 

Now, it's not actually explained but I figured that it wasn't the water it self that was hurting the aliens but the chemicals, the flouride and chlorine and whatnot, that were used to treat the water. So bottled water, for instance, wouldn't work.


----------



## David Howery (May 19, 2006)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Jurassic Park takes a close second.
> 
> 12 year old girl "Oh, this is UNIX. I know this."
> Wait, it's a virtual reality operating system. That's not UNIX. Oh, and it's running on a Mac - with an IBM keyboard. That's *definitely* not UNIX.
> .



UNIX?  I thought she said Unit.... but yours makes more sense, I guess...


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yeah. "You killed my wife, afflicted my son with a dangerous disease, made my daughter weird, and denied my brother his chance at athletic and career greatness, all so you could restore my faith in you. Thanks. Couldn't you just have sent me a vision of the Virgin Mary, instead?"



Clearly, Mel Gibson fell prey to the Muffin Basket conundrum.

This is KidCthulhu's _Empire Strikes Backl_ Star Wars theory. "Wait, Darth Vader. You kick the crap out of me and cut off my frikkin' *hand*, THEN you tell me you're my Dad and ask me to join you? Next time, couldn't you.. I dunno... just send me a muffin basket or something? Trust me, it'd have made your offer a lot more attractive."


----------



## Quasqueton (May 19, 2006)

> Clearly, Mel Gibson fell prey to the Muffin Basket conundrum.
> 
> This is KidCthulhu's Empire Strikes Backl Star Wars theory. "Wait, Darth Vader. You kick the crap out of me and cut off my frikkin' hand, THEN you tell me you're my Dad and ask me to join you? Next time, couldn't you.. I dunno... just send me a muffin basket or something? Trust me, it'd have made your offer a lot more attractive."



Hmmmm. I feel a new thread coming on. . .

Quasqueton


----------



## Klaus (May 19, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Clearly, Mel Gibson fell prey to the Muffin Basket conundrum.
> 
> This is KidCthulhu's _Empire Strikes Backl_ Star Wars theory. "Wait, Darth Vader. You kick the crap out of me and cut off my frikkin' *hand*, THEN you tell me you're my Dad and ask me to join you? Next time, couldn't you.. I dunno... just send me a muffin basket or something? Trust me, it'd have made your offer a lot more attractive."



 For a couple of seconds I registered that as a McGuffin Basket...


----------



## Pielorinho (May 19, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> This is KidCthulhu's _Empire Strikes Backl_ Star Wars theory. "Wait, Darth Vader. You kick the crap out of me and cut off my frikkin' *hand*, THEN you tell me you're my Dad and ask me to join you? Next time, couldn't you.. I dunno... just send me a muffin basket or something? Trust me, it'd have made your offer a lot more attractive."



Darth Vader can't eat muffins.  And if he can't eat muffins, NOBODY will eat muffins.

Daniel


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 19, 2006)

Elemental said:
			
		

> My theory is that the main alien fleet was invading Mars or some other planet. The aliens that showed up on Earth were the really incompetent and useless members of the fleet, and the commander saw an easy opportunity to get rid of them.
> 
> "Good luck invading that blue-green planet, Ugga-Thathlu!"
> 
> ...




That was much better than the actual movie.


----------



## jester47 (May 19, 2006)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> As an IT professional, Independence Day takes the cake for the most mind-blowingly stupid way to defeat the enemy. The odds that one could compile code and upload them into ALIEN technology and have it execute have to be something on the order of 500 quintrillion to 1.
> 
> 
> Jurassic Park takes a close second.
> ...




You need to talk to my co-workers daughter and tell her that she has to forget unix.


----------



## jester47 (May 19, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Well they were essentially trying to "crash" the alien systems (always easier than actually doing something) and the aliens were estabished as using at least some "earth compatible tech" like the timing signal transmitted through the com sats. Plus, Jeff was supposed to be an uber hacker and they had access to an unsecured terminal (the fighter), it was reasonable within the constraints of the plot.




Thats how many of us in the computer security field seemed to have interpreted it.  The whole premis is that our modern information technology WAS alien technology scavenged from the Roswell crash, lock stock and barrel.  So it all worked together...

But we all know that it really came from talking dirt elves: 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Beyond the design of computers Cray led a "streamlined life". He avoided publicity and there are a number of unusual tales about his life away from work. He enjoyed skiing, wind surfing, tennis and other sports. Another favourite pastime was digging a tunnel under his home; he once attributed the secret to his success to elves that talked to him there. "While I'm digging in the tunnel, the elves will often come to me with solutions to my problem."




So modern computers are really Drow technology.


----------



## Mistwell (May 21, 2006)

I just re-watched Signs. This time, I was looking at it from the perspective of "assume these may not be aliens". I thought that was fair, as the first time I saw it I went in assuming they were aliens.

I noted the following:

1) The little girl, and the mother, were having precognitive dreams about these events.
2) The boy's very first reaction, in the first 5 minutes of the film, to seeing the crop circles is "I think God did it".
3) The very first sign spotted in the movie when seen from above ends in the shape of a pitchfork.
4) The creatures arguably look demon like. They are not your typical "grays". They do not have small bodies and big eyes. They have super speed, jump very high, their skin automatically camouflages to anything around it, they hide well in shadows, they have partial hooves and claws, a somewhat thick carapace, and attack with a poison gas from their wrists.
5) When they first hear the creatures on the baby monitor, it sounds like a lot of moaning and wailing, along with the clicking.
6) Animals have an internal sense against these creatures, and go nuts in their mere presence.
7) The second crop sign to be seen is an above view over India, and the location of the crop signs is vaguely in the shape of an upside down cross (though this isn't a particularly strong image the way it is presented, if it is intentional).
8) The creatures demonstrate no technology whatsoever. 
9) There are no pictures of ships in the sky, ONLY lights. Things die when they approach the lights. The lights are invisible during the day.
10) The lights in the sky appear overnight, and they specifically say they detected nothing coming in by radar. They just appear. 
11) It is quite obvious why the creatures wear no clothing or protective gear - their primary ability is that their skin automatically camouflages, and that would be hampered by clothing.
12) The creatures only attack at night.
13) They say the "Battle turned in the middle east, three small cities there found a primative way to defeat them."
14) It is not at all clear that water is actually killing them.  When water spills on them, their camoflauge ability fails in the area hit, and they seem to experience some kind of anguish and fear. But the creature is only seen to die as a result of a very strong whack upside the head by a baseball bat, and the only actual clear injury aside from the bat is from a knife cutting off its fingers. Areas hit by water don't look pretty, but it's not really clear that the area is actually injured.

They sure don't come across as aliens that travelled the galaxy in space ships using technology.  Whatever they are, they are a lot more primative than your typical iconic high-tech "gray" space alien.

I think the argument can be made that these creatures are demons.  Or, they are aliens.  Or, they are creatures from another dimension.  It is left quite up in the air.  But I no longer think the folks who saw these creatures as demons or something from another dimension are as totally off base as I used to.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 21, 2006)

Thank you, Mistwell, for posting your observations. Makes me want to rent and watch the movie again with "demons" in mind rather than "aliens".

Quasqueton


----------



## coyote6 (May 23, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> But we all know that it really came from talking dirt elves:
> 
> So modern computers are really Drow technology.




You know, that could explain a lot about computers. Especially Windows.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Thats how many of us in the computer security field seemed to have interpreted it.  The whole premis is that our modern information technology WAS alien technology scavenged from the Roswell crash, lock stock and barrel.  So it all worked together...
> 
> But we all know that it really came from talking dirt elves:
> 
> ...






> You know, that could explain a lot about computers. Especially Windows.



Especially if it was AD&D drow - Windows works probably better in the Underdark.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> What is your sig referring to? I don't get it. I've wondered about it for along time. What/where says getting pulped by a mace is a "good result"?




It is from an old conversation concerning the elves of the _Silmarillion_. In that conversation, someone was talking about how powerful First Age elves were, and said that one (Fingolfin, if I recall correctly), fought hand to hand with Morgoroth himself "with good result". The elf in question was smashed (along with his horse) in a single blow by Morgoroth. Leading to the response quoted in my .sig.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 23, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Nah, of course it's warranted. Movie-making is movie-making, and since "gotchas" are M. Night's schtick, it's shows he knows about movie-making and the opening scene as much as anyone - just like you said, he _counted on it_. (And no surprise, since it was a warranted assumption based on film-making basics... one doesn't _count_ on people making unwarranted assumptions - one does, however, count on people making warranted assumptions. Thus the 'dirty pool' with the opening shot.)




No, it is not warranted. It is _predictable_, but in the context of the story, unwarranted. You made an assumption based upon _other_ stories, and assumed this one would be the same. Your assumption was predictable. Your assumption was, however, unwarranted.



> _I'm just saying that by showing the demonmobile, for no reason, was just foolish and pointless - something that doesn't make the movie better and in fact leads to criticisms._




Except no actual "demonmobile" was shown. Lights in the sky were shown, but no actual "ship" or "spacecraft" or anything similar. Once again, you assumed that it was one thing, based upon no actual evidence.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 23, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it is not warranted. It is _predictable_, but in the context of the story, unwarranted. You made an assumption based upon _other_ stories, and assumed this one would be the same. Your assumption was predictable. Your assumption was, however, unwarranted.



It was warranted. The assumption would be made by audiences based on how movies are made - whether it's "this story" or not is entirely irrelevant. M. Night knew what he was doing and used specific filmmaking techniques when he showed that scene in the opening shot of The Village - and it was necessary to do so to keep up with his 'gotcha' schtick. As I clearly said before: you don't count on people to make unwarranted assumptions to carry a movie... but you do count on them making warranted assumptions. In any case, M. Night's schtick speaks for itself. (And just to nip in the bud any any wacky arguments about definitions, some synonyms for "warrant" include: "merit", "justify", "afirm", "deserve", "call for", "demand", "necessitate". But whatever.)

We're not going to agree on this, Storm Raven. Sorry.



> Except no actual "demonmobile" was shown. Lights in the sky were shown, but no actual "ship" or "spacecraft" or anything similar. Once again, you assumed that it was one thing, based upon no actual evidence.



"Once again", _I_ didn't assume it was anything - I've always said that the "demon" interpretation was perfectly valid (when I saw the movie oh so long ago, I was ambivalent about the interpretation [or more correctly, I was apathetic, because the movie sucked]).   I was only talking about filmmaking techniques. I do agree with your statement, here. (Thanks for the details/reminders, Mistwell!)


----------



## Storm Raven (May 23, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> It was warranted.




No, it was not. It was predictable, but that does not mean it was warranted.



> _The assumption would be made by audiences based on how movies are made - whether it's "this story" or not is entirely irrelevant. M. Night knew what he was doing and used specific filmmaking techniques when he showed that scene in the opening shot of The Village - and it was necessary to do so to keep up with his 'gotcha' schtick. As I clearly said before: you don't count on people to make unwarranted assumptions to carry a movie... but you do count on them making warranted assumptions. In any case, M. Night's schtick speaks for itself. (And just to nip in the bud any any wacky arguments about definitions, some synonyms for "warrant" include: "merit", "justify", "afirm", "deserve", "call for", "demand", "necessitate". But whatever.)_




The assumption was made based on how _other stories_ are structured. There was nothing in _this_ story that would lead one to the conclusion you drew. That is why it is an unwarranted assumption. The fact that it was something that was predictable that you would do is an entirely different matter. However, the fact that something is predictable does not mean it is warranted. The bare fact remains that you assumed something with no evidence, and rather than face that reality, you got mad at the story teller because he didn't tell the story "right", based upon assumptions you made by introducing facts that were never found in the actual story told. Basically, you are saying that you want the same stories over and over again, with only the window dressing changed. How dull that would be.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 23, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it was not. It was predictable, but that does not mean it was warranted.



Like I said, we're not going to agree on this, Storm Raven. Sorry.



> Basically, you are saying that you want the same stories over and over again, with only the window dressing changed.



Nope.


----------



## Someone (May 23, 2006)

"Look! a black sheep!"

"You´re wrong. That´s a sheep that has at least one side black"


----------



## Storm Raven (May 23, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> "Look! a black sheep!"
> 
> "You´re wrong. That´s a sheep that has at least one side black"




More like:

"Look a sheep. It must be a ewe!"

"Why? Did you see anything showing it was a ewe?"

"No, I didn't see anything like that, but all sheep in other movies are ewe's."


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Look, it's a tangent, running wild with the wind!

And since we are chasing wild tangents...did I ever tell you the story of the law school student who streaked naked through the school screaming "I'm a covenant running with the land!" right before finals?

Covenant's running through the land are things like...oh heck it's not important.


----------

