Posted on 08/02/2004 6:04:08 AM PDT by BluegrassScholar
Er, the problem is precisely that a planet two-thirds covered with water can't support such creatures, any more than one two-thirds covered with sulfuric acid could support humans.
Look, Signs used "aliens" as a plot device. Given that, it's going to have a non-believable plot!
I'm not inclined to excuses for incompetence (and, yes, that word is applicable to a writer who creates a "non-believable plot").
The credibility of a fictional plot is based on whether or not the story logic avoids gaping holes once the basic premises of the fictional universe are accepted.
If a galaxy full of various aliens is one of the premises of the fictional universe, then, yes, a story about aliens can have a believable plot.
However, the plot has to make sense given the facts of the fictional universe as they are established in the story. For instance, Star Wars would not have had a "credible plot" if a major plot thread had hinged upon Jabba the Hutt suddenly being a philanthropist after being established as a greedy ruthless SOB.
I trust this clears up the question.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan too. Even though the title said "The Case Against" I read the whole article and failed to see anything "against" M. Night Shyamalan. I liked all his previous movies, even Unbreakable.
Um, why not? What about the remaining one-third? Again, say you have no choice. You see a planet. Two-thirds of it is covered with sulfuric acid; the remaining one-third is usable, arable land (and the atmosphere is fine for your lungs). You see no other planet remotely usable. You don't land there "because it's two-thirds covered with sulfuric acid"?
Heck by your logic humans shouldn't live on earth either. As you say, the earth is two-thirds covered with water. Humans cannot live on water!! Humans can swim for short periods but they cannot breathe underwater and would not be able to subsist were they to spend their whole lives on the water!!
Too much ocean - We better get outta here!!!1
The credibility of a fictional plot is based on whether or not the story logic avoids gaping holes once the basic premises of the fictional universe are accepted
Fair enough but Signs had no such holes, you're obviously bending over backwards looking for them, and doing an illogical job of it. See above.
You didn't answer my question in my Post 159.
rain: Water condensed from atmospheric vapor and falling in drops.
Signs was pretty stupid. Aliens that can be hurt by water landing on a planet that is 70% covered by water?
And they don't have guns, just their little poison gas spitter?
Living on a farm in country and no guns?
If I was worried about a critter in my cornfield, I would call Bubba and Billy Jeff, ask 'em to bring their shotguns and deer rifles and have 'em cover me while I ran the combine through the fields. Doesn't matter which the critter tangles with, he's gonna be a mess.
I know that wasn't the real story, but if you don't craft the background decently, us nitpickers will be all over it.
Overall, on a scale of 1-5, it gets a 2 - marginally watchable, but I regret paying money for it...
Umm, my post was 159. Perhaps you are referring to your post 157 that I replied to with 159. I answered your question, and I did so very specifically.
If you do not plan on having a discussion please, let’s just drop it now.
Fortunately humans have recently developed a technology called "shelter". They have even assembled semi-permanent constructions ("houses", "buildings" and the like) which can effect this "shelter". Perhaps the aliens could make use of them. No of course not - what am I thinking.
You really want to have a "scientific" excuse to dislike that movie, don't you? You don't have enough confidence in your gut/aesthetic reaction to just say "I didn't like it"? You MUST build a case for why the Alien story was scientifically implausible!
Oh brother.
Keep it coming - these are really fascinating (and IMPORTANT) objections to M. Night Shyamalan's film (about faith).
My wife, son and i thought it was a thought-provoking film. Felt like a Robert Frost poem. Can't wait for Shyamalan's next movie.
I loved it. The trademark "twist" was could have been left off, for all I care.
I just heard a couple of weeks ago that she's Ron Howard's daughter!
LOL! I just read your post after I'd posted the same thing!
Oops. Apparently you don't believe in your namesake's meaning 70 x 7! By the way, I still don't believe you, but that's not the same as saying you are lying. I think you just saw the ending and then said, "see I knew that it was it" now that you finally did know the ending. As for going to town for medicines in olden days, man are you weak with history. People in villages away from the cities frequently had to send away to the "towns" for medicines and doctors too!
I thought Wide Awake was a pretty good movie. Rosie doesn't have THAT big a part to play, so I wouldn't avoid it on that account.
I love The 6th Sense, and I thought Unbreakable rocked. Loved both of those movies. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to really enjoy Signs. The whole water thing was just too stupid.
Then came the Village. To make it worse, my 12 year old son GUESSED the movie twist a month before the debut, just by watching the trailers. I of course laughed him off. Did I ever feel stupid when he was right.
Of course I do, but I'm not quite sure why you think it applies here. In some aspects of our exchanges I think you are in error, in others I know you are. I have tried to point those things out in my replies. I have also politely asked that you not substitute attacking me for refuting my points. You have not done so yet; at best you mix the two. I will not hold any grudge, but I will not continue this discussion much longer either. This is the last chance, not because I am angry at all, but simply because it is not profitable.
By the way, I still don't believe you, but that's not the same as saying you are lying. I think you just saw the ending and then said, "see I knew that it was it" now that you finally did know the ending.
Please stop mincing words. For your statement to be true I would either be lying or self deluded. I am neither. I even turned to my son early in the movie and commented to him about it. Believe what you want, but please stop attacking me in order to support weak arguments.
As for going to town for medicines in olden days, man are you weak with history. People in villages away from the cities frequently had to send away to the "towns" for medicines and doctors too!
Yes indeed they did, and white sugar, and windows, and nails, etc. but you conveniently forget that they HAD a doctor there. A doctor of that time period would have had the knowledge to concoct most all of the remedies needed to do what little was possible at the time (unless, of course, they had bigger leaches in town). It was their level of conviction that the "towns" had better medicines that made me suspicious and guess at the possibility they were in the present.
There are plenty of good solid exchanges from people who liked and disliked the movie (and lame posts too). Some posters, like Ichneumon and others, have caused me to reevaluate aspects of the film and consider its depth. They have not changed my overall opinion of the movie, but so be it. Your posts have not been of that quality and I have told you why. Please, either discuss the movie or just go away.
You know I was really interested in hearing your response mainly because of your 70 x 7 name. I was really just messing with you but you handled it pretty well (though I think you take me way too seriously). All in all, I think movies, being art, are very personal.
P.S. I'm a sister in Christ so I don't want any hard feelings on here. Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.