it would be impossible to not notice them, even with a million acre preserve. So maybe the Villagers did indeed "notice" a jet trail from time to time.
From this they conclude not that they are just strange, faraway, inherently incomprehensible clouds (like all clouds), but that mankind has developed flying machines, and thus somehow conclude from *that* that their Elders have constructed an elaborate ruse. Um, right?
Otherwise, what exactly is the point of this criticism?
The largest "restricted air space" in the USA is the southwest 1/10 of Nevada just north of Las Vegas - popularly known as "Area 51".
The movie is fiction. The universe portrayed in the movie is thus fictional. So perhaps the restricted air space above the Village (in the fictional universe) is actually the largest in the country and "Area 51" (if such a thing exists in the fictional universe) is the second largest.
You also, like many, seem to be assuming that the "restricted air space" which the Walker estate has arranged with the government, when projected down to the ground coincides precisely with the size of the preserve (which we know to be not so large given that Ivy walked its radius in a day or so). This need not be the case. At all.
But whatever, let's stipulate that someone in the Village at some time or another both saw a contrail and surmised the existence of flying machines. You think that means....what?
I think any such people would have thought "wow, those wicked Villagers and their contraptions". Perhaps been a bit fascinated/intrigued. Asked a few questions, sure. "Yes I've heard tale that Chinamen have built such a device" (or whatever), says an Elder offhand, if the questions become to common. A few words are said about the wickedness of China's society and it is left there.
Remember, there are monsters in the woods surrounding the Village.
What's your point?
Therefore airplanes and their contrails would be a daily if not hourly sight in Pennsylvania.
Again, expository dialogue in the film made it clear that the Walker estate has in one way or another arranged for this not to be the case. You resist believing this for some reason. That's your prerogative, although it seems kind of silly and out of proportion with the implausibility distribution in the film. Like watching a Superman movie and criticizing the price printed on the front of the Daily Planet as being insufficient to support the newspaper, or something.
You, like others, really seek reasons to dislike the film. Is that not so? Yes, the movie is inherently implausible, near-fantastical. That is intrinsic to the nature of the story! If you are not willing to suspend disbelief about the basics of the story then it's no wonder you are not willing to suspend disbelief about these ancillary aspects. Your loss IMHO.
But who are you self appointed "debunkers" trying to impress exactly?
You, like others, really seek reasons to dislike the film. Is that not so? Yes, the movie is inherently implausible, near-fantastical. That is intrinsic to the nature of the story! If you are not willing to suspend disbelief about the basics of the story then it's no wonder you are not willing to suspend disbelief about these ancillary aspects. Your loss IMHO. But who are you self appointed "debunkers" trying to impress exactly?
I guess that makes you a self appointed "bunker".
It's a discussion, ok? I'm not trying to impress anyone, but I have learned of some interesting aspects of the film that I wouldn't have considered without these exchanges.
I didn't go looking for reasons to dislike the film, I came out of the theater with most of them already handed to me by MNS. Other reasons to dislike/disbelieve came after consideration of the film, AHEM, just like many of the reasons you like it. Frankly, I would have preferred to like the film - I don't like to waste money. But like a few other films I have come from feeling like I wasted my $ (Daredevil comes strongly to mind), even with a mental attitude toward suspension of reason the film goes too far and violates the boundary. There is also good reason to blame MNS for this since, to a great extent, the boundary is set by the context of the story.
Your right about Pa, I jumped to the conclusion of a Pa site because the alpha male was UofP prof, and the film was shot within driving range of Shyamalan's home.
I asked those questions because I get a kick out of movie mistakes; I find moviemistakes.com as a mildly interesting site.
The logic gaps in the flick is not what left me with the biggest impression, that would be my post #184; and my utter disgust for what the village elders have done to their children; this is America after all, no the USSR -were everything is "taken care of for you" {wink wink}.
Which bring me back to post #184 ...