Replies

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.

That would be all well and good if you & others here were talking about the actually important aspects of the story. But the actual story of The Village was not about the practicalities of setting up an insulated village any more than the actual story of Signs was about what kind of planet certain kinds of aliens would choose to invade. Frankly, Signs wasn't really about aliens at all, and similarly, The Village isn't a Village-feasibility study. And don't get me wrong I don't even think The Village was a great movie. My objection here is just the myopia involved in turning the film into a silly "could this be done?" exercise. It's just so not the point. People tend to do this with most MNS movies, though, it seems to be the nature of the kind of stories he chooses to write that a certain fraction of the audience will get the mistaken idea that his stories are science fiction of the type nerds like to analyze and debunk, rather than psychological thrillers (which is what they are). Hence all the Comic-Book-Guy-from-Simpsons-esque "that was SO unrealistic / logically doesn't hold water" criticisms; all I'm saying is that such criticisms completely miss the point in the first place. I don't know, to me it all just sounds like criticizing Indiana Jones for getting the history & actions & unit structures of the Nazis wrong. Maybe that's just MHO though... with MNS certain people seem to really enjoy "debunking" of this kind so hey, have fun.