[Dr. Frank fan]

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.

[70times7]

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.

Neither has that been the foundation of my criticism of the film. I have consistently stated my opinion that the movie was improperly constructed and squandered great potential in order to support a weak MNS trademark twist. Prior to this discussion I had not known "signs" was his, and had not seen "Unbreakable". I didn't know "the twist at the end" is the way he works, but in this film it presented itself readily as a possibility, at least to me.

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.

Since this is my first discussion of an MNS film I didn't know that "people tend to do this" but that causes me to wonder about why you are here; perhaps people like you tend to show up and "bunk", I don't know. I'm here to discuss the film and have certainly learned things that have increased my opinion of it - but not nearly enough for me to recommend spending any money to see it.

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.

I reiterate that that the film maker dictates the movie context and unlike "Raiders", MNS violated the context he created. If it worked for you that's fine - congrats. What can I say? Millhouse probably would have liked the film too.

In any case I'm about ready to quit. The thread seems to have deteriorated to the "did-not... did-too..." point anyway. If you want to you can always go back through my posts and tell me what important aspects of the story I have missed that invalidate my primary criticism of the film. Good luck.