Always get confused when people criticize some story/movie because of "potential" they think it had. What is "potential" in this context, what it "could have been"? What "could it have been" in your opinion?
What you're asserting here is that had MNS not been (in your opinion) laboring to make the story have a "twist", the story might not have had the gaps you think you've identified. Right? Just so we're clear.... that assumes an awful lot about MNS's writing process.
An awful lot of people make a big deal about the "twists"....I don't quite understand why.
that causes me to wonder about why you are here
In brief--
1. The article at the top of this thread is truly asinine (you can at least agree with me about *that*, if nothing else), petty, and not only that contains no actual "case against" MNS at all; I said so, and said as much to people who seemed to agree with the article.
2. People keep responding to/pinging me, even 2 weeks later or however long it's been, long after I'd been more than happy to let the matter drop and indeed, had forgotten entirely about the silly thread.
3. Thus, I'm responding back. It's not so hard to understand ;-)
unlike "Raiders", MNS violated the context he created.
I don't think so. In what way did he 'violate' the 'context' he created? The context he created was an isolated Village with a secret reason for being isolated. I agree if you find that situation inherently implausible the movie is a non-starter for you. But it's your loss and to approach a film like The Village with this attitude strikes me as needlessly obstinate.
You and others, presumably thinking this exercise clever, have now gotten hung up on, of all things, contrails. This is a lame criticism and I've already responded to it (1. contrails generally look like long skinny clouds, 2. even if someone sees them & suspects something so what?, 3. even if the Elders have to admit flying machines exist, so what?).
Seriously, let's stipulate to the "holes" you think you've found in MNS's "context". The long and the short of it is: so what?
What you're asserting here is that had MNS not been (in your opinion) laboring to make the story have a "twist", the story might not have had the gaps you think you've identified. Right? Just so we're clear....
Just so we are clear; no. that does not logically follow, and I have already answered this question.
that assumes an awful lot about MNS's writing process.
I'm not assuming squat about his "writing process". I'm only saying I think it would have been better if it had been done differently. And that opinion and a buck will get me a cup of coffee ($5@Starbucks)
The long and the short of it is: so what?
Quite right. So why are you here again?