>it was a question not worth asking or answering,

it was definitely worth asking, cuz I said all those plot details are not what the movie was really all about & you incomprehensibly just kept yapping on & on about crop circles.

>you should
>have just said what the film was 'about' and why this made
>shyamalan not care about plot details

post 149: "I don't think he really cared because it's not what the movie is really about & as a filmmaker it wasn't what he was focusing on."

post 153: "as I said, I think he was more concerned with the "big picture" of the themes he was trying to address in the movie and so he didn't really care about those other details."

post 177: "and I specifically stated that those were just plot details and that Manoj's main focus in the film was instead on the broader thematic elements, so I made myself perfectly fucking clear for the intent of my argument."


It's getting really fucking tedious repeating this shit ad-nauseum, especially when it was fucking self-explanatory to begin with.


>nope, faith is definitely one of the main subjects but the
>main THEME could easily be something else like, the fallacy of
>faith, species interaction, horror, an examination of notions
>of aliens in the popular imagination/culture

Wrong. Manoj said himself that the main theme is faith.

... and species interaction could easily be the main theme? WTF? yo I'm past even caring about being at all cordial with you at this point, so I'll just say you're sounding like a fucking idiot right now.


>lots of people disagree about the main theme of War of the
>Worlds, a similar story

great, but still a moot point because Manoj has said himself the main theme of Signs is faith.


>because i don't think you quite realize what you're doing;
>some other people are deliberately obnoxious

I realize what I'm doing, I asked you a simple fucking question. I don't think you realize what a fucking tool you're being here.


>>>but the details are not 'absurdly nonsensical', at least
>>>onlysofar as the real-life premise of alien-made crop
>>circles
>>>is nonsensical to start with.
>>
>>no. I already explained this above a couple of times.
>>
>
>no, you already *ignored* it a couple of times

no, I already explained it and YOU already ignored it:

post #153: "there is at least some sense of mystery to that, like you are trying to figure out what the hidden meaning is behind it. hence suspension of disbelief can work there. the water killing them/can't open a door stuff is just plain fucking retarded."

... but you were too busy being a fucking asshole to actually address my arguments.



>but this is quite a big plot detail: how the aliens are
>defeated, and how they behave when encountered


no, it SHOULD have been a big plot detail, but Manoj dropped the ball and made it an afterthought, and a poorly concieved, absurdly explained/executed one at that.



>this reminds me of people who complain about the
>unrealisticness of the murderous jealousy of Othello or dude
>in The Winter's Tale, assuming Shakespeare didn't care about
>it, but in doing show manage to overlook the actual
>explanations

wow, you're comparing Manoj to *Shakespeare* now? LMFAO

because, of course, a husband's murderous jealosy of his wife's (perceived) infidelity is as unrealistic as scientifically advanced aliens not being able to open a door or realizing that water kills them. obviously.



>>>the crop circles are central to the film; that CANNOT be
>>>ignored. they're not a 'plot detail' they ARE the plot
>>
>>I wasn't talking about the crop circles.
>>
>
>you were asking why i keep going on about crop circles

you're going in circles here. go back and read the thread again if you don't get it, I'm tired of repeating myself.


>>>if the film was purely about faith, then it wouldn't be an
>>>alien invasion movie. in THAT case i could see the author
>>>overlooking a scientific detail because he doesn't care
>>about
>>>it (for instance if a character died of a disease with
>>>unrealistic swiftness)
>>
>>if the film was purely about faith it would be a blank
>screen,
>>because faith is intangible. so this is a nonstarter.
>>
>
>absurd.
>most themes are 'intangible'

exactly you dumb fuck, that's why your poing was so fucking absurd.


>if you wanted to make a film about, say, child abuse, you
>wouldn't set it during an alien invasion because that would
>most likely detract from the issue

WTF does that have to do with anything?

I mean it's pretty simple: a film about faith doesn't have to be set in a fucking monastery.


>the beings that invented the technology are obviously smart
>(than humans)
>but there is absolutely no indication that those are the
>beings that set foot on Earth, or even that they're flying the
>spacecraft

more like there is absolutely no indication that it's not. and the fact that you're all pressed to pull all these explanations out of your ass to explain away the plot holes indicates just what a failure the movie was on that level.


>>>they could be 'drones'. the real intelligences behind the
>>>spacecraft might not even be on the saucers
>>
>>there's absolutely no indication that this is the case in
>the
>>movie. every indication is that they are fully self-aware
>>extraterrestrial intelligences. just really, really dumb
>>ones.
>>
>
>hardly. they scurry about like animals. if there had been a
>scene showing them engaged in some intellectual activity, you
>would have a case

um, they made the crop circles in all those intricate patterns all over the earth - hardly something a witless animal could do.


>
>>>- the invasion ended after one or two days, suggesting they
>>>were merely passing by Earth
>>
>>the crop circles had been appearing around the Earth for
>weeks
>>in the movie, right? so this doesn't fly either.
>>
>
>one or two weeks on the timescale of interstellar travel is
>hardly extensive preparation

extensive enough to discover that IT FUCKING RAINS POISON TO THEIR SPECIES FROM THE SKY



>>>- maybe they landed out of curiousity and found the place
>>>unsuitable
>>
>>simple spectrographic analysis of the earth's atmosphere
>would
>>tell them that before they ever landed. we were able to do
>>that shit before sputnik, so how the fuck they gonna have
>warp
>>drives and shit but can't do simple shit like that?
>>
>
>i didn't say 'uninhabitable'

neither did I. but does a planet that FUCKING RAINS POISON TO THEIR SPECIES FROM THE SKY sound 'suitable' to you?


>they're not ridiculous interpretations at all, but they're
>based on the ideas Shyamalan presented

no, they're ridiculous interpretations that are not based on anything Manoj presented and you just pulled out of your ass because you want to cop pleas for him.

>for instance you (and Scary Movie 3) keep complaining about
>how that alien couldn't break through the wooden door
>
>it would have been easy for Shyamalan to write it as the alien
>went into the basement and get trapped behind a big-ass steel
>hatch, then the audience would accept that despite its
>superhuman strength there's no way its getting out of there
>
>but Shyamalan CHOSE to make it just a wooden door that
>strength + intellect would easily overcome, indicating,
>EMPHASIZING to the audience that the aliens (that we see) are
>NOT intellectual

only problem is that he already emphasized to the audience that they ARE INTELLECUTAL BY ESTABLISHING A HIGHLY INTRICATE SYSTEM OF SYMBOLS AROUND THE GLOBE

i.e., FOH


>also remember humans couldn't do ANYTHING to the spaceships.
>there was no vast exploding motherships scene. the aliens just
>left. maybe they got what they wanted

they wanted to be killed by water? if that was the case why didn't they just jump straight into the ocean first?




>>>the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to
>the
>>>imagination
>>>made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is
>>>completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad
>>>shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic
>>>scifi/horror
>>
>>and that fails too when he shows them in the end. that's why
>>Kubrick refrained from physically depicting the aliens at
>the
>>end of 2001. which is just reason 5720 why 2001 is so great
>>and why Signs fucking sucks.
>>
>
>it's so simple minded to think the 'don't show, only hint'
>technique is the only one

motherfucker you JUST said "the aliens were meant to be enigmatic and left mostly to the imagination made the whole scarier too. the wierdness of aliens is completely lost on most modern sci fi films, i'm glad shyamalan recaptured that feeling/terror from classic scifi/horror"

I mean sweet jesus, you really are acting like a fucking idiot right now.


>it's actually one of Shyamalan's greatest strenghts that he
>doesn't shy away from actually showing the monsters (in The
>Village and Signs, and 6th Sense too i suppose), and pulls it
>off

he DIDN'T pull it off in Signs. Not by a long shot. I haven't seen the Village, but from what I hear he didn't pull it off there either.


>you'll probably say 'it wasn't scary at all' but i've seen
>plenty of indication that the alien walking past the window in
>the birthday party video was scary enough for most people

no, that scene was actually pretty good, particularly Joaquin's response to the video. too bad that was only like 5 seconds out of a 2 hour movie.