>>ok, so you think saying that the aliens aren't important to
>>his big picture is enough without explainig what said
>picture
>>is (i don't)
>
>it is if you understand the difference between plot details
>and overall themes. I guess I should just assume that you're
>an idiot who can't tell the difference and fucking spell
>everything out for you like your 5 years old.

this statement is just artistically naive, especially with a work like this (short-storyish)

>
>
>>my problem is that when you said "you'll just claim you knew
>>all along once i've told you" that shows this is really
>about
>>EGO, whereas it should only be about information
>
>my problem is when you say "lol enlighten me then" and "don't
>worry i'm 90% certain i know what you were going to say
>anyway", that shows this is really about EGO, whereas it
>should only be about information.
>
>I asked you a simple, direct question and you wanted to turn
>it into a pissing contest. so FOH with all your moral
>indignation.

i've said what the film's 'about' is not an open and shut case
why would i want to put words in your mouth, i invited you to state you case
i merely suspected that you were going to say 'faith', but why jump the gun

>
>
>
>>>Wrong. Manoj said himself that the main theme is faith.
>>>
>>
>>do you have a link to where he said this?
>
>yup (oh and manoj also says the aliens are just a backdrop to
>that & are irrelevant to the what the movie is actually all
>about, which ethers your entire argument)
>
>http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue276/interview2.html
>
>"I guess I just keep pounding away at this until I get it
>myself. Which is kind of a guy waking up to his potential and
>who he is and the things around him. So all three of those
>movies are this guy waking up. I don't know why, I just keep
>writing that guy. I could easily write another one about a guy
>waking up and realizing this. And then the supernatural or the
>sci-fi elements of the movie—the ghosts or the aliens—is kind
>of irrelevant to me. It's just a backdrop.
>
>A man learning to believe again, ... believe in himself in
>Unbreakable. Believe in love in Sixth Sense and believe in
>himself as a therapist in Sixth Sense, in his job. These are
>the things that I was dealing with at the time. Each one is a
>different thing. And in Signs, it's basically this faith,
>believing in fate."
>
>L
>

yeah he says he can write the same character regardless of what the genre is
that doesn't mean the supernatural elements are irrelevant and non-consequential to the film
secondly he doesn't even say it's about 'faith' as in religous faith; in other interviews (maybe even that one) he says 'faith in following an adventure' which is rather different and hardly a theme in the same way that religious faith would be


>
>>>... 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.
>>
>>well the main thing the aliens do is assert themselves above
>>us in the food chain, right?
>
>No, you're thinking of "V". In Signs we have no idea what the
>"main thing" the aliens are doing: we have no idea why they
>came, what the signs meant, or what they wanted. all that is
>left completely unanswered. And how the fuck is them asserting
>themselves above us on the food chain the main "theme"?
>

correct we don't know why they came or what they are doing
thanks for admitting that
but the one thing we do know is that they've topped us in the foodchain

i didn't SAY i personally thought this was the main theme, but i could easily see someone making a case for it, being that it's set on a farm, and the humans have no real way of overcoming the aliens except on an individual basis (like how a lion can kill a human)

>
>>>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."
>>>
>>
>>only if you start making retarded assumptions
>
>LOL - nope. unlike your retarded assumptions to try to explain
>away all the absurd plot elements, there is no need to make
>assumptions here. the meaning behind the signs is left a
>mystery and that is fine.
>

the meaning behind the signs is that the aliens caused them
that's their significance to the film, because it prompts the question of what sort of aliens would do this


>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>and a film about child abuse doesn't have to be set in an
>>ophanage or even during chilldhood
>>but it wouldn't be casually set during AN ALIEN INVASION
>
>again, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Faith
>is a far more intangible theme than child abuse and is open to
>a much broader range of thematic explorations/interpretations.
>
>

eh, that's irrelevant
hte point is abnormal settings are not chosen casually
you could make a film about romantic love and be fairly casual about the setting. set it in Paris, set it in drawing rooms, set it in office workplaces, people might not care. but you can't set it in a prison without expecting that to change the whole outlook, or greatly distract from it

>
>
>>the above quoted point pertained to the aliens in general,
>>their culture, purpose, origins, morality etc
>>the other point is about about specifically the physical
>>appearance of the aliens and shyamalan choosing to show them
>>in full, instead of just silhoettes or flashing lights or
>>footprints and claws
>>see the difference?
>
>saying the aliens were meant to be "left mostly to the
>imagination" implies lack of physical appearance, so you did
>not make that point very clearly.
but i made them as two separate points... it was just you trying to trip me up
anyway you understand now


>and as for how manoj show
>them in full... um, green humaniods with claws? wow, what
>stunning wierdness and imagination!
>

no the wierdness/imagination was with the other point
with the physical appearance, it's the artistic impression that counts
you know a great portrait doesn't have to be an unusual portrait
think how many films have used similar humanoid aliens but haven't been scary in the slightest? how many episodes of Star Trek??
obviously the costume design and overall presentation drew on archetypal ideas (like the Big Foot footage)

>
>>well since that was the first time the aliens were revealed,
>>after a long build up, that pretty much constitutes 'pulling
>>it off'
>
>that was just a teaser scene, they're only 'revealed' for a
>split second on a TV in what looks like that stock Bigfoot
>footage you always see. so no, it does not constitute 'pulling
>it off'

you get a clear and distinct view of the aliens
i can't remember if you see them again. i don't think you do until the cups scene. which had awesome special effects, anyone who says otherwise is a hater

>
>
>>
>>as for all the other points about the intelligence of the
>>aliens:
>>
>>- crop circles don't really constitute intellectual
>behavior.
>
>of course they do.
>
>>for years people thought they were natural phenomenon.
>
>people think alot of dumb stuff, that don't mean shit.
>

intellectual is different from just 'intelligent'
intellectual would be if they dropped a hi-tech gadget in the fields
shymalan says in an interview (probably that one you psoted) that he wanted the aliens to seem 'primitive' and 'intelligent' at the same time (to create a sense of danger). that works well with the crop circles

> even
>>assuming those aliens made them and not the saucers landing
>in
>>the fields, WHAT THE FUCK SORT OF INTELLECTUALS CROSS THE
>>GALAXY TO FUCK ABOUT MAKING CIRCLES
>
>so now you're saying Manoj fucked up too, huh? LOL - how
>ironic.
>
>oh, and we don't know and that goes to the mysterious,
>enigmatic nature of the aliens that you were just gushing
>about (more irony)
>

i thought i explained this already
the crop circles is the ready-made PREMISE on which he based the film
his goal is not to change that, but to present some aliens that we suppose create them

>
>
>>- there's every indication that the aliens we saw were not
>>supposed to be the geniuses that designed the ships. you
>seen
>>them endangering themselves needlessly and getting trapped
>in
>>cupboards. why the fuck would you assume they're SUPPOSED to
>>be real smart? lol
>
>LOL - THERE IS NO FUCKING INDICATION OF THAT WHATSOEVER!
>
>You are just copping pleas for manoj and it's pathetic.
>

i don't see why you refuse to make the logical connection between
1. the aliens acting dumb, getting locked in cupboards etc
2. the idea that they are SUPPOSED to be dumb

i mean in star trek the borg seem pretty dumb (as a race) until you realize the nature of their intelligence


>>- do any of them get caught in the rain? no
>
>uh, point is there is water all over this planet.
>

yeah, and they avoid the water, as it states in the film

>>- when you're walking about invisible and the only danger is
>>PEOPLE throwing water at you, is it a suicide mission? no
>
>A) they weren't 'invisible'
>B) they didn't just skulk about in the shadows and leave, they
>came out of hiding and went after PEOPLE.
>

they had active-camouflage, and they managed to catch/hunt a lot of humans before everyone got wise to using water as a projectile weapon

>
>>if you can't live with any of this then you're going to have
>>trouble with a lot of classic sci-fi dawg. the aliens of
>>course are not under scientific focus.
>
>LOL - you're the one who can't live with this and have to pull
>all this shit out of your ass to try to explain away all the
>fucking absurd shit in the movie. and it's not about
>'scientific focus' as much as it is about common fucking
>sense.
>
>>the main objective is
>>to bring them into a domestic setting so you can have scenes
>>like 'there's an alien in my pantry' and the alien showing
>up
>>in the living room at the end. but that doesn't mean it's
>>unabashedly nonsensical or self-contradictory
>
>it didn't have to be, but the way manoj did it it was. and the
>movie sucks as a result.
>
>

it's not serious speculative fiction, the idea of throwing water to kill them is borderline comic (the idea of fighting them in the street with Super-Soaker 2000s...) but stuff like 'the earth is 70% water' 'there's water vapour in the atmosphere,' 'it tends to rain' is not pertinent, it does not prove people are smarter than Shyamalan for realizing this, and it does not debunk the plot. if the aliens started setting up camp it would be a different matter, like 'their unchecked advance through the metropoli of north america was halted on july 7th in Detroit, when eight year old Chucky S Thurman threw a water balloon at one of the hostiles, unexpectedly causing its body to decompose,' but there is no indication of that, they come and go, their fleet unperturbed

look, this has gotten quite abrasive
i've been trying to tone it down over the last few posts
it probably started in that global warming thread where i was playing devil's advocate and starting every post with 'no.' and ending with 'LOL'
i didn't really mean it to get like this
:-(
seriously though
but.... whateva