Just watched Signs... AWESOME movie. (***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***, + a Widescreen question for you DVD gurus)

[xospec1alk]

Originally posted by: LostHiWay

exactly, its about destiny, and how a higher power works in mysterious ways...whereas the kid woulda died from his asthma and what not, which would suck, and mel gibson would be blaming god...it actually saved him in the end...and that is why sometimes god makes us suffer...because in the end, it has a greater purpose

That's how I saw it....however I think the reason so many people choose to not like this movie is because it's about God or a higher power. Now I don't believe in God but I still thought that Signs was a very good movie. Remember folks...it's a movie.

I swear some of the people who bash this movie because it involves God and faith remind me of the homophobes that bash gay people every chance they get, yet they're infact gay and just ashamed of it.

i am not religious in any way either, and in fact i probably hate organized religion, but i thought it made a lot of sense how they worked in fate and what not. i was totally expecting a cheesy alien movie, but it totally wasn't which threw me off my guard.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: pulse8

I understand the focus of the movie, but just because the movie isn't focused on that part of the story, doesn't mean it's alright if it makes absolutely no sense.

But the revelations that Gibson's character has over the course of the movie suggest that coincidences don't exist. The vulnerability is there precisely because of the daughter's irrational phobia of contamination (or possibly vice-versa). It can't be explained rationally, because it's an analogue of religious faith.

I agree that it's not logically sound as a reflection of the world we live in, but the film is crafted in such a way that the story is consistent.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: pulse8
My main problem with this movie was that if the aliens were allergic to water, why did they land on a planet that's mostly water?

Maybe the aliens didn't know water was lethal to them until they started the invasion and some of them got wet? And once they got the invasion ball rolling they couldn't exactly stop it and retreat. Kinda like when the French started work on the Panama Canal. No one foresaw<sp?> all those workers dying from malaria, but they couldn't just stop building the canal.

I liked "Signs" but I disagree w/it's message for the most part.


Lethal

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: pulse8

I understand the focus of the movie, but just because the movie isn't focused on that part of the story, doesn't mean it's alright if it makes absolutely no sense.

But the revelations that Gibson's character has over the course of the movie suggest that coincidences don't exist. The vulnerability is there precisely because of the daughter's irrational phobia of contamination (or possibly vice-versa). It can't be explained rationally, because it's an analogue of religious faith.

I agree that it's not logically sound as a reflection of the world we live in, but the film is crafted in such a way that the story is consistent.

WTF are you talking about? I'm just saying that I felt it was stupid for him to write about these aliens, who've been scouting the planet, and then decide to attack it when they are allergic to water. It's a lame vehicle for the story. Why would they decide to overtake a planet where they can't use most of it's resources.

I'm sure there are plenty of other situations he could've come up with. This one seems rushed and not very well thought out.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: pulse8
My main problem with this movie was that if the aliens were allergic to water, why did they land on a planet that's mostly water?

Maybe the aliens didn't know water was lethal to them until they started the invasion and some of them got wet? And once they got the invasion ball rolling they couldn't exactly stop it and retreat. Kinda like when the French started work on the Panama Canal. No one foresaw<sp?> all those workers dying from malaria, but they couldn't just stop building the canal.

I liked "Signs" but I disagree w/it's message for the most part.


Lethal

Blah. That's kind of a stretch.

They had been investigating the planet for a while. I dunno. I enjoyed watching the film, I just thought this part of it was lame and brought the entire story down.

 

[WarSong]

Originally posted by: flavio
A good short read about Signs.

I think it really expresses some great points about the movie.

lol thats rad

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: pulse8
My main problem with this movie was that if the aliens were allergic to water, why did they land on a planet that's mostly water?

Maybe the aliens didn't know water was lethal to them until they started the invasion and some of them got wet? And once they got the invasion ball rolling they couldn't exactly stop it and retreat. Kinda like when the French started work on the Panama Canal. No one foresaw<sp?> all those workers dying from malaria, but they couldn't just stop building the canal.

I liked "Signs" but I disagree w/it's message for the most part.


Lethal

Blah. That's kind of a stretch.

They had been investigating the planet for a while. I dunno. I enjoyed watching the film, I just thought this part of it was lame and brought the entire story down.

Okay, these are also the same aliens that can get locked in a kitchen pantry. Just because they have interstellar<sp?> travel doesn't mean they are smart.


Lethal

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: murphy55d

Originally posted by: LostHiWay
A film can be filmed at different ratios. The most common are:

2.35:1 - The biggest black bars
1.85:1 - Smaller black bars (this is how signs was filmed)
1.66:1 - Even smaller black bars (most films in this ratio are shot full screen (4:3) then matted down to this ratio)

Ahhh I see. I prefer this 1.85 ratio.

Why? For smaller "black bars"? There are no black bars. It's just space on your TV not used by any picture. So what you're saying is, you want to see less picture side-to-side, so you can fill your TV screen? Personally, I don't prefer any aspect ratio. I prefer whatever the director wanted us to see it in. Some movies are more panoramic, some are more square. The fact that some screen space isn't being used doesn't bother me at all. Your TV is just too tall.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: flavio
A good short read about Signs.

I think it really expresses some great points about the movie.

I RESURRECT THIS THREAD! My reasons are twofold--to say that this link was more entertaining to me than the entire movie (which I just watched), and to say that Signs sucked!!!!11!!1

omg what drawn-out crap. For the first hour, all the actors exuded more aggregate boredom than I've ever seen in a single movie. M. Night Shamalamanalanlnalnaan needs to get over himself.