Signs

[High Lord Tolkien]

The ending of Signs just killed me. Way too retarded.

Thank you!
I agree 100%.
"THOOLAH!"

I actually enjoyed the movie until the end.

"Hey, even though water burns us like acid, lets invade a world and walk unprotected on the planets surface.......THAT'S COVERED IN WATER!!!"

"I have one of those aliens that can travel the universe trapped in my pantry."

They can pattern a whole house with intricate wood routing designs but can't get into the cellar.

And what made them leave?
Some ancient Middle Eastern chant or spell?
WTF!!!!

I've put this one in my "Dumbass movie" list.

[wayfriend]

Sort of like the Abyss in that respect. Awesome movie. If you don't watch the end.

Still, I gotta respect a movie where a guy in a rubber suit walks by and it scares your bowels clean. That's a fine job of writing and directing. And proves a significant point about movie making and special effects.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Sort of like the Abyss in that respect. Awesome movie. If you don't watch the end.

Another one that I 100% agree with!

I was actually angry after I saw The Abyss for that reason.
I read years later that something like 30 minutes had to be cut from the movie.
I think their cutting focused on the end.
But I also read that the restored footage on the DVD release didn't really help the ending either.

[Cail]

Which version of The Abyss? The theatrical version I agree with. I think the Director's Cut, while long, is excellent.

[dANdeLION]

I'll have to get the directors cut then, because I actually liked it at the theatre...especially Ed Harris' blue hand.....heh.

[Cail]

I liked the original, but it ended too quickly. There's a lot more depth (HAHAHA!!) to the DC.

[Loredoctor]

"Hey, even though water burns us like acid, lets invade a world and walk unprotected on the planets surface.......THAT'S COVERED IN WATER!!!"

This criticism I really don't understand. No offense to you, HLT. But there have been plenty of examples in sci-fi literature where humans invade hostile worlds looking for something - or other aliens - yet no one thinks that is weird. The aliens were after us not to live here. Further, it's not as if they were running through water or landing in the ocean. 70% of the world is covered in water, but the aliens landed where is no water.

Perhaps we are the only lifeform or the lifeform that they needed. Perhaps they were desperate.

It's not a plot hole, in my opinion.

[Cail]

No moreso than germs killing the aliens in WotW.

[Worm of Despite]

'Signs?' More like 'SNOOZE.' HA ha ha ha ha! Ha ha. Ha. Ha...ha. Heh. Yeah.

[Sandgorgon rider]

I saw the movie on DVD a couple weeks ago and I really enjoyed it. I thought the acting was in general very good and some parts really creeped me out. I disagree with the main theme i.e. that there are no coincidences and everything happens for a reason, but I enjoyed how that theme was explored and events panned out. The aliens themselves are in a way rather incidental to the story and grousing about why they can't get out of a locked pantry or why they have to carve out huge patterns in corn fields instead of putting down landing beacons, while fun, is not a big problem with the film.

[wayfriend]

"Hey, even though water burns us like acid, lets invade a world and walk unprotected on the planets surface.......THAT'S COVERED IN WATER!!!"

This criticism I really don't understand. No offense to you, HLT. But there have been plenty of examples in sci-fi literature where humans invade hostile worlds looking for something - or other aliens - yet no one thinks that is weird. The aliens were after us not to live here. Further, it's not as if they were running through water or landing in the ocean. 70% of the world is covered in water, but the aliens landed where is no water.

Perhaps we are the only lifeform or the lifeform that they needed. Perhaps they were desperate.

It's not a plot hole, in my opinion.

I think the plot hole is that an alien civilization with the technical capabilty of travelling interstellar distances to mow corn would maybe think raincoat.

I mean, when us humans go to hostile worlds we don't jump out naked, gasp, and die. We don our impervo-force-field-belts or our stealth armor exoskeleton.

[Loredoctor]

I think the plot hole is that an alien civilization with the technical capabilty of travelling interstellar distances to mow corn would maybe think raincoat.

It's still not a plot hole. For a start, the aliens were turned back - some killed - and they retreated. Their fleets left taking what they were after from the start - people. If every one of the aliens were killed, sure it's a massive blunder, but the water made them simply get into their craft and leave. They didn't neeed to don 'raincoats' for the fact that most places they attacked were not inundated with water-weilding citizens.

I mean, when us humans go to hostile worlds we don't jump out naked, gasp, and die. We don our impervo-force-field-belts or our stealth armor exoskeleton.

Neither did the aliens jump out and die. Some were killed; the fleet survived. But there are plenty of examples where despite humanity's great technology our own natures - read greed/avarice - compromise us. For instance, Dune. Spice was desperately needed despite the huge cost in mining it. Humans entered into an environment without taking the necessary precautions, and really kept making mistakes. Lives were lost to the desert and the sandworms so they could mine spice or hold Arrakis. Why is it a plot hole for aliens in Signs to make a mistake despite their technology? Can't simple greed or desperation betray them?