View Full Version : Signs
led_zeppelin
10-24-03, 07:50 PM
This movie is definately M. Night Shayamalan's best movie. I didn't like Unbreakable, but I do like the Sixth Sense. Signs though, is my alltime fav. One of my fav. movies ever. What do you guys think?
I agree with you 110%.
One of the reasons I love Signs is because the movie felt very realistic. I like the scene where Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) is sitting in the closet watching the news and the alien is finally revealed on the home video, his reaction was so realistic.
Sidewinder
10-28-03, 07:28 PM
I really liked signs because it was unlike any other Alien movie I have ever seen, it was very atmospheric (excuse spelling). Some of my friends were dissapointed cause they were expecting some big twist at the end but I enjoyed it for what it was.
Philmster
10-28-03, 07:43 PM
His best work, but, that doesn't say alot. Unbreakable was awful, boring and The Sixth Sense was ok, but nothing special.
The whole signs thing was so illogical, why would an alien visit and terrorise a planet that is over 80% its weakness? How did it move around, I mean, natural humidity would have some sort of effect.
led_zeppelin
10-28-03, 07:46 PM
His best work, but, that doesn't say alot. Unbreakable was awful, boring and The Sixth Sense was ok, but nothing special.
The whole signs thing was so illogical, why would an alien visit and terrorise a planet that is over 80% its weakness? How did it move around, I mean, natural humidity would have some sort of effect.
Good point, I never thought of that! Well, I'm not going to fret, but I will think of that every time I watch the movie.
A heavy handed and poorly thought out hunk of poop. Shyalaman ratchets up the suspense like a master but when the balloon finally bursts it is nothing short of a disaster. In the end nothing concerning the aliens makes any sense at all, and the only thing we're left with is Shyalaman's disempowering agenda.
Blah!
Caitlyn
10-28-03, 09:41 PM
I’m going to have to go with Kong on this one… when I first watched Signs in the theater, I thought it was pretty good although there were a few things about it that bugged me… but after I watched it again on DVD… I was very disappointed... not only do the aliens not make any sense to me but the people's actions/reactions really bothered me too...
Beale the Rippe
10-28-03, 09:44 PM
A heavy handed and poorly thought out hunk of poop. Shyalaman ratchets up the suspense like a master but when the balloon finally bursts it is nothing short of a disaster. In the end nothing concerning the aliens makes any sense at all, and the only thing we're left with is Shyalaman's disempowering agenda.
Blah!
Again, I couldn't disagree with you more.
(I hate to do this, but I agree with just about everything Ebert says in this case, and he sums it up better than I can....here is a link to his review: Signs-**** out of **** (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/08/080205.html))
Anyway, here are my feelings:
This is MNS's best film, and is a great, entertaining, lovable movie. He employs his usual Hitchcockian suspense, and the movie is thrill packed, but all of this is a backseat to the characters. It functions best as a character study and a love story (familial love...not incest...as I know someone was going to chime in on that). The Television scenes were very well handled, as were the flashbacks. Throw in great acting, a great script with great characters, a moving story, and a beautiful ending, and you get (regardless of the small plot hole) one of my favorite movies of all time.
Signs was truly not a movie about aliens, it is a story that could have been told with or without them. It is a story of a family that is trying to make it through a very difficult time. They suffered a huge loss and life has decided to throw just another curve their way. The aliens are secondary to the storyline. True I think maybe the aliens could have been portrayed better, and I would have liked it better had they never even showed them. Overall I liked it, and if you go into it looking for a movie about a family loss and how it is delt with by good people, it may mean more.
Well I think the script has it's weakpoints. But what I like about it, when you watch the film you feel the suspense, and you may jump in fright at times. And most of this suspense comes when there is nothing there, that shows a great film-maker. Tension builds over the smallest things, and we get freaked out over glasses of water. It also has a few good moments of witty dialogue to boot.
A few minor flaws aside, I think Signs is a great movie and is Shyamalans best.
Kong and I have discussed this in the past. I think there are some very solid defenses available to the alleged plot holes in Signs. See the posts below for more:
Post #16 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=86793&postcount=16) in Wat didya ppl think of 'unbreakable'? (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=4229) Post #193 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=61980&postcount=193) in Signs (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=2661)I don't believe I ever replied to Kong's response in the first thread. If anyone's interested in furthering this discussion, though, I'd be glad to.
Imagination has left the happy bubble that is our brains. Why, why, why. Why must we know the answer to everything? Sometimes we arent supposed to know. Maybe the aliens werent alergic to water per say, maybe it was the chlorine in tap water, or minerals in the water, or bacteria in the water, or whatever. Why cant they knock down a pantry door yet jump 12 feet? why, why, why, why..Maybe the one and only alien that you saw trying to bust the pantry door down was injured, hurt, sick, tired, stupid, didnt try it yet, whatever. The answers to these questions were either supposed to be left to the imagination or just never answered in the first place. They were not important to the storyline, think of the movies minus the aliens. Lets say it was a russian invasion and their weakness was budweiser, offer them one and they lie down and pass out from drinking too many. Story is the same.
Imagination has left the happy bubble that is our brains. Why, why, why. Why must we know the answer to everything? Sometimes we arent supposed to know. Maybe the aliens werent alergic to water per say, maybe it was the chlorine in tap water, or minerals in the water, or bacteria in the water, or whatever. Why cant they knock down a pantry door yet jump 12 feet? why, why, why, why..Maybe the one and only alien that you saw trying to bust the pantry door down was injured, hurt, sick, tired, stupid, didnt try it yet, whatever. The answers to these questions were either supposed to be left to the imagination or just never answered in the first place. They were not important to the storyline, think of the movies minus the aliens. Lets say it was a russian invasion and their weakness was budweiser, offer them one and they lie down and pass out from drinking too many. Story is the same.
The aliens weren't important to the storyline? Are you kidding? Did we watch the same film? The aliens might not be important to the thematic elements of the film, but they are not only important to the story line, they are the storyline! The aliens play a major role in the film and Shyalaman wrote them very poorly. They have so many contradictory characteristics: they're super smart and really f**king dumb, extra strong and very weak, blah blah blah.
Now, just because the aliens aren't (according to you guys) thematically important doesn't mean that anything goes and Shyalaman's lazy writing should be excused, especially when the thematic meat of the story is insultingly heavy handed. Anyone who didn't catch Shyalaman's message in Signs must be brain-dead. Maybe Kong has seen to many sappy sentimental films, because he sure didn't see anything new in the thematic department here. It's really no different than watching an episode of Oprah.
Philmster
10-29-03, 04:22 AM
I agree with Kong entirely. Summed the whole crap-fest up entirely.
I see it a different way, doesnt mean either of us is wrong. BTW here on Earth we have dumb people and smart people, so i guess all aliens must be extremley genuis, not just a small portion.
blibblobblib
10-29-03, 12:41 PM
Anyway, here are my feelings:
This is MNS's best film, and is a great, entertaining, lovable movie. He employs his usual Hitchcockian suspense, and the movie is thrill packed, but all of this is a backseat to the characters. It functions best as a character study and a love story (familial love...not incest...as I know someone was going to chime in on that). The Television scenes were very well handled, as were the flashbacks. Throw in great acting, a great script with great characters, a moving story, and a beautiful ending, and you get (regardless of the small plot hole) one of my favorite movies of all time.
i totally agree with you Beale, very welll put. i absoloutly Love this film. MNS has to be my favourite director. :yup:
The aliens weren't important to the storyline? Are you kidding? Did we watch the same film? The aliens might not be important to the thematic elements of the film, but they are not only important to the story line, they are the storyline! The aliens play a major role in the film and Shyalaman wrote them very poorly. They have so many contradictory characteristics: they're super smart and really f**king dumb, extra strong and very weak, blah blah blah.
Now, just because the aliens aren't (according to you guys) thematically important doesn't mean that anything goes and Shyalaman's lazy writing should be excused, especially when the thematic meat of the story is insultingly heavy handed. Anyone who didn't catch Shyalaman's message in Signs must be brain-dead. Maybe Kong has seen to many sappy sentimental films, because he sure didn't see anything new in the thematic department here. It's really no different than watching an episode of Oprah.
I totally understand what your saying here, the aliens are obviosly the main focus in the plot but i think what MNS was trying to do was create a situation that he could show a families reactions to the unexplianed. In each of his films he chooses to focus heavily on the main characters actions and emotions surrounding a subject (always supernatural/extraordinary) and even though he uses these Hitchcock-like techniques in delivering his scary and suspense filled moments, Signs i think, is ultimatly about a families reactions to these aliens that turn up. Sure the details around the aliens strengths and weakness's are sketchy to say the least and its true maybe he was a bit sloppy when he created them but i dont think that really matters. What were suspossed to focus on is the families reactions to them being there and the coincidences/signs that save them in the end.
Maybe Kong has seen to many sappy sentimental films, because he sure didn't see anything new in the thematic department here. It's really no different than watching an episode of Oprah.
I love sentimental sappy films though. And MSN puts this on pretty heavy in all of his films but i have never once thought its too sappy...Unlike Oprah....i dont like Oprah...oh no. :nope:
I see it a different way, doesnt mean either of us is wrong. BTW here on Earth we have dumb people and smart people, so i guess all aliens must be extremley genuis, not just a small portion.
Kong will ignore the hyperbole here and just say that the aliens behavior on earth did not seem to match the intelligence that would seem implicit in a race that can travel great distances in space. For instance, these aliens can travel the millions of light years to earth but somehow forget to put on suits when entering an enviroment that they know his acidic to their flesh. They can apparently read minds and yet they stick their fingers under a door for no discernible reason even though they know that an angry human enemy is on the other side with a knife. They plan on subjugating the human race but they don't bring any weapons save for some closerange biological arm thing that appears to be effectively useless. Should Kong continue?
These problems may not bother some people, and others may generate some explanations that they feel suitable with, but Kong just sees a weakly written plot device. To Kong, it's just insulting that he's supposed to come up with some flimsy rationalization to explain away problems that the writer himself obviously didn't care about enough to fix. If Shyalaman doesn't care about making his movie make sense then Kong doesn't care about watching it.
Beale the Rippe
10-30-03, 09:23 AM
98% makes sense for me, so I didn't have a problem with it.
jamesglewisf
11-04-03, 10:23 PM
I agree that the aliens weren't the main point of the movie. The main point of the movie was a man getting his faith in God back.
I thought it was excellent. It had a lot of humor, suspense, and drama. I just watched it again yesterday.
suppression
11-05-03, 11:17 PM
I loved Signs. I believe it is the best of Night's movies and I will watch it over and over and over again. . .
. . . HOWEVER. . .
. . . I do have some issues with it.
First and foremost: Farmers need and use guns to keep animals away from their crops/livestock. The fact that Mel Gibson didn't seem to own a gun raised some serious believability issues for me (I know, I bought the idea of aliens but not that! Get over it!)
Secondly: Call me hung up on firearms if you will, but let me get this straight: A bunch of NAKED aliens come UNARMED and expect to harvest the planet? Come on! I know the idea was, "If the aliens use arms then we would move to nuclear war and waste the planet," but think about it! If we're losing the battle, we're gonna nuke the crap out of them even if they don't use firearms!
Thirdly: Surely the aliens knew that WATER (the most abundant resource on our planet) was harmful to them. They sent in scouts to check the place out! Did they just neglect to mention how water hurt them? Why didn't they take precautions?
Lastly (more minor): Whatever happened to a priest's vow of chastity? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the vow, but if he was a priest why was he married with children?
Lastly (more minor): Whatever happened to a priest's vow of chastity? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the vow, but if he was a priest why was he married with children?
Kong, of course, thinks that all of your hang-ups are valid except for this last one. Mel Gibson was a priest, but not a Catholic priest. Kong believes he was supposed to be an Episcopalian priest, and they don't have chastity vows.
LordSlaytan
11-06-03, 01:58 AM
There are as many different types of films as there are film goers. I think back to the days when Gene Siskel was still alive and reviewing movies with his good friend Roger Ebert. Back then, Siskel was a reviewer that focused on how a movie made him feel and not so much into breaking a film down to impossibilities. If it was completely implausible he would, of course, but mainly that was how Ebert would critique it. After Siskel’s death though, Ebert softened, and became much more forgivable.
I am more of a film goer that could relate to Siskel, and less with Ebert. That’s why Signs is my favorite Shyalaman film. Whether the most important plot device to this movie is about the family, the aliens, or the loss (and subsequent regaining) of faith, is beside the point. It all comes down to what kind of audience you are. First, and foremost, I want a movie to heighten my emotional level to some degree. I don’t necessarily want a flimsy tear jerker, but a movie like Signs is right up my alley. I personally didn’t think it was the same as a movie of the week or a subject relative to an episode of Oprah. I thought that its portrayal of a man torn from the love of his wife and the love for his God heartbreaking and beautiful. The emotion I felt for the brother, for the kind person he is, and for his failures because of who he is, terribly poetic. And as for the children, I loved them both.
Kong has some very valid points for his reasoning to not like this film, and I won’t presume to judge what type of audience he belongs to, but it seems apparent that certain things are important to him in order to enjoy a movie. There were no plot holes in Signs, but there were things that don’t make a whole lot of sense. Why did the aliens decide to come to our planet, when %85 of it is completely lethal to them? Maybe they presumed we would not know or conclude what theie weakness were in time for us to put up any resistance. Why would a species that are capable of interstellar flight not be able to open a door? Who knows, and frankly, I don’t care. Even though there are some less than credible aspects to the aliens as a whole, the way they were presented was classic. I’m not the type to really care about these things so much, because the movie delivered in the way I wanted it to be delivered. The way the signs were dished out to us from beginning to end, yet only revealed to us as actual signs near the end of the film was beautiful to me. The way the brother had his day at the end gave me goose bumps. And one of the things that I loved most about it was the music. I’m hard pressed to remember many films where the music pitched my emotional state in so many different, and powerful, directions as it did in this movie.
In my opinion, arguing about the infeasibilities of the aliens is pointless. If you are of the type where this will annoy you to the point of ruining it for you, then it isn’t for you. If you are the type that forgives, because it just made you feel so damn good, then this movie is going to be one of your favorites.
LordSlaytan
11-29-03, 03:50 AM
Man, this is like the fourth thread where there is a discussion, then it ends with me. Am I a thread killer??? :confused: That's my new name...TheThreadKiller
Hmmmm
I have to jump on the wagon that this is not a film about aliens. This film was clearly about Faith (and keeping it) and the loss of loved ones and how it affects even the most faithful of people. As far as trying to guess the aliens point of view, we can't. They are aliens and things that seem logical or illogical to us would not apply.
Why did they come to a planet with 80% water? Maybe there is another chemical component that is exclusive to Earth that they need, who know's? As for acting in a way that intelligent aliens would act, we don't know how intelligent aliens would act as they would have an absolutlely foreign paradigm for life in comparison to ours, as well as a completely different and totally foreign way of thinking.
I also think Shamy was going for an old-skool invasion flick feel to his film (the credits look 50's era for example) and I think he achieved it. Hence some of the cheesey 50's style alien shots and the "Childhood's End" style of invasion the aliens use make more sense as mechanics in the film.
nuff said for now, and I would recommend watching Unbreakable again folks, as it is a great character study and one of my fav films of all time....
_Sedai
Why can't people grasp the concept that a movie can be about two different things at the same time!? It's driving Kong fricken' crazy here.
Is Signs about an alien invasion? YES!!!!!
Is Signs about the importance of faith and family? Yes!!!!
They aren't mutually exclusive!
How can anyone say the movie isn't about aliens when the plot is about aliens invading the earth? It's like saying that Gremlins isn't about gremlins, or that Jaws isn't about a big maneating shark!
Why can't people grasp the concept that a movie can be about two different things at the same time!? It's driving Kong fricken' crazy here.
Is Signs about an alien invasion? YES!!!!!
Is Signs about the importance of faith and family? Yes!!!!
They aren't mutually exclusive!
How can anyone say the movie isn't about aliens when the plot is about aliens invading the earth? It's like saying that Gremlins isn't about gremlins, or that Jaws isn't about a big maneating shark!
Actually Jaws was about overcoming a large obstacle in a....haha just kidding. I see what you are saying here, and I agree. Signs is of course about aliens, however I do not believe they were key to the telling of this story. Do you not think that if they were so important to the film that MNS would not have answered alot of these critcal questions that you have wondered about. This would tend to make me believe that he was a lazy director. Granted, maybe he was; but his past work (to me anyway) leads me to believe that he definitely likes the audience to be able to relate to and understand the "main" charaters. I for one have no clue what the aliens were thinking or what they even wanted. So what I am saying here I guess is that if the aliens were supposed to be "key" to the telling of this story then the director would have explained alot more about them. Maybe the name "Signs" had nothing to do with crop circles, maybe it had to do with other things in the movie, and I am sue you know what I mean. Again, I do not disagree with you about the aliens being a part of the plot, but I still do not think they were what the movie was about.
As far as trying to guess the aliens point of view, we can't.
Yes we can.
They are aliens and things that seem logical or illogical to us would not apply.
Hold it, aren't you making an assumption about the aliens' point of view when you assume that their point of view isn't anything like ours? And didn't you just say that we can't do that? So, not only does that make this sentence hypocritical, it makes it a refutation to your previous one.
Why did they come to a planet with 80% water? Maybe there is another chemical component that is exclusive to Earth that they need, who know's? [QUOTE=Sedai]
Don't know. Obviously they are morons. At any rate, Shyamalan better damn sure well know the answer to this question, because you can't write convincing characters without understanding their motivations.
Wait a minute.... Shyamalan didn't write convincing characters did he?
[quote]As for acting in a way that intelligent aliens would act, we don't know how intelligent aliens would act as they would have an absolutlely foreign paradigm for life in comparison to ours, as well as a completely different and totally foreign way of thinking.
Whatever. Cats and penguins and beetles all have different ways of thinking too, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything about the ways that they think. You observe, and you learn. Kong observed that the aliens in Signs don't just simply have a different way of thinking, but that they just simply don't think at all!
Did Kong mention that he has some swamp land down in the everglades that he'd like to sell you?
Do you not think that if they were so important to the film that MNS would not have answered alot of these critcal questions that you have wondered about.
Plotwise Kong feels that the aliens were extremely important, but that Shyamalan was simply trapped in a corner. If he made the aliens act as intelligent as they would have to be then he wouldn't have been able to get across the big message of the film. So, Shyamalan chose to fudge the aliens in order to get across the deeper issues.
Kong just can't handle this fudging. There are plenty of ways of tackling the underlying themes of this movie, and he should have chosen one that could have been handled without all the comprimises that the alien plot required.
This would tend to make me believe that he was a lazy director.
He isn't so much of a lazy director as he is a lazy writer.
Maybe the name "Signs" had nothing to do with crop circles...
The title was a double entendre.
Just so you know I totally respect your thoughts here, and I even admit that you may be right. Maybe if we could ask MNS directly we could get a straight answer. Until I am convinced different, however ,I will stick to my original thoughts. Thanks for the great debate so far, it is threads like these that make me come back again and again.
Just so you know I totally respect your thoughts here, and I even admit that you may be right. Maybe if we could ask MNS directly we could get a straight answer. Until I am convinced different, however ,I will stick to my original thoughts. Thanks for the great debate so far, it is threads like these that make me come back again and again.
Glad to see your receptive and understanding.
Kong can actually easily understand people who can ignore the faults and have fun with the movie. Heck, Kong loved the first 30 minutes or so. Kong just isn't capable of ignoring certain parts, and, for him, they are extremely crucial.
So it is...
LordSlaytan
11-30-03, 12:38 AM
Why can't people grasp the concept that a movie can be about two different things at the same time!? It's driving Kong fricken' crazy here.
I didn't say that it wasn't about the aliens.
I didn't say that it wasn't about the aliens.
Kong didn't mean you. Sorry for the confusion.
LordSlaytan
11-30-03, 01:04 AM
Kong didn't mean you. Sorry for the confusion.
I know you didn't. I was trying to confuse you.
I know you didn't. I was trying to confuse you.
You tricky devil.
LordSlaytan
11-30-03, 01:06 AM
You tricky devil.
Did my avatar give that away? Because he's really an angel you know.
Beale the Rippe
11-30-03, 01:08 AM
Glad to see your receptive and understanding.
Kong can actually easily understand people who can ignore the faults and have fun with the movie. Heck, Kong loved the first 30 minutes or so. Kong just isn't capable of ignoring certain parts, and, for him, they are extremely crucial.
So it is...
Just wondering, who was that directed to?
Just wondering, who was that directed to?
The same guy Kong quoted in that post... 7th Son.
Beale the Rippe
11-30-03, 01:52 AM
I see... :eek: ...how silly of me... :p
gothamboy
12-01-03, 04:59 PM
Personally speaking, I loved "Signs" when I saw it in the theater, and I loved it even more after I bought the dvd and watched it a few more times. No amount of quibbling over the most minor of details would change that. Hey, didn't anyone think it was crazy how all of the glasses the girl drank out of were clear, and not one of them was blue, or red, or yellow, or green??? What was M. Night thinking!!?? How could he ruin the movie like that!!?? Why was her hair straight when it should have been curly due to the 74% humidity that Pennsylvania is known to experience throughout the fall season???
Oh yea, please note the sarcasm.
I remember the good ol' days when people actually watched movies to ENJOY them, not strictly so they could look for plot holes to point out and mistakes to correct. How many people pay $10 to see a movie just so they can run home, get on their computers, and bitch about all of the minor details that were missed or screwed up?? My guess is a lot. I'm not one of them. I loved "Signs", big-time. Mel Gibson's performance?? Perfect. I thought he played his role absolutely perfectly. Joaquin?? Awesome. His performance was my favorite of the movie. His interactions with Mel and the female cop were all great. That scene where Mel and Joaquin run outside in the middle of the night to try and scare off the 'Wolfington Brothers' or whatever their names were, and Mel is supposed to curse and scream and act real pissed off?? That scene was hilarious!! That scene around the dinner table?? Heartwrenching. Rory Culkin's athsma attack scene?? Speaking as someone that's had asthma their entire life and suffered several attacks, that scene got to me. I related to it 110%.
I could go on about this movie for awhile, and I'll probably end up writing a few more posts in this thread, but I just wanted to point out the fact that while the movie maybe wasn't 100% accurate, it was still enjoyable, and last I checked, that's a pretty important thing when you're watching a movie.
"Signs" gets an 'A' outta' me.
:devil:
Personally speaking, I loved "Signs" when I saw it in the theater, and I loved it even more after I bought the dvd and watched it a few more times. No amount of quibbling over the most minor of details would change that. Hey, didn't anyone think it was crazy how all of the glasses the girl drank out of were clear, and not one of them was blue, or red, or yellow, or green??? What was M. Night thinking!!?? How could he ruin the movie like that!!?? Why was her hair straight when it should have been curly due to the 74% humidity that Pennsylvania is known to experience throughout the fall season???
Oh yea, please note the sarcasm.
....
It's, of course, cool that you loved the movie, but Kong just wants to defend himself very briefly.
Kong may have taken this post the wrong way, but it seems as if you are insinuating that Kong is quibbling over trivial details and, in doing, betraying the spirit of going out to see movies.
Kong doesn't feel this way at all. Kong isn't picking on continuity problems or anachronisms. He's pointing out the problems he had with the way the antagonists (who are a hardly minor) were written, and how he feels the film didn't stick to it's own rules about the water issue.
Your comments aren't sarcasm; they're hyperbole.
Sexy Celebrity
12-01-03, 09:24 PM
Signs is the better movie, but I prefer The Sixth Sense. I dunno.... maybe it was because it was my first taste of M. Night Tooshyshyhushhusheyetoeye.
gothamboy
12-03-03, 02:06 AM
Your comments aren't sarcasm; they're hyperbole.
No, they were sarcasm. ;)
:devil:
gothamboy says you should buy: *The Best of the Ben Stiller Show*
No, they were sarcasm. ;)
They were most certainly hyperbolic. Maybe you think were hyperbolic sarcasm, but they seemed to be lacking in two areas that play major components of sarcasm.
Sarcasm often has ironical elements, and is generally used to attack or point out someone's personal shortcomings, failures, etc. Your remarks weren't ironical in any way, and they were only straw-man attacks at distorted, and vastly exagerrated grievances.
Of course, it's possible that Kong is missing something, but you're comments just don't seem to have the trademark attributes of sarcasm.
LordSlaytan
12-03-03, 03:12 AM
They were most certainly hyperbolic. Maybe you think were hyperbolic sarcasm, but they seemed to be lacking in two areas that play major components of sarcasm.
Sarcasm often has ironical elements, and is generally used to attack or point out someone's personal shortcomings, failures, etc. Your remarks weren't ironical in any way, and they were only straw-man attacks at distorted, and vastly exagerrated grievances.
Of course, it's possible that Kong is missing something, but you're comments just don't seem to have the trademark attributes of sarcasm.
That's sarcasm. Passive, but still complete.
Or maybe it's patronizing. Hmmm......Or maybe it was Utah. :idea:
That's sarcasm. Passive, but still complete.
Or maybe it's patronizing. Hmmm......Or maybe it was Utah. :idea:
Kong is going to go overboard on the patronization, and actually give a lesson in the difference between hyberbole and sarcasm! What fun! (sarcasm)
So, imagine your at Thanksgiving dinner and everyone is sitting around the table about to eat desert. Everyone gets a slice of your mom's pumpkin pie, and you all take a bite and promptly cringe at disgusting flavor. Your mom has obviously screwed up the recipe, and you want to make a taunting remark. If you said, "MmmmMMMmmm, this is Deeeeelicious!!" then it would be sarcasm. If you said, "Holy moley mom! This pie tastes like dog poop!" it would be hyperbole.
Let's study gothamboy's attempt at sarcasm.
gothamboy wrote:
Personally speaking, I loved "Signs" when I saw it in the theater, and I loved it even more after I bought the dvd and watched it a few more times. No amount of quibbling over the most minor of details would change that. Hey, didn't anyone think it was crazy how all of the glasses the girl drank out of were clear, and not one of them was blue, or red, or yellow, or green??? What was M. Night thinking!!?? How could he ruin the movie like that!!?? Why was her hair straight when it should have been curly due to the 74% humidity that Pennsylvania is known to experience throughout the fall season???
Kong has boldened the part of the paragraph that comes very close to sarcasm, but it's the first section that ruins its sarcastic nature. Just before trying to using sarcasm he tells us that no amount of nit picking will change his mind. In this context the following sentences are not at all ironical; instead they become a hyperbolic imitation of what he feels is minor quibbling. In short, by explaining his true feelings beforehand he has undermined the sarcastic elements of his communication.
All right class, enjoy your reccess.
This is a great thread about signs, the last few posts were very informative in respects to the movie itself. I feel as if Im walking on air, and Signs is like a day at church during a thunderstorm. Just the other day I quit my job at the Banana plant after 30 years of hard work, I was walking home, thinking of signs, and whooops I slipped and fell on a bannana peel and broke my back. Yet I never forgot the quote from Signs "Just swing away"...
Thank you for reading my post. Please help me here though.
Is my post: Sarcastic, Hyperbolic, Ironic, metophoric, uses facsimiles, or am I just a plain smartass.
blibblobblib
12-03-03, 10:10 AM
Kong is going to go overboard on the patronization, and actually give a lesson in the difference between hyberbole and sarcasm! What fun! (sarcasm)
So, imagine your at Thanksgiving dinner and everyone is sitting around the table about to eat desert. Everyone gets a slice of your mom's pumpkin pie, and you all take a bite and promptly cringe at disgusting flavor. Your mom has obviously screwed up the recipe, and you want to make a taunting remark. If you said, "MmmmMMMmmm, this is Deeeeelicious!!" then it would be sarcasm. If you said, "Holy moley mom! This pie tastes like dog poop!" it would be hyperbole.
Let's study gothamboy's attempt at sarcasm.
gothamboy wrote:
Personally speaking, I loved "Signs" when I saw it in the theater, and I loved it even more after I bought the dvd and watched it a few more times. No amount of quibbling over the most minor of details would change that. Hey, didn't anyone think it was crazy how all of the glasses the girl drank out of were clear, and not one of them was blue, or red, or yellow, or green??? What was M. Night thinking!!?? How could he ruin the movie like that!!?? Why was her hair straight when it should have been curly due to the 74% humidity that Pennsylvania is known to experience throughout the fall season???
Kong has boldened the part of the paragraph that comes very close to sarcasm, but it's the first section that ruins its sarcastic nature. Just before trying to using sarcasm he tells us that no amount of nit picking will change his mind. In this context the following sentences are not at all ironical; instead they become a hyperbolic imitation of what he feels is minor quibbling. In short, by explaining his true feelings beforehand he has undermined the sarcastic elements of his communication.
All right class, enjoy your reccess.
This was a very informative post about grammar and correct English. Thank you Kong, i feel refreshed :)
gothamboy
12-03-03, 05:37 PM
"Blah, blah, blah, quibble, quibble, quibble."
I'll take my degree in English and accept the fact that I am correct, thank you. Oh yea, and congratulations on going out and buying yourself a dictionary, you must be very proud. All you need now is one that's actually right.
Spending my time wisely
:devil:
gothamboy says you should see: "Demons 2" by Dario Argenti
I'll take my degree in English and accept the fact that I am correct, thank you. Oh yea, and congratulations on going out and buying yourself a dictionary, you must be very proud. All you need now is one that's actually right.
Spending my time wisely
:devil:
Kong backs up his claim with an example and accurate information, but you back yours up with a degree.
In his book, "Why People Believe Weird Things", Michael Shermer lists the "overreliance on authorities" as one of twenty-five ways in which thinking goes wrong, and it's this weakness that you are trying to exploit. The fact that you have a degree in English (what type of degree by the way?) doesn't mean much of anything in this debate, especially when you haven't even bothered to rebut my contention with any pertinent facts.
This is assuming that you really do have a degree in English, which Kong is accepting only for arguement's sake. Your posts don't read like that of an English degree holder's, but maybe Kong is unfairly assuming that someone with such a degree would have a better handle on the language.
gothamboy
12-03-03, 06:44 PM
Your posts don't read like that of an English degree holder's, but maybe Kong is unfairly assuming that someone with such a degree would have a better handle on the language.
Well, you can go back, find each and every mistake or typo that I've made in my 5 posts, since that's what you do best, and then come back, let me know all about them, and we'll have a 30-hour debate over my grasp of the english language. Or I can just keep pretending that I care. Either way is good for me, Congo.
"The Most Specialist Ape"??????
And you're seriously wondering why I'm not wasting any more time on all of this?? C'mon.
:devil:
gothamboy says you should see: Paris Hilton's Film Debut
Well, you can go back, find each and every mistake or typo that I've made in my 5 posts, since that's what you do best, and then come back, let me know all about them, and we'll have a 30-hour debate over my grasp of the english language. Or I can just keep pretending that I care. Either way is good for me, Congo.
Kong is not interested in pointing out mistakes of that sort. The only reason Kong bothered to point out that you weren't using sarcasm in that one post was becuase you made the claim that you were. Kong makes grammatical errors all the time, and most of the other posters do as well. It's no big deal.
"The Most Specialist Ape"??????
And you're seriously wondering why I'm not wasting any more time on all of this?? C'mon.
...and this coming from someone who listed his occupation as "human vibrator".
Anyway, Kong isn't wondering why you aren't wasting time on all of this, but rather why you are wasting time on all of this. If you are right, as you claim, then you should have no trouble proving Kong wrong on this matter. Instead of doing so, however, you've only raised side issues in the hopes of using them as smoke screens.
gothamboy
12-04-03, 12:46 AM
If you are right, as you claim, then you should have no trouble proving Kong wrong on this matter. Instead of doing so, however, you've only raised side issues in the hopes of using them as smoke screens.
Proving you wrong?? Why would I need to prove anything to you?? I liked Signs and you didn't, good for you. My point is, I spend $10 on a ticket at the theater so that I can get away from everything else and enjoy myself for 2 hours or so, and unless the movie's extraordinarily crappy, I usually do. Here's a little theory for ya'. Since the aliens had never even been to our planet before, maybe they didn't exactly get what they were expecting. Maybe, even though they had strong legs, violence wasn't their first resort, and that's why the alien in the pantry didn't kick the door down. Maybe he was trying to brainwash Mel through the door, how the hell do we know??? Last I checked, it was a movie, and it was M. Knight's movie, and I'm pretty sure that he knew exactly what he was doing. If he missed any stupid little details then he probably realized it, and if they weren't that important to him, then they're not that important to me. Remember, he's a pro for a reason. You don't win awards cause you make bad movies that nobody likes.
Personally speaking, when I left the theater that night, I wasn't even thinking about the aliens. I was thinking about the family, what they had all been through, how they had come together at such a critical time, how everything came together when they needed it to, and how I had just seen a seriously kick-ass movie. It had everything it needed, and nothing more. Just enough humor, just enough drama, and the perfect amount of supense. I don't have to prove to people why I like a movie or why they're being too anal about it, some things are just the way they are. I don't like wasting my time or money scrutinizing every little detail of an obviously good movie, because I'd simply rather enjoy it for what it is.......a movie. When you decide to lead an alien invasion on the world, you can make sure that you get every little detail right, but M. Knight wanted to make a movie that people could enjoy, and from what I've seen in this thread, for the most part, he succeeded. Everybody that I know that saw the movie liked it, and nobody came up with all the minor little problems that you did, so my advice? Get outside a little bit more, the fresh air's good for you. Trust me. ;)
:devil:
gothamboy says you should see: "Get a Life" - starring Chris Elliot
LordSlaytan
12-04-03, 12:54 AM
Proving you wrong?? Why would I need to prove anything to you?? I liked Signs and you didn't, good for you.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to whether your post was sarcasm or hyperbole. You said it was sarcasm, and he said it wasn't. He's made an effort to prove his case with a reasonable discription, whereas you flung out your being a degree holder as a badge that exludes you from any reasonable debate. The issue quit being about the movie a long time ago.
Proving you wrong?? Why would I need to prove anything to you?? I liked Signs and you didn't, good for you. My point is, I spend $10 on a ticket at the theater so that I can get away from everything else and enjoy myself for 2 hours or so, and unless the movie's extraordinarily crappy, I usually do. Here's a little theory for ya'. Since the aliens had never even been to our planet before, maybe they didn't exactly get what they were expecting. Maybe, even though they had strong legs, violence wasn't their first resort, and that's why the alien in the pantry didn't kick the door down. Maybe he was trying to brainwash Mel through the door, how the hell do we know??? Last I checked, it was a movie, and it was M. Knight's movie, and I'm pretty sure that he knew exactly what he was doing. If he missed any stupid little details then he probably realized it, and if they weren't that important to him, then they're not that important to me. Remember, he's a pro for a reason. You don't win awards cause you make bad movies that nobody likes.
Personally speaking, when I left the theater that night, I wasn't even thinking about the aliens. I was thinking about the family, what they had all been through, how they had come together at such a critical time, how everything came together when they needed it to, and how I had just seen a seriously kick-ass movie. It had everything it needed, and nothing more. Just enough humor, just enough drama, and the perfect amount of supense. I don't have to prove to people why I like a movie or why they're being too anal about it, some things are just the way they are. I don't like wasting my time or money scrutinizing every little detail of an obviously good movie, because I'd simply rather enjoy it for what it is.......a movie. When you decide to lead an alien invasion on the world, you can make sure that you get every little detail right, but M. Knight wanted to make a movie that people could enjoy, and from what I've seen in this thread, for the most part, he succeeded. Everybody that I know that saw the movie liked it, and nobody came up with all the minor little problems that you did, so my advice? Get outside a little bit more, the fresh air's good for you. Trust me. ;)
:devil:
gothamboy says you should see: "Get a Life" - starring Chris Elliot
You are extraordinarily difficult to talk with.
Maybe you just need another degree...
gothamboy
12-04-03, 04:20 AM
Maybe you just need another degree...
gothamboy has considered, but gothamboy doesn't think that it will happen anytime soon, because gothamboy is too busy making money at gothamboy's job so that gothamboy can support gothamboy's highly extravagant lifestyle.
As for Lord Slaytan, I'm not interested in getting in an argument with someone over what is sarcasm and what is hyperbole, so I took something called 'The High Road'. This is a forum for discussions concerning movies, not a forum for people who wanna' wax intellectual. I can bullsh*t with the best of 'em.....I just don't feel like it.
:devil:
gothamboy says: Over and Out
Jackie Malfoy
01-15-04, 03:15 PM
Mel Gibon is a great actor but I don't think the movie was all that great it was strange and weild.
I would rate it two stars no more no less!
See you around!JM :cool: ;) :p :D :)
Kong didn't mean you. Sorry for the confusion.
Of all the people I had to piss off, it had to be the giant gorilla! Sorry for the delay in response, I wasn't monitoring this thread very closely.
I am pretty sure Kong meant me. After re-reading my post again today, I think I needed a big gorrila to kick me around a bit. It's poor writing when the idea I was trying to get across wasn't portrayed very well. When I went off on a tangent about alien thinking, I was talking about an alien entity in general, when I should have focused on the Aliens in the film we were talking about. The Aliens in the film have obvious similarities with humans (bi-ped, sensory systems that seem connected to a human-like neural system) and would therefore be more prone to think along the line that humans do (I believe they were thinking to some degree if they were flying spacecraft that appeared to be mechanical). Even if it was stolen technology, they would still have to operate it.
The point I was trying to make was that, sure, we can make all sorts of assumptions about how aliens would think, but there could be alien lifeforms so different, based in chemicals unlike the ones we are comprised of, with such a different existence, that we might not be able to understand or even perceive them. They could be gaseous, incredibly tiny (or large) or could move so fast that they would perceive time differently than us. There are many possibilities and my statement in my other post that we just can't make assumptions was definitely the wrong wording to use. Sorry for the confusion.
As for my statement that signs isn't about Aliens, don't know what I was thinking, as obviously the film contains and is about an Alien invasion, but I was just trying to respond to a comment from a person that seemed to get only that out of it and was trying to lay out some of the other concepts I picked up while watching. Do you not agree that the film is also about the concepts I specified and possibly and probably more that I didn't?
So if you'll accept my apologies o great and terrible hairy one, I have mulled over some of the ideas in the thread and drawn some new conclusions from all the interesting points of view. I hope others can add some different angles to their views :)
Cheers
_S
Signs is the better movie, but I prefer The Sixth Sense. I dunno.... maybe it was because it was my first taste of M. Night Tooshyshyhushhusheyetoeye.
Kajagoogoo right? \
About sarcasm: One of the stipulations for something to be sarcasm, is the intent of the comment. So if Mom made a bad pie, and everyone tasted it and then wanted to direct an overly ironic, cutting comment at poor loving mother, I think they would be one mean person, but they would be correctly using sarcasm. Telling Mom a little fib that her pie is good when it isn't, to save her feelings getting hurt, is not sarcasm by any stretch.
led_zeppelin
01-15-04, 06:39 PM
I don't think the movie was all that great it was strange and weird.
I'm not trying to change your opinion, but it's supposed to be strange and wierd.
1. the movie's about aliens. I don't know what else you'd expect.
2.Look at the other M. Night Shyamalan movies, that's how they all are.
Once again, I am in no way trying to change your opinion, or trying to start and argument, just proving a point.
Jackie Malfoy
01-18-04, 01:35 PM
I'm not trying to change your opinion, but it's supposed to be strange and wierd.
1. the movie's about aliens. I don't know what else you'd expect.
2.Look at the other M. Night Shyamalan movies, that's how they all are.
Once again, I am in no way trying to change your opinion, or trying to start and argument, just proving a point.
Yea you are right!Through it is supose to be like that I just don't like movies like that!
Not offended no worrys thanks for clearing that up! ;)
See you around!JM :cool: ;) :p :D :)
Do you not agree that the film is also about the concepts I specified and possibly and probably more that I didn't?
Of course Kong does.
So if you'll accept my apologies o great and terrible hairy one, I have mulled over some of the ideas in the thread and drawn some new conclusions from all the interesting points of view. I hope others can add some different angles to their views :)
Kong only vaguely remembers the debate so there really isn't much need for apologizing, but since you've already gone through the trouble Kong accepts.
And about sarcasm, you're right: intentions are certainly important.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.