What is the dumber alien from movies?
 

I was in doubt if I ever would go and make a thread like this because I thought that no one would care. But then I saw a thread called something like "Home alone 1 or Home alone 2" and all my doubts were cleared. If you read the title before clicking on it you should know what I wanted this thread to be about. A simple thread that anyone with time to waste and/or a bitter hate for those stupid hollywood aliens (Not all of them). Oh and if you want to say how I'm lame for making a thread this stupid you can also say here. I don't care. These two are mine:
-Aliens from signs ("Hehehee I will dominate a planet that is completely full of the only substance capable of killing me. Oh and don't forget that I'll announce my invasion making meaningless circles in crops and running around for no reason inside Mel Gibson's house instead of a fast and stealth attack only because doing so he can have doubts about his lack of faith")
-Aliens from war of the worlds ("Of course that the suposition that the movie makes about I dying from microorganisms, bacteria and viruses means that in my world whatever it is there are only pluricellular beings even if it's cientifically proven that it's easier for a unicellular being survive in a no matter how harsh enviromnent than a pluricellular one")

Nearly every one of your posts has to do with how you hate Signs. We get the idea. Frankly, this is starting to look alot like spamming.

I vote for the Signs aliens, they should have known about the water. The guys from WotW were too focused on their military strength, so their oversight is understandable

I hate you.

I like the idea in war of the worlds, the point of it is that even the worlds super powers are not unbeatable, humanity is on the brink of extinction, and only saved by a flu bug, how were they to know?

As most dumb alien my vote goes to marvin.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~ehmann/Marvin/marvin1.jpg

A defense to both:

Signs:

Let's say Earth ran out of all its sustainable resources? The planet is about to face an epidemic of starvation and malnutrition and our only alternative, other than cannibalism, is to seek out the closest planet that could possibly sustain life and harvest whatever life is there. Do you think we wouldn't try to do so even if the oceans on that planet were made of acid? Do you think something as simple as acid would be reason for us to just let ourselves die?

We don't know why the aliens in Signs came to earth, but just because the Earth is covered in water there is no reason to assume they shouldn't attack. And it sure as hell isn't like water was the only thing that could kill them. Even the aliens in Signs wouldn't survive a gunshot to the head.

War of the Worlds:

The demise of the aliens in WoTW is perfection through and through. It is a brilliant end that champions life on earth and that we have earned a right to live here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all.

And your scientific explanation makes no sense. On a cellular level, yes a unicellular organism is less likely to die from an invading organism than a multicellular organism because it, overall, has less vulnerabilities, but what on earth does that have to do with the aliens in that movie? Unless you think their entire body was just one gigantic cell?

The immune systems of every creature on this planet are unique to this planet and this planet alone so it makes absolutely perfect sense that any creature that did not have such an immune system terrestrial to Earth would surely be ****ed if they came (assuming they are a carbon based lifeform). If you woke up and your immune system was erased, if all the definitions and counteractions that have been stored in it for thousands of years were suddenly gone and you walked around a city or climbed down into a puddle on the street for a drink you would most certainly get sick and probably die. And given that the tripods were some kind of fusion of biotechnology it also makes perfect sense that anything they contracted from the water would be passed into their machinery.

Yep. Hell, the desert can kill anyone who isn't careful, and Iraq has plenty of those (not to mention bullets, mines, scorpions, etc.)

Right. The aliens aren't really meant to be scrutinized. We shouldn't forget that the story was first published in 1898, so it's rather old. They didn't know as much about science as they do today. I think the real appeal of the story is that for all our complexity, human beings could not defeat such a vast and omnipotent alien invasion. We were saved, ironically, by the smallest, simplest organisms on the planet - those organisms which we might consider tiny and insignificant (much the same way the aliens view us).

What I'm calling dumb in "signs" and "War of the Worlds" is the alien concept not the aliens themselves. I mean, the guys that thought about "signs" aliens thought that water be their weakness. Nothing bad in there. The problem is, they couldn't possibly survive in earth's atmosphere due to the water in it, their feet would dissolve in the farm's soil due to the irrigation's water and even the sweat of the little boy when the alien get him as a hostage would hurt his hands. And in war of the worlds...The meaning that microorganisms succeded in what even earth's great nations failed is good indeed (The movie was not that bad also) but as I said before I thought it was kinda strange that the aliens had no defences against viruses and/or bacteria.

And yes I do know that almost all my posts have something to do with my hate for signs, (In fact, if you count the signature, all of them) and that's the point.

Aw...and I had many illusions that you loved me.

deus ex ma·chi·na (n.)

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

By focusing too much on the plausibility of the aliens, you've completely missed the entire point of the film. I would advise you to watch the film again - and instead of thinking too much about the aliens, try listening to the dialogue. Open your mind a little, and try to remember that you are watching science fiction (go ahead and think about those two words while you're at it).

It's hard to argue that even an advanced alien species would know everything. It's all relative, anyway. To single-celled paramecium, we're vastly more complex than they are. But we didn't even know about them until just last century. And we live on the same planet!

The biggest plothole in the film is the fact that the aliens implanted the walkers eons before they put them into action. That makes no sense, and that's not how it happened in the book. I don't know why they made that change, or how the change was even supposed to function in the story.

We get your point. I don't think anyone really cares, so there's no reason to go stating it all over the place.

The thing that bother's me most is not the science about how the germs destroyed the aliens, but how in the heck do aliens thousands perhaps millions of years in advance to us not have heard of a germ. :eek:

I'm sure they've heard of germs no doubt, but what the same germ does to an organism varies from species to species. So while they may be immune to everything on their planet, they're immune to nothing on our planet.

Every military, regardless of how advanced it is percieved as being, is going to make mistakes. Hell, we have laser guided missles that miss their target half the time.

Did everything you said but couldn't manage to like signs
 

I know the movie is about something more than the alien invasion (If anyone can call that an invasion). But I Thought this thread was about dumb aliens not about "signs" so...come on! No one knows an alien in a movie so unbeliveably stupid that no one could possibly take the alien seriously? Oh and...

-Example of dialogue from signs:

Bo: There's a monster outside my room, can I have a glass of water?

[Morgan has an asthma attack]
Morgan: We don't have his medicine. Don't be afraid, Morgan. We'll slow this down together. Feel my chest. Feel it moving in and out. Breathe like me. Breathe like me. Come on.
Bo: I dreamed this.
Hess: Stay with me. I know it hurts. Be strong baby. It'll pass. It'll pass.
[talking to God]
Hess: Don't do this to me again. Not again. I hate you. I hate you! The fear is feeding him. Don't be afraid of what's happening. Believe it's going to pass. Believe it. Just wait. Don't be afraid. The air is coming. Believe. We don't have to be afraid. It's about to pass. Here it comes. Don't be afraid. Here comes the air. Don't be afraid, Morgan. Feel my chest. Breathe with me. Together. The air is going in our lungs. Together. We're the same. We're the same.
Merrill: We should save the flashlights.

Hess: Lionel Prichard and the Wolfington brothers are back.
Merrill: It's time for an ass-whupping.
Hess: This is not an intelligent way to approach this. Lee is a friend of mine. This is his son.
Merrill: Yeah, we'll be doing Lee a favor. All right, listen, we both go outside, move around the house in opposite directions. We act crazy, insane with anger, make them crap in their pants, force them around till we meet up on the other side.
Hess: Explain "act crazy".
Merrill: You know, curse and stuff.
Hess: You want me to curse?
Merrill: You don't mean it. It's just for show. What?
Hess: Well, it won't be convincing. It doesn't sound natural when I curse.
Merrill: Just make noises, then.
Hess: Explain "noises".
Merrill: Are you gonna do this or what?
Hess: No, I'm not.
Merrill: All right, you want them stealing something in the house next time?
[outside light comes on]
Hess: On the count of three. One...
Hess: All right.
Merrill: two... three!
Hess: Ahh! I'm insane with anger!
Merrill: We're gonna beat your ass bitch! We're gonna tear your head off!
Hess: I'm losing my mind! It's time for an ass-whupping!
[Merrill and Graham meet each other]
Hess: I cursed.
Merrill: I heard.
[rustling on the roof]
Merrill: How did he get... Are you sure this is Lionel Prichard?

Like you could've guessed those were the best quotes I found in the all powerful google. (I'm not watching that movie again only to remember dialogues). The first and the last were the ones I most liked. The second, while not as good shows somethings about Mel Gibson's character, Hess, Disbelief in god. The reason I won't tell for those that didn't saw it.

-Science Fiction:
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

Any other task sir?

Really? I didn't read the book so I thought they made it so it could be like the book. Cause there's no reason for them to let the tripods inside earth's surface so long ago when they could just conquered earth while they were at it. But I think they did it so when Tom Cruise's character finds that guy in the basement the guy could have that crazy idea of taking the aliens from underground.

If no one cares so much why are you arguing at it? Just ignore it like everyone else and let me hate it alone.

Signs sucked soooooooo bad!!!


Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest!

I kinda get what you mean, if you were going to invade somewhere, you'd do your homework first, especially as we are always lead to believe that ET's have a higher state of intelligence.
But wait, think before you invade...... get the president on the phone!!!

War of the Worlds whilst not my favourite film was at least easier to watch than Signs, and as someone else has already stated, the book was written in the late 1800's.

Anyway, as we all know, the Hollywood system for obvious plot holes is to cover it using fancy special effects, or in the case of Signs, a man in a green rubber suit!!!


Why has M.Night Shalaman gone so off the boil, The Village was as bad as Signs.

This thread is so obviously biased. You can't possibly tell me that you wanted to garner intelligent conversation with it. It seems to me that you just wanted to bash these films based on your own superficial concerns yet again.

You seem to be getting the message that Shyamalan intended, so I'd recommend digging deeper. From the way you've complained about Signs, it seems to me that you expect that films about alien invasions must be a certain way to be acceptable. But Signs is about so much more, and I find your hate for Signs based on one aspect of a larger and more complex film (the rest of which you seem to ignore altogether) a rather unfounded opinion. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Did you think about that definition, or did you just copy-and-paste it? Because if you read it, and understand it, I think you'll find that Signs is a much more acceptable science fiction/drama film.

Right. And in the book, the tripods are launched from Mars in the form of meteorites. The Martians are desperately trying to move from their dying planet onto our own, which explains why they didn't know about the germs.

Yeah, probably.

But you're not trying to hate it alone. You're trying to advertise it. I don't mind you stating your opinion, unfounded or not - but re-stating it over and over (and making ridiculous threads about it, like this one) is a little too much. You could just as easily keep it to yourself.

Signs is fantastic. Getting hung up on the logistics of the aliens' biology completely misses the point, which is the family. As I've often said, thinking that Signs is about aliens is like thinking The Lord of the Rings is about jewelry.

I said as much in this post from 2003. Here's a quote:

The bottom line is that we're simply not given all the explanations, but it's enough to know that plausible explanations exist. The film, however, does not exist to sketch out the methods and attributes of an alien race. It exists to tell a story about a man and his family. And it does, with considerable skill.

What plot holes!?!?!? People who hate these films keep mentioning the same damned things and others keep proving how these are, in fact, not plot holes. Their demise is not a plot hole. It is not a lack of poor writing. It is the nature of things. It is the unpredictability factor that plays into every decision, regardless if you're a higher species or not.

Was the US invading Iraq a plot hole? Our army is without question superior, yet why is the war not over? Because **** happens you don't count on. I say this with absolutely no political grounds or intentions, I'm just using it as an example. It is actually a great analogy, when you think about it.

And as for the water in the atmosphere or on the soil, in neither case is the amount of water vapor present concentrated at all. We breathe Carbon Dioxide in every second of the day and it doesn't do a thing to our bodies, but go and try touching a block of dry ice. Same, exact, thing.

Think of the way several plants spread their seeds. They send out as many as possible to increase the odds of at least one finding fertile ground. The same principle could apply to the logic behind burying the tripods eons ago. Perhaps the aliens buried tripods every where they could with the hope that one day they could use them.

Also, people bury landmines in as many places as possible. Every single landmine isn't expected to explode, but if just one does then its done its job. If just one planet develops life that'll trigger the landmine....

Granted, that is not at all hinted at in the film and I wouldn't doubt for a second that the only reason it was written that way by Koepp was for that amazing unearthing scene in front of the church, but it is still logically sound with the way the aliens behave.

Yeah, I had thought of that, and I rather like that explanation. The tripods, when you disregard the horror they create in the eyes of humanity, they really do appear more like giant farm plows than anything. Sowing the tripods like seeds, then, makes quite a bit of sense. But like you said, they didn't reinforce the idea enough to allow casual viewers to come to that conclusion, and so the appearance of a plothole formed. Perhaps the writing could have been a little more informative...

Alright...First: I know that signs isn't centered in the alien invasion and that this is only the background. I don't like it anyway because it use the same old formula "Someone I know and I loved so much died and now I hate God because this is His fault" for Mel gibson's character and the "The world is about to end so our family should create even stronger bonds" (Like in war of the worlds) for the plot. The explanation about carbon oxide is kinda good one. But I still think if they have even invisible UFO's (A luxury not all aliens have at their disposition) they must have somekind of technology to study if the planet they're trying to conquer (We have those kind of things I think...if not with what we're studying Mars?) have somekind of substance that is acidic to them or at least somekind of preotection suit (like ours spacesuits, of course made to resist water) and no tradition they may have will explain to me why they didn't just use their invisible UFO's to get down to earth and conquer it as fast as possible (With guns by the way, I know that some will say they had their unknown reasons but they didn't have one single weapon be it a firearm, a sword or a plasma cannon. How they expect to bring a planet to its knees with their bare hands?) instead of making the crop circles and sending scouts that don't do anything better than scaring little girls and Mel Gibson.

And no, I don't think war of the worlds is a bad film. (Not so good either but that's my opinion). Even if it uses the same formula as signs for the plot. I did get a little disapointed with the movie when I first saw it because I was expecting a war/space invasion kind of movie (Like independence day). But I got those precepts outta my mind and tried to watch it as the "family get bonded together in tragedy" movie it seemed to be. Like I said, found it average. Only one question remained unanswered for me...what was that red weed that the aliens were using human blood to irrigate? They were trying to recreate their habitat? If so...how they found human blood in their home planet to irrigate the red weed? Those that read the book can explain it? I didn't get it.

At least these are intimate, personal, well-crafted stories about normal, everyday people to which we can relate. Frankly, I'd rather see Joe Farmer fighting aliens than the President of the United States in a fighter jet, but that's me. Beyond that, I think there is more substance to Signs that you seem to be just passing off. Of course, some people like to watch films for different reasons. Signs isn't what you wanted to see, and that's why you hated it.

But my advice still stands: watch the film for what it is, and not for what it isn't.

You shouldn't make assumptions about what must be true in a film, especially when the plot gives you no indication to support your assumptions. Don't condemn a film for what you think could be possible. It's not up to you to decide the story.

If the aliens had used firearms in Signs, that would have been stupid. Shyamalan wanted to make a scary alien film, and monster-like humanoid aliens are scary. If his aliens had used firearms, it would have automatically become an action flick (when it ain't supposed to be).

Good. Now go do the same thing for Signs.

Look, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Shyamalan's films are pretty avant garde, and I know they aren't going to be for everybody. But at least make the effort to watch the film for what it is. If you can't do that, then you're being unfair to both the film, and to yourself.

Deus ex machina. There is no explanation, and there doesn't need to be. If the point of view rested with, say, the joint chiefs of staff, there would probably need to be an explanation (or at least a theory). But the film is about a family who knows nothing. The point is, the aliens are somehow harvesting human beings, and that's horrifying. Take it or leave it.