Signs

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.

No, they were sarcasm.



gothamboy says you should buy: *The Best of the Ben Stiller Show*

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.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

That's sarcasm. Passive, but still complete.

Or maybe it's patronizing. Hmmm......Or maybe it was Utah.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

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.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

This was a very informative post about grammar and correct English. Thank you Kong, i feel refreshed

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

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


gothamboy says you should see: "Demons 2" by Dario Argenti

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.

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.



gothamboy says you should see: Paris Hilton's Film Debut

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.

...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.

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.



gothamboy says you should see: "Get a Life" - starring Chris Elliot

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.

You are extraordinarily difficult to talk with.

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.



gothamboy says: Over and Out

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

__________________
Jackie Malfoy
Fourteen
Slytherin
Favorite Movie of all time:Star Wars!
Online offline boyfriend:AdarkSideJedi(brad)
Other Sites I belong tooeathcurse.com Darkmark.com and StarWars.com and Adult Swim.com!

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

__________________

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.

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.

__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.

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